BBS explains why the Holocaust is funny

[saxitoxin]

IIRC qwert's grandfather also survived the Nazis ... though was murdered by the U.S. Air Force.

I have yet to see qwert start a thread demanding everyone sob hysterically in his general direction. And I think he has a much firmer claim to victim status than the OP (as much as anyone can claim to be a victim on the sole basis of happening to know someone who was victimized). One of many reasons why the premise of this thread is so revolting.

[Juan_Bottom]

It's paragraphs like this that make it hard to see your side, Juan. You're attempting to downgrade your own offense to make it appear as though you're not nearly as thoughtless as those you accuse when anyone can see that you are at least as inconsiderate as the "baddies" you repeatedly refer to. Just your use of the term "some junk" betrays your attitude toward an issue which, while may have had exactly the same effect on others as the thread of mention had on you, is hurried off by you as more or less a trifling matter.

Whoa Whoa Whoa there,
I own up to what I said. I've said it a hundred times with no one correcting me. I've repeated three times now that I made a mistake, because I'm not ashamed of my mistakes.
It does not seem fair to me, while we're on the subject, to hold it against me when I've repeatedly expressed an interest to change. I would not hold it against anyone else. Yet it's repeatedly thrown in my face as if to add weight to the protection of Holocaust jokes. Well, just because I do something wrong once does not mean that Holocaust jokes are ok.

"Some Junk" is a common expression here, and betrays only the casualty of the way I was addressing TG. You can advanced search me saying it all of the time.

Gee, the tone of that sentence sounds so eerily familiar...

Sucks.
Do you say "sucks?" It's short for "that sucks c*ck" which was a slight against homosexuals. Everytime that you say "that sucks" you're using a bigoted expression. Or do you ever say "simple?" That was commonly used to described the mentally handicapped. I've already said this earlier in the thread, but nobody is reading anything I'm saying, they're all playing CheeriO.
But these expressions have become watered down and corrupted, and no longer mean what they used to mean, and no one takes offense to them. So it follows logic that with all the people who throw the word "retard" around, one would believe that this word as well has become so hijacked as to lose power.

The graphic nature of your personal example makes it no more valid.

I don't think it matters at all, I mean, nobody should be making Holocaust jokes. We all know that, except for Saxi, tgd, and BBS.

So the real issue here is whether or not it's ok to criticize religion, and why it's ok or not ok.
And lets keep in mind, we're not talking about criticizing a religion as a whole, we're talking about criticizing pedophilia. And that's all that I did. Your argument is essentially that one cannot criticize pedophilia because religion.... that's incredible.

You've repeatedly made the assumption that your second-hand involvement in the Holocaust(for lack of a better term, no offense intended) is so obviously more legitimate than the varied hallowed grounds of others.

I've actually said pretty much every other post that I've done that this is not the case. My grandparent's involvement in the Nazi pogrom means nothing. I only brought it up to explain why I have gone to such great lengths to get every to stop laughing at the murders of over 6 million people. And it's not even that, I just want BBS to stop trolling about it... he still hasn't told you what he did. You don't need me to tell everyone to stop making fun of the Holocaust. I've brought up another thread here, the totenkopf thread, where I argued that it's not right that SS Death's head symbolism is permitted for avatars. And that's because of the people here that it's attacking personally. Same difference, my only dog in the fight was doing what's right. This time I'm addressing bullying... I suppose I may have to address another tyrant soon too, by the looks of things in here.

Thus far, no one has agreed with you on this point and I, for one, can tell you that's it's not for the sake of argument.

Thus far no one has agreed with tgd that pedophilia is too sacred to never be discussed. Even you have avoided all discussion of it when you quote me and respond.
But do take notice of the sister threads that were created to parallel this one. They say exactly what I'm saying, they're just avoiding the acidity of this thread and the megalomania of the Saxitoxin character.

