Damn Dirty Nigger

Date: Fri, Jan 25, 2002 5:22 PM

From: "Don Tatro" <dontatro@home.com>

> > "BadCo" <badco666@bellsouth.net> wrote...
> > > WHAT RACISM ?
> > >
> > > You just assume that the white guy is hitting the black guy
> > > because he is black. You ASSUME ! That is the whole point.
> > > People see what they see. Legume just put it out there. You
> > > or I have NO idea what Legume meant !

> "Matt" <none@nothanks.com> wrote...
> > Hey BadCo..
> > Not that I agree with these numbnuts or anything, but you cant blame them for
> > screaming racism with a title like "Damn Dirty Nigger". Now if it was just the
> > image standing alone, without title, then it would be nothing more than a white guy
> > hitting a black guy.

"BadCo" wrote...
> I don't blame anyone, except EdFred(he's an idiot).
> What if the title was, say, "Damn Dirty Black Guy" ?
> Would that be racist ? It is NOT racist to use insulting
> language. Language just is. Language takes no sides in
> a debate. It is just a tool.
>
> Definition of racism from Mirriam Websters Dictionary:
>
> Main Entry: rac.ism
> Pronunciation: 'rA-"si-z&m also -"shi-
> Function: noun
> Date: 1936
> 1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and
> capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a
> particular race
> 2 : racial prejudice or discrimination
> - rac.ist /-sist also -shist/ noun or adjective
>
> Just think of this Matt. Is there any instance where it would be
> ok, in your opinion, for a white man to use the word "nigger" ?
> If a black man just raped and killed a white mans 12 year old
> daughter and he called the black man a "Damn Dirty Nigger",
> would you let it slide ?
>
> What gets me the most is that I hear "RACISM" spewed out
> all over the place for nothing. Words are NOT racist ! The people
> that use them may be, but words cannot be racist !
>
> Just a discussion. I'm just running my mouth Matt !:^>

Words are our primary means of communicating ideas and emotions, and,
as such, are as potent a tool as any available to mankind. Catastrophic
wars have been launched by words that took root in the minds of
susceptible audiences. People have been dragged from their homes kicking
and screaming to be lynched or burned at the stake because somebody
pointed accusatory words at them. Words inspired and inflamed the
zealots that crashed planes into the world trade center. The Rev. James
Jones got hundreds of people to kill themselves and their children using
nothing more than words to cajole them. Countless people have been
killed and maimed simply because they called others names that were
understood to be intolerably derogatory. I can't tell you the number of
times I have sat across from people accused of murder because somebody
called them a faggot, a nigger, a motherfucker, or something they could
not accept as pertaining to them. They felt egregiously "disrespected,"
and there are huge numbers of people in this world who will attack if
they perceive others as "disrespecting" them or their loved ones. Many
years ago I used to practice hypnotism. Even though I stood on a stage
and hypnotized large numbers of people in the audience, I had a hard
time believing the awesome *power* of words to influence and control
peoples' behavior, even their very perception of reality.

It's one thing to throw loaded words around among people who know you and
understand where you're coming from. It's quite another thing to use such
words among people who don't. If Legume were to go into certain
neighborhoods in this Country and speak the words that he affixed to his
image, he would have to be armed and prepared to kill or be killed. I
could just as easily get myself killed if I were to go almost anywhere in
this Country and start calling people baby rapers, or child molesters, or
if I were to go amongst a group of married men and women and start calling
the wives whores. Words have meanings, both those you look up in the
dictionary and those that particular individuals habitually attach to them.
Some people take pride in the label "queer;" others will react violently
to anyone who lays the label on them. Go to any prison in the Country and
try it out on the inmate population if you think not.

Certain words are so weighted down with negative meaning that when they are
dropped willy-nilly into the midst of a group, it's like dropping a hand
grenade. There should be no surprise, therefore,.when they provoke people
to strong emotional reactions. In my opinion, it demonstrates nothing more
about people and their predilections than shouting the word, FIRE, in a
crowded theater would. Words are our currency, and, for good or bad, they
will always strike to peoples' hearts when they are either unwisely chosen
or, in some cases, when they are wisely and deliberately chosen to provoke
and influence.

I guess what I'm saying is that as much as I generally like and respect
Legume, I don't get what it is that he's out to show us about ourselves that
isn't already as obvious as the smell of our shit when we take a big dump.
Maybe he's not out to show us anything, but, then, what's the point, when
it's as predictable as night following day that those who aren't in the
know--in on the joke--are going to react with shocked disapproval? What's
the lesson? That people are people are people are people..... ?

