I don’t care how you rationalize your guilt, as long as you recognize it. I suppose it would be too much to hope for that you learn from it and adjust your posting style accordingly, i.e. if you propose doing away with a constitutional protection, people who point out the abuses that can and likely would result are not “dragging”, “sophisting”, “strawmanning”, whatever - they have read your proposal and see some flaws in it.
What proof was that? Black conservatives are rare and catch some flack? Big deal. Your username wants to embrace the flack, it expects the flack, it’s a flack-magnet! You’re defining yourself in terms of how you think others see you. That’s lame. If I were you, I’d ask the name be changed to drop the OMG.
And then I’d die of embarrassment when thinking about all the stupid things I (as you) had posted.
So you see no problem with a user named “Proud Klansman, and what YOU gonna do about it, fag?” (assuming of course that such a lengthy name with a question mark would get past the software).
Even if one has no philosophical objection to Klan membership (or calling people “fag”), that choice of username doesn’t strike you as pre-emptively hostile?
And I don’t get the point of “dominate the South”, true or not, perceived or not. You’re claiming to be a specimen of the rare species negros traditionalis, so why can’t Proud Klansman be similarly rare? You’re grabbing at an irrelevant point, while accusing me of doing the same.
Well, here I am posting under my real name, so if hurt is coming, bring it on.
Well, I recognized my mistaken assumption that you’d started lots of threads (when in fact, you’ve only started four), so I’ll generously assume you suffer from misconceptions, too. And, of course, I don’t know what you’ve seen or not seen me do. I guess I could dig up some refutations I’ve posted (of you, or someone else) that contain factual evidence and links and such. Heck, there was one just recently about the authorship of a science-fiction short story that someone mistakenly attributed and which I refuted, complete with a link to the story itself and the reasoning which led me to that conclusion.
You’re being overly generous to yourself, but okay. As I recall, your “sources” are often fault-riddled right-wing rants that you found somewhere on the internet. Heck, I’m sure I could find an essay arguing that garlic butter is a Marxist plot. Don’t make it so, though.
And I’ll be there (when I feel like it) to challenge you, point out the flaws in your arguments to amuse myself, and there’s always the remote chance that you’ll be a better person for it. After all, you’re not able to just shrug me off as “a liberal whackjob”. You have to actually write whole paragraphs in defense of your arguments, which (ideally) would be helping you to refine and strengthen those arguments, if you had any sense at all.
It’s like debating if a fictional character has dark red hair or slightly-darker red hair. Of no consequence, either way.
OMG a Black Conservative has already confirmed that he clearly understands the motivation behind Edmond’s stunt:
And even though he has been playing dumb for a couple pages now, he initially admitted that the fetus doll was intended to plant a value judgment inside the minds of pre-pubescent children:
OMG gets it, and he understands that abortion is legal, the children in question are too young to be saddled with matters of reproduction and since page 2 has been pretending that the fetus doll was a harmless “gift” in no way intended to stir up controversy or cause any parents or children discomfort. Everything after his initial admissions is typical OMG shtick: red herrings he casts out in order to defend whatever morally dubious conviction he takes credit for.
Heck, why not hand out little electric chairs, to highlight the fact that the people on Death Row are as much human as anyone else, only criminal (for lack of a better word).
Actually, that would be kinda kick-ass - little electric chairs, nooses, axes…
Ummm… Right. Well, you can call it guilt if you like. You will, anyway.
And since you keep bringing this up, you, yourself, admitted that if you found something to be wrong in actuality, that the negative societal impacts correcting that wrong would have on society, if any at all, would not stop you from seeking to correct that wrong. So why do you keep going back to this talking point?
No. Just that Blacks daring to label themselves as conservatives or align themselves with conservative movements does, indeed, result in shock and awe from the media. How many times are you going to need me to explain this to you?
…Oh, and fwiw, considering the number of “You can’t be Black” comments I get on this board, I think my name is perfect.
Nope. I’d laugh and probably talk to him, to be quite honest.
Nope. But, I must ask, you consider my username to be equivalent to “Proud Klansmen”?
