Rumproast Flame War (just kidding)

rumproast3Thanks to the RumpRoast for inviting my comments, and thanks to all the Rumpsters who commented here.  Actually, thanks to John D, specifically.  Now that he has identified himself as the one who sent me the super secret email, I guess it’s not a secret anymore. [Note: If you want to read the original email, he has added it to the comments at January 23, 2009 at 7:34 pm.]

I want to start to respond to all the comments by saying something general about Islam, since so may people commented about that specifically, then I’ll try to answer the rest of the individual commenters separately.  And there’s a final thought at the very end.

But first let me just repeat Answer #5 from my FAQ in the original thread:

Q: [X] person on [Y] website is not a nice person and said something I don’t agree with.

A: I don’t care.

rumproast1Several people have gone into detail about various Puma commenters, and to tell you the truth, I haven’t followed every single personality and every single ping pong among the many people who comment on various Puma websites.  I don’t necessarliy agree with 100% of what every commenter writes.  I do read all of Murphy’s posts at

There are some 500 or more comments that come across my feedreader every day just from the  blog, and many more that are on the blog that for some reason never make it through the feedreader.  That’s a huge number of comments to read, even if that’s the only blog you look at.  It would be a huge number of comments for any moderator to keep track of and try to keep every person to a party line, if the Pumas did have a party line.

Perhaps some of the disappointment some of the Rumpsters have with the PumaPAC blog is that it isn’t a neatly prepackaged product and doesn’t fit any neat genre that they are used to.  The posters are of all types, all ethnic groups and income levels, and levels of education and internet experience. They don’t have a supreme dictator telling them what to believe. They do have a lively dialog, lots of points of view, and some disagreements. Some issues are getting worked out and some ideas are being kicked around for the first time. No one is having a single point of view crammed down their throat–there is a lot of educating going on, and a lot of times, education can’t happen until the person is ready for it.

It might not look tidy from the outside for someone who is used to receiving their talking points pre-digested, but maybe if you feel so strongly about some issue, instead of just sitting back and making smug remarks on a blog none of them will see, why don’t you enter the conversation–without the elitist snarks and repetitive Axelrod talking points–and ask them about what they think? If the only reason you interact with someone is to provoke some sort of reaction that you can use somewhere else to try to “prove” some predetermined negative opinion you’ve already formed, then go back to some other forum and make remarks that “prove” you are “superior”, they will sense your hostility, and I can guarantee you’re not going to have a dialog–or convince anyone of your own point of view.

Okay, about Islam.

Several people have pointed out some very extreme comments about the Middle East.  I wrote more about the Middle East internet thing yesterday here, and I posted the hate mail I received on the topic  here. (Scroll down to the screen shot of the email, then click on the NSFW image link to see it without the child-friendly asterisks, then read the rest of my comment about who may have written it.) If you’re going to point out the negative comments, you will also have to point out some of the long time Puma commenters who have responded very favorably and have left some positive, compassionate thoughts about Islam here as well.

The point I want to make is that no one knows who is making those comments. They seem to appear long after everyone  in a U.S. time zone has gone to bed, in fact, about 8 or 9 in the morning Tel Aviv time–or Gaza time. And the people who post them don’t seem to have any other comments to make about American politics or women’s rights.Anyone could write them.  In fact, I notice a few Rumpsters already have Puma accounts and  occasionally talk about posting comments at PumaPAC. So for all I know, the Rumpsters themselves could have written it.

That said, Murphy has also posted a few things about the Middle East, some of it not very complimentary about the treatment of women in those countries.  In particular, Murphy has published some photos of extreme acts against women that deserve to be more widely known–I only wish she had printed links to articles describing the scenes. Someone needs to do this–to hold extremist Moslems accountable for the acts they do in the name of their religion, that is giving Islam a bad name. You won’t find that here.  Remember my “about” page?  I’m the one who wants to suspend mistrust and look for common ground. But someone needs to do hold some feet over the fire when it comes to Islamic treatment of women, and do it in a responsible, accurate way.

Some of the over-the-top right wing  comments about “jihad” (it’s “struggle”, for Pete’s sake, and can be accomplished by studying the religious writings or by…housework!) only serves to mask some of the valid criticisms that can be made about the culture. Unfortunately, the right -wing bigots make responsible criticism very hard to tell apart from pure hate speech.  That’s another reason I go after them online.  They make valid criticism look like one more prejudicial smear job,  and set back the rights of women around the world.


Now, responses to some of the individual comments I haven’t already responded to.

kcindenver, thanks. With the war winding down in anticipation of the inauguration, I think we’ll see less boilerplate Middle East spam in the forums.

Mrs. Polly, I can’t answer for the structure of PumaPAC.  As with most new populist organizations, it is very ad hoc, and will probably evolve, but seems to be the only women’s organization involved in activism at this point, and the only women’s organization that crosses class boundaries, or has any patience for the blue collar/ union values and aspirations. I also can’t answer for the individual you are talking about, as I know nothing about the context of what happened or any of the underlying issues.  I did see the film and the tacky comments about appearance and voice, but AFAIK this is not someone who speaks for Puma. I don’t see the problem with the sidebar widgets you are talking about on any of the computers I use.  I wonder if you are using Internet Explorer? It’s notorious for stuff like that. Here’s the free Firefox download.


Who do you have back there

I’m glad you asked.  I have kat in your hat 01.18.09 at 8:55 pm

but you seem rational enough on the surface that I’m curious how you don’t see what a giant trainwreck of crazy the PUMAs are

That kind of comment is a prime example of why Rumpsters get called stuff like immature fratboiz. If you want to deconstruct it, it’s a bunch of non-specific adjectives that don’t really say anything, except that the writer has a negative opinion of something.

It’s like this.  Say you want to describe a car.  You say “A nice car.” Now everyone can visualize the car, right? Not at all.  Now you say “a green two door car with purple leather upholstery and a sun roof.”  Now people start to visualize the car.  You don’t have to say if it’s nice or not because people can see the car for themselves. Or you can just do like Kat in your Hat and wait until Murphy isn’t looking, then post a video that expresses your opinion about teh motivations of someone who would write a giant trainwreck of a crazy comment like that.

Sean, as I indicated elsewhere, I have no knowledge that the Pumas are the ones writing the anti-Palestinian spam.  In fact, several Pumas have commented favorably on some of the first-hand stuff I have written about Islam here. The people writing the offensive stuff don’t talk about American politics and they don’t come out in the daylight, at least when it’s daylight on this side of the globe. I suspect they don’t care about Puma at all but are just using the PumaPAC forum for their own purposes. I actually find it sort of interesting in a canary-in-the-mine sort of way.

Betty Cracker, the post I was referring to was  on the Rumproast,  not some other blog:

Tuesday, January 13, 2009
Dear Democrats
More like this, please.  Thank you.
Posted by Kevin K. on 01/13/09 at 05:52 PM

The link was to a blog with a photo of a fat person with a wheelbarrow.  Obviously I would like to see “less like this, please.” I have no problem with “the Daily Pig”.  It singles out people for their actions, which they are responsible for, and not their appearance,  which is an accident of birth. I don’t have a lot of sympathy for employers like Dov Charney. Since I don’t have a trust fund, I need to work in order to eat. American Apparel did the right thing in removing Charney from contact with employees , but they still are paying the price for his indiscretions. He was not just some jerk schmo lurking in the alley, he was the CEO.   Let’s hope there aren’t more like him still out there–waiting for your own daughters when they get old enough to look for work.

