Originally posted by PalynkaLook at this!
Again you fail to address ANYTHING I've posted and go on to attack some other argument you've chosen as a misrepresentation of my position. Textbook straw man fallacy.
Regarding your 'new' arguments: Kirksey simply impersonates a stereotype. Satire is much more than that. If it wasn't, then blackface acts would be satirical but since we all know they are not, then clearly your defense of kirksey is invalid. Proof by contradiction.
Blah blah blah blah blah.
Who gives a flying ____ ?
You and no1 are just being argumentative for the sake of pissing each other off.
You're both pricks. Everyone knows it.
Originally posted by PalynkaLike Ivanhoe, you keep screaming "Strawman!" when none has been presented. Please actually specify what "Strawman" argument I am supposedly presenting. Please specify how I have "misrepresented" your position. So far all I see is a perfect example of Ivanhovian "argument".
Again you fail to address ANYTHING I've posted and go on to attack some other argument you've chosen as a misrepresentation of my position. Textbook straw man fallacy.
Regarding your 'new' arguments: Kirksey simply impersonates a stereotype. Satire is much more than that. If it wasn't, then blackface acts would be satirical but since we all know they are not, then clearly your defense of kirksey is invalid. Proof by contradiction.
Kirksey, of course, does far more than "impersonate" a stereotype (again a stereotype has existence only in people's minds - you can't impersonate someone(thing?) that doesn't have actual, physical existence). He ridicules the stereotype itself and the ones who created and maintain it. That includes people who maintain it by condescendingly praising other people for supposedly "breaking stereotypes" i.e. acting like they would anyway but seeing it through the prism of the stereotype.
Proof by contradiction"??? LMAO!
Originally posted by no1marauderI already said explicitly where the first and the second were:
Like Ivanhoe, you keep screaming "Strawman!" when none has been presented. Please actually specify what "Strawman" argument I am supposedly presenting. Please specify how I have "misrepresented" your position. So far all I see is a perfect example of Ivanhovian "argument".
Kirksey, of course, does far more than "impersonate" a stereotype (a ...[text shortened]... rough the prism of the stereotype.
Proof by contradiction"??? LMAO!
I didn't say anything about RZA's motivations for doing so. Again you make up your own strawmen so you can cope with your inconsistencies.
Second:
no1: Your mindset is truly weird if you think that lampooning racist stereotypes and stereotypical thinking is in anyway inconsistent with thinking that RZA is doing a worthy thing.
I did not say anything related to any such inconsistency and again you create a strawman by misrepresenting my position.
3 edits
Originally posted by PalynkaI've dealt in depth with your condensending praise of RZA for "breaking stereotypes". Rather than deal with it; you shout "Strawman"! If ou read what I wrote, I never said you meant that his main motivation was "breaking stereotypes" - I did say that that was almost certainly not his reason for doing this. I suspect he would take your praise of him for "breaking stereotypes" as an insult since you are focusing on the stereotype, not the worthy act. And, of course, your "praise" was really just a launching point for an attack on kirksey in true TSM style.
[/b]I already said explicitly where the first and the second were:
I didn't say anything about RZA's motivations for doing so. Again you make up your own strawmen so you can cope with your inconsistencies.
Second:
no1: Your mindset is truly weird if you think that lampooning racist stereotypes and stereotypical thinking is in anyway inconsiste ...[text shortened]... ated to any such inconsistency and again you create a strawman by misrepresenting my position.
You accused me of "inconsistencies" in my argument. My argument was (and is) that lampooning racial stereotypes is "breaking" said stereotypes just as someone doing something inconsistent with a stereotype is (and since a stereotype is false, most of what people do "breaks" it).
You have the Ivanhoe-style of not simply stating what your claims are and instead using the word "Strawman" in every other sentence to critique others for trying to figure out what exactly you are saying (if you are saying anything at all). Anyway, we'll try it one more time: please state, what "inconsistencies" there are in my argument?
EDIT: Your central claim is:
RZA is the opposite of BWA.
My central claim is:
Both the BWA and RZA are attacking stereotypes in complimentary ways.
Please address your responses to the main points rather than your "Strawman" shrieks.
Originally posted by no1marauderJust read my posts again. It's all there.
You have the Ivanhoe-style of not simply stating what your claims are and instead using the word "Strawman" in every other sentence to critique others for trying to figure out what exactly you are saying (if you are saying anything at all). Anyway, we'll try it one more time: please state, what "inconsistencies" there are in my argument?