Why are white men such losers?

In article , wrote:

Let's not forget the loser white boys in the series "Daria"

Jake Morgendorffer, Daria's Dad: Tightly wound loser who acts before thinking. There is a little bit of Homer Simpson-esque klutz to him too. Chuck Ruttheimer: Creepy, smarmy loser who thinks he's god's gift to women Kevin: Loser who only wins at football and who will be useless after HS Joey, Jeffy and Jamie: Loser boys who will be useless after their looks are gone and who constantly fight over Quinn Trent Lane, Jane's brother: Slacker loser who plays in a lame grunge band and who is usually asleep most of the time. Crush object for Daria up until mid-Season 3. Jesse Moreno, Max Tyler and Nick Campbell, Trent's bandmates in Mystic Spiral: Assorted losers who play in the same lame grunge band as Trent. Jesse is a "himbo"...a buffed out dude who doesn't seem to own a shirt but has precious little upstairs. Max is a hyperkinetic goof who likes to talk tough but is a wimp on the inside. Nick...well...we haven't seen enough personality out of him to know what he's like. Actually Jesse may be Latino or Native American so technically he's not a white boy. However, he's still an "himbo." Artie: Loser geek who thinks he's constantly being abducted by UFOs

However, there is *one* non-loser white boy who has been recently (last episode of Season Three) introduced, and that's Tom. Currently he's Jane Lane's boyfriend. He's smart and funny and goes to a private prep school. His only loser attribute is his rust-bomb car.

And Mack MacKenzie, the token black guy regular on "Daria" is decidedly *not* a loser. He's bright, witty and is dating the one other black regular on the show, Jodie Landon. He's the star running back for the Lawndale Lions and also the captain of the team. However, don't ask him to play QB. His inability to be effective at QB is his only loser attribute.

To the "Daria" writers' credit, the women of the show are very third-dimensional. Even the seemingly *perfect* women on the show, like Jodie Landon, have flaws and personality quirks. If they would only apply that depth to the male characters on the show...<sigh>.

--.\\<-H--

You know, there's still a bit we don't know about Tom (like what's his last name?). Does he have a dark side? I would love to see an episode that not only focuses on that but his relationship with Jane.

Hey, Tom can't be the only positive male in Lawndale. Give us another one!

Jeff M.

On 15 May 2000 21:10:49 GMT, [email] (JMorris830) wrote:

Why do you assume he might have a dark side? Isn't it possible that Tom is exactly who we see he is on the surface: a nice guy? C'mon, this is our chance to get a good, three-dimensional white male onto the show. Let's not screw it up by making him into a vile, disgusting monster beneath the skin.

Martin
(send all e-mail to "[email]")
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+

+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
      Outpost Daria: Your Online Database for All Things Daria!
  http://www.lawndale.net  -OR-  http://systech.simplenet.com/daria/

   Oh, I don't think he's that bad. Otherwise why give him an alter-ego?
   What I should have said is that he's a man of mystery and I'd like to get at
the mystery.

Let's hope it doesn't devolve into that.

Jeff M.

In article ,

I believe him to be just that, a nice guy, he's probably no darker than Daria or Jane could ever be.

Though it would be nice to get some more background info on Tom, all we know for certain is A) he goes to a prep school, B)he drives a rustbucket of a car, nothing else is fact about him, C) he can hold his own with Daria. Anything else about him is speculation, see his appearances this season, won't go into any as not to spoil anyone, and anything you can come up with is merely just speculation. Geez, they could a least give him a last name, then again, the 3 J's have been on since the beginning and only one has a last name (Jamie White), same as Tiffany and Stacy, we just learned theirs last offseason, so it could be awhile before we know with Tom.

I think he will be ok, though, just wish we knew a little more about him.

A.J.

it has to do with liberal's guilt. they blame the white man for everything. this is their self- righteous way of making everything equal

liberals only have feelings, not thoughts, so they can't really control what they do, even in regards to their guilt

Grachman, The "Kiss me you fool!!!"- old romantic movie

Grachman Olajuwon wrote in message news:[email]...

losers.

