Author Topic: Why do democrats embrace an ideology of hate and violence?  (Read 3048 times)


  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Why do democrats embrace an ideology of hate and violence?
« Reply #150 on: December 03, 2018, 06:50:13 PM »
I carefully read all your responses, and your explanation for why you don’t provide sources.

I do provide sources velcro, I just think you ask for them in bad faith.  It's a tactic for you.

I ask this respectfully:

Do you expect readers here to trust your statements implicitly, with no external verification, simply because you “have memories” that back them up?

I do expect that readers here react in good faith, and you know what, for the most part they do so.  Very little of the statements that anyone makes on here are so far out of the common knowledge as to require exceptional proof.  And I do think that people can trust I've read what I say I've read, though I've never required they do so.

Do you expect that when you make a controversial statement, we are responsible for finding the external verification, not you?[/b]

Depends on what makes it "controversial"?  For the most part, the only thing that makes the things I've said "controversial" is that you personal object to them.  Not because you have any evidence they are untrue mind, if that were the case it would be something else, only because as a tactic if you "object" you seem to believe it proves the opposite.

And I would be happy to give more support for something that is more controversial.  Though, to the extent it's a conclusion there may not be such a thing as support in the way you seem to want.

I think I speak for everyone on Ornery when I say that the answer to those questions need to be “no” in order to have any fact-based and rational discussion here.

I think others have told you you don't speak for them.  Fact-based rational discussion is benefited by sourcing, but it's not a necessary condition.  The sky is blue, whether or not a citation to it is proffered.  Of course, the sky is also not blue, in other circumstances, again whether or not a citation is proffered. 

Even without a citation, one can often contribute by pointing out logical fallacies and inconsistencies. 

I'm still not seeing what actual benefit there is to your apparent rule - Seriati is always wrong and the inverse is true - unless Seriati deigns to provide the entire record of his facts process, the "analysis" that you seem to think I'm having someone else do on my behalf and the conclusions that are reached.  Are you under the mistaken impression that conclusions I reach are the work of someone else, to whom I could cite?

In this case, I think it's fairly indisputable the basis on which I described that Antifa is more of a threat than racists - specifically the size of the group that tolerates them.  I've put forward a number of reasonable explanations, and even some references (not just links) to why I think that.  It's still a conclusion.  Whether they are larger in raw numbers, I believe so based on indirect reporting and their impact, but I don't have any good direct sources for that proposition.

It's also a conclusion that the numerous statements you can find from their members endorsing violence, the media summaries of their beliefs, the famous "quotes" attributable to them (like 'punch a nazi') that it should have stood to common knowledge that political violence is core to their beliefs.  It's not even clear to me that you dispute this, only that much like a grammar argument, you want a very specific recitation to be added to the record or for me to acknowledge a loss of points? 

You don’t like my “internet poll”, conducted by Reuters/ipsos/University of Virginia?  As I said, show us another one.  But right now that is the only data anyone has provided.

Is it?  Or did you miss the rest?

In any event, I found the poll non-credible, I don't have a like/not like view on it.  It also doesn't address the question that was presented in the thread so even by your count there is no data on the thread.

Essentially dead?  As no person that openly acknowledged being a racist could function in ordinary society or not suffer extreme ostracization.  As in, even secretly reported numbers had dropped well below 1% of the popoulation (from highs where virtually everyone was a racist).  From the fact that no intellectual movement endorsed any concept of racism, that anti-racism predominated every learning opportunity.

In order to prove that is is not opinion, you need to provide facts to back the statements up.  That is the definition of opinion - if you have no facts, it is opinion.

Removed the garbage banter that was between the two points.  You are correct, if I wanted to prove it in a court I would have to do so.  Do I have to do so on an internet board?  Not really, most people are capable of reaching a conclusion based on what I said and their own personal knowledge on the topic.  Only someone who doesn't know enough to discuss would ask for proof from ground zero, or alternatively, someone using the demand as a tactic. 

There's an entire history of legal theory development that has blended into social science research specifically because of the decline and disapparence of open racism.  How do you maintain the claim of a racist society when you can't find racists in numbers?  Whether you believe it or not really doesn't trouble me.  Asking me to "prove" it just seems childish. 

