It is currently Thu Mar 21, 2019 12:39 pm



Reply to topic  [ 2481 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50  Next
 A Corrierino Awareness Thread 
Author Message
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

LEAVES wrote:
I remember the first time I accidentally tried to have a conversation with a person I had never heard of named YARN. What a terrible experience that has always turned out to be. I'm amazed that Ergil has kept up arguing with the same person for so long. Ergil, you could enrich the lives of worthwhile people with your posts! Don't get sucked down into the abyss!

The Nameless One wrote:
I, too, hope that the awareness thread is capable of sticking to awareness as opposed to this constant cycle of removing the blindfold from the Yarn's eyes. It's such a sad exercise to witness, and it's no new ground it's just obvious rebuttal. We can do much better

I agree this has pretty much run its course.

And I'm also on team LEAVES. We had spats, but I always enjoyed you as a poster. I liked YARN when he was talking about movies. The Long 2016 has brought out some of his nastier, loonier instincts, though.


Sat Mar 02, 2019 9:16 am
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Melvin Butterworth wrote:
Another concern is the ideological inconsistency (Singer's critique of the pro-life movement), that is you should be pro-infanticide (given you convictions), even if you are not (yet) pro-infanticide. And the pressure is on you to rejoin Singer's critique.

Yeah, I'm not feeling that pressure. But I do think that the attempt to apply this pressure is exactly what this stunt amounts to. Like that "anti-infanticide" bill. Since the illegality of infanticide is clear and not up for debate, the Pubs just want to try to manufacture a campaign of Dems as pro-infanticide. It's trolling on the legislative level, and is the latest gambit to frame the abortion issue as indefensible as possible, much like the similarly made-up abortifacient/birth control issue. Meanwhile, there are no babies being post-partum aborted on operating tables, and the only ones saying there are happen to be you, Trump and Alex Jones. Maybe the Nazi/Aztec interdimensional aliens that feed off of fresh baby flesh are not far around the corner in this discussion.

Melvin Butterworth wrote:
If we go by the "official" rhetoric of the KKK, they swear that they are (these days) against violent action.

I'm sure that if you could find BLM action, however surreptitious, that could possibly be comparable to the KKK, there would be no shortage of those who would seize on that evidence. Yet no evidence exists, not for lack of looking.


Sat Mar 02, 2019 11:48 am
Profile
Reply with quote
Post Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Ergill wrote:
Thank you.

Not everyone to the right of you is a white nationalist or "fellow traveller." This sort of thing is why #walkaway is a thing.

I think a big part of the problem is that we're so uncomfortable talking about this stuff that we police these discussions, suppressing what is too painful to speak of, and suspecting bad intentions of anyone who crosses "the narrative." As a result, we candy-coat our discussions of race as it relates to poverty, institutional bias, and police procedure. When that happens, we only tell half the truth. We tell that half that disciplines the border of discussion to avoid sliding into unpleasantries and to avoid empowering the "other" narrative. But there are more than two narratives here. And when we only tell half the truth (Your mom and I met in college....), we leave the other half to be told by others, some of whom are indeed racists. What gives the racist power, however, is that for the unwitting, the racist presents "hidden truths" which "pill" people. Never leave even the smallest part of the truth to be exclusively told by your opposition, lest you make them appear to be martyrs, prophets, and "plain talkers."

I find the "candy-coating" itself to be unintentionally racist. That is, the notion that the full-truth is too damning to disclose (e.g, FBI homicide statistics that refute the narrative of whites hunting down blacks in the street), creates the notion of a dread secret that is too dangerous to disclose, creating a paternalistic impulse to protect people from "the truth."

Part of this comes from a sense that if you're not part of the tribe, it is not your place to criticize. You can complain about your mom, but if anyone else talks bad about your mom, that's a different story. And so it is OK for fat people to tell fat jokes, and so on. And someone who isn't black talking about black problems just doesn't sound right (although it is always OK to criticize whiteness, maleness, Christianity, and heterosexuality), so everyone is expected to take a hard pass on talking about anything that isn't the official honorific/valorific narrative. At the level of public policy, however, we all have to discuss what to do together. More important, we are first and foremost human beings, which necessitates that we don't shy away from painful discussions as if African Americans were really a different "race."

Ergill wrote:
Yes, and in the Dreyfus Affair, many Dreyfusards, even progressive people who supported the Jews, still partook liberally of the antisemitism of their day. Bernard Lazare, himself a Jew and an anarchist, wrote a historical critique of antisemitism, but none of that stopped him from dipping deep into its tropes and providing fodder for its adherents. People and prejudice are more complicated than a laundry list of their respectable positions. I don’t think you’re a racist ideologue. I also don’t think you recognize how the way you’re talking about black people plays on racist impulses. I think if we dropped someone from Stormfront in here, they'd be eager to pat your back.


Well, I also have some character judgements about "Skyler" from Breaking Bad (portrayed by a great actress who gave a great performance) and there are bizarro misogynists (the Skyler haters) who might want to high five me, but I don't shy away from stating that I feel that she begins being written a little too unfavourably (henpecking Walt, establishing part of his motivation to be something more) and then becomes an accomplice (revealing that she is part-gangster herself) after she had a chance to get out of the relationship (literally hopping in a car and driving away and getting legal advice to hit the ejection seat). That pyschopaths contingently agree with some of my judgements doesn't implicate me in their psychosis.

There are more positions on the matter than "Skyler is great!" and "Skyler is a bitch because she doesn't support Walt!"

Ergill wrote:
I said I was “fine” with restrictions on third-term abortion. Interpret that however you will (i.e. batshit crazy).


So, may I take it that you support legal restrictions of third-term abortions? I don't think that this is a "batshit crazy" question. I think it is a direct question. I only ask for a direct answer....

Ergill wrote:
Huh? What do they have to do with high birth rates?


Well, you did say, "Impoverished people have had larger reproductive rates far as long as impoverishment has been a thing," yes? This implies that you take it to be a general proposition ("climate") that this is the case. That the "weather" in these cases was different does not repudiate my point, which is that you don't want to piss off the poor too much, because they can successfully revolt. What I really take issue with is your generally fatalistic message that the poor cannot defeat the rich, not even with advantage in numbers.

Ergill wrote:
Duly noted.


Your notation has been noted as well.

Ergill wrote:
Oh, I thought you just said you have no reservations with the vast majority of these abortions. Sorry, I mean the largest portion of this genocide.


The later we are in pregnancy, the closer we are to confidently satisfying criteria of personhood, the more concerned we should be (the closer we are to a winning "powerball" ticket and thus an opportunity cost).

If you deny genocide, then we must visit criteria of personhood. Again, this is the central stasis of the debate. We cannot leave it unaddressed.

Ergill wrote:
BLM isn’t any more responsible for the riots or a rightwing assassin than the labor movement was responsible for the (much worse) riots of its day.


No, they're responsible, IMO. They picked the wrong anecdote, attached it to the wrong narrative, and spent their chips in Ferguson and Dallas. They did more harm than good.

Ergill wrote:
Of course, that never stops anyone from trying to tar whole movements as such. It is, indeed, a special American pastime to dismiss black riots as simply the product of radical delusions. But as MLK said, even if we stand against riots, we should recognize that “a riot is the language of the unheard”.


MLK was wise. And sometimes riots are acceptable and even justified. It is unfortunate, however, when a riot centers on an event prematurely judged and a narrative disconnected from root causes.

Ergill wrote:
I don’t believe that cops are primarily incompetent.

Well, we disagree there. American cops are, sadly, comical compared to police forces in other developed nations.

Ergill wrote:
And I don’t believe that blacks are merely the unfortunate inheritors of poverty, and what's more, a poverty born of racism that’s withered to accidental stereotypes born of their poverty. I think that conscious racism, unconscious racism and institutional racism are still a substantive portion of the pie and need to be addressed.

Sure.

Ergill wrote:
It’s more than keeping people’s wealth down. It’s about centuries of social subjugation as well. You’ve touched part of the behemoth and settled on an elephant.

Right, but were talking about centuries of economic subjugation and social opportunities that were denied so as to deny economic opportunities.

Ergill wrote:
“Representin”. Uh…huh. It’s a wonder the drug war was a throwaway reference for you, but that “gangsta culture” has been the greater bête noire, as it were.


I stand by the comment. Do your worst.

Ergill wrote:
And yet this doesn’t dominate your statistic-mongering. Black threat does. Over and over and over and over and over and over.


This is a common fallacy of inference. "Someone disagrees with me, and they will not desist from disagreeing with me, so they MUST hold the contrary opinion."

The truth is, sadly, that black and white don't really even care about each other enough to even kill each other in our country. Perversely, Dr. King's "Dream" will not be realized until intra-racial homicide rates are equal. In a perfect world, we would refrain from murdering each other at all, but we live in an oddly segregated world where we murder within race (suggesting that the most common hate crime of all is to murder someone for sharing the same color skin you have).

Ergill wrote:
”Who would guess through all your repetition of murderous black threat that well under %1 of blacks will commit a homicide in a given year? And from that less-than-%1 you see a regrettable but understandable stereotype.”


The criminal justice system doesn't see us on our best day. Cops don't generally interact with us on our best day. They only see us at our worst. And rare as crime is, overall, this creates sampling bias in the system (e.g., when you see X many more people in group Y every month, the stereotypical inference is "hydraulically pressed").

Ergill wrote:
Pretty cool. And well under %1 of blacks will commit a homicide in a given year. Perhaps (1) this should not be dominating the discussion and perhaps (2) we should be more wary of the dangers of stereotype threat.


Well, I guess if you think Stromfront is up this parlor, sure... ...I guess. Near as I can tell, however, I am the only one here who isn't turbo lefty and this is dive bar in a dark corner of the internet.

Ergill wrote:
Seeing as how revolutions are both good and bad, I don't know that this says much of anything, but let's keep moving lest Chester catch up with us and "stroke his chin whitely."


As you wish, Lefty McLefterton, waggle your finger righteously (presumably while "literally shaking").

Ergill wrote:
Constantly associating blacks with riots and murder isn’t a good look.


And a worse look is the fact that black males kill black males at an alarming rate, but we don't do shit about it because it is in the ghetto. We have actually abandoned people there.

If you're a racist, I suppose you'd get pumped over this as proof of racial inferiority. If you're a classicist, I suppose that this is proof of bad breeding. Somehow, I see this black people getting screwed by poverty, cultural defomation, and general abandonment by even well-meaning people.

Ergill wrote:
Probably because there’s absolutely no reason why this required you hammering away at black threat for huge, repetitious chunks of your posts, dismissing context as weasely or inconsequential. The bizarre glee you get from this and your callous obliviousness to how this would read to a black person make it all the more grotesque.


Black people note this too. It's just "impolite" for white people to observe this. We can't fix what is wrong with America until we acknowledge what's wrong with America. I simply want you to look at (what I think is) the problem. And what is NOT the problem is the notion of modern Jim Crow, shooting us in the streets, or gangs of Chesters in MAGA hats driving Dodge Dakotas with "Gillespie for Governor" number-stickers looking for children of color to run down.

Ergill wrote:
I don’t think it’s really clear to you what my case


I am just talking about your case for your curious mathematics.

Ergill wrote:
It’s not safety in numbers. It’s simply safety.


That's a big part of it, yes. But the other part (if we're actually debating "White man is killing us!") is safety from whom?

And this is where BLM deserves criticism.

Ergill wrote:
What should they care about?


Poverty.

Ergill wrote:
It should also be pointed out that you’re laboring under the impression that I think whites are killing blacks in the streets in droves. You claim this because you’re a shoddy reader and shoddier arguer with a crutch for arguing at caricatures.


How many shoddies is that?

Ergill wrote:
Like lynchings in 1939, these deaths might not be common, but people latch on to them as symbols of larger social ills that affect multitudes in a multitude of ways short of a conspicuous death.


It ain't 1939. The analogy to 80-years-ago is a bit desperate. There is a qualitative difference between lynching and our modern examples (e.g., acts of community terrorism against another community).

Ergill wrote:
This creates a counter-impulse among other people who want to latch on to these symbols as an all-or-nothing counterargument to everything they think the protesters stand for. But if all you can talk about is “hands up” then you’re not any better than the caricature protesters you’re arguing against. Brown could be the biggest of myths. The reaction to his death did not spring from a myth. As the DOJ report on the Ferguson police department attests, and as their horrendous reaction to the protests supports, the black community had deep and legitimate resentments with the powers that be. You cite Spike approvingly. People didn’t riot just because Radio Raheem died or because Mookie threw a trash can through a window. They rioted because of long-simmering tensions born of shitty policy and policing.