Jetson,

do

everything.

what

In the immortal style of Homer Simpson: MMMmmm.... broad, sweeping generalizations...

Hey, what about TV sitcoms in general? Starting with the "Honeymooners" and ending with "Frazier" and everything in between. Lets face it, white men are easy targets. There's no policically correct group that will jump all over you if you make the baffoon a white male.

Of course, for the most part, white males create these characters or write these comedies (the above mentioned sitcoms, for example). A lot of white men write for Daria (Glenn, for example, developed most of the characters). For the most part, it has to do with people looking at themselves and laughing at themselves.

Let's not forget, there are a lot of "loser" women on Daria, too!

Milo

In article , Milo Minderbinder writes:

What was it Dennis Miller said many-a-year ago?

"Hey, I'm a white, american, aithiest male, I'm *everybody's* asshole!" ;7

Of course, that kind of hits close to home for me since, aside from being agnostic instead of aithiest, I fit that description perfectly myself. :p -IdentityCrisis

uhhh well it seems that if u took the time to wiret that then u are a loser

In article ,

are a loser

Oh, grow up.

Mike Quinn [email]

     [email] responded to the despicable subject, "Why are white men
such losers?" by innocently and wisely noting that, "Well, it seems that if you
took the time to write that then you are a loser". (Corrected for spelling by
me)
     Apparently, this annoyed Mike Quinn, who replied with a terse, "Oh, grow
up".
     For some reason, I get the unshakeable feeling that Quinn was not
directing his attack at Iknome's lack of mastery of the English language, but
rather at the thrust of his post.
     It seems that if you defend the white man, you become the target of
Quinn's derision.  I wonder if Quinn really believes what he said or was just
trying to score points with the rest of the regulars on this newsgroup.  Having
read alt.tv.daria for some time, I can safely conclude that it is dominated by
the Far Left when it comes to the social issues.  (There are a couple of
noteworthy exceptions.  Grachman Olajuwon's posts have a conservative flavor
and the young gentleman from Illinois, Kyle, seems to have a delightful
Christian perspective.)
     Now let me say that I don't hold in contempt or seek to ridicule people
who disagree with me.  What I try to do is persuade them that they have been
sold a bill of goods (by the media, the government, and the schools) on
subjects such as immigration, abortion, the death penalty, the role of religion
in public life, and countless others.  Never forget that the liberal is a
peerless indoctrinator.
     I reside in the United States, a nation in which 37 million unborn
children have been slaughtered since the Supreme Court legalized abortion in
1973.  But the American Left and Center call this barbarism "reproductive
freedom" and "pro-choice".  Codified discrimination against white males is
"affirmative action" and government hostility towards Christianity is dubbed
"strict adherence to the constitutional principle of separation of church and
state".  (Despite the fact that those words appear nowhere in the document)
     The Left's Orwellian doublespeak should be screaming at the American
people, but alas, they are more concerned with how their stocks are doing and
when the next blockbuster movie is coming out.
     With the Clinton Era winding down, there is, perhaps, some hope in sight.
George W. Bush is no conservative, but his election would represent an
incremental step to the political Right.  With moral confusion in America at an
all time high, progress must be measured in very small steps.

John

Long live William Hubbs Rehnquist.

I think that only seems so from an American perspective, where the party political choice available seems to be between centre right and far right. From a European perspective I wouldn't say there have been many extreme leftist views advocated here. Politics generally has been drifting rightwards for a couple of decades now, which can give the illusion that people are leftwing when in fact they may just be liberals who have clung to their beliefs and resisted the pressure to drift with the political tide.

