Skip

protesting silliness
April 12, 2004 5:34 PM   Subscribe

Were protests always like this? Living in the bay area for a few years now, I've avoided taking to the streets to protest wars and such. Not because I'm pro-war or anything, I'm just a little wary of what these events are really all about.
posted by garethspor (62 comments total)

 
Take photos of the most extreme elements.

Put them up on webspace.

Characterize all as extremists.

Repeat.
posted by skallas at 5:38 PM on April 12, 2004


Isn't that the real nature of all human gatherings?
posted by xmutex at 5:40 PM on April 12, 2004


At one point in late 1980s Ireland those Palestinian head scarves ("PLO scarves") were uber-trendy. Worn as neck scarves, of course. They accessorized paisley shirts very nicely.
posted by meehawl at 5:41 PM on April 12, 2004


skallas, I'm not trying to characterize anyone as an extremist, I just like making fun of silly people.
posted by garethspor at 5:42 PM on April 12, 2004


What is TV really about? What really happens on TV? I heard that porno is on TV, as well as fiching shows. I have avoided having TV, because I'm not a pervert or a fisherman myself.

The above was a dramatization. I freaking love fishing.
posted by Ignatius J. Reilly at 5:45 PM on April 12, 2004


Just seems like alot of assholes utilizing their freedom of speech. Each of them trying to out do each other for most outrageous sign.

Fuck em
posted by WLW at 5:45 PM on April 12, 2004


(saying this strictly to be factual, not to provoke a pissing match, hopefully won't be deleted) Some of those are, to the best of my knowledge, photoshop jobs (so I have heard) from Littlegreenfootballs. Specifically the second photo under anti-americanism.

The last two under anti-americanism express viewpoints that I can certainly sympathize with, as I would like the US to be forced into pulling out as bloodlessly as possible. The best thing that could happen to us as a people right now is for our military to suffer a humiliating but nearly bloodless defeat. If it doesn't happen, we may continue to act as the world's tinpot dictator for the forseeable future - as someone who supports democracy and the right of all people groups to self-government, I'm against our current behavior with regards to foreign nations.
posted by Ryvar at 5:47 PM on April 12, 2004


I'd much rather be sitting across a vast dining table with the modestly tailored and aptly coiffed leaders whom these unpleasant "queers" and "doofuses" slander with their crude slogans and messy signs, munching the crisp, delicate bones of Baghdadi children done to a turn on a 40-billion-dollar spit, and washing it all down with sips of a cannily chosen and securely cellared Savigny-les-Beaune, wouldn't you?
posted by digaman at 5:48 PM on April 12, 2004


This rally sounds about as political as the parking lot of a Neil Diamond concert from 1981. Eh, what can you expect? This is craigslist, after all. Let's fuck!

This is pretty funny, in a Something Awful sort of way.
posted by the fire you left me at 5:59 PM on April 12, 2004


The last two under anti-americanism express viewpoints that I can certainly sympathize with, as I would like the US to be forced into pulling out as bloodlessly as possible.

You support the sentiment "Support Resistance in Iraq" - which entails killing your country's soldiers, last I checked - because you want a bloodless pullout? Brilliant, Ryvar.

Maybe a better way to get the U.S. out bloodlessly would be to, you know, not delay the handover of power by attack U.S. troops, starting a civil war, etc. And maybe the "resistance" is a lot more interested in variously preserving the power of the Sunnis or starting a Shiite theocracy, rather than moving to a democracy.

a humiliating but nearly bloodless defeat

What, you think they'll pull out the Marines if Iraqis just taunt them enough, maybe beat them at Monopoly? If the Americans are forced out, it will be at the cost of thousands of lives, most of them Iraqi.

Also, this post is pretty lame - basically just another agenda-pushing post linking to highly mediocre sites.
posted by Dasein at 6:00 PM on April 12, 2004


Dasein, Honestly, I don't wish to push any agenda on anyone, I just found these sites highly amusing and somewhat related. Of course I should have know that people would jump all over it politically. I'm not trying to comment on the view of any of these protesters, I'm just amused by how people choose to express themselves.
posted by garethspor at 6:06 PM on April 12, 2004


Take photos of the most extreme elements.