I don't always agree with Spike, although I do like that he always makes you think. I love School Daze, but Do the Right Thing was heavy handed, IMO. Even so, I'll take ten Spike Lee joints over any random caricature of African Americans reduced to "Modern Pirates."


Sat Mar 02, 2019 12:56 pm
Profile
Reply with quote
Post Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Ergill wrote:
I liked YARN when he was talking about movies. The Long 2016 has brought out some of his nastier, loonier instincts, though.


The new America has brought out the worst in all us. We're living in the same world but seeing details within it in radically different ways.


Sat Mar 02, 2019 1:08 pm
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Melvin Butterworth wrote:

And I remember you LEAVES. In particular, I remember something you said on RT, which was that the difference between the two us was that you were trying piss people off.

Our collective memory of you remains as well.
You got me. I probably did at some point say that some post that I made was made to intentionally to piss someone off. Sarcasm, in particular, is pretty much that by definition and, yes, sarcasm is great.

Are you saying that you are a perfect angel, or that you are completely unaware of the effects of your posts on others?

I can't say either are a good look.

_________________
LEAVES come from TREES
Retired


Sun Mar 03, 2019 12:48 am
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Melvin Butterworth wrote:
Not everyone to the right of you is a white nationalist or "fellow traveller." This sort of thing is why #walkaway is a thing.

First of all LOL. You have Baby Boomerish susceptibility to astroturfing. It’s no wonder you flirted with the Seth Rich conspiracy.

Melvin Butterworth wrote:
I find the "candy-coating" itself to be unintentionally racist. That is, the notion that the full-truth is too damning to disclose (e.g, FBI homicide statistics that refute the narrative of whites hunting down blacks in the street), creates the notion of a dread secret that is too dangerous to disclose, creating a paternalistic impulse to protect people from "the truth."

I’m perfectly aware of this kind of edgelordism, sometimes intentionally and sometimes unintentionally, laundering racist associations of old through a fixation on highly selective statistics, quite proud of itself for having dared to broach the tough issues. When your story is that blacks are the puppets of poverty, that this ups their murder rates (which takes up a disproportionate amount of your attention), and that this rate explains, with only a slight crust of racism on top, their maltreatment by the criminal justice system, then yeah, I don’t think you’ve flipped the book all that radically from what America has been telling itself for decades. “Sure, more are in prison, but more murder people. It’s an unfortunate outgrowth of poverty culture. We’ll get around to fixing poverty eventually.”

Melvin Butterworth wrote:
There are more positions on the matter than "Skyler is great!" and "Skyler is a bitch because she doesn't support Walt!"

Do you think this is a lesson you’re giving me or is the import of that historical anecdote dawning on you? Bernard Lazare is proof of grays. He was overall on the right side of history with respect to antisemitism. He was even one of the heroes of The Affair. That still didn’t stop him, even as a Jew, from himself dabbling in antisemitic tropes. You’ve convinced yourself that you can’t possibly be dabbling in prejudicial conventions because you don’t see race and support lifting poor blacks out of poverty. That’s a great no-skin-in-the-game profession and promise, but it doesn’t justify you exacerbating rather than diffusing stereotypes.

Melvin Butterworth wrote:
”I said I was “fine” with restrictions on third-term abortion. Interpret that however you will (i.e. batshit crazy).”

So, may I take it that you support legal restrictions of third-term abortions? I don't think that this is a "batshit crazy" question. I think it is a direct question. I only ask for a direct answer....

I could join you on your play-dumb routine and answer shit again and again, like I’ve literally already done in the quote you’re responding to, but your Derridean pumping of may’s and Leonard-Shelby line of questioning will invariably lead us back to the YARN-induced emptiness of this abortion debate. I won’t be playing along anymore.

Melvin Butterworth wrote:
Well, you did say, "Impoverished people have had larger reproductive rates far as long as impoverishment has been a thing," yes?

Ah, so you don’t have anything to back up your reference to either revolution? Thought not. Maybe you should try a Breaking Bad reference.

Melvin Butterworth wrote:
”It’s more than keeping people’s wealth down. It’s about centuries of social subjugation as well. You’ve touched part of the behemoth and settled on an elephant.”

Right, but were talking about centuries of economic subjugation and social opportunities that were denied so as to deny economic opportunities.

And how was this group carved out and defined for the purpose of economic subjugation if not by race? It’s a Leftist assumption, a kind of leftover of Marx, to assume that explanations always bottom-out in economics (see Omar’s “It’s all about the Benjamins”), but the fact of the matter frequently comes out more complicated than that. Such is the case with caste systems and the legacy of these systems.

Melvin Butterworth wrote:
”’Representin’. Uh…huh. It’s a wonder the drug war was a throwaway reference for you, but that “gangsta culture” has been the greater bête noire, as it were.”

I stand by the comment. Do your worst.

That quote does quite enough. Plenty of people have had good-faith discussions about the ills of gang culture that don’t come in the context of downplaying the criminal justice system’s cruelty to poor blacks as primarily the product of Keystone Cops and an understandable clamp-down on a blacks for their crime rates. As the numerous studies Balko cited, the outcomes go well beyond gangs and crime rates, even if that’s the story so many people like to tell themselves, unintentionally feeding back into these outcomes.

Melvin Butterworth wrote:
”And yet this doesn’t dominate your statistic-mongering. Black threat does. Over and over and over and over and over and over.”

This is a common fallacy of inference. "Someone disagrees with me, and they will not desist from disagreeing with me, so they MUST hold the contrary opinion."

The point wasn’t even about an opinion you hold. It’s about the way you’re conducting yourself in this discussion.

Melvin Butterworth wrote:
The criminal justice system doesn't see us on our best day. Cops don't generally interact with us on our best day. They only see us at our worst. And rare as crime is, overall, this creates sampling bias in the system (e.g., when you see X many more people in group Y every month, the stereotypical inference is "hydraulically pressed").

And this pump is a moral wrong.

Melvin Butterworth wrote:
”Pretty cool. And well under %1 of blacks will commit a homicide in a given year. Perhaps (1) this should not be dominating the discussion and perhaps (2) we should be more wary of the dangers of stereotype threat.”

Well, I guess if you think Stromfront is up this parlor, sure... ...I guess. Near as I can tell, however, I am the only one here who isn't turbo lefty and this is dive bar in a dark corner of the internet.

We don’t need an avowed racism when we have a conflicted, oblivious racism right in front of us. The latter is much more common anyway.

Melvin Butterworth wrote:
”Constantly associating blacks with riots and murder isn’t a good look.”

And a worse look is the fact that black males kill black males at an alarming rate, but we don't do shit about it because it is in the ghetto. We have actually abandoned people there.

For example.

Melvin Butterworth wrote:
And what is NOT the problem is the notion of modern Jim Crow, shooting us in the streets, or gangs of Chesters in MAGA hats driving Dodge Dakotas with "Gillespie for Governor" number-stickers looking for children of color to run down.

Chester wasn’t a KKK type. That you think he had to be is simply of a piece with you not understanding how to deal with grays. He was from the Party of Lincoln. He had some of the prejudicial blinders of his day and they skewed his priorities. He decried racism, but held racist sentiments. He vocally supported lifting blacks out of poverty, but stopped short of doing anything about it. He spent far more time policing perceived gaffes of the Left. It mattered less to him that lynchings still happened and were a symptom of a broader fabric of systemic racism. What mattered was that a Leftist radical wrote a song heralded as a battle-cry of civil rights, taking as its symbol a practice that had, by then, fallen to historic lows. He granted that far more work needed to be done, but chastised their alleged inability to acknowledge that things had improved since the 1880s. Shame on them for not doing it his way. He was, in the end, a culture warrior of his day.

Melvin Butterworth wrote:
It ain't 1939. The analogy to 80-years-ago is a bit desperate. There is a qualitative difference between lynching and our modern examples (e.g., acts of community terrorism against another community).

And Chester’s point is that 1939 wasn’t 1882 (the peak of lynchings) or 1859 (80 years before), and in many ways, he was right. He was not right in a fundamental way, however.


Sun Mar 03, 2019 4:28 am
Profile
Reply with quote
Post Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Ergill wrote:
First of all LOL. You have Baby Boomerish susceptibility to astroturfing. It’s no wonder you flirted with the Seth Rich conspiracy.


Because it was an alleged robbery where nothing was robbed? Because Julian Assange intimated that Rich may have been a leaker? Because a review of the evidence arrived at the conclusion that he was probably killed by a serial killer?

Newsweek wrote:
The Profiling Project, based in Arlington, Virginia, consists of around 20 volunteers who are current and former George Washington University forensic-psychology graduate students and instructors. The report states that Rich’s July 2016 “death does not appear to be a random homicide” or “a robbery gone bad,” as police had suggested. Instead, the report says, the “death was more likely committed by a hired killer or serial murderer,” and that the killer is likely still at large.


https://www.newsweek.com/seth-rich-murd ... ect-627634

Because the Washington Times published an Op-Ed which contained statement of alleged fact connecting Rich to Wikileaks?

Snopes wrote:
Washington Times stated as fact that “data on [Seth Rich’s] laptop revealed that Mr. Rich downloaded thousands of DNC emails and was in touch with Wikileaks”


https://www.snopes.com/news/2018/10/01/ ... ch-murder/

The Op-Ed is deleted now (as of late 2018 when Snopes reported the retraction) and Fox retracted similar claims, but the fact remains that major news outlets stated "facts" of the case.

And let's not forget that people who questioned the veracity of Smollett's claims and the nature of government observation the private communications of U.S. citizens were also called "conspiracy" theorists.

And let's not forget the uncontested facts which came to us from WikiLeaks, fact which have been compiled by Jared Beck in book for which confirm that the DNC did indeed act in a conspiracy to railroad Sanders out of the 2016 election. That's not a "theory", that's not "fake news," that's not "astrotrufing," that's the DNC.

Ergill wrote:
I’m perfectly aware of this kind of edgelordism, sometimes intentionally and sometimes unintentionally, laundering racist associations of old through a fixation on highly selective statistics, quite proud of itself for having dared to broach the tough issues.


The facts aren't racist. The statistics aren't selective. It is only when we look at the FBI numbers from one angle that we find anything that even suggests blacks are at risk from white violence. The white-on-black wave of violence is itself a racist lie, one that does not trade on statistics but inflammatory anecdotes and the moral weight of the sacred narrative.

If there are no conditions under which you're willing acknowledge these issues for a scruple about not empowering racist tropes, then by necessity, there are no conditions under which you are equipped to address these issues in terms of public policy. And this is stupid.

Let's just admit that you've lost the numbers debate and have now moved onto the genetic fallacy as a move to dismiss the evidence as having been introduced in bad faith.

Ergill wrote:
When your story is that blacks are the puppets of poverty, that this ups their murder rates (which takes up a disproportionate amount of your attention), and that this rate explains, with only a slight crust of racism on top, their maltreatment by the criminal justice system, then yeah, I don’t think you’ve flipped the book all that radically from what America has been telling itself for decades. “Sure, more are in prison, but more murder people. It’s an unfortunate outgrowth of poverty culture. We’ll get around to fixing poverty eventually.”


We can't get around to fixing poverty until we acknowledge the salience of poverty as something we can (and we can) and should (and we should) solve. This is not unlike the truth that so long as a we treat global warming as an unsolvable issue (What can I do? It's just too big! Our economy would tank!), we will have no progress on solving. And not acting on global warming could seal all of our fates. AOC may be wrong about the world ending in 12 years and with demanding that flights end in favor of trains in short order, but she is correct that global warming is a pressing problem that demands action, demands action now, and should be at the front of the line in terms of our concerns.

Ergill wrote:
Do you think this is a lesson you’re giving me or is the import of that historical anecdote dawning on you?


I think you made a bad argument and perhaps it has just dawned on you that you made a bad argument.

Did you know Hitler was a vegetarian?!? OMFG!

Ergill wrote:
Bernard Lazare is proof of grays. He was overall on the right side of history with respect to antisemitism. He was even one of the heroes of The Affair. That still didn’t stop him, even as a Jew, from himself dabbling in antisemitic tropes. You’ve convinced yourself that you can’t possibly be dabbling in prejudicial conventions because you don’t see race and support lifting poor blacks out of poverty. That’s a great no-skin-in-the-game profession and promise, but it doesn’t justify you exacerbating rather than diffusing stereotypes.


