No, it isn’t a whoosh. And you are entirely correct - he knew exactly how we’d react.
Regards,
Shodan
That was my reaction too. I do try to give people the benefit of the doubt but I’m trying hard to come up with a charitable interpretation of the OP’s question. I mean, I have been known to comment that [person X] needs a metaphorical smack from time to time, but the OP sounds awfully serious about it.
On the other hand…
Hawt! (Assuming that both parties are consenting adults, of course.)
You know what 100 wives with black eyes have in common?
Back to Grace Kelly, if I may interrupt the PRR flogging exercise. I always disliked Kelly, whether it was in Mogambo or in High Noon. Her acting was of the January Jones caliber of beautiful ice queen. I know it was the parts she played, but I was always annoyed that the leading men put up with her shit.
I totally agree.
Ain’t nobody above an ass-whipping. . . and my wife would agree with that and has frequently as she’s giving me one.
She did win an oscar for Country Girl, although I personally couldn’t stand it. My favorite movie of hers was Dial M For Murder.
Re: the OP - I’m not clear why this thread is in CS. It seems more like an MPSIMS leading to a pit thread.
Roddy
What a remarkable coincidence that this thread appeared at the same time a misogyny thread is raging in ATMB.
Projecting much?
ditto
This is embarrassingly piss poor. Honestly, for fucks sake, what were you thinking of?
Shall we try to put together another three hundred dollars?
Oh, yeah, I also saw her in DIAL M…couldn’t much stand her there either, and she was sympathetic in it, as I recall. Ray Milland is the charming evil bastard in that, isn’t he?
My point here, apart from critiquing how an actress gets to be beloved despite not playing audience-friendly parts, is to say that my GF knows me to be very much opposed to violence, in theory and in practice, but very free with my descriptive powers. I will, for example, quote approvingly Voltaire’s remark about not being satisfied until the last king is strangled with the guts of the last priest and she will understand, being an intelligent woman, that I am actually opposed to strangling anyone with anything, as most of you, being intellligent people, probably understand perfectly well that “She needs a beating” is a colorful way of saying “Man, that woman is stuck-up on herself and it makes me angry to look at how she carries herself.”
Give you another example of what I’m tallking about here. The second post in this thread, immediately following my OP, said:
and nary a peep was voiced in objection to this obviously hostile, anti-male, pro-beating misandrist (?) statement. I’m merely pointing out, with wry amusement, how you’re hardly (and my GF was hardly) responding to a remark that condones violence (you didn’t give two shits about poor Jimmy Stewart, and assumed that the call for his getting a beating wasn’t intended literally) but you simply had a button pushed. “Woman” + “needs a beating” = outrage. “Man” + “needs a beating” = passes your radar utterly unnoticed.
If I thought that the people who would benefit from thinking about this for a second would devote a moment of thought to it, I would suggest that you think about this.
It was five.
And my price has gone up.
Thank you, not so much for the interruption, though the flogging is an RO extravaganza of the first order, but simply for getting my point and for agreeing with it.
Next time, try “she needs a smack upside the head”. “Woman needs a beating” is violent and offputting, the other is commonly said (even here), can be interpreted as hyperbole, and still gets your point across.
A very general rule of thumb is this: It is okay to joke about physical violence against oppressive figures. It is not okay to joke about phsyical violence against oppressed figures.
Bottom line: Joke about violence towards the people we all think of as being thought of as on top of the pyramid. (Note the layered "thought of"s.) Don’t joke about violecne toward the people we all think of as being thought of as being on the bottom of the pyramid. (Again, note the layered "thought of"s.) Things will go more smoothly for you.
There’s clearly a context there to deduce you don’t mean it literally and are quoting somebody else.
Not so for your ‘beating’ statement.
Again, context. In the context of the thread, it’s clear nobody was suggesting actual physical violence against Jimmy Stewart (or his character).
If I were watching “The Merchant of Venice” and turned to the person next to me and said, “That Shylock is one awful Jew. I wouldn’t mind a Final Solution for him”. With no other context, that’s a monstrous statement. There aren’t many contexts where it’s not a monstrous statement.
It doesn’t matter if I didn’t mean it literally or that I expected other people to realize I didn’t mean it literally. That’s on me, not on them.
No, it is not a colorful way of saying that. It is an ugly, simplistic, black & white method of getting across what you allege to be a sophisticated idea. Just like, “Wow, that woman really put me in my place with her thoughtful and intelligent argument, poking holes in my hopelessly outmoded way of thinking” might colorfully be expressed as “What a cunt.” :rolleyes:
And while the Jimmy Stewart comment was unambiguously a joke (as a parody of the OP), your opening salvo was not so clear-cut.
How is this not in the Pit yet?
This one may be on the house.
That’s from last month. I’m closing this thread and warning pseudotriton ruber ruber for trolling. His posting privileges are suspended while the staff discusses his future here.