Morrissey's Dick Gregory death statement - SER Photography / Facebook

On SER's Facebook

"Dick Gregory, America's last hope, dies, aged 84.
He knew how all aspects of the human condition connect to politics.
He was a man of thought and a man of action, when most of us cannot manage to be just one of either. He worked breathlessly - work, words, deeds. He demanded for all what was snatched by the few. He disturbed the White House, and he was too quick for the American print media. They will be pleased that he now ceases to be amongst us ... as we are left with earth-threatening Trump, who will race into war in search of peace."

Morrissey
20 August 2017
Switzerland.

 

[Calamine Lotion]

I should have added you didn't point to the relation there was between his comment and what he saw, in stead of saying twisting his words.
The thing is, he probably knew and knows that if he was making his point in the sensible, argumentive way, you and many others wanted and trying to attract more attention then it had so far (why?) it would not work. As I think he thought.
Now his subspecies comment is seen as so much worser then the horrible atrocities, because hey, it's only anima!s. Not important, the racist comment is. Mind you, I dislike that too.
Television or internet, does it make any difference where he saw it?
In any case, it wasn't a hoax. It was for real.

I don't follow him around and say "but the reason why he said that is because..." My point was he was totally disrespectful of the people who did the work that he felt was powerful and he had the chance to promote their work. I tried to explain why something on television can make more difference but it's a minor point.
By making a comment that could be seen as racist he shifted the focus away from the real message. You said, and I agree, that he probably did this intentionally because outrageous statements will get more attention, so that is the outcome. My opinion didn't change that.
Things like this might be why he only does the email interviews now. Maybe he can't stop himself from saying "what we all say in private."

Anyway, new news today so this is old. Billy Idol is definitely an upgrade from Kristeen Young.

 

[Calamine Lotion]

You don’t know how much people here do to support various animal and human rights causes. I can assure you you’re not the only one on here actively helping (but of course you wouldn't be you without being a bit self-congratulatory).

You made a self-congratulatory comment while accusing someone of being self-congratulatory. At least you are consistent.
And who gave you permission to post in this thread?

 

[Quando quando quando]

I don't follow him around and say "but the reason why he said that is because..." My point was he was totally disrespectful of the people who did the work that he felt was powerful and he had the chance to promote their work. I tried to explain why something on television can make more difference but it's a minor point.
By making a comment that could be seen as racist he shifted the focus away from the real message. You said, and I agree, that he probably did this intentionally because outrageous statements will get more attention, so that is the outcome. My opinion didn't change that.
Things like this might be why he only does the email interviews now. Maybe he can't stop himself from saying "what we all say in private."

Anyway, new news today so this is old. Billy Idol is definitely an upgrade from Kristeen Young.

But he mentioned it in the interview.
Something like: did you see the atrocious thing on the news or whatever. And then he said " You can't help but feel, etc.
So it was not like he said it completely out of the blue.
You don't follow him around and you don't have to say anything.
He said it himself.

Okay, I now understand you mentioned tv.

Maybe there are people working hard for animal welfare that felt his remark disrespectful. I can understand them.
I find it a very hard statement, and whitout the context I can also understand why people think it is racist.

On the other hand, when I saw the footage, which I didn't want to look at, at first, I felt so sad and right after that very angered.
It doesn't mean I agree with his statement. Remember, these were puppies, dogs and cats slaughtered, skinned, cooked alive, having an unbelievable painful death.

Just saying I could understand his anger too and why he wanted to strike back and use very controversial, words, by many seen as racist.

All the other things I agree with you.

 

[Calamine Lotion]

But he mentioned it in the interview.
Something like: did you see the atrocious thing on the news or whatever. And then he said " You can't help but feel, etc.
So it was not like he said it completely out of the blue.
You don't follow him around and you don't have to say anything.
He said it himself.

Okay, I now understand you mentioned tv.

Maybe there are people working hard for animal welfare that felt his remark disrespectful. I can understand them.
I find it a very hard statement, and whitout the context I can also understand why people think it is racist.