A journey of a thousand miles must begin with a single step. You're complaining about step 1 (acknowledgement), because racists are too willing to acknowledge it. You're literally arguing that the facts are "unsayable" because to say them is to empower racism. We can't even talk about it, but that means we can't fix it either.

Ergill wrote:
I could join you on your play-dumb routine and answer shit again and again, like I’ve literally already done in the quote you’re responding to, but your Derridean pumping of may’s and Leonard-Shelby line of questioning will invariably lead us back to the YARN-induced emptiness of this abortion debate. I won’t be playing along anymore.


And there you have it. Ergill cannot answer a simple question. I love it. You cannot simply say whether or not you would be in favor of legal limitations. Why can you not say it directly? Would you have to invoke misogynist tropes to actually state your position? Would you have to unambiguously mark yourself as standing on the side of life as pertains to law and pregnancy? Life is hard in your world of the sacred unsayable.

You've literally ducked this question every time I've asked it. Still think your "winning"? I mean, you will the gallery, sure. I was branded beast before the feast, but remember this moment privately--recollect that you not bring yourself to say yes to there being legal restrictions in the third term. You bailed out. I don't need to argue on this any more. If you have a conscience, it will accuse you.

Ergill wrote:
Ah, so you don’t have anything to back up your reference to either revolution? Thought not. Maybe you should try a Breaking Bad


Don't need to. My point stands. Maybe you should take a pill?

Ergill wrote:
And how was this group carved out and defined for the purpose of economic subjugation if not by race? It’s a Leftist assumption, a kind of leftover of Marx, to assume that explanations always bottom-out in economics (see Omar’s “It’s all about the Benjamins”), but the fact of the matter frequently comes out more complicated than that. Such is the case with caste systems and the legacy of these systems.


Part of it is practical. You need an other that you can control and identify and dehumanize. People who look like you hold up a mirror to your experience. You see yourself in them and stumble in the justification of their oppression (unless you go fully hardcore like the ancients and hold that slavery is fair play in "might makes right" and see all other tribes as barbaroi). The claims of fellow Europeans to legal rights complicates the ability to control them. Native people could always escape to the wilderness. But a black body in the South was unambiguously property.

But yes, historical racism is a thing. Even when the historical racism is ameliorated, the structural groove of that racism in legal and social practices remains. And that is a problem.

Ergill wrote:
That quote does quite enough. Plenty of people have had good-faith discussions about the ills of gang culture that don’t come in the context of downplaying the criminal justice system’s cruelty to poor blacks as primarily the product of Keystone Cops and an understandable clamp-down on a blacks for their crime rates. As the numerous studies Balko cited, the outcomes go well beyond gangs and crime rates, even if that’s the story so many people like to tell themselves, unintentionally feeding back into these outcomes.


I never said that racism isn't a thing. I maintain that our best means of solving for the problems that beset underserved communities is to actually engage in practices that pull them out of poverty.

Ergill wrote:
The point wasn’t even about an opinion you hold. It’s about the way you’re conducting yourself in this discussion.


No. It's about an opinion you hold. It's about an inference you have made. It's about the way you have been conducting yourself in this discussion.

Ergill wrote:
And this pump is a moral wrong.


But this still concedes my analysis that a little poverty can have a massive effect in terms of creating stereotypes.

Ergill wrote:
We don’t need an avowed racism when we have a conflicted, oblivious racism right in front of us. The latter is much more common anyway.


Keep up the libel. That'll fix things.

Don't make the pious liberals angry. They'll call you racist.

Keep it up. Keep driving those who disagree with you (involuntarily) to the right. See what that gets you.

Ergill wrote:
For example


Facts are facts. We have abandoned the poor.

Ergill wrote:
He vocally supported lifting blacks out of poverty, but stopped short of doing anything about it.


I am all for doing something about it.

Ergill wrote:
He spent far more time policing perceived gaffes of the Left.


Only "perceived" because there are never actual gaffes--crucial mistakes that make thing worse, right?

And this thread isn't a leftist echo-chamber?

Ergill wrote:
And Chester’s point is that 1939 wasn’t 1882 (the peak of lynchings) or 1859 (80 years before), and in many ways, he was right. He was not right in a fundamental way, however.


Still stocking the apples with the oranges?

The disanology here has already already been addressed.


Sun Mar 03, 2019 7:59 am
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

(this is another post off-topic from the conversation Ergill, Janson, LEAVES, and Melvin are having)

at times I will see an op-ed or a social media post equating Sanders and the new Democrats (AOC, Omar, etc.) with Trump and the Tea Party (the populism thing). me being me and all my usual biases, I usually see that as facile since I tend to weigh the differences as far more important than the similarities. but then, it’s not as if there aren’t crazy leftists out there, it’s not as if I haven’t heard some bad defenses of some of Sanders & Co.’s ideas or methods and the like. it’s not as if I don’t have my misgivings. so when would I know whether the left has truly become captive to the fringe radicals (if they haven’t already)? or am I apt to welcome such fringe radicalism if it alleviates my concerns? (I know I’ve been increasingly open to bigger and unprecedented action when it comes to climate change) ‘cause I’m sure plenty of Trump/Tea Party people have heard all the usual criticisms about their favored lawmakers to which they reply, “well that’s why we love ‘em!”

I bring this up because I’ve been wondering if Sanders could get the nomination same as Trump did: by receiving a plurality while the remaining votes are divided up between the other candidates, who drop out one-by-one until Sanders finally captures the majority (assuming the Overton window has moved in Sanders’s favor since 2016). but even if he doesn’t win the nomination, his following could still continue to push more of his policies into the Democrat platform and further the party’s realignment. it’s all very heady.


Sun Mar 03, 2019 9:23 am
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Oxnard Montalvo wrote:
at times I will see an op-ed or a social media post equating Sanders and the new Democrats (AOC, Omar, etc.) with Trump and the Tea Party (the populism thing). me being me and all my usual biases, I usually see that as facile since I tend to weigh the differences as far more important than the similarities. but then, it’s not as if there aren’t crazy leftists out there, it’s not as if I haven’t heard some bad defenses of some of Sanders & Co.’s ideas or methods and the like. it’s not as if I don’t have my misgivings. so when would I know whether the left has truly become captive to the fringe radicals (if they haven’t already)? or am I apt to welcome such fringe radicalism if it alleviates my concerns? (I know I’ve been increasingly open to bigger and unprecedented action when it comes to climate change) ‘cause I’m sure plenty of Trump/Tea Party people have heard all the usual criticisms about their favored lawmakers to which they reply, “well that’s why we love ‘em!”

I'm skeptical that a "radical or not" metric really gets us where we need to be. It's the same impulse behind the anxiety over polarization that leads people to falsely assume that searching out the median on any given issue should be the heart of the American conscience. Where do your values lie and how do the conduct and positions of these politicians align with it? That's the important question. Have they pushed you into accepting positions you once found unethical, even abhorrent? Do you accept things merely on their say-so? I doubt it. Being too "far" in whichever direction of the political spectrum says only so much because that's only a measure of your relation to a given consensus, not an actual statement on the substance of your positions or the virtues of your comportment. I don't think there are any legitimate arguments out there that Bernie or AOC are anywhere approaching the moral and intellectual implosion that is Trump. I haven't carefully calibrated my judgment based on an ethics relativized to a political sliding scale. I haven't searched out some Golden Mean written in the stars. I've looked to the evidence and looked to my conscience. If people want to contest it, have at it.

Oxnard Montalvo wrote:
I bring this up because I’ve been wondering if Sanders could get the nomination same as Trump did: by receiving a plurality while the remaining votes are divided up between the other candidates, who drop out one-by-one until Sanders finally captures the majority (assuming the Overton window has moved in Sanders’s favor since 2016). but even if he doesn’t win the nomination, his following could still continue to push more of his policies into the Democrat platform and further the party’s realignment. it’s all very heady.

I think it's pretty clear that the discussion has moved in his direction and he very well could get the nomination. With such a big roster (and growing) it's hard to say who'll get it.


Sun Mar 03, 2019 10:21 am
Profile
Reply with quote
Post Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Oxnard Montalvo wrote:
(I know I’ve been increasingly open to bigger and unprecedented action when it comes to climate change)


This isn't a fringe issue in the real world. And the only way we really can address it is with bigger and unprecendented action. I don't think you're wrong to be open to change.

A real challenge, however, is that we are going to have to choose between rights (both civil and human) and what it takes really address the problem. Have you noticed that the villains in contemporary movies (e.g., Kingsmen, Infinity War, The Matrix) view humans as an environmental threat?

https://www.thestranger.com/slog/2018/0 ... finity-war

The question is, how far are you willing to go to make a dent? Are you willing to interfere in reproductive rights? Are you willing to give up your house to an environmental refugee? Are you willing to dabble in eugenics? Are you willing to have essential services to your kids radically cut? Are you up for a culling of our 7.5 billion? The solutions that are the most straightforward are the most monstrous. The easy solutions are as hollow as the straws people propose to ban.

In a future where tens of millions will need to move away from climatically uninhabitable regions, national borders, property rights,

People will mock AOC because what she is calling for is scary. They're also mocking her, because she doesn't appear to be too bright. But the problem is there. The biggest elephant in the room is climate change.

Oxnard Montalvo wrote:
I bring this up because I’ve been wondering if Sandery leftists out there, it’s not as if I haven’t heard some bad defenses of some of Sanders & Co.’s ideas or methods and the like. it’s not as if I don’t have my misgivings. so when would I know whether the left has truly become captive to the fringe radicals (if they haven’t already)? or am I apt to welcome such fringe s could get the nomination same as Trump did: by receiving a plurality while the remaining votes are divided up between the other candidates, who drop out one-by-one until Sanders finally captures the majority (assuming the Overton window has moved in Sanders’s favor since 2016). but even if he doesn’t win the nomination, his following could still continue to push more of his policies into the Democrat platform and further the party’s realignment. it’s all very heady.


These are heady times, because everything is falling apart. The super-rich who truly run this country have mucked things up so much that populism is spilling in with a vengeance.

We know that Bernie got screwed in '16. If that was because it was "her turn" or because Bernie was "too commie" for the DNC is an open question, but that he did get screwed suggests that he didn't fit in well enough with their plans and that his candidacy represented a threat (you don't screw people who would surely fail without help). Bernie is four years older and the optics of the fresh faces of the new Dems threatens to make him look too radical. I think he missed his moment in '16.


Sun Mar 03, 2019 10:56 am
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

I don't get why everyone thinks the Democratic nomination is so up-for-grabs. It's not up for grabs. They are well equipped for this situation. Since by the final debate every candidate will be polling exactly even, they're just going to go back to the way they used to determine candidates: Pin the tail on the donkey! Oh, but all women and brown and gay people are excluded, so it'll be Bernie vs. Biden?

_________________
LEAVES come from TREES
Retired


Sun Mar 03, 2019 11:00 am
Profile
Reply with quote
Post Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

LEAVES wrote:
Oh, but all women and brown and gay people are excluded, so it'll be Bernie vs. Biden?


The fuck are you on about? We just had a two-term black president and a woman as the DNC nominee in 2016.


Sun Mar 03, 2019 11:03 am
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

I mentioned Andrew Yang a couple of pages back, and he still seems to be given the short shrift in mainstream coverage. Whether or not he has a credible shot to win is, to me, irrelevant. He has good ideas and a focus on specific issues which should be part of the debate. Unfortunately, he's had to make the rounds on shows which will have him on, and so far that's been more conservative outlets which use him to ridicule his UBI proposal. On Fox Business, Neil Cavuto took issue with Yang's declaration that America needs both more capitalism and socialism, and Cavuto was perplexed, "How can you be both capitalist and socialist?", and Yang politely avoided mentioning social security and instead described the "gig economy" and how it is failing to provide traditionally employer-based health care coverage and pension funds. He pointed out the inevitable labor displacement caused by automation, especially in the large segments of the service and retail industries. As for "more capitalism", he wants to support the kinds of small businesses which are shuttering under the weight of Amazon. I can't think of another Democratic candidate who has been as focused and clear on these issues, and that's not to mention Yang's commitment to addressing the abuses of social media/big data companies, another issue in which politicians, in general, are woefully behind.

