The hidden attack on whiteness
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
08-11-2014, 03:02 PM
RE: The hidden attack on whiteness
(03-11-2014 05:22 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(03-11-2014 04:40 PM)Spade=Spade Wrote:  Your statement must go through the same rigorous scrutiny that similar statements concerning other races go through. In this case, you claim to have the stats on your side, but then refuse to caveat your statement with those very stats.

Saying "white people are privileged" is NOT the same as saying "tall people are tall". For the statement to be valid, you must caveat it with stats. Instead of "white people are privileged", you would have to say "X percentage of white people in X part of the world are privileged (definition required)". If you fail to do this, you have made the same fallacy that someone saying "Muslims are terrorists" has made.

And here we see that no, you do not understand what whiteness is as a cultural phenomenon.
(as your dogshit analogy plainly demonstrates)
Ah the cuss words have come out. Is someone getting a bit upset that their argument has been dismantled?

(03-11-2014 05:22 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(03-11-2014 04:40 PM)Spade=Spade Wrote:  I never promised you one... And as a reminder of who made the initial claim chronologically...

This was your first direct response to me. It was made without prior claim or prompt. It is therefore incumbent on you to substantiate the claim.

You don't seem to understand how this works.

By explicitly referring to others' disagreement with you, you are evidently and necessarily making the claim that those arguments exist.
(you then elaborated by claiming that respondents in this thread had done so)

Once again, because you seem to either be dodging the point here, or slow to grasp it.

You engaged me, not the other way around. In the first post you made to me, you claimed (without reference to something that I had said) that no one "has ever" denied the existence of white stereotypes.

This point is false and you later realised that and have subsequently tried to shift focus by droning on about this thread.

It is a little bit embarrassing (for you) if we're being honest here. Is this really all you have left? A last ditch hope that you will catch me out on whether or not someone has denied white stereotypes in "this thread"??

An honest person, would have just said "you know what Spade, you're right. I didn't mean "literally no one" had denied the existence of white stereotypes (even though that is "literally" what I said)"... But no, not you. You just keep cracking those eggs on your face.

But ok - I'm feeling generous today.

Here is the type of thing I was referring to when I said there have been respondents in this thread who have denied this...

Michael_Tadlock Wrote:"What I want is compelling statistics that not only prove it is possible for whites to experience racism, but that whites are are experiencing racism...you have been stressing all long is that white people and racism are synonymous in our culture. You haven't provided evidence for this claim either. In my own experience as a white person I certainty do not feel the victim, so in an anecdotal way I have evidence against your conclusion"

So there's a citation for you - even though, (1) I was not obliged to provide one and (2) this issue is "minor" and "peripheral".

Might make your job of providing evidence for your claims that "literally no one has ever denied the existence of white stereotypes" a bit challenging eh?

Let me know when you find that evidence pal. I'll wait...

Strange - I still can't see how any of this is "the entire position" I am arguing for in my OP. You might need to go ahead and provide evidence for that claim too.... Otherwse, you know, it might seem a bit like an attempt at shifting the focus away from the ACTUAL position I am arguing for in my OP... I wonder why someone would shift the focus away from the OP??

(03-11-2014 05:22 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Recall, however, that your continued stance has involved a third premise:
3) Some people deny 1 and/or 2.
(with the corollary: some people in this thread deny 1 and/or 2)

This is the one I find very difficult to credit, particularly in light of the disingenuous evasion demonstrated above.

Hahaha.. Starting to look a lot more like focus shifting tactics. If you're not feeling embarrassed that you've been caught out, you should.

This 3rd "point" that you have added is dismissible. It is of no consequence to the OP and is a pretty obvious tactic to shift the focus away from a debate which you engaged me in but have been unable to win.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-11-2014, 03:44 PM
RE: The hidden attack on whiteness
(08-11-2014 03:02 PM)Spade=Spade Wrote:  
(03-11-2014 05:22 PM)cjlr Wrote:  And here we see that no, you do not understand what whiteness is as a cultural phenomenon.
(as your dogshit analogy plainly demonstrates)
Ah the cuss words have come out. Is someone getting a bit upset that their argument has been dismantled?

Oh, I'm sorry. This must be some strange parallel universe in which my argument has been "dismantled". What colour is the sky over there? At least you have the same cusswords.

Question: what is my "argument"? You have had great difficulty in the past making clear who and what you are addressing. I'd like to hear what you think you're talking to, and we can then compare it to what people actually said to see how close it is.

(08-11-2014 03:02 PM)Spade=Spade Wrote:  
(03-11-2014 05:22 PM)cjlr Wrote:  You don't seem to understand how this works.

