Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Very

6 (50%)

Some

4 (33.3%)

Not sure

0 (0%)

Not really

1 (8.3%)

Not in the slightest

1 (8.3%)

Total Members Voted: 11

Voting closed: February 15, 2022, 10:51:36 AM

[bankshot1]

Maher's opinion on "woke" should have been the topic discussed.

His "opinion on woke" WAS the strawman.  He referred to an argument that nobody (save a couple of attention seeking loudmouths- and it takes one to know one) was actually making.  That's the definition of a strawman argument.

Red trolled as he always does, but his post opened a discussion on Maher's editorial from 2 days ago, and a topic that has been addressed here, that obviously make some uncomfortable

The response here was not to address the substance, but rather attack Maher's life style and past.

I thought it disingenuous at best.

and still do.

[kidcarter8]

”After stoking fear of a Black uprising that would upend their way of life, endanger their women and bring about an unfathomable new American reality in which Black men—not white—governed, white city leaders pledged to “choke the current of the Cape Fear with carcasses” rather than allow Wilmington’s Black citizens to succeed, and lead.

When the carnage ended, more than 100 Black government officials—city councilmen, the city clerk, the treasurer, the city attorney and others—had been forced from their elected roles. Somewhere between 60 and 250 Black citizens were murdered.”


https://www.history.com/news/wilmington-massacre-1898-coup

Yeah - some detail surely missing from the accounts we read today

What was the aim of these black leaders in Wilmington?  What was their mantra?  By what pledges did THEY seek to rule?

[Yankguy1]

Actually, Maher's comments were pointed out by far more than me as being a strawman argument.  As for attacking Maher's lifestyle and past, I think that's one of those derigueur things, that Mr. Utley talks about, for these parts.

[LarryBnDC]

”After stoking fear of a Black uprising that would upend their way of life, endanger their women and bring about an unfathomable new American reality in which Black men—not white—governed, white city leaders pledged to “choke the current of the Cape Fear with carcasses” rather than allow Wilmington’s Black citizens to succeed, and lead.

When the carnage ended, more than 100 Black government officials—city councilmen, the city clerk, the treasurer, the city attorney and others—had been forced from their elected roles. Somewhere between 60 and 250 Black citizens were murdered.”


https://www.history.com/news/wilmington-massacre-1898-coup

Yeah - some detail surely missing from the accounts we read today

What was the aim of these black leaders in Wilmington?  What was their mantra?  By what pledges did THEY seek to rule?

Oh, Prunella!

[josh]

You strawmanned my response by saying Maher's comments were not banned or deleted.

It was a bullshit evasion of my point.

That you disagree with me, so the fuck what?

Larry's comments stifled, took the air out, deflected, whatever,

Too funny, Banks.

You simultaneously accuse folks of stifling by their attacks on Maher and then attack me as part of the made up "woke council," which I must be because I deny that Maher's words were stifled.

It wasn't a strawman argument --> you claimed it had been stifled. I responded based on what STIFLE means. You kept insisting you were right to say that.

Was it deflected?

Sure, in their posts as happens when we disagree with a comment, whether Maher, OAN, or (as just seen) History Channel.

Why people objected to Maher was spelled out.

You took issue with the claim that he's a libertarian.

Maher's words were provided to you, but you still want to claim he's a liberal. Even if you want to claim that he's a Rockefeller or Reagan "Democrat," that's still not liberal.

I do agree that Larry and others, myself included, took the air out of Maher's argument.

I'm glad you think so, too.

Josh you miss more points than imaginable.

Maher's opinion on "woke" should have been the topic discussed.

I could care less about his pot smoking....

The issue was woke, specifically Maher's 8 minute closing editorial,  that the woke here did not see, listen to or have the ability to discuss.

So it became lets attack Maher's past.

Because they could not deal with the facts at hand.

As Maher sugested in his editorial.

Josh-Go back to sleep.

I'm glad that you are anointed to determine what should or should not be the topic of conversation here.

The term "woke" has been discussed here, which has addressed the underlying issue, without regard to that specific speaker's specific editorial. I've now read a transcript of.



More than one poster has addressed that position, while you claim that Maher's comments have been stifled.

You complain about the attacks on Maher, while attacking me, repeatedly.

For all that this is a recent diatribe by Maher, it held nothing significantly new in his view of "woke" culture, Banks. There was nothing more worth discussing this time than the last time, in my opinion.

And while you claim to not give a fuck what my opinions are, you keep arguing with them - as you will with the ones I have expressed in this post, shockingly enough.

I care what your opinion is, Banks. You've adjusted your opinion about stifling and, as I said, I can accept "took the air out" as an apt phrase.

I will try to let this be my last words on the already overdone topic.

[kidcarter8]

I will try to let this be my last words on the already overdone topic.


heh

[Hamilton Samuels]

Back to Congress says SCOTUS:  https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2021/06/14/supreme-court-no-retroactive-sentence-change-small-crack-amounts/5277991001/

[bankshot1]

St Josh

I generally reply to posters who specifically address me.

And no one anointed me St Josh, I'm just a parrishioner.

But your saintlyness, I reserve the right to think you're full of shit and tell you why.

And I understand, dealing with fallability may not be pleasant

I look forward to this week's sermon as well as vetted topics that has been pre-approved by the council.

Bless you

[josh]

St Josh

I generally reply to posters who specifically address me.

And no one anointed me St Josh, I'm just a parrishioner.

But your saintlyness, I reserve the right to think you're full of shit and tell you why.

And I understand, dealing with fallability may not be pleasant

I look forward to this week's sermon as well as vetted topics that has been pre-approved by the council.

Bless you

Hahahahaha.