More importantly, the issue of "socialism" will be the primary litmus test for 2020. That can either be a positive or negative, depending on how effective the propaganda war that was just launched at this weekend's CPAC turns out to be. For those who haven't been following along, the RNC is making it their mission to redefine socialism, as stated by Ronna Romney McDaniel: "We can't think that the American people understand what socialism is. We have to go out and educate people." What she means is that, in order to counter the rising sympathy in America, especially among younger voters, for socialist policy, they need to "educate" that all forms of socialism are equally insidious ("democratic socialism" being equated with "national socialism") and rendering socialism as an indistiguishable synonym for communism and totalitarianism. In case Romney McDaniel was too subtle, we're provided a demonstration from the Vitez scion Sebastian Gorka: "Democratic socialism is just a PC term for communism." That's idiocy, for anyone who still cares about what words mean, but it's par for the course. Trump, as usual, cannot be the least ridiculous person in the room, trumps even that: "Socialism is about only one thing: it's called power for the ruling class", which transcends historical idiocy into a truly Eurasia/Eastasia level of disinformation. You may not agree with socialist philosophy, but you cannot deny that socialism is, at root, a reaction against the ruling class (bourgeoisie) without being shamelessly dishonest.

There will be little shame in the dishonesty of this rolled out propaganda, about as little as is in the James O'Keefe-worthy propaganda of infanticide currently roiling softer skulls. More tragically will be the useful idiots holding their "keep your gubmint hands off my medicare" signs, as the new definition of socialism carves out an exception for the kinds of public investment and market intervention which benefits conservative voters. Like coal, an easy example, being a commodity that even more intelligent conseervatives understand is no longer economically viable, but shrug their shoulders with Trump's artifically tipping the market to avoid the cruel judgment of a truly free market. Remember when they blasted Obama for "picking winners" when he wanted to invest in renewables?

Will the Americans, writ large, be stupid enough to fall for this reeducation? Certainly enough seem willing to.


Sun Mar 03, 2019 3:55 pm
Profile
Reply with quote
Post Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Jinnistan wrote:
I mentioned Andrew Yang a couple of pages back, and he still seems to be given the short shrift in mainstream coverage. Whether or not he has a credible shot to win is, to me, irrelevant. He has good ideas and a focus on specific issues which should be part of the debate. Unfortunately, he's had to make the rounds on shows which will have him on, and so far that's been more conservative outlets which use him to ridicule his UBI proposal. On Fox Business, Neil Cavuto took issue with Yang's declaration that America needs both more capitalism and socialism, and Cavuto was perplexed, "How can you be both capitalist and socialist?", and Yang politely avoided mentioning social security and instead described the "gig economy" and how it is failing to provide traditionally employer-based health care coverage and pension funds. He pointed out the inevitable labor displacement caused by automation, especially in the large segments of the service and retail industries. As for "more capitalism", he wants to support the kinds of small businesses which are shuttering under the weight of Amazon. I can't think of another Democratic candidate who has been as focused and clear on these issues, and that's not to mention Yang's commitment to addressing the abuses of social media/big data companies, another issue in which politicians, in general, are woefully behind.


From what I've heard so far, I'd vote for him.


Sun Mar 03, 2019 4:44 pm
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

ja I hadn't heard of Yang until you mentioned him and I agree, his voice is needed in the larger debates. any ideas on how to provide a signal boost? aside from social media posting or donations


Sun Mar 03, 2019 6:06 pm
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Melvin Butterworth wrote:

The fuck are you on about? We just had a two-term black president and a woman as the DNC nominee in 2016.
So you made it past "pin the tail on the donkey" as the actual means that the Democratic party used to select candidates? Your reading comprehension is not looking so hot.

_________________
LEAVES come from TREES
Retired


Sun Mar 03, 2019 9:42 pm
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Melvin Butterworth wrote:
Because it was an alleged robbery where nothing was robbed?

Whoever heard of a fleeing shooter? But go on… *Mr. Burns hands*

Melvin Butterworth wrote:
Because Julian Assange intimated that Rich may have been a leaker?

Very cagey for Mr. Transparency. Go onnnn…

Melvin Butterworth wrote:
Because a review of the evidence arrived at the conclusion that he was probably killed by a serial killer?

Haha. Go onnnnnn…

Melvin Butterworth wrote:
”The Profiling Project, based in Arlington, Virginia, consists of around 20 volunteers who are current and former George Washington University forensic-psychology graduate students and instructors. The report states that Rich’s July 2016 “death does not appear to be a random homicide” or “a robbery gone bad,” as police had suggested. Instead, the report says, the “death was more likely committed by a hired killer or serial murderer,” and that the killer is likely still at large.”

https://www.newsweek.com/seth-rich-murd ... ect-627634

A report—without access to the official investigative records, based almost entirely on online news sources— from a group founded by a Republican lobbyist for the express purpose of spreading conspiracy theories about Rich? Yes, do go on…

Melvin Butterworth wrote:
Because the Washington Times published an Op-Ed which contained statement of alleged fact connecting Rich to Wikileaks?

”Washington Times stated as fact that ‘data on [Seth Rich’s] laptop revealed that Mr. Rich downloaded thousands of DNC emails and was in touch with Wikileaks’”

https://www.snopes.com/news/2018/10/01/ ... ch-murder/

The Op-Ed is deleted now (as of late 2018 when Snopes reported the retraction) and Fox retracted similar claims, but the fact remains that major news outlets stated "facts" of the case.

An op-ed that was pulled because the paper couldn’t back up its claims? Yes, yes, do, do go on…

Melvin Butterworth wrote:
And let's not forget that people who questioned the veracity of Smollett's claims and the nature of government observation the private communications of U.S. citizens were also called "conspiracy" theorists.

Who?

Melvin Butterworth wrote:
And let's not forget the uncontested facts which came to us from WikiLeaks, fact which have been compiled by Jared Beck in book for which confirm that the DNC did indeed act in a conspiracy to railroad Sanders out of the 2016 election. That's not a "theory", that's not "fake news," that's not "astrotrufing," that's the DNC.

YARN, master of—as he puts it— “facts” of the case. The evidence of some vast DNC conspiracy to rig the nomination is pathetic at best. If you honestly think it had the power—and at one of its most pitiful, paltry points—to take down Sanders’ candidacy, then that, my friend, was a much weaker candidacy than Clinton’s already-handicapped bid. The details of Clinton’s coronation is more accurately and sanely laid out by Ezra Klein. I’ll cite these again and add on a fifth. I await your continuing silence.

http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2017/08/ ... ge-on.html

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/wa ... landslide/

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics ... ary-rigged

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/mon ... 80edc8c710

https://www.newsweek.com/myths-cost-dem ... ion-521044

Also, how do you feel about Pizzagate? Answer the question!

Melvin Butterworth wrote:
We can't get around to fixing poverty until we acknowledge the salience of poverty as something we can (and we can) and should (and we should) solve.

We already have, but like in the abortion debate, you keep demanding confirmation of the already confirmed. This “Lefty den” is already on board with addressing poverty, raising taxes on the rich, etc. You keep arguing like we aren’t, just as you keep arguing like BLM doesn’t address broader questions of poverty or criminal justice reform, because you’re incapable of genuinely engaging with human beings.

Melvin Butterworth wrote:
I think you made a bad argument and perhaps it has just dawned on you that you made a bad argument.

Did you know Hitler was a vegetarian?!? OMFG!

Haha. What? You are the “I love lamp” of posters.

Melvin Butterworth wrote:
The facts aren't racist. The statistics aren't selective. It is only when we look at the FBI numbers from one angle that we find anything that even suggests blacks are at risk from white violence. The white-on-black wave of violence is itself a racist lie, one that does not trade on statistics but inflammatory anecdotes and the moral weight of the sacred narrative.

[…]

A journey of a thousand miles must begin with a single step. You're complaining about step 1 (acknowledgement), because racists are too willing to acknowledge it. You're literally arguing that the facts are "unsayable" because to say them is to empower racism. We can't even talk about it, but that means we can't fix it either.

When have I claimed they’re unsayable? I already said them. I said that black murder rates are higher. Of course, I also didn’t obsess over this in loving detail, playing up black threat to whites way out of proportion to its actual likelihood, forwarding it as a partial defense of black stereotypes and incarceration rates. I put it in context of actual black threat. You think the data forces you to do the above and that any of the context I provide above is totally immaterial. It’s a pretty natural response from someone who wants to defend his prejudicial inferences and habits of mind under the cloak of an all-too-inevitable, edgelord analysis of the facts. It is also wrong.

Melvin Butterworth wrote:
But yes, historical racism is a thing. Even when the historical racism is ameliorated, the structural groove of that racism in legal and social practices remains. And that is a problem.

Phew. You’ve come a long way since Charlottesville when you loudly opined something to the effect of, “Guys, I think racism might still be a big thing…” Happy to have you on board.

Melvin Butterworth wrote:
”We don’t need an avowed racism when we have a conflicted, oblivious racism right in front of us. The latter is much more common anyway.”

Keep up the libel. That'll fix things.

Don't make the pious liberals angry. They'll call you racist.

Keep it up. Keep driving those who disagree with you (involuntarily) to the right. See what that gets you.

If you throw yourself into the arms of the Right because someone was mean to you on the internet, then apparently your feelings outweigh all the rhetoric you’ve spun about historical and institutional racism and the need for radical economic intervention to address poverty. Would there be any clearer proof that the red-meat, conservative talking-points you habitually latch on to were the more animating impulses in your politics all along?

Melvin Butterworth wrote:
”And Chester’s point is that 1939 wasn’t 1882 (the peak of lynchings) or 1859 (80 years before), and in many ways, he was right. He was not right in a fundamental way, however.”

Still stocking the apples with the oranges?

The disanology here has already already been addressed.

There are disanalogies between slavery and segregation too. So what? You’re basically claiming: “’They’re killing us in the streets’ is a lie. It’s rare. This isn’t the days of lynching. Things are better” It’s a bad look when, in the days of “Strange Fruit”, people could argue (and they surely did argue): “’They’re lynching us in the streets’ is a lie. It’s rare. This isn’t the days of slavery. Things are better.” The fundamental question is “Is the status quo of policing and criminal justice acceptable?” and the answer is “No”.


Mon Mar 04, 2019 1:49 am
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Melvin Butterworth wrote:
And there you have it. Ergill cannot answer a simple question. I love it. You cannot simply say whether or not you would be in favor of legal limitations. Why can you not say it directly? Would you have to invoke misogynist tropes to actually state your position? Would you have to unambiguously mark yourself as standing on the side of life as pertains to law and pregnancy? Life is hard in your world of the sacred unsayable.

YARN, Amnesiac Attorney: Art of the Loaded Question (In One Act)


E — I agree we should treat third-term abortions more seriously.

Y — And what does that mean? Where do you draw the line to start protecting the fetus as a person? Should we allow third-term abortions for cleft-palate?

E — I’m for more restrictions after 20 weeks, amped up at 28 weeks. I don’t think we should allow third-term abortions for cleft-palate.

Y — Answer the question, when is it a person?!

E — I don’t have a fleshed-out definition of personhood, but like I’ve said, I’m for providing protections for the fetus towards the more obvious end of the continuum at the last stage of pregnancy. Do you have a definition beyond “between conception and birth”? When do you draw the line? You ask me about fringe cases, so what do you think about these fringe cases?

Y — (abandons discussion, possibly has an aneurysm)

[...]

Y — (a week later, taking up the discussion again) Is a fetus a person before birth? Answer the question!

E — I’m fine accepting personhood before birth. What did you think the restrictions in the third-term were about?

Y — (only quoting the “fine” sentence) And is your being “fine” only a personal distinction or a legal distinction? Answer the question!

E — I told you I was for restrictions in the third-term several times now.

Y — Why can’t you answer the question?! Answer the question!


Mon Mar 04, 2019 1:54 am
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

I don't see your point. Are you just recreating the least tiresome conversation with YARN you've ever had?

_________________
LEAVES come from TREES
Retired


Mon Mar 04, 2019 4:41 am
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

LEAVES wrote:
I don't see your point. Are you just recreating the least tiresome conversation with YARN you've ever had?

Hardly "the least" although that's pretty tough call with YARN. When it turns into a ring-around-the-rosy of questions aimed at creating the air of an unresponsive witness in lieu of actually engaging with any given response, that conversation is doomed to the dustbin.


Mon Mar 04, 2019 5:07 am
Profile
Reply with quote
Post Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Ergill wrote:
Whoever heard of a fleeing shooter? But go on… *Mr. Burns hands*

Robbers who don't rob is curious…

This aspect casts some doubt, on face, on the notion of a robbery. It does not eliminate it, but it does not leave us with a presumption in favor of the "robbery narrative." Without such presumption, other explanations are in play.

Ergill wrote:
Very cagey for Mr. Transparency. Go onnnn…


He basically confirmed it and then walked it back. WikiLeaks, love them or hate them, has a solid record of revealing things that are true.