By explicitly referring to others' disagreement with you, you are evidently and necessarily making the claim that those arguments exist.
(you then elaborated by claiming that respondents in this thread had done so)

Once again, because you seem to either be dodging the point here, or slow to grasp it.

You engaged me, not the other way around. In the first post you made to me, you claimed (without reference to something that I had said) that no one "has ever" denied the existence of white stereotypes.

You probably shouldn't have said people did, then.

(08-11-2014 03:02 PM)Spade=Spade Wrote:  This point is false and you later realised that and have subsequently tried to shift focus by droning on about this thread.

It is a little bit embarrassing (for you) if we're being honest here. Is this really all you have left? A last ditch hope that you will catch me out on whether or not someone has denied white stereotypes in "this thread"??

An honest person, would have just said "you know what Spade, you're right. I didn't mean "literally no one" had denied the existence of white stereotypes (even though that is "literally" what I said)"... But no, not you. You just keep cracking those eggs on your face.

While that makes for a cute little story, it is just one you made up. Misrepresentation is not really all that endearing, but by all means, carry on.

I had assumed you were capable of recognising context; that my comment, in this thread, was to be taken as referring to this thread. Apparently not. As such, I explicitly made it clear to you that that is what I had meant - not that you accepted that.

If you persist in choosing to interpret my statement as applying to every human interaction in all of time... no, I'm afraid that sort of transparent dishonesty is not going to make you many friends. By all means continue, but be aware that it's not particularly compelling.

(08-11-2014 03:02 PM)Spade=Spade Wrote:  But ok - I'm feeling generous today.

Here is the type of thing I was referring to when I said there have been respondents in this thread who have denied this...

You're feeling generous today? Well, then, I'm very happy for you. Not as happy as I would have been had you managed to find a citation weeks ago when I first asked you, but happy for you nonetheless. You've decided to substantiate a claim and engage in actual discussion, and that's a big step forwards.

(08-11-2014 03:02 PM)Spade=Spade Wrote:  
Michael_Tadlock Wrote:"What I want is compelling statistics that not only prove it is possible for whites to experience racism, but that whites are are experiencing racism...you have been stressing all long is that white people and racism are synonymous in our culture. You haven't provided evidence for this claim either. In my own experience as a white person I certainty do not feel the victim, so in an anecdotal way I have evidence against your conclusion"

So there's a citation for you...

It doesn't, in fact, say what you claim it does.

That's a slight problem for you.
(here's a hintSmile
(14-10-2014 05:31 PM)Michael_Tadlock Wrote:  I never said racism against whites cannot exist or even doesn't exist.

(08-11-2014 03:02 PM)Spade=Spade Wrote:  - even though, (1) I was not obliged to provide one

You're not obliged to do anything, but if you make ridiculous claims and are challenged on them, it's still good form to provide something.

(08-11-2014 03:02 PM)Spade=Spade Wrote:  and (2) this issue is "minor" and "peripheral".

It is the only remotely interesting thread you have pursued for the entire thread.

What else have you said? Racism is bad, mmmmkay? And you think that's profound, do you?

(08-11-2014 03:02 PM)Spade=Spade Wrote:  Might make your job of providing evidence for your claims that "literally no one has ever denied the existence of white stereotypes" a bit challenging eh?

Let me know when you find that evidence pal. I'll wait...

I really don't see how continually re-explaining to you how this is a pathetic mischaracterisation will accomplish anything. By all means, continue flogging a straw man. By all means, continue to convince yourself you are "dismantling" "arguments".

But no, I was not making the claim you so like to pretend I was. Alas, you refuse to admit this. That makes you painfully dishonest - but at least you're stubborn about it, which is totally a winning combination.

(08-11-2014 03:02 PM)Spade=Spade Wrote:  Strange - I still can't see how any of this is "the entire position" I am arguing for in my OP. You might need to go ahead and provide evidence for that claim too.... Otherwse, you know, it might seem a bit like an attempt at shifting the focus away from the ACTUAL position I am arguing for in my OP... I wonder why someone would shift the focus away from the OP??

Given the responses by Tartarus, ClydeLee, Impulse and others, to which I found your responses the same mix of simplistic and insufficient, no, there isn't much else to add to it specifically. But then, we could consider your subsequent responses to Rev or Michael, as well...

You see, friend, there was in fact a context to my remarks.
(and we might notice that Michael made the same remark I have many times - that you're very fond of arguing against things nobody in present company has ever said to you; he was a little more polite than I, but then, he's more indulgent that way - though he did plainly get tired of your brick wall responsiveness)

(08-11-2014 03:02 PM)Spade=Spade Wrote:  
(03-11-2014 05:22 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Recall, however, that your continued stance has involved a third premise:
3) Some people deny 1 and/or 2.
(with the corollary: some people in this thread deny 1 and/or 2)

This is the one I find very difficult to credit, particularly in light of the disingenuous evasion demonstrated above.

