Larry's Comics at it again...

[hulksmashdave]

RMA, admittedly I know little about American history, but can you back your claim that we had Irish and Chinese slaves?

 

You're not even trying.

 

Never serve yourself on a platter to someone who knows very little about a lot.

 

Do you understand how foolish you make yourself look by saying things that are so demonstrably false?

 

You make yourself look like you don't know anything. There are plenty of legitimate issues people have with me, but you choose to go after me with "knows very little", which is self-evidently not true?

 

That's just dumb.

 

::

 

You are ignoring this user.

 

 

 

 

I think you know this is self-evidently not true.

[CKB]

I've read the first 12 pages assuming (based on the number of posts in the thread) that at some point Larry shows up. Does he (and if so what page)? Or is this just the typical board circlejerk?

Larry doesn't make an appearance. Lube?

My son really wanted the Ultimate Fallout 4,so I decided to head to Larry`s Comics this morning and re-introduce myself as a CGC board member(I haven`t seen Larry in 4 years).He joked around at first then became pretty professional when it came to buying the new Spider-man books. He even offered to help me pick out the best condition ones to slab. Professionally and businesswise with him I had no problems.

 

So what you're saying is, you're not black, female or a homosexual and Larry's Customer Service is Oustanding.

Ok. Thanks.

 

I'm not out to defend Larry or his tweets, but I will defend his store and what it has become.

 

Larry's store is highly successful and has been nothing but good for the hobby in the area. He loves comics, promotes comics incessantly, and is an uncommon blend of shrewd businessman and fanboy.

 

His store is in the Lowell area, which is a huge melting pot of ethnicity. He has customers of all colors, creeds and sexes and if they were mistreated it would have greatly mitigated his current success. There are a number of local girls he employs who love him to death - I've talked to them at shows.

 

That's me talking about Larry's business. I'll leave it another 100 pages of discussion to talk about Larry's persona and the mistakes he's made.

 

[RockMyAmadeus]

I reject that concept. A word only has the power that the listener gives it. "Considered less than people"...by whom? Everyone? Of course not. Does the fact that evil people use a tool for evil make the tool itself evil?

 

You say a word only has the power granted by the listener, but what about the power intended by the speaker?

 

Paper tiger. If I stand in front of you and say literally anything that came to my mind in an attempt to anger you, and you react to none of it, you have utterly neutered those words, completely regardless of absolutely every word I say.

 

My words are just sounds until and unless someone reacts to them. Until and unless someone does react to them, they have no power, other than perhaps the power of my bad breath.

 

The listener...always...is the one who determines what words do and do not have power for him or herself.

 

This should also figure in to our evalutation of not just the word itself but the dynamic of the communication. Also, saying "A word only has the power that the listener gives it" is sort of like saying "Nothing is offensive as long as nobody ever chooses to be offended."

 

It is exactly like saying that, and it is correct.

 

It's true only in the most idealized, perfect-world, fantasized sense that something can be true.

 

That is patently not true. Absolutely false. How do I know?

 

Consider Jackie Robinson.

 

The first black player in Major League Baseball.

 

He endured horrific taunting by both HIS teammates, other teams, and the general public. Horrific abuse. The worst of the worst that could be tossed at him in 1947.

 

Did he react?

 

No. He knew that he had to hold to a higher standard as the first black player, to prove that a talented, gracious guy could play regardless of the color of his skin, or what anyone said to or about him. He knew that if he reacted, whether or not it was fair, people would say "See??! We TOLD you they couldn't play with us!"

 

He regarded himself as an ambassador for black people, and behaved accordingly. He just let it roll right off his back. To him, proving that he was just as capable and deserving as any other player was far more important than anything someone might say.

 

Let me make that clear: he didn't HAVE to do this. He CHOSE to, because the benefits, in his mind, far outweighed the abuse.

 

If you're saying that NO ONE has control of themself and their emotions, and have no choice but to react to what someone says, you'd be flat wrong. If you're saying that most people are just too lazy and immature to do that...sure.

 

But that doesn't mean it's not possible, as you are suggesting, nor that it's not a reachable goal that would make the individual's life much better.

 

You could just as easily say, "A joke is only as funny as the listener decides to feel like it's funny,"

 

Pretty much.Regardless of how funny a comedian thinks he/she is, if no one in the audience laughs, who has failed? The audience, or the comedian?

 

or "A screeching, raspy sound is only as grating as the power the listener gives it."

 

That really doesn't make much sense, but I understand what you're trying to say.