The people in the photos (the anti-bush people excepted) are a small minority of people opposed to the war, it's true. But I've been around at a few of the smaller rallies in New York and they do tend to be a loud and belligerent minority, which is a problem in a couple of ways: one, they alienate people who are undecided or have split loyalties, and two, they send a false impression that everyone who opposes the war is a screwball. I've avoided going to protests simply because I don't want to be associated with these people.

Yeah, the media focuses in on the most extreme elements, because it makes for good TV, but do we have to give 'em such easy pickings? The ANSWER crowd was pretty loud at the rallies I was at, and a lot of signs I saw people carrying actually said "provided by ANSWER." This ends the exact wrong message to the American people. I'm not saying that these people don't have a right to speak, but don't let the sideshow overtake the main event is all.
posted by jonmc at 6:21 PM on April 12, 2004


ryvar: I've also heard that the I ♥ NY sign is a photoshop, but since I don't have photoshop installed on my laptop, I can't check it out. Does anyone have any links that would clear up this point?
posted by elwoodwiles at 6:23 PM on April 12, 2004


Garethspor - maybe you weren't pushing an agenda, but the owner of the first site obviously was.
posted by iamck at 6:27 PM on April 12, 2004


good link - clowny site - but hey, people are motivated... that pipes idiot deserves to be protested.

my favorite anti-war poster is still "tina for peace"
posted by specialk420 at 6:30 PM on April 12, 2004


In conclusion: a minority of anti-war protestors hold extreme views, and this is used to make them all look bad. A minority of Muslims hold extreme views, and this is used to make them all look bad. In the interest of fairness, too, a minority of posters on LGF hold extreme views, and, yes, this is used to make them all look bad, or a minority of members of the Bush Government hold extreme views, and that's used to make the whole Government look bad.

Can we all just recognise that groups are made up of individuals, and that no individual who is against the war (or whatever) represents everyone else with those beliefs? It'd make life a lot easier. This isn't intended as a snipe against anyone in particular, just a distrubing trend I see where a small group [on the political left/on the political right/in Islam/in Christianity/on a weblog/at a protest/whatever else] expresses a view that most people find distasteful, and others with the same view are made to look bad by association. Heck, I shouldn't even feel the need to say all this, but it just seems to be a really common debate tactic for some reason. It's a complete fallacy, and I don't like it.
posted by reklaw at 6:32 PM on April 12, 2004


Can we all just recognise that groups are made up of individuals, and that no individual who is against the war (or whatever) represents everyone else with those beliefs?

That would be nice, but human nature being what it is, that's probably not going to happen. Probably the best way at this point is for the more moderate/sane members of any group need to publicly distance themselves from more extreme elements pre-emptively. It's just smart politics.
posted by jonmc at 6:37 PM on April 12, 2004


But I've been around at a few of the smaller rallies in New York and they do tend to be a loud and belligerent minority

as opposed to, say, the kind and tolerant pro-war people.


The date of the performance was significant: March 21, 2003. A day after the U.S. had invaded Iraq. Gray began with a few spontaneous remarks about the war. His voice was strangely quiet, even for him. He sounded distant and weary. His words were barely political. Just wondering aloud, which is what he always did. Why is this administration so intent upon doing this? Lots of people are about to die: Why exactly is this happening? Questions a lot of us were asking ourselves at the time. He made a crack about Donald Rumsfeld, who is as easy and pleasurable a comic target as any figure in American political life since Nixon. Just ordinary wondering and musing.
But his audience was not of New York, or Los Angeles, or Austin for that matter. This was Bush Country. And many of the good Republican Houstonians in the house began shouting and jeering, defending the war and the president, and objecting to any such talk goddammit during their night out at the theater.
“We’re fighting for your freedom!”
“Love it or leave it!”
“We ain’t here to listen to this!”
“Shuddup and start the show!”
A number of the offended bolted for the exits, spouses and companions in tow. Anti-war advocates — and there were quite a few — shouted back at them. Not 10 minutes after curtain, and all was mayhem. The unwitting instigator, the man onstage we had come to see, didn’t seem to know what to do. He wasn’t rattled so much as sad and confused. He looked like a man whose house was collapsing around him but lacked the will to leave his easy chair.
“Why are they leaving?” he asked us, sincerely, in the same distant tone. Then the show began.
“Have you been following the war on TV?” he asked his first onstage visitor.
I don’t recall the answer.
Gray responded back that he couldn’t bear to watch it.
This infuriated some more among the audience. He wondered aloud again, asking no one at all if war was necessary “just to get one man.”