In any event, I pointed you the the SLPC, which is a source after your own heart, and even there you'd have trouble showing anything but a massive decline over decades.

No person that openly acknowledged being a racist could function in ordinary society or not suffer extreme ostracization. Provide facts, not anecdotes, to prove this.

Lol.  You didn't like the story I linked?   I don't know what walk of life you are in that an open racist is not ostracized, but this is as close to common knowledge as it gets. 

Even secretly reported numbers had dropped well below 1% of the popoulation (from highs where virtually everyone was a racist).  Provide facts about the “well below 1%”, and about “virtually everyone was a racist”  Polls, not anecdotes.

You need a poll to know that the history of America was racist?  That whites owned blacks and justified it as a natural right of the superior race?  That in our living memories, open racism was common and the KKK had millions of members?

You understand the entire premise of the claims people have made on here about the Southern Strategy are premised on the general level of racism being common knowledge?

The 1% number is what I remember from an MSNBC graphic on the Rachel Maddow Show.  I've also seen over the years various surveys that show self identified racists as a vanishingly small portion of the population.  It's hard to find any such older data on Google because of the way it's algorithms work.  I did link to the 538 data a while back, and it definitely showed the declining trend - in both parties - up to exactly the point of Obama's election (but it was tracking the much broader category of attitudes - not hard racism).

no intellectual movement endorsed any concept of racism.  Provide facts that “no” intellectual movement did this.  Not a single one.

I'm just declining that nonsensical request.  it's certainly possible that there are some out there, however, I don't think any reasonable person misunderstood what I meant when I said that.  Nor is the inability to prove a negative even remotely prejudicial to the validity of what I said.

On the other hand if you think I'm "lying" or whatever the heck you think I'm doing, evidence of a major intellectual movement endorsing racism should be easy to find and cause me to "eat" my words.

that anti-racism predominated every learning opportunity. Provide facts that “every” learning opportunity had this characteristic.  Every one.

I don't think anyone was confused by what I said.  But on the off chance everyone else here is so dogmatic that they can't parse the meaning of that sentence, which I serious doubt, anti-racism dominates higher education to such an extent as to be virtually the exclusive credo and any contrary credo is ruthlessly suppressed.

I'm not aware of any institution of higher learning that openly endorses white on black racism.

These are perfectly valid opinions.  I would not disagree with some of them, if they were not grossly exaggerated to the point of absurdity.   But they simply are not facts.

What's interesting is that you're almost being logical here, but not quite.  You don't know if they are facts, well except in a purely hyperbolic sense that no one in conversational English is acting legitimately when they use it dispute a statement.  It's actually, once a again, a false conclusion (that they are not facts) that you are asserting.

They may be facts, they in theory may not, that's independent of whether I prove them.

I pointed out the true characterization, but your reply seems to disagree.  Prove me wrong. Or admit that they are opinions.  I don't care which.

Well except, you didn't point out "true characterizations."   You no more established facts than you claim I did, in fact in many cases you seem to think objecting to a statement is proof of its inverse (unless I jump through imaginary hoops set by you to "reestablish the fact," in which case you can throw out a conflicting link and think you've won the day). 

I think I've spent a good bit more time on substantive argument than you have.

That's quite the reading comprehension fail.  Is it bad faith or just trolling again?

You've pulled this out like it was unfair?  Your response grossly mischaraterized my response, leading me to conclude that it was a failure to comprehend them or just a troll.  You seem to think your highly technical and essential non-substantive response was good faith of some sort? 

Really, your entire argument style is burden shifiting, you call me a liar,
I'm giving you an F on your research.

The inference from your challenge about whether I have sources or its "just" my opinion after my statement that I read it in multiple places from multiple members of Anti-fa, is that I am lying.  I also seriously doubt that anyone looking into the topic in good faith failed to find similar quotes, hence the "F."

But I do find your selective editing, once again, interesting and deliberately designed to mislead.  The full quote is here:

"I have memories, and you have google, knock yourself out.  Really, your entire argument style is burden shifiting, you call me a liar, notwithstanding the information being widely available, and then sit back to nit pick citations that will always have failings.