I notice, Betty Cracker, that your blog has the “b-word” in one of the titles–and linked with violence towards women no less. I see where violence against women has become slick and trendy these days. Looks like the Rumpsters are helping that trend  along just a little.

Clownshoes the Clown, I have no idea what you’re talking about. I have never written about those subjects. If you think something I have written is “racist”, do point out where specifically, and say why you think it is “racist” instead of making vague menacing  accusations. As far as “levels of trust and approval”,  although your statement seems a bit like unsupported assertion/adoration at this point, there are people who do measure this.  As might be expected, public trust in the government dropped sharply after Watergate, but rose slowly after that.  I doubt if you could collect statistically significant data at this point before a government is actually in office. Your “shooting fish in a barrel” comment doesn’t make any sense at all. Are you saying you want to shoot me? Kindest regards to you too. Oh, and this pretty much sums it up as far as mysogyny in the campaign.

yetanotherfreakingbrit, I would be curious as to which of Murphy’s posts you found offensive. Also I’m not quite sure which of Murphy’s posts contains the “conspiracy theories” you object to, but the mission statement is here. Looks to me like this is their program:

  • Passing the Equal Rights Amendment after 86 years of struggle
  • Monitoring the 111th Congress and advocating for legislation that supports our mission
  • Documenting and Protesting sexism in the mainstream media AND educating the public about its widespread and long term effects
  • Developing a national women’s rights curriculum for all American children
  • Researching and investigating voter fraud and campaign finance violations during the 2008 election
  • Protecting women’s lives by strengthening anti-femicide laws and drawing attention to the crisis of woman-lynching in the United States

John D, thanks again for the invitation.  As I’ve said before, I don’t think you can draw any inferences from something on one website linked to by one commenter late at night when the thread is pretty obviously unmoderated. As far as the “Kill them em all. Let God sort them out,” quotation, that’s often used by right wing blogs in reference to suicide bombers, but the old military proverb goes back much further than that, to at least Roman times–in Latin: neca eos omnes, deus suos agnoscet.


One final thought. Everyone posting here has a mother, a sister, a daughter, or is one themselves.  What do you see as the agenda for women during the next four to eight years?  What outcomes do you want to see in 2009? Then, as Bill Clinton would say “Tell me how, and be specific.”

32 Responses to “Rumproast Flame War (just kidding)”

  1. bettycrackerfl Says:

    Betty Cracker, the post I was referring to was on the Rumproast, not some other blog…The link was to a blog with a photo of a fat person with a wheelbarrow. Obviously I would like to see “less like this, please.”

    The link was to a post about how the Dems in TN pulled a fast one on the GOP. True, Wonkette illustrated it with a picture of a generic fat person, but Rumproast did not, and the point of the “more like this” phrase in the Rumproast post was that the Dems need to stand up to and/or outwit the GOP more often. To imply that the intent of the post on Rumproast was to ridicule generic fat people is dishonest.

    I have no problem with “the Daily Pig”. It singles out people for their actions, which they are responsible for, and not their appearance, which is an accident of birth.

    But as I said, Murphy isn’t just illustrating the posts with pictures of the featured miscreants — she includes links to pictures of generic fat dudes who are apparently unrelated to the “pig.” If you click the links above the picture of the featured “pig,” you’ll see what I mean. It’s basically the same thing Wonkette did.

    I don’t have a lot of sympathy for employers like Dov Charney…

    Nor do I. I don’t have any objections to posting unflattering photos of him. My point is that if you’re going to scold blogs like Wonkette for posting pictures of generic obese folks for purposes of ridicule, you should hold PUMA PAC to the same standard.

    I notice, Betty Cracker, that your blog has the “b-word” in one of the titles–and linked with violence towards women no less. I see where violence against women has become slick and trendy these days. Looks like the Rumpsters are helping that trend along just a little.

    The post in question is about Rick Sanchez (male) doing a verbal smackdown on Joe the Plumber (male). I used the term “b*tch-slap” to describe what Sanchez did to the plumber, which you are apparently claiming is tantamount to promoting violence against women. And then you extrapolate from that that “Rumpsters are helping that trend along.”

    I call it using slang. However, if you’re going to scold others about the words they use, if you’re going to hold others to high standards regarding language that could be interpreted as demeaning to women, perhaps you should choose your words more carefully than you did in, say, this example:

    Nijma 01.13.09 at 11:02 pm: “damn girl does it feel that good to be on your knees” LOLOLOLOL

    I found that in about 10 seconds. As I and others pointed out, there are infinitely worse things posted at PUMA PAC, including explicit calls to violence and genocide. You disclaim responsibility for what other posters write, even while holding “Rumpsters” in general responsible for promoting violence against women because I use a slang word of which you disapprove on my blog. Hypocrisy much?

    You also condescendingly imply that we’re “disappointed” by the bloodthirsty dialogue at PUMA PAC because we’re used to “pre-digested talking points,” which you claim PUMA PAC doesn’t issue. (Orly? LOL!).

    Well, I think you can pick through any site and find the occasional appalling comment. But what you won’t find at Rumproast is agreement and/or silence in the face of racist hate speech. You won’t find front-page screeds that suggest the world would be a better place if one gender was “decimated.” Nor will you find posts that call one gender “dumb.” You won’t find acceptance of comments featuring lurid, bloody genital mutilation and torture fantasies. And you won’t find a site administrator who ratchets up hysteria and paranoia via phony statistics and inflames already disturbed people who coincidentally write large checks to her.

    Hey, to each her own, and if you enjoy that kind of thing, more power to you. But that tone of moral superiority thing? In the context of PUMA PAC, it’s not working out too well for you.

  2. Observer at PUMApac Says:

    [Sorry, Observer, I managed to somehow delete your comment when I was trying to respond to it, however a quick copy paste fro the other window I had open restored everything but your icon. I shall loan you my own icon for just this one comment. -N]

    “B****-slap” is nearly synonymous with “smack-down.” Although it has a slight tinge of “correcting an inferior with brutal and dismissive suddenness,” it is not inherently sexist in the classic sense. A “b****” in this case is any individual whose sense of importance exceeds their moral or intellectual authority to assert an opinion, and thus invites a swift and humiliating response from someone who actually knows what he or she is talking about.

    Hope that helps.

    ****edited for language -N

  3. Nijma Says:


    Are you sure of your meanings? Here are three from the Urban Dictionary. I find the phrase repulsive and offensive:

    ~To slap someone (particularly but not necessarily female) who is being rude or nasty, perhaps screaming a lot (i.e., being a b*tch). The idea is to get them to calm down and behave. It doesn’t necessarily mean you really hit the person; there is such a thing as a verbal b*tchslap.

    ~ A slap administered by a pimp to his prostitute to keep her in line or punish her.
    The pimp b*tchslapped his wh*re for disobeying him.