posted by matteo at 6:39 PM on April 12, 2004


matteo, I was comparing the ANSWER crew to others within the anti-war ranks not with the pro-war folks.
posted by jonmc at 6:42 PM on April 12, 2004


"Queers for Palestine!" right up there with "Unbelievably obese people" and "Dorks on stilts."

This link is trash.
posted by Tryptophan-5ht at 6:43 PM on April 12, 2004


Re. agendas, here's what the owner of the site thinks about immigrants in Europe ... must be a joke, ha ha.
posted by carter at 6:44 PM on April 12, 2004


Tryptofan, the dorks on stilts and other assorted goofballs I actually like, being a card carrying goofball myself, it's the political opportunists and the paranoid wingnuts who keep me away.
posted by jonmc at 6:46 PM on April 12, 2004


When I went to the anti-war rally in New York last February, there were 400,000 people there. This website shows pictures of what doesn't even encompass a single-digit percentage of the people there.

I was around loud, overzealous idiots. I was also around children, elderly citizens, off-duty police officers, and military vets. The idiots aren't the ones that carry a message. Everyone carries the message. The idiots just make the news because, let's face it, people like to see idiots on TV.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 6:47 PM on April 12, 2004


reklaw, I agree 100%. I'm more turned off from rallies not because of the inevitable extremists, but more so by the way many people attend them as an excuse to party it up and get laid (see 2nd link).

Garethspor - maybe you weren't pushing an agenda, but the owner of the first site obviously was.
posted by iamck at 6:27 PM PST on April 12


Yeah, I Know, and of course it was a risky choice for my 1st FPP, I guess I underestimated the sensitivity of mefites. [how dare I] I also just wanted to introduce people to the week in craig at blacktable.com, Amy Blair entertains me on a weekly basis.
posted by garethspor at 6:55 PM on April 12, 2004


Take photos of the most extreme elements.

Put them up on webspace.

Characterize all as extremists.

Repeat.


Wow. That's exactly what the anti-war media and agendafilter friends do to characterize the war as a failing quagmire.

Amazing.
posted by David Dark at 6:56 PM on April 12, 2004


Unclench, ye cowardly lefty. Anything that gets people to show up is a good thing, we need to populate the movement somehow, and doing something you're both interested in is a fine first date. What's wrong with looking for potential mates somewhere you're likely to find people of like political views? Isn't that smarter targeting than going to your favorite bar to meet people?

Not everyone who comes to a protest is incredibly well-educated. Some might be young and/or uninformed politically, but checking things out. There's nothing wrong with that. Some people add little but a carnival atmosphere, because their presence is simply ridiculous, but they have more impact than every well-meaning, well-educated, well-aligned person who stays at home.

I think the freaks, in particular, help by freeing up everybody else of their inhibitions. It's not easy to get riled up and make your presence count. There's nothing more discouraging than a good dignified protest where nobody wears tie-dye and everybody stands solemnly on the sidewalks.
posted by scarabic at 6:57 PM on April 12, 2004


Morans!
posted by 2sheets at 6:59 PM on April 12, 2004


"what the anti-war media and agendafilter friends do to characterize the war as a failing quagmire."

yeah, the kidnappings, the burned bodies hanged from a bridge, the soon-to-be-beheaded hostages, the slaughtered civlians (all but invisible in the US media, just like those phantom body bags carrying American GI's home), the Iraqis swearing to kill all Americans, the Shia uprisings -- it's all a put-on. liberal-media exaggeration.
it's all going well. the grown-ups are in charge. sleep tight.
____

jon,
the point is a demonstration is hardly the place where one can find reasonable debate. demonstrations are about _action_ -- being there. pro or anti-war or whatever, these are hardly the place where you'll find people who can "sway the undecided".
posted by matteo at 7:02 PM on April 12, 2004


I'm not trying to comment on the view of any of these protesters...

and

...I'm just a little wary of what these events are really all about.

