White Liberals Patronize Minorities

Feb 2011
4,284
798
Ever changing
#51
Well that is all fine and good but what in the world does it have to do with the topic we are discussing? The left limits voices to those that agree with them? I have no idea what the hell this means. The left has been described as herding cats because there are so many voices, that is the very definition of the left.
You mentioned the melting pot and many different voices. Perhaps I misunderstood the relevance of that in your own post. Please clarify.
 
Sep 2012
3,191
2,973
California
#52
You mentioned the melting pot and many different voices. Perhaps I misunderstood the relevance of that in your own post. Please clarify.
Ok, I just mentioned it because all of us are part of a giant melting pot of many peoples and voices. It just so happens that one sector of it gravitates to one particular tribe. The rest seem to be fine being part of a mixture.
 
Feb 2010
66,977
42,280
valid location
#55
Mr. Rasselas,

Care to address the subject, or is non sequitur your modus operandi?

No obfuscation. I presented a paper in which studies show white liberals talk down to minorities, which apparently you can't counter, so you deflect.
No, I'm just reiterating the points that have already been made to you--points you've chosen to ignore. When that happens, it's nice when other people in the thread stand with the poster whose effective and well-substantiated arguments you're ignoring.

It's not hard to post a study, draw a reductive conclusion without thinking about it, and ignore all counter points based on the study itself. That's your MO.
 
Jan 2014
14,880
3,697
California
#56
No, I'm just reiterating the points that have already been made to you--points you've chosen to ignore. When that happens, it's nice when other people in the thread stand with the poster whose effective and well-substantiated arguments you're ignoring.

It's not hard to post a study, draw a reductive conclusion without thinking about it, and ignore all counter points based on the study itself. That's your MO.
Mr. Rasselas,

So true, you haven't countered anything I said except "nuh uh." All you did was kiss another poster's ass by say "he be right." Only trouble, since you didn't read the paper, you didn't realize he was wrong and the analysis of the Presidential Candidate speeches was only one small part of the paper.

Read the study and do your homework before you make such foolish statements.
 
Feb 2010
66,977
42,280
valid location
#57
Mr. Rasselas,

So true, you haven't countered anything I said except "nuh uh." All you did was kiss another poster's ass by say "he be right."
No, I pointed out that he'd accounted for more of the evidence than you did. That's prima facia evidence that he has at least engaged with the material more than you have. He deserves an "Attaboy" and you deserve a smack on the head.
Only trouble, since you didn't read the paper, you didn't realize he was wrong and the analysis of the Presidential Candidate speeches was only one small part of the paper.

Read the study and do your homework before you make such foolish statements.
Cool thing about debating with you is....you never take your own advice.
 
Jan 2014
14,880
3,697
California
#58
No, I pointed out that he'd accounted for more of the evidence than you did. That's prima facia evidence that he has at least engaged with the material more than you have. He deserves an "Attaboy" and you deserve a smack on the head. Cool thing about debating with you is....you never take your own advice.
Mr. Rasselas,

I cited the actually paper, with citations, he cited the summary account in a newspaper article.

Sorry to ruin your premise, but why do you continue to make a fool of yourself by not doing your research?

By the by, do you not think his butthole is getting raw by all your ass kissing?

Maybe you should try thinking for yourself rather than have others do your thinking for you.
 
Sep 2013
38,811
30,774
On a hill
#59
#60
That is not what it says. Have you read it? The study is very obscure and hardly any indictment of the left as the Times wished it.
of course this person doesn't read, just titles. Too busy spreading shit around the internet

To me, the subject at hand is your habit of brining up serious topics with a serious OP, only to wimp out, relying on obfuscation and insult. Others have engaged you in serious ways and in this thread (as you do consistently) you've refused to respond in serious ways to their arguments. You think your flippancy is clever. It's just a dumbass act.

I've seen you do better. You're always an ass, but sometimes you are a clever one. Never when things get much beyond the answer you started out with. That's why your threads and responses from you never get beyond one or two rounds of discussion. That's not even faux intellectualism, though you pass yourself off as an educated person.
Of course, its what trolls do
 

Similar Discussions