Nah, I don’t think so.
I roll my eyes at anyone who gets angry about someone being mean to white people on twitter. Moderate or not.
Besides, you have to spend a day in my shoes before you can judge me or criticize my opinions or actions.
First, “no one” is two words, dumbass.
Second, and more important, I told you go go cite my supposed error. I noticed that surprising omission in your post. Wait, not “surprising”, that other phrase…entirely fucking expected.
Let me tell you what happened: You went back, read my post for comprehension (unusual for you), realized what a tremendous fuckup you were, and now you’re trying to bluster your way forward. It’s totally working, dude, keep it up.
By the way, I’ve noticed at least a dozen responses from a dozen different people to your recent posts telling you that you misunderstood what was being said, that your responses had nothing to do with what was said, and that you are an idiot. I see you haven’t let that slow you down. Good—if you took the time to understand what you were responding to you wouldn’t be able to dash out a hundred posts in a row, and then we’d all miss out on your wisdom. Unrelatedly, have you talked to your doctor about adjusting your Adderall dosage?
Accusing others of doing what you presumably did. How very Trumpian of you!
I’d love to see someone try and prove EE’s numbers wrong. I’m not even sure which post this is about, but considering who’s making the accusations, I’m not inclined to believe he’s wrong without a very specific and focused refutation (showing exactly which post is being refuted).
I’m not doing it unless someone actually vouches for his being right (and therefore puts their reputation on the line along with his). That’s not what this is. But I’ll see if I can dig up the post or posts in question and link them, and then you can decide if you want to jump on that sinking ship.
Hey, I’ve noticed that you’re now posting recaps of recent podcasts. I’d like to commend you for finding a pastime that so precisely matches your intellectual capabilities.
I make fun of you a lot, but it’s still sad how desperate you are for someone else to do your thinking for you.
To truly provide all the context would be a nearly endless process, but I think these posts are enough:
https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=21179751&postcount=752
https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=21179799&postcount=754
https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=21179835&postcount=755
https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=21180044&postcount=758
https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=21181203&postcount=769
https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=21181210&postcount=770
https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=21181592&postcount=771
Great analysis dude!
Seriously, you had one job; to provide links. And you fucked that up.
Here’s the actual start of the argument, from another thread (FYI, I’m quoting only the relevant parts of the posts):
I left in that last post of yours as a gratuitous slam. **Kimstu **tried to explain the concept to you using a simple analogy with dogs and cows and you had a (hopefully feigned) hysteric breakdown because you thought she was comparing special ed students to cows. You have unique reading comprehension.
Note in the third post above, me explaining the concept to you using numbers. Notice how those are basically the same numbers **Damuri **used to try to claim that I was wrong. Interesting, isn’t it, that if **Damuri **is correct, you must be wrong? That’s why I was so surprised that you took his side. (actually, as per your usual, I could tell you just didn’t have the intellectual horsepower to think through the consequences of your position).
The argument in this thread is me repeating the argument in verbal form (I.e., to quote myself from that post and in this thread: “So your claim is that regular black schoolchildren receive less funding than regular white schoolchildren, and special education black schoolchildren receive less funding than special education white schoolchildren, but that there are enough special education black schoolchildren to make overall spend higher for black schoolchildren, even though they’re being discriminated against on a like-to-like basis”). Then **Damuri **misunderstood what I was saying (and also didn’t have context because he was jumping into an argument that was continuing from a prior thread), giving basically exactly the same numerical example that I did (while claiming that it proved that I was wrong), and you hoping so badly that I was wrong about something that you took **Damuri’s **side, even though **Damuri **being right means you must be wrong.
Just for fun, here’s my numerical example. And next to it **Damuri’s **identical numerical example “proving” me “wrong”.
First, my post:
And here’s Damuri’s post “proving me wrong” with the exact same numbers. I’ve left in the shit he wrote about me not understanding averages because it’s so funny in retrospect:
And of course you thought **Damuri **found an error, so you rushed in to support him, even though he was providing an identical numerical example as the one I used to prove you wrong. So you were supporting the guy who was also showing you wrong, because you are fundamentally stupid.
Stick to posting recaps of podcasts, genius.
…so are you a fucking hero now?
I never drove them away in the first place.
Strawman. My point was that “insulting somebody” didn’t drive them to Trump, didn’t drive them to the KKK, didn’t drive them to harass women on the internet. Those people have agency. People choose what they want to do. And what they do is not my responsibility and not my fault.
“Not a collection of competing ethnic tribes in a zero sum contest for dominance” is not “benign patriotism.” I love my country. I’m a proud Kiwi. I’m also proud to be Samoan. Proud to be Ngāpuhi. My country is officially bi-cultural and in practice its multi-cultual. Our foundation is partnership.
