Good evening and good morning…
I tried so hard to get to the office and the keyboard last night to complete the Warm-Up, but video shooting, exhaustion and sick dog complications made it impossible. I don’t know if slow and steady win anything, but they do make progress…
1. Racist comments poll results: I’m surprised. The overwhelming majority—about 92%— is anti-racist comment censorship. Let’s read the one in question, and tell me if it makes you rethink your vote. How much stuff like this do you want to read?
but ethics..?…in general, doesn’t the word, ‘ethics’ pertain to – things that are helpful or things that are helps or a thing or things that help and/or are helpful ? You can call me a racist, if you like but I don’t hate niggers because of the color of their skin – isn’t that what a racist is ? oh no, no, no, no, no, contraire mon frere…l hate niggers like I hate stepping in shit, as I’m apt to slip and fall and hurt myself. I would have to strongly disagree about your terming of chimpmania and other similar sites as being, ‘unethical’ – chimpmania – specifically, helped me to make my decision, in regards to staying as far and wide and clear and away from niggers, as I possibly can. Whether you can comprehend or not : I’ve seen enough – visually, first-hand to know better than to have anything to do with them. I don’t hate niggers because they’re black, l hate niggers because they’re niggers – my daddy didn’t teach me to hate niggers – niggers taught me to hate niggers. And let me clue you in on the simplest of FACTS about niggers…they come in all shapes and sizes and colors and disguises.
I live in a city that’s 89% White and 4% black and the rest ? – whatever the hell else. Now, which do you think the ethnic group or racial group is that supplies the greatest number of niggers in this city – blacks ? nope… …you figure it out and yes I AM a WhytAy !
- What do you learn from this?
- Is it fruitful or worth the time to rebut it?
- Does a comment like this contribute anything to public discourse or comprehension of relevant issues?
- Do you want someone capable of writing this to be participating in other discussions?
2. Ethics Dunce: Jimmy Carter. Yes, the former President decided to choose now to announce that Presient Trump would not have been elected without Russian interference. “There’s no doubt that the Russians did interfere in the election, and I think the interference, although not yet quantified, if fully investigated, would show that Trump didn’t actually win the election in 2016,” Jimmy said. Jimmy is and has always been something of an arrogant jerk. “Although not yet questioned” is a euphemism for ” there is no evidence of this whatsoever, but I believe it anyway.” It is exactly as valid a statement as the President’s statement that illegal immigrant votes cost him the popular vote, which is to say that it has no validity at all. Yet look at all my Facebook friends and yours, citing the failed President as proof that Big Lie #2, “Trump is not a legitimate President” isn’t a lie after all.
This is not just appeal to authority, a logical fallacy, but appeal to a proven-unreliable authority, a stupid logical fallacy. Jimmy’s various fact-free pronouncements since his ejection from the white House by Ronald Reagan have been marked by their fealty to confirmation bias. My favorite was his conclusion that he has been the most accomplished ex-President in U.S. history. William Howard Taft (who went on to be Chief Justice of the Supreme Court), John Quincy Adams (who had brilliant career in the House of Representatives after he lost to Jackson), and Herbert Hoover, whose humanitarian accomplishments post-Presidency dwarfed Carter’s, would beg to differ.
3. Fake news, Fake history, fake journalism. The Associated Press’s story on last night’s Democratic presidential debate is now accompanied by this correction:
In a story June 27 about the Democratic presidential debate, The Associated Press reported erroneously in some versions that former Vice President Joe Biden worked with Republican segregationist senators. In fact, the senators were Democrats.
A mere correction doesn’t begin to address the problem here. The two Senators Biden had referenced were James O. Eastland of Mississippi and Herman E. Talmadge of Georgia, both Southern Democrats and virulent segregationists. They were also powerful Senators and famously anti-black. Why would two AP reporters assume they were Republicans and publish that as a false fact? Well, a) because they are as bigoted against Republicans as those Senators were against blacks; b) because they are incompetent reporters who don’t have the sense, competence or professionalism to check their facts; c) because they are ignorant of U.S. history, political history, and anything that occurred before the last Bush Administration, or, as John Hindermaker hypothesizes, perhaps d) they deliberately “keep saying ‘Republica’” on purpose, in order to smear the Republican party and to confuse readers into thinking that segregationism was a bipartisan phenomenon.”