...both by garethspor.

So you're telling us what protests are really all about without commenting on the view of any protesters?

So many of us have been waiting for the new ParisParamus to arrive. He finally has. Welcome, fool.
posted by squirrel at 7:02 PM on April 12, 2004


Oddly, from the looks of that "Morans!" guy, he coulda been somebody I woulda partied with as a young man. So, maybe I need to got to protests to couter-balance him. I'll be the anti-Morans guy, holding up a picture of Bush saying "Hed Moran!"

on preview: these are hardly the place where you'll find people who can "sway the undecided".

Perhaps, but it would be a step in the right direction if they didn't alienate people.
posted by jonmc at 7:04 PM on April 12, 2004


Honestly, I don't wish to push any agenda on anyone, I just found these sites highly amusing and somewhat related. Of course I should have know that people would jump all over it politically.

I just splashed this gasoline all over and dropped a few lit cigarettes. Of course I should have known that the living room would catch on fire.
posted by badstone at 7:14 PM on April 12, 2004


OK, I take it back, I do have an agenda: I'm anti-people-who-take-themselves-too-seriously-to-laugh-at-themselves-or-others-with-the-same-views. While much of the humor in the 1st link is mean-spirited, some of those people genuinely deserve to be ridiculed, again, not for their views, but for how they express them (and ridiculed, not censored, ok?). The Morans! guy is the best BTW, I'm an equal opportunity clowner.

squirrel, I don't mean to tell you "what these events are all about", I'm merely wary of some peoples' motives.

jonmc, thanks for having my back even though I've disagreed with you in the past. Good mefi-sportsmanship can be hard to come by these days.
posted by garethspor at 7:19 PM on April 12, 2004


yeah, the kidnappings, the burned bodies hanged from a bridge, the soon-to-be-beheaded hostages, the slaughtered civlians (all but invisible in the US media, just like those phantom body bags carrying American GI's home), the Iraqis swearing to kill all Americans, the Shia uprisings -- it's all a put-on. liberal-media exaggeration.

Wonderful strawman, jackass. Are the pictures on this thread's website a "put-on", as well? No. They are a "minority group" taken out of context to make the entire situation look worse than it is.

Pull your head out of your ass, matteo.
posted by David Dark at 7:26 PM on April 12, 2004


squirrel, I don't mean to tell you "what these events are all about", I'm merely wary of some peoples' motives.

What are you talking about? You put it in the freaking front-page post. I just quoted you and drew attention to the inconsistency. You can't claim you didn't mean to imply what these events are really all about when you claim verbatim that you know "what these events are really all about." File that under D for duh.

I think most folks who protest the war are able to laugh at themselves. That's hardly the point. This thread is just a poorly-linked attempt to paint a diverse movement with one brush; that's the point.

It's so agendafilter that I'm surprised it hasn't been deleted. Perhaps user 1 is making one of his trademark inscrutable points by leaving this thread alone. Let us marvel as one at the vast mystery that are our posting guidelines.
posted by squirrel at 7:41 PM on April 12, 2004


I guess I underestimated the sensitivity of mefites. [how dare I]

I'm in no place to talk...
posted by iamck at 7:47 PM on April 12, 2004


Only about 1/3rd of these posters were ridiculous. Another 1/3rd were arguable. The last 1/3rd, there were nothing wrong with them.

Imagine -- aggressive, unapologetic posters... at a protest rally!

The "Boobs Not Bombs" girl had a damned salient point, and fuck y'all if you aren't politically sophistimacated enough to get it.
posted by Hildago at 7:52 PM on April 12, 2004


OK, so I put up my first FPP today, and the only post that generated more comments and pissed off more people than this one was deleted. I'm the winner! Thank you MetaFilter!
posted by garethspor at 8:07 PM on April 12, 2004


"I'm the winner!"