What makes you think you can dictate the relative emotional weight of any subject? The graphic nature of your personal example makes it no more valid. I feel compassion for your position but comparing the magnitude of your associations with that of others is ridiculous and I find it difficult to wrap my mind around the fact that you really do believe that those things that you personally find offensive are so certainly more valid than those of others

I told you, this philosophy is not mine. I named several famous philosophers and thinkers who hypothesized this already. The reason why people should be able to criticize ridiculous ideas and beliefs is to protect society from denigrating itself by treating every idea as sacred. Take a look at Afghanistan, where no one can question the Koran without taking their life in their hands. Daughters can be sold off, not just into marriages, but into sex trafficking. And all because of the idea of the infallibility of their interpretation of the Koran. Should we behave the same way here?
Now, If I tell you that China is a myth, because I've never seen it... and I introduce this idea to my children,... and they introduce it to your children,....are you going to treat this idea with great and tepid respect, simply because I believe it? Of course not, and it's for similar reasons that we shouldn't treat any ridiculous belief with respect, even if that idea is personal religion. We're in the only western country where people believe that religion must never be questioned. And I don't question the integrity of TGD's believing - he really does believe whatever. I only question the dumb belief itself. In this case, I'm talking about child rape and the refusal to report it or cooperate with police.

[Juan_Bottom]

IIRC qwert's grandfather also survived the Nazis ... though was murdered by the U.S. Air Force.

I have yet to see qwert start a thread demanding everyone sob hysterically in his general direction. And I think he has a much firmer claim to victim status than the OP (as much as anyone can claim to be a victim on the sole basis of happening to know someone who was victimized). One of many reasons why the premise of this thread is so revolting.

Actually, qwert has participated in these discussions before and has also said that genocide jokes at the expense of Europeans or anyone are not acceptable.
Which is exactly what I'm saying. Thank you for reminding us all how you're wrong and can't remember who's side you're on.

Also, that story is pretty similar to mine, and it seems pretty conceited of you to say that X person has more claim to be upset about the similar treatment of his relative than Y person. Kinda undermines your earlier arguments as well.
Not you Saxitoxin, the pretend for fun character, I mean your puppeteer is vain.

[Juan_Bottom]

We're in the water, but still going! I like my new train

Okay, Juan. Let me start simply.

What do you think of A Modest Proposal? Swifte uses satire to bring attention to the suffering of the then-starving Irish. From what I've gathered from your posts, this essay is unacceptable. Swifte was using the suffering of millions to propose the consumption of children for food in a cheeky manner. Does it really matter that he does this to bring reform to English-Irish relations?

I did not read it.

http://art-bin.com/art/omodest.html

Once you start reading, you'll want to continue, so don't worry if it seems long. It's fortunate that it's nothing like any of your posts.

Also, if you have not read the relevant material, how is it that your reply is fifteen lines longer than what I just quoted? The rest might as well be instructions on how to use Internet Explorer; lenthy, but not at all useful or relevant.

I said yesterday that this is irrelevant because TG didn't understand what I had said. Wasn't his fault for my lack of clarity; but it is your fault for not paying any attention. You actually quoted the post where I said "sorry you didn't understand." But I'll prolly read that later for recreation, thanks.

[DoomYoshi]

So let's get this straight.

Your grandfather is Jewish and happens to be one of 260 families in Norway that were sent to Auschwitz.

Your grandmother is either black or Catholic - since those are the two groups that the KKK killed.

You have a Spanish/English name.

You find it not bothersome at all to spew invective against the Catholics, meaning you are a member of the KKK.


Something in this story doesn't add up.

[Juan_Bottom]

So let's get this straight.

Your grandfather is Jewish and happens to be one of 260 families in Norway that were sent to Auschwitz.

Your grandmother is either black or Catholic - since those are the two groups that the KKK killed.

You have a Spanish/English name.

You find it not bothersome at all to spew invective against the Catholics, meaning you are a member of the KKK.


Something in this story doesn't add up.

My grandmother is a Native American.
Kinda personal, isn't it? We don't know for sure what happened. The town's records are missing. Locals in Norway said that my great-aunt was taken to Germany. But we don't know what happened to anyone but my great-grandfather.
My name is Spanish.

You do not find it at all bothersome that Catholic priests have raped children and are being protected from prosecution from the law by members of the church? Meaning you are a member of NAMBLA.

[saxitoxin]

Also, that story is pretty similar to mine, and it seems pretty conceited of you to say that X person has more claim to be upset about the similar treatment of his relative than Y person.

Qwert has more claim to be upset about the treatment of his grandfather because his grandfather was, in fact, killed. Fifteen years ago.