    ~When a man slaps another man as he would a submissive female (rather than punching him), therefore a degrading and humiliating blow.
    He b*tchslapped the punk in contempt.

  4. johnd12009 Says:

    I really want to address some of the things you have said here NIJMA, however I am just too excited and happy for the people of this great country, for today our new president was sworn in and the old one rode off into the horizon, so I will take a rest with all the PUMA stuff and will address it on another day. I do want to address one thing though, my e-mail to you wasn’t meant to be super secret, I just asked that we keep any honest dialogue, between us initially, this was more for your benefit then it was for mine. I have seen your friends over at the pac, attack others for just talking to others of differing opinion. So today, Congratulations President Barrack Hussein Obama, yes we did!


    • Nijma Says:

      John D, I was teasing you just a little bit, but I did get the idea you weren’t ready to be public. But how gallant of a Rumpster to want to protect me from Pumas (!?).

      You might as well sit back and enjoy your koolaid for now–there’s even more rough times ahead. :~)

  5. kcindenver Says:

    “It might not look tidy from the outside for someone who is used to receiving their talking points pre-digested, but maybe if you feel so strongly about some issue, instead of just sitting back and making smug remarks on a blog none of them will see, why don’t you enter the conversation–without the elitist snarks and repetitive Axelrod talking points–and ask them about what they think?”

    I assure you, this has been tried, and has been observed over and over, the PUMA’s love that delete button. Also- I think it’s fair to say that plenty of PUMA’s see what is posted on Rumproast. Why else would they get so enraged about the site?

    “So for all I know, the Rumpsters themselves could have written it.”

    I assure you, KarenWI is not a ‘Rumpster.’ We can’t even pretend to be that hateful.

    “I have no problem with “the Daily Pig”. It singles out people for their actions, which they are responsible for, and not their appearance, which is an accident of birth.”

    And yet PUMA’s insist on calling the people singled out ugly, making fun of them, photo shopping their features on to a pig, all of which, as you said, has absolutely nothing to do with their actions. If Murphy can’t stand jokes made about any aspect of appearance, why does add a photo anyways?

    Oh, b****-slap is a political term. It has absolutely nothing to do with b****es or physical violence. I love how you then go on to accuse Rumproasters in general, because of one phrase on Betty’s blog, of helping to make violence against women “slick and trendy.” Get to know some of the women AND men on that blog. Most of them are a lot older than me, which isn’t saying much, but they have worked their entire lives to help the causes PUMA’s claim to represent. My mother, for example, one of the “house slaves of Rumproast” has never let anyone boss her around. She’s an accountant, after having grown up in a time when math and science weren’t important things to learn-they’re just women after all, and now she’s a partner in her firm. She was a hippy, a feminist, and now she’s a proudly working mom with four children who practically worship her. So before you go generalizing about anyone from Rumproast, take a look around at the people you’re so quick to criticize.

    “Also I’m not quite sure which of Murphy’s posts contains the “conspiracy theories” you object to, but the mission statement is here.”

    While I can’t think of any of Murphy’s actual posts that contain them, you have to acknowledge PUMApac is full of people who probably believe we never landed on the moon. I’m not sure when you started posting, but I’m sure even if you came in late you would’ve noticed all the things that are called fact on that blog: Obama isn’t actually a citizen, his mom’s not dead, his grandmother isn’t dead, they changed the date of death for his grandmother to get the sympathy vote, etc. I don’t know your opinions on these issues, but as far as I, and most of the world are concerned, these are of the same degree of crazy as moon landing crazies.

    Their new agenda certainly does sound impressive, and if they actually accomplish any of their listed goals, I will give them a free pass. But women-lynching??? Really???

    “One final thought. Everyone posting here has a mother, a sister, a daughter, or is one themselves. What do you see as the agenda for women during the next four to eight years? What outcomes do you want to see in 2009?”

    All I can say to this last paragraph is it’s utter hypocrisy when compared to the average PUMA. When Hillary lost the nomination, and Sarah Palin was chosen as McCain’s VP, they did an abrupt about face and suddenly Palin, despite being the complete opposite of Hillary except in her lower regions, was the new “feminist.” Can we get a little perspective here on how things would be if McCain had won before we start crying how Obama will take women to the dark ages? A recent PUMA prowl was to get the Lilly Ledbetter act passed. But oh wait, McCain voted against equal pay for equal work. Palin fervently believes Roe v. Wade should be overturned, which really would set women and their rights back a couple hundred years. And have we already forgotten Trooper gate? The PUMA’s howl that Palin wasn’t treated right, but as a real feminist, the daughter, granddaughter, and sister of real feminists, I can say with full conviction she got off easy.

    As I said before, I respect you and your very non-PUMA respect for muslims. As I also said before, I disagree with you on a few things. :)

    ****language edited -N

    • Nijma Says:

      kcindenver, It looks like I missed all those threads where you tried to reason with some Puma you didn’t agree with and uh, got your comment, um, deleted, yeah, that’s the ticket. So after you got your, um, comment deleted, (and what was the comment about, again?) then you wrote a serious post on your own forum, where you’ve got your own finger on the delete key, and educated people about what you think is reasonable political discourse? Sorry, all I’ve seen is the smug point and laugh routine.

      The Daily Pig does not single miscreants out for the way they look. In fact, it usually calls them “handsome”, but their misdeeds are described very plainly and without flattery. I would think the Daily Pig feature is more of an insult to pigs, a subject which has been hotly debated on the forum (fairness to pigs, worms, pond scum, etc.)

      Somehow, when the Rumpsters are asked to come up with some specific post or official Puma statement they don’t agree with, or an example of some conspiracy theory the Pumas are advancing, they can never come up with one. Some people call that a “strawman argument”. I call it “pulling stuff out of one’s rump”.

      And really, is it any wonder the women embraced McCain/Palin after the hate campaign against women that was allowed unchecked in the Democratic party? McCain talked the talk–he promised to appoint women in his cabinet. And he walked the walk, his own staff was more than 50% female and they were paid the equivalent of his male employees with the same job titles. I’m still waiting to see if it’s gonna be 4 years of “bros before hos” as the popular Obama visibility t-shirt says. Oh, criminy, someone tell me if I need asterisks for that one.

  6. Mrs. Polly Says:

    Nijma, thanks for engaging in a serious dialogue. I think a respectful exchange of opposing views can never be anything but good, and I applaud your continuing the conversation.

    “but seems to be the only women’s organization involved in activism at this point, and the only women’s organization that crosses class boundaries, or has any patience for the blue collar/ union values and aspirations.”

    I wonder if you have checked out what women’s organizations are active, and have been active through the last twenty years. It seems to me that PUMA dismisses all organizations that don’t denounce Barack Obama, and so sentences itself to work on its lonesome, in the dark, reinventing the feminist wheel. This is understandable to some extent if one prevailing never-to-be-questioned PUMA precept is that Barack Obama is an evil, mysogynist fiend, and another unchallengeable precept is that Sarah Palin is an acceptable substitute for Hillary Clinton. I would love to be a fly on the wall the day that members of the 9 to 5 National Association of Working Women met PUMAs and found out they voted for the man who was against the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay act.

