|
Post by Vince524 on Mar 15, 2017 10:10:42 GMT -5
So am I, but with one slight addition. Regardless of how the students felt, or even if their feelings had been grounded in reality and were 100% fact based and proven, it doesn't excuse violent behavior. The idea that one should use violence to physically attack those we disagree is never acceptable. IMHO, any student who was involved with the attack, climbing on the car, assaulting either of the pair, should be arrested and charged, and at the very least tossed out of school.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Mar 15, 2017 10:15:47 GMT -5
I agree with her, except the boilerplate justification of "defending marginalized communities."
It's not "righteous anger," it's not the "guise" of free speech. It's authoritarian tantrum-throwing.
|
|
|
Post by Vince524 on Mar 15, 2017 11:16:30 GMT -5
I agree with her, except the boilerplate justification of "defending marginalized communities." It's not "righteous anger," it's not the "guise" of free speech. It's authoritarian tantrum-throwing. Yeppers!!!
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Mar 27, 2017 11:38:43 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Mar 27, 2017 11:41:17 GMT -5
In what way is Murray's rebuttal factually incorrect?
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Mar 27, 2017 12:01:49 GMT -5
In what way is Murray's rebuttal factually incorrect? In what way did I say it was or wasn't? If you have a beef with the SPLC's description of Murray as a White Nationalist, here's their contact information. Challenge them to rebut Murray's self-serving "rebuttal." That job's not mine.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Mar 27, 2017 12:06:41 GMT -5
Okay, so Charles Murray rebutted the SLPC's claims about him and you wanted to mention that? Thanks for the update.
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Mar 27, 2017 12:14:30 GMT -5
Okay, so Charles Murray rebutted the SLPC's claims about him and you wanted to mention that? Thanks for the update. No hay problema, Captain Obvious.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Mar 27, 2017 13:03:14 GMT -5
Murray doesn't even fit the SPLC's own definition of "white nationalist." The SPLC is so full if shit here, it's not worth a serious rebuttal, imo.
If anything, the SPLC is fomenting racial hatred with their bullshit, imo. But hey, as long as the cause is just...
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Mar 27, 2017 13:18:14 GMT -5
Murray doesn't even fit the SPLC's own definition of "white nationalist." The SPLC is so full if shit here, it's not worth a serious rebuttal, imo. Then you should love Murray's equally full of shit rebuttal. The only way to take it seriously is to have already taken the junk "science" of The Bell Curve seriously. I call bullshit on your unfounded, unfair and inaccurate description of what the SPLC is "fomenting." It's wretched crap like The Bell Curve and its eugenics-based assertion of Black intellectual inferiority to Whites which has fomented racial hatred since it slithered out of the fecal wastes of Murray and Herrstein's bungholes. Would you care to provide an actual example of how the SPLC is "fomenting racial hatred with their bullshit" or is it easier to let a dubious and unsupported slanderous remark stand without even trying to support it?
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Mar 27, 2017 13:34:41 GMT -5
Actually, no. The Bell Curve could be junk science and Murray would still be correct in pointing out that it does not say the things the SPLC says it says.
Can you factually refute any of his points?
The Bell Curve does not make a eugenics-based assertion of black intellectual inferiority to whites.
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Mar 27, 2017 13:45:53 GMT -5
Actually, no. The Bell Curve could be junk science and Murray would still be correct in pointing out that it does not say the things the SPLC says it says. Can you factually refute any of his points? After you. Can you factually refute the SPLC's description of Murray as a White nationalist? That's your opinion and you're entitled to it. Others have a differing one. Murray and the late, unlamented Richard Herrnstein relied upon studies conducted up to 40 years ago in South Africa and Rhodesia which were done by Richard Lynn, quite a colorful figure in his own right. Debunking trash like The Bell Curve, a political polemic dressed up in pseudo-science drag which was never submitted for scientific publication or academic peer review, as an eugenicist wet dream is not a heavy lift. Defending The Bell Curve and its White Nationalist/Supremacist message is.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Mar 27, 2017 13:45:56 GMT -5
I call bullshit on your unfounded, unfair and inaccurate description of what the SPLC is "fomenting." It's wretched crap like The Bell Curve and its eugenics-based assertion of Black intellectual inferiority to Whites which has fomented racial hatred since it slithered out of the fecal wastes of Murray and Herrstein's bungholes. Would you care to provide an actual example of how the SPLC is "fomenting racial hatred with their bullshit" or is it easier to let a dubious and unsupported slanderous remark stand without even trying to support it? The SPLC's labeling of Murray as a "white nationalist" is part of the "why" behind the protest this thread is about, a protest that turned violent. As evidenced by the discussion here and by Ms. Stranger's op-ed, the people citing the SPLC's characterization don't actually know jack about Murray or The Bell Curve, they just know that the SPLC calls him a "white nationalist," even though--as I demonstrated upthread--Murray doesn't fit that label, as defined by the SPLC. That's better support for my accusation than the SPLC is offering for calling Murray a "white nationalist," better support than anything you are offering in defense of the same. Or is the SPLC's and your slander okay, simply because of who the target is?
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Mar 27, 2017 13:50:40 GMT -5
After you. Can you factually refute the SPLC's description of Murray as a White nationalist? Murray already did. Did you read it? It's also my opinion that the Earth is round and orbits the sun. You are likewise entitled to opinions. Exchanging opinions is fun sometimes, but if your opinions are not based on fact, you're just emoting.
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Mar 27, 2017 14:16:01 GMT -5
After you. Can you factually refute the SPLC's description of Murray as a White nationalist? Murray already did. Did you read it? I posted the link, so the better question is, did you read it? There's only one of us who has presented any supporting facts in this discussion and it ain't you, Amadan. You've got your defense of Murray and his bigoted book down, but alas, ZERO FACTS. You're not emoting. You're filibustering, and attacking my arguments is not supporting yours. Same as it ever was.
|
|