Your contortionist attempts to try to get everyone to empathize with your self-perceived and self-assigned victim status now has you competing against others for which of you experienced the worst was acquainted with someone who experienced the worst ... it just gets weirder and weirder.

[Symmetry]

Also, that story is pretty similar to mine, and it seems pretty conceited of you to say that X person has more claim to be upset about the similar treatment of his relative than Y person.

Qwert has more claim to be upset about the treatment of his grandfather because his grandfather was, in fact, killed. Fifteen years ago.

Your contortionist attempts to try to get everyone to empathize with your self-perceived and self-assigned victim status now has you competing against others for who experienced the worst was acquainted with someone who experienced the worst ... it just gets weirder and weirder.

Are you saying that you want Qwert to complain before you consider this legitimate? That's an odd argument to make.

[saxitoxin]

Also, that story is pretty similar to mine, and it seems pretty conceited of you to say that X person has more claim to be upset about the similar treatment of his relative than Y person.

Qwert has more claim to be upset about the treatment of his grandfather because his grandfather was, in fact, killed. Fifteen years ago.

Your contortionist attempts to try to get everyone to empathize with your self-perceived and self-assigned victim status now has you competing against others for who experienced the worst was acquainted with someone who experienced the worst ... it just gets weirder and weirder.

Are you saying that you want Qwert to complain before you consider this legitimate?

Before I consider what legitimate? That Juan is a victim of the Holocaust by process of acquaintance? If Anne Frank logged onto Conquer Club it wouldn't make that legitimate.

[Symmetry]

Also, that story is pretty similar to mine, and it seems pretty conceited of you to say that X person has more claim to be upset about the similar treatment of his relative than Y person.

Qwert has more claim to be upset about the treatment of his grandfather because his grandfather was, in fact, killed. Fifteen years ago.

Your contortionist attempts to try to get everyone to empathize with your self-perceived and self-assigned victim status now has you competing against others for who experienced the worst was acquainted with someone who experienced the worst ... it just gets weirder and weirder.

Are you saying that you want Qwert to complain before you consider this legitimate?

Before I consider what legitimate? That Juan is a victim of the Holocaust by process of acquaintance? If Anne Frank logged onto Conquer Club it wouldn't make that legitimate.

So what do you mean by more claim? If Anne Frank has no claim to legitimacy, does anyone have a right to feel upset? (apart from, for some reason, Qwert?)

[Juan_Bottom]

Yeah, he made an embarrassing statement, I think. A rare slip-up.
But I do like how saxi worded his response so that any response to it makes it appear like I'm in a competition.
That was well written. On some levels, your vanity is well deserved Saxi-Henson, but I think that you've gone over to a point where you've become sort-of egocentric, but definitely a narcissistic monolauging egomaniacal. But, all the praise: it's not deserved by you. Your character is cleverly done, but all this praise is for your character, not for you as a puppeteer. Nobody remembers the writer, only the star actor.
When you actually try to debate or argue, it's mostly just hammering down any forum goer that should disagree with your unquestionable genius. And these arguments you expose like a raging Henry Ford have nothing to do with the topics, they're just personal attacks. This is a typical sign of a megalomaniac. You did it with player a lot, and sym too, and you also do it to me. And the only thing she and I have in common with them is that we challenge your authority. You've converted the forum with Saxitoxin cheerleaders, and may god have mercy on the soul of anyone who sounds more intelligent than you do about anything. You'll kill them, and your Saxitoads with laugh for your enjoyment.

[saxitoxin]

they're just personal attacks. This is a typical sign of a megalomaniac.

you are a member of NAMBLA

lol

[Juan_Bottom]

You're welcome that I gave you the chance to bail out on Sym, but still, the fact that you're an egomaniac is almost deserving of it's own thread I think. A thread like that can't be counted as a personal attack against you, because
A) you are an egomaniac
and
B) you're just a fictional character
Or wait, maybe (B) does make it a personal attack. I dunno,.. but I bet it would be a fun thread discussion to have.

[Funkyterrance]

So what do you mean by more claim?

