The Insultingly Racist Notion That Skin Color Determines Whether One Is Allowed To Challenge A Particular Person's Ideas
Conversation started here, with this lovely piece of work, "feminist next door." (You might need to scroll up if you go to the link.)
After countless women (and a few "male feminists") calling me a misogynist, blah, blah, blah, there was this exchange. (In case you don't do Twitter, my response to her tweet is on the top. The Shade person's tweet came first.)
This was a response to my tweet to the Shade person -- one that even shocked me a little:
My reply:
And then over in the world of science, Lee Jussim, a psychologist and a human I really respect, tweeted this:
I stumbled on a thread & convo where an editor of a major journal argued it is offensive when people who aren't members of some minority group asked for evidence to support a claim made by a member of that group. +ad hominem attack. Methodsy PhDs agreed. DM if interested.
— Lee Jussim (@PsychRabble) January 17, 2019
Demands for special treatment instead of equal treatment. Is there anything that more powerfully suggests the people these demands are being made for are "less than"?
As I said, when facing criticism from the social justice mindset, the correct response is a dismissive, "Get fucked."
They need to be told that you're not taking their message on board or even considering their message.
Patrick at January 19, 2019 4:15 AM
I always liked Megan Kelly's response, "Toughen up buttercup." And if it's a female SJW you can get extra enjoyment watching them implode into molten jello by adding, "now get in the kitchen and make me a sandwich, oh, and bring me a beer too."
Jay at January 19, 2019 5:04 AM
"now get in the kitchen and make me a sandwich, oh, and bring me a beer too."
What makes you think they can do that in an efficient and effective manner?? I'm pretty sure the Gender Studies program doesn't include a course in making sandwiches and serving beer. They probably can't figure out how to open a beer, either.
If you're short on time, use Patrick's advice. If you have time to waste, mock them. And then use Patrick's advice.
I R A Darth Aggie at January 19, 2019 6:13 AM
Nobody likes being hectored. Seems to me these scolds have nothing else.
Although the complete and total backing of the Democratic Party and the old media is worrisome. Am really hoping this social justice shit gets front and center attention next election.
Isab at January 19, 2019 6:47 AM
Downton Abbey's Dowager Duchess would have liked that one. It's dismissive with an air of superiority and shows the utterer to have a vocabulary, a sense of humor, and touch of class in a way that a crude and vulgar response does not.
The problem with social justice warriors is that they will not compromise, will not govern. Reagan took a lot of criticism for compromising with Democrats. He answered it with the argument that if he could get 80% of what he wanted with a compromise, he could fight for the other 20% later.
I'm reading another book about the rise of Hitler right now and one of the things that undermined the Weimar Republic and paved the way for Hitler was that the parties involved were so narrowly defined on issues that they could not accept compromise in any way, belittling even opposing parties that compromised with them. Social Justice Warriors are the stuff from which parties like this are made.
The Democrats are well on their way to Weimar-decline levels of ideological purity. The Republicans are showing signs of this as well, but the nomination of a womanizing, thrice-married vulgarian actually redeems them, if only temporarily, dragging formal adherence to pseudo-Christian purity off the stage - whereas the SJWs cannot abide a spokesperson at a vapid awards ceremony with even a thirty-year-old politically-incorrect remark on his record.
Conan the Grammarian at January 19, 2019 8:48 AM
“The problem with social justice warriors is that they will not compromise, will not govern. Reagan took a lot of criticism for compromising with Democrats. He answered it with the argument that if he could get 80% of what he wanted with a compromise, he could fight for the other 20% later.”
The problem with this, is there is never any “later” with the Democratic Party. They will find a way to undermine or sabotage what they agreed to in the first place as soon as they have a majority.
See Simpson Mazzoli. 1986.
Isab at January 19, 2019 9:28 AM
In the case of women or minorities, it is in fact insulting to them to presume that they can't make coherent arguments or deal with facts.
