Eric S Raymond on crime, reporting and “black privilege”:
No conspiracy theory is required to explain the silence here. Reporters and editors are nervous about being thought racist, or (worse) having “anti-racist” pressure groups demonstrating on their doorsteps. The easy route to avoiding this is a bit of suppressio veri – not lying, exactly, but not uttering facts that might be thought racially inflammatory. The pattern of suppression is neatly explained by the following premises: Any association of black people with criminality is inflammatory. Any suggestion that black criminals are motivated by racism to prey on white victims is super-inflammatory. And above all, we must not inflame. Better to be silent. I believe this silence is a dangerous mistake with long-term consequences that are bad for everyone, and perhaps worst of all for black people.
KC Johnson reflects on the Duke lacrosse scandal and those left unscathed by it:
Higher education is perhaps the only product in which Americans spend tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars without having any clear sense of what they are purchasing. Few parents, alumni, legislators, or prospective students spend much (if any) time exploring the scholarship or syllabi offered by professors at the school of their choice; they devote even less effort to understanding hiring patterns or pedagogical changes that have driven the contemporary academy to an ideological extreme on issues of race, class, and gender. At most, there seems to be a general —incorrect— impression that while colleges have the occasional “tenured radical” who lacks real influence on campus, most professors fall well within the ideological mainstream… The lacrosse case provided a rare opportunity to glimpse inside the mindset of an elite university — and the look was a troubling one.
More glimpses here, here and here.
And Theodore Dalrymple on policing speech:
In [philosopher François De Smet’s] view, some opinions have been responsible for so much mass murder that it is quite permissible, perhaps even essential, to ban them. But as with all such proposals, the question is where the limits should lie. For example, it is a moot point whether racism or economic egalitarianism was responsible for more deaths in the last century… It occurred to me that, on the above author’s principles, there would be every reason to ban egalitarian discourse, which has the effect and often the intention of promoting hatred and resentment of the rich, who in the not distant past have been massacred horribly, especially when rich means above averagely endowed with worldly goods, however gotten. Monsieur Hollande, for example, President of the French Republic, should be taken into preventive detention (and heavily fined) for having said that he did not like the rich, a statement clearly intended to bring the latter into hatred and contempt. The same applies to Mr Miliband, the silencing of whom would at the very least add to the gaiety of the nation.
In fairness to Mr Hollande, he doesn’t seem to like the poor much either.
As usual, feel free to share your own links and snippets in the comments.
Eric S Raymond on crime, reporting and “black privilege”
The Hot Air article is worth a (depressing) read.
http://hotair.com/archives/2014/09/27/the-media-embargo-on-the-b-word/
Naomi Wolf hits peak stupid.
“Author and former Democratic political consultant Naomi Wolf published a series of Facebook posts on Saturday in which she questioned the veracity of the ISIS videos showing the murders and beheadings of two Americans and two Britons, strongly implying that the videos had been staged by the US government and that the victims and their parents were actors.
Wolf published a separate Facebook post, also on Saturday, suggesting that the US was sending troops to West Africa not to assist with Ebola treatment but to bring Ebola back to the US to justify a military takeover of American society. She also suggested that the Scottish independence referendum, in which Scots voted to remain in the United Kingdom, had been faked.”
http://mickhartley.typepad.com/blog/2014/10/conspiracies.html
Naomi Wolf hits peak stupid.
Heh. Oh my. I remember Ms Wolf complaining about how the Taliban were being “demonised for denying cosmetics and hair colour to women.” Rather than for, as Mick points out, denying them little things like schools and basic autonomy.
“Author and former Democratic political consultant Naomi Wolf published a series of Facebook posts on Saturday in which she questioned the veracity of the ISIS videos showing the murders and beheadings of two Americans and two Britons, strongly implying that the videos had been staged by the US government and that the victims and their parents were actors.”
Sounds similar to the crap generally spewed by many posters at the Graun.
Naomi Wolf hits peak stupid.
Naomi Wolf hits Pinot Grigio, surely?
We must never forget that Naomi Wolf is a superior being with greater insight. You see, she has discovered that “profound brain-vagina connection” which forms “a gateway to, and medium of, female self-knowledge and consciousness”.
