|
Post by nighttimer on Mar 29, 2017 9:59:19 GMT -5
After the curb stomping they suffered in the last election, the DNC needs to rebuild and reload in order to return and that means fumigating the joint from the Debbie Wasserman Schultz stink bomb.
Tom Perez made a smart move in making Keith Ellison the vice-chair of the DNC as it gives the Sanders wing of the party a seat at the table and there's no plausible path forward for them without their input. As Lyndon Johnson would have said about Bernie, "I'd rather have him inside the tent pissing out than outside the tent pissing in."
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Mar 29, 2017 9:53:27 GMT -5
That's some good advice from you and here's some good advice for you: back yo' shit up!
If my late brother, a computer geek El Supreme, had any words of wisdom for us, those four words were it. There literally is NO excuse not to have your shit backed up. You can back it up on the pc. You can back it up to an external device. You can back it up to the cloud. You can do any of those things, but you should be doing at least ONE of those things. www.howtogeek.com/220986/how-to-use-all-of-windows-10%E2%80%99s-backup-and-recovery-tools/The backups you make today can save you a lot of butt-hurt tomorrow. But you're a smart lady, so you already know this, right? Right?
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Mar 28, 2017 14:14:01 GMT -5
You are being coy. Like I said before, if you want to make accusations, then don't dance around them, say what you mean like a man. It's not like we're face to face, you don't even have to look me in the eye. I don't play coy, I don't make accusations and I certainly don't dance around for you or anyone else. I don't shuffle, scratch where I don't itch, avert my eyes or cringe when an a White man wallowing in his tub of White privilege wants me to. I always say what I mean like a man and no trolling internet cipher such as yourself is qualified to question my manhood. You've tried to ridicule, belittle and bully me into submission, Amadan, and as you always have, you've failed. Miserably and totally. The Bell Curve is pornography, racist porn for freaks. Murray and his his dead buddy are porn peddlers serving up eugenic sleaze and White supremacist stroke material for sickos. It was that way in 1994 and it's no less so in 2017. Agree or disagree, like it or lump it, makes no difference to me. I am not trying to convince you of anything, inform you of anything or even debate with you about anything. Your opinion is meaningless and your sneering disdain less than that. I will never buck dance or eye roll to entertain a troll. The Bell Curve was written for people like you. Little tin gods trolling around debate boards with zero facts, zero sources, zero credibility, but overloaded with smug self-importance, blustering braggadocio, vain conceit and a fatal dosage of testosterone poisoning. I met guys like you in 1994 and their arguments were as transparent and weak then as yours is now. "We've explained why we don't think it's racist."There is your entire contribution to this thread succinctly summed up in eight words. You don't think The Bell Curve is racist . I do think The Bell Curve is racist. The telling difference between these two diametrically opposing viewpoints is throughout this thread I've provided supporting sources, links, and authoritative corroboration to support my case. You? Zero. Zero sources. Zero links. Zero corroboration. Zero facts. Same as it ever was. Yeah, we're done here. Or to be direct, I'm done with you.
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Mar 27, 2017 17:44:01 GMT -5
Well first off, I'm not defending Murray, I'm criticizing the SPLC's characterization of him as a "white nationalist." Yo u're doing both and you've done so repeatedly. Yes, and when it is accurate it certainly should be applied to someone like Murray. By the way, where's the part in The Bell Curve where Murray explicitly rejects eugenics? Oh, you want me to come up with a definition of White Nationalism that fits your Wikipedia/Merriam-Webster definition? You want me to come up with a quote of Murray is race-babbling about creating a "White nation" or saving the "White race" as if he were upping his post count at Stormfront or VDARE or there's no proof he's a racist? We're not playing this game, robeiae. Nothing compels to play this particular game by the ever-changing rules you and Amadan dream up. This has got nothing to do with Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama because neither one have written a book expousing eugenic junk science. Neither Clinton or Obama are getting innocent bystanders hurt by showing up on college campuses still beating the drum for a debunked piece of trash like The Bell Curve. It's not fon me to prove to your satisfaction the SPLC is right. You haven't proven they are wrong besides you say they are. It's not for me to prove Murray didn't grow up to be a racist shitbag. It's on you to prove in writing a book claiming 35 million Black Americans are intellecutally inferior to Whites isn't inherently racist. The respectable racism of a Charles Murray transcends casual bigotry or overt displays of racism. It's a far more subtle, genial and outwardly acceptable version of that same old White nationalist/supremacist bullshit. Nobody can make you see in 2017 what you were so obviously blind to in 1994.