Not so much claiming they’re rare as to the common reaction to there being one. Haven’t I said this before?
Ask someone else. I’m not into physical violence.
Okay. So that makes two. You’re moving up.
Really? Would you care to wager on this? It wouldn’t be the first time in this thread you were wrong, or even the second or the third, and probably not even the fourth, so why would one more time hurt?
I write paragraphs in response to your paragraphs. I mean, just look at your recent responses. For every sentence I write, you write two to three in response, on average. But that’s neither here nor there. Pointing out the flaws? When do you do this? You usually end up going off on some tangent. Case in point, the last ten or so responses.
Value judgment? I don’t think so. Unless, that is, you hate science which, apparently, you do (along with the English language).
It only “stirs up controversy” because the parents stir up controversy, not because it’s controversial. Children don’t question motives or ask “why?” someone has given them something; they ask “what?” they’ve been given. But didn’t I say this before? Rhetorical question, of course, because I did. As it is, what I said, well asked, is what’s wrong with a fetus doll. I’m still doesn’t explain what’s wrong with a fetus doll aside from the fact that it’s a-- you know-- fetus? That’s not a red herring. That’s a legitimate question. You (or maybe it was someone else) already admitted that the doll itself isn’t offensive, and it’s been shown that asking what the doll is doesn’t necessitate a discussion on abortion, so what’s the problem?
I said “guilt” because you said “guilt.” Is your short-term memory for your own actions really that impaired? No wonder you can’t win an argument.
Funny, I don’t recall saying I was Batman…
I don’t understand your point and doubt that you have one.
Still? More than ten years after Colin Powell and and Condoleezza Rice hit the national stage? Well, you can tell “the media” for me that they should grow up.
Of course, you letting yourself be defined by this stupidity (as well as trying to use it as some kind of martyr-authority) reflects poorly on you. For my part, I don’t care what colour you are, but I’ll feel free to challenge stupidity when and where I find it, and you’re such a rich font.
I’ve think I’ve seen one or two of those. Yeah, those people are stupid. What difference does it make if you’re black or not? Even if you are, it doesn’t (or at least shouldn’t) give your comments any special weight. They’ll be scrutinized and criticized along with everyone else’s.
But I’m not asking if you’d be offended by the name. I’m asking if you would recognize that it’s an intentionally hostile name.
In the ways relevant to the argument I am making, your username and the hypothetical username have much in common. It need not invoke the Klan; that was simply the first example to came to mind. Pick any pariah-type subculture, like the Klan or (as you are claiming) black conservatism. Make a username out of it, and incorporate the reaction you expect people to have, wearing your unpopularity as a badge of honour. It’s childish. Other sample usernames:
Westboro Baptist Member, Accepting Your Sinful Scorn
Pedophile on a Fruitless Mission for Acceptance
The Last Utah Liberal
Cross-Bearing Communist
Yes, I am a Telemarketer
Unbowed “Full House” Jokewriter
Uwe Boll
We briefly discussed rarity at one point, but in case, you being a black conservative certainly gets no “OMG” reaction from me. In fact, there are a number of conservative viewpoints (opposition to abortion, gay marriage, religious values, etc.) that I don’t see even in the slightest conflict with blackness. Voting Republican might seem a poor choice for a black American (or at least a black living in the southern U.S.), in light of that party’s Southern Strategy and whatnot, but Republican and conservative aren’t synonymous and the Southern Strategy is fading or has faded into history, anyway.
The concept of a northern U.S. black Republican isn’t all that novel. Heck, I remember a scene from Barney Millerfrom 1976, in which a man is arrested because he imprisoned his wife to keep her from voting Republican, because he was voting Democrat and didn’t want to get cancelled out. Ron Harris (played by Ron Glass), took obvious and immediate personal offense: “I’d like to see you get away with that UP HERE!” And it was amusing not because Harris is black and him being a Republican represents some kind of nonsequitor, but because of the serious, scolding, somewhat prissy tone of the admonition.
