Not Prisoners of Mother England

[Gadianton]

I can explain, Whiskey, although I'm a little shocked that you'd want me to. Although there is a lot of sincerity and emotion behind your posts, a whole lot; a ton in fact, what you mean isn't a straightforward matter of reading the words. This doesn't have anything to do with politics. The individuals on this board you align with are not challenging to understand. It isn't hard to determine what they mean in their posts, confused and uninformed as they usually are. It doesn't even have anything to do with you, essentially, as it was easy to understand what Mayan Elephant meant in his posts also. Mayan Elephant explained himself thoroughly. Trying to understand what Whiskey intends with his posts, however, is like trying to interpret the words of a character from a Shakespeare play. It's quite challenging. I could be wrong with my interpretations. If I were a master character analyst I'd publish important papers on Shakespeare and famous novelists and get acclaim for it. Obviously, I'm not at that level.

I assume you enjoy being interpreted, because if you didn't, you would revert to posting as Mayan Elephant and straightforwardly tell us what you believe and why.

For example:

In this thread you make a brief statement congratulating America for not having a king. It is to be read as a straightforwardly sarcastic statement that resonates with conservatives. It means to say, those people participating in the "no kings" protest are idiots if they are celebrating the obvious, but also idiots if they are protesting the president because neither the president nor the conservatives who support the president believe or wish the president to be king. Those protesting are riling themselves up -- making a mountain out of an ant hill or nothing at all.

But that's what the character means. If any of your conservative allies on this board were to have written it, we know exactly what they mean. But what does the Shakespeare behind the words of the character mean to say? That's far more complex and interesting.

The Shakespeare will protest even interpreting the statement as sarcasm, and block the obvious meaning for the character. If it's not read as naïvely sincere, then the reader is attempting "mind reading". Obviously, the Shakespeare doesn't want that, and wants to banter about what a person means with a glib statement. Why? it's a mystery. but layers pile up. Because what we really want to know is what Shakespeare is trying to say, not what the character is saying. And my quick and dirty guess at that is the Shakespeare is mad because people are exercising their right to free speech when he only allows for the president, Joe Rogan, Fox News, and conservatives on message boards to say what they want critically or even hyperbolically.

But that's still an incomplete analysis. Because why is the Shakespeare, who likely isn't a conservative, mad about that? What is he trying to tell us?

I do have a guess.

[canpakes]

… why is the Shakespeare, who likely isn't a conservative, mad about that? What is he trying to tell us?

I do have a guess.

It’s probably totally not a control issue.

[canpakes]

Excellent.

[Whiskey]

I can explain, Whiskey, although I'm a little shocked that you'd want me to. Although there is a lot of sincerity and emotion behind your posts, a whole lot; a ton in fact, what you mean isn't a straightforward matter of reading the words. This doesn't have anything to do with politics. The individuals on this board you align with are not challenging to understand. It isn't hard to determine what they mean in their posts, confused and uninformed as they usually are. It doesn't even have anything to do with you, essentially, as it was easy to understand what Mayan Elephant meant in his posts also. Mayan Elephant explained himself thoroughly. Trying to understand what Whiskey intends with his posts, however, is like trying to interpret the words of a character from a Shakespeare play. It's quite challenging. I could be wrong with my interpretations. If I were a master character analyst I'd publish important papers on Shakespeare and famous novelists and get acclaim for it. Obviously, I'm not at that level.

I assume you enjoy being interpreted, because if you didn't, you would revert to posting as Mayan Elephant and straightforwardly tell us what you believe and why.

For example:

In this thread you make a brief statement congratulating America for not having a king. It is to be read as a straightforwardly sarcastic statement that resonates with conservatives. It means to say, those people participating in the "no kings" protest are idiots if they are celebrating the obvious, but also idiots if they are protesting the president because neither the president nor the conservatives who support the president believe or wish the president to be king. Those protesting are riling themselves up -- making a mountain out of an ant hill or nothing at all.

But that's what the character means. If any of your conservative allies on this board were to have written it, we know exactly what they mean. But what does the Shakespeare behind the words of the character mean to say? That's far more complex and interesting.

The Shakespeare will protest even interpreting the statement as sarcasm, and block the obvious meaning for the character. If it's not read as naïvely sincere, then the reader is attempting "mind reading". Obviously, the Shakespeare doesn't want that, and wants to banter about what a person means with a glib statement. Why? it's a mystery. but layers pile up. Because what we really want to know is what Shakespeare is trying to say, not what the character is saying. And my quick and dirty guess at that is the Shakespeare is mad because people are exercising their right to free speech when he only allows for the president, Joe Rogan, Fox News, and conservatives on message boards to say what they want critically or even hyperbolically.

But that's still an incomplete analysis. Because why is the Shakespeare, who likely isn't a conservative, mad about that? What is he trying to tell us?

I do have a guess.

Neither the character, nor the person, nor the post presents or has anger. Not mad. Amused.

This still doesn’t explain your need to say what I or Whiskey thinks - especially when you are so often wrong.

As for the so-called protest - it is not angering or maddening. It is funny. And it is stupid and it is unproductive. Though, parties are fun.

We had a no kings day. 160 million people showed up. We do it regularly. At the last no kings day, everyone voted for Trump to not be the king. It worked.

This party-protest won't change anyone’s mind. It is a spectacle. And it is funny. Are you watching the Ole Miss game today?

[Whiskey]

It doesn't even have anything to do with you, essentially, as it was easy to understand what Mayan Elephant meant in his posts also. Mayan Elephant explained himself thoroughly. Trying to understand what Whiskey intends with his posts, however, is like trying to interpret the words of a character from a Shakespeare play. It's quite challenging. I could be wrong with my interpretations. If I were a master character analyst I'd publish important papers on Shakespeare and famous novelists and get acclaim for it. Obviously, I'm not at that level.

