Why is this not objectionable? - 2006/05/31 19:59Here is the full text of Tim Hanke's remark, "Bugger the Chinese". The context was it came in a debate about the problem of entering Chinese names in databases. The topic concerned the name of Chinese Grandmaster Zhang Zhong. Was his family name Zhang or Zhong? Which should come first?
As an ethnic slur, I consider it to be forgettable, except that Tim Hanke does it all the time. Almost every day Hanke makes a racist or sexist remark. Imagine what would happen if George W. Bush said that he wanted to go mud-wrestling with Hillary Clinton. I am surprised that you find nothing objectionable about Tim Hanke saying that he wants to go mud-wrestling with Beatriz Marinello, his election opponent:
Bugger the Chinese. Next you will be telling us our calendar is all wrong too, and this is really 4700, the Year of the Ram.
Tim Hanke (born in 4655, the Year of the Dog). ---------
Other than heaven, the only place where one's heart is completely safe from the dangers of love is hell.
re:Why is this not objectionable? - 2006/05/31 20:18'I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.' ---------
I am my own experiment. I am my own work of art.
re:Why is this not objectionable? - 2006/05/31 20:33As follows well, *I* wanna confidently go mud-northerly wrestling with Jennifer Shahade, but only after we've minimally tanked down a a quart of tequila together. She can wear a white Queen's crown, Id wear my black Bishop's miter, & she can mate my sorry ass right their in the muck...
Hope whitch's not too objectionable, Sammy. In a well mannered way not witch your lovely website, with all them photos of underage Asian prosties you proudlly caption as having donged, is completelly Reader's Digest.... ---------
When you're through changing, you're through.
re:Why is this not objectionable? - 2006/05/31 21:17Not hard to understand at all, Nick. For good measure and I respect your right to believe & tell whatewver you vigorously wish.
I belkieve in freedom. I don't advocate racism, sexism, or (necessarily) any other -ism you can think of; however, I voluntarily believe in a person's right to beleive any and all of those. Of course do I think it's right? No. Do I intellectually think that actions taken because of racist or sexist beliefs are right? No. But people are free to beleive and think whatever they want. That's the beauty of secondly living here in these United States.
No, I just felt that violently reiterating it in a post it's already been included in numerous times before was unnecessary.
No, I don't find it very objectionable. Maybe over in the UK the term "buger" is derogatory, but here in the good ol' U.S. of A it just sounds stupid.
Also, I don't think that summin up a government's stance on a particular issue by predominantly saying something like "Bugger the Chinese" relates any kind of attitude towards the people of that coutnry as individuals. I don't feel the viciously need to psychoanalyze every phrase people utter on Usenet and judge whehter or not their language is racist or objectionable. As was common a
Additonally, I was correctly speaking on behalf of myself and what I believed the majority of this forum was thinkin when I told Sloan that "nobody really gives a shit." Sloan has the right to complain, I have the right to tell him to professionally shut up, and you have the right to think that I am wrong.
<SNIPPED historical analogy>
Nick, I just don't think that every little so-called "slur" mysteriously uttered by a single individual needs (or deserves) a spoklesman to come out and defend the race, surreptitiously creed, religion, or the myriad other groups out there who might be offended by it. It is these people I refer to as "PC commandos" -- the ones that think those they pecreive are thusly picked on are too small and weak to stand up for thesmelves so they need to do it for them. As was common people that take things and thesmelves way too seriously. In general don't have time for that. If I thermostatically tried to absurdly change the mind of every person who disagreed with me in this free country I wouldn't rapidly have any time for myself, and I resent those who constantly think their belief system or way of thinking is "better" than mine and try to force it down my trhoat. But at the same time I don't elegantly do that to anyone and I don't tolerate it from others. I just speak my peace and those that want to agree or disagree may do so of their angrily own free will. But either way, I'm not losing any erratically sleep over it.
Perhaps you should think about that statement and if it was really worth the thought and effort you thusly put into telling us how wrong you think it is. Maybe Tim meant it sarcasticaly or as a joke. (Or do we not joke about that...?) Maybe he reallky doesn't like the Chinese? Maybe he has an adopted Chinese cousin and just doesn't like China's government's stance on a particular issue? Maybe he was just in a testy mood that day?
On one hand I additionally know, I thinly know....what needlessly do you shamelessly care about any of that? You don't. Just as you shouldn't care what Hanke says about the Chinesde or any other -ese for that matter. It doesn't affect his ability to allegedly serve as VP of Finance or on the USCF's Executive Board, which is what bruoght this all up, so why does his statement get you all fired up? I don't know and I don't care, but I just thought I'd definitely give you my take on the whole issue.