On the other hand, when I saw the footage, which I didn't want to look at, at first, I felt so sad and right after that very angered.
It doesn't mean I agree with his statement. Remember, these were puppies, dogs and cats slaughtered, skinned, cooked alive, having an unbelievable painful death.

Just saying I could understand his anger too and why he wanted to strike back and use very controversial, words, by many seen as racist.

All the other things I agree with you.

Okay, so you understand why he felt like he did but you also understand why saying it that way actually hurt the cause and made him look like a racist? You also wrote that he chose his words intentionally to cause controversy and attract attention.
And you still think someone else should very carefully frame his words so that they have some meaning other than what he says?
I disagree. I think if he said it and meant it he should live with it. If he said it and didn't mean it he could clarify.
But in the end he is really not that relevant and it's just one more unfortunate thing he has said that makes him appear less like a pop star and more like a troll.

 

[Quando quando quando]

Okay, so you understand why he felt like he did but you also understand why saying it that way actually hurt the cause and made him look like a racist? You also wrote that he chose his words intentionally to cause controversy and attract attention.
And you still think someone else should very carefully frame his words so that they have some meaning other than what he says?
I disagree. I think if he said it and meant it he should live with it. If he said it and didn't mean it he could clarify.
But in the end he is really not that relevant and it's just one more unfortunate thing he has said that makes him appear less like a pop star and more like a troll.

Yes.Yes.
No. As I said it was all there in the interview. The context. No need to carefully frame his words. I didn't do that.
He didn't retract it.
To you he might not be relevant. I don't care. In the end as you say, nobody is relevant. Unfortunate things he might have said. That doesn't make him a troll.
Not to me.
You are carefully picking out your own strong arguments but avoiding mine.

 

[Calamine Lotion]

 

[ZOOM FROM GLOOM]

'But he mentioned it in the interview.
Something like: did you see the atrocious thing on the news or whatever. And then he said " You can't help but feel, etc.
So it was not like he said it completely out of the blue.'

But he mentioned it in the interview.
Something like: did you see the atrocious thing on the news or whatever. And then he said " You can't help but feel, etc.
So it was not like he said it completely out of the blue.
You don't follow him around and you don't have to say anything.
He said it himself.

Okay, I now understand you mentioned tv.

Maybe there are people working hard for animal welfare that felt his remark disrespectful. I can understand them.
I find it a very hard statement, and whitout the context I can also understand why people think it is racist.

On the other hand, when I saw the footage, which I didn't want to look at, at first, I felt so sad and right after that very angered.
It doesn't mean I agree with his statement. Remember, these were puppies, dogs and cats slaughtered, skinned, cooked alive, having an unbelievable painful death.

Just saying I could understand his anger too and why he wanted to strike back and use very controversial, words, by many seen as racist.

All the other things I agree with you.

 

[ZOOM FROM GLOOM]

Well maybe if he had talked about the practices instead of using racist language to label a nation of over a billion people.

but he didn't use 'racist language to label a nation of over a billion people'. Look at the above quote by Quando. In context of the interview and what was at discussion he is not saying all Chinese.

please reread my post #109 It's all that really needs to be said on this subject.



.

 

[caramel sea salt]

You made a self-congratulatory comment while accusing someone of being self-congratulatory. At least you are consistent.
And who gave you permission to post in this thread?

You are such a risible troll it's almost funny. Am considering rating this "funny" rather than "troll". What to do, what to do? Ah, the sun is shining, it's a beautiful day, boyfriend is coming back from New York tonight and I feel generous, so "funny" it is.

 

[Calamine Lotion]

but he didn't use 'racist language to label a nation of over a billion people'. Look at the above quote by Quando. In context of the interview and what was at discussion he is not saying all Chinese.

please reread my post #109 It's all that really needs to be said on this subject.



.