[this is bad]
posted by mr_crash_davis at 8:13 PM on April 12, 2004


Pull your head out of your ass, matteo.
posted by David Dark at 7:26 PM PST on April 12


Dave,
Except you should have replace 'matteo' with the word 'metafilter'.
posted by WLW at 8:16 PM on April 12, 2004


Some people here do need to mellow out.

Of course it's easy to paint the whole of a protest by pointing out just a few of the wacky fringe. That's what most of the newspapers have done since the protests began a couple years ago. Is this a surprise to folks?

Although I don't agree with the agenda of the person putting this up or most people pointing to it from their blogs, it's an interesting collection of the most extreme elements and worth leaving around. I personally never protested the war while I was in SF because of these fringe elements. I was tired of seeing ANSWER show up in photographs of every protest. I'm not a big fan of gatherings -- it seems when you get enough people together in one place, the chances of one asshole ruining it for everyone goes up exponentially.

The largest SF protest was the only one I hear where the mainstream folks that disagreed with the war drowned out the loonies, but it still looked bad in the press.

The bottom line is that the camera lens is a pinhole view of the universe, and depending on where you point its selective and specific lens, you can make up any story you want. In this case it tells a ridiculous tale that marginalizes a movement that included millions of perfectly sane individuals. I think it's worthy of keeping around to remind us all that a picture may be worth a thousand words, but what it says exactly depends on how you frame it.
posted by mathowie at 8:34 PM on April 12, 2004


garethspor, I hope you don't feel too bad about your first post. I considered posting this gallery a couple of days after the event. I was going to post it alongside some gallery from indymedia, so that there would be equal "counterpoints" expressed by the photos, but I ultimately declined because indymedia is so flaky, and the pro-war (or whatever) guy's commentary was so dumb that it erased any chance his photos might have had at really turning heads. If the photos are real, and I'm not sure they are, they're certainly out of the ordinary documentation of this kind of event, and I thought they might be interesting.

Anyway, don't take it so hard. And my advice for the future is to post and then step back for a while and let the comments roll in. It can be tempting to jump in and defend your intentions, but if you've worked hard on your post it's likely that others will do that for you. This can be a rough crowd, but the discussion in your thread will likely be better overall if you don't jump right in. After all, you're biased and emotionally charged by the fact that it's *your* post, etc.

And anyway I thought your point was to question whether protests are all about mating hook-ups. Is that it? Or was it two-part: 1) mating hookups, and 2) wondering if everyone there is a moran?

My advice is to get out there and see for yourself. It is, of course, what you make of it, and nothing says apathy like the attitude of "once everyone else gets a decent protest together, maybe I'll go. If you've lived in the Bay this past year, and never gone to one protest, you have no place talking about them, really, either way.

Good luck from here~
posted by scarabic at 8:40 PM on April 12, 2004


Protests are what protesters make of them. And judging from what I've experienced, it doesn't appear to be much these days.
posted by ed at 8:47 PM on April 12, 2004


My god! Did something funny finally slip on to metafilter again? Noooooooooooo!
posted by ph00dz at 8:48 PM on April 12, 2004




I'm not a big fan of gatherings -- it seems when you get enough people together in one place, the chances of one asshole ruining it for everyone goes up exponentially.

And this man runs a community weblog?
posted by liam at 9:24 PM on April 12, 2004


And this man runs a community weblog?

Well, I can't exactly boot jerks from a concert, while on a community website, it's a bit easier to play bouncer.

Dante: But you hate people!
Randall: But I love gatherings, isn't it ironic?

posted by mathowie at 9:41 PM on April 12, 2004


.
posted by squirrel at 10:28 PM on April 12, 2004


This guy sucks for leaving out LaRouche, whose people I saw at the same rally, handing out "Cheney = Beastman" pamphlets and so forth.
posted by inksyndicate at 10:51 PM on April 12, 2004


Hey there everybody, while I'm done defending my intentions, I would like to point to a picture sent to me by a mefi lurker of the guy with the I ? NY sign. This is in response to those who suggested it was a photoshop job. And this one is for our fearless leader. Enjoy!
posted by garethspor at 10:53 PM on April 12, 2004


Ryvar -- Someone mentioned the photoshopping thing a few days ago. I asked about it there, but no one followed up. Is there any proof of this? It wouldn't surprise me if some of these are photoshops, but then again, is there really a shortage of extremist loonies to ever cause a *need* for photoshopping?
posted by Krrrlson at 10:56 PM on April 12, 2004


They are a "minority group" taken out of context to make the entire situation look worse than it is.

