Vallejo holds panel discussion on what is and isn't funny...

It's America's world, we just live in it.

You and facts appear to have a strained relationship.

We own every day, sugar tits.

Is that how you refer to your mother, too? Stay classy.

This is one of those sexist remarks that tend to get excused by saying "oh, but it was a joke... sugar tits".

See guys, that's what I meant earlier.

Satire about women: funny.
John Castle being a sexist asshole: unfunny.

It's really quite easy.

Take pity on John Castle. He's sufficiently mentally incapacitated that he actually believes that he's funny.

He needs more cheese in his diet, perhaps even an all-cheese diet on a temporary basis until his biochemistry evens out.

So when is the Big Reveal?

Tomorrow at noon.

CET of course.

But... that was the language of love!

America owns every day, you heathen.

So that's, what, like 6AM on the East coast? Not sure too many people will be watching at that time.

Did anyone say there were any, or is this just the Conservative White Male Persecution Complex talking?

Wait for it...

There ya go.

American owns everything. Duh.

Exactly right. It's the only distinction you can claim, and you play it like a one-string fiddle.

No, the Conservative White Male Persecution Complex isn't a universal trait of white men, negative or otherwise.

I don't.
Ever.

http://zeroatthebone.wordpress.com/...-to-be-a-stupid-man-who-doesnt-know-anything/

...a thing that actually exists, except in the minds of liberals who think they can use it to manipulate white men who oppose being stereotyped. The fact that you seem to think that it will work is what lends weight to the stereotype of liberals as manipulative but not very bright people who value appeals to emotion over reasoning.

So there are no white males who feel persecuted? Color me shocked.

Is that what I said? No. What I said was that condescendingly labeling a reaction as a "complex" is a crude and childish attempt at manipulation.

So suggest a new label. What do you call it?

It doesn't need a label. It's an individual reaction to individual stimuli.

I'd call it vapid tribalism meets the fundamental attribution error. Rather than dividing the world into "me" and "everyone else," Castle's ilk divide the world into "white conservative males like me" and "everyone else." For "everyone else," their troubles are because they're terrible people; for "white conservative males like John Castle," their troubles are because of the horrible circumstances they face.

Actually, I divide the world into, "intelligent people" and "idiots." Guess which group you're in.

(Valleyho, that's your cue to say, "Huhuhuhuhuh! He said 'urine'!")

And when there is a large number of individuals susceptible to the stimuli?

Then it's time to acknowledge those stimuli and address them rather than come up with derisive labels for the affected individuals, isn't it.

Or how would you feel if tafkats had labeled the black community's reactions to Jim Crow as "Black Persecution Syndrome"?

Okay, do you understand the stimuli, or would you like somebody else to take a stab at it? Note: Tafkats already provided the information.

The critical difference being that Jim Crow involved, y'know... actual persecution.

What are you smoking? tafkats didn't provide anything, unless you count his trolling of Frontline.

And there you go trolling Frontline again. Basically what you're saying is that what he experienced, and by extension what other white males experience, doesn't count -- because they're white males. They are "those people", so it doesn't count when it happens to them.

Just like when it happened to blacks when they were "those people" -- only I guess in your mind it counted, then. Just not now. And that's totally not racist of you.