Well, to be fair, Juan has constructed a whole system of "what is offensive" where the weight of each individual offense is not decided by the emotional impact on the recipient but on the general consensus of "minds past and present" so yeah, JB needs to convincingly show why his personal reaction to the Holocaust joke thread is more valid than say tgd's reaction to a thread bashing the Catholic Church.
Jb is the one getting technical/scientific about the appropriate reactions to the multicolored rainbow that makes up all potentially offensive remarks/threads so why not discuss the strength of firsthand experiences versus secondhand, thirdhand and so on?
I don't personally think the details of the offense matter as long as someone is legitimately offended but Juan has made it abundantly clear that the details do matter so it's up to him to defend this monster he's created.

[chang50]

So what do you mean by more claim?

Well, to be fair, Juan has constructed a whole system of "what is offensive" where the weight of each individual offense is not decided by the emotional impact on the recipient but on the general consensus of "minds past and present" so yeah, JB needs to convincingly show why his personal reaction to the Holocaust joke thread is more valid than say tgd's reaction to a thread bashing the Catholic Church.
Jb is the one getting technical/scientific about the appropriate reactions to the multicolored rainbow that makes up all potentially offensive remarks/threads so why not discuss the strength of firsthand experiences versus secondhand, thirdhand and so on?
I don't personally think the details of the offense matter as long as someone is legitimately offended but Juan has made it abundantly clear that the details do matter so it's up to him to defend this monster he's created.

Details like the Holocaust victims and their families actually being victims as compared to the hierarchy of the Catholic church who have repeatedly victimised people in their care historically?

[DoomYoshi]

So let's get this straight.

Your grandfather is Jewish and happens to be one of 260 families in Norway that were sent to Auschwitz.

Your grandmother is either black or Catholic - since those are the two groups that the KKK killed.

You have a Spanish/English name.

You find it not bothersome at all to spew invective against the Catholics, meaning you are a member of the KKK.


Something in this story doesn't add up.

My grandmother is a Native American.
Kinda personal, isn't it? We don't know for sure what happened. The town's records are missing. Locals in Norway said that my great-aunt was taken to Germany. But we don't know what happened to anyone but my great-grandfather.
My name is Spanish.

You do not find it at all bothersome that Catholic priests have raped children and are being protected from prosecution from the law by members of the church? Meaning you are a member of NAMBLA.

Yea, you are right on this, I'm sorry for that post.

I do care what the Catholic Church does. However, compared to the alternatives of "Get-Rich-Quick/Creationism" Protestantism (e.g. Joel Olsteen) or "Straps Bomb to Chest because there is no Halal meat at the Office Building Jewish Deli" Islam, I would prefer Catholicism.

[GeneralRisk]

So let's get this straight.

Your grandfather is Jewish and happens to be one of 260 families in Norway that were sent to Auschwitz.

Your grandmother is either black or Catholic - since those are the two groups that the KKK killed.

You have a Spanish/English name.

You find it not bothersome at all to spew invective against the Catholics, meaning you are a member of the KKK.


Something in this story doesn't add up.

My grandmother is a Native American.
Kinda personal, isn't it? We don't know for sure what happened. The town's records are missing. Locals in Norway said that my great-aunt was taken to Germany. But we don't know what happened to anyone but my great-grandfather.
My name is Spanish.

You do not find it at all bothersome that Catholic priests have raped children and are being protected from prosecution from the law by members of the church? Meaning you are a member of NAMBLA.

Yea, you are right on this, I'm sorry for that post.

I do care what the Catholic Church does. However, compared to the alternatives of "Get-Rich-Quick/Creationism" Protestantism (e.g. Joel Olsteen) or "Straps Bomb to Chest because there is no Halal meat at the Office Building Jewish Deli" Islam, I would prefer Catholicism.

Well said.The Pope salutes you.

[GBU56]

Enough said

[Funkyterrance]

Details like the Holocaust victims and their families actually being victims as compared to the hierarchy of the Catholic church who have repeatedly victimised people in their care historically?

I you haven't noticed, CC is not a courtroom and there are no laws so to speak about what is offensive and what isn't, barring the forum guidelines. So no, there is not nescessarily any more validity to Juan's case than tgd's unless the community as a whole agrees that it's so. In fact, thus far it appears as though more individuals are claiming that JB's second hand involvement in the Holocaust has no more if not less validity than any other "butthurt" that might occur on here. Juan, and now chang, are assuming facts(second hand affects of the Holocaust are somehow more valid than the affects of firsthand insults to one's church) to base their entire case when it appears as though this is not even the general consensus. For the umpteenth time, the Holocaust, due to it's not-so-recent nature, is not considered by some to have the gravity that JB insists it should.
Need I remind those out there that JB and others have a tendency to mock/demonize the church and those of faith, not discuss it/them? Surely this needs to be taken into consideration as well.