This statement from a source known to be reliable gives a reason to believe in this aspect.

Do you have anything to add here?

Forum formatting got wonky here, so your quotation is in italics.

A report—without access to the official investigative records, based almost entirely on online news sources— from a group founded by a Republican lobbyist for the express purpose of spreading conspiracy theories about Rich? Yes, do go on…

A report which was reported in the mainstream media, indicating that prima facie tests of newsworthiness had been passed.

An op-ed that was pulled because the paper couldn’t back up its claims? Yes, yes, do, do go on…

But when was the Op-Ed deleted?

It's easy to Monday morning quarterback this years later.

At the time, however, the chair of the DNC, Donna Brazile, stated that she feared for her own life after he was murdered, which is an odd thing to say about a random late-night mugging. Her statement was also part of the background which raised my suspicions about this case.
Where there is smoke, sometimes there's fire. The whole Seth Rich thing was and is "fishy." We'll never know what really happened.

Ergill wrote:
Who?

With regard to government spying, that was so common it was a trope (e.g., the "tinfoil hat" so they can't read your mind). Theories of surreptitious government observation pepper 1997's Conspiracy.

As for Smollett, I could link to, for example, Ellen Page weeping and yelling on Colbert asserting that questioning the facts of the case was a sort of hate crime unto itself, but I am not going to do that work for you.

Ergill wrote:
YARN, master of—as he puts it— “facts” of the case. The evidence of some vast DNC conspiracy to rig the nomination is pathetic at best. If you honestly think it had the power—and at one of its most pitiful, paltry points—to take down Sanders’ candidacy, then that, my friend, was a much weaker candidacy than Clinton’s already-handicapped bid. The details of Clinton’s coronation is more accurately and sanely laid out by Ezra Klein. I’ll cite these again and add on a fifth. I await your continuing silence.


We have the leaks. We have the internal communications. We have Donna Brazille's public statements. We have Beck's book which details the lawsuit. Truth hurt?

https://www.newsweek.com/clinton-robbed ... ile-699421

It must, because you're shot-gunning links (a delay tactic making an implicit demand on my time) as generic "evidence" of falsification without any specific evidence being addressed.

Feel free to quote and introduce specific evidence into the court. If you wish to apply pressure, do so directly. Data, Warrant, and Claim -- not fuzzy claim and a patch of links which are alleged to support the claim.

For now we have to move on to...

Ergill wrote:
Also, how do you feel about Pizzagate? Answer the question!


I have no feeling about it at all.

Ergill wrote:
Haha. What? You are the “I love lamp” of posters.


And you're an autist who can't ever give an inch, who must debate until the death, who must lie to LEAVES about why he just can't quite quit the field yet, who cannot help but follow me around a demand a duel, regardless of question, even after I avoided you for years, even asked you to politely move on. But go on Pot, tell me about Kettle.

Ergill wrote:
When have I claimed they’re unsayable? I already said them.


LOL, after desperate and failed attempts at reframing. "No, no, quint and look at it this way and the opposite is true!"

Ergill wrote:
I also didn’t obsess over this in loving detail,


You obsess over everything in detail. You can't help it.

Ergill wrote:
If you throw yourself into the arms of the Right because someone was mean to you on the internet, then apparently your feelings outweigh all the rhetoric you’ve spun about historical and institutional racism and the need for radical economic intervention to address poverty.


I am not talking about our interaction and we're not talking about me in particular, but the pattern of interaction on your side. You still have not adequately reflected upon the question of why those opinion polls showing a Hillary landslide were wrong. If the MO of team progressive is the Bush-esque "You're either with us or against us!", don't be surprised when more people wind up against you. Throw half the nation into a basket of deplorables. Claim that they are fascist, racist, etc., and don't be surprised when they take sides against you.

Don't confuse the counter-point, which your side also needs, with a declaration of allegiance.

Ergill wrote:
There are disanalogies between slavery and segregation too. So what? You’re basically claiming: “’They’re killing us in the streets’ is a lie. It’s rare. This isn’t the days of lynching. Things are better” It’s a bad look when, in the days of “Strange Fruit”, people could argue (and they surely did argue): “’They’re lynching us in the streets’ is a lie. It’s rare. This isn’t the days of slavery. Things are better.” The fundamental question is “Is the status quo of policing and criminal justice acceptable?” and the answer is “No”.


Wow, you're making this too easy. I can maintain, without pain of contradiction, that A > B > C in terms of quality and quantity of offense (where A = Slavery, B = Segregation, and C = Contemporary disparities) and that there is, therefore, a disanalogy that does not allow us to claim A = B, A = C, or C = B.

In the case of A, we met the floor conditions needed to justify Civil War. In the case of B, we met floor conditions needed to justify Civil Disobedience and the Civil Rights movement. In the case of C, however, what floor conditions justify riots creating millions in property damage (some of those businesses were not fully insured and so just got screwed) and loss of life on the strength of a flawed anecdote connected to a flawed narrative.


Mon Mar 04, 2019 6:28 am
Profile
Reply with quote
Post Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

LEAVES wrote:
So you made it past "pin the tail on the donkey" as the actual means that the Democratic party used to select candidates? Your reading comprehension is not looking so hot.


Please explain this part, Oh, but all women and brown and gay people are excluded, so it'll be Bernie vs. Biden? because it is not at all clear what you're on about here.


Mon Mar 04, 2019 6:41 am
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Melvin Butterworth wrote:

Please explain this part, Oh, but all women and brown and gay people are excluded, so it'll be Bernie vs. Biden? because it is not at all clear what you're on about here.
Here, I'll just quote it for you:

"they're just going to go back to the way they used to determine candidates"

...or am I forgetting a long and proud tradition of the Democratic Party nominating women and brown and gay people for President?

Reading. It's so hot right now.

_________________
LEAVES come from TREES
Retired


Mon Mar 04, 2019 6:54 am
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Ergill wrote:
Hardly "the least" although that's pretty tough call with YARN. When it turns into a ring-around-the-rosy of questions aimed at creating the air of an unresponsive witness in lieu of actually engaging with any given response, that conversation is doomed to the dustbin.
I don't disagree with your point, I just think you're burying the lede:

Any conversation with YARN is doomed to the dustbin.

_________________
LEAVES come from TREES
Retired


Mon Mar 04, 2019 6:56 am
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Melvin Butterworth wrote:

Robbers who don't rob is curious…

It happens when there's a struggle, the victims is shot, and then the shooter runs. He had bruising and a broken watch, something your "report" leaves out. The conspiracist mind is pregnant with possibilities, but evidently barren of plausibilities.

Melvin Butterworth wrote:

He basically confirmed it and then walked it back. WikiLeaks, love them or hate them, has a solid record of revealing things that are true.

How many of those true things do they walk back?

Melvin Butterworth wrote:

"A report—without access to the official investigative records, based almost entirely on online news sources— from a group founded by a Republican lobbyist for the express purpose of spreading conspiracy theories about Rich? Yes, do go on…"

A report which was reported in the mainstream media, indicating that prima facie tests of newsworthiness had been passed.

Keep dangling from that hurdle and failing to address all the prima facie absurdities of the report itself.

Melvin Butterworth wrote:

But when was the Op-Ed deleted?

Probably on some date or at some time of day with some post-facto numerological significance.

Melvin Butterworth wrote:

At the time, however, the chair of the DNC, Donna Brazile, stated that she feared for her own life after he was murdered, which is an odd thing to say about a random late-night mugging. Her statement was also part of the background which raised my suspicions about this case.
Where there is smoke, sometimes there's fire. The whole Seth Rich thing was and is "fishy." We'll never know what really happened.

Sounds serious. You should send money to this Profiling Project. Probably give them your Social Security Number while you're at it.

Melvin Butterworth wrote:

We have the leaks. We have the internal communications. We have Donna Brazille's public statements. We have Beck's book which details the lawsuit. Truth hurt?

https://www.newsweek.com/clinton-robbed ... ile-699421

It must, because you're shot-gunning links (a delay tactic making an implicit demand on my time) as generic "evidence" of falsification without any specific evidence being addressed.

It's funny that actually reading up on a topic is considered a "delay tactic" for you. Are you so desperate to plug away at responses into the early morning that you never stop to ask what's true? Like I said, the Klein article sums it up well (it and some of the others fleshing out the details):

"I have spent much of the past week trying to untangle this story, interviewing people on all sides of the primary and in a variety of positions at the DNC. The core facts are straightforward: As Barack Obama’s presidency drew to a close, the DNC was deep in debt. In return for a bailout, DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz gave Hillary Clinton’s campaign more potential control over its operations and hiring decisions than was either ethical or wise. But those operations were mostly irrelevant to the primary and couldn’t have been used to rig the process even if anyone had wanted to use them that way; the primary schedule, debate schedule, and rules were set well in advance of these agreements. “I found nothing to say they were gaming the primary system,” Brazile told me. And while that contradicts the more sensational language she used in her book, it fits the facts she laid out both in her original piece and since."

Melvin Butterworth wrote:

With regard to government spying, that was so common it was a trope (e.g., the "tinfoil hat" so they can't read your mind). Theories of surreptitious government observation pepper 1997's Conspiracy.

As for Smollett, I could link to, for example, Ellen Page weeping and yelling on Colbert asserting that questioning the facts of the case was a sort of hate crime unto itself, but I am not going to do that work for you.

Who? Enough with "delay tactics"!

Melvin Butterworth wrote:

I have no feeling about it at all.

Woah, woah, woah. You can't just dodge the question like that. Not when your main authority is Jared Beck, prominent Pizzagater. Answer the question!

Melvin Butterworth wrote:

And you're an autist who can't ever give an inch, who must debate until the death, who must lie to LEAVES about why he just can't quite quit the field yet, who cannot help but follow me around a demand a duel, regardless of question, even after I avoided you for years, even asked you to politely move on. But go on Pot, tell me about Kettle.

If people don't know that I'm argumentative by now, they're pretty dumb. That you consider this a revelation, also pretty dumb.

Melvin Butterworth wrote:

I am not talking about our interaction and we're not talking about me in particular, but the pattern of interaction on your side. You still have not adequately reflected upon the question of why those opinion polls showing a Hillary landslide were wrong. If the MO of team progressive is the Bush-esque "You're either with us or against us!", don't be surprised when more people wind up against you. Throw half the nation into a basket of deplorables. Claim that they are fascist, racist, etc., and don't be surprised when they take sides against you.

Don't confuse the counter-point, which your side also needs, with a declaration of allegiance.

This deplorables spin is pretty much you in a nutshell. Even if we took Clinton's statement at face value and not as a statement generally addressing proportionality, she was talking about Trump supporters, not all Americans, and of those, only the most rabid, unpersuadable base. This does not, by any stretch, lead to half the American population, although we shouldn't be surprised you're taking the FOX news line here.

Melvin Butterworth wrote:

Wow, you're making this too easy. I can maintain, without pain of contradiction, that A > B > C in terms of quality and quantity of offense (where A = Slavery, B = Segregation, and C = Contemporary disparities) and that there is, therefore, a disanalogy that does not allow us to claim A = B, A = C, or C = B.

In the case of A, we met the floor conditions needed to justify Civil War. In the case of B, we met floor conditions needed to justify Civil Disobedience and the Civil Rights movement. In the case of C, however, what floor conditions justify riots creating millions in property damage (some of those businesses were not fully insured and so just got screwed) and loss of life on the strength of a flawed anecdote connected to a flawed narrative.

I'm explicitly claiming they aren't equal, purposefully including the fact that that things were better than 80 years ago. I'm saying they're relevantly similar however (which is all an analogy requires), and on the basis one simple claim: they aren't acceptable. That you're more concerned with property damage than black lives, that you ignore the verified prejudices of the Ferguson police department and the indignities they meted out to the black community, is par for the course. Just think how quick you were quick to dismiss the SPLC because of a libel payout. You haven't said anything about the wrongful death payout to Michael Brown's family. That's because you're more concerned--outside of just owning the libs, or me, or whatever--with filtering black grievance solely through your lens and at your say-so.


Mon Mar 04, 2019 7:30 am
Profile
Reply with quote
Post Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Ergill wrote:
YARN, Amnesiac Attorney: Art of the Loaded Question (In One Act)


E — I agree we should treat third-term abortions more seriously.

Y — And what does that mean? Where do you draw the line to start protecting the fetus as a person? Should we allow third-term abortions for cleft-palate?

