snicker Sure. I invited you, quite civilly, several times, to discuss the issue, as I have been doing with other posters. You declined to do so, preferring instead to take the path of insult, and yet it is I who is not worth debating, when that is what I have been doing with other people. Franky, I doubt you have the ability to form a coherent thought on the subject at hand, but…whatever. Please, continue to post here telling us how you’re not going to post here. It’s amusing.
Fine, have you never heard about the word “ignore”?
Ah, you put your finger on the other problem I was having with Dave’s rhetoric. Apparently the criterion for idea X being a member of a set of ideas Y is that X is a distortion of one of the ideas in Y. Who knew? :rolleyes:
Missed this…
This doesn’t mean anything! Of course, any idea can be warped into something objectionable if you tweak it enough. That doesn’t mean that those people who hold to the original idea will necessarily hold to any bastardised corruption of it. Until you actually possess firm evidence that liberals as a group hold to the nutty ideas propounded by the dippy cow in your OP, you really don’t have any call to expect liberals to denounce her. Or do you think we’re a hive mind like the Borg and she’s our queen?
Weirddave, it’s probably too late to prevent you from digging yourself into too deep a hole on this one, but before you go much further in denouncing the University of Delaware for hiring Dr Butler’s organization, you should probably check out who some of their other customers have been.
The Bush Administration hired them to deliver lectures on racial diversity to the United States Postal Service.
Goddammit, I just KNEW that Dr. Butler espoused distortions of core conservative principles! 
Oh. Well that’s, uh, that’s Checkmate really, isn’t it?
I didn’t say that. I didn’t specifically NOT say that either, so if you want to tar me with it, fine. I was responding to the question of the KKK as a conservative organization, and when I said yes, conservatives have to be concerned with that, I meant radical extremism in general, not the KKK in specific, and never once in my response did I use the KKK as an example, I used instead the anti-abortion crowd, a group that has strong ties to the conservative end of the spectrum. So, technically at least, you “got” me.
Well, it might be, if I had ever been a champion of the Bush administration. Unfortunately, I never have.
OTOH, would you characterize the Bush administration as liberal, whether you champion them or not?
Yeah, but the Bush Administration are Conservative, so I think Little Nemo’s point still holds.
um. no. your OP is that by hiring this person, it tars all liberals with all aspects of her ideas. The fact that the idealogical opposite of liberals has also hired her makes your OP bullshit. no surprise.
It’s got jack shit to do with you being a champion of the Bush administration or not, it’s got to do with your continued insistence that these nutty ideas have any provenance in liberalism.
You know Dave, I nearly started a Pit Thread just now, intending to title it ‘There’s no stupidity like American stupidity’. Then I’d have linked to this thread, and had a good moan about how you’re being exceptionally dense. Then I’m sure other people would have played along, asking me how on earth I could tar Americans with such a big brush. I’d have insisted that they had a duty to distance themselves from you… and so on.
But I didn’t, because quite frankly, I don’t think you’d have got the point.
Which is really kind of weird, because that’s been more or less my point the whole time. Read my very first post after the OP:
Liar. You have insisted that ‘distortion of liberal idea’ = ‘liberal idea’. It’s right there in your thread title, how can you expect us to overlook it!
(ETA: well whaddaya know, you didn’t say ‘that’s been my whole point’, you inserted the words ‘more or less’, so I guess you’re technically correct… if we go with ‘less’. :dubious: )
I’m not sure where I would classify the Bush administration. I’ve said before that they are certainly not conservative, in it’s spending and in seeking the expansion of the Federal government into all aspects of society they have been downright liberal, but I wouldn’t call it “liberal” either. So…I dunno. Maybe Neo-Con fits, although I despise that term because it tends to mean whatever any particular user wants it to mean.
“Liberal diversity” is the idea that’s been distorted here. How can you condemn the subject of the OP yet not see that?
A funny reason to despise it, given your attempted redefinition of ‘liberal’.
Because I don’t make up a meaning for the word ‘liberal’ to include ‘someone with nutty ideas about racism’.
However, your snippet above seems to suggest you have no problem with my characterisation of your argument as ‘distortion of idea belonging to X’ = ‘idea belonging to X’. Which is unsettling. You damn well should realise that that is a faulty argument.
sigh
I’m gonna try this once more before bed, I got a long day tomorrow. I am saying that the idea of diversity, as currently championed by many liberals (hence “liberal diversity”*), has morphed from a simple desire that all citizens be treated equally under the law into the kind of nonsense we see here at UD. It is being pushed on college campuses, upon businesses and in legislatures across the country. It is garbage.
*I am labeling it “liberal diversity” because I have not seen any movement of liberals standing against it saying “No, this is a distortion of our core liberal principles, it needs to end.”; I see no competing ideology on the left. When someone talks about diversity, from a liberal POV, inevitably this is the kind of thing they are talking about. If you are a liberal, you can get all mad at me for pointing this out, you can provide counter examples to show that there IS a competing philosophy on the left, you can disagree with me that it’s a bad thing (proudly take ownership of it) or you can say 'Hey, you’re right, this has gone too far". I really don’t see any other possibilities.