OT: Obama vs. Black People

[Allan from Fallbrook]

marion: So if it doesn’t sound ugly to me, then I’m a racist?

As I mentioned before, this is identity politics at its worst. If I don’t agree with your point, it makes me a racist. Whereas, the reality is that I don’t agree with your point because it is wrong or factually incorrect.

What, specifically, do you find offensive about the word “unsavory”? Do you feel that this label is somehow being applied to all blacks? Do you feel that blacks, as a group and a race, don’t ever engage in unsavory behavior? You need some specificity in your response, marion.

It sounds as though there is some history between you and Nost and that is coloring the response. And, no, I am not using the word “coloring” as any sort of pun or putdown.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

marion: That remains to be seen? Wow. So you are responsible now for vetting someone in terms of race and gender?

I found her response to thoughtful, well reasoned and without any sort of malice. How is that a bad thing?

[Allan from Fallbrook]

marion: That remains to be seen? Wow. So you are responsible now for vetting someone in terms of race and gender?

I found her response to thoughtful, well reasoned and without any sort of malice. How is that a bad thing?

[Allan from Fallbrook]

marion: That remains to be seen? Wow. So you are responsible now for vetting someone in terms of race and gender?

I found her response to thoughtful, well reasoned and without any sort of malice. How is that a bad thing?

[Allan from Fallbrook]

marion: That remains to be seen? Wow. So you are responsible now for vetting someone in terms of race and gender?

I found her response to thoughtful, well reasoned and without any sort of malice. How is that a bad thing?

[Allan from Fallbrook]

marion: That remains to be seen? Wow. So you are responsible now for vetting someone in terms of race and gender?

I found her response to thoughtful, well reasoned and without any sort of malice. How is that a bad thing?

[Anonymous]

Read my post under “McBama”.

[Anonymous]

Read my post under “McBama”.

[Anonymous]

Read my post under “McBama”.

[Anonymous]

Read my post under “McBama”.

[Anonymous]

Read my post under “McBama”.

[Anonymous]

Allan: You are an arrogant fool if you assume that anything said here so far qualifies beyond opinion. I’m so tired of that stance. No one has a monopoly on being unbiased, i.e., no one is unbiased. You throw around “facts” without extremely strong studies, evidence, and logic, you are wading way out into the sea of the unknown.

Claiming that what someone says is “biased” and “knee jerk” is exactly what I would call “stifling”. It’s an empty observation.

In my OPINION I do see a few people scratching around in the dirt over a debate of questionable merit. It seems to me like so far everyone has been really terrible at describing their real premises and conclusions. If I was more cynical I’d say marion was baited by nostradamus. And that possibly nostradamus said nothing truly untoward. But please don’t pretend that a discussion of politics can be free of bias and emotion. Don’t claim that you, yourself, are free of bias. It’s absurd. There’s no high ground here. We’re all a bunch of fools.

While you’re at it, you also might be smart not to assume that punctuation marks are an honest indicator of emotion and bias. And could you please explain, for the group, what you mean by “subscribing to identity and gender politics”? It might be enlightening.

Is that a ruthless attack? How you like them apples?

[Anonymous]

Allan: You are an arrogant fool if you assume that anything said here so far qualifies beyond opinion. I’m so tired of that stance. No one has a monopoly on being unbiased, i.e., no one is unbiased. You throw around “facts” without extremely strong studies, evidence, and logic, you are wading way out into the sea of the unknown.

Claiming that what someone says is “biased” and “knee jerk” is exactly what I would call “stifling”. It’s an empty observation.

In my OPINION I do see a few people scratching around in the dirt over a debate of questionable merit. It seems to me like so far everyone has been really terrible at describing their real premises and conclusions. If I was more cynical I’d say marion was baited by nostradamus. And that possibly nostradamus said nothing truly untoward. But please don’t pretend that a discussion of politics can be free of bias and emotion. Don’t claim that you, yourself, are free of bias. It’s absurd. There’s no high ground here. We’re all a bunch of fools.

While you’re at it, you also might be smart not to assume that punctuation marks are an honest indicator of emotion and bias. And could you please explain, for the group, what you mean by “subscribing to identity and gender politics”? It might be enlightening.

Is that a ruthless attack? How you like them apples?

[Anonymous]

Allan: You are an arrogant fool if you assume that anything said here so far qualifies beyond opinion. I’m so tired of that stance. No one has a monopoly on being unbiased, i.e., no one is unbiased. You throw around “facts” without extremely strong studies, evidence, and logic, you are wading way out into the sea of the unknown.

Claiming that what someone says is “biased” and “knee jerk” is exactly what I would call “stifling”. It’s an empty observation.

In my OPINION I do see a few people scratching around in the dirt over a debate of questionable merit. It seems to me like so far everyone has been really terrible at describing their real premises and conclusions. If I was more cynical I’d say marion was baited by nostradamus. And that possibly nostradamus said nothing truly untoward. But please don’t pretend that a discussion of politics can be free of bias and emotion. Don’t claim that you, yourself, are free of bias. It’s absurd. There’s no high ground here. We’re all a bunch of fools.

While you’re at it, you also might be smart not to assume that punctuation marks are an honest indicator of emotion and bias. And could you please explain, for the group, what you mean by “subscribing to identity and gender politics”? It might be enlightening.

Is that a ruthless attack? How you like them apples?

[Anonymous]

Allan: You are an arrogant fool if you assume that anything said here so far qualifies beyond opinion. I’m so tired of that stance. No one has a monopoly on being unbiased, i.e., no one is unbiased. You throw around “facts” without extremely strong studies, evidence, and logic, you are wading way out into the sea of the unknown.

Claiming that what someone says is “biased” and “knee jerk” is exactly what I would call “stifling”. It’s an empty observation.

In my OPINION I do see a few people scratching around in the dirt over a debate of questionable merit. It seems to me like so far everyone has been really terrible at describing their real premises and conclusions. If I was more cynical I’d say marion was baited by nostradamus. And that possibly nostradamus said nothing truly untoward. But please don’t pretend that a discussion of politics can be free of bias and emotion. Don’t claim that you, yourself, are free of bias. It’s absurd. There’s no high ground here. We’re all a bunch of fools.

While you’re at it, you also might be smart not to assume that punctuation marks are an honest indicator of emotion and bias. And could you please explain, for the group, what you mean by “subscribing to identity and gender politics”? It might be enlightening.

Is that a ruthless attack? How you like them apples?

[Author]

Posts