There literally hundreds of quotes on this topic, I'm giving you an F on your research."

What legitimate purpose was there to edit the quote?

This is literally true.  Demanding a source for every claim and then assuming the inverse is true is a burden shift.  No one has time to track down a citation for every sentence.

You seem to find this insulting?  It's just true, the standard to cite every sentence exists no where.  Not to mention, in compiling this list you ignored all substance, every reference and every citation, which kind of proves to me that there is no good faith behind your requests.

Hard to tell exactly, but I count somewhere around 11 or 12 direct personal attacks.

You seem to have confused personal attacks with critiques of style and argumentation in many cases.  Given that you seem to dedicate entire posts to complaining directly about me to an "audience" for whom you seem to think you speak, it seems incredible that you'd make the claim.

Certainly false accusations, unsupported in any way. Many of your statements are flatly contradicted by things I have posted.

Well I'm not going to reread your entire history of obsessive focus on my posts to see if you've "contradicted" me.  Mostly you seem to think a challenge is the same thing as a response and then move forward as if it were a refutation.  Once again, I find myself "feeding" you when I probably shouldn't.


  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Why do democrats embrace an ideology of hate and violence?
« Reply #151 on: December 08, 2018, 07:51:45 AM »

Even if the entire clause following "I think I speak for everyone on Ornery" was a statement that was agreeable to me it would still be true that you don't speak for me when you say it.

That may be your interpretation, but to the best of my knowledge it is in contradiction to common usage. We can agree to disagree on that point.

To avoid the conflict of your interpretation, could you please just tell me if you agree or disagree with the statements?

-Readers are not expected to trust statements implicitly, with no external verification, simply because a poster “has memories” that back them up.

-Readers are not expected to find the external verification when a poster makes a controversial statement.

you used that deliberately strong language to create the impression that everyone here is united against what you perceive Seriati was doing in his posts, and that is flatly untrue.

Ok, prove that it is flatly untrue.  Find someone besides Seriati who disagrees with the two statements above.  It should be very simple if you know that my statement is flatly untrue.  And note, this is independent of what I perceive Seriati has done.  This is an independent statement of expectations of readers.  So any distractions on this point that Seriati does or does not practice them is worthy of discussion separately, but should not be used to, well, distract.


  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Why do democrats embrace an ideology of hate and violence?
« Reply #152 on: December 08, 2018, 08:22:51 AM »

You claimed I “rarely fail to make personal attacks”.

Quote one personal attack I made in this thread.  Hell, quote one personal attack I made in the last 6 months.  Then say where I called you a liar.

I will donate $25 to the charity of your choice if you can find one personal attack. $50 if you can find 11 in 6 months, to compare to your 11 in 3 days.

I looked back a few months and the worst I found was that I said that if you made claims and did not provide sources, people on Ornery would not trust you. And I made a crack about “semantic gymnastics” in reference to your distracting from the actual points being made.  After calling me a liar, you attributed a false quote to me, and I replied that if you don't provide sources to back up your quote, I would call you a liar, with a smiley face after.  I never followed through, even though you never provided the documentation for the false quote. 

I also noticed that you called me a liar multiple times, but never actually got around to proving it, or even providing a single quote of where I lied.

Please stop calling me a liar when you have nothing to back it up.
Please stop saying I attack you unless you have quotes to back it up.

With about 2000 words in the last post, Seriati did not address this.

The offer for the $25 donation has been retracted.

Back to the actual argument, Seriati initially said

Antifa is massive, white nationalists are tiny.

Now he says

Whether they are larger in raw numbers, I believe so based on indirect reporting and their impact, but I don't have any good direct sources for that proposition.

Thank you for the clarification.  That agrees entirely with my point all along, i.e. you have no solid facts to support the original statement. Memories, claims of reading things (that we have no sources for, so we must trust your interpretation of your readings implicitly), social media feeds, but no facts.

I have polls from respected news organizations/universities to say that the two groups have equivalent size and support.

That simple summary of the situation has not changed.

And please note, despite what Seriati says, I did not claim anything about Antifa, or their non-existent "statement of belief".  I am only saying that Seriati is getting out over his skis when he makes sweeping claims like this without evidence.