[TA1LGUNN3R]

At the start of this thread I used the R word, and you took exception to that. I don't necessarily understand why anyone would believe that that word still holds enough power to be unusable in civilized conversation. But I accept the argument from authority that I don't need to understand it, if you do. I remember back in the day you mentioned that you had someone in your family who was mentally challenged or it has something to do with your job or some junk I'm not sure because I can't remember.....
Anyway, the point is that I accept that you are in the position to tell me that it's not ok.

I didn't take exception to 'retarded' and if you want to use it I don't really care, though DD individuals and their families will. I used that to point out that while on your crusade to label participants in the thread as detractors of Holocaust survivors and heartless fiends, you use a similarly offensive term often. This wasn't just restricted to this thread, as I've noticed you've used the adjective 'retarded' before. If you wish to argue that 'retarded' shouldn't have that kind of power, fine, and I would be inclined to agree with you, as I think 'nigger' or any other derogatory term should be likewise lessened in its impact. But the fact remains that, if I were to use the term 'nigger' around a person of African descent, no matter its context, they would probably take exception to that; likewise, if you're going to use the term 'retarded,' a DD individual cogent enough to understand the word will also take exception. You know this already as in your response to my first post you yourself said the current term is DD and not 'retarded.'

In keeping with your "retarded shouldn't have such an impact" stance, shouldn't this extend to Nazi and Holocaust jokes? Mental retardation is much more relevant in today's world than WWII events.

For reference, yes, I work with individuals with DD.

I did not read it. Start over. Wait, . .
Are you saying that Holocaust humor is satire? Why aren't you even using Comedys that take place during the Holocaust as your examples? Like To Be or Not to Be or the Great Dictator?
...
But

All of my ancestor on my grandfather's side were killed by the Nazis except for him. My grandmother was an orphan who's brother was shot and killed by the KKK. After that, they strung his body up in a tree and used him for target practice. I was not raised by my parents, I was raised by these two people.

Now

When you say that the R word is still very offensive, I accept it, because it came from you. But when I say that it's unacceptable to make Holocaust jokes, you tell me that no one gives a shit and you make elaborate arguments about pop satire to make me look senile.

Nobody says that's not tragic. It is incredibly tragic.

-TG

[saxitoxin]

Details like the Holocaust victims and their families actually being victims as compared to the hierarchy of the Catholic church who have repeatedly victimised people in their care historically?

Anne Frank was a victim. Juan is not a victim, despite his revolting demands everyone recognize him as a living Anne Frank.

In general, victims don't tend to throw loud tantrums demanding everyone recognize them as victims. They're usually not as borderline gleeful at the opportunity to relish the public with every detail of their victimization-(through-process-of-acquaintance) as Juan has been. Insomnia-Juan is what is referred to as a "Holocaust Tourist."

[Lootifer]

Details like the Holocaust victims and their families actually being victims as compared to the hierarchy of the Catholic church who have repeatedly victimised people in their care historically?

Anne Frank was a victim. Juan is not a victim, despite his revolting demands everyone recognize him as a living Anne Frank.

In general, victims don't tend to throw loud tantrums demanding everyone recognize them as victims. They're usually not as borderline gleeful at the opportunity to relish the public with every detail of their victimization-(through-process-of-acquaintance) as Juan has been. Insomnia-Juan is what is referred to as a "Holocaust Tourist."

Ouch! I can feel the heat on that little guy from over here!

[Funkyterrance]

Anne Frank was a victim. Juan is not a victim, despite his revolting demands everyone recognize him as a living Anne Frank.

In general, victims don't tend to throw loud tantrums demanding everyone recognize them as victims. They're usually not as borderline gleeful at the opportunity to relish the public with every detail of their victimization-(through-process-of-acquaintance) as Juan has been. Insomnia-Juan is what is referred to as a "Holocaust Tourist."

Are you suggesting that the shadow of the Holocaust might not permeate into every aspect of Juan's life to the extent that it would if he himself had personally lived through it?

[chang50]

Details like the Holocaust victims and their families actually being victims as compared to the hierarchy of the Catholic church who have repeatedly victimised people in their care historically?

