[006]
Sultanbruno
Current Version
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
Recently, I was watching reruns of Californication and was struck by a rather off-color joke made in Season 5, episode 5: \
to:
Recently, I was watching reruns of Californication and was struck by a rather off-color joke made in Season 5, episode 5: \\\"The Ride Along\\\". In that episode, Hank, Charlie, and Samurai Apocalypse (a black rapper/former gangster) are doing research for Samurai\\\'s upcoming movie \\\"Santa Monica Cop\\\" by accompanying a real police officer (a white guy, played by Bryan Callen) on patrol that night. Samurai Apocalypse asks the cop if he has ever shot anybody before, and his response is as follows:
--->\\\'\\\'\\\'Cop\\\'\\\'\\\': Just once. Kind of a sad story, actually. It was a little kid. I mean - I thought the kid had a gun, turns out it was an iPod Touch\\\\\\\\
\\\'\\\'\\\'Samurai Apocalypse\\\'\\\'\\\': Bet he was black. Was he black?\\\\\\\\
\\\'\\\'\\\'Cop\\\'\\\'\\\': Of course he was black. Why do you think I shot first?
It is later revealed that the officer was just joking about that and had never actually shot anyone, but this episode aired in 2012, two years before the shooting of Michael Brown touched off massive protests across the United States concerning police brutality and racial profiling, and in particular, a short time before Tamir Rice was shot in Cleveland under very similar circumstances (November 2014). Given these criteria, does this incident count as a Funny Aneurysm moment or a Harsher in Hindsight moment?
--->\\\'\\\'\\\'Cop\\\'\\\'\\\': Just once. Kind of a sad story, actually. It was a little kid. I mean - I thought the kid had a gun, turns out it was an iPod Touch\\\\\\\\
\\\'\\\'\\\'Samurai Apocalypse\\\'\\\'\\\': Bet he was black. Was he black?\\\\\\\\
\\\'\\\'\\\'Cop\\\'\\\'\\\': Of course he was black. Why do you think I shot first?
It is later revealed that the officer was just joking about that and had never actually shot anyone, but this episode aired in 2012, two years before the shooting of Michael Brown touched off massive protests across the United States concerning police brutality and racial profiling, and in particular, a short time before Tamir Rice was shot in Cleveland under very similar circumstances (November 2014). Given these criteria, does this incident count as a Funny Aneurysm moment or a Harsher in Hindsight moment?
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
Recently, I was watching reruns of Series/Californication and was struck by a rather off-color joke made in Season 5, episode 5: \
to:
Recently, I was watching reruns of Californication and was struck by a rather off-color joke made in Season 5, episode 5: \\\"The Ride Along\\\". In that episode, Hank, Charlie, and Samurai Apocalypse (a black rapper/former gangster) are doing research for Samurai\\\'s upcoming movie \\\"Santa Monica Cop\\\" by accompanying a real police officer (a white guy, played by Bryan Callen) on patrol that night. Samurai Apocalypse asks the cop if he has ever shot anybody before, and his response is as follows:
\\\'\\\'\\\'Cop\\\'\\\'\\\': Just once. Kind of a sad story, actually. It was a little kid. I mean - I thought the kid had a gun, turns out it was an iPod Touch\\\\\\\\
\\\'\\\'\\\'Samurai Apocalypse\\\'\\\'\\\': Bet he was black. Was he black?\\\\\\\\
\\\'\\\'\\\'Cop\\\'\\\'\\\': Of course he was black. Why do you think I shot first?
It is later revealed that the officer was just joking about that and had never actually shot anyone, but this episode aired in 2012, two years before the shooting of Michael Brown touched off massive protests across the United States concerning police brutality and racial profiling, and in particular, a short time before Tamir Rice was shot in Cleveland under very similar circumstances (November 2014). Given these criteria, does this incident count as a Funny Aneurysm moment or a Harsher in Hindsight moment?
\\\'\\\'\\\'Cop\\\'\\\'\\\': Just once. Kind of a sad story, actually. It was a little kid. I mean - I thought the kid had a gun, turns out it was an iPod Touch\\\\\\\\
\\\'\\\'\\\'Samurai Apocalypse\\\'\\\'\\\': Bet he was black. Was he black?\\\\\\\\
\\\'\\\'\\\'Cop\\\'\\\'\\\': Of course he was black. Why do you think I shot first?
It is later revealed that the officer was just joking about that and had never actually shot anyone, but this episode aired in 2012, two years before the shooting of Michael Brown touched off massive protests across the United States concerning police brutality and racial profiling, and in particular, a short time before Tamir Rice was shot in Cleveland under very similar circumstances (November 2014). Given these criteria, does this incident count as a Funny Aneurysm moment or a Harsher in Hindsight moment?
