So going to your fallback position of "numerous statements by those claiming to be part of anti-fa", do you have sources for that, or is it just your opinion?
I have memories, and you have google, knock yourself out.
I carefully read all your responses, and your explanation for why you don’t provide sources.
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?
Do you expect that when you make a controversial statement, we are responsible for finding the external verification, not you?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.
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.
A few more points I would like to make:
How do you define "dead"? Or do you have a different way of measuring "the racist movement"? Please let us know your reasoning.
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.
I disagree with just about all of the opinions that make up your statement I could find the sources that disprove your statements, but the burden is on you to back them up. As soon as you do, I look forward to the discussion.
That's nice. Of course, very little of that was opinion.
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.
- 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.
- 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.
- no intellectual movement endorsed any concept of racism. Provide facts that “no” intellectual movement did this. Not a single one.
- that anti-racism predominated every learning opportunity. Provide facts that “every” learning opportunity had this characteristic. Every one.
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. 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.
One more thing.
That's quite the reading comprehension fail. Is it bad faith or just trolling again?
Really, your entire argument style is burden shifiting, you call me a liar,
I'm giving you an F on your research.
And you wonder why I think you're a troll. So to translate, you mean to be insulting and disrespectful, so you'll start your statement with the rhetorical equivalent of "I'm not a racist but...."
Do I respond to bad faith ones where the poster is only attempting to undermine my credibility so that he can score a rhetorical point without doing the work?
I already know that you've rarely done the homework yourself, that's why you just tell me to prove it and the act like you proven the contrary.
You find a cite that seems to agree with you and declare the matter settled as if it's unimpeachable, with the only medium of argument that you accept another random citation - that you then gleefully tear apart (only other people's sources have credibility problems).
My thought is that you're still trolling. You almost always make a personal attack rather than a response to the argument put forward. You routinely pretend like a lack of citation is proof of the opposite conclusion, where at best there's no logical inference from a lack of citation. You almost never ask for any clarification in good faith, for example, I've never once seen you say, I did some research on this point, and I think "x".
You also routinely fail to differentiate between a fact in question and an entire argument, which compounds your habit of believing that you can assume the negative of any statement of fact with which you disagree (usually without any basis).
What a logic fail.
Facts exist independent of whether I spoon feed them to you. And they don't become "just an opinion" simply because you decree it. Again, and this is basic logic, you can't assume the inverse of a factual claim just because you decide to do so.
I think you rarely fail to make personal attacks, but you are always quick to claim the high road and claim you are not.
Hard to tell exactly, but I count somewhere around 11 or 12 direct personal attacks. Certainly false accusations, unsupported in any way. Many of your statements are flatly contradicted by things I have posted.
You claimed I “rarely fail to make personal attacks”.
Here I go claiming the high road:
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.But back to the actual discussion.
I have linked to a poll. You have explained why you don’t like the poll, but provided no actual data to support your claims. That is how it stands.
You asked a question:
Are you seriously asserting its not part of their core beliefs? I don't there's any reasonable basis for that claim, which means this is nothing more than a tactic in an argument and not a serious attempt to add to the knowledge or the debate. Seriously, it's like calling someone out for spelling.
Nope, I am not seriously asserting that. I am not jokingly asserting that.
I never asserted anything like that. You accuse me of a tactic based on behavior that never happened. In essence, you made up a statement and attributed it to me with no evidence at all, then used that as evidence that I am arguing in bad faith. Kind of funny, if it were the first time you did that.
My statement was not that "violence is not a part of their core beliefs". It was a question about whether an anarchistic collection of isolated groups had a specific statement of beliefs, as you stated, before you "clarified". I asked for sources to prove your claim, which you have not provided. That is all I did.
If you can find where I made the assertion you claim I made, then please quote it. I fully admit I could be wrong.
If you can’t quote it, then your accusation is false. Would you admit you are wrong?
Do you wish to clarify your question?
Oh, and this is not trolling. I simply point out when you say things and can't back them up. Looking back at your unsubstantiated assertions about Richard Blumenthal's claims to have served in Vietnam, (another donation to charity in that thread, left unclaimed) your claims about my math errors in the Air Force One thread (you never pointed them out), and others over the years, you do it on a regular basis.
I don't trust anyone who just types something on a website. You seem to expect that trust. I trust sources, and you don't provide them when asked. I provide sources when asked, every time, or I retract the statement. I made that claim before, and I stand by it. You don't.
I don't want to be confrontational. All I ask is that you provide sources for claims you make, just like I do. Why is that so difficult?