…and he lies like a rug?
There is nothing quite so subjective as the objective truth, at least as it has been defined by those who understand these matters.
If he is so concerned (that word, again) about racism in colleges, then why choose that particular group?
Can you link to an eloquent intelligent post by the Champion? I’m not saying there isn’t one, but trying to hunt it down would seem like wading through sewage to retrieve a CrackerJacks prize.
This cut and paste is not the most difficult thing I’ve ever done:
*Quote:
Originally Posted by Acsenray View Post
And what makes you think that people are saying that elite universities are uniquely susceptible to the problems of institutional racism?
The point of the OP is that in the news I’m seeing large, aggressive protests against racism at the Ivy League and a few other super-elite schools. Supposedly, according to the protesters, it’s so bad that their health has collapsed and violence is occurring. With the exception of Mizzou, I’ve read of no comparable protests at other schools.
Some posters have offered possible explanations, but none that seem to account for the contrast of large, almost violent protests at the Ivies and nearly nothing elsewhere.
Quote:
And if you aren’t willing to accept as credible the experience of those who are in a position to experience racism, then what kind of citation are you willing to accept?
It’s this kind of demand that seems entirely to be in bad faith, that somehow at some point in the last few decades, the institutional and structural racism of our society has somehow been cleansed away and claims of discrimination are so far-fetched that they have to be rigorously proven beyond a reasonable doubt like a criminal prosecution.
I’ve addressed this earlier. This is the Straight Dope Message Board. The Straight Dope exists to figure out what claims are backed by facts and what aren’t. If we do so for questions about vaccines or the age of the earth or planes on treadmills, why not for claims that liberal university administrations are totally racist? Isn’t that the Straight Dope way?
Earlier I posted this:
Suppose there was a rich, white man with a large following, loudly proclaiming that he felt white people were having their lives ruined by Mexicans and other racial minorities. Let’s call this purely hypothetical person “Donald Trump”. How should we respond to this person? By automatically basing policy on the feelings of Donald Trump and his followers? Or by caring about what the actual facts are?
This shows the fallacy of telling us to “accept the experience of those who are in a position to experience racism”. Anyone can claim to have been the victim of racism. Donald Trump is no less or more positioned to experience it than anyone else. If we accept all claimed experiences without proof, could the result be anything but a farce?
Lastly I will point out that there are plenty of racial minorities on Ivy League campuses who aren’t joining the three-ring circus. The article I linked to about Brown University quotes a black professor who’s been there a long time, dismissing the “absurd” accusations of racism. Surely his experience should be accepted as credible. *
Logical, presented well, and on point.
He set forth a point in his OP and then defended it against all comers. Whether or not you agree with the argument or the suppositions underlying the argument is beside the point.
I did not find either his OP or the refutations to be ground-breaking, but it was a worthwhile discussion. To dismiss all this rhetoric as garbage just because you have pre-determined your opinion does not mean that the rest of the audience isn’t gaining something from it.
What is not beside the point, however, is the absence of an actual argument. The whole thing can be summarized as follows, a point that ITR and his ilk make constantly with only minor variations:
- University campuses are infested with liberals
- Liberals are nuts
It occurred to me that a while back some complete idiot started a thread on the theme that by cutting taxes and decimating the budget, following classic Reaganesque voodoo economics, Sam Brownback had turned the state of Kansas into such a roaring success that it was almost a kind of earthly paradise. I couldn’t remember who the idiot was but I had my suspicions and sure enough … it was once again the champ himself. Yep, the same genius that brought us news that the Paris climate talks were collapsing, but to be fair, his perception was colored by the fervent hope that they were, because of how global warming is a hoax.
Frylock nailed it earlier: ITR Champion is literally never right, ever, about anything. It’s actually quite useful from an information standpoint to have a source that’s so reliably counter-factual.
His entire OP is a bad-faith straw man. And every response it met either by restating the assumptions of the OP, shifting goalposts, or demanding evidence of the straw man assumptions.
There’s nothing eloquent or skillful about it.
Googling for ITR, and specifically for the phrase “ITR Champion”, it appears to mean International Touring Car Champion, referring to a genre of car racing.
Not “Improved Touring [Class] R”? — Improved Touring - Wikipedia
That term and wiki page are both stupid. Essentially any well-meaning centrist can be pejoratively described as a Very Serious Person, without that actually meaning much of anything.
I guess need to wear a hoodie and spout ideological drivel to get taken seriously?
I don’t want to crush your dreams, but it’s gonna take a lot more than that.
I believe ITR Champion would do slightly better if he made it more clear that his views and opinions are religiously based, not evidence-based. He needs to explicate that more often. Otherwise, in a fact-based debate system, he finds himself at an “odd man out” position, since his stance is founded on revelation, not empiricism.
ITR makes lots of arguments, campuses are infested with liberals, most liberals are nuts, Brownback should be the next target for Seal Team 6, Chicken Little does not fully comprehend how bad global warming will eventually be, and I’ll judge ITR’s next rant on it’s merits.
Can’t elaborate - I’ve been warned.
ITR champion just seems to be a true believer by nature. If it weren’t politically conservative American religiosity it would be something else – and as I recall it was something else prior to his religious conversion. He is so thoroughly impervious to opposing arguments that you may as well be having a discussion with a rock. I pitted him once myself, trying to get him to realize how much of a caricature his behavior paints him as, but years later he’s on the same shtick.
No, it refers to the ITR Games at Harvey Mudd College (see here). Stands for “Ineligible to Re-register”.
What on Earth would that buy him? Everyone witnessing feels they are stating fact, and evidence is the only currency on this board.
“My religiously prescribed beliefs lead me to this unsupported conclusion” is the perfect storm of poor thread topics.
Okay, I see that. I caught it too late myself, but I noticed that “International Touring Car” doesn’t exactly abbreviate to ITR, but I saw some pages that used that phrase. This makes more sense now, unlike our own resident ITR Champion.
Several times I’ve followed up on his cites and found that they actually say something almost diametrically opposed to what he claims they say. I try really hard to attribute such behavior to stupidity, not malice, but he makes it hard.
It’d be more honest, to begin with. Also, it would excuse (so to speak) much of his nonsense as “Witnessing” rather than any legitimate attempt to debate.
It’s just a “truth in labelling” thing.
What is hard about it when you know he’s stupid? The hard thing is attributing it to malice. It’s giving him more credit than he’s due.
Edit: Heh, I already made that post a year ago.
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=17758899&postcount=87
Well, take this example. He tells about an eeevil librul professor who faked a hate crime against herself. All of which is technically true.
However:
- His cite is to the most biased and obnoxious retelling of the events possible (I recounted in the other thread details, if you’re interested); and
- He lies about how students responded to the hate crime (they apparently asked for an FBI investigation and held anti-hate rallies before the hoax was revealed, and afterward were appalled and confused at what a bizarre act it was); and
- This event, which National Review calls The Godmother of Fake Hate Crimes? Looky here, it so happens that ITR was present at that campus when it occurred! He doesn’t mention that it’s a rare and bizarre and notable event that’s being written about many years later; no, instead, he conveniently places himself on-campus and just acts like this is the way campuses go.
I think he’s lying. I don’t think he was on campus. But even if he was, it’s very hard to attribute the other inaccuracies in that post of his to his obvious stupidity; those are inaccuracies he had to go out of his way to achieve.