‘I remember Ms Wolf complaining about how the Taliban were being “demonised for denying cosmetics and hair colour to women.” Rather than for, as Mick points out, denying them little things like schools and basic autonomy’.
Or, in certain cases, parts of their own bodies. And in other cases, their lives.
This is what passes for ‘feminism’ in the rich world.
Or, in certain cases, parts of their own bodies.
Indeed.
This is what passes for ‘feminism’ in the rich world.
There’s a lot of it about, especially among our educated betters.
My theory: Naomi Wolf and Naomi Klein are the same person.
It’s also racist to suggest that the CDC should actually do its job to contain Ebola infections.
Ergo, the CDC does jack squat.
Top.
Men.
Beheading vids: they do look faked. Numerous tell-tales, indicating a bad green-screen job. No. 1 being, would you be parroting the lines given you by the folks who are about to cut your head off? I don’t believe I would.
Faked by who is a different question.
. . . hits peak stupid. . . and other observations.
Robert Downey Jr. gives detailed advice on Never go full retard.
That bothered me at first too, mojo, but I suspect that the victims had either been drugged to make them pliable or threatened with a horrible fate like being buried alive or some such. Or told that their families would at least know what happened to them rather than have them endure the pain of years of not knowing.
The Hot Air article is worth a (depressing) read
The BBC are of course past masters at this sort of trick.
But they’re not doing it simply out of fear of being seen as racist. It’s also this regrettable idea that their sole narrow focus – as journalists – is to either educate all the ignorant people who (rightly or wrongly they believe) hold racist prejudices, or to forestall any racism by not telling the full story. This leads to emphasis on crimes by whites, and being slightly evasive about crimes by muslims/blacks. Unbalanced reporting in other words
I’m sure there are a few journalists too stupid to see the slanted picture that this creates; that they’ve effectively treated whites as second class citizens. But I suspect there are others who do see it, and shrug their shoulders, saying so what. Or worse, those who actively try to create this false impression.
Why does it matter? For a thousand reasons, but you could start with the fact that it was exactly these dynamics that lead to the dilatory policing and reporting of the ‘grooming’ problem that we suffered recently – crime and suffering that could have been prevented wasn’t prevented.
wtp: and you’d trust their word, would you?
“Naomi Wolf hits peak stupid.”
You are making a common mistake, David. You are only looking at Proven Reserves of stupid. Actual deposits are estimated to be at least ten times larger.
Actual deposits are estimated to be at least ten times larger.
Deposits, hell: that stuff is generated inorganically in the depths of the earth’s mantle. We’re NEVER gonna run out of it.
Also, Ebola Ear Worm.
Mojo,
You could trust that they would act in their own best interest. You know they’re going to kill you one way or another. Beheading videos are something you know they like to produce. Why make the video if they’re not going to publicize it. Your loved ones will at least know what happened to you. You’re in a position where you have zero control. Are you saying you know you would be strong enough to resist? Your loved ones would not suffer more?
Plus, the drugs.
The Graun loves conspiracy theories, don’t they? There was some discussion going on how the CIA was involved in the Hong Kong protests. You can’t make this shit up. The contempt many readers had for local Hong Kongers protesting was despicable as well as the creepy romanticizing of PRC. You’d think, and it pains me to say this as I thought I would never use the term, that libtards would be all “Right on!”.
Deposits, hell: that stuff is generated inorganically in the depths of the earth’s mantle.
I see you read the book The Deep Hot Moronosphere.
The BBC are of course past masters at this sort of trick… to forestall any racism by not telling the full story.
I suppose it’s a case of overreach corroding actual probity. By assuming some grand sociological function – saving “us” from ourselves – their basic functions – reporting the facts – are compromised.
And you see variations of this attitude all over the place. The conceit that one should save lesser minds – those proletarian people – from contact with certain aspects of reality, whether in news coverage, or art exhibitions, or in mainstream drama. Yesterday in the Guardian Joan Smith was scolding fellow lefty Ben Affleck and basically claiming that no thriller should ever depict a female character lying about rape or physical abuse without a big disclaimer onscreen. Because otherwise such a scenario will warp the minds of those watching it. And by extension no film should ever be made in which a woman is the perpetrator of physical abuse, and no gay character should ever be depicted as less than admirable. And so on and so forth.