Hahaha.. Starting to look a lot more like focus shifting tactics. If you're not feeling embarrassed that you've been caught out, you should.

This 3rd "point" that you have added is dismissible. It is of no consequence to the OP and is a pretty obvious tactic to shift the focus away from a debate which you engaged me in but have been unable to win.

Ah - so you have not denied making it? Well, thanks for that much, I suppose.

Now, we might also consider that the OP does not exist in a vacuum. There are, as it happens, quite a few responses and follow-up posts. Would you not say that those - particularly those of yours - bear some relation?

Shall I reiterate? I don't find "RACISM BAD" exactly the kind of trivial statement deserving much reply. Much of what you've said is dismissible; much of the remainder receives the same reply it did when first you presented it: so what?

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes cjlr's post
08-11-2014, 09:17 PM (This post was last modified: 08-11-2014 10:03 PM by Spade=Spade.)
RE: The hidden attack on whiteness
cjlr Wrote:[quote='Spade=Spade' pid='681987' dateline='1415480528']
Once again, because you seem to either be dodging the point here, or slow to grasp it.
You engaged me, not the other way around. In the first post you made to me, you claimed (without reference to something that I had said) that no one "has ever" denied the existence of white stereotypes.

You probably shouldn't have said people did, then.
[/quote]

And yet another attempted sidestep.

A reminder of the sequence of events.

1) I assert my OP
2) You engage me and assert "no one has ever" denied the existence of white stereotypes.

Just to be clear, at this point, you did NOT yet say "in this thread".

The word "ever" is detrimental to your cause here pal.... You might be trying to sneakily change your tone to hide the egg on your face, but at the end of the day, there is no way around that word "ever"... "No one has EVER" denied the existence of white stereotypes you assert. Unfortunately for you, that word "ever" reveals what you were originally trying to say and which you are now trying so desperately to cover up.... If you made a mistake, just man up and admit it. Jeez.

(08-11-2014 03:44 PM)cjlr Wrote:  While that makes for a cute little story, it is just one you made up. Misrepresentation is not really all that endearing, but by all means, carry on.
the only "cute" aspect to our exchange is how you accuse me of "misrepresenting" you in one sentence and then so obviously misrepresent me in the next. More on this later.

(08-11-2014 03:44 PM)cjlr Wrote:  I had assumed you were capable of recognising context; that my comment, in this thread, was to be taken as referring to this thread. Apparently not. As such, I explicitly made it clear to you that that is what I had meant - not that you accepted that.
That word "ever" is what trips you up here.... "No one ever..." is NOT the same as "no one in this thread"

Again, I call on you to man up and admit you made a mistake.

(08-11-2014 03:44 PM)cjlr Wrote:  It doesn't, in fact, say what you claim it does.

That's a slight problem for you.
(here's a hintSmile

(14-10-2014 05:31 PM)Michael_Tadlock Wrote:  I never said racism against whites cannot exist or even doesn't exist.

The quote I referred to, shows someone demanding evidence for the existence of white stereotypes and providing anecdotal evidence against its existence.... That he also contradicts himself elsewhere does not falsify the existence of this initial quote.

So to be clear - the existence of white stereotypes HAVE been argued against in this thread.

And in anticipation of more dishonesty from you, I will sum up our exchange on this matter:

1) I assert my OP
2) You assert that "no one has ever" denied white stereotypes
3) I respond calling your assertion false

That's where it should have ended seeing that it is of no consequence to the OP.... But it seems we must debate at length on a "he said, she said" tangent. A deliberate attempt by you (it would seem) to shift focus away from the OP. Oh well.

(08-11-2014 03:44 PM)cjlr Wrote:  You're not obliged to do anything, but if you make ridiculous claims and are challenged on them, it's still good form to provide something.

Ridiculous claims like "literally no one has ever denied the existence of white stereotypes" eh?

;-)

(08-11-2014 03:44 PM)cjlr Wrote:  What else have you said? Racism is bad, mmmmkay? And you think that's profound, do you?
[/quote}

Ahh this leads me nicely back to misrepresentation. Remember earlier when I said you accuse me of misrepresenting you in one sentence and then misrepresent me yourself in the next? Well, here is one of many examples when you have done just that.

[quote='cjlr' pid='682000' dateline='1415483070']
I really don't see how continually re-explaining to you how this is a pathetic mischaracterisation will accomplish anything. By all means, continue flogging a straw man. By all means, continue to convince yourself you are "dismantling" "arguments".