I assume you enjoy being interpreted, because if you didn't, you would revert to posting as Mayan Elephant and straightforwardly tell us what you believe and why.

You do realize that the board has changed, right? Back in the day, if you recall, y'all jumped my crap and Kish had his come-aparts and said I was stalking poor John Dehlin. There were disagreements, for sure. But the board was not trolled by a moderator and neither was anyone lambasted for disagreeing. The moderation was light, and really didn't do much more than send the potty and naughty stuff to the cellar.

This iteration of the board is similar in name only to the Mayan Elephant days.

Also, you have changed. You have assimilated to the new teams format. You seem to much more interested in who is posting and why, and less interested in the content. I would give you the de-trans conversation as an example. When the conversation is not about the who, but it is about the what, it becomes something educational as well as entertaining. As soon as the conversation turns to Molok knowing who hates children or panny reading minds and feelings from the tarot cards extracted from his ass, we are no longer having a conversation - are we? You seem to prefer and favor this new format of guessing, albeit incorrectly, who and what posters are and to hell with the content. I get it though. It is a damned waste of damned time to give a topic serious thought or effort when surviving the nazis.

If my words are vague, deal with it without assigning anger or nazi crap. If it is a puzzle, work it. Solve the damn puzzle. Don't just take the lame idiot route out and say I am whatever you say I am and punt. canpakes has a big enough dunce cap for all of us. Don't try to outdo that idiot.

[Morley]

As for the so-called protest - it is not angering or maddeming. It is funny. And it is stupid and it is unproductive. Though, parties are fun.

Of course it's funny. It's supposed to be funny. Have you read any of the protest signs? However, you're dead wrong to think that it's stupid or unproductive--because it's neither.

Protests like this are all about carnival. Mikhail Bakhtin saw carnival as an essential part of a healthy culture. An activity like this--that includes laughter, festivity, and a focus on the grotesque--serves as an important part of political critique. Everything is turned on its head.

What do you think Trump rallies are all about? They function in the same manner and serve the same purpose. If anything, Liberals are late to this game--and way too conservative in their behavior.

We had a no kings day. 160 million people showed up. We do it regularly. In the last no kings day, everyone voted for Trump to not be the king. It worked.

Ha! You're kidding. Hardly anyone everyone cared whether or not Trump declared himself king. Most folks just want to make through to another paycheck, buy a tank or gas, and maybe go out to dinner once a month. You give folks too much credit.

This party protest wont change anyone’s mind. It is a spectacle. And it is funny. Are you watching the Ole Miss game today?

No, it won't change your mind, and that's okay. It wasn't meant to.

You're right that it was a spectacle. All of the best carnivals are spectacles. But it wasn't worthless. I usually hate these things, but it was kind of fun. It's good for some folks to get off their asses, put down their phones, and see that, even if all feels hopeless, they're not alone in their beliefs.

Nobody cares about Ole Miss, anyway.

[Whiskey]

Nobody cares about Ole Miss, anyway.

All that, and then.... poof.

Do you consider this carnival spectacle protest to be more about no kings or more about F-Trump? That is a serious question. The no king thing is so absurd, I tend to think it is a No-Trump F-Trump event. Am I wrong?

The difference with the Trump rallies, and I have seen one, is that folks are there for a "pro" thingy. Tell me how this compares to that? Is the no kings pro anything, is there an end goal, other than no-Trumps?

[Morley]

Nobody cares about Ole Miss, anyway.

All that, and then.... poof.

Do you consider this carnival spectacle protest to be more about no kings or more about F-Trump? That is a serious question. The no king thing is so absurd, I tend to think it is a No-Trump F-Trump event. Am I wrong?

The difference with the Trump rallies, and I have seen one, is that folks are there for a "pro" thingy. Tell me how this compares to that? Is the no kings pro anything, is there an end goal, other than no-Trumps?

No, they're not. Pro-Trump aren't "pro" anything.

Trump rallies are f**k this and "return us to how things used to be!" Anti-Trump rallies are just the same: "Return us to a time before Trump."

[Whiskey]

All that, and then.... poof.

Do you consider this carnival spectacle protest to be more about no kings or more about F-Trump? That is a serious question. The no king thing is so absurd, I tend to think it is a No-Trump F-Trump event. Am I wrong?

The difference with the Trump rallies, and I have seen one, is that folks are there for a "pro" thingy. Tell me how this compares to that? Is the no kings pro anything, is there an end goal, other than no-Trumps?

No, they're not. Pro-Trump aren't "pro" anything.

Trump rallies are f**k this and "return us to how things used to be!" Anti-Trump rallies are just the same: "Return us to a time before Trump."

Morley man. You seem capable of deeper thoughts than that.

Even if Trump rallies are nothing more than Pro-Win-the-Election, they got something. Are you really saying that all the people at the no kings things are just whiny bitch no-Trump do-nothings but bitch about Trump? Really? JFC.

Net distraction, at best.

[Morley]

No, they're not. Pro-Trump aren't "pro" anything.

Trump rallies are f**k this and "return us to how things used to be!" Anti-Trump rallies are just the same: "Return us to a time before Trump."

Morley man. You seem capable of deeper thoughts than that.

Even if Trump rallies are nothing more than Pro-Win-the-Election, they got something. Are you really saying that all the people at the no kings things are just whiny bitch no-Trump do-nothings but bitch about Trump? Really? JFC.

Net distraction, at best.

I see them both as whiny little bitches.

Trump populism had nothing but complaint and grievance. (Of course now that it's been highjacked by Project 2025 types, that's dangerously changed--but that's whole another story.)


Democrats right now have nothing. No agenda, no plans, no direction, no leadership. Only feeble resistance. Maybe something will come of it. I dunno.