Yeah, I'm sure.
Let me ask you something that I've been wondering for a while. I'd ask
@gtyellowjacket , too, because it applies to him as well (actually significantly more so) but I think he may have pulled the ultimate puss move and put me on ignore. And this is truly a sincere question, even if it may read like it is intended as snark (I promise it's not). My question is: what do you get out of purposefully going out of your way in taking the most absurd, outlandish stances on literally everything that you just absolutely know is going to agitate and aggravate others? Is that fun? Like, it kind of seems like yours and gt's whole purpose here is to recreationally irritate instead of add to the discourse. A great example yesterday would be your stance that Jesus Christ wasn't an activist. Today, it's that a KKK flyer is funny. I can't even decide whether it's intended to be purposefully irritating or if it's just some weird schtick, is all. It's not that it's just disagreement or a different viewpoint or perspective- it's that every single stance you take seems intentionally designed to annoy other people. The "was Jesus an activist" thing was just eye roll-inducing; the stance that a KKK poster is funny is....entirely different. It's not a stance that normal folks would take, is what I'm getting at.
"purposefully going out of your way in taking the most absurd, outlandish stances on literally everything"
"It's not a stance that normal folks would take, is what I'm getting at."
I remember when I was in my Mega Republican phase, listening to Rush and Hannity in my car at lunch. I voted for every (R) I could find on the ballot. And I remember being absolutely convinced that liberals didn't
actually believe the things they were claiming they believed. Their alleged positions on topics related to race or abortion or whatever were bad faith. They were just saying those things for political gain, not because they actually believed them. Then I started to reading and listening to some liberal writers/podcasters and I realized that they actually did believe what they were saying.
Outlandishness and especially "normal" are definitely a relative to a long list of factors. For example, way back in the day there were Camel cigarette commercials that featured doctors smoking in their office and Camel actually claimed to have polled doctors only to find out that Camel was the preferred cigarette of doctors. That was perfectly normal and acceptable at one point. It would be outlandish if not wholly unacceptable today, even if cigarette commercials were legal. A "normal" day for a poor, black kid in downtown Baltimore is much, much different than a "normal" day for my spoiled-ass kids! Of course, what's normal for either one is much different than what's normal for a young girl who lives In a fundamentalist Muslim country, right?
The humor in the KKK flyer is also relative to any number of factors. Some people take offense to comedians making off colored jokes about race, religion, women, etc. Others don't. Why? Who knows? Maybe a specific person has been victimized by racism or someone is highly involved in organizations that fight racism and are extra sensitive to the topic. Who knows what's bouncing around in the neurological wiring in any individual's brain.
The Jesus thing was more about the political claim than the activist, though something about "activist" doesn't feel right. I don't think expressing views in dramatic, public manner, i.e. flipping over tables automatically make someone an activist. I don't know where the line between teacher and activist is drawn, but I still don't like the label of activist.
Either way, I can tell you that we have different views and we have similar views, but I don't
not believe the things I'm saying.