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
Recently, I was watching reruns of Series/Californication and was struck by a rather off-color joke made in Season 5, episode 5: \
to:
Recently, I was watching reruns of Series/Californication and was struck by a rather off-color joke made in Season 5, episode 5: \\\"The Ride Along\\\". In that episode, Hank, Charlie, and Samurai Apocalypse (a black rapper/former gangster) are doing research for Samurai\\\'s upcoming movie \\\"Santa Monica Cop\\\" by accompanying a real police officer (a white guy, played by Bryan Callen) on patrol that night. Samurai Apocalypse asks the cop if he has ever shot anybody before, and his response is as follows:
--->\\\'\\\'\\\'Cop\\\'\\\'\\\': Just once. Kind of a sad story, actually. It was a little kid. I mean - I thought the kid had a gun, turns out it was an iPod Touch\\\\\\\\
--->\\\'\\\'\\\'Samurai Apocalypse\\\'\\\'\\\': Bet he was black. Was he black?\\\\\\\\
--->\\\'\\\'\\\'Cop\\\'\\\'\\\': Of course he was black. Why do you think I shot first?
It is later revealed that the officer was just joking about that and had never actually shot anyone, but this episode aired in 2012, two years before the shooting of Michael Brown touched off massive protests across the United States concerning police brutality and racial profiling, and in particular, a short time before Tamir Rice was shot in Cleveland under very similar circumstances (November 2014). Given these criteria, does this incident count as a Funny Aneurysm moment or a Harsher in Hindsight moment?
--->\\\'\\\'\\\'Cop\\\'\\\'\\\': Just once. Kind of a sad story, actually. It was a little kid. I mean - I thought the kid had a gun, turns out it was an iPod Touch\\\\\\\\
--->\\\'\\\'\\\'Samurai Apocalypse\\\'\\\'\\\': Bet he was black. Was he black?\\\\\\\\
--->\\\'\\\'\\\'Cop\\\'\\\'\\\': Of course he was black. Why do you think I shot first?
It is later revealed that the officer was just joking about that and had never actually shot anyone, but this episode aired in 2012, two years before the shooting of Michael Brown touched off massive protests across the United States concerning police brutality and racial profiling, and in particular, a short time before Tamir Rice was shot in Cleveland under very similar circumstances (November 2014). Given these criteria, does this incident count as a Funny Aneurysm moment or a Harsher in Hindsight moment?
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
Recently, I was watching reruns of Series/Californication and was struck by a rather off-color joke made in Season 5, episode 5: \
to:
Recently, I was watching reruns of Series/Californication and was struck by a rather off-color joke made in Season 5, episode 5: \\\"The Ride Along\\\". In that episode, Hank, Charlie, and Samurai Apocalypse (a black rapper/former gangster) are doing research for Samurai\\\'s upcoming movie \\\"Santa Monica Cop\\\" by accompanying a real police officer (a white guy, played by Bryan Callen) on patrol that night. Samurai Apocalypse asks the cop if he has ever shot anybody before, and his response is as follows:
--->\\\'\\\'\\\'Cop\\\'\\\'\\\': Just once. Kind of a sad story, actually. It was a little kid. I mean - I thought the kid had a gun, turns out it was an iPod Touch//
--->\\\'\\\'\\\'Samurai Apocalypse\\\'\\\'\\\': Bet he was black. Was he black?//
--->\\\'\\\'\\\'Cop\\\'\\\'\\\': Of course he was black. Why do you think I shot first?
It is later revealed that the officer was just joking about that and had never actually shot anyone, but this episode aired in 2012, two years before the shooting of Michael Brown touched off massive protests across the United States concerning police brutality and racial profiling, and in particular, a short time before Tamir Rice was shot in Cleveland under very similar circumstances (November 2014). Given these criteria, does this incident count as a Funny Aneurysm moment or a Harsher in Hindsight moment?
--->\\\'\\\'\\\'Cop\\\'\\\'\\\': Just once. Kind of a sad story, actually. It was a little kid. I mean - I thought the kid had a gun, turns out it was an iPod Touch//
--->\\\'\\\'\\\'Samurai Apocalypse\\\'\\\'\\\': Bet he was black. Was he black?//
--->\\\'\\\'\\\'Cop\\\'\\\'\\\': Of course he was black. Why do you think I shot first?
It is later revealed that the officer was just joking about that and had never actually shot anyone, but this episode aired in 2012, two years before the shooting of Michael Brown touched off massive protests across the United States concerning police brutality and racial profiling, and in particular, a short time before Tamir Rice was shot in Cleveland under very similar circumstances (November 2014). Given these criteria, does this incident count as a Funny Aneurysm moment or a Harsher in Hindsight moment?