But no, I was not making the claim you so like to pretend I was. Alas, you refuse to admit this. That makes you painfully dishonest - but at least you're stubborn about it, which is totally a winning combination.

You see, the difference between you and me is that when you accuse me of "mischaracterising" your assertions, I have used your EXACT words... When I accuse you of misrepresenting me, you take the liberty of writing words I never used like: "Racism is bad, mmmmkay".

See how that works?

(08-11-2014 03:44 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Given the responses by Tartarus, ClydeLee, Impulse and others, to which I found your responses the same mix of simplistic and insufficient, no, there isn't much else to add to it specifically. But then, we could consider your subsequent responses to Rev or Michael, as well...

You see, friend, there was in fact a context to my remarks.
(and we might notice that Michael made the same remark I have many times - that you're very fond of arguing against things nobody in present company has ever said to you; he was a little more polite than I, but then, he's more indulgent that way - though he did plainly get tired of your brick wall responsiveness)

Yawn...

Spade: white stereotypes exist and are overlooked
cjlr: So what?
Spade: Rotherham, England.
cjlr: hey where's that citation I asked for earlier on a mutually exclusive topic?!?!


(08-11-2014 03:44 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Shall I reiterate? I don't find "RACISM BAD" exactly the kind of trivial statement deserving much reply. Much of what you've said is dismissible; much of the remainder receives the same reply it did when first you presented it: so what?

Haha - what is that you were saying about misrepresenting eh? ;-)

Look dude, this exchange has become silly. We seem to agree on certain points but disagree to the extent they are a problem. That's pretty much all there is to say.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-11-2014, 11:09 AM
RE: The hidden attack on whiteness
(08-11-2014 09:17 PM)Spade=Spade Wrote:  Just to be clear, at this point, you did NOT yet say "in this thread".

The word "ever" is detrimental to your cause here pal.... You might be trying to sneakily change your tone to hide the egg on your face, but at the end of the day, there is no way around that word "ever"... "No one has EVER" denied the existence of white stereotypes you assert. Unfortunately for you, that word "ever" reveals what you were originally trying to say and which you are now trying so desperately to cover up.... If you made a mistake, just man up and admit it. Jeez.

There is a slight problem with that. Namely, that reality is not determined by your special little obstinate feels.

You see, I've explained to you what I meant, and the context I assumed would be clear from my remarks.

You persist in denying it. Why you think it productive to tell me that I don't know what I meant by my words I cannot begin to imagine. That even now you steadfastly reject my consistent explanation in favour of your personal delusions is not doing much to anyone's estimation of you.

(08-11-2014 09:17 PM)Spade=Spade Wrote:  
(08-11-2014 03:44 PM)cjlr Wrote:  I had assumed you were capable of recognising context; that my comment, in this thread, was to be taken as referring to this thread. Apparently not. As such, I explicitly made it clear to you that that is what I had meant - not that you accepted that.
That word "ever" is what trips you up here.... "No one ever..." is NOT the same as "no one in this thread"

Again, I call on you to man up and admit you made a mistake.

I told you what I meant. I had originally assumed you capable of parsing context, but you were not. You would rather swear up and down that you somehow "know" what I "meant" even when explicitly corrected.

Why do you keep doing this? I must say, I am at a total loss.

(08-11-2014 09:17 PM)Spade=Spade Wrote:  The quote I referred to, shows someone demanding evidence for the existence of white stereotypes and providing anecdotal evidence against its existence.... That he also contradicts himself elsewhere does not falsify the existence of this initial quote.

So to be clear - the existence of white stereotypes HAVE been argued against in this thread.

Your insisting that that is what he "said" is, in a word, dismissible. That is not how I read his remarks.

Given your utter inability to honestly confront what I've said, I see no reason to give your interpretations of anyone else's words any credence whatsoever.

(08-11-2014 09:17 PM)Spade=Spade Wrote:  That's where it should have ended seeing that it is of no consequence to the OP.... But it seems we must debate at length on a "he said, she said" tangent. A deliberate attempt by you (it would seem) to shift focus away from the OP. Oh well.

Your OP's been plenty covered, not that you've responded to the comments raised.

(08-11-2014 09:17 PM)Spade=Spade Wrote:  
(08-11-2014 03:44 PM)cjlr Wrote:  What else have you said? Racism is bad, mmmmkay? And you think that's profound, do you?

Ahh this leads me nicely back to misrepresentation. Remember earlier when I said you accuse me of misrepresenting you in one sentence and then misrepresent me yourself in the next? Well, here is one of many examples when you have done just that.

Oh? That's misrepresentation?

You must not think racism is bad, then? I'm sorry for misinterpreting you. I had thought that you had expressed that sentiment. I see now I was mistaken.