I reject your premise that you need to be part of “the same tribe” to be patriotic. Because in case you hadn’t noticed: that “same tribe” that you are referring to just happens to be a tribe centred on white privilege, a white legal system, white culture, white education system, with white people controlling the legislature, the executive, the judiciary.
You want people to reject their heritage, reject who they are for the sake of solidarity.
Fuck solidarity. Embrace diversity. Embrace difference.
Telling people to reject their cultural heritage for the sake of “solidarity with white culture” is not benign and it is not patriotic. Its white supremacy.
You can believe whatever the fuck you like. Including the made-up “traditional definition” of white supremacy you just invented.
Trump isn’t bringing back slavery?
No shit sherlock.
I’m simply calling it as I see it.
What is it exactly, is it do you think I’m saying?
That’s the math problem you guys have been arguing about? Jesus Fuck! That first post is from last April!
Slacker, you goddamned moron, the fact that there weren’t any third parties willing to wade through seven fucking months of posts to pick out the argument you’ve been bloviating about is not evidence that you were right. It’s evidence that you desperately need to get a hobby. Preferably one that doesn’t involve sharp objects, because I’m pretty sure you’re too stupid to avoid shoving one directly into your eyeball.
You know, the one genuinely rewarding thing about this thread is how your attempts to establish any sort of intellectual bona fides consistently make you looks dumber. From “Look at this picture of my SAT scores!”, to “My parents went to college!” to “If nobody says they agree with you, that means they all agree with me!” you consistently show that not only are you not smart, you don’t understand what “smart” looks like in other people. You’re like a bad cosplay of an intelligent person. From a distance, in a crowd, yeah, you can kind of pass for one, but as soon as anyone takes a closer look, it immediately becomes apparent that you’re wildly off-model.
FTR, and because you’re clearly too dim to figure this out on your own, the above is my way of saying that EE was right and you are wrong. Not just normal wrong, but comically, over-the-top, “Holy fuck, how can one person contain this much wrong!” wrong.
…another outrageous fucking lie.
I have not expressed the sentiment “fuck white people.”
The people “driving the liberal agenda” (whoever the fuck you think these people are) are not expressing the sentiment “fuck white people.”
You do understand what “fringe” means right?
Quantify “overrepresented” with some numbers. Quantify your statement by identifying who these people are that are allegedly “driving the liberal agenda right now.” Let me know so I know where to send my subscription fees. Explain what the fuck the “liberal agenda” is supposed to be.
Fuck off. They were “driven there” because that is where they wanted to go.
It was crystal fucking clear exactly who Trump was before the election. If a moderate could have gone “either way”, and if that moderate chose to vote for Trump: then that is the choice and the responsibility of the person who made that choice. It isn’t my fucking responsibility. I didn’t make them go there.
Where is this “constant belittling?”
What kind of names would prompt someone to vote for a clear and present danger to everything that makes America great?
White supremacy is not a uniquely American problem.
Bullshit. Name names. Show the frequency.
Nope.
EE, with one exception I’m not going to re-litigate points from another thread in this one. Take it to that thread if you want. Meanwhile, you’re dodging the point that in THIS thread, you made fundamental errors of math and logic for all to see. Still waiting to hear if Andy wants to endorse your assertions in those posts that I quoted.
The exception I mentioned concerns the “simple analogy with dogs and cows”, because it illustrates how profoundly you struggle to comprehend basic principles of logic—and it involves a failure on Kimstu’s part as well, so it’s not as pointless as trying to straighten out one hopelessly clueless poster.
As should be clear right from the content of what you quoted (I don’t even have to provide additional context—you failed even at being misleading with selective quoting, if that’s what you were trying to do), I was not objecting to SpEd kids being compared to cows, as though it were like “ooh gross, cows are big and dumb and dirty, how dare you say SpEd kids are like that”. It wouldn’t have mattered if Kimstu had reversed the cows and dogs (although that would have made her poor analogy even worse), or used bluejays and tortoises.
My beef was that the relationship within the supposed analogy was not, well, analogous. Why not? For so, so many reasons. A few of the key ones:
—Dogs and cows are different species. SpEd kids and reg ed kids are the same species.
—Dogs are born dogs and will die dogs; cows are born cows and will die cows. Being SpEd or reg ed is on a spectrum and is fluid from one district to another, one state to another, and one year to another (or even within the same year: one of my wife’s students turned 18 and immediately moved himself to reg ed, as is his right).
—Cows require much more food than dogs (not to mention a different kind of food) because of their fundamental biological difference from dogs. Not true of reg ed and SpEd.
—Many kids are near the borderline and it is relatively arbitrary where they land. One kid might get a single point higher on a test than his friend, so he is reg ed and his friend is SpEd. (He may have scored the same as his friend if he had been tested before lunch or on Monday instead of Wednesday.) Does he have less in common with his SpEd friend than he does with another reg ed kid who scored thirty points higher than he did on the same test?
