Who IS this guy?!

'Niceguy' Eddie

Political Talk Show Host and Internet Radio Personality. My show, In My Humble Opinion, aired on RainbowRadio from 2015-2017.

Feel free to contact me at niceguy9418@usa.com. You can also friend me on Facebook, follow me on Twitter, and Tumblr, and support my Patreon. Also, if you don't mind the stench, you can find my unofficial "fan club" over HERE. ;)


Friday, October 15, 2010

What a difference a day makes...

Wow. So… one day after I left what may have been my most provocative comment, in terms of responses anyway, on MMFA, I leave what appears to be by far  my LEAST popular6 Thumbs down, 0 up at the time of this posting, to go along with what I believe to be some rather unreasonably scathing comments from Dharmasatya
I'm not going into the details here. If you're that interested, go there, check out the thread, and then PLEASE come back and tell me why what I'm saying is so wrong!  Seriously.  I think you all know me to be a pretty reasonable guy.  I've admitted I've been wrong before and I've changed my position on certain things as well.  But... Rather than even TRY to persuade me she opted for outright abuse.  That's fine. That's her rightIt just doesn't make any fucking sense to me at all! Anyway, sorry, that's the last time I'll mention her.  (As hard as that will be for me.)  I WOULD like to defend my position however.  So if, after rading this, you think I'm  full of it, PLEASE, by all means: let me know where I'm going wrong!

By now, I’m sure most of you caught some of my outrage over Rush Limbaugh calling the NOW “a bunch of whores” [to liberalism.] And as a follow up to that, MMFA gave an example of what the claimed was “selective outrage” (IOW: hypocrisy) on the part of FOX, for being OUTRAGED over one of Brown’s staffers calling Whitman a whore (which is fine – nothing wrong with that outrage) but not being upset with one of Whitman's staffer's saying the same thing about CONGRESS.  And from this point out, since neither campaign has really apologized, I'm going to treat the words as if they come from the Candidates themselves.  Right or wrong, it's juts easier.  Besides, this is more of a PHILOSOPHICAL argument anyway and the details of what REALLY happened, in this instance, aren't actually critical to it.

Now… I claimed that this example was weak tea on MMFA’s part. Now: I love MMFA. But you can take this as proof that I don’t find them to be above critique; and not only for the rare time that they're “not liberal enough.”  LOL.  The claim of hypocrisy in this case is bullshit. Sorry to have to give one to Fox here, but it’s Apples and Oranges. A MAN (such as Limbaugh, or Brown) calling a woman (such as the NOW, or Whitman) a “whore” is unacceptable in any context! It’s off limits! Like I said: Calling NOW a “bunch of whores” is NO DIFFERENT than calling the NAACP a “bunch of Niggers.” Both are wildly inappropriate, and completely unacceptable.  But a woman say the same about a bunch of men?  TOTALLY DIFFERENT THING.

I'll explain...

See... I treat all of these kinds of words (whore, nigger, faggot, etc...) the same going the other way.

For example:  I, as a White person, have no business telling Blacks that they can’t use the word “nigger” however they want to. If they want to call each other “nigger,” either as friendly, male banter, or even in anger, IT IS NOT MY PLACE TO TELL THEM THEY CAN’T! But... If Bill Cosby (for example) doesn’t like it? FINE! Listen to HIM! He has some standing in this discussion! He’s Black! But seeing as how White People INVENTED that word to HURT and SUPPRESS Blacks? HOW DARE we tell them how they can and can’t use it! They can use it however they want!  And we can’t. EVER. And what's more, Whites have no right to tell them that THEY CAN’T.

To me? All this is self evident.  If what I just said doesn't make sense to you?  Either explain to me WHY, or... (just some friendly advice?)  Avoid talking about race issues in mixed company. You'll probably REALLY piss somebody off!
And I'm inclined to treat "whore" the exact same way.

WOMEN can use that word, however they want.  No harm no foul. If one woman calls another a whore? That’s her business. As a MAN, I have no standing to tell her that’s inappropriate. If a woman calls a MAN a whore? Again: NO harm, no foul. And still: that doesn’t give him leave to turn it around. Men don’t get to use the word “whore,” like that, anymore than white people get to use the word “nigger.” Period.

So while it may have been VULGAR on the part of Whitman’s campaign, it simply ain’t misogynistic. Whitman calling CONGRESS “Whores” is one thing. Brown calling WHITMAN a “whore?” Limbaugh calling NOW “whores?” Something else entirely.  So Fox getting mad about Brown, but not Whitman? Not hypocrisy.  (Yeah, it's hypocrisy that they give Limbaugh a pass - but that wasn't the example.)