Anyway, I haven’t seen that episode in over 30 years and I’m honesty not sure why that moment struck me as so memorable. That, and the final punchline where Jack Soo, indecisive though the entire episode, says “The hell with it, I’ll vote for someone I like.” Saying hell in a sitcom must’ve been a bit gutsy for the time.
I see YouTube has the episode available (Season 3, #39) and I’ll watch it after finishing this post. It’s possible I’m misremembering it - I was only a kid at the time, of course.
Well, feel free to propose some stakes, just for the sake of argument. Of course, even if I accepted, we’d need some kind of authority to judge if (or if not) the conditions of the wager were satisfied, and that’ll be a problem since I don’t see you finding anyone on the SDMB acceptable who isn’t as reactionary as yourself. Besides, what would I have to do - find three occasions where you cited a website that had a right-wing political slant and a number of factual errors, for example? Four occasions? Ten? How many errors would I have to find in a cite? Who would independently evaluate the significance of these errors?
Yeah, and I have ~36000 posts to your ~700. So?
I don’t like throwing around the word “hypocrite” but it suits you so well. The red-headed character is a mere analogy. There is no specific character in mind. This is obvious, but in lieu of actual argument, you ask disingenuous questions in an effort to start the tangents you falsely accuse me of pursuing.
If you need it to be a specific character, it’s Mary Jane Watson. Satisfied?
Well, I just watched that episode of Barney Miller again (or at least the relevant scene) and it still cracked me up, entirely because of Ron Glass’s delivery. I can understand why this stuck in my memory, now.
Ha! All this time I thought Jack Soo’s “I’ll vote for somebody I like” was the episode’s last line, but now I’m finding out there was a scene after that of the characters sitting around, watching a TV for the election returns.
Yemana: [to Harris] How come you’re a Republican? [minor audience chuckle]
Harris: Because those of us who are into the decategorization of the stereotypical political alignments are also broadening our horizons.
[Yemana nods sagely, audience laughs]
So in 1976, a black Republican was unusual, I guess, though apparently noting it was an afterthought.
I can see why I’d forget this scene - it’s very low key.
As an incidental note, another Season 3 episode (a two-parter at the end) is about an impending police strike. Harris speaks favourably about the need for a “A show of solidarity. It’s a demonstration of common goals to point out to the city that there’s a need for major reforms.”
Yes, there was a time when Republicans were in favour of solidarity, common goals, and reform.
You aren’t one of those people, if they do exist. That’s the whole point. What you hope to gain from claiming to be someone who finds fetuses not gross is unclear. However, the rest of us are gaining a lot of amusement from watching you try to gain something from claiming it.
[spoiler]
In a spoiler box because I think it’s funny that you think I would be stymied by trying to explain why fetuses are gross. Parts that are supposed to be on the inside of people - livers, lungs, intestines, fetuses - and even to some extent parts that are frequently found on the outside of people, such as blood, feces, pus - generate disgust through a strong response in the anterior insular cortex of the brain. This response may be an evolutionary adaptation to generate avoidance behavior to materials such as the internal organs, body fluids, or waste products of another human that factor into spreading disease or are seen as a result of trauma or danger.
It’s possible OMG suffers from Huntington’s Disease and has an impaired ability to recognize things that generate disgust, but it’s more probable that he is simply lying.[/spoiler]
Incorrect. I said nothing about “guilt”. You levied a charge against me, to which I said:
[QUOTE=Me]
If you think me telling you to stick to the topic at hand is wanting to avoid you pointing out the flaws in my reasoning regarding a topic I wasn’t talking about to begin with is trying to avoid the flaws in my reasoning, then I suppose I’m guilty as charged.
[/quote]
I suppose you can chalk that up as (another) win for me. And, yes, there are plenty. As far as you’re concerned, there are about three or four in this thread already.
I would hope not, seeing as you’re neither smart enough nor rich enough nor American enough to be Batman.
You know, you’re not nearly as smart as you give yourself credit for. Anyway, let’s take a little trip down memory lane to just a few posts earlier in this thread where you said:
[QUOTE=You]
I suppose it would be too much to hope for that you learn from it and adjust your posting style accordingly, i.e. if you propose doing away with a constitutional protection, people who point out the abuses that can and likely would result are not “dragging”, “sophisting”, “strawmanning”, whatever - they have read your proposal and see some flaws in it.
