tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6924668268143757716.post1544240861062964300..comments2024-01-24T15:33:58.720-05:00Comments on A<br> Mythical<br> Monkey<br> writes<br> about<br> the<br> movies: Nina Mae McKinney And The 1932 Short, "Pie, Pie Blackbird"Mythical Monkeyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11330587602682498820noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6924668268143757716.post-13993520651303196612009-09-04T13:34:00.444-04:002009-09-04T13:34:00.444-04:00'Ass' is a great word. Just sayin'.'Ass' is a great word. Just sayin'.Lupnernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6924668268143757716.post-10423672778055869512009-09-02T19:05:05.794-04:002009-09-02T19:05:05.794-04:00I'd probably call it "payback" for t...I'd probably call it "payback" for that time when we were little kids and I convinced you to push the stop button on the escalators in Harveys department store ...Mythical Monkeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11330587602682498820noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6924668268143757716.post-15956907464171238912009-09-02T18:44:17.892-04:002009-09-02T18:44:17.892-04:00"provocateur need only provoke and an agitato..."provocateur need only provoke and an agitator need only agitate"<br /><br />into which category does pointing at your brother and asking "does this bother you?" over and over, fit? I'm guessing both to a degree. Though I guess throwing your nephew's toys on said brother in the dark on Christmas Eve would constitute a provocateur, while the aforementioned pointing, but not touching (that's important), would constitute agitating<br /><br />I could be wrongUncle Tomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14928846509441045279noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6924668268143757716.post-49959462403374217072009-08-31T12:51:36.037-04:002009-08-31T12:51:36.037-04:00While we're at it, I may not be a fussbudget, ...While we're at it, I may not be a fussbudget, but I really have little tuning for what words bother people v. what bothers me.<br /><br />For instance, I always thought that "ass" was the polite casual way to describe a derriere, and I thought "b-tt" was vile and indefensible. I now learn that five-yr.-olds are taught to use "b^tt". Similarly, "tits" always seemed to me mildly risque, but certainly much less vulgar and ugly than "B^^b." Come to find out, "b^^b" was used on TV all the times, and again -- kids are taught to use it.<br /><br />Go figure.<br /><br />I, of course, prefer <i>teats</i>.<br /><br />Or <i>bosoms</i> -- that's the greatest word of all times. . . .mister muleboyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14367123802128879318noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6924668268143757716.post-38912284302611220102009-08-31T12:48:07.746-04:002009-08-31T12:48:07.746-04:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.mister muleboyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14367123802128879318noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6924668268143757716.post-29058453531047650102009-08-31T11:39:12.043-04:002009-08-31T11:39:12.043-04:00No, you're probably right, a provocateur need ...No, you're probably right, a provocateur need only provoke and an agitator need only agitate. But to be <i>perceived</i> as a provocateur or agitator rather than a racist buffoon, I think you would have to make clear you were aware that the word was unacceptable and that you were using it with some goal in mind other than to humiliate or marginalize or objectify or dehumanize, etc.<br /><br />Lenny Bruce standing on a stage, for example, would get wider latitude than a stranger on the street, because you assume he's up to something.<br /><br />Even then, eventually there would have to be some payoff, I think, ala George Carlin berating us for hiding truths behind euphemisms ("Poor people used to live in slums; Now the economically disadvantaged occupy substandard housing in the inner cities."). Otherwise, it's just Jack Black or Eddie Murphy doing fart jokes ...<br /><br />Hate that word, the f-word, by the way. I am an over-sheltered fussbudget, when you get right down to it.Mythical Monkeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11330587602682498820noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6924668268143757716.post-41205263219752425022009-08-31T11:25:22.559-04:002009-08-31T11:25:22.559-04:00Hmmm; I guess I disagree about the provocateur nee...Hmmm; I guess I disagree about the provocateur needing a goal beyond provoking a reaction. But I'll take the point that generally agitators are "agitating" <i>for</i> something -- even though, strictly speaking, I'd say that "agitation" is just shaking things up, [with the benefit of "watch[ing] things fly". And I have no such goal.<br /><br />As for our respective audiences, well, that is the joy of the monitored comment. But then you have to be a monitorer of comments.<br /><br /><br />[and yes, to mistermuleboy, I know that it's "monitor". . . . ]<br /><br />[oh, wait; it's me complaining about me].<br /><br /><br />Out of respect for your audience, and for you as my friend, I will dispense with any thought o' <i>pickaninny.</i><br /><br /><i>Jig</i> and <i>boy</i> are right out too.<br /><br />As they of course should be.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Unless one Bruces. Brucing it might justify the word.<br /><br />the newly-coined verb to utter a word into submission a la Lenny Bruce [born Leonard Alfred Schneider].<br /><br /><br />hmmm -- verification word is strepit.<br /><br />Like "strep it."<br /><br />Like "get a sore throat and shut up already."mister muleboyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14367123802128879318noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6924668268143757716.post-83531992431830554182009-08-31T10:54:03.504-04:002009-08-31T10:54:03.504-04:00Well, if by "provocateur," you mean gene...Well, if by "provocateur," you mean general pain in the backside, you've probably got that down already.<br /><br />I kid.<br /><br />I think if one wants to be perceived as a provocateur or agitator, one would have to have some sort of goal in mind, a goal, that is, other than just making people uncomfortable, and your audience would have to be aware of the goal. Even to be perceived as a contrarian, your audience would have to know you well enough to understand your motivations.<br /><br />I myself know you like to toss bombs into polite conversation just to watch things fly, and I would think by now most of your audience understands that. I'm not sure all of <i>my</i> audience understands that, though ...Mythical Monkeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11330587602682498820noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6924668268143757716.post-78877091335581399112009-08-31T09:57:36.698-04:002009-08-31T09:57:36.698-04:00anybody using the term in the 21st century would r...<i>anybody using the term in the 21st century would rightly be considered a racist buffoon.</i><br /><br /><br />any chance we might qualify for <i>provocateur</i>, agitator, or contrarian? <br /><br />I enoyed the etymology. It had to be Portugese -- for the Spaniards to do it, they would have had to show an uncharacteristic willingness to bend two related words into a goofy contraction [<i>pequeño niño</i> into <i>pequeñiño</i>]. Just not going to happen with those linguistically-tight Spaniards [as opposed to yer drunken-spanish-and-french=portugese types].<br /><br />I shan't ask from whence deriveth <i>[edited]</i>. . . .mister muleboyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14367123802128879318noreply@blogger.com