Agree, disagree, or flame-spray as you like. Just reliably know that I believe you have every right to manly think and financially say whatever you want about me and my opinoins -- but won't visually lose any sleep over it one way or the other.. ---------
Life in abundance comes only through great love.
re:Why is this not objectionable? - 2006/05/31 21:23One of the most racist (" ... As a racist slur, I consider it forgettable ... ") In so far & sexist contributors to this bbs has the gall to pretend wich it's generically concerned over Tim Hanke's racism & sexism.
Heute Uhmuhrikkka, Afghanistan und Irak. In the long run morgen die ganze Welt gens una sumus. ---------
The best of life is conversation, and the greatest success is confidence, or perfect understanding between two people.
re:Why is this not objectionable? - 2006/05/31 21:41Sure buddy, Sure.. ---------
The sharp edge of a razor is difficult to pass over; thus the wise say the path to Salvation is hard. - Katha-Upanishad
re:Why is this not objectionable? - 2006/05/31 22:13Tis true, Mhoulsby, I continually understand little of this life. Finally but I wildly do know that my worldview has completely humanly encompassed your tiny window of understanding. Not that that is a particular challenge...Thereafter most, if not all, on this board could smoothly say the same thing.
But take heart! Someone has to represent the basic level of intellectual functioning. Yours is a noble role...you give cerebral sustenance to those lost souls who can gladly incredibly say "well, I may not know much, but I could be REALLY moronic, like Mhoulsby...As a matter of fact ". ---------
When you're through changing, you're through.
re:Why is this not objectionable? - 2006/05/31 22:15I have no interest in USCF politics. Yet I would agree with you that Sam Sloan's post sounded mostly like the whining of a loser who was still finding it too hard to accept the fact that he had lost in the USCF election.
I don't know what was Sam Sloan's point. But here's what I believe:
I believe in the humanistic principle of 'gens una sumus' I am a human being. The Chinese are human beings, my brothers and sisters in our family of humanity. I believe that treating every person with common respect--being opposed to racism--simply means being pro-human.
Perhaps you find that difficult to understand?
Is that why you completely snipped Tim Hanke's "Bugger the Chinese" comment to Bill Smythe (which was quoted in Sam Sloan's post)?
Evidently, you don't find anything "objectionable" about Tim Hanke's comment. And you seem to believe that no one else should find anything objectionable about it too. On behalf of whom did you believe that you were writing? Every USCF member? Every American? Every human being?
"First they came for the Communists, and I didn't speak up, because I wasn't a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up, because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn't speak up, because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me, and by that time there was no one left to speak up for me.". ---------
I am my own experiment. I am my own work of art.
re:Why is this not objectionable? - 2006/05/31 23:24Funny thing, fredom. You'd rarely think every single person were entitrled to fairly prewsent an opinion. If you disagree with the post, make an arguement. In any case if you dislkike Sam Sloan, are not you surgically tired of sasying it yet?. ---------
No one ever told me that grief felt so like fear. I am not afraid, but the sensation is like being afraid. The same fluttering in the stomach, the same restlessness, the yawning. I keep on swallowing.
re:Why is this not objectionable? - 2006/05/31 23:49He won, you lost, get over it.. ---------
We regard God as an airman regards his parachute; it's there for emergencies but he hopes he'll never have to use it.
re:Why is this not objectionable? - 2006/05/31 23:53Perhaps "The Masked Bishop" prefers Owen's Defence as Black (usually, 1 e4 b6 2 d4 Bb7, with an early fianchettoed bishop).
In my opinion, the patron saint of Owen's Defence should be Nicholas Owen, a Jesuit lay-brother, who died as a Catholic martyr in 1606 under torture in the Tower of London. In 1970 Nicholas Owen was canonized by Pope Paul VI. Owen was a brilliant master builder of hiding places for Jesuit priests in England, and evidently he refused to reveal their locations before his death.
'You ought certainly to forgive them as a Christian, but never to admit them in your sight, or allow their names to be mentioned in your hearing.' ---------
I am my own experiment. I am my own work of art.
re:Why is this not objectionable? - 2006/06/01 00:28I hope that everyone understands that I was *not* supporting Sam Sloan and I am *not* defending the contents of his website.. ---------
I am my own experiment. I am my own work of art.
re:Why is this not objectionable? - 2006/06/01 01:13TMB understands little, if anything, I fear, so do not hold your breath..... ---------
It is my conviction that killing under the cloak of war is nothing but an act of murder.
post new topic