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Mar 27, 2017 17:23:09 GMT -5
"Nuh-uh" is not a rebuttal. Citation where I said that. Link where I said that. Quote where I said that. Making shit up is a real nasty habit you have but it isn't a rebuttal. Whereas your are backed by another poster. Not impressed. Says you. Maybe you just don't read well. Good. Now you know what its like. What findings? The findings of a dead right-wing psychologist and a living right-wing sociologist who lacked the credentials for the task he undertoook and didn't submit his findings to any scientific journals or for peer review? The trashed findings of a trashy book written by two trashy bigots for trashy people in need of an ego stroke that their superiority complex is scientifically justified. As Geneticist David Botstein explained why he wasn't interested in refuting Herrnstein and Murray, " The Bell Curve is so stupid that it is not rebuttable.” It's not as big a leap as you might delude yourself from racist attitudes as a punk kid to evolving into a White nationalist as a grown-ass man, or haven't you heard of Steve Bannon? As much as you rely on Wikipedia, I rely on other sources. The original kind that can't be so easily molde into fitting anyone's skewed version of history and fact about burning sticks of wood with fucking firecrackers and fucking marshmallows. Sure. After seeing what a pile of dog droppings Murray grew up to be why would anyone associate his past as being a prologue? I need to claim nothing and I've called you nothing. You already know what you are.
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Mar 27, 2017 15:33:25 GMT -5
But we've explained why we don't think it's racist. Gone into the weeds about what Murray is and is not actually claiming. No, you haven't. All you've said is in your own words: "WE don't think it's racist." That is proof of nothing but your own belief and what's that supposed to mean? Sorry , but I'm not going into the weeds with you to dissect a 23-year old debunked piece of junk science. My expressed opinion has been backed by supporting documentation. Yours have not. You say you've read Murray's rebuttal to the SPLC, but quoted nothing from it. You say the SPLC is wrong in describing The Bell Curve as racist and Murray as a White nationalist, but provided nothing beyond your opinion to buttress your opinion. Zero Facts, but lots of empty bloviating and emptier filibustering. Same as it ever was. Neither is the five seconds it takes to point out at no point in this entire debate have you offered anything remotely resembling a fact, but plenty of uninformed opinion. Come now. If you want to call me a liar, sack up and do it, don't say "I'm tempted to but I won't."
When you're lying I'm not shy to say it. I just agreed with you that you're wrong and misunderstood the book. If you don't like your own answers don't ask your questions. Where on the other hand, you remain stone cold. For someone who likes facts so much you sure come up short on providing any. Oh, the Pioneer Fund for one. I think Richard Lynn for two. I think Charles Murray burning a cross when he was a younger Charles Murray and then saying he hand no clue it was racist for three.
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Mar 27, 2017 14:53:38 GMT -5
You haven't presented a single fact. Stating "X is racist" is not a fact, no matter how many times you repeat it. Neither is stating "X isn't racist" because you say so repeatedly. The difference is I've repeatedly backed up my assertion with facts. You haven't even once. Which equals=ZERO FACTS. Same as it ever was. First, "filibuster" means exactly what I said it means. You're obfuscating, speechifying, and spinning. But you're not debating because debate isn't simply attacking the debater, but the argument. You haven't and the entire "I know you are but what am I?" ploy is the evidence of this. I dealt with this back on Page 2 and Page 5 you're still falling back on that b.s. Typical. The temptation is to reply (a) and (b) but I'll go with "b", Alex. You misunderstood what The Bell Curve is actually saying. Fortunately, I (and others) did not. The temptation is to reply (a) and (b) but I'll go with "b", Alex. You misunderstood the SPLC's statement as well as the SPLC's facts.
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Mar 27, 2017 14:28:19 GMT -5
We need all the grist we can get, if we're going to keep the doors open. I've made that clear multiple times, haven't I? But hey, I appreciate your support... With 333+ posts, I'd like to think I'm making some contribution to the cause, however paltry it may be. Let me know when The Colline Gate membership drive is and I'll man a phone bank.
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Mar 27, 2017 14:24:15 GMT -5
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? You must be joking. Your feeble "defense" of Murray is based upon the spurious suggestion, " The Bell Curve says Asians are smarter than Whites so therefore it can't be racist" clumsily steps around the racist canards it is based upon. All you're doing is demonstrating your antipathy for the SPLC calling out Murray's racism. Nothing more. Venting one's spleen may serve a therapeutic need, but in a reasoned debate it don't mean jack.
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
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 nighttimer on Mar 27, 2017 13:21:04 GMT -5
If "Manufactured Outrage" is a thing, it's been a thing long before Trump came along and took it to the next level. It seems a bit of a reach to say this is Trump's modus operandi and therefore has invaded the entire Body Politic and infected it. I'm fine with blaming Trump for anything from my toast being burnt to my toilet backing up, but I can't blame him for this. The incident itself is actually no big deal, as cooler heads seem to have prevailed, but the manufactured outrage is just more grist for a mill that just doesn't need anymore, imo. Grist for a mill that doesn't need any more or one or two day fodder for a discussion board that does?
|
|
|
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 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 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.
|
|