And I MIGHT be going out on a limb here, by personally? I'm OK with a MAN calling another MAN a "whore." Hey: I've done it. For example... I've (probably) called Dick Cheney a whore to the oil industry, at some point.  (IDK. It sounds like something I'd say, anyway. LOL)  Why is that OK? IN THAT CONTEXT, it is stripped of any feminine connotations!  I'm not suggesting he's a WOMAN; of of ill repute or otherwise. I'm using a colorful metaphor to say that, as a man, he is getting sodomized (METAPHORICALLY) by the oil industry, for MONEY.  Now... I'm not completely heartless here.  If that offends women? (Or MEN for that matter?)  LET ME KNOW!  Just do it in a way that recognizes how much we AGREE ON when it comes to issues of respect and gender equality.  That's all I ask.  Because I tend to respond in kind.  It's human nature, and I'm happy to report that I am very much a human being.  More reasonable than most, but if you attack me unfairly?  I promise you I'm going to get defensive.  But I dont think any of you really think I'm someone that can't be reasoned with.  Shit, that's why I DO this!  It's not just so I can read the sound of my voice! I WANT to be told when I'm full of shit!

ANYWAY... (Sorry.  Still steamed about... she who shall not be named.)

The difference, of course, is, and always will be, CONTEXT. To quote America’s last great Stand-Up Philosopher, George Carlin:

We don’t care is Eddie Murphy or Richard Pryor use the word “nigger” because we know they’re not racist.

How do we know that?

They’re niggers!

Now... as I said before: If Bill Cosby wants to take issue with them (or Chris Rock?) using that word? That's fine.  But it is not MY PLACE to say what Black people can and can't say.  And while I’m all in favor of feeling outraged over blatantly misogynistic language, lets at least TRY to make sure it’s well placed!

Because I’m pretty sure Meg Whitman doesn’t hate women. Congress, maybe, but that’s her prerogative.

To recap:

Woman pissed at a man for calling another woman a Whore? PERFECT. Strong woman!

Man pissed at a man for calling a woman a Whore? ALSO PERFECT. Quality man!

Woman pissed at another woman for calling yet another woman a whore? I ain't takin' sides, but... Nothing wrong with that at all: Have it out!

Man pissed at a woman for calling another woman (or another man) a Whore?  Really ought to mind his own fucking business.

Man pissed at a man for calling another man a Whore? Hey, depends on the context, but I'd say he's probably being a bit too sensitive about things.

Woman pissed at man for calling another man a Whore? Again, depends on the context, but if I were that man? I'd treat lightly and acknowledge she might have a point. 

But again: CONSIDER the CONTEXT and reason it out!

Now... Can someone please tell me what I’m missing here?


  1. Now: I love MMFA. But you can take this as proof that I don’t find them to be above critique; and not only for the rare time that they're “not liberal enough.” LOL

    My main criticism of MMFA mirrors that of "papajohn"; they are far too focused on the far right. Every day, it's half a dozen items about Limbaugh, Beck, Fox, etc.--always the same few targets.

    Not that those targets aren't worthy of that much (and plenty more) criticism. It's just that the main conduit through which right-wing nonsense gets to the public isn't any of these sources--it's through the "mainstream" corporate press.

    When, to cite but one example, Jake Tapper offers up one of his poisonous "reports" on ABC's World News Tonight, echoing whatever right-wing garbage is floating around that day, it has a bigger audience in that one airing than all of the Fox News shows combined.

    When the Obama began raising the issue of the Chamber of Commerce running attack ads, the press--the "mainstream" corporate press, not the far right press--pooh pooh'd it. Made it sound as if it was some last-minute desperation tactic that had no possible substance or even relevance. MMFA, meanwhile, documented that outside groups have created over 60,000 attack ads on behalf of conservative candidates since August 1. These groups are actually spending more on this election than are the two parties! Who is providing all this money? The donors are mostly undisclosed. That's incredible! Why isn't the press all over this every hour on the hour? Why is it that, instead, the issue, when raised, is treated by that press as some sort of stupid, irrelevant desperation tactic? And, more to the point, why isn't MMFA spending all day slamming the press for refusing to touch get into it?

  2. I see in the use of the word "whore", just use of bad, unacceptable language - in any context,under any circumstances. Period.
    This is not the same as the toxic remarks conveying hate messages, made by Helen Thomas and Rick Sanchez.

    As a matter of fact, you also use bad language on your posts: asshole, bitch, idiots, fucking, shit, white-trash etc.. There's really no need for such epiteths when coming to elaborate your liberal views, unless you believe it makes the post more colorful and attractive.

    In your previous post you wrote:"ALL HUMAN BEINGS
    deserve equal treatment and respect" - aren't you exaggerating a little bit? ALL? Among us human beings there are killers, traitors, crooks, parasites. I don't think these people should be treated with respect.

  3. @Classic - Agreed, 100%. And I have NO IDEA.