[Hamilton Samuels]

That you still don't understand what a strawman is doesn't surprise me.    But thank God you no longer feel compelled to call Bankshot a child molester.

Clearly, because banks has joined his anti Larry cabal.

Nope I just thought Utley asked a legit on topic question.

"You say 'legit on topic question'.  I say 'trolling and race-baiting'." (sung to the tune of "Let's Call the Whole Thing Off").

Of course you say that. That's a classic woke playbook strategy: attack anyone who questions the woke-notions derigueur!

That you still don't understand what a strawman is doesn't surprise me.    But thank God you no longer feel compelled to call Bankshot a child molester.

Clearly, because banks has joined his anti Larry cabal.

Nope I just thought Utley asked a legit on topic question.

"You say 'legit on topic question'.  I say 'trolling and race-baiting'." (sung to the tune of "Let's Call the Whole Thing Off").

Of course you say that. That's a classic woke playbook strategy: attack anyone who questions the woke-notions derigueur!

"Woke-notions derigueur!!!"  Now you're using one of them, there foreign dictionaries.  That you think you're entitled to the benefit of the doubt, that you actually wish to engage in serious, intellectual discourse, given your history here, is very amusing.  If you actually want to discuss these things, as I said earlier, you're probably better off going someplace where people don't think you're an asshole.

Back to the CoW playbook, I see.

Sad that you have to play such games. If only I was the only one you target this way, so be it, but you do it with several posters here.

Are hou trying to make up for something small in your life?

Or maybe it's what's happening in the Bronx that has you so unsettled that you wish to engage as such.

Whatever.

 

[Holly Martins]

I am, have, have, and don't and won't. Why should I? That one was not his first shallow little strawman and it will not be his last. Never found him funny or insightful. Now, wise persons with time and HBO not watching Last Week Tonight, that I find hard to fathom. Anyone who can make a 20 minute deep dive into Civil Asset Forfeiture informative and funny merits your attention.

Clearly, you have joined the Extremist Far Left Woke Anti-Bill Maher Pro-John Oliver Paternalistic Larry-Defending Strawman-Evoking Racist-Bashing De Rigueur Brigade! 

Only took me three times to spell "de rigueur" correctly.  Assuming that I finally did.  Which is by no means certain.  I don't subscribe to HBO, but I watch Oliver on YouTube with great regularity and much intellectual benefit.

[kidcarter8]

"Even North Korea is not this nuts, North Korea was pretty crazy, but not this crazy."



https://www.foxnews.com/us/north-korean-defector-ivy-league-nuts

After getting into a number of arguments with professors and students, eventually Yeonmi "learned how to just shut up" in order to maintain a good GPA and graduate.



Sad.

[Hamilton Samuels]

WASHINGTON (Reuters) -The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday asked President Joe Biden's administration to give its views on whether the justices should hear a challenge to Harvard University's consideration of race in undergraduate student admissions.

The case, should it be taken up by the court, would give the court's conservative majority a chance to end affirmative action policies used to increase the number of Black and Hispanic students on American campuses.

The action by the court signals the interest of at least some of the nine justices in considering an appeal brought by a group called Students for Fair Admissions, founded by anti-affirmative action activist Edward Blum, of a lower court ruling that upheld Harvard's program. The lawsuit accused Harvard of discriminating against Asian American applicants in violation of a landmark 1964 federal civil rights law.

The Supreme Court has a 6-3 conservative majority.

Blum said in a statement his group "remains hopeful that, regardless of the views of the (Biden administration's) solicitor general, the justices will grant to hear our case and end race-based affirmative action in college admissions."

Harvard declined to comment.

https://news.yahoo.com/u-supreme-court-seeks-biden-134400424.html

[kidcarter8]

St Josh

I generally reply to posters who specifically address me.

And no one anointed me St Josh, I'm just a parrishioner.

But your saintlyness, I reserve the right to think you're full of shit and tell you why.

And I understand, dealing with fallability may not be pleasant

I look forward to this week's sermon as well as vetted topics that has been pre-approved by the council.

Bless you

Hahahahaha.

shhhhhh...

[Yankguy1]

That you still don't understand what a strawman is doesn't surprise me.    But thank God you no longer feel compelled to call Bankshot a child molester.

Clearly, because banks has joined his anti Larry cabal.

Nope I just thought Utley asked a legit on topic question.

"You say 'legit on topic question'.  I say 'trolling and race-baiting'." (sung to the tune of "Let's Call the Whole Thing Off").

Of course you say that. That's a classic woke playbook strategy: attack anyone who questions the woke-notions derigueur!

That you still don't understand what a strawman is doesn't surprise me.    But thank God you no longer feel compelled to call Bankshot a child molester.

Clearly, because banks has joined his anti Larry cabal.

Nope I just thought Utley asked a legit on topic question.

"You say 'legit on topic question'.  I say 'trolling and race-baiting'." (sung to the tune of "Let's Call the Whole Thing Off").

Of course you say that. That's a classic woke playbook strategy: attack anyone who questions the woke-notions derigueur!

"Woke-notions derigueur!!!"  Now you're using one of them, there foreign dictionaries.  That you think you're entitled to the benefit of the doubt, that you actually wish to engage in serious, intellectual discourse, given your history here, is very amusing.  If you actually want to discuss these things, as I said earlier, you're probably better off going someplace where people don't think you're an asshole.

Back to the CoW playbook, I see.

Sad that you have to play such games. If only I was the only one you target this way, so be it, but you do it with several posters here.

Are hou trying to make up for something small in your life?

Or maybe it's what's happening in the Bronx that has you so unsettled that you wish to engage as such.

Whatever.

You're still here?