4. In the category of a complaint about inaccuracy that literally nobody cares about or should, here’s Deadspin’s Nick Lund, either desperate for a post or certifiably insane, writing, “If a fan is going to wear a bird on their hat, we should make sure the bird is depicted accurately, right?” Wrong. Logos are works of art, not realism, and everybody knows that, at least everyone for Nick. He actually had an illustrator fix the logos so the birds were “correct.” Like here, with the Toronto Blue Jays logo, with the “improved” logo on the right:
5. Why does Rep. Omar continue to get a pass from the mainstream media? She’s a walking scandal. Read all of “The Spectator’s” account, but here is enough to demonstrate hwo extreme this story is…
In 2016, Omar told the Minneapolis Star-Tribune that she had married Ahmed Abdisalan Hirsi (Husband 1) in their Muslim ‘faith tradition’ in 2002, and that after having two children, they divorced in their ‘faith tradition’ in 2008. No marriage certificate was issued, and there is no documentary evidence for the divorce.
In 2009, Omar married a Somali immigrant to Britain named Ahmed Nur Said Elmi (Husband 2) in a weddingin an unglamorous suburban state registry. The officiator was a Christian minister named Wilecia Harris, now a pastor at the Great and Mighty Works Ministries in Richfield, Minn.
And here’s the wedding certificate:
It’s possible that Wilecia Harris might have performed only a civil ceremony, which would suffice under Minnesota law. It’s possible that Omar and Elmi didn’t know the officiant was a Christian minister. Still, given that Omar was and is a proponent of her ‘faith tradition’, it’s strange that she seems not to have consecrated her second marriage according to Islamic law or Somali tradition. The full certificate also shows that, despite Omar’s ‘faith tradition’, the couple seem to have been cohabiting before their marriage
Omar refuses to answer questionsas to when and how she happened to meet a British subject, or why she married him so soon after separating from the father of her children. Then again, she didn’t separate that much from Husband 1. Documents released on Monday seem to show that she and Husband 1 were living together in Minneapolis at the time of her marriage to Husband 2. And when Omar and Husband 2 went to college in Fargo at North Dakota State University, Husband 1 came too. That must have made for some awkward silences at the breakfast table.
According to Omar, Husband 2 went back to London in 2011 after a ‘faith-based’ divorce. But according to Alpha News, screenshots from Husband 2’s social media show him living in Minneapolis as late as August 2012. In the same year, she had a third child with Husband 1 and turned Husband 1 into Husband 3 with, she has claimed, another ‘faith tradition’ marriage. Regardless of the ‘faith tradition’ divorce from Husband 2, she was still legally married to him in civil law. Unwittingly or not, she was, as Ben Goldfarb admitted in 2016, now married to two people at the same time.
Omar has sworn that she didn’t legally divorce Husband 2 until 2017 because she couldn’t get in touch with him. Apart from being an admission that she knew she was still legally married to him when she made her second ‘faith tradition’ marriage with Husband 1 and 3 in 2012, this is implausible. Now-deleted postings appear to show that Omar went to London in 2014, and that she and Elmi (Husband 2) were in touch on social media. And this week, new evidence discovered by investigative journalist David Steinberg appears to show that Husband 2 was in Nairobi from December 2012 — and that he was in contact with Omar’s sister.
