I think there’s another thing at play, and it’s a tactic one can see being used by the left on college campuses. Rather than debate the issue, make the topic unworthy debate. Ridicule it and anyone who dare hold a view the majority left finds odious.
I’m pleasantly surprised to hear you offer that. Let’s both try to remember it.
It certainly sounded like you were accusing him of being insincere, or lying to himself, or something like that.
Ditto for someone who insists that he be able to use a word that insults someone and that results in the discussion being sidetracked—if not derailed entirely_rather than facilitated.
I’m pretty sure I’ve said it, or something like it, many times in our discussions before.
You can note whatever you’d like, but it has nothing to do with what I said. For example:
- I do not wish to use the word “racist” as a noun or adjective directed at another poster in GD; I’m irritated at the foolish inconsistency that the board has adopted in order to protect the racists that visit our board.
- Your use of the word “pretend” is imprecise. It doesn’t mean what you later claim it means.
- You direct your nasty vitriol at me. Nobody is fooled by claims that you’re directing it at my statements.
C’est la vie. You’ve got immunity, and you’ll continue to operate with impunity.
I don’t see any reason to engage with you further here; you’ll doubtless take more of your nasty swipes at me and get away with it, so enjoy.
Skip academia. This is the beginning of a new career as “LHOD, The Erudite Rapper”.
Wow, you look really racist. Have you been working out?
Not really. But somehow I can tell you’ve definitely been hitting the dumbbells.
I have zero interest in a “conversation” with you on the subject either.
If you are not interested in the moderators as an audience, I ask again what you hope to accomplish by arguing this case once again. You must be certain by now that you are not going to effect a change in board policy. I must assume you are merely playing to the gallery, but for what purpose I don’t understand.
Clearly.
Would you care to answer the question I asked? Why do you feel it is worth it to belabor this subject at such extraordinary length?
This is racist because it insists on a racial correlation when there is not a correlation between black skin (or even among Africans who get lumped into a “black race”) and fast sprinters. There are no world class sprinters among the peoples of Eastern Africa or Southern Africa, nor among a number of other populations with skin that would normally be categorized as “black.” Once one attempts to portray the issue as connected to skin color, (to say nothing of making it “racial,”) one has introduced a racist component to the discussion. The populations among whom the world class sprinters are currently found tend to have dark skin, but they are limited populations within a much larger group of multiple populations, making any claim regarding a “race” to be an absurd fiction which raises the question as to why one would want to engage in a discussion that is founded in absurdity.
My nasty vitriol? Directed at you?
You owe me a new irony meter.
Maybe you should read more carefully. There is definitely a positive correlation between black skin and world class sprinters (yes, that happen to be from western Africa). Unless you can point to all those in the top, say 100, that one would classify as having white skin. Also, why attempt top classify the discussion as “racist” when “racial” will do. Seems like you’re taking a page out of the playbook LHOD is arguing for…
No, frankly, I wouldn’t. You have said here that you’ve no interest in the conversation. If you’re not interested in discussing the issue, I’m not going to discuss discussing the issue with you.
This is silly.
If there was a correlation between black skin and sprinting speeds, it should be demonstrable among all groups with black skin. Since such correlation does not appear in numerous populations having black skin, the color of the skin of fast sprinters is irrelevant.
This seems to be getting into something of a something of a tangent, but wouldn’t this argument be fairly steeped in the present? Wouldn’t you have to make an argument based on top 100 since standardised records began? Or, I guess, a top 100 each year?
I’m not interested in discussing the issue as such. I just would like to know what you seek to accomplish. I take your refusal to answer to mean you aren’t actually trying to accomplish anything in particular, but are just arguing for the sake of arguing.
This is an excellent demonstration of the futility of banning the word directed at posters but not at posts. The distinction is, as magellan sees, without a difference. A racist person is one who holds racist positions. It’s why, after “liar” was banned, “that is a lie” was also made off-limits.
In this case, of course, it’s important to be able to discuss why certain ideas are racist. Magellan sees it as my “playbook” to discuss such thing without bending over backwards to obscure what’s being discussed with neologisms and euphemisms. If the idea that a poster is being racist should be off-limits, racist ideas about posters should similarly be off-limits.
If you want to take my refusal to mean that I’m dancing the tango with a trio of drunken penguins, dude, knock yourself out. You can, and clearly will, take it however you’d like.