E — I’m for more restrictions after 20 weeks, amped up at 28 weeks. I don’t think we should allow third-term abortions for cleft-palate.

Y — Answer the question, when is it a person?!

E — I don’t have a fleshed-out definition of personhood, but like I’ve said, I’m for providing protections for the fetus towards the more obvious end of the continuum at the last stage of pregnancy. Do you have a definition beyond “between conception and birth”? When do you draw the line? You ask me about fringe cases, so what do you think about these fringe cases?

Y — (abandons discussion, possibly has an aneurysm)

[...]

Y — (a week later, taking up the discussion again) Is a fetus a person before birth? Answer the question!

E — I’m fine accepting personhood before birth. What did you think the restrictions in the third-term were about?

Y — (only quoting the “fine” sentence) And is your being “fine” only a personal distinction or a legal distinction? Answer the question!

E — I told you I was for restrictions in the third-term several times now.

Y — Why can’t you answer the question?! Answer the question!


Let's work from your cartoon account of this exchange and see what we can pin down.

First, you agree that we should treat third term abortions "more seriously." What this means is unclear, however, it seems reasonable to infer that you are in favor of a shift in the status quo against the availability of third term abortions. Seeing as how the patchwork of DNC state legislation makes late term abortion more available, it would appear that you stand against this legislation. Feel free to clarify this inference.

Next, we have your clarification you're for more restrictions after 20 weeks and "amped up at 28 weeks." OK, sounds good. That you want "more" indicates that the present system does not have enough limitation for you. Thus, this implies that you stand against DNC legislation which is pushing for "less" limitation. Is this a fair inference? Also, what does "amped up" mean? Are we just amping up for "cleft palate" or is that just a single example that hints at a range of cases you would restrict. By my lights, the latter inference is more straightforward, but feel free to clarify your meaning.

Onwards! You then say you're "for providing protections for the fetus towards the more obvious end of the continuum at the last stage of pregnancy." Sounds intriguing, but the simple question is whether you agree with my minimal definition that asserts that personhood begins before birth. From this, we only have a commitment to something person-like. This is a key point, so I do require a clear answer.

Here is a debate between two people, both of whom I believe are wrong.



On one side, we have Mike Adams arguing that personhood begins at conception (the "clump of cells" mistake) and Willie Parker who argues that we don't have "persons" before birth, although he acknowledges that he aborts "human beings" (which the right jumped all over in carefully selected clips of the debate).

I think that Mike is wrong. A clump of cells is not a person, certainly not under criteria that answer to secular reason. I also think that Willie is wrong. Personhood doesn't suddenly begin when you leave the room. My view is that we definitely have a person after Mike's criterion, but before Willie's criterion. Now, do you agree with Mark, Willie, or me? If you agree with me, you stand in opposition to the "party line" of pro-choicers (Willie is selling what the DNC is selling and what informs their aggressive legislation to protect reproductive rights). If so, some posters in this forum might like a word with you...

It would appear that you agree with me given the next statement of yours, "I’m fine accepting personhood before birth. What did you think the restrictions in the third-term were about?" Your use of "fine" indicates a possible Wack-a-Mole ("fine" as something admitted, bracketed, or waived, which mean, for example, that you might only be conjecturally committed to assent). Therefore, I did ask for clarification.

Curiously, however, and this is a vexing part, you merely push back to your prior agreement to legal limitation, an agreement which is itself vague (one can be for legal limitation without committing to pershonhood for the unborn), and warranted on grounds of undefined continua which may or may not indicate that minimum threshold conditions of personhood are met before birth (i.e., wiggle-room).

You, however, say that you have made yourself clear.

OK, this is what I take as being in your commitment store of propositions relative to this discussion.

1. Personhood begins before birth.

2. Elective abortion through 40 weeks should not be allowed (following from 1).

3. The question of abortion, through 40 weeks, cannot not justifiably be made on the basis of a purely private decision between patient and doctor
(because before week 40 there is another patient in the picture--following from 1). Another way of putting this is that, "It is wrong to make the decision to abort before week 40 strictly a matter of "medical ethics" and "private deliberation" rather than law.

4. From 3 (force of law blocking private choice), you stand with those who would, at some points, tell women what they may do with their bodies.

5. You oppose DNC legislation which would lower (because you want "more" restrictions relative to the status quo) standards for "exceptions" for abortion past 20, but definitely28 after weeks.

Feel free to clarify, equivocate, grandstand, and satirize.


Mon Mar 04, 2019 8:31 am
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Pro-choice people do not believe that babies should be aborted on a whim at 8 months and 30 days. Stupid.

I am pro-choice and believe abortions should be legal up until 864 months (and growing) after birth.

_________________
LEAVES come from TREES
Retired


Mon Mar 04, 2019 9:22 am
Profile
Reply with quote
Post Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Ergill wrote:
It happens when there's a struggle, the victims is shot, and then the shooter runs. He had bruising and a broken watch, something your "report" leaves out. The conspiracist mind is pregnant with possibilities, but evidently barren of plausibilities.


There were also other details, such as him leaving the bar before 2:00 AM, but gunshot detection microphones in the city not detecting a shot in that area until after 4:00 AM.

Also, I didn't claim it was definitive. It was one detail that looks out of place.

Ergill wrote:
How many of those true things do they walk back?


Almost none. As Assange stated, WikiLeaks has a responsibility to veil sources, so to reveal Rich directly as a leaker would violate the trust leakers have in the service.

If you know of more "walk backs" feel free to interject.

Ergill wrote:
Keep dangling from that hurdle and failing to address all the prima facie absurdities of the report itself.


We trust news sources (i.e., mainstream media) to get basic facts straight, because we don't have time to play detective for every newsworthy story that appears every day. That the mainstream media reported this is evidence that I had minimal epistemic grounds to conclude that the facts were are reported (presumptively).

Ergill wrote:
Probably on some date or at some time of day with some post-facto numerological significance.


If so, why did SNOPES not get around to noting this until fall of 2018 (a time well after our exchange?).

Ergill wrote:
Sounds serious. You should send money to this Profiling Project. Probably give them your Social Security Number while you're at it.


Didn't think you'd have a direct response to Donna Brazille's statement. LOL.

Ergill wrote:
It's funny that actually reading up on a topic is considered a "delay tactic" for you.


The demand to "read up" certainly can be. I remember when I first encountered post-modern ideas thought there was some bullshit involved that I was chastized that I must read Foucault, and Derrida and Barthes, and so on.

The way our conversation should work is that you should offer clear claim, cite evidence (not the whole text, but the relevant portion), and state the reasoning that connects the two.

It is bad habit and bad form (one that I myself am implicated in, I'm afraid) to engage in a sort of ad vercundiam by hyperlink, making general claims and just shot gunning links without specification and clarification.

Ergill wrote:
Are you so desperate to plug away at responses into the early morning


Why does WHEN I make the response matter? Like "J" you're going for the cheap shot?

Ergill wrote:
the Klein article sums it up well (it and some of the others fleshing out the details):

"I have spent much of the past week trying to untangle this story, interviewing people on all sides of the primary and in a variety of positions at the DNC. The core facts are straightforward: As Barack Obama’s presidency drew to a close, the DNC was deep in debt. In return for a bailout, DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz gave Hillary Clinton’s campaign more potential control over its operations and hiring decisions than was either ethical or wise. But those operations were mostly irrelevant to the primary and couldn’t have been used to rig the process even if anyone had wanted to use them that way; the primary schedule, debate schedule, and rules were set well in advance of these agreements. “I found nothing to say they were gaming the primary system,” Brazile told me. And while that contradicts the more sensational language she used in her book, it fits the facts she laid out both in her original piece and since."


ROFL. Yeah, after she was done "fearing for her life" and claiming that the Clinton machine was running the DNC (the Newsweek headline was "Hillary Clinton Robbed Bernie Sanders Of The Democratic Nomination, According to Donna Brazile").

Ezra Klein, an interested party to the dispute, speaking in the left-wing equivalent of Brietbart. The same Klein who recently tweeted that it was more the media's fault that Hillary lost the election, because of the way they covered her email. Referenced below.

https://twitter.com/jbarro/status/976491871613710336

Ergill wrote:
Who? Enough with "delay tactics"!


Well, Ellen Page is a distinct person, isn't she?

Melvin Butterworth wrote:
Woah, woah, woah. You can't just dodge the question like that. Not when your main authority is Jared Beck, prominent Pizzagater. Answer the question!


I find no reference to Beck on the Wiki for Pizza Gate. How "prominent" is he?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pizzagate ... acy_theory

If you don't like Beck as a source, fine. We can work from other sources and the original source that Beck cites in his book, lest the taint of "Beck" derail the conversation.

Ergill wrote:
If people don't know that I'm argumentative by now, they're pretty dumb. That you consider this a revelation, also pretty dumb.


But we now know that you're also a liar. Your thin justification to LEAVES was that you were doing your civic duty to prevent others from getting sucked into temptation.

Ergill wrote:
This deplorables spin is pretty much you in a nutshell. Even if we took Clinton's statement at face value and not as a statement generally addressing proportionality, she was talking about Trump supporters, not all Americans, and of those, only the most rabid, unpersuadable base. This does not, by any stretch, lead to half the American population, although we shouldn't be surprised you're taking the FOX news line here.


Aww, Sanchez. We're you "with her"? Did think it was "her turn"?

Ergill wrote:
I'm explicitly claiming they aren't equal, purposefully including the fact that that things were better than 80 years ago.


So far so good!

Ergill wrote:
I'm saying they're relevantly similar however (which is all an analogy requires), and on the basis one simple claim: they aren't acceptable.


Overpriced turkey is also unacceptable, shall we riot?

Ergill wrote:
That you're more concerned with property damage than black lives, that you ignore the verified prejudices of the Ferguson police department and the indignities they meted out to the black community, is par for the course.


Wrong anecdote. Wrong narrative. Disproportional response. Sum it up and the result is "more harm than good."

Ergill wrote:
Just think how quick you were quick to dismiss the SPLC because of a libel payout.


That's just one reason.

Ergill wrote:
You haven't said anything about the wrongful death payout to Michael Brown's family.


That the city paid out after a riot is evidence of political expedience more than anything else.


Mon Mar 04, 2019 9:22 am
Profile
Reply with quote
Post Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

LEAVES wrote:
I am pro-choice and believe abortions should be legal up until 864 months (and growing) after birth.


Bully for you, I guess.

Meanwhile, back here on planet Earth, I am having a discussion with someone else.

Are you sure you're on "Team LEAVES" Ergill?


Mon Mar 04, 2019 9:25 am
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Melvin Butterworth wrote:
Overpriced turkey is also unacceptable, shall we riot?

I'm starting to get more of a Neoconvict vibe at this point.

Yarn just lost any remaining grain of moral credibility here.


Mon Mar 04, 2019 9:53 am
Profile
Reply with quote
Post Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Jinnistan wrote:
I'm starting to get more of a Neoconvict vibe at this point.

Yarn just lost any remaining grain of moral credibility here.


On the contrary, Ergill has failed to mark distinctions between "unacceptables" and is equivocating on the point to draw an analogy where an analogy is not apt. He desperately wants all these cases to be "different, but same" so as to draw his cartoon connection between protesting (in song) the ongoing practice of lynching (an extra-judicial act of terror by one community against another with has no other message or justification apart from inciting fear and terror as means of control) and inciting rioting in response to a person who just robbed a convenience store being robbed on a phantom claim ("He raised his hands!").

And if we're back to using old names, welcome back, Janson.


Mon Mar 04, 2019 10:05 am
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

You just compared the relative inconvenience of the criminal justice disparity on the black community (a disparity that you have already acknowledged both directly and tacitly through citing Balko) - the disparity which Ergill called "unacceptable" - to the price of turkey.

That's racist as shit, and since you typed those words, I'm gonna call you racist as shit.


Mon Mar 04, 2019 10:13 am
Profile
Reply with quote
Post Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Jinnistan wrote:
You just compared the relative inconvenience of the criminal justice disparity on the black community (a disparity that you have already acknowledged both directly and tacitly through citing Balko) - the disparity which Ergill called "unacceptable" - to the price of turkey.

That's racist as shit, and since you typed those words, I'm gonna call you racist as shit.


My point is that they're NOT the same dumbass. Ergill is the one lumping as the "unacceptable" into one basked so as to smudge all these timelines together, as if we were still living in the slave South.

That "unacceptable" doesn't get the job done is precisely my point, you dolt.


Mon Mar 04, 2019 10:27 am
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

So then you do find the current criminal justice disparity to be "acceptable", then?

