Profane MuthaFucka's Journal: Pudge's tantrum

As unpleasant as it was to have to deal with Pudge in my journal again, Pudge is a useful idiot. Pudge has me foe'd, so he has to go out of his way to check what I write. This makes me smile that I've irritated him so much. Unfortunately, Pudge is a giant coward who hides behind a fat, red, puffing facade, hoping you'll think he's a tough man. He doesn't allow anybody but sycophants to post in his journal. So, Pudge has brightened my day by demonstrating that he pays attention to *me*, though I consider him to be immoral. Pudge is mildly intelligent. Pudge believes himself to be very intelligent.

The main use for Pudge is to demonstrate how successful the Republicans have been in understanding their own morality and turning it into framing. Through his explicit denials that he's NEVER heard of the strong father view of the family, that is in fact the view that he holds, and it's the root of all of his views. We liberals used to, many decades ago, also understand our morality the same way. We didn't have to think of it, and common people didn't have to understand the roots of morality in metaphors.

Perhaps Pudge has heard of someone named Luntz. It doesn't matter that Pudge doesn't understand his morality. All that matters is that Luntz understands, and the people that matter listen to Luntz. One of the main tools of the Republican party for the past years has been framing issues in a moral sense. The moral metaphor defines common sense, and once adopted is very difficult to displace.

I do appreciate Pudge's visits here, and if he's as predicatably stupid as I think he is, I can continue to use him in the future. I'm thinking about doing a piece on capital punishment. Just a guess - Pudge likes capital punishment. No sense in jumping right into abortion so early in the series. That would just make Pudge all steamy and angry.

ROTFLOL!

[Scott Lockwood]

It's a bit like poking a hornets nest with a stick, isn't it? :-D

Re:

[Profane MuthaFucka]

Hornet's nest? Pudge is just a fat guy in a killer bee costume. http://blacksunn.net/ebay/snl_bee.jpg [blacksunn.net]

Re:

[Philip K Dickhead]

Not this? [worldwide-web.com]

Re:

[pudge]

Shrug. Still waiting for some evidence that I subscribe to this "strong father" nonsense; that I am against individual choice; that I am not compassionate.

Easy to throw accusations around, but when you can't back 'em up, you end up looking like a Fox News viewer: all bluster, no substance.

Re:

[Profane MuthaFucka]

Oh look. He's back. And he still doesn't understand that he's the one we're laughing about.

Re:

[pudge]

Yawn. Still waiting. Don't tell me you can't even come up with single examples of the repeated allegations you keep making?

Re:

[Scott Lockwood]

Oh, you mean, like the one where I accused you of hate speech, backed it up with an example, and you then said nothing? Like that one?

Re:

[pudge]

Where did you do that? I saw no such thing. Maybe it's this stupid web site software, not sending me replies.

Re:

[Scott Lockwood]

Yeah, maybe you should talk to the guy who writes it. Oh, wait...

Where I did that

[Scott Lockwood]

Can be found Right here. You never replied, so I figured you actually gave up for once. [slashdot.org]

Re:

[pudge]

Wow, you got a lot wrong in this post, and in the one you linked to. I had seen this post before, and didn't respond because I didn't think it was worth responding to. But your memory is still playing tricks, so let's lay it all out.

First, you said "I accused you of hate speech." Well, no, you accused me of "spewing hatred." You might think those are synonymous, but in common parlance, hate speech [wikipedia.org] is a specific thing, and "spewing hatred" is far more general. You may think what I did constitutes hate s

Re:

[Scott Lockwood]

Yes, please, wait for that appology. Don't mind the numbness and blue palor to your skin, really. It's nothing to worry about...

Re:

[pudge]

Yep. I told Jhon you wouldn't be man enough.

Re:

[Profane MuthaFucka]

You mean he wouldn't be strong father enough.

Re:

[Scott Lockwood]

Exactly. I'm man enough to stick to my convictions. Chief amongst them that Pudge is delusional, which is why I stopped reading him in the first place.

Re:

[Profane MuthaFucka]

Well that is a perfect example of a point that I haven't made. When it comes to the strong father and nurturing parent views of the family, nobody is entirely one or the other. For example, just as you have the ability to stick to your convictions as much as Pudge does, I am certain that Pudge would deviate from the strong father model in some ways. The moral views of the family are just the expression of the ideals, and most people can relate to and comprehend both of them.

HEADLINE

[Profane MuthaFucka]

PUDGE DOESN'T DENY BEING A RACIST.

Of course, the other headline isn't much better:

PUDGE DENIES BEING A RACIST.

It's a variant on the old 'have you stopped beating your wife yet?' gag. Thought I'd try it out on you.

Re:

[pudge]

Does it frustrate you that I didn't bite?

Re:

[Profane MuthaFucka]

It's annoying that such a simple gag had to be explained to you. But the joys of your shiny countenance far outweigh such things.