    I think PUMA has been experiencing some mission creep: originally it was going to make sure that Hillary got the nomination, then that Obama lost the election, then that the Democratic party be reformed, then it turned to feminist issues such as passing the ERA. That would be a worthy goal. But if PUMA instantly disqualifies groups that have been at work not only getting ERA passed but getting many different statutes addressing women passed, because these groups fail PUMA’s acid test, then it is PUMA’s loss.

    As to talking points, Rumproast doesn’t require anyone to toe a party line to participate. Good humor and the wit to defend your argument are all you need. Nobody gets deleted. There are a variety of opinions on Rumproast, and while they run leftish, people criticize Obama, and have been criticizing Obama, when they disagree with something he’s done. That is part of having a rounded view of a complex human being. Likewise, Hillary’s many strengths are recognized. I personally think she has the ethics of a Borgia, but that’s my opinion and I’m sure you don’t share it. But imagine trying to discuss Obama’s strengths on PUMAPAC, or Hillary’s weaknesses.

    Here is a list of feminist organizations which have been actively working on working womens’ issues, older womens’ issues, the ERA, the Lily Ledbetter act, and a multitude of womens’ concerns:

    Any of them might be a better fit for somebody who is really seeking to change womens’ lives for the better than PUMA.

    My aspirations for women are really for men and women together: fair laws, decent education, a fight against poverty, despair and violence, benevolence toward each other.

    Thanx for the link to Firefox, btw: I’m going to consult with my tech gurus whether my poor old computer can take it or if I should just keep ducking widgets.

    • Nijma Says:

      Thanks for the link, Mrs. Polly. I posted it on pumapac just now and DWP, who hates me 80% of the time, says “Excellent resource, Nimja, Have forwarded to our Common Cause Team”, so see? the Pumas do listen, and maybe you’ve even helped me get back in her good graces. :~)

      I ran Firefox on Windows98 with 96 MB RAM, no problem, but I still have icons for IE and Safari on the desktop in case I want to use a different browser. If you want to try a portable Firefox you can put it on your thumb drive and run it from there at any computer. Convenient if you want to surf sites with embarrassing names like “wonkette” from work without leaving tracks in the browser history. But by all means check with your guru–I’ve seen how the Rumpsters think it’s so hilarious to joke about giving bad technical advice to the Pumas that will delete all their files.

      I don’t have a lot of illusions about any politicians–I suspect they all have to be pragmatic if they are at all successful at getting reelected. I always thought the only question of the 2008 campaign season would be whether Barack or Hillary would be VP.

  7. kcindenver Says:

    Yes, but it also offers these definitions:

    To verbally stun an opposing political representative into silence.
    MPACUK b*tchslapped Louise Ellman

    overpowering backhanded slaps to the face and body, delivered by a supposedly docile female to a supposedly dominant male.
    Sarah Connor b*tchslapped her way out of the heavily male-guarded sanitarium.

    A verbal slap in the face done by a female to either another female or a cocky male.
    “D*mn, she sure b*tchslapped him!”

    To verbally pummell some arrogant and ignorant fool with a precision comeback.
    Finally that overbearing jerk got his much-deserved b*tchslap.

    (Sorry, I’m too tired after a day of partying to edit out the b-word.)

    *gotcha covered -N

    • Nijma Says:

      Betty Cracker, I guess I missed all of your protests over at wonkette about how the thread had gotten off topic and how it wasn’t okay to mock people about their appearance. As far as the image Murphy had, I can’t speak for her, but I think I know what happened. The wonkette thread contained instructions for adding a caption to the fat/wheelbarrow image–a caption that would pop up when you moused over the image. And guess what caption they put on it. “F*ck you Murphy.” I kid you not. That’s their maturity level. So when Murphy posted her Pig of the Day, it had a hidden link to an image of someone’s butt wearing a thong. I think that was her way of mooning the person who put up the “F*ck you Murphy” message.

      The b-word:

      I call it using slang.
      I call it offensive. There are those who think the n-word is “affectionate”, and I could tell you where to look for those videos, but I call that offensive too.

      you should choose your words more carefully
      If you want to quote my words, please do quote them in context. Here is the exchange:

      ~And the women that support it….damn girl does it feel that good to be on your knees….GET UP, GET A LIFE, or go away….

      ~Jenn to the obot “sweeties”:
      “damn girl does it feel that good to be on your knees”

      Kind of ironic that you chose to quote something that was, um, about you, and not exactly in a positive way. Why would any women continue to be a part of something that was so destructive to women everywhere? Have women just been taught to despise themselves? If women won’t stand up for what is right for their own sake, what about their mothers, their daughters, their sisters. We got 99 problems all right, maybe a hundred. The hundredth one, the b-word one, is right on this thread.

      I’m not trying to come down on you, Betty, I’m trying to get you and everyone else to think about how they use language, and break some bad automatic language habits that are creeping into the political discourse.

  8. zipperupus Says:

    Jeez, it’s late at night for me. I am on 24 barracks duty (protecting Marines from themselves), and I came across this site.

    I was shocked recently by the discovery of PUMA blogs such as Confluence and the web site I honestly thought McCain/Palin feminists was an urban legend. I can understand frustration and even rage over Hillary’s loss. I can not understand voting for a ticket that is staunchly anti-woman. I do not care how many women McCain hires, he opposes abortion, supports abstinence only education, opposes equal pay, and will thus harm women in general while supporting a few women in particular. Can Bush’s cosmopolitan cabinet forgive Katrina or his execitive order reinstating the abortion gag rule?

    I came into the primaries with no dog in the hunt. I wanted Al Gore, and without that I was prepared to be bowled over by he Hillary juggernaut. I strongly disagreed with her vote on the Iraq AUMF, and was wary of her overall campaign strategy. I remember her Christmas Ad where she opened up gifts from under the tree that were social programs. I did not want the pandering.

    I leaned Obama because he regarded the Iraqi occupation as a mistake. I also liked his focus on regulation and oversight, which is prescient considering the current financial fiasco. I remember Hillary touting a blue ribbon panel headed by Alan Greenspan of all people to brainstorm solutions to the home crisis.

    In short, Obama’s priorities reflected my own, and I was impressed by the scope of his ground operation. I was not enamored of the acrimony between Hillary and Barack. I did not like the comment about Lyndon being the fulcrum of civil rights. Her argument diminished the history and sacrifice that weaves the tapestry of struggle. To me, it was like giving the King credit for the Magna Carta. I also disliked the connotation that activists hijacked caucuses and made them less demcratic than primaries. I resent being told by a party politician what is or is not democracy, especially when democracy is defined as “what works best for me.” Repeatedly, Hillary and her campaign went out of their way to diminish the credibility of the election process.

    Obama’s campaign is not blameless. The “likeable enough” crack was tin-eared, and the media was not called out for its CDS, because it suited his purposes. That will come back to bite him. And the FISA cave sucked big time.

    But politics is home to our best and worst social tendencies. Pundits can make cracks about Hillary’s castrating aura (Tucker Carlson) and infer that one’s character can be smeared because of a pastor.