In my wife’s last year at her previous job, as a primary school SpEd teacher, the superintendent issued an order districtwide to reduce SpEd enrollment in the district to no higher than the statewide average. How did he propose to do that, do you suppose? By slaughtering “cows”, er, SpEd kids? Sending them to another district? No. Simply by tightening testing and other guidelines to push out some of the borderline kids.
My wife was irked by this order and found it profoundly stupid. But that was only because she knew that as a poorer district, and one that was a “magnet” for struggling families from outlying rural communities, it was unfair to expect it to match the state average. She didn’t claim that it was impossible because SpEd kids were some kind of distinct, clearly defined population that is separate from the overall group of kids in the school. She probably would have welcomed an order to relax guidelines and thus increase the SpEd population (as long as they hired more teachers, paras, and SpEd administrators to match the workload).
SpEd kids are just the group of kids who, in a given school year, have been identified as needing extra support and are given Individualized Education Plans (IEPs). It’s not only logically incoherent to make this analogy, it is offensive because it “others” them, and flies in the face of the modern day dominant paradigm in SpEd: “least restrictive environment” or LRE (also sometimes called “mainstreaming”).
There’s also a deeper way in which this analogy is short-circuited in its logic. If SpEd students really were an essentialist category of kids who were fundamentally biologically different from “normal” kids, this would (since such a dramatically higher percentage of black kids are in SpEd) directly contradict the paradigm you and Andy and Kimstu have been so adamantly arguing for, that there is no essentialist difference in intelligence between blacks and whites.
So if I were you, I’d hit that whole argument with a flamethrower and then bulldoze a pile of fill over top of it. It’s not working for you in any way.
The above is evidence that you are enough of a slavering fuckwit to let EE, of all people, distract you by waving shiny objects (old posts from April in a different thread) at you and claim that this is the REAL argument, when those of us (including one poster who finds me completely distasteful but is intellectually honest) pointing out EE’s innumeracy have been talking about posts in this thread, just from the past couple weeks.
Sad to see “moderator” next to your name. A grand old board like the SDMB really ought to have higher standards than to let such a credulous cretin as yourself be in charge of anything.
This is absolutely true but misses a fundamental mathematical point (a continuing pattern around here, sadly): we need their votes, even if we secretly think they are contemptible for ever having voted for Trump. We need a few of them to get the presidency back, and we need quite a lot of them to retake Congress and state legislatures.
And it has ever been thus. To pass all his New Deal reforms, FDR needed the support of a bunch of bigoted fuckheads in the Deep South (he got something like 98 percent of the vote in Mississippi back in the Jim Crow days when blacks were prevented from voting). To get elected, Obama, and nearly all the Democrats who took Congress (and provided that crucial 60 votes in the Senate) and were able to get so much done in 2009 and 2010, had to at least pretend they opposed marriage equality until public opinion had shifted enough to make it safe to support it.
…it doesn’t miss the point.
We live in 2018.
People are gonna say what they are gonna say.
And they can say it and they can have their voice amplified around the world in seconds.
This is the world that we live in now.
If a random person on twitter is going to say “fuck white people” what is it you want to do about it? Tell them to shut up? Censorship? Those views are already shunned by mainstream (in other words every single) politicians. So what is it you want?
And why would a few random facebook comments change any of this?
Are there any Dem candidates who are adverse to "reaching across the aisle? Are there any candidates running on the platform of “fuck white people?”
We’re not talking about random Facebook comments ITT, we’re talking about a NYT writer around whom nearly every visible liberal person on social media has rallied. That’s not a great look.
But more broadly, what I have said is that while you can’t stop left wing trolls from making these kinds of comments, we can urge liberals and center-left Democrats to stand up to them and make them pay a social price, while planting a flag for others to see (most crucially, impressionable middle class, teenage white boys) that there are many Democrats who do not stand for such things.
No, I didn’t.
I’m just going to stop reading right here, before my spine cringes right out my anus.
…and were they wrong to rally around her?
Why not?
Fuck off. You want to throw Sarah Jeong under the bus on the tiny chance that you might be able to persuade somebody who saw fit to vote for Trump at the last election might change their mind. Jeong is fighting for the rights of the marginalised. Her work is on paper for everybody to see.
You pander to the “impressionable middle class, teenage white boys” and you send the message to the marginalised that they are not welcome. The “impressionable middle class, teenage white boys” are already well catered for in your society. They are already on the fast-track for success. And you want them to feel even more special than they already are?
You are planting a flag for the wrong people. The people that feel hopeless, the people that feel abandoned are the very people that you urge those with real power to walk away from.