No, I said if we had enough data and it showed SA supporters were consistently of one gender, it might suggest a gender effect, but that’s miles from speculating on what that effect might be. I could make some wild guesses, if that’s what you’re asking.
I’m a girl and think he’s reprehensible and make zero apologies for him. There one data point. That help? 
If you have no idea idea what the gender effect would be, or do not believe that their is a gender effect that is occurring, then what is the purpose of mentioning the gender of certain posters in the first place? I’m not really interested in playing any more cute games with this; I think it is apparent that I, and possibly others in the thread. are drawing their own conclusions about it. I do not think it flatters you, or speaks highly of your reasoning abilities.
Speaking generally, conservatives do get a lot of shit on this board, not all of it deserved. I have a kind of respect for the willingness of any person to hang out in a place where they are an extreme minority. Were the shoe on the other foot, I think I would be exhausted, even if everyone was playing fair.
Well, I don’t feel particularly bullied. I’ve always liked Hector. But I kind of take issue with the idea that I’ve been ‘‘covering the grotesque’’ as he put it. I’ve never minced words when I disagreed with you, in fact I was one of the first posters in this thread endorsing your Pitting and criticizing behavior I thought was inappropriate. The implication seems to be that disagreeing openly with you isn’t enough, I must also think you vile scum or I have some kind of feminine need to take in strays. Something. I dunno.
I’m drawing a conclusion about it.
You’re being kinda hypersensitive; that’s the conclusion I’m drawing.
I’m also approaching one that suggests you’re trying to start a fight. 
You’re reading a lot into post 265. I suggest you read posts 263 and 264. In any case, draw any conclusion you like.
Well, I’m sure that Hector feels really truly heard and understood by you. Whoever he is.
Nope. The fact is that you do mince words in response to some truly reprehensible ideas from this guy. I don’t care if you think he is vile scum or the cat’s pajamas. The grotesque that I refer to is the content of his screeds. The ideas that he foists upon everyone else.
The idea that liberals are solely responsible for all of societies ills is ridiculous. The idea that African Americans should have been even further delayed than they were in achieving the (very debatable) degree of parity in civil rights that they did in the 60s is immoral. The idea that SA proved the child rape in the shower was physically impossible through the use of paper towel tubes, and thus “won” that pit thread, is both comical and tragic.
Here in this thread he’s asserted that liberals “do not utter a peep” about shootings, stabbings, physical child abuse, and so forth. He’s argued that somehow liberals support social promotion in schools, and that social promotion is worse than rape. These things are grotesque.
You favor responding to that by saying “Well, some of the stuff you say may have some merit.” Do what you like, but truly grotesque ideas have to be condemned clearly and without reservation, without mincing words.
I am in know way trying to start a fight. I was wondering about something, I asked a question about it, and was given an answer. I got an answer different than what I expected I would get. I gave and gave an honest, albeit negative, opinion of what I thought in regards to the vague and unfounded references to a poster’s gender.
At this point an impasse is reached and there is no need for further discussion. I did call into question the posters reasoning abilities, I find his reasoning to be unsound. That is the end of it, and I am not really interested in discussing it further. Some will say that is hypersensitive, some may not; it really just boils to to what I honestly think about it.
I will.
Sonofabitch. :smack:
[QUOTE=Hentor]
The idea that liberals are solely responsible for all of societies ills is ridiculous.
[/QUOTE]
Ridiculous, but hardly unusual, and I could find you ten posters here who have made the same claim of conservatives. Hence my comment about him being ‘‘racist’’ against liberals, on the grounds that he engages in complex and convoluted revisionist history to buttress his prejudice. I said that. In this thread.
[QUOTE=Hentor]
The idea that African Americans should have been even further delayed than they were in achieving the (very debatable) degree of parity in civil rights that they did in the 60s is immoral.
[/QUOTE]
Lunatic and immoral, yes. I took up a bit of that argument in this thread, though I admit I did not tackle it head on, because Jesus, there goes the weekend.
[QUOTE=Hentor]
The idea that SA proved the child rape in the shower was physically impossible through the use of paper towel tubes, and thus “won” that pit thread, is both comical and tragic.
[/QUOTE]
Which I’ve pointed out in this thread.
[QUOTE=Hentor]
Here in this thread he’s asserted that liberals “do not utter a peep” about shootings, stabbings, physical child abuse, and so forth. He’s argued that somehow liberals support social promotion in schools, and that social promotion is worse than rape. These things are grotesque.
[/QUOTE]
And I argued against them in this thread.
[QUOTE=Hentor]
You favor responding to that by saying “Well, some of the stuff you say may have some merit.” Do what you like, but truly grotesque ideas have to be condemned clearly and without reservation, without mincing words.
[/QUOTE]
Some of the stuff he says does have merit. His view that conservatives who post here are damned if they do or don’t, in my view, has merit. His view that liberals generally care about certain kinds of suffering more than other kinds also may have merit, which is why I shared that Slate Star Codex article. Some of his assertions in the other thread where I have argued with him vociferously also have merit.
I hate some of his ideas. He knows this. I do not hate him. Look, as I said before, he fits a certain archetype of conservative thought, and the alternative would be to have no representation of that thought whatsoever on this board. I’ll pick him over one-note wonders like New Deal Democrat or kstarnes any day.
I don’t need a token conservative who is as amoral as he is. He does conservatives no favors. His ideas, no matter where on the political spectrum, are offensive and he learns nothing from discussing them with other people. I’m happy to have people of all political bents on this board. There are plenty of non-vile conservatives. What we don’t need is specifically him and his hateful ideas, and dug in arrogance.
Yeah, there may be some personal benefit in going through life choosing to accept other people even if their views are offensive and/or anathema. But when that extends to defending their offensive views because, hey, they’re the only ones here saying it, and all views are important to hear: Well, no. Not all views are worth hearing. Some are just awful, disgusting, or offensive. SA frequently manages to hit the trifecta.