The nature of Omar’s relationship to Husband 2 is clouded by as-yet unsubstantiated allegations of double marriage and immigration fraud, which Omar has consistently denied. In 2016, an anonymous writer posted photos on a Somali site alleging that Husband 2 is Omar’s brother. The post and a cached copy have both been deleted, and Spectator USA cannot verify them independently, but Scott Johnson of Powerline took copies:
The posting includes photographs that appear to disprove Omar’s claim that she couldn’t divorce Husband 2 because she didn’t know where he was. The posting also claims that Husband 2 refers on social media to Omar children by Husband 1 & 3 as his ‘nieces and nephews’, that his and Omar’s father is called Nur Said Omar, and that her marriage to Husband 2 was false and bigamous:
‘A look at her social media accounts proves that at no point were her and Ahmed Hirsi [Husband 1 and 3] living apart,’ the anonymous poster to Somali Spot wrote, ‘nor was she ever in any other relationship. They have always been a couple, even when she was legally married to Ahmed Nur Said Elmi [Husband 2].’ On Sunday, the Washington Examiner published what it described as ‘dozens of documents’ proving, the Examiner claims, that Omar was living with Husband 1 (Hirsi) while married to Husband 2 (Elmi).
Records already unearthed by David Steinberg appear to confirm that one ‘Ahmed N. Elmi’ studied at Arlington Senior High School in St Paul, MN. This Ahmed N. Elmi has the same birth date as the ‘Ahmed N. Elmi’ listed on Ilhan Omar’s marriage certificate of 2008 and divorce papers of 2017. Several of his classmates confirmed to Steinberg that the father of Ahmed N. Elmi the high schooler was called Nur Said Elmi Mohamed — the same name as a name used by Ilhan Omar’s father.
Questioned by Alpha News, Husband 2 in London didn’t deny that he had attended high school in St Paul, MN. Meanwhile, his online profile included his degree from North Dakota State University. So there can be no doubt that Ahmed Elmi the high schooler is the same Ahmed Elmi who married Ilhan Omar — and who now claims not to know her at all.
It’s impossible to read this mounting pile of credible evidence without wondering if Ilhan Omar was, perhaps unknowingly, implicated in education and immigration fraud, and whether, perhaps unknowingly, she was married to two men at the same time. So Cockburn can understand why questions have been raised about Omar’s domestic arrangements by investigators like Scott Johnson of Powerline; Preya Samsundar (now a GOP strategist) and Christine Baumann, formerly of Alpha News; and David Steinberg, formerly of PJ Media.
Cockburn can’t understand why Omar refuses to engage directly with these accusations of immigration fraud. For three years, websites have implied that she knowingly entered a false and even incestuous marriage, possibly for immigration and educational fraud. If the accusations are false, she could sue for defamation. Instead, she pretends that the accusations don’t exist — just as she pretends not to hear questions about her Minneapolis ward being a hotspot of terrorist recruitment. But they do exist, and the emails and documents Cockburn has seen suggest that Omar and her team know that at least some of the accusations may be true
Omar’s campaign finance irregularities — and perhaps also advance information about further releases of damaging evidence — seem to have woken the Strib from its slumbers. Earlier this month, the editorial board noted that filing false tax returns is against the law. It also described the entire issue as ‘worthy of greater scrutiny’. It certainly is, and one of the questions worthy of scrutiny is why the Strib took so long to address a scandal on its own doorstep, and why it allowed itself to be ‘shut down’ in the first place…
48 thoughts on “Two-Day Ethics Catch-Up/Warm-Up, 6/28/19 and 6/29/19: Racists, Bigamy, And Jimmy Carter”
Based on comments by a Ugandan friend, gaming the government is the national pastime in African nations. It’s a great deal of fun and, when done on a brazenly large scale, extremely profitable. I’m sure the Twin Cities are better places because of this wonderful gift diversity has visited upon them.
Ooops. Above references no. 5 above.
2. There are times I think Billy Carter would have made a better president than his nuclear engineer brother.
4. Clearly, all sports teams should adopt James Audubon renderings for their logos. won’t that be great?Just scrap those St. Louis Cardinals jerseys with the cardinals perched on a bat (arguably the neatest uniforms in all of sport) and replace them with a correct oil by James. Perfect. The players can stop wearing gloves and play with mushballs as well. And all wear handlebar mustaches.