(08-11-2014 09:17 PM)Spade=Spade Wrote:  You see, the difference between you and me is that when you accuse me of "mischaracterising" your assertions, I have used your EXACT words... When I accuse you of misrepresenting me, you take the liberty of writing words I never used like: "Racism is bad, mmmmkay".

See how that works?

I did not say it was an exact quote. Do you understand what paraphrasing means?
(it's not particularly my problem if you don't, but you should probably look it up some time)

More to the point, do you agree or disagree with the sentiment? If you agree, it is not mischaracterisation.

See how that works?

(08-11-2014 09:17 PM)Spade=Spade Wrote:  
(08-11-2014 03:44 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Given the responses by Tartarus, ClydeLee, Impulse and others, to which I found your responses the same mix of simplistic and insufficient, no, there isn't much else to add to it specifically. But then, we could consider your subsequent responses to Rev or Michael, as well...

You see, friend, there was in fact a context to my remarks.
(and we might notice that Michael made the same remark I have many times - that you're very fond of arguing against things nobody in present company has ever said to you; he was a little more polite than I, but then, he's more indulgent that way - though he did plainly get tired of your brick wall responsiveness)

Yawn...

Spade: white stereotypes exist and are overlooked
cjlr: So what?
Spade: Rotherham, England.
cjlr: hey where's that citation I asked for earlier on a mutually exclusive topic?!?!

Excellent evasion, sirrah. Excellent evasion indeed.

(08-11-2014 09:17 PM)Spade=Spade Wrote:  Look dude, this exchange has become silly. We seem to agree on certain points but disagree to the extent they are a problem. That's pretty much all there is to say.

That, plus your nonsensical cavalcade of idiotic straw men.

I mean, it's really that part that I have a problem with. Try to do less of that from now on, and we'll get along much better, I promise.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes cjlr's post
09-11-2014, 12:59 PM
RE: The hidden attack on whiteness
(09-11-2014 11:09 AM)cjlr Wrote:  There is a slight problem with that. Namely, that reality is not determined by your special little obstinate feels.

You see, I've explained to you what I meant, and the context I assumed would be clear from my remarks.

You persist in denying it. Why you think it productive to tell me that I don't know what I meant by my words I cannot begin to imagine. That even now you steadfastly reject my consistent explanation in favour of your personal delusions is not doing much to anyone's estimation of you.

The slight problem is this:

1) You claim first the "literally no one has ever" denied the existence of white stereotypes
2) You then claim that this is the "entire position" I am arguing for.
3) You then change you claim in (1) to "no one in this thread"

The problem is that (2) is not compatible with (3)... Ever heard of not being able to have your cake and eat it? Well, you can't have your cake and eat it.

I was hoping you would simply man up and admit your mistakes, but by all means, keep squirming. Thumbsup

(09-11-2014 11:09 AM)cjlr Wrote:  I told you what I meant. I had originally assumed you capable of parsing context, but you were not. You would rather swear up and down that you somehow "know" what I "meant" even when explicitly corrected.

Why do you keep doing this? I must say, I am at a total loss.

More adapting, more squirming...

As a reminder, you claimed the following:

1) Literally no one has ever denied the existence of white stereotypes
2) This is the entire position I am arguing against
3) Literally no one in this thread is what you meant in (1).

You adapt your argument as soon as it is dismantled.... In this case, your argument has been reduced to: "The entire position Spade is arguing against is that literally no one has ever denied the existence white stereotypes... in this thread".

Kinda embarrassing for you I can imagine, but I guess that's the risk you take when you adopt an overly certain tone and then dig yourself into a hole.

(09-11-2014 11:09 AM)cjlr Wrote:  Your insisting that that is what he "said" is, in a word, dismissible. That is not how I read his remarks.
How you read his remarks is irrelevant. It was MY response to you which you claimed needed a citation, and therefore it is how I read his remarks which count... And I read them to be challenging the existence of white stereotypes. That he contradicts himself elsewhere is incidental.


(09-11-2014 11:09 AM)cjlr Wrote:  Your OP's been plenty covered, not that you've responded to the comments raised.

Hmmm, well let's see...

- Your initial response to the OP "so what?" was met with the Rotherham rape scandal report

- Your assertion that "whites are privileged" was shown to neither justify nor invalidate the existence of white stereotypes

- Your petty demands for a citation on the back of a claim you made were both satisfied and scrutinised revealing your dishonesty. (remember "in this thread" is incompatible with "entire position I am arguing for")

(09-11-2014 11:09 AM)cjlr Wrote:  Oh? That's misrepresentation?

You must not think racism is bad, then? I'm sorry for misinterpreting you. I had thought that you had expressed that sentiment. I see now I was mistaken.
Haha - you have stooped pretty low. An obvious false dichotomy. Is that really all you have left? You should rather just quit while you're behind pal.