Reporters and editors are nervous about being thought racist.
I think it is more the case that we look at some issues, sigh, and think Can I be bothered to write a lengthy memo to the editor tomorrow when the inevitable knee jerk complaint arrives?
For example:
Gypsies trashed someone’s land and the local authority inexplicably fail to evict them? – The council will cry racism if you write about it.
Tuberculosis on the rise, brought to the country from countries such as Bangladesh and Pakistan? – The NHS board that produced those very statistics will cry racism if you write about it.
Islamic “charity” up to its eyes in all kinds of questionable dealings? – The charity will appoint aggressive lawyers to spend six month spuriously demanding tens of thousands of pounds in damages because of racism.
No correction or clarification will ever be printed, and no damages ever paid, but the complainants know fine well that you’ve got to explain yourself to your boss and money has to be spent on a lawyers letter telling them that no law or regulation has been broken.
Also note that a friend of mine was also reported to the Council for Racial Equality not so long ago for writing an article highlighting racism against black people by Romanians. You really cannot win.
In the Michael Mann film Collateral, Jamie Foxx and Tom Cruise are robbed by some L.A. gangbangers, all of whom are pointedly not black or Hispanic. For all the film’s imaginative leaps, this one in particular stood out as contrived. I appreciate that a director may want to try something a little different and I can certainly appreciate that respectable black and Hispanic people may get tired of seeing black and Hispanic gangbangers cropping up in urban thrillers set in L.A. But in terms of armed and predatory gangs, those are by far the most common demographic groups.
And that’s the nub that apparently we aren’t supposed to acknowledge. There are quite pronounced differences in rates (and types) of criminal activity when perpetrators are categorised according to racial groups. By some estimates, black males aged 15-24 – 2% of the U.S. population – are responsible for around 5o% of U.S. murders, and for disproportionately high rates of other violent crime. The disparity is so great that even if one assumes police bias and differential rates of conviction (despite evidence to the contrary), one still has to wonder why the victims of such crime – whose descriptions match rates of arrest and are themselves very often black – would lie about the appearance of their attacker.
As Heather Mac Donald pointed out,
Unless we’re to assume that people who’ve been mugged, burgled or carjacked want to make their attacker harder to catch and punish.
Dicentra, speaking of Ebola ear worms: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T2C5roIkdKo
This is what passes for ‘feminism’ in the rich world.
The root cause is that most leftists in “the rich world” no longer stand for anything beyond a reflexive loathing of the West. Their one fixed axiom is that Western governments, Western culture and Western society are the root of all evil. Everything else is negotiable as long as that fundamental article of faith is upheld. So it is impossible for Naomi Wolf to acknowledge the true brutality of the Taliban because that would imply that they were morally inferior to their Western enemies. It would mean considering the possibility that the United States was not the villain in this case. But the only way to avoid such heretical thoughts is to wilfully ignore the evidence. All that nonsense about “cosmetics and hair colour” is just a way of avoiding uncomfortable realities.
“The press’s attempted canonization of Trayvon Martin only put the cherry on top of this.
True, that.
“In the Michael Mann film Collateral, Jamie Foxx and Tom Cruise are robbed by some L.A. gangbangers, all of whom are pointedly not black or Hispanic.”
Hah! It’s worse than that. Indulging in a little nostalgie de la boue, I recently re-watched the third of Michael Winner’s defiantly politically incorrect Death Wish pentalogy. Paul Kersey tangles with a vicious mob of Hell’s Kitchen hoodlums who look like nothing more than the paramilitary wing of Benetton. Chief thug is white, but his underlings sport more hues than a Pantone color wheel. And this was 1985.
The root cause is that most leftists in “the rich world” no longer stand for anything beyond a reflexive loathing of the West. Their one fixed axiom is that Western governments, Western culture and Western society are the root of all evil.
AndrewZ,
hit, nail, head etc.
Just finished reading David Harvey’s ‘The Enigma of Capital and the Crises of Capitalism’ which, if you’ve not heard of it, can be neatly summarised by the fact that it is apparently one of Laurie Penny’s all-time favourite reads.