I you haven't noticed, CC is not a courtroom and there are no laws so to speak about what is offensive and what isn't, barring the forum guidelines. So no, there is not nescessarily any more validity to Juan's case than tgd's unless the community as a whole agrees that it's so. In fact, thus far it appears as though more individuals are claiming that JB's second hand involvement in the Holocaust has no more if not less validity than any other "butthurt" that might occur on here. Juan, and now chang, are assuming facts(second hand affects of the Holocaust are somehow more valid than the affects of firsthand insults to one's church) to base their entire case when it appears as though this is not even the general consensus. For the umpteenth time, the Holocaust, due to it's not-so-recent nature, is not considered by some to have the gravity that JB insists it should.
Need I remind those out there that JB and others have a tendency to mock/demonize the church and those of faith, not discuss it/them? Surely this needs to be taken into consideration as well.

But it is a forum where people give their opinions and I have given mine...and it makes zero difference who agrees with me or not.My opinions are not swayed by the general consensus.It is my belief that in dealing with any Holocaust,be it the Shoah or the genocide of native Americans the subject should be accorded more respect than speculation about metaphysical subjects we can only guess at,especially when this exaggerated respect leads to the abuse of the defenceless as in the case of the RC church.

[Juan_Bottom]

Details like the Holocaust victims and their families actually being victims as compared to the hierarchy of the Catholic church who have repeatedly victimised people in their care historically?

Anne Frank was a victim. Juan is not a victim, despite his revolting demands everyone recognize him as a living Anne Frank.

In general, victims don't tend to throw loud tantrums demanding everyone recognize them as victims. They're usually not as borderline gleeful at the opportunity to relish the public with every detail of their victimization-(through-process-of-acquaintance) as Juan has been. Insomnia-Juan is what is referred to as a "Holocaust Tourist."

Ouch! I can feel the heat on that little guy from over here!

On who, me?

I never understand why people in this forum put any stock into anything Saxi says in a serious thread. If I were to form a debate team here and try to compete with other teams, Saxi would be my last choice for a member. I mean, everything he says is propagandist, and untenable. When you confront him with that, he attacks you personally or he doesn't own up to it and turns his propa-genda into a joke of some kind. This is totally fine, because Saxi is just a pretend character, but let's not go believing that he's a sage wise man with great insights into the human condition. He just bullshits about stuff no one cares enough to call bullshit on. Plus, why would anyone question him when he viciously lashes out at everyone who does? Well, I never cared enough to call bullshit before myself, until I saw some forum regs saying "saxi makes me think."
Like you need Saxi to tell you drone-striking innocent people is wrong. Duh.
That's also where all of Saxi's great vanity comes from. When he's joking, he can be brilliant. So he gets a lot of just-deserved praise. But everyone's repeated praise has gone to his head. He's just an egomaniac now. Earlier in this thread, he said that Holocaust jokes are acceptable. But I'm not allowed to talk about my family history, or I'm pretending to be a victim. How silly is he?
Holocaust jokes are ok.... but being raised by Holocaust survivors is not acceptable. - Saxilogic


And the reason, my fellow-forum goers, that he uses personal attacks is the same reason that Stalin or Ford used personal attacks. After so much praise has become lavished on him, his mind has become warped to believe that he's the greatest most infallible thing ever and no one mortal can question his authority. But there's Sym, player, and me... and we all question his lack of proofs or reasoning all the time. His personal attacks against us is a defense mechanism. He's doing what the big man in the prison yard does when he stamps out any dissent against his authority. Saxi has repeatedly said, out of the blue, that my intellectualism isn't equal to his. That's his ego talking saying "don't talk back to me, boy, or I will thrash you!" And he believes it; because he is a megalomaniac. And that's fine, egomaniacs can be funny to watch implode or whatever, just don't be taking his posts seriously.

And this is also why I find it so easy to manipulate his posting habits. I know that there are certain things his ego cannot ignore. A challenge to his intelligence or knowledge about world affairs or politics will always draw an attack. It's the same thing as telling the big man in the jail-yard that he looks like a b*tch. Saxi's puppeteer's mind goes red and he can't compose himself. Another thing you can do is ask him a solid question about such topics to set him up for a good joke. He'll always take advantage of a good set-up too.