 

When a person laughs at a comedian, you don't give the person credit for understanding the joke and reacting with mirth; you also point to the comedian's delivery and the cleverness of the gag. Similarly, you can't really tell people who complain about the screeching, rasping sound that if they would only decide not to find it offensive, they'd be able to sleep like babies even if the sound was blaring right into their eardrums.

 

Your "screechy, raspy sound" argument fails, because it affects the sense of hearing. The argument is about people saying things, not people shouting into your ear while you're trying to sleep. If someone is shouting into your ear while you're trying to sleep, it doesn't matter if they're insulting you or complimenting you, you still can't sleep. Big difference.

 

That is to say, you can ignore reality all you like, but it doesn't change the fact that using a racial slur is going to stir up many people's emotions. Nor does it change the fact that they have every right to have a negative reaction, or that their negative reaction is completely rational and justified.

 

I agree with everything you just said.

 

But that's not the argument.

 

Regarding the question: "Considered less than people....by whom?" are you denying the history of slavery and discrimination in the United States, and that dehumanization, abuse, double-standards, and other codified forms of injustice have been part of the social history of the United States?

 

Sigh.

 

No, it's called a "rhetorical question:", and it's used to demonstrate that even though there were many, many people who practiced all of those things, there were just as many, if not more, people who did NOT. If everyone felt that way, would there really have been a Civil War? A 13th Amendment? A 14th? 15th?

 

As for your rhetorical question about a tool being used for evil, the question is not whether the tool itself is evil. The question is whether it's appropriate to expect a positive reaction to waving the tool in the face of people whose families and social groups have a long history of being abused via the tool.

 

Ugh.

 

The expectation is NO reaction, not "a positive reaction." I never suggested, implied, or even hinted that there should be a "positive" reaction. That would be ridiculous. Please try not to mischaracterize my argument.

 

 

If you're going to use an analogy then at least make it more credibly parallel the situation. I would also point out that there do, in fact, exist tools that were not only used by evil people, but that actually only function in the service of evil purposes. For example: Torture instruments. Reduced to a collection of molecules formed into a shape, then no, you can't say such a tool is "evil," nor can you claim the formation of breath-emanated vocal tones into a phonetic structure that travels via waves through the gaseous medium of air is, on a purely reductivist level, "offensive."

 

Consider: an admitted murderer has information that could lead to his latest victims being found alive, but he is recalcitrant, and the clock is ticking. If that man says nothing, his victims are guaranteed to die. If that man is placed on/in "a torture instrument" that extracts that information from him, has that "tool of evil" accomplished an evil purpose, or a good one...?

 

Obviously, this scenario cannot exist in civilized legal systems. It is used to demonstrate that even those tools expressly created for evil (and words were not) can be used for good purposes.

 

Nor does a tree falling in the forest make a sound, etc. Remove all context and nothing means anything. But if you step back into reality, where people have feelings and memories and a reasonable expectation of social decorum that does not involve crass reminders of some of the lowest forms of spiteful bigotry and dehumanization inflicted on their recent ancestors, then yeah, it's safe to say that the N-word is legitimately offensive and that no, the person taking offense is not the solely responsible party.

 

Sorry, but that's not true. It sounds good, and it reads well, but it relies on emotion and not reason.

 

If a black man walks down a street, and 10,000 people shout "the n-word" at him, and he doesn't react to any of it, who wins?

 

If a latino man walks down the street, and 10,000 people shout "the s-word" at him, and he doesn't react to any of it, who wins?

 

If a woman walks down the street, and 10,000 people shout "the c-word" at her, and she doesn't react to any of it, who wins?

 

They have no power that those walkers don't give them. They are just sounds, sounds that are heard, then gone. They mean nothing, and have no affect on the listener whatsoever if he/she simply ignores them.

 

What freedom. What power!

 

No, of course not. Larry's words were meant to be inflammatory, and he got the reaction he wanted. My question is simply this: why do we keep need to give him that reaction?

 

How do you know Larry's intentions?

 

An educated guess, based on my personal experience with him, and a reasonable understanding of the social impact those words generally have.

 

Note: this is not contradictory. I have not, at any time, stated that those words DON'T have a negative impact. I'm simply saying they SHOULDN'T, and hopefully, someday they won't.

 

Recognizing that they do is simply acknolwedging reality; I'm esousing an ideal, not what is.

 

Second question: Why do you use the word "need" when you say people "need" to react a certain way?

 

First, my apologies. That word should be "needing", and I didn't edit it properly. Doesn't change the meaning, but I wanted to clarify.

 

I did not say people "need" to react a certain way. Let's make that very clear. I did not say people needed to, or should, react in any specific manner.

 

I asked "why do we need to keep giving him the reaction he seeks?"