On the subject of being a reflexive contrarian, Harvey has this to say:
Communists, Marx and Engels averred in their original conception laid out in The Communist Manifesto, have no political party. They simply constitute themselves at all times and in all places as those who understand the limits, failings and destructive tendencies of the capitalist order … Communists are all those who work incessantly to produce a different future to that which capitalism portends.
So yes, pretty much, what he’s saying is that anyone who is against society, who is against society for its ‘original sin’ of living in the real world and not some mythical Edenic paradise, is a de facto communist.
Naturally, on the subject of returning society – or is it pushing it forward? not always easy to tell with people like Harvey – to this miraculous seventh heaven, Harvey concludes with a really rather casual air that:
It would be comforting to think that [a revolutionary transformation of the world] could be accomplished pacifically and voluntarily … But it would disingenuous to imagine that this could be so, that no active struggle would be involved, including some degree of violence … the odds are heavily against any purely pacific passage to the promised land.
Yes, that’s right. He’s basically saying there cannot be a revolution without blood; in a weird kind of double-negative, that would mean the blood of anyone who is against being against society.
It was hard for me not to imagine him rubbing his hands rather gleefully as he typed that particular passage. From his apartment in New York.
It was also hard for me to imagine how he can imagine that a world brought into being by people who have a deep contempt for society, which is to say, a deep contempt for ‘other people’, can possibly result in anything but an unmitigated disaster.
Then again, this is a man who in the same book, I absolutely s**t you not, points out that Mao’s Great Leap Forward was not all bad. Yes, he concedes, some millions of people died in a famine, but – and without a hint of irony – he says that healthcare improved greatly in the same period. Really, he does.
It was also hard for me to imagine how he can imagine that a world brought into being by people who have a deep contempt for society, which is to say, a deep contempt for ‘other people’, can possibly result in anything but an unmitigated disaster.
In my experience, Marxoid urges are rooted in something that is impervious to correction, fundamentally dishonest and quite, quite vile. It’s not so much a political philosophy as a fig leaf. A mask.
“So yes, pretty much, what he’s saying is that anyone who is against society, who is against society for its ‘original sin’ of living in the real world and not some mythical Edenic paradise, is a de facto communist.”
No, and it is curious that you read it like that. ‘Capital’ and ‘society’ are not the same thing, although capitalists, for obvious reasons, like you to thing they are (Marx called this operation ‘ideology’). What is being described isn’t opposition to society but opposition to the corrosive effects upon society of capitalism.
Nor does capitalism reflect ‘the real world’ any more than any other way of organising human affairs. Capitalists work hard, obviously, to persuade people that this is the natural order but it isn’t. It is a very recent change in human arrangements and it is just one choice among many. Ideology is at work to make you believe that this is just how it must be: you in the cotton field, him in the big house. Not great for you perhaps but at least you are a realist, at least you understand that this is always how it was, always the way it must be, the natural order. There is some comfort in that (together with a reassuring sing song in church on Sunday) but a pretty poor kind of comfort, I think.
Beheading vids: they do look faked. Numerous tell-tales, indicating a bad green-screen job. No. 1 being, would you be parroting the lines given you by the folks who are about to cut your head off? I don’t believe I would.
Here’s the thing: people walked to the edge of a pit full of recently shots bodies. They had heard the shots as they approached and they must have known their imminent fate. They were ordered to strip and did so. They were ordered to kneel and they did so. Vanishingly small numbers openly refused.
The reasons why people did not rebel (as you expect) are no doubt complex. However, I suspect that fear drives compliance and compliance postpones the inevitable for a second or two.
You may have a better theory. If you reply to me, try and explain the obedience exhibited above, before you pronounce your own bravery from a position of absolute safety.
You also appear to lack imagination: there will almost certainly have been several dry runs which did not end in the death of the captives.
‘Capital’ and ‘society’ are not the same thing, although Marxists, for obvious reasons, like you to think they are (Marx and everyone else called this operation ‘ideology’, also known as faith in any such form, being the blind, unthinking acceptance of whatever random BS someone may cook up, without giving the pablum any thought or reasoned observation to confirm if the matters of the offered faith have any basis in reality.). What is being described isn’t opposition to society but opposition to the corrosive effects upon society of Marxism.