On the other hand, SJWs are ideologically incapable of debate because the world to them is binary (except for gender, heh) and it is all about the personal feels, not facts. Thus even if you can prove that a higher min wage hurts young and minorities, they still want it.
cc at January 19, 2019 12:36 PM
Conan:
Unfortunately, the more dignified response also dignifies the person making the accusation. Simple dismissal, regardless of whether you choose to couch it in profane terms, states to the accuser, "Your ideas aren't even worth the few seconds I might take to fully digest their meaning, much less take them on board."
Whereas, "Toughen up, Buttercup" (why anyone thinks that shows you have a vocabulary is beyond me; a preschooler understands the meaning of all three words, and in context, I promise you) communicates, "I understand and have considered your ideas, and I think they're silly."
If you're accused of racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, sexism, ableism, whateverphobia-or-ism, they absolutely do not deserve any consideration.
Calling someone a racist, once upon a time, was a way to effectively shut them down. Ask Michael Richards or Mel Gibson (although both these gentlemen absolutely deserved what they got). I prefer to tell them, "No, I'm going to play your infantile game. I will not allow you to bully me into silence. I expect you to debate ideas without ad hominem. If you cannot do that, I refuse to even acknowledge you except to contemptuously dismiss you."
Patrick at January 19, 2019 2:53 PM
Patrick, as you've called me "sub-human filth" and worse, I really have little-to-no interest in your opinion or in any discourse with you. However, since you've chosen to open this dialogue with me - despite previous vehement assertions that you never would - and I've given up on the movie I'm watching, I'll bite.
"Get fucked" come across as ignorant and vulgar - even if someone deserves exactly that response - and does more to demonstrate the ignorance of the speaker than of the "contemptuously dismissed."
"Toughen up, Buttercup," on the other hand, may not directly reveal a large vocabulary, but it at least shows that you can come up with something more creative than "get fucked."
Responses like "toughen up, Buttercup" do not indicate in any way that you've considered the other person's ideas, such responses outright dismiss the other person's opinion as unworthy of any real consideration, along with the person expressing them.
That's why "Nuts" was an infinitely better response than "Eat Shit" at Bastogne.
Conan the "Sub-Human Filth" Grammarian at January 19, 2019 6:51 PM
Not sure of the gender or the race of the first complainant ("Please stop raping us"), but she might be talking to the wrong people. In 1991, black men raped white women at over two hundred times the rate black women were victimized by whites, acording to the DOJ. I'm not sure what the numbers are today.
Meanwhile...
Radwaste at January 19, 2019 7:34 PM
Conan: However, since you've chosen to open this dialogue with me...
No, I didn't. Nor would I. For any reason. Now or ever. I know you believe you understand my motives with your omniscience and whenever I try to defend myself explain my own motives, I'm either a liar or such a mental incompetent that I don't even know my own motives.
I chose to address a statement you made and was clarifying my position. Sorry you misunderstood my intentions. Oh, that's right. You understand my intentions perfectly. Any assertion to the contrary from me is either a lie or an inability to understand my own intentions. I assumed your reference to the "vulgar response" was referring to my "get fucked" suggestion as a response to accusations of any -ism or -phobia from the SJWs.
So, I thought elucidating my position might be in order, for the purposes of adding to the general discussion. There was no intent or desire to bring you into this. Frankly, I would have preferred it if you stayed out. But I suppose if I'm going to quote you, then I really have no business asking you not to respond.
Should I simply address your statements which refer to my statements without quoting you? The way you did with mine?
Patrick at January 20, 2019 1:53 AM
I dunno, the comments in Reddit get pretty nuts.
NicoleK at January 20, 2019 3:57 AM
Knowing how much it set you off the last time I responded to you directly, and how tedious your comments on that occasion were, I obliquely referenced you in responding to Jay's comment.
I really did like the "toughen up" comment much better than your "get fucked," but I was raised in the South and we generally prefer our oratorial iron fists to have velvet gloves of manners - slavery, Preston Brooks, and Jim Crow notwithstanding.
I find the word "fuck" in rhetoric and debate to be lazy. Like John Keating's advice about the word, "very" in Dead Poets Society, avoid lazy language:
Conan the Grammarian at January 20, 2019 9:07 AM
Crap! My block quotes got messed up.