 

We are free to react any way we choose. But if we react to anyone's negative comments, we give them the reaction they seek. We don't NEED to keep doing that, and it would be better if we didn't.

 

They could just as easily "want" to react the way they do, or they could simply "feel like" reacting that way. Your question implicitly assumes there's something wrong with people's reaction, and it's notable that you have put far more effort into questioning the way people react than that which they are reacting to.

 

 

You are correct. Some people may simply WANT to react negatively. Some people LIKE to be offended. But are you seriously suggesting that a negative reaction...which has been demonstrated to be detrimental to a person's health...is something that is desirable?

 

People NEED oxygen. People NEED food. People NEED water. They don't NEED to be offended by words that someone else says.

 

[User 01001010]

women still can't drive, or parallel park.

[mikenyc]

women still can't drive, or parallel park.

 

That's self-evident.

[mikenyc]

RMA, admittedly I know little about American history, but can you back your claim that we had Irish and Chinese slaves?

 

You're not even trying.

 

Never serve yourself on a platter to someone who knows very little about a lot.

 

Do you understand how foolish you make yourself look by saying things that are so demonstrably false?

 

You make yourself look like you don't know anything. There are plenty of legitimate issues people have with me, but you choose to go after me with "knows very little", which is self-evidently not true?

 

That's just dumb.

 

::

 

You are ignoring this user.

 

 

 

 

I think you know this is self-evidently not true.

 

::

 

One of the many axioms in our universe.

[Mr.Diggler]

This thread is stuck on stupid.

 

see I even used the word boobs to cheer you up Diggler

[This is water]

I reject that concept. A word only has the power that the listener gives it. "Considered less than people"...by whom? Everyone? Of course not. Does the fact that evil people use a tool for evil make the tool itself evil?

 

You say a word only has the power granted by the listener, but what about the power intended by the speaker?

 

Paper tiger. If I stand in front of you and say literally anything that came to my mind in an attempt to anger you, and you react to none of it, you have utterly neutered those words, completely regardless of absolutely every word I say.

 

My words are just sounds until and unless someone reacts to them. Until and unless someone does react to them, they have no power, other than perhaps the power of my bad breath.

 

The listener...always...is the one who determines what words do and do not have power for him or herself.

 

This should also figure in to our evalutation of not just the word itself but the dynamic of the communication. Also, saying "A word only has the power that the listener gives it" is sort of like saying "Nothing is offensive as long as nobody ever chooses to be offended."

 

It is exactly like saying that, and it is correct.

 

It's true only in the most idealized, perfect-world, fantasized sense that something can be true.

 

That is patently not true. Absolutely false. How do I know?

 

Consider Jackie Robinson.

 

The first black player in Major League Baseball.

 

He endured horrific taunting by both HIS teammates, other teams, and the general public. Horrific abuse. The worst of the worst that could be tossed at him in 1947.

 

Did he react?

 

No. He knew that he had to hold to a higher standard as the first black player, to prove that a talented, gracious guy could play regardless of the color of his skin, or what anyone said to or about him. He knew that if he reacted, whether or not it was fair, people would say "See??! We TOLD you they couldn't play with us!"

 

He regarded himself as an ambassador for black people, and behaved accordingly. He just let it roll right off his back. To him, proving that he was just as capable and deserving as any other player was far more important than anything someone might say.

 

Let me make that clear: he didn't HAVE to do this. He CHOSE to, because the benefits, in his mind, far outweighed the abuse.

 

If you're saying that NO ONE has control of themself and their emotions, and have no choice but to react to what someone says, you'd be flat wrong. If you're saying that most people are just too lazy and immature to do that...sure.

 

But that doesn't mean it's not possible, as you are suggesting, nor that it's not a reachable goal that would make the individual's life much better.

 

You could just as easily say, "A joke is only as funny as the listener decides to feel like it's funny,"

 

Pretty much.Regardless of how funny a comedian thinks he/she is, if no one in the audience laughs, who has failed? The audience, or the comedian?

 

or "A screeching, raspy sound is only as grating as the power the listener gives it."

 

That really doesn't make much sense, but I understand what you're trying to say.

 

When a person laughs at a comedian, you don't give the person credit for understanding the joke and reacting with mirth; you also point to the comedian's delivery and the cleverness of the gag. Similarly, you can't really tell people who complain about the screeching, rasping sound that if they would only decide not to find it offensive, they'd be able to sleep like babies even if the sound was blaring right into their eardrums.