Nor does Marxism reflect ‘the real world’ any more than any other way of organising human affairs. Marxists work hard, obviously, to persuade people that this is the natural order but it isn’t. It is a very recent change in human arrangements and it is just one choice among many. Ideology is at work to make you believe that this is just how it must be: you in the cotton field, the Marxist in the big house. Not great for you perhaps but at least you are a realist, at least you understand that this is always how it was, always the way it must be, the natural order. There is some comfort in that (together with a reassuring sing song in the political education session) but a pretty poor kind of comfort, I think.
—-Oh, by the way Minnow, if you’d actually like to read of capitalism for the first time, there is a quite well written out and quite conservative briefing essay that is quite reassuringly neither right wing liberal extremist or left wing liberal extremist, and you’ll find it here.
No, …
Yes.
… and it is curious that you read it like that.
No, it isn’t.
What is curious, though, is how you seem incapable of knowing when you are being supremely condescending.
‘Capital’ and ‘society’ are not the same thing, …
[**Golf clap**]
No, that’s true. They’re not. Though why you feel the need to point out something so stunningly obvious is less clear.
And also of course, global society is by and large what some, such as Harvey, call Capitalist. So while the two are not synonymous, the one does pretty much entail the other.
… although capitalists, for obvious reasons, like you to thing they are (Marx called this operation ‘ideology’).
Oh, that’s right I forgot – anyone who doesn’t understand or agree with Marxist-inspired beliefs must either be Evil or Ignorant; the Evil are beyond salvation, while the Ignorant are there to suffer being repeatedly patronized and condescended to and continually told that they don’t even know their own mind.
Unlike the already saved …
What is being described isn’t opposition to society but opposition to the corrosive effects upon society of capitalism.
The thing is though, the Society Marx and Engels were writing about was Capitalist and likewise the Global society Harvey writes about is also Capitalist – as you will no doubt know if you’ve waded through that particular book, I assume you have done so and are not just presuming to explain to me the ‘real’ meaning of a book that you haven’t actually read.
If Capitalism wasn’t so integrated into Society it would rather undermine virtually the entire point of the Marxist-inspired project.
Nor does capitalism reflect ‘the real world’ …
Well, here I suppose we can at least agree on something – I do not think it reflects anything either; it’s not a mirror or a metaphor for anything. It is what it is.
I do, however, acknowledge that it is a significant part of the world that we actually live in.
Capitalists work hard, obviously, to persuade people that this is the natural order but it isn’t. It is a very recent change in human arrangements and it is just one choice among many.
Yeah, so, what’s your point?
And don’t you think that it would be a good idea to actually question your belief that the only thing between Man and Socialist paradise is that Capitalists are sowing Ideologies everywhere to make people want things they don’t want and believe in things that aren’t true?
I mean is it beyond you to even entertain the possibility that the real reason why the world isn’t overwhelmingly Socialist is because it just doesn’t work very well in practice (in the ‘real’ world) no matter what the Theory tells you must be the case?
Ideology is at work to make you believe that this is just how it must be: you in the cotton field, him in the big house.
[**incredibly weary sigh of resignation**]
I can’t even be bothered to give a response to this dreary, worn out cliche.
Not great for you perhaps but at least you are a realist, at least you understand that this is always how it was, always the way it must be, the natural order.
Sorry, who is it that you are actually talking to right now? Not me, is it? I bloody hope not.
There is some comfort in that (together with a reassuring sing song in church on Sunday) but a pretty poor kind of comfort, I think.
Yeah … thing is though, I seem to remember some time ago you writing that Socialism did work and when pushed to name a specific country or society where it had done so, you came up with Finland. Finland?
So all of that stuff in the foregoing, about ideology and natural order and all the other bog-standard Boilerplate cliches… all that is to lead to a global society based on Finland?
More wasted time. A couple weeks ago, some may recall, I was trying to break economics down to the most fundamental level with our little fishy friend. I got two steps into the process when he made numerous ridiculous assertions, provided very few answers, and then ran away. Now he returns presumably presuming that no one remembers. He’s nothing more than a troll. Well, that and an intellectual coward.