If the lesson is that an "artist" should have the right to express himself
in any way that he chooses, fine. But I doubt if many artists would be
staunch enough about this to set up a display of their art depicting "Damned
Dirty Niggers" in Watts, "Muslims Sucking Kike Cock" in Afghanistan, or
"Jesus Taking It In the Ass" in numerous fundamenatlly Christian areas of
this Country's Bible Belt. where heavy duty firepower in pickup trucks is as
prevalent as Wednesday-go-to-meeting gatherings.
--
Don

----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: "Don Tatro" <dontatro@home.com>

"BadCo" <badco666@bellsouth.net> wrote...
> I would have to agree that words have weight, but it is we,
> that decide how much weight they carry. It is our intelect
> and divinitive powers that truly sets us apart from the crowd
> mentality. As individuals we have the opertunity to make "other"
> choices, instead of what would be, say, "par for the course".
>
> Yes, yell fire in a crowded theatre and panic will surely insue,
> but yell fire with only one individual in the theatre and you will
> get a totally different reaction.
>
> This news group is not a crowded theatre. We are all individuals
> here. We get to make our own choices about what we see. It
> allready has been shown that there are different ideas as to what
> Legume's image might mean. The subject line could be read several
> different ways also.
>
> You have shown how you see the image, and Legume's reason
> for posting it. After reading one of his last replies, you are probably
> correct, but without his definition, it would be up to us to decide
> what this meant and I saw it going at least 2 different ways.
>
> I never looked at this image as a lesson of any kind.
>
> Btw, don't your fingers get tired ?<g>

My point was--is--that group members ought not to be surprised that people
who are not familiar with Legume's modus operandi would react
*legitimately* with feelings ranging from shock to moral outrage. True,
different meanings *could* be attached to the words and image, but, guess
what, the meaning that almost anyone who did not know Legume would attach
to it is the plain, unvarnished meaning that the words and picture convey,
especially as they were offered without the slightest bit of defining
context. Instead, the ones who reacted with upset got jumped on as if they
were nuts to react with anything but understanding and acceptance. In my
opinion, this is an instance of the in-crowd not being able to see
anything but the emperor's beautiful clothes, even though the more
innocent among us saw the emperor as naked. If I did not have lots of past
experience with Legume, I would definitely have thought, "Who is this
blatantly bigoted sonofbitch, anyway?"

This group is in every way equivalent to any other crowd. There are all
sorts of different individuals making it up, and there is nothing about it
that sets it apart as special, or made up of people who are more
intelligent, perceptive, understanding, or anything else than any other
comparably sized group. You don't mean to suggest that people who make
Poser pictures have something unique going for them, do you? I thought you
were the champion of telling it like it is, George Henry. The way it is is
that no matter what Legume says or does, because he is seen as the founder
of the group and a strong proponent of completely laissez-faire
self-expression, most people who have identified with the group are set to
follow his lead and jump to his defense against critics, even when the
criticism has basis. To my way of looking at things that ain't thinking for
yourself. It's the old herd mentality, which causes people to rise up
against anyone perceived as attacking a member of the family, or reference
group, and, in my opinion, is one of the least attractive things that
people who gather together in groups are wont to do.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: "Don Tatro" <dontatro@home.com>

"BadCo" <badco666@bellsouth.net> wrote...
> Ok, sorry for the short response but your novella's tend to
> take it out of me a bit !:^>
>
> I did not mean to defend Legume. He has no need for my
> help or anyone elses help. I'm pretty damn sure he wouldn't
> want it anyway. I'm sure you know that I don't give a rats
> ass about this news groups, "founder" crap. Anyone can
> send a damn control message and start a news group. In
> fact, I get a great laugh when ole Legume tries to set down
> rules for posting here. A few years ago when I first came to
> this group, I was totally amazed ! How in the hell does this
> Legume guy seem to have all this power attributed to him ?
> Years later I am still amazed. Does Legumes words carry
> any weight with me ? Not any more than your words, Don !:^>
>
> The reason I put out the different *could be* meaning to the
> words and image was because of my personal feelings on racism.
> When I see the word being used, it just trips a trigger in me. As
> far as others, in this group, and their reactions, I can not even begin
> to guess their motivation, but I do believe that it would be highly
> insulting to say that they reacted because of an allegience to Legume.
> I would like to think that they reacted of their own minds eye.
>
> As to this crowd thing, I don't believe it one bit. Its kinda like saying
> that the Bryce group is a crowd and, ummmm, say, someone like
> you was the king of it ? You and I know how much horse shit that
> is.
> I do think that this newsgroup is different than most news groups
> in many ways. It is one of the few, "Adult" news groups around.
> Children do not belong here. We, as adults can thrash out any
> topic we wish(like this one) without curbing our words and other
> forms of expression. Of course the people here are no more intelligent
> than any other group, but this, "meeting place", of sorts, is different
> in itself, in what it allows and tollerates.
>
> I do try to, *tell it like it is*, but it IS just my opinion and I have been
> wrong in the past and will surely make mistakes in the future. I do
> not follow anyone, but I will walk beside anyone here if the need be
> there. I really see no need for you to tell me the way *it is*. I see
> a few followers now and then but I would have to say that for the
> most part, people in this group would never subscribe to the "herd"
> mentality. As for any criticism having any real basis, that would be up
> to each individual to decide now wouldn't it ?