But what the hell, I'll play ball... I'm enjoying this.. Tongue

I did NOT say (1) "Racism is bad mmmmkay" and I (2) do NOT think that racism is a good thing. Your straw man in (1) is a juvenile attempt to undermine what I actually did say by making it seem simplistic and obvious. Your false dichotomy in (2) is a transparent attempt to manipulate my position.... But you knew that already, didn't you? Laugh out load


(09-11-2014 11:09 AM)cjlr Wrote:  I did not say it was an exact quote. Do you understand what paraphrasing means?
(it's not particularly my problem if you don't, but you should probably look it up some time)

More to the point, do you agree or disagree with the sentiment? If you agree, it is not mischaracterisation.

See how that works?
I did not say that you said it was an exact quote. I said that when you misrepresent me, you take the liberty of using word I did not use which is contrast to what I do when you accuse me of misrepresenting you which is that I use your exact words...

Protip: Try the copy and paste function on your computer sometime. It might save you embarrassment in future.

(09-11-2014 11:09 AM)cjlr Wrote:  That, plus your nonsensical cavalcade of idiotic straw men.

I mean, it's really that part that I have a problem with. Try to do less of that from now on, and we'll get along much better, I promise.

Haha that's rich coming from the guy who described my OP as "racism is bad, mmmmkay"

Drinking Beverage
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-11-2014, 02:58 PM
RE: The hidden attack on whiteness
(09-11-2014 12:59 PM)Spade=Spade Wrote:  
(09-11-2014 11:09 AM)cjlr Wrote:  There is a slight problem with that. Namely, that reality is not determined by your special little obstinate feels.

You see, I've explained to you what I meant, and the context I assumed would be clear from my remarks.

You persist in denying it. Why you think it productive to tell me that I don't know what I meant by my words I cannot begin to imagine. That even now you steadfastly reject my consistent explanation in favour of your personal delusions is not doing much to anyone's estimation of you.

The slight problem is this:

1) You claim first the "literally no one has ever" denied the existence of white stereotypes
2) You then claim that this is the "entire position" I am arguing for.
3) You then change you claim in (1) to "no one in this thread"

The problem is that (2) is not compatible with (3)... Ever heard of not being able to have your cake and eat it? Well, you can't have your cake and eat it.

I was hoping you would simply man up and admit your mistakes, but by all means, keep squirming. Thumbsup

Indeed.

Well; if my repeated explanation of my own comments is completely disregarded, then yes, I suppose your interpretation might stand.

(09-11-2014 12:59 PM)Spade=Spade Wrote:  
(09-11-2014 11:09 AM)cjlr Wrote:  I told you what I meant. I had originally assumed you capable of parsing context, but you were not. You would rather swear up and down that you somehow "know" what I "meant" even when explicitly corrected.

Why do you keep doing this? I must say, I am at a total loss.

More adapting, more squirming...

As a reminder, you claimed the following:

1) Literally no one has ever denied the existence of white stereotypes
2) This is the entire position I am arguing against
3) Literally no one in this thread is what you meant in (1).

You adapt your argument as soon as it is dismantled.... In this case, your argument has been reduced to: "The entire position Spade is arguing against is that literally no one has ever denied the existence white stereotypes... in this thread".

Kinda embarrassing for you I can imagine, but I guess that's the risk you take when you adopt an overly certain tone and then dig yourself into a hole.

I'm still not seeing where your version of my words should take precedence over mine, but whatever floats your boat.

As such this conversation is clearly pointless. You refuse to listen to others.

(09-11-2014 12:59 PM)Spade=Spade Wrote:  
(09-11-2014 11:09 AM)cjlr Wrote:  Your insisting that that is what he "said" is, in a word, dismissible. That is not how I read his remarks.
How you read his remarks is irrelevant. It was MY response to you which you claimed needed a citation, and therefore it is how I read his remarks which count... And I read them to be challenging the existence of white stereotypes. That he contradicts himself elsewhere is incidental.

You're free to think that's what he meant. And I'm free to say I don't think that's what he meant. Unless and until he clarifies for himself, we won't know with any certainty.

Given your inability to acknowledge my own statements, I am not optimistic that even an explicit statement from Michael - to clarify what he meant by his words - would cause you to change your mind about what he clearly "meant" to you.

(09-11-2014 12:59 PM)Spade=Spade Wrote:  
(09-11-2014 11:09 AM)cjlr Wrote:  Your OP's been plenty covered, not that you've responded to the comments raised.

Hmmm, well let's see...