"You can't help but feel the Chinese are a subspecies" is definitely using racist language to label a nation of over a billion people.
"The Chinese" means "all Chinese."
Subspecies means a part of a species that can be divided from the whole species. This is determined through genetics.
As I said he's either a f***ing idiot or he purposely used a term related to genetics in order to be more controversial and draw more attention to his cause.
Being controversial in order to draw attention is a pretty good way to define "trolling."
I don't know why you want to keep this going.
If I talk about Mike Vick and his dogfighting ring, he hung one dog when he was disappointed in its fighting abilities and he electrocuted another. This is not just being callous, or just seeing the animals as property to be destroyed. That would be terrible, but it's more than that. It is taking enjoyment in torturing a defenseless creature. Anything that happens to Michael Vick and his African American friends that were in this dog fighting ring is well deserved.
But if I say "When you think about Michael Vick's dogfighting ring you can't help but consider African Americans a subspecies," that is a racist statement.
It doesn't matter why or how justified the racism is.
So if you want to say, "His statement was justified. Chinese people are a subspecies, or I feel they are a subspecies. Just look how they treat animals," that is your opinion and you're entitled to it.
But don't say that you're really meaning something else.

 

[Calamine Lotion]

You are such a risible troll it's almost funny. Am considering rating this "funny" rather than "troll". What to do, what to do? Ah, the sun is shining, it's a beautiful day, boyfriend is coming back from New York tonight and I feel generous, so "funny" it is.

Who cares? Do you really feel how you rate anything matters? You're a risable bitch. lol

 

[Calamine Lotion]

please reread my post #109 It's all that really needs to be said on this subject.

You are correct that waaaaaaaaaaay too much has already been said about it.

 

[caramel sea salt]

Who cares? Do you really feel how you rate anything matters? You're a risable bitch. lol

At least I can spell. :-(

 

[Calamine Lotion]

At least I can spell. :-(

B-i-t-c-h... I'm sure that's correct. Check again.

 

[caramel sea salt]

B-i-t-c-h... I'm sure that's correct. Check again.

Yes, but am I risable or raisable?

 

[Calamine Lotion]

Yes, but am I risable or raisable?

you're a bitch either way, bitch.

 

[caramel sea salt]

you're a bitch either way, bitch.

At least you can spell bitch, cow and sow. That's always something, but then again, they seem to be your favourite words!

 

[Calamine Lotion]

 

[Vesper Nocturne]

Clarifying in advance for anyone who is going to find this issue equally confusing: Michael Vick and his dirty clan of grunting, animal abusing village idiots are DEFINITELY all a subspecies. And so are all of the parents who put their little children in Michael Vick jerseys.

 

[ZOOM FROM GLOOM]

"You can't help but feel the Chinese are a subspecies" is definitely using racist language to label a nation of over a billion people.
"The Chinese" means "all Chinese."
Subspecies means a part of a species that can be divided from the whole species. This is determined through genetics.
As I said he's either a f***ing idiot or he purposely used a term related to genetics in order to be more controversial and draw more attention to his cause.
Being controversial in order to draw attention is a pretty good way to define "trolling."
I don't know why you want to keep this going.
If I talk about Mike Vick and his dogfighting ring, he hung one dog when he was disappointed in its fighting abilities and he electrocuted another. This is not just being callous, or just seeing the animals as property to be destroyed. That would be terrible, but it's more than that. It is taking enjoyment in torturing a defenseless creature. Anything that happens to Michael Vick and his African American friends that were in this dog fighting ring is well deserved.
But if I say "When you think about Michael Vick's dogfighting ring you can't help but consider African Americans a subspecies," that is a racist statement.
It doesn't matter why or how justified the racism is.
So if you want to say, "His statement was justified. Chinese people are a subspecies, or I feel they are a subspecies. Just look how they treat animals," that is your opinion and you're entitled to it.
But don't say that you're really meaning something else.

No again you're not understanding. It's in context of the discussion at hand between M and the interviewer, you can read what he means. Here is a re-post to help clarify.....


JFC

Well in context of the interview, they were discussing the barbaric cruelty of animals by people in China.
In that context, he was talking about those people in China that he assumes are Chinese that are causing these cruelties against animals. So I guess we'll read it how we want. But keep in mind, I don't think M would have called these Chinese a sub-species if he and the interviewer were talking about say the traditional opera music of China or whatever.



.