Again, speaking from a country where the Christian Church is officially embedded in our system of government, with bishops having permanent seats and voting rights in the House of Lords, and the mandatory teaching of Christian doctrine in schools, it seems to me nevertheless that Christians have much more influence in America and with the US Government. Despite the supposed separation of church and state, no American politician seems able to open their mouth without acknowledging God, something that you would very rarely hear in the UK. Our current Prime Minister is known to be a devout Christian, but few other politicians would ever talk about the importance of religion in the way that American politicians are wont to do.

There's this strange paradox that the USA is a very heavily Christianised country (with a fundamentalist wing which at times rival Islamic fundamentalists with their penchant for jihads) whilst the UK is a largely secular country, yet *officially* our systems of government are totally the other way round.

-Shez.

In article , [email] (Al52228) wrote:

In cartoons. The thread has expanded to include live action sitcoms as well. You've missed the point because you've lost the context.

!?

Choco rations gone up to 20 grams again; doubleplusgood.

By correcting the spelling, you removed the context.

Iknome said: "uhhh well it seems that if u took the time to wiret that then u are a loser" [sic]

Iknome just wanted the opportunity to call someone a loser. Like those stupid youths who hang around on streetcorners randomly insulting passersby. The kind who hassle people just for kicks, because they're too dim and bored to think of anything else to do.

Sometimes a troll is just a troll. I'd inlcude the rest of your post as an example of this, but it'd waste bandwidth.

So, [chunk]

Hell, go the whole hog, vote for Alan Keyes, the only candidate to jump into Michael Moore's Mobile Mosh Pit, to the sound of Rage Against The Machine. (Suck.com also ran a feature on him (May 12th 00), written and illustrated by Peter Bagge.) Keyes has no chance of being President though, because he's black, right-wing, and has a personality.

In article ,

white men

that if you

spelling by

terse, "Oh, grow

language, but

of

--Oh, good lord. Mike was just responding to the general idea that anyone who has more than two words to say about a subject is a loser. It's a popular concept among the "u suk" school of trolls, who believe your time is better spent seeking out people to label as losers. --Tice Rust:-- The other Y2K problem.

In article ,

Yes it did (I was a little annoyed in general and this was a way for me to let some of it out)

More at the level of maturity portrayed by it, we're supposed to be above this stuff around here (or at least, we used to have a higher "average maturity")

Whoa! This has caught my attention (since I *am* a white man). Frankly, I don't see how pointing out (and probably I shouldn't have) something I didn't like translates into not liking people who defend white men (I defend white men and honestly I feel resentment toward prople who trash white males)

I don't believe what you thought I meant and anyone that knows me well, knows that I don't really care too much about what people think of me - I don't care if I "score points" with anyone and I try not to worry if I'm going to offend anyone either. However, when directly attacked, I will defend myself.

I can't disagree with that but I don't think it's a "Far Left" but more of a left leaning (and I don't think I'd ever put the words "delightful" and "Christian" together - just being honest, no offense intended)

That's true, to an extent (though I've never attended a public school in this country and sometimes I'm glad I haven't)

Personally, I feel I have unique views on the subjects you mention, so at the risk of starting a war here

It's what built this country, but people who immigrate here should follow all the rule (i.e. be here legally).

I think abortion is horrible and on an intelectual level is a way to look for a "easy way out," IMO (and I'm not trying to "score" any "points"). Though, I don't know how I'd react if put in a situation dealing with this.

The death penalty is also horrible, it's just vengence for vengence sake (and this is where most people get inconsistant, you can't be pro-life and pro-death penalty, IMO)

Religion should be an important part of your private life, and you can take inspiration from it into your public life, but in places like schools, it shouldn't be forced upon anyone (there are religious schools in most parts of the country, and that is what they are there for).

Like guns?

I just want to say for the record that I don't trust anyone who is at the extremes of the political spectrum, just because they are all liars that say one thing and do another (if they do anything at all), especially politicians. And that I'm probably not going to vote for either Gore or Bush in the upcoming presidential election because I don't really trust either one of them and I don't think either one of them has the charisma to lead a boy scout troup, let alone an entire country, IMO.

That'll be my small protest of the year ;)

Mike Quinn [email]