Changed line(s) 3 from:
n
Robespierre was nothing if not consistent. Even when he protested the death penalty, he said that the only crime he would consider using it for was treason. And that was the theme of his speech at the Trial (as printed on the page), where he clarified and insisted that the death penalty shouldn\'t be used for ordinary crimes but against people whose existence harmed the state. From there, he went on to describe \
to:
Robespierre was nothing if not consistent. Even when he protested the death penalty, he said that the only crime he would consider using it for was treason. And that was the theme of his speech at the Trial (as printed on the page), where he clarified and insisted that the death penalty shouldn\\\'t be used for ordinary crimes but against people whose existence harmed the state. From there, he went on to describe \\\"Virtue and Terror\\\" as the theme of Revolutionary government. The scary part of Robespierre is that logically what he is arguing is consistent and makes sense, especially if you read the full speech. IntellectuallySupportedTyranny might be a trope to describe the Terror since it became the go-to example for that in the 19th Century. All the cliche fantasy sci-fi villains of Utopians willing to sacrifice anything to achieve their perfect society comes from Robespierre, the irony being that his perfect society is pretty much post-war anti-racist liberal democracy with wealth redistribution and social services.
As for the Jacobins making the emergency situation, I am sorry that came from the war that the Girondins started and then failed to prosecute properly, instead indulging in smear campaigns against the Montagnards by abusing their state-owned press. Madame de Gouges in addition to being a feminist was a warmonger, indeed a proud one if you read some of her writings. Jules Michelet is quite scathing (and misogynist) in addressing her military advice. Now of course I don\\\'t think Madame de Gouges was executed as a war criminal (At Brissot\\\'s trial, they did charge him for instigating war against England, since many of the Montagnards and the Hebertists had backed the 1792 War, so that was the only charge the Jacobins placed against him) and I hope it goes without saying that it doesn\\\'t justify her death or the misogyny with which she and other historians have treated her. But at the same time, it does her credit to point out that she had serious political opinions (and ought to be judged for that).
Regarding the Civil Constitution of the Clergy, I agree that the government should have come up with a better solution but to say that it\\\'s totalitarian or that they \\\"robbed\\\" Church property is ridiculous, since the Church was the largest landowner in Paris at the time and holding that much land in a time of famine and poverty, pardon me for getting all Brechtian here, a bigger crime than anything the Revolutionaries did to them. Okay they sold it to wealthy bourgeois and yes it did affect their charity work but you can\\\'t expect anyone to take seriously that the Church kept these large tracts of land because they were secretly socialists. And in any case it doesn\\\'t honor the great people who participated in the Civil Constitution like Abbe Gregoire who till his dying day remained a devout Catholic and a true revolutionary. On his deathbed he asked for sacraments but the French Archbishop refused to him until he renounced the Civil Constitution which he refused to do till the end. DefiantToTheEnd might be good for him, since he\\\'s fairly obscure otherwise.
As for the Jacobins making the emergency situation, I am sorry that came from the war that the Girondins started and then failed to prosecute properly, instead indulging in smear campaigns against the Montagnards by abusing their state-owned press. Madame de Gouges in addition to being a feminist was a warmonger, indeed a proud one if you read some of her writings. Jules Michelet is quite scathing (and misogynist) in addressing her military advice. Now of course I don\\\'t think Madame de Gouges was executed as a war criminal (At Brissot\\\'s trial, they did charge him for instigating war against England, since many of the Montagnards and the Hebertists had backed the 1792 War, so that was the only charge the Jacobins placed against him) and I hope it goes without saying that it doesn\\\'t justify her death or the misogyny with which she and other historians have treated her. But at the same time, it does her credit to point out that she had serious political opinions (and ought to be judged for that).
Regarding the Civil Constitution of the Clergy, I agree that the government should have come up with a better solution but to say that it\\\'s totalitarian or that they \\\"robbed\\\" Church property is ridiculous, since the Church was the largest landowner in Paris at the time and holding that much land in a time of famine and poverty, pardon me for getting all Brechtian here, a bigger crime than anything the Revolutionaries did to them. Okay they sold it to wealthy bourgeois and yes it did affect their charity work but you can\\\'t expect anyone to take seriously that the Church kept these large tracts of land because they were secretly socialists. And in any case it doesn\\\'t honor the great people who participated in the Civil Constitution like Abbe Gregoire who till his dying day remained a devout Catholic and a true revolutionary. On his deathbed he asked for sacraments but the French Archbishop refused to him until he renounced the Civil Constitution which he refused to do till the end. DefiantToTheEnd might be good for him, since he\\\'s fairly obscure otherwise.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
@Menshevik, for the Vergniaud quote, I recommend BecomeTheirOwnAntithesis and HeWhoFightsMonsters. I suggest the former because it addresses the reversals well, while the latter is 1) Cliche and half-baked 2) Literary.
to:
@Menshevik, for the Vergniaud quote, I recommend BecameTheirOwnAntithesis and HeWhoFightsMonsters. I suggest the former because it addresses the reversals well, while the latter is 1) Cliche and half-baked 2) Literary.