    Making Obama’s preacher an issue was racist. Nothing a preacher says should reflect on their parishioners unless they corroborate those views themselves. To infer a secret radicaiism to Obama was racist guilt by association. BUT: it is politics.

    Once the primaries were over and Hillary made such frequent impassioned pleas for the candidate and her party, I thought the worst was over. Now I find out that there is a sizable percentage of people who claim the mantle of feminism as the foundation from which to criticize the President.

    In so doing, any woman who supports Barack is a mysoginist gender traitor. Naomi Wolf? Traitor. Gloria Steinem? Not a real feminist. Michelle Obama? Mysoginist. But what of Hillary herself, who is PART of the administration? Why, she’s simply the greatest woman ever.

    And Sarah Palin? She belongs in the feminist hall of fame!

    Really? Tell that to the rape victim or the victim of incest who woud be legally forced to carry the baby to term in her view. Tell that to the children who are taught that sexuality is dangerous and condoms are a sin. Tell that to the children educated in federally funded evangelical madrassas.

    What, pray tell, does Palin bring to the feminist experience outside of her indisputably fertile womb? A simple glance over her Eagle Forum questionnaire shows her to despise modern women and hee intent to dismantle the safety net of laws and ideas that allow women to prosper.

    So I can not take the PUMA movement seriously. The platform sounds well and good, but to claim to be the arbiter of feminism and lauding Palin while despising Steinem is simply reactionary.

    Of course, I am just an Obot. I know nothing.

  9. Nijma Says:

    Sorry I don’t have time to comment right now, but I think it will take some time to digest your comment and respond properly. I’ll edit this comment later, depending on my work schedule.
    In the meantime if you want a taste of Puma reaction, check the lynching thread link in the answer I gave Strange, and look at the comments.

    Marines, huh? Stay safe.


    Sorry it’s taken so long to get back to this thread, but it’s a new semester and work comes first–I don’t have all those big bucks from Soros like Rumproast or the ad revenue of Wonkette.

    Rereading your comment, I would have to say that most of the topics you mention are first of all, from the election cycle and not from Puma. Specifically, they are “talking points” from one campaign, and are not necessarily true. A lot of them depend on incomplete information, misinformation, or are just campaign promises that will not come to pass. During the election many voters feverishly compared the candidates’ health programs as if these would actually happen, while it was pretty clear there is simply no money in the budget for a comprehensive new health program. I was more interested in an actual voting records or records of sponsored legislation than in grandiose expressions of what a candidate said they would do if elected.

    As I recall, Puma did not endorse a particular candidate. There was some discussion of Green and Libertarian candidates as well. Many individual Pumas did express a preference for the McCain/Palin ticket though, saying, and I’m paraphrasing here, “The Republicans just want us barefoot, pregnant, and in the kitchen, but the Democrats want us beaten, bruised, humiliated, and dead.” I did not endorse a candidate either, either here or on the Puma blog. I case anyone has not figured it out by now, I’m about trying to find commonalities and insight, not repeating market tested commercial political jingles.

    If you really believe that Obama “regarded the Iraqi occupation as a mistake” you need to go back and actually read his 2002 speech about it, as I did at the time, then read his 2004 statement supporting Kerry’s vote for Iraq, and review what his actual vote was (that’s right, he never voted on Iraq) He has, at different times, represented his position on Iraq in different ways. In case you’re still harboring any illusions that we now have a pacifist president, look up his statements about bombing Afghanistan and Pakistan from the New Hampshire debate, and compare with the missiles that seem to be landing in Pakistan this week.

    If you really believe politicians should not be recognized for their role in civil rights, look up LBJ’s record. There’s a lot not to like about LBJ, but as a southern Democrat he put his career on the line when he paid more than lip service to getting this legislation enacted. He was indeed instrumental; it is a fact, and not a myth. That is how the process works.

    If you believe the election process was fair, you need to go back and review that too. Some of the stories coming out of the Texas and Iowa caucuses are troubling indeed–more troubling than the Ohio shenanigans of the previous election cycle. Instead of pretending there is no problem, there should be a Conyers-style congressional investigation. If you believe the U.S. has the fairest/most transparent election process in the world, just ask the Carter center.

    If you believe Hillary has a “castrating aura” then I feel sorry for any women in your life who may actually try to be competent in anything outside of ironing shirts.

    As for “nothing a preacher says should reflect on their parishioners”, what about an organization like Stormfront? Should belonging to Stormfront reflect on the members? I would draw a line between an organization that was merely entertaining controversial views and one that was actually advocating hate. I have already said what I have to say about Trinity here and here. The Cliffnotes version is that I do belong to a controversial church, but I would not belong to a church like that one.

    The Rumpsters may not take the women’s movement seriously, but someone needs to. In spite of an unprecedented love feast from the mainstream media in the 2008 election, there were still more than a few votes switched to the Republican party because the Democrats didn’t bother to filter some truly offensive garbage out of their campaign. The new president will have the usual honeymoon with the public, but at the end of four years most presidents have had to make a lot of decisions that made some people unhappy. When the time comes to think about reelection, Obama may wish he hadn’t told his supporters to “get in their faces” and that he had those Puma votes after all.

  10. bettycrackerfl Says:

    Betty Cracker, I guess I missed all of your protests over at wonkette about how the thread had gotten off topic and how it wasn’t okay to mock people about their appearance. As far as the image Murphy had, I can’t speak for her, but I think I know what happened…

    I don’t think I’ve ever commented at Wonkette on any topic. But please don’t try to change the subject: I’m not the one who opened a “dialogue” thread by falsely characterizing another site as a giggling fratboy venue devoted to mocking random fat people; that would be you.

    I am merely pointing out your hypocrisy in failing to hold PUMAPAC to the same standards, and that point stands. The excuse you imagine for Murphy doesn’t hold water as she’s posted other anonymous fat dude links on other “daily pig” posts. Is the random fat guy eating a sandwich linked by Murphy at the post below some sort of dig at Wonkette? Nope, just an anonymous obese dude being mocked. On PUMAPAC.

    Kind of ironic that you chose to quote something that was, um, about you, and not exactly in a positive way.

    It’s not ironic at all; it was deliberate, but I guess the point sailed right over your head, so I’ll spell it out: You find it offensive and harmful to women when I use the word “b*tchslap” to describe a verbal smackdown between two men. And yet you and your PUMAPAC compatriot imply that a woman like me — a strong, independent, feminist, by the way — is a subservient c*cks*cker and LOLOLOL about that. And you have the gall to lecture me about using language that is destructive to women? Please.

    I’m not trying to come down on you, Betty, I’m trying to get you and everyone else to think about how they use language, and break some bad automatic language habits that are creeping into the political discourse.

    Pot, kettle, black, etc.

    Anyway, thanks for letting posts stand as written. I believe I’ve seen enough here, so I’ll just say so long and best of luck to you.

