Trump, Erections, And A Lack Thereof

But he knows with mathematical certainty that the Deplorables are up to deplorable things in their deplorable towns.
“…I proved beyond the shadow of a doubt, with geometric logic…”

I’m not sure if he’s even seen a picket fence. But he knows with mathematical certainty that the Deplorables are up to deplorable things in their deplorable towns.
Heh. It’s an odd thing to watch unfold. Especially, as above, when it’s unfolding so luridly and with such abandon. The air of psychological processes is hard to miss.

But he knows with mathematical certainty that the Deplorables are up to deplorable things in their deplorable towns.
Many, many moons ago, during a sociology class (humanities requisite for science degree) in college, one of those glib know-it-alls that seem to be placed in every class coughed up the ‘and as we know, the relation of firearms lust to smaller penises’ in a class discussion; the professor would have none of it.
In fact, he went off like a live grenade. Best as I can remember, he said something along the lines that he was as socially liberal in his personal life as probably anyone in the class, but that there was absolutely no scientific studies to back up that little chestnut about gun culture/little weenies, and that sociology suffered enough by being perceived as sorta kinda science without embracing people’s personal prejudicial fantasies as fact. Especially since he was teaching a course in the construction of statistical models for sociological research, the idea that you could just toss in any stray canard into the mix pretty much negated the scientific basis of the whole damned course. He was visibly irate at the very idea.
An interesting course. I fear his like have since vanished from the field, judging from examples as limned above.

that could explain that “The Curia” mess as an excuse for whoever claims to have written it.
Oh, you Poor Dear.
There, there, now, reality is just soooo unfair isn’t it.
Sour grapes much?

I’m not sure if he’s even seen a picket fence. But he knows with mathematical certainty that the Deplorables are up to deplorable things in their deplorable towns.
That’s not necessarily a recent thought. I quote for your edification Sherlock Holmes from “The Adventure of the Copper Beeches” (1892):

All over the countryside, away to the rolling hills around Aldershot, the little red and grey roofs of the farm-steadings peeped out from amid the light green of the new foliage.
“Are they not fresh and beautiful?” I cried with all the enthusiasm of a man fresh from the fogs of Baker Street.
But Holmes shook his head gravely.
“Do you know, Watson,” said he, “that it is one of the curses of a mind with a turn like mine that I must look at everything with reference to my own special subject. You look at these scattered houses, and you are impressed by their beauty. I look at them, and the only thought which comes to me is a feeling of their isolation and of the impunity with which crime may be committed there.”
“Good heavens!” I cried. “Who would associate crime with these dear old homesteads?”
“They always fill me with a certain horror. It is my belief, Watson, founded upon my experience, that the lowest and vilest alleys in London do not present a more dreadful record of sin than does the smiling and beautiful countryside.”
“You horrify me!”
“But the reason is very obvious. The pressure of public opinion can do in the town what the law cannot accomplish. There is no lane so vile that the scream of a tortured child, or the thud of a drunkard’s blow, does not beget sympathy and indignation among the neighbours, and then the whole machinery of justice is ever so close that a word of complaint can set it going, and there is but a step between the crime and the dock. But look at these lonely houses, each in its own fields, filled for the most part with poor ignorant folk who know little of the law. Think of the deeds of hellish cruelty, the hidden wickedness which may go on, year in, year out, in such places, and none the wiser.

…and as we know, the relation of firearms lust to smaller penises’ in a class discussion…
IIRC, that bit of slander was started by pop-shrink Joyce Brothers.
When confronted with such people my inevitable reply is: “What’s more disturbing-they who supposedly think guns=genitals, or you who think guns=genitals and want to forcibly take them away from people?”

@Richard Cranium
Regarding his familiarity with the subject, the word “antipodal” comes to mind.

There hasn’t been much evidence of your familiarity with the subject.
Uh huh, as if you closing your eyes and screaming Nooooo!!!! has ever gotten you anywhere . . .
As ever, do feel free to cite specific instances of actual errors, that’s what we call feedback, another set of eyes, etc.
. . . . I’ve been trying to find it, but some while back in here—several years back—there was someone going on and on and on about Duh Decline of Duh Right, and how Duh Right has to Stand For . . . stand for something, the details never did quite surface.
—After all, David had provided him with a platform, regularly gives encouragement to cite details, give examples, actually explain Why something works, do point out How something just is.
So at that point I did ask, posting something to the effect of Ok, If you’ve got the particular details, What is the agenda??? What does the “right wing” stand for? What does “right wing” mean?? For our benefit, Can you define right wing???
The response we got from Duh Decline fellow was just about literally “I’m not going to say what right wing means, because every time I do, people yell at me for it.”
Wonderful.
Mere denial of what is never seems to work, does it. Citing footnote and example, well, that’s called documentation, all that reality stuff that just keeps being . . . .

Hal, links to google search URLs is NOT documentation. Excessively long comments on someone else’s blog is not a sign of much more than an inflated ego.
Do you honestly believe that many people read your blatherings here?

Cranium,
“Excessively long comments on someone else’s blog is not a sign of much more than an inflated ego.”
This suggests that you get offended on other peoples behalf.
Do you see my point?.

Jones, let’s put it this way. . . . .
. . . followed by a complete lack of example.
The singular issue is that Alex, and Richard, are merely screaming Shutup!!Shutup!!Shutup!!Shutup!! but when one asks what the issue is, when one asks that they give examples, actually refute something that is pointed out, all one gets in response is crickets . . .
Or as David notes as he subsequently draws our attention

Despite their preposterous airs and claims of high-minded activism, the people mentioned . . . . are not righteous defenders of the downtrodden. They’re just petty, classless and obnoxious, and, like so many of their fellow woke-lings, driven by spite.

“Boys. Code 9000.”
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=code%209000
I swear that’s what the google search found!
I’m all good with the bog-roll though :-).

Boys. Code 9000.
Oh, dear. We agree that your intestinal disorders are unfortunate.
Do come back when you’re up for continuing with our discussion.