“Nor does Marxism reflect ‘the real world’ any more than any other way of organising human affairs. ”
It doesn’t claim to, it claims to represent a more reasonable and just way of organising affairs, not a more ‘natural’ one. It is capitalists who constantly claim that their preferred economic system is in some way natural to human life, despite its very recent emergence.
wtp, I don’t think I have ever been accused of ‘running away’ before, the complaint is usually in the other direction. But your memory is defective, I patiently explained to you how your ideas about economics were in fact just ideological beliefs that had been instilled into you and didn’t stand up to scrutiny. You were not able to refute any of my explanations, as I recall, but became personally abusive instead (a sure sign that the intellect has reached its limits). I don’t expect to be thanked for schooling you, and I don’t expect your journey to be a comfortable one, but you will be glad in the end, I hope.
“‘Capital’ and ‘society’ are not the same thing, …
[**Golf clap**] No, that’s true. They’re not. Though why you feel the need to point out something so stunningly obvious is less clear.”
Because in your comment you confused them, that’s why. I am glad you have it straight now, but it isn’t my fault that you got it muddled before. I just took you at your word.
Oh, you’ve been accused of much that your arrogance will never permit you to acknowledge including being disingenuous and making stuff up, AKA lying. See OT. And in this case it is your memory that is quite defective. If any schooling was being done it was the other way around, as if any such thing could ever get through that thick skull of yours. So you gave up and disappeared leaving numerous unanswered questions after insulting pretty much anyone who has ever run a small business in the process.
I’m not insulting you, I’m describing you. But like I said, this is all a waste of time as one might as well be trying to teach a cat to sing.
Because in your comment you confused them …
No, I didn’t.
I mean I can see how that would have been a no doubt devastating riposte if I had; the but the fact is, I didn’t.
At no point in this sentence, which is the one I take you to be referring to, do I confuse ‘Capital’ with ‘Society’:
So yes, pretty much, what he’s saying is that anyone who is against society, who is against society for its ‘original sin’ of living in the real world and not some mythical Edenic paradise, is a de facto communist.
Also, I note that at no point did you attempt to take Harvey’s side, or interpret what you think he actually meant to say. Which again suggests rather strongly that you are presuming to tell me the ‘real’ meaning behind a book you haven’t read, but which I have. Which kind of makes the tone of high-and-mighty condescension even harder to swallow than usual.
If, on the other hand, you have actually read it and yet still churned out the cliche ridden comments that you did, then I at least would take that as confirming that Harvey’s book is hot burning up paper that could have been used on something more useful.
hot airburning up paper
You don’t know a certain Fran Barlow by any chance do you, Minnow?
“Oh, you’ve been accused of much that your arrogance will never permit you to acknowledge including being disingenuous and making stuff up, AKA lying.”
Yes, I have been accused of a lot of things, although usually only when the person I was talking to failed in argument. But not running away. Persistence is my usual failing. I think what you mean is I had other things to do.
“And in this case it is your memory that is quite defective”
No, really it isn’t. If you had been able to argue your case, I think you would have. The foot stamping and personal jibes were a capitulation.
“I mean I can see how that would have been a no doubt devastating riposte if I had; the but the fact is, I didn’t.”
Yes, you did. Your interpretation in the quoted sentence relies on the confusion of society and capital. If you are clearer now, that’s good.
I don’t know the ‘real meaning’ of the book, most books (except for a few fairly tales I suppose) don’t have such a thing. But the real meaning of the bit you quoted was pretty clear, you just misunderstood it. Yours was what is called a ‘motivated reading’.
By the way, Nik, I can help you with those semi-colons if you like. They are not doing you any good.
Your interpretation in the quoted sentence relies on the confusion of society and capital.
No, it doesn’t. It really doesn’t.
Having now actually quoted the line you are referring to, I’m clear what I said and didn’t. It would be impolite of me to suggest why you are incapable of seeing it in any other way.
By the way, Nik, I can help you with those semi-colons if you like.
This should be good.
I assume you consider yourself an expert in all matters punctuational, do you?
Will that be Hart’s Rules For Compositors and Readers or Judith Butcher’s Copy-editing book you’ll be drawing on? Or maybe The Guardian’s style guide?