    *language edited -N

  11. Nijma Says:

    My, my wasn’t that Betty Cracker person out of here in a huff! “I’m not the one who opened a “dialogue” thread by falsely characterizing another site as a giggling fratboy venue devoted to mocking random fat people; that would be you,” she charges, and flings around some words like “hypocrisy”, “Pot, kettle, black, etc.” and adds some swear words and descriptions of naughty…well, this IS supposed to be a child-friendly blog. Why so much invective? She doth protest too much, methinks. So I went back to the Rumproast thread to find out what she actually said about the fat person photo the Rumproast linked to. Sure enough, here’s her comment:

    An a male Hambeast illustration to boot! Huzzah!
    Comment by Betty Cracker on 01/13/09 at 06:16 PM

    In spite of all the wild accusations about “an anonymous obese dude being mocked” by me, it was actually HER that did so. There is a name for that. It’s called “projecting“. Really, Ms. Crocker. First “b*tchslap” and now “hambeast“!

  12. StrangeAppar8us Says:

    I’m sorry I didn’t get back here sooner, since it appears that I missed all the fireworks, and since the whole “rapprochement” thing is moot at this point.

    As of yesterday, PUMA is effectively spent, over and defunct as a “movement.” They might stagger back to life ahead of the 2010 midterms, should there emerge a mass wave of disillusionment with Obama or the Dem Congress in the interim; otherwise, there won’t be another galvanizing personality (Palin?) to unite them before the 2012 GE. Meanwhile, the prospects for limping along on pure peevishness and preposterous, manufactured outrages like “woman-lynching” are practically nil. Good luck convincing the average American woman that she is living the life of a sex-slave on the streets of Kabul.

    For “mission creep” I am tempted to substitute the phrase “creeping entropy.” Even prior to the Inauguration, the PUMA threads and comments were already taking on the air of a gradually-thinning post-concert crowd, whooping and riffing on air-guitars while they wait for the parking lot to thin out.

    As for Rumproast, well, I confess it was probably overkill to spend so much time exposing the embedded hypocrisy and willful ignorance of an outfit that flaunts them both on every thread. Alas, there is something about loud, silly self-importance that summons tricksters and snappy one-liners out of the very air itself.

    Nijma, I wish you the best of luck, and I thank you for this forum. I will continue to check out your PUMA-free postings on this site.

  13. Nijma Says:

    Very amusing, Strange, but you seem to have missed a few Puma posts. The post-election reorganization is long over in Pumaland, the usual feisty democratic process has been completed, and everyone is tucked away in their project groups. Whereas your organization is the one now wandering aimlessly looking for the hope and the change and the audacity.

    living the life of a sex-slave on the streets of Kabul
    Prostitution is a huge no-no in Islam. On the other hand there is no shame in up to four wives. In Tibet I hear the women may have more than one husband.

    manufactured outrages like “woman-lynching”

    Sorry you feel that way, Strange. Do you know who the last person actually lynched in America was? A female: six year old Hanna Mack.

    I’m sure you’ve noticed by now that I’m not on any Puma blogrolls and I tend to talk about the Middle East a lot. I would be curious which of my posts you would regard as an “unPuma-free post”.

    I may do one more Rumpster thread late in the weekend, depending. Do come back anytime–I appreciate the way you wipe your feet before coming in.

  14. johnd12009 Says:

    Do you even know where this Kool-Aid reference comes from?

  15. Nijma Says:


    Koolaid. Lemmings. Groupthink.

    With your permission, I wouldn’t mind publishing your original email.

  16. Mrs. Polly Says:

    Nijma, if PUMAs make use of the link I provided, and start mixing with the women who have been fighting in the trenches, I think it might do some good. But if the women they meet in these groups carry a range of opinions outside of the approved anti-Obama ones (you see, perception of what is pre-digested talking point depends on who does the perceiving), will there be more arguments as witness the New Agenda site vs Murphy?

    I have to point out a logical puzzle from another comment: “kcindenver, It looks like I missed all those threads where you tried to reason with some Puma you didn’t agree with and uh, got your comment, um, deleted, yeah, that’s the ticket.”

    This implies you don’t believe Pumapac censors comments and are calling KC a liar. That’s not very civil, and it doesn’t make sense besides: first because of course you can’t very well read deleted comments and second, because you’ve repeatedly denied seeing a number of threads that Rumproasters have found offensive for their sexism, (which cuts two ways, you should pardon the expression) racism, or anti-Muslim xenophobia. Therefore you would have to have missed reading many threads– a whole rope of them.

    Likening the use of “b*tch-slap to the N word is also questionable as to degree of severity, and leaves aside the question of whether a member of a minority group owns the right to use words that non-members can’t. It’s an unsettled question in the Black community.

    The question of what is offensive language almost derailed parts of the feminist movement. A friend of mine went to a feminist conference where they spent the entire weekend fighting over whether to use the word “penetration”.

    The right to own and use the word “b*tch” as a positive word is one I would compare to the gay rights movement latching onto and claiming “queer” for their own. When Tina Fey and Amy Poehler of SNL claimed the power of “B*tch”, and called “B*tch” the New Black, I howled with laughter, but appreciated their point.

    I also think good sense, and a sense of humor, militates against hyperventilating over supposed “insults”. I believe Hillary Clinton has a good sense of humor, and good sense. I think she privately extracted exactly what she wanted in terms of apology from Jon Favreau, and her role as power figure and sage wasn’t damaged a whit by his stupid antics. I also think that if she saw the Hillary nutcracker in an airport, she’d have laughed, picked one up, waved it at the guys, said, “And don’t you forget it, fellas!” and probably bought a dozen. I still think she has the ethics of a Borgia, but a Borgia who can have a good time.

    Thanks again for the browser advice: I might try portable Firefox; Mr. Polly, who is so helpless on the computer he has to call me to copy and paste, is incapable of absorbing the trauma of the refresh button not being exactly in the same place, so we have to keep IE.

    Take good care, and I’ll be looking around. I notice you’re a fan of King Abdullah; I was rather a fan of his father. All right, I had kind of a crush on his father–it was his speech at Rabin’s funeral that did it. I was young and impressionable, and there he was in his burnoose. It was bound to happen.

    Try to look at various news sources outside the PUMAsphere for balance, and you might feel better. Obama is just a centrist Democrat. He’s not a fiend.

  17. Nijma Says:

    Mrs. Polly,
    I’m afraid arguments and misunderstandings are a fact of life, not just historically in the women’s movement but in every other movement there is. The only place you don’t find it is when there is an absolute dictator imposing order from above by shooting anyone who disagrees. Real democracy is messy, for sure. The biggest reason I hang out over at PumaPAC is, first, that they are actually doing something instead of sitting in an office putting out glossy brochures and second, that they have made themselves very accessible and are able to work towards common goals in spite of a huge variety of opinion and lifestyle among the group. It’s really Murphy’s genius that has pulled it off. We are already in Blogosphere 2.0, fer cryin’ out loud, and most of these women’s groups haven’t even figured out 1.0.
    My remark to kcindenver was a reference both to the statement in my original post:

    Q: [X] person on [Y] website is not a nice person and said something I don’t agree with.

    A: I don’t care.

    and also this statement on the second post:

    maybe if you feel so strongly about some issue, instead of just sitting back and making smug remarks on a blog none of them will see, why don’t you enter the conversation–without the elitist snarks and repetitive Axelrod talking points–and ask them about what they think?

