and I see from a previous thread constipated too! 
Using the word ‘Jewess’ in my presence wouldn’t get you labelled as racist. It would get you labelled as a weird-ass, whose company I may be hesitant of seeking out. Much as if it were used on a message board.
(ignoring Bryan’s reference) Really? I have a major thing for them, myself. Well, not as major as I’d like. 
But if anybody can make it strive for majority it’s somebody with wavy, raven tresses and a good, Sephardic bosom. 
Wasn’t the whole world racist before Rosie Parks? Brazil nuts and Eenie, Meenie, Minie, Mo!!
Sarah Silverman described herself as a hairy Jewess (I think that was her words), and I wouldn’t mind a little of that.
Hey, hey, hey! Enough with the Jewry, already. Let’s get back to central matters, like my current monumental loathing for that idiot, “Junior-Modding” Blake. Who else has he annoyed?
*I can say “Jewry,” my nickname’s Moshe.
Uh… by not commenting on the content of the OP, I gave it my tacit approval and support.
[sub](See, King of Soup, us commoners can throw around our support, too!)[/sub]
Well, thanks to your OP which prompted a link by zut to the amazing leaping cats thread, I learned that “the plural of anecdote is not data.” I’ll be forever grateful for that.
Hey! You got your racism in my fear of hereditary insanity!
Yeah? Well you got your fear of hereditary insanity in my racism!
Can’t we agree that Lovecraft was both racist AND insane? Not that there’s anything wrong with that, of course…
I FORGOT ABOUT THAT. Fuck! I absolutely cannot stand it when that fucking little smug little mincy-assed little twit pulls that quote out. Gah.
Poster 1: Well, I don’t have a cite, but I’ve noticed that (relates a relevant
observation based on actual personal experience supporting Poster 1’s POV.)
That Twit Blake: (dismissively) Ah, yes, your personal
experience is all well and good, but the plural of anecdote is not data.
Askia: That’s just stupid.
That Twit Blake: I believe this is not the correct forum for personal attacks.
You seem incapable of appreciating the intelltcual dscourse we hav here. I
shall summon a moderator to deal with you.
Askia: (Mumbling under breath, “Look at this asshole!” Resumes typing.)
Fine. Call a moderator.
I did nothing wrong. I called that opinion stupid, not you.
Blake. You’re begging the question. You’re making a hasty generalization.
That statement is a red herring, an attack ad hominem, a straw man and…
Askia: Are you quoting from that logical fallacies website?
Blake: (Ignores me.)
FUCKING TWIT.
I would agree with Blake on the matter that “Shadow over Innsmouth” was probably influenced by fear of hereditary Insanity. I also can’t help but see that it was also influenced by fears of mis…racial mixing.
Well, there’s also another (in)famous debate/flamewar about lovecraft that sometimes get trotted out on the newsgroups, but I loathe to mention it for fear of it flaring up here.
Those were the points I initially found interesting, and if he had recanted the “Lovecraft didn’t mean offense by using nigger because nigger wasn’t an offensive word then and Negroes called themselves niggers… blah blah blah,” we probrably would have had more common ground. But then he had to adopt that oh-so-superior tone I do so despise… then he tried ignoring me…
I keep hoping he’ll show up and explain himself, but he doesn’t seem as if he’s posted on the boards since I posted this thread early this morning.
Coward.
Man up, already! Twit. He’s pissing me off again.
How many Freudian Psychiatrists does it take to screw in a lightbulb?
Two. One to raise the lightswitch and another to screw in the Mother–I mean, Bulb!
OK, Lovecraft’s fear was Race. Race and Insanity. His fears were Race and Insanity. And Women. Among his fears…
And that was while he was asleep!
Patience, it’s just a-dawning where he is, I think.
By the way, is really the first time he’s been pitted? If so, I’ll be amazed.
Y’know, I was considering not renewing my membership, but that thread and this little stoush has really got my juices flowing again. Where else am I going to find a good argument like this? I’m still waiting for my reply on the beatification thing, though. And the whole metaphorically/literally bit. Blake? You out there?
I never said I had proof Lovecraft had a cat by that name. The protoganist of The Rats In The Walls does. I speculated Lovecraft may have named the fictional cat after one he actually owned.
Was he a racist?
Yep. You know the Simpson’s episode where Barney decides to quit drinking? “All I’m saying is that when we die, there’ll be a planet for the Jews, a planet for the Irish, a planet for the Chinese, and we’ll all be a lot happier.”.
In his stories interbreeding always leads to deterioration.
I still say Shadow Over Insmouth is about insanity though.
Oh, and Askia, if you want Blake to show up you’d best put a link in that other thread. If you did so, I missed it.
Well, I’m pretty certain HPL was indeed racist by today’s standards, but in the early 20th century, you’d have had a tough time finding almost anyone who wasn’t. Fear of immigrants and racial miscegenation was universal and a cultural fixation.
However, HPL was a writer of fantastic fiction. I’m not entirely certain one can easily say that his stories reflect fears of racial mixing, since what he was talking about was interspecies mixing. The Deep Ones weren’t human. They were an alien species, terribly corrupted by the Great Old Ones.
Was writing poems like The Creation Of The Nigger also a cultural fixation?
I’d say the descriptions of the Mexican workers in The Transition Of Juan Romero are glaringly obvious signs that Lovecraft didn’t like different groups of humans mixing either. The discussion of locals in Imprisoned With The Pharoahs is too.
Re The Deep Ones
I always thought that they were always that way and had either found Cthulu in the course of colonization, or that the race of Cthulu had actually created them as servitors.