This is what it should have looked like:
Knowing how much it set you off the last time I responded to you directly, and how tedious your comments on that occasion were, I obliquely referenced you in responding to Jay's comment.
I really did like the "toughen up" comment much better than your "get fucked," but I was raised in the South and we generally prefer our oratorial iron fists to have velvet gloves of manners - slavery, Preston Brooks, and Jim Crow notwithstanding.
I find the word "fuck" in rhetoric and debate to be lazy. Like John Keating's advice about the word, "very" in Dead Poets Society, avoid lazy language:
Use "fuck" sparingly and it will have an impact when used. Use it frequently and it loses all impact, except to show the user's rhetorical laziness.
==================================================
Is all this hostility about "understanding your intentions perfectly" because I once opined that you have a bit of a puritanical streak?
'cause ya do. Not that that's a bad thing and I meant no insult in pointing it out. I was merely pointing out a weakness in the argument you were making then.
Your posts do indicate a fairly black-and-white view of the world with little room for shades of gray. You brook very little dissent from your expressed point of view and launch into personal attacks when someone dares to disagree with you.
Here's an example from the July 25 Linkya Linkanovich thread discussion of the Drejka-McGlockton shooting:
Your rebuttal: "Not surprisingly, someone commenting on this thread is full of shit or needs to get their eyes checked." ~ Patrick at July 27, 2018 12:11 PM. That was your reaction when I disagreed with you on what the video of the shooting showed. By the way, you made that remark about my comment without quoting me or directly referencing me.
Not "I disagree" or "That's not how I see it," but "full of shit." No acceptance of other points of view. A point of view which disagreed with yours, but it happens, was correct. A twice-reviewed autopsy shows McGlockton was turning away when he was shot.
Now, Patrick, I'm not advocating that you should be removed from this panel, the way Assholio was. In fact, I think you add a great deal to it and to the discussions herein. Your rigid outlook and frequent personal attacks, however, sometimes distract from whatever valid points you may be making.
Take my advice in any way you wish, it's merely the opinion of someone whose character you've maligned and whom you've labelled "sub-human filth" and "full of shit."
Conan the Grammarian at January 20, 2019 9:09 AM
So, I messed up the block quotes on the 13th entry in this thread. Triskaidekaphobia, anyone?
Conan the Grammarian at January 20, 2019 9:13 AM
Tis truly a sin that can never be forgiven Conan. It's right there in the bibble. Thou shalt block quote with quality. See. Straight from dog's mouth.
Ben at January 20, 2019 4:18 PM
Conan: Is all this hostility about "understanding your intentions perfectly" because I once opined that you have a bit of a puritanical streak?
(shaking head) Utterly clueless...
Patrick at January 20, 2019 9:36 PM
(Chuckling) Huh?
Oh, I see. You thought I was actually asking the question and interested in your answer; not that I was using it as a set-up to point out that you were wrong and I was right in the Drejka-McGlockton video. You know, that's the one where you said I was "full of shit" and needed to get my eyes checked.
No, Patrick, I was not interested in the answer. The fact is that I can see right through you. Your motives are quite transparent. You really are a petty, insecure, and shallow little man.
Have a nice day, Patrick.
==================================================
My unforgivable sins are legion, Ben, but on this one it was simply an oversight born of fumble-fingered typing and poor self-editing. I typed "/blcokquote" instead of "/blockquote" and did not catch it.
Conan the Grammarian at January 21, 2019 7:03 AM
Conan: ...you were wrong and I was right in the Drejka-McGlockton video. You know, that's the one where you said I was "full of shit" and needed to get my eyes checked.
Clueless. You're not even getting warmer.
And no, you weren't right. Watch the video and count the steps again.
Patrick at January 21, 2019 2:23 PM
No, Patrick.
You didn't follow the links I provided to back up my case, did you? You just shot off at the mouth, your usual manner of engaging anyone who disagrees with you.