Oh. Hundreds of dead American troops and thousands of dead Iraqis are now officially "minority groups". You know. So unimportant in context. Sure hope our friends on the rabid right don't take offense when they find out that someone on MetaFilter is dismissing the importance of dead American troops (and American mercenaries) because they're just "minority groups."

Why, I'll bet the grieving families of these "minority groups" really appreciate that kind of sentiment so much, especially coming from those safe and detached and uninvolved in the conflict....about as much as they appreciate the uninvolved, safe, and detached folks who sent others into the mess. Thanks, David Dark, for reminding us how expendable and "minor" human lives really are.

(P.S. Your constant personal name-calling is really childish and cowardly behavior.)
posted by fold_and_mutilate at 12:35 AM on April 13, 2004


::looks around, sees what he's stumbled into, deletes post in progress and runs for the exit. Sheesh.
posted by freebird at 1:14 AM on April 13, 2004


Gareth... your (mis)understanding of "no more blood for Israel" explains your utterly ridiculous post.
posted by acrobat at 5:23 AM on April 13, 2004


I've got no time for anyone who is anti-anything. Anti is unproductive, it tells me what you ain't, not what you is. Any anti-xyz protesters ain't saying shit unless they are putting forward a positive way to deal with a situation. But hey, as the guy said, it's a good day out ain't it?
posted by boneybaloney at 9:02 AM on April 13, 2004


The "Boobs Not Bombs" girl had a damned salient point,
posted by Hildago at 7:52 PM PST on April 12


though not an altogether original one
posted by Miles Long at 9:46 AM on April 13, 2004


Sadly there are goofballs and dipshits in every crowd. Protests seem to bring them out because the common citizen doesn't want to get involved, leaving only the loonies to represent them in causes they might support. Protesters generally want attention any way they can, and if that means dressing like a tomatofish to get into the paper at the GMO rally, then that's what they'll do.

Here's the deal. If you wish the protest movement was more about "your" sort of people, the only way that will happen is if you as a you sort of person gets involved. Even if that only means standing around in the sunshine and showing solidarity. Not every Starbucks needs to be blown up, but ever citizen needs to see what riot cops look like close up, any citizen thinking themselves patriotic anyways.

I am generally not protest-oriented but have found myself in a yelling crowd once or twice. Sometimes its all a person can do, and yes it -is- rather reactionary. It is hard to be pro-don't-put-the-rate-hike-on-us, you know?

What has been disheartening to me in recent times is the umbrella-style rallies, ones that draw any sort of mutually relatable causes. Why are the anti-war people at the GMO rally? Granted, its because we're all lefties and therefore hate Bush or the regime of the moment, but why do they deserve a platform? (substitute GMO/anti-war for each other or any other cause)

While there has been a lot of uninformed clanging of traps, anybody here gone to a rally on a mutual-support basis, and if so, why?
posted by Ogre Lawless at 1:19 PM on April 13, 2004


Jesus, foldy. I'm glad those are your words and not mine. I can't thank you enough for yet another example of a lefty's willingness to distort any and all ideas into false support for his position. You destroy your own credibility better than any 'friend on the rabid right' could ever hope to. Your comment proves my exact point while aiming to attack it. What delicious irony. One good example is worth more than a thousand words. I couldn't have planned it better. Morans, indeed!

~wink

(P.S. Your constant inadvertant self-incrimination is idiotic behavior. I expect more from you, buddy.)

Anyway, I was just trying to make a simple observation. This isn't a war thread. Let's talk about protests and rallies and what great places they are to score with the ladies!
posted by David Dark at 2:59 PM on April 13, 2004


Of course a lot of the people who show up at these don't really know why they are there specifically, or who is running many of the protests. (self link)
posted by soulhuntre at 7:38 PM on April 13, 2004


After watching the train wreck tonight, one must wonder, who truly is the loony afterall?