Badco, my comments were not directed at you, per se, but at a group
phenomenon that I have seen on this and every other newsgroup I have
frequented. Regardless of how independent-minded the participants in
such groups think they are, a group identity develops, and most of the
longtime group members identify with it. As in any other group, or
crowd, or what have you, certain people emerge as group leaders,
shapers, and definers, whether that is their intention or not. The rest
form the core of what they tend to regard as a "family." And, as is the
case with most families, if one of the members is perceived to be under
attack by an outsider, and especially one of the leaders, the various
members join ranks and attack the perceived attacker. Some people
identify so strongly with these groups that they actually take their
identity from them, defining themselves as fellow "artists" and taking
great pride in such things as being a group "elder." No matter what the
common thread of the group may be, those who have identified themselves
with it, or taken their identity from it, typically wax enthusiastic
about what a special group it is, and how it is different, in a better
way, than any other group. Clearly, they have found a home! People
come along from time to time who do not share the same group-view that
predominates, and because they express themselves contrarily,
disruptively, they are quickly made to feel unwelcome, and sooner more
often than later, they stop coming back. In this group, for example, it
would be the kiss of death to repeatedly express feelings of distaste
or disgust for some of the pornography that is posted here, even though
those feelings may be quite honestly and arguably legitimately held. It
just isn't done!

When the "attack" on a fellow group member comes from outside, the
members launch into the offender with great, joyful gusto, relishing
the feeling of comaraderie and common cause. When, as is the case in
most families, "sibling rivalries" develop between identified members
of the group, almost everyone else in the group becomes quite conflicted
and uncomfortable, and pleas asking the conflicting sides to settle
their differences and restore peace to the group abound. You've been
around long enough to recognize this pattern. It characterizes not just
this group, but every other group as well. It is an all-too-human group
dynamic, the same one that causes people of different religions, ethnic
identities, races, political beliefs, etc, to pull together and make war
against outsiders, or infidels.

As for Legume, his words DO carry more weight with me than the words of
many others. This is because I have gotten to know him over a long
period of time and regard him as an extremely insightful, witty, and
deeply sensitive human being. Although I have never met him face to
face, I think of him as a good friend. Only he could have written the
brilliant, important, mindless-conformity crushing, declarative FAQ of
this group. Because I agree with the philosphy behind the FAQ, I am not
comfortable with what I take as indications of knee-jerk conformity to
the familial mutual defense pactness that has grown up around the group.
If it's not okay to criticize Legume, then, in my estimation, you have
missed his point. If you think that my comments on the very human
tendencies of people in this group are "highly insulting" to the group,
you give good example of the kind of mindless over-identification with
the group and group-think that I am talking about. Can you believe it?!
Tatro just went and leveled a criticism at the group as a whole!
Damned turncoat!

A group is a group is a group is a group. Call it a crowd, call it a
gathering, call it whatever you like, certain dynamics always hold true.
Leaders do emerge. Loyalties do form. Identities are taken from group
membership. Family feelings develop. Antipathy coalesces toward critical
outsiders or disbelievers. War is waged against perceived attackers.
Pressures develop to quash internal disputes. Members periodically burst
out in songs of praise for the group. Serious changes in the group's
status quo are strongly resisted. Etc. Etc. Etc. It's the same here as
in the Bryce group. As a matter of fact, most of the membership of this
group overlaps with that of the Bryce group. The Bryce group, in case
you haven't noticed, has become significantly more open-minded in the
last year or two, largely because of this overlapping membership. Once
was that if a person posted a nude in the Bryce group without attaching
a warning, it would draw down a storm of criticism. Now that happens all
the time, and no one comments. This is one of the changes that was
bitterly resisted by some longtime members of that group and makes
certain of them pine for the "good old days," when Grandmother Beth's
art was the prevailing standard and ninety-percent of the images were as
sweet and cutesy as Legume's Fluffer pics.

This group IS more tolerant of the unconventional, but proportionately
intolerant of the conventional. It has it's mores, just like any other
group, and, like any other group, it encourages behavior that conforms to
those mores and discourages and punishes behavior that does not. If my
words had been more in tune with the group's identity, I don't think you
would have sniped at them as being too novella-like, for example. I have
seen equally lengthy commentaries from other group members that were
"in-tune," and they did not draw down that kind of jibe.

If there is no meaning other than the individual meaning that each person
decides to attach to any given set of symbols, be they words or pictures,
then we are truly in trouble as a species. All of our communication is
based on commonly shared and agreed upon meanings. Words may have the
additional meaning that individuals attach to them, but they must have
some common meaning, or language is useless. As Shakespeare said, "A rose
is a rose is a rose." In this context, whatever else you or others may
bring to it, "A nigger is a nigger is a nigger."

Back to document index

Original file name: Don Tatro on newsgroups dynamic - converted on Friday, 20 September 2002, 16:08