- Your initial response to the OP "so what?" was met with the Rotherham rape scandal report

- Your assertion that "whites are privileged" was shown to neither justify nor invalidate the existence of white stereotypes

- Your petty demands for a citation on the back of a claim you made were both satisfied and scrutinised revealing your dishonesty. (remember "in this thread" is incompatible with "entire position I am arguing for")

You, uh... you don't engage much with reality, do you?

(09-11-2014 12:59 PM)Spade=Spade Wrote:  
(09-11-2014 11:09 AM)cjlr Wrote:  Oh? That's misrepresentation?

You must not think racism is bad, then? I'm sorry for misinterpreting you. I had thought that you had expressed that sentiment. I see now I was mistaken.
Haha - you have stooped pretty low. An obvious false dichotomy. Is that really all you have left? You should rather just quit while you're behind pal.

I'm being rather sarcastic, because I find you tedious.

If you agree with it, it's not mischaracterisation. Because that's what words mean.

If I say you expressed a sentiment which you do in fact affirm, that is not mischaracterisation.

Declaring it to be so is just so much more inanity from you.

(09-11-2014 12:59 PM)Spade=Spade Wrote:  But what the hell, I'll play ball... I'm enjoying this.. Tongue

I did NOT say (1) "Racism is bad mmmmkay" and I (2) do NOT think that racism is a good thing. Your straw man in (1) is a juvenile attempt to undermine what I actually did say by making it seem simplistic and obvious. Your false dichotomy in (2) is a transparent attempt to manipulate my position.... But you knew that already, didn't you? Laugh out load

I like the part where you seem to know what I was thinking even when I say otherwise.

Reading minds is a very special talent. You should share that gift with the world, my friend.

(09-11-2014 12:59 PM)Spade=Spade Wrote:  
(09-11-2014 11:09 AM)cjlr Wrote:  I did not say it was an exact quote. Do you understand what paraphrasing means?
(it's not particularly my problem if you don't, but you should probably look it up some time)

More to the point, do you agree or disagree with the sentiment? If you agree, it is not mischaracterisation.

See how that works?
I did not say that you said it was an exact quote. I said that when you misrepresent me, you take the liberty of using word I did not use which is contrast to what I do when you accuse me of misrepresenting you which is that I use your exact words...

Protip: Try the copy and paste function on your computer sometime. It might save you embarrassment in future.

So you're going to double down on accusing me of misrepresenting you, by way of saying you agreed with something you do, in fact, agree with.

Well; that's special.

(09-11-2014 12:59 PM)Spade=Spade Wrote:  
(09-11-2014 11:09 AM)cjlr Wrote:  That, plus your nonsensical cavalcade of idiotic straw men.

I mean, it's really that part that I have a problem with. Try to do less of that from now on, and we'll get along much better, I promise.

Haha that's rich coming from the guy who described my OP as "racism is bad, mmmmkay"

Drinking Beverage

Oh? Do let me know what else of substance was there.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes cjlr's post
10-11-2014, 03:20 PM (This post was last modified: 10-11-2014 03:30 PM by Spade=Spade.)
RE: The hidden attack on whiteness
(09-11-2014 02:58 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Indeed.

Well; if my repeated explanation of my own comments is completely disregarded, then yes, I suppose your interpretation might stand.
Your "explanation" so far has been that you meant everyone "in this thread".

The problem that I keep pointing out to you but that you are yet to comprehend, it would seem, is that "in this thread" is not compatible with "the entire position I am arguing".

You have amended your claim of "literally no one ever" to "no one in this thread"... I am now asking you if you will take back your claim that this was the "entire position I was arguing"??... Because, you know, it would be silly to honestly suggest that the entire position I was arguing against is that no one in this thread has denied the existence of white stereotypes.

(09-11-2014 02:58 PM)cjlr Wrote:  I'm still not seeing where your version of my words should take precedence over mine, but whatever floats your boat.

As such this conversation is clearly pointless. You refuse to listen to others.
This conversation has been pointless for a while... Because, you know, it is minor and peripheral.

(09-11-2014 02:58 PM)cjlr Wrote:  You're free to think that's what he meant. And I'm free to say I don't think that's what he meant. Unless and until he clarifies for himself, we won't know with any certainty.
Perhaps he did mean something other than I thought... But that doesn't change the fact that I had a basis for claiming that there have been responses in this thread which have challenged the existence of white stereotypes.

(09-11-2014 02:58 PM)cjlr Wrote:  If you agree with it, it's not mischaracterisation. Because that's what words mean.

If I say you expressed a sentiment which you do in fact affirm, that is not mischaracterisation.
More sidesteppery..... You described my OP as "racism is bad mmmmkay" and are now trying to claim that you are not misrepresenting my OP if I agree that "racism is bad".... Why don't you just describe the OP "grass is green" and then declare it accurate if I agree that grass is green?