I thought the article was meant to be tongue-in-cheek. As something of an animal nut, I can’t help but notice inaccurate species portrayals, and I found these “fixes” amusing. (Ever notice how cartoon crows and ravens usually have yellow beaks instead of black, what’s UP with that?)
Probably largely the same reason Mickey Mouse has a white or flesh-colored face: easier to animate the facial expressions.
“Clearly, all sports teams should adopt James Audubon renderings for their logos. won’t that be great?”
“Badgers? Badgers? We don’t need no stinking Badgers!”
Tell that to this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CyrdQdg53g8&list=PL5GHhmfgI1L5JioAyx264BxlEasZbQ_iP&index=1Guy!
We can post videos again? I’ll try!
Honey Badge(r) is a Bad @$$!
Great line. Today the same ones would say visas we don’t need no stinkin visas.
I voted for “only in exceptional cases”. This comment, was…not what I’d call exceptional. On the other hand, one of the things I’ve missed since the drop in traffic was seeing foolish drive-by commenters getting schooled by you or one of the regulars.
Very much so. It provokes discussion, and lots of eye-rolling that is hard to present in text,
I didn’t learn much from that aside from the interesting idea that thw N-word looks to be shifting in its usage and meaning, even as it is not being recorded by more considerate commentaters. Here’s the phrase of the rant that caught my attention: ‘they come in all shapes and sizes and colors and disguises.’ To me that seems a clear indicator the insult is shifting away from racially based, to something more attitude/behavior one. That seems to confirm with hows blacks use the term about jerks, when ‘jerks’ doesn’t have enough heft.
But this insight is secondary to his original comment.
The word has ALWAYS been about character and behavior where I have lived. Being black did not qualify: many others were described as such regardless of race or skin color (including whites) if the behavior fit.
My two cents.
On the first issue I am not quite sure who he was referring to when he call them an epithet typically reserved for blacks. It was the last paragraph that is the source of my confusion.
He never defines his terms withe respect to his use of the word niggers. That word carries multiple definitions depending on context. If a black referrs to other blacks with that word it is either in the form of mild oneupmanship banter or castigating another for doing the bidding of white society. In that case it is synonomous with being called an Uncle Tom but with vehemence.
Is this guy referring to whites that pander to blacks? I don’t know. The comparison about stepping in shit and falling down seems somewhat reminiscent of Aliza’s more erudite verbiage when she tells us that we fail to see the problems of racial mixing. Not everyone has the wit to communicate well. It is important then to hear them out, formulate questioms for clarity and then rebut them if required.
I suppose my point is what are we to censor the words or the ideas?
Re Jimmy Carter:
I heard it suggested that Carter may have been contacted to make such a statement after all the left leaning pundits panned all the candidates in the debates.
Carter is making a fool of himself by making the assertion. He went so far as to repeat (incorrectly) the statement that 17 intelligence agencies corroberated the assessment – he said 16 agencies. That statement has been debunked for months.
Carter should not be given future forums in which his cognitive disabilities resulting from his advanced age and brain cancer treatments will be exploited by the left.
“d) they deliberately “keep saying ‘Republica’” on purpose, in order to smear the Republican party and to confuse readers into thinking that segregationism was a bipartisan phenomenon.”
Or to continue to spread the false belief that racist Democrats were really Republicans or became Republicans.
Main idea: There are people that the commenter finds dislikable, but the attributes that the commenter finds dislikable are not particularly racial. The commenter only uses the word that shall not be pronounced as a an insult to whomever disliked for whatever the undetailed criteria are.
Perhaps I misread, how is the commenter’s comment racist beyond the word that shall not be pronounced?
That is how I interpreted this guys screed.
Posted too soon:
The problem withhis terminology is that the word he uses to describe the people he abhors – irrespective of their race – has a commonly understood meaning as a pejorative.