Changed line(s) 3 from:
n
Robespierre was nothing if not consistent. Even when he protested the death penalty, he said that the only crime he would consider using it for was treason. And that was the theme of his speech at the Trial (as printed on the page), where he clarified and insisted that the death penalty shouldn\'t be used for ordinary crimes but against people whose existence harmed the state. From there, he went on to describe \
to:
Robespierre was nothing if not consistent. Even when he protested the death penalty, he said that the only crime he would consider using it for was treason. And that was the theme of his speech at the Trial (as printed on the page), where he clarified and insisted that the death penalty shouldn\\\'t be used for ordinary crimes but against people whose existence harmed the state. From there, he went on to describe \\\"Virtue and Terror\\\" as the theme of Revolutionary government. The scary part of Robespierre is that logically what he is arguing is consistent and makes sense, especially if you read the full speech. IntellectuallySupportedTyranny might be a trope to describe the Terror since it became the go-to example for that in the 19th Century. All the cliche fantasy sci-fi villains of Utopians willing to sacrifice anything to achieve their perfect society comes from Robespierre.
As for the Jacobins making the emergency situation, I am sorry that came from the war that the Girondins started and then failed to prosecute properly, instead indulging in smear campaigns against the Montagnards by abusing their state-owned press. Madame de Gouges in addition to being a feminist was a warmonger, indeed a proud one if you read some of her writings. Jules Michelet is quite scathing (and misogynist) in addressing her military advice. Now of course I don\\\'t think Madame de Gouges was executed as a war criminal (At Brissot\\\'s trial, they did charge him for instigating war against England, since many of the Montagnards and the Hebertists had backed the 1792 War, so that was the only charge the Jacobins placed against him) and I hope it goes without saying that it doesn\\\'t justify her death or the misogyny with which she and other historians have treated her. But at the same time, it does her credit to point out that she had serious political opinions (and ought to be judged for that).
Regarding the Civil Constitution of the Clergy, I agree that the government should have come up with a better solution but to say that it\\\'s totalitarian or that they \\\"robbed\\\" Church property is ridiculous, since the Church was the largest landowner in Paris at the time and holding that much land in a time of famine and poverty, pardon me for getting all Brechtian here, a bigger crime than anything the Revolutionaries did to them. Okay they sold it to wealthy bourgeois and yes it did affect their charity work but you can\\\'t expect anyone to take seriously that the Church kept these large tracts of land because they were secretly socialists. And in any case it doesn\\\'t honor the great people who participated in the Civil Constitution like Abbe Gregoire who till his dying day remained a devout Catholic and a true revolutionary. On his deathbed he asked for sacraments but the French Archbishop refused to him until he renounced the Civil Constitution which he refused to do till the end. DefiantToTheEnd might be good for him, since he\\\'s fairly obscure otherwise.
As for the Jacobins making the emergency situation, I am sorry that came from the war that the Girondins started and then failed to prosecute properly, instead indulging in smear campaigns against the Montagnards by abusing their state-owned press. Madame de Gouges in addition to being a feminist was a warmonger, indeed a proud one if you read some of her writings. Jules Michelet is quite scathing (and misogynist) in addressing her military advice. Now of course I don\\\'t think Madame de Gouges was executed as a war criminal (At Brissot\\\'s trial, they did charge him for instigating war against England, since many of the Montagnards and the Hebertists had backed the 1792 War, so that was the only charge the Jacobins placed against him) and I hope it goes without saying that it doesn\\\'t justify her death or the misogyny with which she and other historians have treated her. But at the same time, it does her credit to point out that she had serious political opinions (and ought to be judged for that).
Regarding the Civil Constitution of the Clergy, I agree that the government should have come up with a better solution but to say that it\\\'s totalitarian or that they \\\"robbed\\\" Church property is ridiculous, since the Church was the largest landowner in Paris at the time and holding that much land in a time of famine and poverty, pardon me for getting all Brechtian here, a bigger crime than anything the Revolutionaries did to them. Okay they sold it to wealthy bourgeois and yes it did affect their charity work but you can\\\'t expect anyone to take seriously that the Church kept these large tracts of land because they were secretly socialists. And in any case it doesn\\\'t honor the great people who participated in the Civil Constitution like Abbe Gregoire who till his dying day remained a devout Catholic and a true revolutionary. On his deathbed he asked for sacraments but the French Archbishop refused to him until he renounced the Civil Constitution which he refused to do till the end. DefiantToTheEnd might be good for him, since he\\\'s fairly obscure otherwise.