    They really do need to get back to that part of their mission that's about showing how it's not just Fox and Talk Radio, and that there really IS NO "liberal media" in this country.

    Thanks for your comment.

  4. @Duta - Hey, welcome back! And You're right. You're right. You're right. You're right.

    In fact I woke up this morning thinking a lot of the same things: I DEFINITELY use WAY too much foul language, and it's gotten worse recently. Everything reads like an angry rant, and that's not really what I intended when I started doing this. I guess I've just been way too angry about a lot of things lately. I was actually kicking around the idea of forcing myself to avoid any course language, of any kind, for... IDK... a Month, let's say, to break the habit. So it's interesting that you make this point... Tell you what: I'll start today. We'll see how it goes.

    Also, yes, in some ways I was exaggerating a little bit when I said "every person." At the time, I really just meant it on the basis of Gender, Race, Religion, Sexuality, Appearance, Age, Height, Weight, etc... You know: The traits that define WHAT we are, but do nothing to show WHO we are. But let's consider the examples you bring up: killers, traitors & crooks? (Let just say "criminals.") Now... do I extend teh same amount of respect to a convict that I do to someone else I just met? No, of course not. BUT... Do I still recognize their humanity? Do I respect the fact that they have RIGHTS? Do I respect the fact that they are entitled to due process before their incarceration or execution? Yes. And while I do believe in the death penalty (which is not the usual liberal position) in the meantime, or during ones incarceration, I still believe that prisoners should be treated HUMANELY regardless of their crimes. So it WAS an exaggeration in that I didn't MEAN IT that way, but no, I think the principle stills applies. DIFFERENTLY, but it still applies. Now... "parasites?" LOL... I'm Not sure exactly what you mean by that but I'd venture to say that I'd still recognize their basic humanity. Again, the "respect "may be DIFFERENT, but all people deserve the same rights and protections under the law, and deserve a fair chance from society to build their lives and improve their lot. Now... if they fail? Or worse, if they don't even try? We can certainly criticize them. But they're still human beings. And we should be careful about thinking to highly of ourselves, because you never know when fortunes can change.

    As for Sanchez and Thomas...? Hey, you've got a particularly unique perspective on that issue, that I obviously can't share, being on the otehr side of the world from it. So I'm not going to show some deference to that perspective.

    I think Thomas made a point that is fair to DEBATE, but made it in a blunt manner at an inopportune time and place. Sanchez... He was wallowing in stereotypes, and so his point had less merit for DEBATE, although Thomas' was arguably far more anti-Israel. Personally? I think that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a complicated issue that can't be boiled down to a blunt, one-sentence solution. And it's also pretty easy for AMERICANS to throw out stuff like that, being on the other side of the world, as opposed to in the middle of it. That being said, there IS a contingent of Americans that question our country's continued support of Israel. And right or wrong, agree or disagree, I still think it's a point worth talking about. Just not in the manner that Thomas and Sanchez chose to.

    Thanks for your comment, I've missed you!

  5. While I agree with Eddie 1000% on this issue, I will tell Duta this: IMHO the modern American Conservative ideology being spouted by Tea Party, The GOP, and Fox News is 100% pure evil.

    That is what I believe with my heart and soul. The Conservative ideology has been corrupted and twisted into something FAR worse than Nazism. God Forbid should those fools who believe that crap get into office then this country will die.

    I've lost a lot of online "friends" who believe in that crap. It's sad to see when smart people can't see that their being to lied and will vote for people who don't have thier best interests at heart.

    The Democrats are not that much better but in this case they are the lesser of 2 evils.

    As too treating people with respect: I believe that respect MUST be earned and so far 98% the Conseratives in this country have yet to do one thing to earn my respect, they have earned my anger and dislike for them.

  6. @Christopher Back - I'm with you, man.

    I'll say one thing a little bit differently though: It's not so much that respect has to be earned, at least not INITIALLY, but that it can be lost VERY EASILY and is then VERY HARD to earn back. That, to me, is a pretty good fit for both the Criminals Duta mentions, and the Teabaggers that you refer to. After all, I at least waited until Christine O'Donnell actually SPOKE, before she lost all of my respect. (And EARNED my contempt. CONTEMPT is what I think you earn, respect you LOSE. LOL) It may have only taken a few seconds but, unfortuately for her, I WAS in fact listening respectfully when I first heard her. If I hadn't been? My respect may have lasted... a *little* longer. LOL

    Thanks for your comment.

  7. @Duta -

    I just caught a really bad typo in my response to you. The 4th Paragraph should read:

    "As for Sanchez and Thomas...? Hey, you've got a particularly unique perspective on that issue, that I obviously can't share, being on the other side of the world from it. So I'm GOING to HAVE TO show some deference to that perspective."

    Basically I meant the complete opposite of what it said. Sorry about any confusion. :)