If we say he is as big as an elephant or he is elephantine we understand that the person is huge because elephants are huge. Using his preferred epithet as a descriptor is confusing because of its usual association as a demeaning term for blacks.
He may not come off as a racist if he understood this and used terminology that better describes the behaviors of others he finds objectionable.
Hey! I didn’t read before I posted. I should’ve jumped on this thread.
Jack, you’re making a straw man between your poll results as asked, and how you’re looking at them.
The “always” is coming in at 8.65%. Since they are reprenting such a small slice, I don’t think they are relevant.
The remaining are a majority with either no or:
I will argue that none of the 59 (myself included) consider your example and example of “exceptional circumstances”. Agreed, he doesn’t meet the stereotype of the barely literate racist. But what does he illuminate? The best I can tell is he is making the point that he wasn’t raised racist but became one due to life experience. That could be done far more succinctly and without the asshole language.
If this is the “best” then I don’t think you have yet seen something that crosses the threshold. If this is the case, then don’t worry so much about it.
I, and I surmise others, don’t like the absolute “no” because strict black and white thinking leads to unethical conduct in corner cases.
PS – does the use of “black and white thinking” make me guilty of using micro-agression?
#1. I went with censoring racist comments “Only in exceptional circumstances,” and I might have allowed the comment in question, If it was timely and if it was the first comment of this nature from that commenter.
Here’s why. First offense, give him a chance to see how other commenters on the site view his racist close-mindedness, why they disagree with that. If he could continue the discussion, defend the web site, without the racist commentary, then there would have been a bit of progress. If not, he’s gone, banned permanently. Either way, we would have gained a bit of insight into the thinking of a racist.
The meat of the original topic, forcing the shutdown of a web site, is always timely. But, if I’m reading the references correctly, he was commenting on a thread started nearly six years ago and that has been mostly idle for several years. That moves me a bit closer to censoring the comment.
The comment policies for EA state that you, Jack, reserve the right to “sharply express [your] annoyance” with racist comments, and a bit later, “exhibiting racism” is listed as one of the things that has led to banning an individual. Those parts of the policy pushed me closer to checking, “Yes”, censor racist posts (always). But, the belief that everyone is redeemable brought me back to “exceptional” as I described above.
This is my reasoning as well, better expressed by Johnny than I could. I chose the same option for the same reasons, in other words.
This mash would fail a racist-test. He’s chosen an inflammatory term which is widely associated with racist opinions and employed it in a way which applies it to general uncouthness without any direct ties to race itself. I think his goal may have been to enrage as many people as possible with terms to which most would take umbrage while somehow expressing an idea so obviously true that nobody could argue it. If I can make sense of this at all, then it’s certainly banality cloaked in calculated, artisan-quality ugliness. This man, by the evidence presented here, can not be concluded to be a racist, but it can be concluded without question that he’s no man at all but a textbook troll. The tracks and leavings are unmistakable.
It’s schlock for all the same reasons that ugly, racist rants are schlock. The judgment is more fundamental than any particular comment-policing rubric could probably capture. This may grate on a lawyer’s sensibilities, but if I let even one opportunity to criticize Positivism slip by I’ll consider my whole life a failure.
This makes a great deal of sense. I spend little time (read zero to none) reading comments of others on social media so I cannot define a troll. If your definition is correct, and it appears reasonable, then I have been enlightened with respect to trolls. My frame of reference is based on what I needed to do professionally which was to hear someone out before rejecting their ideas. I retired before social media became a blight on society.
They’re quite real. Some say their minds have been so consumed with hate that they’re constantly searching for well-adjusted souls to tempt with outrageous slanders into joining them in their state of perpetual mindless rage. Others suggest a witch’s curse or infectious bite, but these assume too many facts not in evidence for my taste. I find the strongest weapon to fight them isn’t to match their anger (that is, after all, what they want) but to deconstruct their flawed arguments and make light of them. The Devil hates to be mocked, and his minions share this quality. Open, raucous amusement is so much the opposite of their goal that they usually leave, dejected, in search of easier prey.