Re:

[iminplaya]

You're funny as hell. The only individual choices you favor are for racist business owners and drunk drivers. I'll pull up the quotes if you wish. I kept a copy of that journal where you foe'd me. But you foe lots of people who don't fall into your little traps. TheConfusedOne [slashdot.org] is the only one to be absolutely faithful to me(didn't fall for his crap either). He shares his love with nobody. I think I'll send him a dozen roses. The rest of you freaks are just that...two timin' cheats and liars...sniff.

Re:

[pudge]

You're funny as hell.

True. I am very, very funny.

The only individual choices you favor are for racist business owners and drunk drivers.

False. Indeed, I favor individual choice in pretty much every case where you are not directly harming the rights of someone else.

I'll pull up the quotes if you wish.

No such quotes exist. I have never said anything that any reasonable person could take to mean that those are the only individual choices I favor.

I do support the right of business owners to be racist, and to

Re:

[iminplaya]

I do support the right of business owners to be racist...

Thank you very much for proving my point.

Someday, hopefully, our country will be able to repeal the laws against private discrimination.

Private discrimination is perfectly legal. Who you let into your house is strictly your business. Who you let into your neighborhood is not. When you do business with the public, you are no longer private. You are obviously blind to that fact. You really are extremely easy. You have shown that you are indeed a racist.

Re:

[pudge]

Thank you very much for proving my point.

If your point was that I support the freedom of association, I gladly admit to that. If your point was that I support racism, then no, that's not true at all.

Private discrimination is perfectly legal. Who you let into your house is strictly your business. Who you let into your neighborhood is not.

I was not talking about neighborhoods.

When you do business with the public, you are no longer private. You are obviously blind to that fact.

Actually, you're wrong. It is s

Re:

[iminplaya]

If your point was that I support the freedom of association, I gladly admit to that. If your point was that I support racism, then no, that's not true at all.
In case anybody missed it from the previous post: I do support the right of business owners to be racist, and to discriminate.

Say again? Tell you what. I'll put on my reading glasses and make the fonts really big to make sure I read it right...Yep, looks racist to me. But I'm open to a second opinion from a third party(bring your own beer).

It has a pub

Re:

[pudge]

Yep, looks racist to me.

Shrug. Then the ACLU is racist too.

[the public component] must be open to all.

Says you.

I never contended your right to private associations as you seem to insist that I am doing.

Right to association extends to all aspects of your life, including your business. There is simply no question that restricting the right to discriminate in a place of business restricts the right to association of the businessowner. Many people find that a good thing, or at least an acceptable thing. I f

Re:

[iminplaya]

Then the ACLU is racist too...The point is that the ACLU is defending the liberty of individuals, without defending the way they use their liberty. I am doing the exact same thing. The only difference is in WHICH liberty is being defended.

Again you fail to see the difference between speech and action. As useless as it is, the 1st amendment clearly spells out your free speech rights. The ACLU will defend that right for the KKK and others. They will not defend burning crosses on someone else's private propert

Re:

[pudge]

Again you fail to see the difference between speech and action.

No. I am stating it is irrelevant in this context.

As useless as it is, the 1st amendment clearly spells out your free speech rights.

Correct. And it -- less clearly, but the Court still recognizes it, so take it up with them if you disagree -- also grants the right of association. But even if it didn't, that wouldn't really matter, because I am asserting that right regardless. This is not speech vs. action, it is a right you think people have

Re:

[iminplaya]

Hmm, let's see...I say you are racist for defending business people who act in a racist manner by actually disciminating against a person in the form of denying him goods or services. You say the ACLU is racist for defending racist speech. I don't see the relationship. So I'll let it go. It doesn't mean the subject is closed. I just need a bit more clarity. As for you rights of association, I never challenged that, but since the courts have seperated "commercial" speech from other kinds(completely flawed in

Re:

[pudge]

Hmm, let's see...I say you are racist for defending business people who act in a racist manner by actually disciminating against a person in the form of denying him goods or services.

Actually, I never did that. I said that should be legal. I did not defend anyone who actually does that. I am defending the right to do it, not the actual doing it, currently.

You say the ACLU is racist for defending racist speech.

No, I never said that. I said if I am racist for defending the right of association, when that

Re:

[iminplaya]

I never said the ACLU is actually racist.

Previously on Slashdot, Shrug. Then the ACLU is racist too.

:-)

...the right of association...

...does not extend to to a place that is open to the general public. That's my stand, and I'm sticking to it. I will always maintain that if you open to the public, then you are open to all of the public. Do with your private associations as you wish. The "open" sign means just that.

YOU are the one who should answer that question.

I have. You are stating that loose interpret

Re:

[pudge]

Previously on Slashdot, Shrug. Then the ACLU is racist too.

And? "Then" denotes a conditional. It is perfectly clear that I was saying, "IF what I said is racist THEN the ACLU is racist too." It is also clear that I do not believe what I said was racist. Therefore, in that statement, I was not only NOT saying the ACLU was racist, but I was directly implying it is not racist.

Read much?

the right of association does not extend to to a place that is open to the general public. That's my stand

Yes, it is.

I ha

foe'd in Korea...

[poster.toaster]

Hey, can I join your club? The cowboy foe'd me!