 

Your "screechy, raspy sound" argument fails, because it affects the sense of hearing. The argument is about people saying things, not people shouting into your ear while you're trying to sleep. If someone is shouting into your ear while you're trying to sleep, it doesn't matter if they're insulting you or complimenting you, you still can't sleep. Big difference.

 

That is to say, you can ignore reality all you like, but it doesn't change the fact that using a racial slur is going to stir up many people's emotions. Nor does it change the fact that they have every right to have a negative reaction, or that their negative reaction is completely rational and justified.

 

I agree with everything you just said.

 

But that's not the argument.

 

Regarding the question: "Considered less than people....by whom?" are you denying the history of slavery and discrimination in the United States, and that dehumanization, abuse, double-standards, and other codified forms of injustice have been part of the social history of the United States?

 

Sigh.

 

No, it's called a "rhetorical question:", and it's used to demonstrate that even though there were many, many people who practiced all of those things, there were just as many, if not more, people who did NOT. If everyone felt that way, would there really have been a Civil War? A 13th Amendment? A 14th? 15th?

 

As for your rhetorical question about a tool being used for evil, the question is not whether the tool itself is evil. The question is whether it's appropriate to expect a positive reaction to waving the tool in the face of people whose families and social groups have a long history of being abused via the tool.

 

Ugh.

 

The expectation is NO reaction, not "a positive reaction." I never suggested, implied, or even hinted that there should be a "positive" reaction. That would be ridiculous. Please try not to mischaracterize my argument.

 

 

If you're going to use an analogy then at least make it more credibly parallel the situation. I would also point out that there do, in fact, exist tools that were not only used by evil people, but that actually only function in the service of evil purposes. For example: Torture instruments. Reduced to a collection of molecules formed into a shape, then no, you can't say such a tool is "evil," nor can you claim the formation of breath-emanated vocal tones into a phonetic structure that travels via waves through the gaseous medium of air is, on a purely reductivist level, "offensive."

 

Consider: an admitted murderer has information that could lead to his latest victims being found alive, but he is recalcitrant, and the clock is ticking. If that man says nothing, his victims are guaranteed to die. If that man is placed on/in "a torture instrument" that extracts that information from him, has that "tool of evil" accomplished an evil purpose, or a good one...?

 

Obviously, this scenario cannot exist in civilized legal systems. It is used to demonstrate that even those tools expressly created for evil (and words were not) can be used for good purposes.

 

Nor does a tree falling in the forest make a sound, etc. Remove all context and nothing means anything. But if you step back into reality, where people have feelings and memories and a reasonable expectation of social decorum that does not involve crass reminders of some of the lowest forms of spiteful bigotry and dehumanization inflicted on their recent ancestors, then yeah, it's safe to say that the N-word is legitimately offensive and that no, the person taking offense is not the solely responsible party.

 

Sorry, but that's not true. It sounds good, and it reads well, but it relies on emotion and not reason.

 

If a black man walks down a street, and 10,000 people shout "the n-word" at him, and he doesn't react to any of it, who wins?

 

If a latino man walks down the street, and 10,000 people shout "the s-word" at him, and he doesn't react to any of it, who wins?

 

If a woman walks down the street, and 10,000 people shout "the c-word" at her, and she doesn't react to any of it, who wins?

 

They have no power that those walkers don't give them. They are just sounds, sounds that are heard, then gone. They mean nothing, and have no affect on the listener whatsoever if he/she simply ignores them.

 

What freedom. What power!

 

No, of course not. Larry's words were meant to be inflammatory, and he got the reaction he wanted. My question is simply this: why do we keep need to give him that reaction?

 

How do you know Larry's intentions?

 

An educated guess, based on my personal experience with him, and a reasonable understanding of the social impact those words generally have.

 

Note: this is not contradictory. I have not, at any time, stated that those words DON'T have a negative impact. I'm simply saying they SHOULDN'T, and hopefully, someday they won't.

 

Recognizing that they do is simply acknolwedging reality; I'm esousing an ideal, not what is.

 

Second question: Why do you use the word "need" when you say people "need" to react a certain way?

 

First, my apologies. That word should be "needing", and I didn't edit it properly. Doesn't change the meaning, but I wanted to clarify.

 

I did not say people "need" to react a certain way. Let's make that very clear. I did not say people needed to, or should, react in any specific manner.

 

I asked "why do we need to keep giving him the reaction he seeks?"

 

We are free to react any way we choose. But if we react to anyone's negative comments, we give them the reaction they seek. We don't NEED to keep doing that, and it would be better if we didn't.

 

They could just as easily "want" to react the way they do, or they could simply "feel like" reacting that way. Your question implicitly assumes there's something wrong with people's reaction, and it's notable that you have put far more effort into questioning the way people react than that which they are reacting to.