[/quote]
Now, if you will, remember back to nearly six months ago when you first brought this up in relation to banning abortion. I told you that it was a complete red herring as, if abortion is wrong, the negative effects of correcting that wrong have no bearing on the actual argument as to whether abortion should be legal or illegal. Of course, you couldn’t understand this, so I asked you whether or not slaves should have been emancipated, even if it would have a negative effect on society and you responded:
[QUOTE=You]
Okay… yes, slaves should be emancipated regardless of the effect on the overall society.
[/quote]
To which I responded:
[QUOTE=Me]
Great. So you realize that if an action is wrong, then the societal consequences of addressing that wrong to be immaterial to addressing that wrong. Which means that, by your own admission, arguing the effects disallowing an action would have while ignoring whether or not that argument is indeed a wrong to be nothing short of a red herring.
[/quote]
So therefore, by your own admission, the real argument behind whether something should be allowed or disallowed is if it’s wrong or not, not the effects correcting that wrong would have on society. Thus, going on about the latter when the issue is the former would constitute a-- gasp!– red herring. QED. Thanks for playing.
I would, but we’re talking about a bunch of liberals, and well… they don’t listen.
(I bet you’re going to ask me to define ‘liberal’ now, aren’t you?)
If I wanted to let myself be defined by stupidity, I’d be a raging Democrat/liberal, on account of conservatives/Republicans being racists and a bunch idealogues. According to this board, at least. But luckily, I don’t let myself be.
If you want to challenge stupidity, you ought to start with yourself. Aside from the above, which was done for a purpose, I’m not akin to dragging up past arguments, but if you’re going to consistently make stuff up, then I can. You might be surprised. Then again, you probably won’t be, as you’d just ignore it all the same.
ahem
[QUOTE=You]
So you see no problem with a user named “Proud Klansman, and what YOU gonna do about it, fag?” (assuming of course that such a lengthy name with a question mark would get past the software).
[/quote]
Hence the response you were given. However, even if you’re going to change up your question, the answer is still the same.
Still missing the point I see. Probably purposefully. Either way, let’s try this again. My username has little to do with the reaction people are expected to have, or any measure of popularity, but rather the reaction they actually have. You’ve been given examples of this-- both off this board and on it-- and it wouldn’t be that hard for you to find examples of it, yourself. At this point, I’m not sure what you’re arguing but, whatever it is, I don’t much of feel like entertaining it, anymore because it’s dumb.
…And, for the record, the very fact that you’re actually spending so much time on username, going apeshit over it, is quite ironic.
You said, and I quote:
[QUOTE=You]
As I recall, your “sources” are often fault-riddled right-wing rants that you found somewhere on the internet.
[/quote]
Forget the factual error part for the moment. I’m more interested in the “right-wing rant” thing, as you said I quote them “often”. So, given that, find me ten such sites. I’ll wait. As I told you earlier, the only two “right-wing” sites you’ve ever seen me quote was a blog on the abortion rate and poverty (which you accepted) and the site of my thread I started a few days ago. But I will wait, because I absolutely want to see this.
Just what I said. You see, apparently you can’t write me off as some “a conservative whackjob”, since you end up having to type two to three times the amount I write in response to you.
How am I a hypocrite? It’s an analogy you brought up and a tactic you quite often employ. If you’re going to disagree, then how many examples of this would you like?
Earth-616 or Ultimate?
Before I give you an actual response, I want to make sure I understand this correctly. So you’re telling me I secretly find fetuses gross?
…you said a lot of vapid nonsense that ended with “then I suppose I’m guilty as charged”, to which I in effect said… “okay, you’re guilty.” There’s no “win” here, just you continuing to lose. Of course, at this point you have nothing left on this board TO lose - certainly no credibility, worthiness of respect, value as a human being…
Well, I’m also not nearly prepared enough. In any case, not measuring up to the awesomeness of a comic-book superhero is a cross I’ll just have to bear, won’t I?