Also, should you kill one, be sure to burn its body and bury the ashes. It’s rumored that they can regenerate from intact corpses, so it’s best to be careful.
“Open, raucous amusement is so much the opposite of their goal that they usually leave, dejected, in search of easier prey.”
My true passion and life’s…um…work has never been described in such a charitable manner.
“be sure to burn its body and bury the ashes.”
Ashes should be mixed with liberal amounts of quicklime and scattered.
A fellow hunter! I knew I liked the cut of your jib. It was subconscious professional courtesy all along.
I’d been burying on holy ground, and I’ve never been sure if it would work elsewhere. This is a good tip!
You both forgot to mix the ashes with salt as well. Adding garlic is an urban myth stemming from vampire mythos, but online trolls react to salt (and light) like slugs.
#2. As for Jimmy Carter, “Bless his heart,” as we say here in the South, I’m afraid his cheese is sliding off his cracker.
#3. Concerning Herman Tallmadge, I live a few miles north of the Georgia state line and about 140 miles from Gov. Talmadge’s burial site near Hampton, but I’m sure I felt a faint tremor in the earth from the vigorous spin imparted to his remains by the erroneous allegation that he was a Republican.
“As for Jimmy Carter, “Bless his heart,” as we say here in the South, I’m afraid his cheese is sliding off his cracker.”
I only recently found out that “Bless your heart” in the South is NOT a compliment.
No, it is a socially acceptable way to imply frustration, annoyance, or dismissal of the person being referred to. In person, it is tantamount to ‘fighting words.’
“#2. As for Jimmy Carter, “Bless his heart,” as we say here in the South, I’m afraid his cheese is sliding off his cracker.”
My supply of spare keyboards is dwindling. I never heard that one before.
Neither had I, and I collect euphemisms for “he’s losing it.”
4: Thick lines are used for the same reason why coats of armes were simplified and stylized depictions of lions and unicorns, to be seen at a distance and clearly identified in the heat of the moment. Customers from the bleachers will not be able to see that skinny line at all, and the beak will just float on their heads. Logos are not for images you can zoom in on. Big whoop, the guy wants his 15 minutes for redesigning something that has nothing wrong with it, has he invested in companies that profit in making the change?
1. If I decide to start identifying as a white person from here on out, can I call myself a WhytAy, because that was kinda awesome?
3. I wondered if Kamala Harris was aware the guys she asked Biden about were Democrats. That would mean she belongs to a party where segregation was acceptable. Does this make her also a racist by proxy?
In other news it was another day of protests here in Portland. Apparently the anti-fascist Satanists were out recruiting. My town is crazy.
This may be off topic. If so, please forgive me.
I can’t say that I’ve ever agreed with Nicholas Kristof until now, and perhaps only for this piece. But it is actually worth your time.
Sometimes, even the NY Times makes sense. Stopped clock and all, but still…
Kristoff says, “If Trump turns progressives into intolerant agents of incivility, then we have lost our souls.” I’m not so sure about that ‘if’ for a lot of progressives, and I’m not so sure about Trump as the cause, either. Certainly it’s gotten worse under Trump, but Republicans have been called racist Nazis since the time of Goldwater. The intensity has waxed and waned, seemingly according to how much power Republicans held. This is not to absolve those on the right; they have their share of intolerant and uncivil actors, but, most of the hatred I see being spewed comes from the left.
Great comment, and I 100% agree with all you said here.
I think the progressive left, like the extreme right, has always been “intolerant agents of incivility.” I think what Kristof is trying to say is that the intolerance has spread from the fringes into the mainstream much more in the era of Trump than ever before. I agree with that assessment.
The right has it’s own problems, but of a different sort and to a lesser degree. Rather than becoming less tolerant, the right has become too tolerant of personal failures and unethical behavior, led by the President.
It isn’t that the Right would silence the Left, but rather that they would allow their own agent provocateurs to ignore closely-held norms of speech and action rather than censure violations of them in order to avoid the infighting that currently plagues the Left.