(09-11-2014 02:58 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Oh? Do let me know what else of substance was there.

If, after 20 odd pages of discussion, you are unable to distinguish the difference between the OP and "racism is bad", then you will probably never be able to. You sure did argue at length on a topic you perceived to be as simple as "racism is bad"... Makes one wonder if you're being totally honest here, doesn't it? Consider
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-11-2014, 03:33 PM (This post was last modified: 10-11-2014 03:48 PM by cjlr.)
RE: The hidden attack on whiteness
(10-11-2014 03:20 PM)Spade=Spade Wrote:  You have amended your claim of "literally no one ever" to "no one in this thread"... I am now asking you if you will take back your claim that this was the "entire position I was arguing"??... Because, you know, it would be silly to honestly suggest that the entire position I was arguing against is that no one in this thread has denied the existence of white stereotypes.

You're insisting I modify my claim from one thing I didn't actually claim to another thing I didn't actually claim?

And you think that's productive?

Champ, you lost track of what I was saying a long time ago. You've done it to everyone in the thread. However fun you might find it to talk to phantasms, don't expect anyone else to find it compelling.

(10-11-2014 03:20 PM)Spade=Spade Wrote:  Perhaps he did mean something other than I thought... But that doesn't change the fact that I had a basis for claiming that there have been responses in this thread which have challenged the existence of white stereotypes.

I have yet to see any responses in this thread which have challenged the existence of white stereotypes.

None whatsoever. But man, oh man, you certainly tried to dance around substantiating that claim.

(10-11-2014 03:20 PM)Spade=Spade Wrote:  If, after 20 odd pages of discussion, you are unable to distinguish the difference between the OP and "racism is bad", then you will probably never be able to. You sure did argue at length on a topic you perceived to be as simple as "racism is bad"... Makes one wonder if you're being totally honest here, doesn't it? Consider

You're a stubborn little guy, eh?

I shall make this explicit one more time, because you apparently haven't bothered processing any of those pages of "discussion". I find that the part of your OP and subsequent claims that is reasonable. I find your repeated insistence that white stereotypes are denied to be farcical. There; do you understand the difference?

I dunno; given that everybody else who's tried talking to you has given up, I clearly ought to have done the same a while ago.

Bonus round for context:
(12-10-2014 09:40 AM)Michael_Tadlock Wrote:  When did I say anything even remotely similar? Again, who are you arguing with?

(14-10-2014 03:25 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  You seem fine with asserting what everyone else means in a way that's to your benefit.. That's typical behavior of trolls here.

(15-10-2014 03:20 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  I've directly stated my position in times you've asked prior. You've either ignored it in posts or stated I output some underlying meaning.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-11-2014, 04:18 PM
RE: The hidden attack on whiteness
(10-11-2014 03:33 PM)cjlr Wrote:  I dunno; given that everybody else who's tried talking to you has given up, I clearly ought to have done the same a while ago.

[Image: 1.gif]

“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man’s reasoning powers are not above the monkey’s.”~Mark Twain
“Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.”~ Ambrose Bierce
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Full Circle's post
10-11-2014, 04:45 PM
RE: The hidden attack on whiteness
(10-11-2014 03:33 PM)cjlr Wrote:  You're insisting I modify my claim from one thing I didn't actually claim to another thing I didn't actually claim?

And you think that's productive?
Wow... I didn't think you would resort to just plain lying, but I guess I gave you too much credit.

The thing you now deny claiming was... your EXACT words and the other thing you now deny claiming was (you guessed it)... your EXACT words.

Perhaps this will refresh your memory:

The first claim you now say you never actually made...
(10-11-2014 03:33 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
Spade=Spade Wrote:- Stereotypes of any kind have been shown to be dangerous and lower quality of life. That principle doesn't change when the colour of the stereotype is white. Why would it?
Remember when I offered you my response to this, ah, stunning revelation?

If you've forgotten, it was so what?, because, you know, literally no one has denied this. Thanks.

The other claim you now say you never actually made...
(10-11-2014 03:33 PM)cjlr Wrote:  my comment, in this thread, was to be taken as referring to this thread

PS: I had to look hard for that first quote seeing as you have now deleted the other one... Thought I wouldn't notice eh? Laughat

(10-11-2014 03:33 PM)cjlr Wrote:  I shall make this explicit one more time, because you apparently haven't bothered processing any of those pages of "discussion". I find that the part of your OP and subsequent claims that is reasonable. I find your repeated insistence that white stereotypes are denied to be farcical. There; do you understand the difference?
I'm reminded of the expression "Never wrestle with a pig. You both get dirty but the pig likes it."... You're the pig in this analogy by the way.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: