Wednesday, August 13, 2008

Seriously, go the Fuck Back to South America you Fat Asshole

brad says

As much as I fucking hate saying this, if Matt Yglesias sees this, I am sorry. This post is not reflective of the tone I want on this blog. I agree with Nutella's underlying sentiment, but I don't approve of how he expressed it. I will say more when I can.

Nutella explains
If it needs to be spelled out, fine, the use of chauvinistic language on my part is ALWAYS a joke. I used it at different times for different reasons. Here, the main reason is to show what a chauvinistic asshole Matt was being by turning the tables. I think it's perfectly fair, especially considering all the racism that seethes underneath so much of what these pro-war shitheads used to make their decision to invade "Brown People Land."

I know the stupid fat fucker is techinically off our turf now, but Mr. All-Lard-And-No-Brains has decided to mock my other religious background. Our dumpy friend, still unable to reconcile his own mental retardation, is going at it again about how being anti-war from the start doesn't mean you're a genius.

I think it’s true that the mere fact of having been against the war isn’t necessarily indicative of brilliant judgment (Quakers and such who just oppose all war as a matter of principle aren’t really showing judgment in particular cases)
You fat bloviating asshole. Your stupid ass ancestors haven't managed to grow out of nap time yet and you think you get to talk down to mine?

I'm tenth generation Quaker-American on my mother's side. In the over TWO HUNDRED FIFTY YEARS my family has been here, let's do a quick run down of how well our "just opposing all war" has done as compared to your ZOMG THEY ATTACKED!!!!11! SOMEONE DO SOMETHING BEFORE I PEE MYSELF ideology.

Let's see, things Quakers got right:

Opposed all of the ridiculous bloody wars throughout history, almost the entirety of which were needless.
Were the only early settlers of America that DID NOT steal from and slaughter wholesale the Indians.
Were the earliest, most fervent, and most proactive of the abolishionists.
Early pioneers for humane treatment of the disabled and mentally ill.
Leaders of women's suffrage movements.

Things the Quakers got wrong:
WWII
The Revolutionary War (arguably)

What the fuck have your people done? Well, yeah, Nachos are pretty tasty, you're right. However, those of us who don't think of eating as a religious experience put a little less weight on that than you do.

So, Matt, please, take me up on my most recent enjoinder to go fuck yourself, you pseudo-liberal, shallow, self-important piece of shit. I wish that I weren't a fucking pacifist so I could go knock on your door and do some preemptive warring on the intellectual void that is your little section of the blogosphere. You and your idiotic clique have been so unanimously wrong about everything. How the hell do you take a pay check for your "thoughts" in good conscience?

Oh, that's right, you have none.

It is absolutely fucking "good judgment" to be a pacifist. War is the worst fucking thing that people do to each other. The horrible efficiency with which we can kill each other nowadays makes that a million times more true than it ever has been. The only time War should even be considered is in the face of genocide. This is the simplest god damn judgment you can make, and the fact that you and your idiot friends are incapable of making it shows what complete idiots you all are. Every pacifist on earth has proven themselves to be smarter than you are, Matt, and don't EVER fucking forget that.

The pacifism of Quakerism is based on the belief that all humans are equal. It's based on the belief that God is in every living thing on earth. If that's bad judgment, then you're an asshole. Well, then you're EVEN MORE of an asshole.

20 comments:

Anonymous said...

Well, going by current prevailing opinion here in 'merka, I'd say that war is maybe the second worst thing that humans can do to each other. The worst thing that others (fer'ners) can do to us ('merkins) is to call us names, or to make pitiful claims that their own interests are nearly as important as ours, or otherwise make us feel anything less then the precious special privileged little super-duper uber-darlings that we really are. Of course, the converse doesn't hold...

Having the best military and big comfy ocean borders and nice modern friendly neighbors and a massive economy can't even begin to defend us from that horror. So it's pretty easy to see why going abroad and killing folks is pretty important, now and then...

Anonymous said...

Oh, and I thought of another one. Namely, them crazy Muslims getting all up into our grill with their Allah shit, which offends the Baby Jesus quite heartily, which thus certainly takes quite a bit of sting out of that whole 'war is bad' thing as well.

Dr Zen said...

McArdle: "Athletes are crazy competitive. They will do anything to win. Why not acknowlege that, rather than making fruitless rules?"

So true. Next year I'm going to win the Tour de France. On a Harley.

Susan of Texas said...

"Every man's death diminishes me..."

The bastards will never learn, will they? They grow so excited at the thought of those long, stiff bombs and the blessed release of the explosion that they forget about the body parts of children falling from the sky.

Yeah, it took a whole lot of effing smarts to hate war, to see it as a failure and a crime. What I don't understand is how could anyone think otherwise? Why would they want death and destruction? They're sick.

Clem said...

I wonder what the average weight-gain is for bloggers who move from independent blogging to writing as MSM shills. McArdle put on some pounds after joining the Atlantic. Do they all receive pallets of Cheetos as signing bonuses? This deserves to be investigated with great attention and care.

Kathy G. said...

Wow. Just -- wow.

In that earlier post when you called McArdle a cunt and a bitch and expressed the desire that she be gang-raped, I thought you'd hit rock bottom.

But now you manage to discredit yourself and this site even further. The fat-phobia is bad enough, but what's kind of shocking here is the racism and the nativism. I mean, the references to "nap time" and nachos? The blatant implication that because your ancestors have been in this country for over 250 years and Yglesias' people were recent immigrants, that you're better than he is?

Ick. Just -- ick. You should be ashamed of yourself, and your co-bloggers should be ashamed to be associated with you.

spencer said...

Kathy's got a point, which is too bad because I think the core of this post - the bits about Quakers and pacifism and the idiot DC blogger sewing circle - is correct.

But I can't get on board with the nap time and nachos shit, nor will I brook any of that bullshit fat-bashing. We're not all fat because we're lazy, or because we are compelled to stuff our faces with junk food at any opportunity, you know.

But hey, if it makes you feel better about yourself, then whatever.

Susan of Texas said...

A lack of racial slurs would be nice.

brad said...

i'm on my iPhone and won't be home from seeing radiohead in Boston last night until later, but this is not ok. I have a good deal more to say, but I'm gonna wait till I have a real keyboard to say it.

Clem said...

When I read NoT's posts, I do so with the justifiable expectation that they will cleave into one of two types: The posts in which he smacks his own forehead for McArdle's sins, or the posts in which he drunkenly headbutts people while screaming profanities. The former are considered, reasonable complaints from a liberal perspective, and the latter are obviously over-the-top rants in which he uses whatever weapons are at hand. Sometimes the rants are funny, sometimes not, but to me they've always been readily identifiable as comic outbursts.

I think the charges of nativism and racism are as over-the-top as NoT's post, only less self-conscious. Would anyone complain if I titled a post "Go Back to Ireland You Skinny Bitch?" Would anyone complain if I referenced potatoes and alcoholism? A few might, but I think most readers would weigh it against the bulk of my (meager) output and realize that my sensibilities and world view make nativism and racism unlikely motivators.

Besides all that, I think it's a little weird to be excoriating NoT for an obviously lunatic rant when Yglesias's Very Serious cheerleading for an imperial exercise in "Suck. On. This." had a measurable influence on the opinion of many who might otherwise have stood up and said no to a war ginned up by men who are demonstrably nativist and racist, a war that has made very real gang-rapes possible. Yglesias's words mattered in ways that NoT's ridiculous rants don't begin to approach.

Kathy, I like your work, and I appreciate that you have moral backbone, but I don't think you're righteous enough to determine who I "should be ashamed to be associated with." If my continued assocation with NoT diminshes me in thy sight, so be it.

brad said...

clem, my problem with this post, in brief, is that Nutella did what he's criticizing MY for. but I really can't say much on this phone, so I'll be a few hours.

rickm said...

"it’s true that the mere fact of having been against the war isn’t necessarily indicative of brilliant judgment"

And really, what about this statement isn't accurate? Of course it isn't necessarily indicative of brilliant judgment. In the narrow, to-the-letter sense, the statement is correct.

NutellaonToast said...

Holy shit, I've called him a "spic" and told him to "go back to the barrio" but I insult siestas and nachos and now I'm a racist????

And who's the one that stirs shit up again? Our favorite "I agree with you but you use too many naughty words" lady? Look Kathy, you may be slightly more reasonable than Megan, but you really need to get off your self important kick.

You're not even that smart as this is the second time I can remember you blatantly misreading a post. the 225 years bit wasn't actually about "who was here first" but merely a reference to the fact that Quakers have been in America longer than everyone and have opposed EVERY SINGLE ONE of America's blatant fuck ups. The point was to relate it to the events with which people were familiar, ie events in American history. I take some small pride in the reasonable judgement of my ancestors, but that doesn't make me feel superior to Matt. What makes me feel superior is the judgment I've displayed HERE AND NOW and that's all that matters. The point of my posts is that these people are idiots. The insults I call them along the way are for comedic or dramatic effect. It's called a writing style. If you don't like it, fine, but get off your fucking high horse.

If you think for a second I actually believe those racist things I say then you really need to bone up on some reading comprehension. Everyone else gets it to at least some degree. We're all egalitarian liberals and Kathy's the only one getting all riled up about some shit that was obviously NOT MEANT.

I grew up in prolly the most diverse town on earth. Our day to day lives included calling each other nigger, spic, kyke, WASP, or w/e and then laughing with each other. You want to get beyond race? THEN TREAT IT LIKE THE FUCKING JOKE IT IS.

You want to be childish and turn red and call to mommy cause I used a bad word, well, then, carry on.

NutellaonToast said...

Oh, and Brad, yes, I engage in exactly what Matt does. Glad you picked up on that.

I guess they get to "irony" next year of grad school?

Susan of Texas said...

One of the things I hate about McArdle is that she won't criticize the posters who say racist crap in her comments. That shows her egalitarianism is pretty much skin deep. She's a "respectable" blogger and shouldn't allow it. If you're not as concerned about your professional reputation (like me) you have a lot more freedom. But I still have lines I won't cross, because I want everyone to pay attention to the message and not get distracted by personal comments, especially racist or ugly ones. So remaining at least somewhat respectable furthers my goal of getting my opinions out and being listened to. I can still get my rant on, however.

brad said...

I've spent over a decade studying Plato, nutella. irony doesn't work in rants.

NutellaonToast said...

Plato used irony?

Irony works whenever you say something you clearly don't mean.

If you think I'm a racist, or a chauvinist of any kind, then you're an idiot. That's pretty inarguable from my POV.

If you don't think I'm a racist, then obviously you must realize that I don't mean the chauvinistic things I say. Therefor, you recognize the irony.

And I can see the desire others have to draw "mass appeal" but I've stated before I think that's the wrong way to go about things. That's exactly the desire that's drawn our main stream media (and the shit heads we cover) to put out such a watered down, product based entirely on what the pundits say with only glancing contact with reality. they realized reality was "offensive" so they started chipping away at it.

I don't think it happened overnight, but it was a steady process that occurred over time as more and more things were removed from medium in order to broaden the appeal. Maybe you can trust yourself to keep it small, but I think these things are one of the few things that actually follow the slippery slope analogy. I watched Megan go from "somewhat reasonable person I disagreed with" to "idiotic hack" gradually over the course of a few years. I won't let that happen to me.

Say what you mean and how you want to say it. You're going to offend someone one way or another. Might as well do it with your genuine self.

brad said...

Socrates more or less invented irony, Nutella, and it's thanks to Plato we know that. I happen to have done a fair bit of study of the form, as it's particularly relevant to some of my philosophical concerns.
and it's a poor artist who blames his audience when his material fails.

Clem said...

NoT,

I get your posts, but I don't the scorched-earth tactics you employ against your critics and detractors. In fact, I half-suspect that you want to be misunderstood, so you can fling shit at those who don't get it. You're like the kid who blocks the subway car's doors in hopes that he'll get bumped, and thus be given a pretext for going off. Eventually, the kid pulls that tired shit on someone who's wise and he finds himself on the platform. I can defend your art, but not your cultivated sense of personal grievance.

Clem

NutellaonToast said...

Brad, I am not blaming my audience for the failure of my material. If it sucked it sucked, but it didn't suck because I'm a racist and all this other bullshit. It sucked because it was poorly written. That doesn't change the fact that people who take my insults at Latinos at face value are fucking morons.

No, clem, I just use this blog as a vent.

These postings are the style I've chosen here and I've not changed it as there has only been one instance of outcry before.

Obviously, I need to change my style a bit if I care about my audience. Not sure whether or not I do, honestly, so maybe I'll just start emailing these rants to myself.