As acceptable in the face of slavery as the price of turkey is to the thousands of black lives disrupted in one way or another by a biased criminal justice system?

Yeah, keep digging.


Mon Mar 04, 2019 11:11 am
Profile
Reply with quote
Post Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Jinnistan wrote:
So then you do find the current criminal justice disparity to be "acceptable", then?


Seeing as how I am calling for massive policy action such as taxation to address wealth inequality and post-Capitalist ideas like UBI and socialist ideas like spending millions and billions to alleviate poverty in marginalized communities, I think I am already on board with the bare proposition that how African American have been, are, and probably will be treated is not acceptable.

The question is, what is the appropriate response?

Does your response have "bad optics"?

Does your response get to the root cause?

Does your response do more harm than good?

Is your response proportional to the alleged offense?

But Sanchez is off his nut in his hot-tub time-machine of moral equivocation. Lynchings, even just a few a year, are instances of community terrorism. These are not actions by sworn officers of the state that have "bad optics," but actions by fellow citizens intended to intimidate and marginalize. The song "Strange Fruit" could not have been released 20 years prior or 40 years prior. It would not have even been possible, because the country was so racist that it would not have even allowed it. The song appeared at a moment when African Americans finally began to secure a voice in popular culture. Not so with BLM. And the response is not comparable either. A protest song or a riot? BLM invested in the wrong anecdotes, promoting a false narrative, and caused considerable damage.

Jinnistan wrote:
Yeah, keep digging.


Reading is fundamental, "J."


Mon Mar 04, 2019 11:31 am
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Ergill's point could not be more clear: "they're relevantly similar...on the basis one simple claim: they aren't acceptable".

In response to this, you mention overpriced turkey, which, on the scale of unacceptability, is not only acceptable but completely inessential. Anyone can live a nutritious life without turkey. The price of turkey is not a condition that anyone needs to accept when they have options for alternate sources of protein. By contrast, no one can opt out of the authority of the state. Criminal justice is not comparable to a non-essential grocery. The price of turkey will not devastate a black life. You could have chosen a more essential commodity, say, water or medicine. You said turkey precisely to mock the gravity of this specific criminal justice grievance, as if getting tangled into an indifferent and biased state system is as much of an elected luxury as purchasing a particular type of processed meat. By making the comparison to overpriced turkey, you are saying that it is not only acceptable but superfluous.


Mon Mar 04, 2019 11:48 am
Profile
Reply with quote
Post Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Jinnistan wrote:
Ergill's point could not be more clear: "they're relevantly similar...on the basis one simple claim: they aren't acceptable".


Yes, and his clear point is overly broad, nimnode.

Unacceptable relative to what?

Criteria for civil war?

Criteria for violent civil disobedience?

Criteria for non-violent civil disobedience?

Criteria for compliant public protest?

Criteria for by buying the lower priced lunchmeat?

Ergill, is furiously intimating that "now is then" and "then is now". I disagree. So does John McWhorter. So does Stephen Pinker. So is anyone not in the grips of hysteria.

Strange Fruit was a relevant and significant song at it's moment in history. BLM riots were not.

Jinnistan wrote:
Anyone can live a nutritious life without turkey. The price of turkey is not a condition that anyone needs to accept when they have options for alternate sources of protein.


You're so close to getting it that I can almost see the little neurons firing in your brain.


Mon Mar 04, 2019 12:33 pm
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Melvin Butterworth wrote:

Bully for you, I guess.

Meanwhile, back here on planet Earth, I am having a discussion with someone else.

Are you sure you're on "Team LEAVES" Ergill?
No, actually, you're posting on a public forum, and what you are doing is not discussion but obscurantism. Notice how your "discussion partner" has already had to literally recap the discussion to show how awful you are at having a good-faith discussion. Hilarity.

If you want to have a discussion with someone else without anyone else commenting, how could you possibly do that? If only there was a private message function!

All you do is post at least one wildly bullshit statement in a nest of 2,000 words revolving around that statement, which creates the appearance of a reasonable discussion even though it's all a waste of time because you're just willfully diverting everyone from a real conversation with your wildly bullshit statements.

Need proof? See: OVERPRICED TURKEY.

Hilariously predictable.

_________________
LEAVES come from TREES
Retired


Mon Mar 04, 2019 10:05 pm
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Melvin Butterworth wrote:
Didn't think you'd have a direct response to Donna Brazille's statement. LOL.

These statements?

Politifact wrote:
In "Hacks: The Inside Story of the Break-ins and Breakdowns that Put Donald Trump in the White House," Brazile wrote about the grief and fears she felt in the aftermath of Rich’s murder, even closing the blinds in her office so a sniper couldn’t see her.

Brazile wrote that she felt some responsibility for Rich’s death.

"I didn’t bring him into the DNC, but I helped keep him there working on voting rights," she wrote.

She speculated about the motivation behind his shooting but wrote that police believed he was a victim of a robbery.

"With all I knew now about the Russians’ hacking, I could not help but wonder if they had played some part in his unsolved murder," she wrote, though stating that the FBI told her they didn’t see Russian fingerprints on the case. "Besides that, racial tensions were high that summer and I worried that he was murdered for being white on the wrong side of town."

She also wondered "had he been killed by someone who had it out for the Democrats? Likely not, but we still didn’t know."

Brazile dismissed the WikiLeaks conspiracy theory:

"Some Trump supporters were promoting the baseless conspiracy theory that Seth had been murdered by the DNC because he was the one who had leaked our emails to WikiLeaks."


https://www.politifact.com/punditfact/s ... th-rich-w/

Qui boner?

Melvin Butterworth wrote:
"It's funny that actually reading up on a topic is considered a "delay tactic" for you."

The demand to "read up" certainly can be. I remember when I first encountered post-modern ideas thought there was some bullshit involved that I was chastized that I must read Foucault, and Derrida and Barthes, and so on.

The way our conversation should work is that you should offer clear claim, cite evidence (not the whole text, but the relevant portion), and state the reasoning that connects the two.

It is bad habit and bad form (one that I myself am implicated in, I'm afraid) to engage in a sort of ad vercundiam by hyperlink, making general claims and just shot gunning links without specification and clarification.

Guy, you're more than implicated right now. You started this whole dopey line of argument by referring us to a whole, crank-written book. What's more, your use of the 2016 primaries hasn't extended beyond that. It's just a flat invocation of it as a conspiracy followed by you dusting off your hands.

Melvin Butterworth wrote:
ROFL. Yeah, after she was done "fearing for her life" and claiming that the Clinton machine was running the DNC (the Newsweek headline was "Hillary Clinton Robbed Bernie Sanders Of The Democratic Nomination, According to Donna Brazile").

In other words, a perverse extrapolation of her already goofy fear of Russians sniping her outweighs her direct testimony that she found no proof of the DNC rigging the primaries. What’s more, this and a dumb ad hominem of Ezra Klein justify failing to engage any of the claims or analysis whatsoever.

Melvin Butterworth wrote:
Ezra Klein, an interested party to the dispute, speaking in the left-wing equivalent of Brietbart. The same Klein who recently tweeted that it was more the media's fault that Hillary lost the election, because of the way they covered her email. Referenced below.

https://twitter.com/jbarro/status/976491871613710336

Sweet succulent balls. Ezra Klein as "the left-wing equivalent of Breitbart"? A mild-mannered policy/data wonk who invites people from across the political spectrum onto his show and has real conversations that purposefully eschew polemic? That's the first counterpart you can think of? Not, like, David French? No wonder your commentary on polarization is so fundamentally adrift. And what’s your example proving his disqualifying bias beyond a shadow of a doubt? Since you’re only quoting someone sniping at him, let’s see the original tweet:


“Unpopular opinion: the way the media covered Hillary Clinton's emails did much more to make Donald Trump president than anything Cambridge Analytica, or even Facebook, did. And it was less defensible on the merits.
— Ezra Klein (@ezraklein) March 21st, 2018”


This—this—is more disqualifying to you than Pizzagate? You mean, Klein chastising the media for their coverage and the Left for overselling the influence of Cambridge Analytica and FB on the election? Pretty modest claim that “but her emails!” was more consequential than those two. Did the emails end up warranting Watergate-style coverage, considerably outweighing discussions of policy? I doubt history will end up thinking so.

https://www.vox.com/2017/12/7/16747712/ ... ons-emails

Presumably, you would’ve preferred more discussion of poverty and inequality. Right? I bet even Janson, who’s more bullish on the emails and has a deep dislike of Clinton, would agree with this. It can exist alongside picking the low-hanging-fruit flaws of her candidacy. That said, and again, it bears repeating that you have literally no argument against the arguments Klein made.

Melvin Butterworth wrote:
Well, Ellen Page is a distinct person, isn't she?

Who was labelled a conspiracy theorist?

Melvin Butterworth wrote:

I find no reference to Beck on the Wiki for Pizza Gate. How "prominent" is he?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pizzagate ... acy_theory

Woah!

*Handclap*

*Eye-catching finger-snaps*


I don’t care if he’s the President of Pizzagate. Someone who signs up for even half a slice is mentally compromised. Answer the question!

Melvin Butterworth wrote:
If you don't like Beck as a source, fine. We can work from other sources and the original source that Beck cites in his book, lest the taint of "Beck" derail the conversation.

“It is bad habit and bad form (one that I myself am implicated in, I'm afraid) to engage in a sort of ad vercundiam by hyperlink, making general claims and just shot gunning links without specification and clarification.” —YARN

Melvin Butterworth wrote:
But we now know that you're also a liar. Your thin justification to LEAVES was that you were doing your civic duty to prevent others from getting sucked into temptation.

Oh, I’m a regular Shane alright. Spotless as the lamb.

*Stands creepily in the rain*

Melvin Butterworth wrote:
Overpriced turkey is also unacceptable, shall we riot?

“A =/= B QED LOL” —YARN

Melvin Butterworth wrote:
”That you're more concerned with property damage than black lives, that you ignore the verified prejudices of the Ferguson police department and the indignities they meted out to the black community, is par for the course.”

Wrong anecdote. Wrong narrative. Disproportional response. Sum it up and the result is "more harm than good."

The documented racism of the Ferguson police department is an “anecdote”? Boy, you’re Racial Sensitivity itself. Can you pass a slice of that turkey to go with this pizza?

Melvin Butterworth wrote:
‘You haven't said anything about the wrongful death payout to Michael Brown's family.”

That the city paid out after a riot is evidence of political expedience more than anything else.

Has there ever been a riot after a failed insurance settlement? I’m really asking. Genuinely curious.


Tue Mar 05, 2019 3:08 am
Profile
Reply with quote
Post Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Ergill wrote:
These statements?

Fair cop. Point conceded.

Ergill wrote:
Guy, you're more than implicated right now. You started this whole dopey line of argument by referring us to a whole, crank-written book. What's more, your use of the 2016 primaries hasn't extended beyond that. It's just a flat invocation of it as a conspiracy followed by you dusting off your hands.

We don't need Beck. We have Elizabeth Warren's direct comment,

https://www.cnn.com/2017/11/02/politics ... index.html

From The Atlantic, in a pro-Clinton piece, we get this

The Atlantic wrote:
Donna Brazile seems confused.

In her new book Hacks, released this Tuesday, and in an excerpt in Politico Magazine published last week, the former interim chair of the Democratic National Committee wrote that she searched for proof that the 2016 Democratic presidential primary was “rigged” for Hillary Clinton over Bernie Sanders, and said, “By September 7... I had found my proof and it broke my heart.” Yet on Tuesday, Brazile appeared on CBS News, where she said the contest was fair. “I found no instances that the party rigged the process, and I wanted to make sure Bernie and his supporters understood that,” she said. The contradiction is so clear that even Chris Cillizza was able to spot it.

Brazile has waffled under pressure, but she has been willing to admit "unethical" if not "illegal" practices in the DNC.

And we can indeed, look at the WikiLeaks dump without making reference to Beck and go line by line with it.

I still maintain that Bernie got screwed. I am not saying that he would have won the primary or the election, but that we'll never know about '16 because he didn't get a fair shake.

We know that HRC's campaign wanted Trump (via WikiLeaks) as a "Pied Piper" candidate and they got what they wanted.

Ergill wrote:
a dumb ad hominem of Ezra Klein justify

The ad hominem was on VOX, actually.

Klein, however, is NOT a disinterested party to the dispute. He's doing clean-up work.

Ergill wrote:
That said, and again, it bears repeating that you have literally no argument against the arguments Klein made.

