I think we’re actually in agreement here - the point I was making is that when Der is screaming about Christians he’s arguing that they’re doing exactly what their religion is telling them too; he insists that Christianity is founded on murder, conversion at sword-point, the rack and the flame, and that the Bible says it should be. The “men’s rights” stuff started only when he’d been here for a while, but the hatred of religion goes way back. It’s been interesting, though, to see his popular support fall away since his screeching hatred extended from, say, pro-life advocates and Christians generally to women. Suddenly he’s no longer the favourite attack dog he used to be.
Yes, my defense of “DT isn’t banned because he’s a liberal!” is “But there are worse conservatives on the board who aren’t banned.”
I think this is logical and holds up fine. Do you disagree? Like I said, I’d be happy to see them both banned, but nobody seems to actually read what I write…
There’s the whole thread he started complaining about race realists being modded for dragging their stupid pseudoscience bullshit into every Africa thread. He defends Chen019 and Chief Pedant’s postings privileges as valuable insight. Oh, and he sees nothing wrong with telling Blacks they have “one foot in the jungle”
I say he’s a racist because while he doesn’t make the racist remarks himself, he constantly defends those who do.
That doesn’t make him racist, any more than my defending the right of someone to talk about their faith here makes me Christian. It just means that we consider the right to speak ones mind more important than the right not to be offended.
Yeah, you know who else thought accusations of racism meant he’d made a point? Great company there…
Maybe it’s because you still say racist things like that South Africa is full of tribesmen living in the bush? Maybe?
Being a Christian isn’t the same thing as being a racist. See, if you had him leaping to the defence of, say, the paedophiles’ right to speak, you’d have a case.
Gloss over hate speech as merely offensive all you want.
It’s harmful and indefensible in both cases.
I’m not. We’re not talking about hate speech here. We’re talking about jokes and misunderstanding (wilfully or otherwise) science and statistics. They are emphatically not the same thing, and by claiming they are you damage your cause and insult victims of racism.
That you consider brazilnut conservative is telling. He’s not conservative, he’s a nutjob. Nobody defends him. Everybody points and laughs at him. As much of a nutjob as he is, I don’t think I’ve ever seen him describe people he disagrees with as evil. He tends towards declaring anyone disagreeing with him as straw manning him whether they are or not, and calling them liars before he banninates them.
People not agreeing with what you write isn’t the same thing as not reading what you write. And no, calling brazilnut and DT equal isn’t logical and doesn’t hold up. I don’t really care if DT gets banned or not, I learned to just ignore his ranting a long time ago. What I find absurd are some of the defenses offered for him and his behavior.
Society at large? Do tell. And by “do tell” I mean cite?
Cite? And make sure it’s a leading Republic politician instead of some local schlub with absolutely no support outside of his township.
Yeah, yeah, we get it. Everyone who brings up anything concerning race that might make you uncomfortable is RACIST!!! You’re really a dumb shit. You constantly mischaracterize poster’s posts concerning race as RACISM. You get called on this multiple times and you put your fingers in your ears. Yawn. The fact that you don’t see your bias is astounding. But that’s what makes you so stupid. Now if you did have a valid point, you would take your accusations with the seriousness they deserve and provide the ACTUAL posts that you think qualifies someone as racist. YOu’d be able to point to each specific one and show clearly why it is racist. But you don’t want to do that. Because then your accusations don’t seem fair. Instead, you prefer to scream RACIST and hope it sticks, like wetness to water. Your debate style is like a party celebrating the coming together of two fallacies: Begging the Question and Ad Hominem. Drink up you lush.
Wow, with these 3-D glasses, I can actually see the spittle flying!
Perhaps you’re simply full of shit and too worked up about the subject to realize it.
HEY, Der Trihs, I think I found the girl for you!!!
No. The point is not how bad the label is, but what the threshold is that one might pass in order to be accurately characterized as such. So, for instance, someone arguing for allowing more religious expression in the public square, may or may not be a Christian. Someone arguing against abortion, may or may not be a Christian. Someone discussing whether all races have the same cognitive abilities may or not be a racist.
Not only that, given the seriousness of the accusation of “racist”, don’t you think the bar for using it should be pretty fucking high? Or do you think using it more cavalierly is just fine?
But shouldn’t we determine first that it actual hate speech?
But that’s not even the bar he’s setting, it’s lower than that. It’s not someone who talks about race, it’s someone who supports someone’s right to talk about race who is racist. Which is utterly absurd, and why I made a ridiculous comparison.
This is flat out not true. I WISH it was true, but people have defended brazil.
First of all, I’m a dude. Second of all, what part of that is untrue? A republican politician has literally talked about setting up concentration camps. But, you know, you’d rather just shrug it off, apparently because you’ve never met a minority you don’t jack off at the thought of hurting.
Personally, I’d consider any group with a policy advisor who’s been arrested for trying to blow up doctor’s clinics suspect, but, well, the anti-abortion folks seem to have no problem with terrorism.
They themselves claim they are “one of the leading pro-life Christian activist organizations in the nation” and are the “most visible voice of the pro-life activist movement in America”.
Former South Carolina GOP executive. How much of this is just because he’s willing to say it, and the rest of his party doesn’t have the guts to?
This guy held the job of GOP executive for three months.
Several years ago.
In your opinion, was your description of him the best, most honest, most fair-minded one you could have made?
Fallacy of argumentum ad ignoratium.
Ermm… cite?
The description I made was “a republican politician”. That was it. I’m not going to play the “I demand you present a more PROMINENT republican politician” game. It’s a way to deflect from the homophobia that poisons the republican party as a whole, in a way to pretend it doesn’t exist, and the “Oh, well, we support traditional marriage” isn’t pure bigotry. Your guys, your party, you deal with it. Why is “Liberals are holding these guys up to shame us?” a bigger deal than “We have fucking nazis in our party”.
Any comments on the anti-abortion groups being linked to murder and terrorism, btw? Why do you feel that that issue basically gets zero buzz and zero media coverage besides a few passed over exposes?
Yes, and I don’t deny that this is literally true. Kincannon is, in a sense, a politician, and he’s clearly a self-identifying member of the Republican Party.
But I asked you, “Was your description of him the best, most honest, most fair-minded one you could have made?”
My comment is that this is another disingenuous bit of phrasing. “Linked to,” doesn’t have a particularly well-defined meaning, and it allows you to defend a tenuous connection as literally falling within the ambit of your claim.
You’re right - having your senior policy advisor, who was once arrested on charges of conspiracy to blow up a doctor’s clinic, claim they had never talked to a murderer, when it turns out they had actually helped that murderer track his victim’s movements repeatedly is a “tenuous connection”. There is no connection to any sort of terrorism there! No wrong doing at all. Christ, you’d think somebody had died or something with the way I’m acting.