 

 

You are correct. Some people may simply WANT to react negatively. Some people LIKE to be offended. But are you seriously suggesting that a negative reaction...which has been demonstrated to be detrimental to a person's health...is something that is desirable?

 

People NEED oxygen. People NEED food. People NEED water. They don't NEED to be offended by words that someone else says.

 

 

This is how I know you love to argue.

[RockMyAmadeus]

RMA, admittedly I know little about American history, but can you back your claim that we had Irish and Chinese slaves?

 

You're not even trying.

 

Never serve yourself on a platter to someone who knows very little about a lot.

 

Do you understand how foolish you make yourself look by saying things that are so demonstrably false?

 

You make yourself look like you don't know anything. There are plenty of legitimate issues people have with me, but you choose to go after me with "knows very little", which is self-evidently not true?

 

That's just dumb.

 

::

 

You are ignoring this user.

 

 

 

 

I think you know this is self-evidently not true.

 

::

 

One of the many axioms in our universe.

 

 

You're so cute when you're desperate.

 

[mikenyc]

SURPRISE

 

I thought I was on ignore? Do you peek in people's medicine cabinets as well?

 

Who's desperate now Abraham Lincoln.

 

[RockMyAmadeus]

 

This is how I know you love to argue.

 

Was there some sort of question about that?

 

I like to discuss. I like to talk of many things. Despite what some people believe (like you), I learn, bounce ideas, strengthen good positions, discard bad ones, and generally develop myself and my mind as a human being.

 

I would have fit in very well in the Greek Forums or the Rabbinical schools at the temple.

 

 

 

[This is water]

 

This is how I know you love to argue.

 

Was there some sort of question about that?

 

I like to discuss. I like to talk of many things. Despite what some people believe (like you), I learn, bounce ideas, strengthen good positions, discard bad ones, and generally develop myself and my mind as a human being.

 

I would have fit in very well in the Greek Forums or the Rabbinical schools at the temple.

 

 

 

It more was more of a lighthearted statement.

[mikenyc]

 

This is how I know you love to argue.

 

Was there some sort of question about that?

 

I like to discuss. I like to talk of many things. Despite what some people believe (like you), I learn, bounce ideas, strengthen good positions, discard bad ones, and generally develop myself and my mind as a human being.

 

I would have fit in very well in the Greek Forums or the Rabbinical schools at the temple.

 

 

 

You can't possibly be for real. This must be some sort of a master plan at an epic joke.

 

[RockMyAmadeus]

SUPRISE

 

It's spelled "suRprise"

 

I thought I was on ignore? Do you peek in people's medicine cabinets as well?

 

Ignore is just to keep you from bothering me with needy PMs.

 

Who's desperate now Abraham Lincoln.

 

Still you.

[seanfingh]

I would have fit in very well in the Greek Forums or the Rabbinical schools at the temple.

 

You might very well have been murdered by your classmates had you chosen to go to law school, and busted out some RMA style Socratic Method banter.

[USArmyParatrooper]

Who's desperate now Abraham Lincoln.

 

Did you know Abraham Lincoln was the first real person to be depicted on a US mint coin?

[mikenyc]

Who's desperate now Abraham Lincoln.

 

Did you know Abraham Lincoln was the first real person to be depicted on a US mint coin?

 

No I didn't, thank you for the info. (thumbs u

 

Did you know, that much like our beloved president, Abraham Lincoln, RMA is also a self taught attorney?

[RockMyAmadeus]

I would have fit in very well in the Greek Forums or the Rabbinical schools at the temple.

 

You might very well have been murdered by your classmates had you chosen to go to law school, and busted out some RMA style Socratic Method banter.

 

Doubtful.

 

It is only on message board forums that people can't seem to have a normal discussion about things, and tend to be overemotional about the normal back-and-forth of real conversations/debates.

[RockMyAmadeus]

Who's desperate now Abraham Lincoln.

 

Did you know Abraham Lincoln was the first real person to be depicted on a US mint coin?

 

Wrong.

 

Washington and Lafayette were.

 

 

1900, nine years before the debut of the Lincoln cent.

 

Lincoln was the first real person to be depicted on a circulating US mint coin.

[RockMyAmadeus]

Who's desperate now Abraham Lincoln.

 

Did you know Abraham Lincoln was the first real person to be depicted on a US mint coin?

 

No I didn't, thank you for the info. (thumbs u

 

Did you know, that much like our beloved president, Abraham Lincoln, RMA is also a self taught attorney?

 

You insult because you have nothing to contribute.

 

Sad but true.