Well, I’m very bright even in your absence, and when compared to you, even more so.
I won’t try to replicate the entire exchange you’re trying to use to prove your point since it would get overly complicated, but I invite anyone reading this who has even the slightest inkling of entertaining the merest possibility that you are not completely full of shit to read the full conversation, not just your attempts at self-serving selection. In this thread, I recommend the following posts to anyone wanting to independently evaluate the quality of your argument and my responses:
I also invite anyone who is interested to look earlier and later in that thread if they have even the slightest feeling that these five posts are not sufficient. I’ll put a summary in spoiler, so if someone wants to read the linked posts and make up their own mind, they can do so without the potential bias of seeing my opinion first:
Your arguments across those posts consists of an effort to equate abortion to slavery, and abortion to murder, and then trying to get a moral judgement from me about slavery and murder with the intent to claim I must also apply this judgement to abortion. My responses are uniformly that abortion is distinct in several important ways from both slavery and murder, and thus any argument that begins “If we can draw an analogy between abortion and slavery/murder…” is therefore based on a flawed premise, leading to a suspect conclusion.
In any case, I have my doubts anyone is sufficiently interested to do the readings and give us their opinion, though I’d like to read it. For my part, I stand by everything I wrote in that thread, as well as this one.
The last time I asked, I got a link to a lengthy, generalized wiki page. I doubt you’d offer anything better if I asked again.
I cheerfully delightfully invite you to drag up every past argument you think will help your case. Please do so. Pretty please do so. I’ve defeated you so many times that they’re starting to blend together, and I’d enjoy the chance to reread and relive past victories. I can’t think of a single time where you out-argued me, and if it happened, I would enjoy rereading it and would happily admit that, yes, on that occasion, your position was unassailable.
Meh, I’ve stated and restated and re-restated my views on the motive behind your choice of username, and I stand by them. If you had a stupid username but were a cogent, thoughtful, logical, articulate post-writer, no problem. Unfortunately, you’ve got the double-whammy of a stupid username and a stupid posting history, so you’re fair game all around.
And I’m sure there are people who shocked by the idea of black conservatives. I called them “doofi” earlier, and I see no reason to consider them otherwise now or in the near future.
Apeshit? Please. And kindly don’t misuse the word “ironic”. It would be ironic if my username was Guy Who Doesn’t Care About Usernames. You’re descending to the level of “Well, if you think I’m so stupid, why are you still talking to me?” The fact is, I enjoy speaking to you, even if you are stupid. I’d probably enjoy it more if you showed the occasional flash of intelligence, but what are the odds of that?
I’ll get around to it sooner or later. Probably later.
Well, probably never.
I can (in fact, do) write you off as a conservative whackjob (or maybe more accurately as a pseudo-conservative idiot: I’m not sure it’s fair to call someone a “conservative” when the values they want to restore and conserve never actually existed, i.e. when they have idealized and wildly inaccurate beliefs about what life was like during the Reagan administration and in the pre-Roe years, and
“whackjob” wouldn’t be correct because I don’t think you’re mentally ill - just proudly and determinedly ignorant). The volume of my posts indicates little more than I like to talk a lot. I like to refute your stupid arguments, and I like to do so in a thorough, thoughtful and detailed way. I take pride in my postings.
I know you can’t (honestly) just write me off, because there’s no argument you have ever raised that I can’t challenge on a rational basis. If we ever get to the point when my response consists solely of “well, you only believe that because you’re an icky fascist!” then feel free to write me off, with my blessing, because I’ll have obviously succumbed to senility.
Look up the definition of “hypocrite”. You are one because the practice you’re accusing me of (fairly or not) is something you routinely do yourself.
I’ll just assume this is a lame attempt at a joke and not just another example of hypocrisy.
So I propose for all pro-choice people having to deal with the anti-abortion fundies, that you carry some posters of miscarried children, and maybe some dolls of those, to counter the fetus dolls.
Not quite. I suspect, like most people, you’ve never seen a human fetus or fetal material. You just find it convenient to make the ludicrous claim that you wouldn’t find it gross. Either way it’s trolling.