I’ve never said liberals were solely responsible for all of “society’s” ills.
Nothing to do with what African-Americans should have done. But all of us as a society would have benefitted had the two races been allowed to come together through a more natural process of assimilation, similar to the way other ethnic groups have integrated into mainstream society. Don’t know if you’ve noticed but there isn’t a hell of a lot of integration going on these days.
I “won” the thread by proving that Joe Paterno was not a kiddie rapist, that he did not know of and/or approve of Sandusky’s raping of children, that he and Penn State’s administration were an evil cabal of child rapers eagerly hand happily buggering every kid they could for ten years or more until they were found out, or that Paterno was covering for Sandusky to benefit his football team. Each and every one of these ridiculous allegations were made and eagerly seized upon by the posters in that thread and I utterly kicked their (your) ass on every point. That’s how I won the thread!
You people like to heap on whether I “proved” anything with the paper towel tube thing, but that’s because it’s all you have left that’s even open to debate.
I’m saying that there are many areas where much more harm is done than in the issues liberals get het up over, and I wonder why, if they’re so concerned with human suffering, they don’t focus more on those instead. Nothing wrong with that.
I’ve also stated that much of the human suffering in this country over the last fifty years is a direct result of liberal activism – revolving door prison system, passing kids from grade to grade without learning anything, championing/defense of drug use, etc., etc.
What is grotesque is that they’ve come into being in the first place. How fucking stupid do you have to be not to realize that by graduating a kid from high school unable to read at even a first grade level is not going to save his self-esteem (which was the idiotic impetus for the practice to begin with), but is condemning him to a life of privation and struggle? I can’t believe such an idiotic notion ever saw daylight to begin with, let alone find itself adopted as a widespread practice in the nation’s schools. I would have expected those in an educational environment, of all people, to have had more sense than that and to know fully well how important education is to a person’t future.
There’s not a damn thing I say that is grotesque or without merit. Every one is provable and most people in the country know perfectly well this stuff is going on, even liberals. The difference is you don’t want to admit culpability for it, and so you try to characterize my complaints as grotesque in hopes of persuading others to disregard or ridicule them, but that doesn’t make them any less real or any less accurate. It just means you’re evangelizing in hopes of gaining support and therefore (in what passes for your mind) escaping culpability.
Thanks for the input. I’m going to tackle a few points, since I stirred the waters, but I’m not going unpack all of it. It’s likely a multi-hour venture, and I think there’s zero chance I’d get a real debate out of it.
Starting off, I mentioned earlier that SA had a bit of circular logic going around rape being worse than rape, but the danged liberals didn’t care.
So, here, from the screed in question is the bit that was causing my eye to twitch. My bolding.
So, you did in fact say that rape by repeat offenders was worse than rape by other offenders, type unspecified. I assume the crimes in question are more menu items than sequential.
Then we have this:
And you missed what I meant completely. I said it wasn’t what you said or how you said it. It was your character. Your morality if that’s clearer. The denizens of the board might mock you for the paper towel tube proxy for the anus, but in reality NO ONE is comfortable with the mind set that takes things that far. Nor with a person who dismisses the experiences of survivors of sexual assault and childhood abuse because they don’t match the story you want to tell.
One more thing:
Yes, thank you! This is exactly this stuff that was packed into that screed of his that would have to waded through. I’m just not gonna. Not to mention, how do you even find cites for this stuff to argue against it? Well, it’s the Pit, so cites, whatevers. But if you’re really going to try, there should be cites on the parts that are somewhat more rational on the face of it (like exactly which felons Liberals are trying to put out on the street). But this is definitely where I got off the boat. Where exactly do I find cites on the bits about social promotion not being worse than rape, (or is that better?). How the fuck do you even Google that?
Hentor was referring to the notion that social promotion is worse than rape, see your earlier statement. That is grotesque. Advancing earlier in school than you should based on your academic skills can be debated on a number of levels, but is in no way worse than rape. Never. Hence, grotesque.
Clearer now?
I seem to recall part of your strategy was to suggest that the concept of kiddie raping was so alien to Paterno that he just couldn’t grasp it. Quite an insult to Paterno, suggesting that much stupidity on his part.
How long should black people have waited to be treated reasonably by the law? Generations?
Virtually no one said Paterno supported child-rape – just that he didn’t do enough to stop it, and that he had received enough information to at least be suspicious of Sandusky years before the scandal came to light, and he did not pursue those reasonable suspicions as he should have. Paterno is guilty of prioritizing other things (reputation, Sandusky’s career and reputation, legacy, etc.) over confirming whether or not child-rape occurred, and stopping child-rape.
Your certainty in your own merits is troubling. If you were a racist, you’d have no idea. That’s the story with most racists. If you were a sexist or a misogynist, you’d have no idea. That’s the story with most sexists and misogynists. I’ll note that this goes for anyone – but many or most people at least understand that no one, especially not bigots, truly knows if they are bigoted or not. But most people on the Dope haven’t defended-by-reflex prominent figures accused of rape, or covering up rape, and don’t discount the experience of minorities when praising the past, and similar sorts of grotesqueries and meritlessness.
Bullshit. If everyone on the SDMB hates you it is a sign that you don’t drink the “we are liberal and oh so enlightened and always right” koolaid that passes for heightened intellectual discourse.
Slee
I did mean it. It’s the Pit. I call people names - it does not mean (all the time) that I think they are jerks.
mhendo is someone with whom I often disagree. But he does not do so in a jerkish fashion, generally.
It’s the Pit. It is not meant seriously, usually. We are playing the dozens.
Regards,
Shodan
Exactamundo!
More later.