The thing I think that gets Dear Leader's Cultists so perturbed is the fact that they're being left behind ; ). They're waiting for him to pounce and all they see are a steady stream of inanities. Sure the preacher stuff works wonders. But only if you like listening to preachers.

Another thing that I think disturbs the choir, is that every lesson in morality they've ever learned is fluttering out the window. Every ideal of what makes a true statesman has evaporated. They're rudderless, spinning and getting dizzy. In fact we all are. Except our captain was never George Bush.

It sears people to see others doing their own thing in this culture. It makes them nuts that the word "freedom" when administered from George W. Bush means literally NOTHING! Why? Because it makes no sense. I mean he droned on and on tonight about freedom. But why did he have to add: "I'd hate to be occupied myself" too? What does freedom mean to your leader?

Those pictures are images (pinhole expressions) of freedom. Hitting on chicks at marches and rallies, also, freedom. But er, seriously off topic.
posted by crasspastor at 8:21 PM on April 13, 2004


Nope, davie. As I note above, you and the rest of the panicking right are the ones trying so desperately to minimize the importance and even number of troop and civilian casualties.

You are the one who referred to the kidnapped as "minority groups". You are the one who referred to the burned bodies hanged from a bridge as "minority groups". You are the one who referred to the the soon-to-be-beheaded hostages as "minority groups". You are the one who referred to the slaughtered civlians as "minority groups". You are the one who referred to the body bags carrying American GI's home as "minority groups".

That phrase, and your cheapening and minimization of their deaths and that violence, is precisely your own.

But I can understand why you are now trying to distance yourself from your own words. Pretty gutless words, yours. Backpedal some more for us.

And I'm not your buddy.

~wink~
posted by fold_and_mutilate at 12:06 AM on April 15, 2004


Actually, foldy, I only referred to the war protesters referenced in this thread as "minority groups". But apparently it's really fun to write "minority groups" in quotes as many times as we can! So you know what, foldy, old buddy? You win. I won't backpedal, I'll stand right here and make the claim you accuse me of.

First, this is all true:

The war protesters in the linked pictures are a "minority group", of a larger "minority group" of citizens who choose to go to rallies to oppose the war, of a larger "minority group" of citizens who do oppose the war, of a larger "minority group" of citizens known as Americans, of a larger "minority group" of citizens who reside in liberal democratic nations worldwide.

Similarly, this is also all true:

The kidnapped in Iraq are a "minority group" of the foreigners in Iraq; the burned bodies hung from a bridge are a "minority group" of the contractors in Iraq; the soon-to-be-beheaded hostages are a "minority group" of the soon-to-be-released hostages; the slaughtered civilians are a "minority group" of the soon-to-be-voting civilians, and yes, the body bags carrying American GI's home are a "minority group" of the soon-to-be-coming home proud and alive members of the American Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines.

Only you and the rest of the panicking left are the ones trying so desperately to sensationalize the number of troop and civilian casualties while aiming to undermine the importance of establishing democracy in Iraq (It won't work, by the way). You were the very same who were trying to minimize the atrocities committed to the Iraqis under Saddam Hussein's regime and still remain unapologetically silent (when you're not poking fun) at the uncovering of four hundred thousand corpses in Saddam's mass graves. Pretty gutless words, those. That joke, and your cheapening and minimization of their deaths and that violence, is precisely your own. Racist.

And I'm not your buddy.

Well, maybe not, but you have to admit that you are my bitch. Thank you for repeatedly coming back for more, and you know my door is always open. Now call a cab, I need sleep.

~wink~

Now seriously, I mean it, back to rallies and scoring with hot anti-war chicks!
posted by David Dark at 2:50 AM on April 15, 2004


you are my bitch

Didn't you get any hugs when you were a toddler?
posted by meehawl at 5:47 PM on April 15, 2004


« Older random LJ image of the moment.   |   The Most Eligible Ladies Hangout Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments



Post