    It seems that in spite of my earlier statement that I don’t agree with every single person who posts a comment on that blog, or that I have not even seen every single comment of every single thread, some of the Rumpsters are upset about what some person said on a thread somewhere, and expect me to know about it and to be able to control it. If you want me to do that, you’re going to have to raise my salary.

    My point is, if a Rumpster sees something they don’t like, why don’t they do something themselves? You can type questions to that person directly and you have a blog for writing posts. Really, what does anyone expect me to do about it? There are people over there who disagree with me too.

    And the Rumproast has some real sociopaths making some incredibly crude and inhuman remarks. Do any of you disagree with them? Does anyone tell them they are over the top? Does anyone tell them that stringing together a bunch of four letter words and violent images does not make either communication or analysis? Well, I’m not here to get all control-freak about what you’ve got locked up in the closet over there, but it seems if you want to clean house someplace, that’s the one you should start with.

    Tina Fey and Amy Poehler of SNL …“B*tch”is the New Black

    What they really meant to say was “b*tch is the new n*gger”, but they would never have gotten that on the air. I can only hope for the day when it is as unacceptable to call a woman a b*tch as it is to call an African American a n*gger. I remember meeting someone who had been abused as a child who had huge semi-circular scars on her shoulder from biting herself as a child. She had decided to hurt herself so that no one else could hurt her first. It was the only way she could take control of her horrible situation. That is about how I view the the “hurt yourself to claim power” theory. Tina Fey and Amy Poehler probably had a lot of social pressure from, among other things, male writers and producers, and who knows what they would have done on their own if they had been free to do so. They probably did what they had to do. But I’m not going with the self-hate crowd. I don’t think it’s funny. I don’t think it’s cute.

    You and Mr. Polly don’t have to use the same browser. If you have any flavor of Windows, you can have both icons on your desktop screen and just double click on the one you want. I usually try something and then if I don’t like it I go back to what I was using before.

    King Hussein used to live on Jebel Hussein across the wadi from where I lived in Amman. All the women were in love with him. I arrived in the country shortly after he died, but admit to having a poster of him in my bedroom. (shhh, don’t tell the other Rumpsters.) It’s Abdullah’s picture above my desk, though. The guy has vision. Palestine will be a country soon because of him, and when that happens, the whole post-9/11 paradigm will shift.

    I’m always amused when people who have just discovered Obama try to lecture me as if he were some exotic new flower. He was my senator and before that he was my rep. I voted for him the very first time he ran for office.

  18. sean Says:

    Thanks for making it clear, through stereotypes and ad hominem, that you are incapable of constructive dialog on this subject. Your blog is sometimes interesting on other subjects, but further discussion here wastes everyone’s time.

  19. Nijma Says:

    Sean, I’m not really sure why the Rumpsters asked me to have a dialog, but apparently from your comment I guess it was just to have the opportunity to tell me I’m an icky person. I’m guessing that if you had an actual example of something that was a “stereotype” or an ad hom or if you even had a clue about what you wanted to dialog about, you would have mentioned it up front. So it looks like you said that just to show everyone how charming and captivating you are.

  20. johnd12009 Says:

    Thanks for the clarification on the kool-aid thing. I guess we are just trying to understand why someone who is a Muslim and is obviously against racism and bigotry would belong to a group of people who let it flourish on their blog. I’m not here to defend rumproast cause it’s not my blog however kevin k. is a really good guy and he tries his best to keep it fair and open to everyone, so if anything I am defending him even though he could probably come here and do a better job at his defense. If murphy just had a blog I don’t think it would be an issue to any of us however she has a somewhat legitimate PAC which makes it more than a simple small blog like RR. I feel it is my job, along with others to point out to anyone who will listen that pumapac is a racist , bigoted hate group. Since I had written most of this in my original e-mail to you and for whatever reason you wish to repost it, let me do that for you instead….


    Hi there, my name is john and I was hoping that we could have a honest dialogue on a variety of topics including puma. I am contacting you because I love your blog, in fact it has given me much insight into the Muslim world which I would never had gotten otherwise and I was hoping that you would be one of the more level headed people posting on the pumapac site. I would prefer that if you decide to go forward with communication that we keep it civil and amongst ourselves, in other words private. First a little background on me, I am a lifelong democrat in my 40’s who voted for Obama. I also have much respect for the Clinton and would have loved it if Hillary would have been elected.

    I also belong to a group of people that in our spare time is to keep an eye on what we view as a hate group, puma. Keep in mind that I am generally speaking and that I am in no way referring to you as one of the people who spread hate, matter of fact I think you are far from that considering your writing and the different engagements with some of them I have witnessed while lurking at pumapac. Our primary objective is to gather evidence of hate and misinformation that appears on a daily basis on these sites and to present it to whoever will listen, including the FBI and Secret Service. While I do believe in a mission of equal rights for all, including women, the pumapac site is muddled by those that wish to spread false rumours and hate. More recently there was a post about Jenni from Texas and how she was upset because a video of an interview was mocked over at wonkette for her obesity. I can tell you that the reaction to her go way deeper than her weight, I mean she has called for the castration of all men, the murder of all but a few of the male species, the suggestion that woman purchase guns and just start killing them all. Puma also pushed (with her input) the idea that Obama was possibly Muslim like that would be a bad thing for America.

    While I agree that some of the more snarky stuff that you see over at wonkette and rumproast can be over the top and cruel, it is the product of a bitter primary campaign where both sides insulted each other equally. I can almost guarentee that you will never see racist comments over at rumproast, you will never see the anti-muslim comments that are allowed at other sites allowed on rumproast. Whatever you may think of kevin k. the moderator, one thing for sure about him is that he is fair and honest in his beliefs. He allows freedom of speech by everybody, even puma. I once posted that harriet christian was a b*tch, he sent me an e-mail and said that calling a woman a b*tch is not allowed there and he edited it to read woman instead.

    I guess what I am trying to say is that it isn’t as simple as frat boys (we aren’t) versus women. The insults leveled at everyone that voted for Obama daily on the puma sites hit home on a personal level for when they talk about obots, kool aid drinkers, and other insults they are talking about my mother, grandmother, father, uncles and aunts, good friends and associates. That to me is hate and it is spread daily by Murphy, dwp and others. I invite you to come over to rumproast and debate the issues and you will be treated with respect, I bet you will find that when it comes to real issues and not conspiracy theories , we are pretty much the same.

    Thanks for listening!

    PS: Your friend BMW60 is spreading anti-muslim filth over at the pac, and she/he has brought a few friends along. ZEE is trying to defend your faith and in the process is getting beat up….

    Have a great day!

    *language edited -N

  21. Rumproast Leftovers « Camel’s Nose Says:

    […] Rumproast Flame War (just kidding) […]

  22. yetanotherfreakingbrit Says:

    Nijma: Just a note to say that I notice your relying on Urban Dictionary for some of your clarifications of terms. I wonder why that is?