It is, in a way, Ronald Regan’s 11th commandment taken to the extreme. David French of National Review has lamented this tendency in an articulate, if stilted and moralistic way. On the Left, Andrew Sullivan and Glenn Greenwald have both exposed the intolerance of the Left and the creeping fascism of its advance into the mainstream of “liberal” thought.
Kristof seeks to warn his fellow liberals that they are becoming what they purport to despise, and it’s very rare to see any degree of self-awareness in the pages of the New York Times these days. Just as many on the Right have thrown caution to the wind in embracing the adolescent, oversexed bully that is Donald Trump as their leader, the Times, WaPo and other nominally centrist papers have more or less fully embraced the intolerance of the Left and the increasingly totalitarian view now apparently the mainstream of the movement.
Kristof’s warning will not be heeded.
1. This is thought-provoking.
I find my immediate reaction is revulsion, but not to the racism — rather, on self-examination, it is to the use of “nigger” in such a conversational way. It is straight out of my adolescence in the 1970’s.
The author expresses a thought that is not uncommon among white people — it isn’t the skin color, but rather black culture that they loathe, particularly the urban rap/gangsta/victim culture. That’s really what the author is trying to say. Examining that premise is beyond the scope of my comment here.
The problem is that it’s jarring and hard to get past the language he uses, and I find myself conflicted. I have been programmed, apparently, to react viscerally to the word “nigger.” That’s disturbing.
So perhaps we should see this, just to give us a chance to evaluate the biases and programming we have allowed ourselves to embrace. On the negative side, this is bound to draw strong reaction, and cause a thread takeover. Your call.
Answering your questions:
* What do you learn from this? See above.
* Is it fruitful or worth the time to rebut it? Again, that feels like a definite maybe. It caused me to evaluate an unconscious bit of programming, which certainly had value to me.
* Does a comment like this contribute anything to public discourse or comprehension of relevant issues? The question here becomes, will the responses focus on the issue raised, or simply the language used? Obviously, both are fair game. I foresee a coarsening of the debate if it is allowed.
* Do you want someone capable of writing this to be participating in other discussions? My immediate response is “No.”” But perhaps that’s my problem, not his.
2. Jimmy Carter
Yeah, spot on. It pains me to think I voted for this guy over Gerald Ford. In my defense, I was a young college student with a skull full of testosterone-infused mush.
3. Fake News
One would be tempted to reject this as abject incompetence, but there is no question it was deliberate, with malice aforethought. Remember, neither the media nor the left gets the benefit of Hanlon’s razor anymore.
Deadspin used to be a pithy sports commentary site about 10 years ago, until it became a “woke” Leftist mouthpiece with a sports theme.
Because any exposition of her misdeeds is de-facto anti-Islam hate speech. She could commit a murder at midday on Fourth and Main, and more than one media outlet would either defend her or refuse to cover it.
You asked, remember.
At least in 1980 I had the good sense to vote against the least competent President in our lifetime, until Obama. Carter is just another foolish Alindkyite tool doing the bidding of the arrogant and ignorant.
Re: No. 1, The Incomprehensible Racist.
I am of two minds on this one. I voted to allow the comment, racist though it may be, if it enhances dialog. I would rather read someone’s racist comment than “censor” it. The way to address hateful speech is more speech. That was my general idea because I did not have the benefit of the comment to judge its usefulness.
Now, having read it in all its glory, I would scrap it because it is stupid, idiotic, and does nothing to make it worthy of reading. I mean, the writer hates “niggers, not because they are black, but because they are “niggers”. Well, that it some deep thought, no? In life I confront that kind of brain-dead person with a shrug and a prayer they don’t reproduce and dilute the gene pool any more than is absolutely necessary to keep Democrats in power (I joke!).
This pretty much tracks with my reasoning to send the comment and the potential commenter to the SPAM bin.
Not even the Mueller Report claims that the Russians stuffed the ballots, destroyed ballots, or fraudulently counted the votes.