Do enlighten me.
No go on, do.
“No, it doesn’t. It really doesn’t.”
It really does. If you think the quoted passage means people who are against ‘society’ where the writer was talking about ‘capita;ism’, you have muddled the two things.
“I assume you consider yourself an expert in all matters punctuational, do you?”
Yes. I like Hart, but you may choose any: your semi-colons will not do.
I don’t know the ‘real meaning’ of the book
Oh, you don’t think so?
So on what grounds do you quote from Marx, or say what Marx believed about this, that and the other?; and continually claim others to be wrong or misguided or misunderstood?
And on what grounds, merely a sentence or so later, can you so confidently assert:
the real meaning of the bit you quoted was pretty clear, you just misunderstood it.
I have been accused of a lot of things, although usually only when the person I was talking to failed in argument.
I think this gives a clear insight into your impermeable confidence in everything you say; I should have known your confidence grows out of myopia.
Critical thinker my ass.
“I don’t know the real meaning … the real meaning … was pretty clear” Really?
Yours was what is called a ‘motivated reading’.
And your reading is not motivated by anything, is it? And what do you base that claim on?
Yes. I like Hart …
I don’t believe you even heard of Hart until I wrote that up just now. You would have to cite it to me before I’d believe you.
Also, the idea that you believe yourself to be definitively correct about pronunciation is a sure sign that you have no idea what you’re talking about.
I call bullshit.
“So on what grounds do you quote from Marx, or say what Marx believed about this, that and the other?; and continually claim others to be wrong or misguided or misunderstood?”
On the grounds that it is often clear from what Marx said what Marx meant. Others are often wrong or misguided. Again, I don’t see the problem here. It doesn’t mean that books have any single ‘real’ meaning (pace Leo Strauss).
“And your reading is not motivated by anything, is it? And what do you base that claim on?”
I am confident that if it were, you would point it out to me. (If I read the word ‘capitalism’ and saw the word ‘society’, for example.)
“I don’t believe you even heard of Hart until I wrote that up just now. You would have to cite it to me before I’d believe you.”
Quote Hart’s Rules on what? How to use a semi-colon? I said I would be happy to teach you.
“Also, the idea that you believe yourself to be definitively correct about pronunciation is a sure sign that you have no idea what you’re talking about.”
Punctuation. Of course there are some grey areas, but those semi-colons are just wrong. I mean, really.
More wasted time.
Well, yes, I suppose it is; but then on the other hand it’s not always without interest.
For one thing, if you ever peruse Left wing blogs, especially (or so it seems) those related to Feminism, they rarely if ever engage with any critical or off-message posts at all. If the post is from a man, they are almost guaranteed not to respond.
That doesn’t happen here. No one is blocked. The writer takes responsibility for their own words.
Another thing I find interesting is the strategy, if I can call it that. I don’t recall any sign of an attempt at debate; there are only ever pronouncements that ‘X is wrong’, or ‘Y has been misconstrued’ and, of course, no evidence is almost ever put forward for these claims or, when it is, it turns out to be risible in the extreme.
So what you’re left with is a series of statements made from within a stubbornly narrow worldview which amount to not much more than articles of faith.
He faith in these articles is clearly unassailable and no doubt explains why she is under the strong impression that she comes here to ‘teach’.
She’s not so much a troll as a door-stepping religious zealot.
Really, her own words say more about her than any criticisms we can put to her.
That doesn’t happen here. No one is blocked. The writer takes responsibility for their own words.
Well I certainly don’t endorse banning except in the most extreme circumstances such as virulent racism or antisemitism or such where it gets to the point of being nothing more than graffiti. And I use the label “troll” very rarely and very reluctantly. However the futility of engaging in discussion with a writer who does NOT take responsibility for his own words starts to seem rather foolish over time. When a writer does not respect the meaning of words or engages in much obvious disingenuous sophistry, it becomes a distraction that eventually is indistinguishable from mockery. Hence why bother? Just more graffiti. Graffiti not worth or justifiable for banning, but graffiti none the less.
And I do agree in regard to your points in regard to faith, religion, and such. Discussions with leftists frequently leave me with déjà vu from ages ago arguing with young earth creationists and other such true believers.