    A while back, there was a term I wanted to add a definition to (“pwned,” which I half-seriously maintain is derived from a Welsh word – well, it’s as plausible as any other derivation I’ve seen), so being a littel urious and having some time on my hands between jobs, I signed up as an Urban Dictionary editor and negotiated the hoops they want you to jump through in order to be let loose on live submissions.

    The entries I had to work through to qualify were written by ordinary people, I’d guess the majority of them relatively young, and often quite offensive in tone and language, when they weren’t trying to have some unpleasant term associated with their latest highschool enemy/bullying object. Alas, it turns out an editor’s abilities to redress this tendency are very limited on Urban Dictionary, so my involvement ended there.

    You chose to impose on Betty’s use of the word “b*tchslap” (there, I censored it myself to save you the bother) the connotations and wording of Urban Dictionary’s definitions. I don’t think that added much of worth to the dialogue you were supposedly having with her.

  23. yetanotherfreakingbrit Says:

    Also. I guess since you took the time to respond to me directly in your post above, I should do you the courtesy of at least acknowledging that I read what you wrote, and I feel drawn to reply while I’m here.

    yetanotherfreakingbrit, I would be curious as to which of Murphy’s posts you found offensive. Also I’m not quite sure which of Murphy’s posts contains the “conspiracy theories” you object to …

    I didn’t refer to Murphy’s posts directly if you re-read my comment. I said that PUMA PAC was a particularly ugly place that evening. Murphy wasn’t in attendance for some time, so a couple of its members decided it was a good opportunity to post some childishly racist jokes, tee hee. Here’s one, the original “joke” being posted by FLBarbara:

    goandersen 01.17.09 at 5:18 pm

    FLBarbara 01.17.09 at 5:15 pm
    Very good everyone I am LMAO

    I know I will get bashed for this but what the hell I am in the mood

    Do you hear playboy offered Sarah Palin one million to pose for playboy
    National geographic made the same offer to Michele Obama


    Murphy did indeed delete that comment and a number of other ones later. But it reveals the true nature of some of the people you’re hanging out with there, when they think nobody’s looking or when their words aren’t going to be censored immediately, but they can take their pleasure for a brief period.

    As for conspiracy theories, well, if you’re honest, the whole of PUMA is based on those, isn’t it? But sub-conspiracy theories regularly break out in the comments, such as the nonsense about Obama not being eligible to be POTUS.

    As for your comment on another thread about Rumproast etc. never debating a PUMA PAC post, rather than the comments on it, you obviously haven’t read very much of those blogs as you’re quite mistaken. I won’t clutter up your blog with links, but I can rustle them up pretty quickly if you insist on them.

    I do find it a bit ironic, though, that you maintain (and I’d agree) that you’re not responsible for what other PUMAs post, whereas above you’ve taken Betty to task for comments made on a blog that she’s never even posted on! The same goes for me, by the way.

    FWIW, I do think you overestimate the overlap between commenters on Rumproast and those on Wonkette in your rush to characterize everyone as “Obots” etc. I visit the latter now and then, but the only threads I’ve read fairly avidly were their liveblogs of the party conventions (hilarious, with occasional outbreaks of sexism) and the recent ones during the Weblogwars when myiq2xu was running amuk and posting gratuitously misogynistic garbage on Wonkette under the guise of “Stupid Wonkette.” I’d no more expect Betty to have stepped in and objected to comments made about Jennniforhillary on Wonkette than I would expect you to step in on those threads and argue with “Stupid Wonkette.” (As it was, many others there did.)

    Now, if you’re serious about a dialogue – and since you seem to disregard your own stricture about not being interested in what someone said on another blog – maybe you could supply some illustrations of this pretty grave charge:

    And the Rumproast has some real sociopaths making some incredibly crude and inhuman remarks.

    And as for this,

    My point is, if a Rumpster sees something they don’t like, why don’t they do something themselves? You can type questions to that person directly and you have a blog for writing posts.

    as has been pointed out to you elsewhere, and still you seem to refuse to take on board, comments on both PUMA PAC and The Confluence are routinely deleted and censored if they don’t fit the agendas of those who are doing the moderating. (If you need corroboration of this, you could ask about it on PUMA PAC – DancesWithPumas will have a tale or two to tell, and the issue has been discussed in passing there, which is ironic for us onlookers as PUMA PAC’s a little less blatant but is also censorious.)

    Hence the first of your options doesn’t work (as plenty of people who have no connection to Rumproast or Wonkette can testify), and the second is exactly what’s been happening, and what you appear to have objected to above.

    If you do reply to this comment, please don’t bother giving me another dose of your passive aggression in response, as you have to others above. You can do better than that, as you’ve proven. I thank you for any time you may have devoted to reading it. I don’t expect it to make any difference to anything except to attempt to set the record straight on a couple of issues.

    And finally (an editor’s favorite word!):

    Sean, I’m not really sure why the Rumpsters asked me to have a dialog …

    I don’t think Rumproasters did. Johnd did, and he let us know about the arrangement you two had come to. The fact that the folks who’ve commented have at least tried to engage with you reasonably should let others see what these demonic “Obots” you keep referring to are really about. You haven’t, to my knowledge, been besieged with comments that would be composed almost entirely of asterisks by the time you’ve finished with them.

    PS: I did find your censorship of my use of the word “p*nises” on another comment on your blog a bit precious; it’s not exactly an expletive – if it had no place uncensored on this “child-friendly” blog, it was you that posted it as a quote, not me, and to prove what, I’m not sure. Given the context, or even without it, if that’s the “worst” thing you can find that I’ve posted on the Web, way to go! Now try doing a Google search for myiq2xu (oh I forgot, you don’t want to talk about what others have posted on other blogs – duh).

  24. Nijma Says:

    Oooh, don’t start talking about myiq now and get me all hawt and everything…doctor says I’m supposed to be resting.

  25. tigtog Says:

    @ Nijma

    Tina Fey and Amy Poehler of SNL …“B*tch”is the New Black

    What they really meant to say was “b*tch is the new n*gger”, but they would never have gotten that on the air.

    That’s just ridiculous – “[foo] is the new black” relates to a cliché used in fashion magazines, where a black outfit has long been considered the must-have wardrobe staple that you then dress up with accessories. At various times, fashion editors have declared that “brown is the new black” or “navy is the new black” or even “red is the new black”.

    As you have said several times, language usage is important, but pulling etymology out of thin air to support one’s prejudices isn’t actually analysing language, it’s just another way to manufacture talking points.

  26. Nijma Says:

    “X is the new Y” is a catch-all meme that has mutated beyond recognition.

  27. tigtog Says:

    It’s always based in fashions/trends/memes though. Your claim still seems to be a stretch.

  28. Nijma Says:

    The n-word or “n-bomb” is indeed a trend. In the last year it has been used publicly by Jesse Jackson Sr., Rev. Jeremiah Wright, embattled Detroit mayor Kwame Kilpatrick, and Chicago politician and mega-church pastor James Meeks, all African-Americans. Barack Obama apparently does not use the word, and his wife Michelle during the campaign season sent out a video that among other things expressed disapproval of the word. The b-word, however is going strong, the song “99 Problems” having been played at an official Obama campaign function, and of course the SNL crew using it in the sketch.

Comments are closed.