Can you link to it? I have asked about a dozen times now.
It doesn’t matter if it was said in jest or in mocking. If a white supremacist had said something similar wrt black people or jewish people, you would not be so sanguine.
No, I have made a prima facie case for racism by showing you what is very clearly a racist statement. It is up to YOU to show me why it is not.
I could take your word for it that these are all bad faith snippets, but a cite or a link would be more convincing.
I provided a link to the tweet #cancelwhitepeople. You are asking ME to provide the context that proves it wasn’t racist? Context that I don’t believe exists? If you think the context exists, then YOU provide the context.
WTF does O’Reilly have to do with your constant insistence that Jeong was taken out of context combined with youtr inability to show that she was taken out of context? That seems a LOT like diversion. Either you can show that Jeong was being taken out of context in a way that makes #canelwhitepeople not a racist statement or you just admit that youa re cool with racism as long as it is directed at whites and coming from liberals.
No, you claimed that she directed insults directly at you. That’s not cool, I agree. Not sure what I would be kidding about that.
Yes, it’s been shown to you. That you refuse to read it doesn’t mean that it doesn’t exist.
If gay people were the majority, and persecuted straight chicken lovers for hundres of years, they could get a bit of justification for fighting back agains thtat oppression.
Do you think that the owners of chik-fil-a are oppressed in any way, shape or form?
No, not really, it’s pretty straightforward.
You made that point very, very poorly. In fact, you were just wrong about it on every front, in such a way that such a ridiculous statement doesn’t have a response.
No, you bring up Hilary because you have an unhealthy obsession with her, and you bring her up under any guise or excuse you can muster, and it is for the same reasons as you falling for the narrative around Jeong.
It is not the facts of the matter that I contest, it is the narrative that you are buying into.
If you say that it is 75 degrees and cloudy today, I would agree. If you then say that is because John Kerry bumped the Rothschild’s weather machine while he was diddling kids in the Antarctic fortress, I’m gonna call you on the narrative that you but into. But denying the narrative, I am not denying that it is 75 and cloudy.
You are the fool who buys into strawman narratives.
You are making a claim that she got debate questions. you are making that claim based on emails that were hacked and released by a foreign government with the intention of harming our democracy. You are falling for the narrative that the emails are the tip of the iceberg, and not the entirety of the “damning evidence”.
You don’t have to say a kind word in order to be leaping to his defense. You are carrying water for him and his administration. If you don’t have kind words for him, why do you work for him?
If the entirety of Trump’s “cheating” was that he was advised on the possibility of a few questions during the primary debates, then I wouldn’t really have an issue with that. You bitch and whine about Hillary taking advice from the DNC, but you don’t seem to have any problem with trump taking help in hacking his opponent form a hostile foreign actor.
No, just my own, in trying to parse your poorly written and parsed posts.
Dude’s right: if we really want to rehash those arguments, we should go back to the thread they came from. But I don’t think you really want to do that because I keep scoring rhetorical TKOs. You don’t want to be that guy. Your call though.
Why are you guys having that same argument in the pit of all places? You folks are going to be going back and forth on how men and women sports differ 100% due to environment next? You aren’t going to resolve anything. You are not going to change anyone’s point of view held for ideological reasons. It’s a pointless hijack.
Since no one is making that argument here or even in the other thread…
Yeah, last time you contributed to that other thread it ended making SlackerInc look like a dunce head for thinking that what you found was a good argument to shut down the ones that do not see much evidence in favor of a genetic explanation about differences in intelligence among races.
It turned to be the other way around. As it was clear that Reich did point out also that people like Murray were racists and had no good points to make, while Reich was also found to be concern trolling other scientists. As most scientists told us, the arguments proposed by Slackerinc in the other thread were shot down many times before, seeing differences among populations is not “forbidden knowledge” and it was a shame that seemingly intelligent people like Harris give still credence to people like Murray and Wade.
No idea what this irrelevant bullshit about men and women is about, unless you think inherent black intellectually inferiority is as reasonable a position as the universally accepted biological differences between the sexes.
This requires a 4th claim that no one has made; that black special education schoolchildren receive more funding on a per capita basis than white special education schoolchildren.
By that point in the discussion evidence had been presented that black schoolchildren receive less funding on a state level. You didn’t challenge that evidence, you accepted it and said that it was federal funding of black special education schoolchildren that made up the difference.
Do you not remember the discussion?
You are now making additional claims, that you did not make in the initial thread, because I have explained the problem with your claims to you. If you actually understood the implication of your claims to begin with, you would not be making these additional claims now.
By the way, do you realize that the above argument requires non-special-education black schoolchildren, who make up the vast majority of black schoolchildren, to be underfunded relative to white schoolchildren. Are you conceding that point?
EE, I wasn’t conceding any factual point or even making any assertion about empirical reality. Just pointing out that your logic/math was wrong AGAIN. And now you’re doing it again, both in your response to me and to Damuri. You show more innumeracy and lack of grounding in logic with every post. You should have listened to the KitH crowd: “STAY DOWN!”
But you didn’t. And as boring as this all is, I will endeavor to explain your numerous errors to you on three conditions:
(1) You stop hijacking this thread and ask in the Sam Harris thread (you can link in both places to posts in the other thread to make it clear).
(2) You get one other poster—just one!—to say this is actually of interest to them, and they’d like to see it play out.
(3) You can handle waiting until at least Monday night for the response, because I am already past due for my self-imposed poicy of taking weekends off from message boards, email, and social media.
Just interesting to notice that even if cites are made as requested by the Slacker they are dismissed because I ‘must not had know about them before’, like if making the very stupid argument that if we did not know before about a bit of evidence that it should not be allowed to be brought into the discussion*, (post # 1410 and follow ups) as pointed before: “the whole truth is that in the USA there are many districts that are short-changing large percentages of low-income and minority students.”
Of course, it is because it does end up making him look as being ignorant of a key bit of evidence.
Really? Well, let’s ask you directly: do regular black schoolchildren receive less funding on average than regular white schoolchildren? Also, cite your answer.
Yeah, but you’re a nasty little racist, so there’s definitely a string attached to your call for “reparations”. So what is it? Having to leave the country? Return to slavery? What?
Basically, finish this sentence for me: “Here’s your reparations, and now in return…”
:rolleyes: Pfffft. Just because your post gave a distinct impression of a meaning it turns out you didn’t actually intend doesn’t mean I’m nefariously trying to misrepresent your opinions. I have plenty to criticize in your actual opinions, and/or what I honestly believe your opinions to be, without deliberately making up any additional material.
When you said that you “want us to go back to a mode […] which very much does not involve constantly giving [black kids] tests that are too hard for them”, that definitely did sound to me like a direct echo of segregation-era views that it’s simply not fair to expect black students to perform academically on a level basis with white ones, because they just don’t have the innate ability. That was certainly not part of the mindset of pre-NCLB progressive education reform advocacy, so it’s hardly surprising that I didn’t realize that that was the specific period you were actually referring to.