I don't need to watch the video again, Patrick. Nor do I need to get my eyes checked. The autopsy confirmed that the bullet entered McGlockton from an angle not consistent with a head-on encounter.
The autopsy, Patrick, determined McGlockton was "oblique to the shooter" when he was shot.
So, Patrick, are you claiming to be a better judge of evidence than at least two experts?
Mind you, I am not condemning Drejka, nor did I earlier. McGlockton escalated the encounter unnecessarily into violence by throwing the older and smaller man onto the pavement when he could have simply interposed himself between the Drejka (then with weapon still concealed) and Britney Jacobs or gotten in the car ready to leave.
That the medical examiner's office also found "the amphetamines MDA and MDMA" in McGlockton's system and the lead detective who investigated the case showed up at a later crime scene drunk and was suspended will probably give a jury enough reasonable doubt to counter any angle of entry evidence.
When I got my concealed carry permit, we spent at least an hour of the mandated 8 hours of classroom instruction watching videos of shootings, led by a trained police officer who walked us through the stages of each shooting. That's how I watched the video and that experience is what led me to the conclusion that McGlockton had started to back off.
Conan the Grammarian at January 21, 2019 3:14 PM
"When I got my concealed carry permit, we spent at least an hour of the mandated 8 hours of classroom instruction"
Now there's a sentence that's never uttered in Kansas.
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at January 21, 2019 3:18 PM
When I said you were full of shit and needed to have your eyes check, I never even mentioned the angle of the shooter. I was referring to the number of steps you claimed he took.
I think we need to add "senile" to your already long and continually growing list of shortcomings.
Patrick at January 21, 2019 4:42 PM
All right, Patrick, if that's the way you want it, let's look at how many steps McGlockton took.
Let's get away from the he said / he said argument and look at how others saw and reported the incident and video.
The Associated press reported that McGlockton took "a step" toward Drejka before he pulled a gun. Not four steps, a step, that is one step.
ABC reported that the video shows McGlockton "push Drejka to the ground and "then take a few steps back." No mention of any forward steps. You'd think their trained reporters would notice four steps taken toward Drejka.
The New York Times went so far as to say that Drejka pulled his gun after McGlockton took a few steps back. I think we are in agreement that McGlockton did not start backing up or turning away until he saw the gun or Drejka reaching for it. Our current disagreement is on how many forward steps McGlockton took.
We won't entirely dismiss the Times report, however, as had McGlockton taken as many as four steps, even the Times would have had to acknowledge him taking some steps forward.
Fox reported McGlockton briefly stood over Drejka "pulling up his shorts." Four second were given as the elapsed time between the shove and the shooting.
Other reports, seemingly sympathetic to McGlockton (e.g., The Root), had McGlockton shoving Drejka and immediately backing away.
While reports like The Root's seem to be pointedly biased interpretations, if McGlockton had taken four steps toward the nearly-prone Drejka, any story that McGlockton took only a step or none at all would have been a harder sell. As such, four steps seems increasingly unlikely.
In fact, nowhere at all was the story reported with McGlockton taking even two steps toward the nearly-prone Drejka after shoving him, much less four.
Even Drejka himself said it was one step, ""He made his step towards me, and that was that." "Step," not "steps."
I stand by my original "two steps at most" observation, your petulant tantrum and petty insults notwithstanding.
Conan the Grammarian at January 21, 2019 6:37 PM
I would love to know how you think Drejka could have possibly counted the number of steps McGlockton took while in the process of falling to the pavement in a blindside attack.
I admit it's hard to tell, especially in light of the fact that a bystander is in the way, blocking the view of McGlockton's feet, but judging by his gait, I would say four steps, or three and a half, if you want to count the last step as a partial.
Although it's impossible to tell. I think the most important aspect is that McGlockton did not stop after hitting Drejka.
(And the fact that you truly believe this is the reason I despise you is hilarious.)
Patrick at January 22, 2019 12:54 AM
Despise away, cupcake, for your opinion means naught to me.
Conan the Patrick-Despised Grammarian at January 22, 2019 7:25 AM
Leave a comment