Even Klein is forced to present two sides to her comments. "And while that contradicts the more sensational language she used in her book" -- that is, I can't explain this bit away, but...

Ergill wrote:
Who was labelled a conspiracy theorist?

The news media, in general, is indicted for perpetuating a false understanding of reality by questioning established facts.

"We have a media that's saying it's a debate whether or not what just happened to Jussie Smollett is a hate crime. This (expletive deleted) isn't a debate."

In essence, she invokes an implicit conspiracy of her own in that interview, beginning by stating that the world will apparently be over by 2030 before hop-scotching over to Smollett.

Ergill wrote:
“It is bad habit and bad form (one that I myself am implicated in, I'm afraid) to engage in a sort of ad vercundiam by hyperlink, making general claims and just shot gunning links without specification and clarification.” —YARN

It is. We need to get out of the habit of just shot-gunning links and start presenting relevant evidence within arguments. And I am very much implicated in this.

Ergill wrote:
“A =/= B QED LOL” —YARN

Let me know if you cough up an actual response here. Shrugs.

Ergill wrote:
The documented racism of the Ferguson police department is an “anecdote”?

Do you know what an anecdote is, dear boy?

It is a single case which might be leveraged to show what is "typical and representative" within a class/group. Alternatively, it is a data point from which (in connection with other anecdotes) inferences are drawn.

The "wrong anecdote" in this case is the Brown shooting, not the alleged pattern of unfair treatment by the Ferguson PD.

[quote="Ergill"]Can you pass a slice of that turkey to go with this pizza?
Is it safe? I mean we're living in 1939 and 1889 right now. Should we be eating Turkey in your hot tub time machine?


Tue Mar 05, 2019 7:17 am
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Melvin Butterworth wrote:
We don't need Beck. We have Elizabeth Warren's direct comment,

[...]

Brazile has waffled under pressure, but she has been willing to admit "unethical" if not "illegal" practices in the DNC.

You forget that Warren walked back her comment too. Again from the Klein piece:

Vox wrote:
In the aftermath of Brazile’s bombshell, Sen. Elizabeth Warren was asked if she “agree[d] with the notion that it was rigged?” “Yes,” she replied.

Within a few days, both Brazile and Warren walked their statements all the way back. Brazile now says she found “no evidence” the primary was rigged. Warren now says that though there was “some bias” within the DNC, “the overall 2016 primary process was fair.”


Why is it that you're constantly referring to flat, walked-back statements that you're reluctant to back up with any substantial evidence?

Those weren't gunshots you heard. They were echoes! Echoes!

Melvin Butterworth wrote:
And we can indeed, look at the WikiLeaks dump without making reference to Beck and go line by line with it.

I still maintain that Bernie got screwed. I am not saying that he would have won the primary or the election, but that we'll never know about '16 because he didn't get a fair shake.

We don't have to wring our hands over whether or not he would've won the general. Talking about ways he was and is treated unfairly is one thing. If you're going to say he got screwed, then you need to put up more substantial reasons for doubt that the DNC could've cost him the primary. Stacey Abrams can point to over a million purged voters, the majority of them Democrat. Bernie's case is incredibly thin by comparison. He did fantastically better than anyone would've guessed, pushed the party in his direction (his initial impetus for running), and is now slated to be on the front-runners in the upcoming election. Losing the primary might've actually helped him in this regard, as there was significant chance him winning would've lead to a lot of disillusionment when he ran aground on an intransigent, rightwing Congress. The Democrats might've even lost ground in the House during the midterms, as is frequently the case for the party holding the Presidency. Trump's presence and insanity along with Bernie's might-have-been glow have added fuel into his socialist fire.

Melvin Butterworth wrote:
The ad hominem was on VOX, actually.

Klein, however, is NOT a disinterested party to the dispute. He's doing clean-up work.

"That said, and again, it bears repeating that you have literally no argument against the arguments Klein made."

Even Klein is forced to present two sides to her comments. "And while that contradicts the more sensational language she used in her book" -- that is, I can't explain this bit away, but...

Evidently you're only able to discuss this at a purely surface level. Brazile tried to earn some populist bona fides and shot herself in the foot by making bigger claims than she was able to back up. Not a good sign that these statements were so quickly deflated, that you can't muster anything to back them up, and that all you're doing right now is repeatedly pointing to their erstwhile existence.

Melvin Butterworth wrote:
"Who was labelled a conspiracy theorist?"

The news media, in general, is indicted for perpetuating a false understanding of reality by questioning established facts.

"We have a media that's saying it's a debate whether or not what just happened to Jussie Smollett is a hate crime. This (expletive deleted) isn't a debate."

In essence, she invokes an implicit conspiracy of her own in that interview, beginning by stating that the world will apparently be over by 2030 before hop-scotching over to Smollett.

Hurm? Do you think just tossing the word "conspiracy" into a random sentence proves your point?

Melvin Butterworth wrote:
It is. We need to get out of the habit of just shot-gunning links and start presenting relevant evidence within arguments. And I am very much implicated in this.

I did. All you could do was link a tweet responding to the author on a different subject you're incapable of cogently arguing.

Melvin Butterworth wrote:
Let me know if you cough up an actual response here. Shrugs.

I think it's clear your overpriced turkey deconstructed itself.

Melvin Butterworth wrote:
The "wrong anecdote" in this case is the Brown shooting, not the alleged pattern of unfair treatment by the Ferguson PD.

The unedited exchange:

E—That you're more concerned with property damage than black lives, that you ignore the verified prejudices of the Ferguson police department and the indignities they meted out to the black community, is par for the course.”

Y—Wrong anecdote. Wrong narrative. Disproportional response. Sum it up and the result is "more harm than good."


If you aren't actually responding to my point about the second DOJ report, then I guess you're continuing to maintain an ironclad reluctance to even acknowledge its existence.

Melvin Butterworth wrote:
Is it safe? I mean we're living in 1939 and 1889 right now. Should we be eating Turkey in your hot tub time machine?

Do you think just repeating this over and over will convince anyone to distrust their "lying eyes"? They can read what I wrote.


Tue Mar 05, 2019 8:43 am
Profile
Reply with quote
Post Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Ergill wrote:
Why is it that you're constantly referring to flat, walked-back statements


That they walked their comments back looks like nothing more than party politics. The direct, unvarnished, reluctant testimony from the top of the party was that the game was rigged.

Do the "shoe on the other foot" test. If Republicans in high ranking positions had dropped bombshells like this which were later walked back after careful analyses by conservative analysts, would you be persuaded?

Ergill wrote:
We don't have to wring our hands over whether or not he would've won the general. Talking about ways he was and is treated unfairly is one thing. If you're going to say he got screwed, then you need to put up more substantial reasons for doubt that the DNC could've cost him the primary.


Well, we have to define what "getting screwed" means. Set the bar too low and I can win by showing any unfair treatment. Set the bar too high and there is no proving what might have happened. The counter-factual debate is fruitless. By lights, it is bad enough that the WikiLeaks documents prove that the party was acting unfairly against their own candidate and that Hillary's campaign had as much control over the DNC as it did.

Ergill wrote:
He did fantastically better than anyone would've guessed,


Aww, let's give him a pat on the head and participation trophy!

Ergill wrote:
Evidently you're only able to discuss this at a purely surface level. Brazile tried to earn some populist bona fides and shot herself in the foot by making bigger claims than she was able to back up. Not a good sign that these statements were so quickly deflated, that you can't muster anything to back them up, and that all you're doing right now is repeatedly pointing to their erstwhile existence.


And what was Warren trying to do?

WikiLeaks damaged the DNC by doing pulling the curtain back on party politics. The revelation of how the sausage was being made disrupted the party narrative and we accidentally got truth telling from folks like Brazile and Warren as they attempted to dissociate themselves and re-frame the leaks. It took awhile for the whole organism wake up, adjust, and re-etablish the official party line.

Ergill wrote:
Hurm? Do you think just tossing the word "conspiracy" into a random sentence proves your point?


How about this?

https://www.mercurynews.com/2019/02/01/ ... cy-theory/

or this?

https://www.newsweek.com/jussie-smollet ... ck-1314807

Yes, it was called a fucking conspiracy theory. Ellen Page is simply most notable for being most conspicuous of her pious shaming of people who dared to ask question. Can we move on now?

Ergill wrote:
I think it's clear your overpriced turkey deconstructed itself.


Shrugs again. Just keep saying it's still 1939, Ergill. "They're killing us in the street!"

Ergill wrote:
If you aren't actually responding to my point about the second DOJ report,


Learn what the word "anecdote" means and we can get the conversation back on track.

Ergill wrote:
Do you think just repeating this over and over will convince anyone to distrust their "lying eyes"? They can read what I wrote.


And what you wrote was a desperate conflation of lynchings protested by song and a controversial (but cleared) police shooting protested by rioting.

And tying it all together with the thread of "acceptability" leaves you open to ridiculous examples of other things we do not accept, turkey.


Tue Mar 05, 2019 11:02 am
Profile
Reply with quote
Post Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

So, I've noticed that you're not responding to the abortion stuff yet?

Is that still coming or are you just aiming for the low fruit of the ways in which you've needlessly expanded the scope of our discussion?


Tue Mar 05, 2019 11:04 am
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Melvin Butterworth wrote:
So, I've noticed that you're not responding to the abortion stuff yet?

Fool me once.

Melvin Butterworth wrote:
Is that still coming or are you just aiming for the low fruit of the ways in which you've needlessly expanded the scope of our discussion?

Nahhh. I'm good. This discussion is circling the drain anyway.

*sign of the cross*

Presto!


Tue Mar 05, 2019 11:15 am
Profile
Reply with quote
Post Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Ergill wrote:
Fool me once.


Nahhh. I'm good. This discussion is circling the drain anyway.

*sign of the cross*

Presto!


And with that he disappeared before having to answer the question. How convenient.


Tue Mar 05, 2019 11:19 am
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Melvin Butterworth wrote:
Unacceptable relative to what?

Relative to what is and is not acceptable.

Ergill is comparing the subjugation of black people on a spectrum of sour apples, from Crab to Envy to Braeburn, and then you show up with a goddamn butterball.

Melvin Butterworth wrote:
Ergill, is furiously intimating that "now is then" and "then is now".

He obviously is not. He's decrying those who use the relative problems of "then" to deny the relative problems of "now".


Tue Mar 05, 2019 11:27 am
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Melvin Butterworth wrote:

And with that he disappeared before having to answer the question. How convenient.

Answer the question! #Pizzagate


Tue Mar 05, 2019 11:45 am
Profile
Reply with quote
Post Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Jinnistan wrote:
Relative to what is and is not acceptable.


Quite the tautology you have there.

I love this moralizing autism. I am offended so I don't have to clarify my meaning!

This is how you know you're on sacred ground and beyond reason. The bare assertion is the truth. And anything that runs to the contrary of scripture (e.g., the actual interracial murder statistics) must be attacked for the fact of their mere mention. Ergill did however offer a valiant effort in trying to spin the numbers the other way.

Jinnistan wrote:
Ergill is comparing the subjugation of black people on a spectrum of sour apples, from Crab to Envy to Braeburn, and then you show up with a goddamn butterball.


It's delicious that we got into this mess with a bit of mockery by Sanchez, the Satire of Chester McChesterton or whatever the hell it was. I offer a bit of counter-mockery, however, and Jinnistan loses his mind. The satire is based on the strength of the comparison of of 2019 America to America in 1939, which allegedly implicates me as being in the same position as the racist who would blow off actual lynchings in the deep south. That's quite the accusation, so the aptness of the comparison deserves to be tested. This mean comparing vehicle and tenor and the analogic components of both, song vs. riots, lynchings vs. the shooting of Brown and Martin, and finally the position of the commentator. The bare assertion of "acceptability" does NO work in sorting these parts.

Ergill wrote:
He obviously is not. He's decrying those who use the relative problems of "then" to deny the relative problems of "now".


On the contrary, he is associating, not dissociating. Now is then. Then is now. He is the one who brought lynchings into the picture.


Tue Mar 05, 2019 12:18 pm
Profile
Reply with quote
Post Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Ergill wrote:
Answer the question! #Pizzagate


I offered 5 propositions inferred from what you summarized of our conversation.

You can answer them or ignore them.


Tue Mar 05, 2019 12:21 pm
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Melvin Butterworth wrote:

I offered 5 propositions inferred from what you summarized of our conversation.

You can answer them or ignore them.

Yes, yes. Not interested in that merry-go-round anymore.


Tue Mar 05, 2019 12:47 pm
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 2481 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50  Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 24 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by STSoftware.