Kamala Harris: Enjoy The Long Weekend

[Dill]

(06-10-2021, 09:49 AM)Mickeypoo Wrote: That's because we have become a bunch of stupid, brainless dolts who think everything is racist and everyone is against them.

What's really sad is that the more "educated intellectuals" seem to be the most removed from reality.  They just sit and write 50 page thesis thinking they are super smart, when in reality they have no clue. 
People have gone straight stoooopid.
https://worldnewzinfo.com/usa/virginia-mother-who-survived-maoist-china-eviscerates-faculty-boards-crucial-race-concept-push/

Interesting source there, Mick. Who edited that article? 

So there is a woman who "experienced Mao's Cultural Revolution" (at age 6?) and lived to tell. 
Now she is scolding school officials in VA for not buying into Fox/Tucker/Hannity talking points about "cultural Marxism." 

And the point you took away is that "educated intellectuals seemed to be the most removed from reality"?

Well that was also the view of the students carrying out Mao's Cultural Revolution. They went into universities and dragged out the professors* and they went to hospitals and dragged out the doctors and they went to their own research facilities and dragged out the scientists. 

Then they marched them all out of the cities and made them work in the fields to learn from the peasants. Then no one new how to run the schools or hospitals or research facilities. People died in hospital wards with students operating on them, and China lost an entire generation of the "educated intellectuals" it needed to develop the country. Turns out that people who write 50 page theses (and longer) do have clue. 

China learned that lesson well, which is why they are now the U.S.' number one competitor. 

The U.S., on the other hand, elected Trump, who left the world to China and began our own takedown of professors, doctors, and scientists.

*Remember Chou En Lai, the Chinese premiere who met with Nixon to open China? His son, a school teacher, was thrown from the school's second story window and spent the rest of his life in a wheel chair.  "WE DON"T NEED NO EDUCATION!"

[Wes Mantooth]

Since the debate has now shifted to CRT, I'm using it as an excuse to share this video I saw this morning. It's not really worthy of it's own thread so I'm sticking it here. It's only 42 seconds long, and I think it perfectly illustates what I mean when I say that I see so many adults struggle with these terms that it makes me wonder if these are good topics for children. (Fwiw, I've seen HUNDREDS of videos similar to this one, where grown-ups can't properly discuss things like racism and privilege. I can find plenty more if you like)

White Privilege = Cleaning up grafitti?

https://www.reddit.com/r/PublicFreakout/comments/nw2zk6/girls_cleaning_a_building_in_their_city_are/

[Mickeypoo]

I read everything that everyone wrote.  It is very hard for me to articulate in written text.  Wish we could all have a group meeting so I could keep all my thoughts straights and answer, rebut what you all are saying.  lol.  

There are many things you are taking wrong or that I flat out think you are wrong on.  It is so much easier to have a normal, verbal conversation.  It also does not help that I am not the fastest typist.

I have been extremely busy also.

[Dill]

(06-10-2021, 04:00 PM)Mickeypoo Wrote: I read everything that everyone wrote.  It is very hard for me to articulate in written text.  Wish we could all have a group meeting so I could keep all my thoughts straights and answer, rebut what you all are saying.  lol.  

There are many things you are taking wrong or that I flat out think you are wrong on.  It is so much easier to have a normal, verbal conversation.  It also does not help that I am not the fastest typist.

I have been extremely busy also.

Hang in there Mick. Take your time to unravel any misunderstanding if you are taken wrong.

No rush.

[*Nately120*]

(06-10-2021, 04:00 PM)Mickeypoo Wrote: I read everything that everyone wrote.  It is very hard for me to articulate in written text.  Wish we could all have a group meeting so I could keep all my thoughts straights and answer, rebut what you all are saying.  lol.  

There are many things you are taking wrong or that I flat out think you are wrong on.  It is so much easier to have a normal, verbal conversation.  It also does not help that I am not the fastest typist.

I have been extremely busy also.

My main gripe with you is that you knock higher education while simultaneously making statements that indicate you base your views and arguments upon an erroneous view of legitimate research methodology.  I assure you my research methods courses in college and grad school contained little to no sidebars about how awesome communism is. 

[BigPapaKain]

Huh.

[Wes Mantooth]

(06-11-2021, 09:17 PM)BigPapaKain Wrote: Huh.

I saw conversation regarding this article play out on Reddit today.  Fwiw, here is thread as it currently stands, but it looks like a moderator removed a lot of comments.

https://www.reddit.com/r/UpliftingNews/comments/nxeizi/black_lives_matter_protesters_were_overwhelmingly/

Spend some time with it if you like, I'm not sure what is still left in there.  Or don't, it's up to you.

There are, or were (if they got deleted), some people that took a lot of time to break this study down.  And I'm not sure you'll like the results. 

[BigPapaKain]

(06-11-2021, 09:52 PM)Wes Mantooth Wrote: I saw conversation regarding this article play out on Reddit today.  Fwiw, here is thread as it currently stands, but it looks like a moderator removed a lot of comments.

https://www.reddit.com/r/UpliftingNews/comments/nxeizi/black_lives_matter_protesters_were_overwhelmingly/

Spend some time with it if you like, I'm not sure what is still left in there.  Or don't, it's up to you.

There are, or were (if they got deleted), some people that took a lot of time to break this study down.  And I'm not sure you'll like the results. 

Am I going to trust professors attaching their names to their findings or anonymous Redditors?

I don't know...tough call. Then again, I'm the kind of person who listens to scientists instead of Facebook, so maybe I really am in the wrong here. 

[Wes Mantooth]

(06-11-2021, 10:26 PM)BigPapaKain Wrote: Am I going to trust professors attaching their names to their findings or anonymous Redditors?

I don't know...tough call. Then again, I'm the kind of person who listens to scientists instead of Facebook, so maybe I really am in the wrong here. 

It's not about trusting, or not trusting anyone.  It's taking the time to really explore these statistics, and how they relate to any number of other issues.  It's about you yourself investing the time in really understanding these things.  That's important no matter what the study is, or your initial stance. (Conservative, liberal, or something in between, do your own research to wrap you head around these numbers.)

Are singlular "anonymous Redditors" trustworthy?  Not usually.  But you can find a wealth of information in that thread, complete with a variety of links and resources.  Last I checked there were over 10k comments in that thread.  I spent a good 45 minutes in there today reading just about every single side of the debate you could imagine.

I may go in there and pull some stats for you, but here's two that might stand out.  Let's take the study at face value, and let's assume the parameters set are unbiased and completely accurate (fwiw, the 96.3% was proven to bs in the thread) ...

96.3% of BLM protest were peaceful.  (To quote the link: BLM is "overwhelming peaceful")

99.9999xxx of police interactions are non-lethal. (Justifed and non justified deaths are both included)

One is desribed as "overwhelming peaceful.  The other is descibed as an epidemic by some, depsite being a fraction of a fraction, of fraction of fraction less likely.

Does that make sense to you? 

You want me to bring up Covid death rates, which we all agree is a legitimate concern?

0.0014% of Americans have died from Covid.

So taking a 3.7% statistic, with a sample size that large, and pretending like it's somehow postive or no big deal seems completely disinegenous.  You can't pick and choose which statisics to hyperfocus on and other to ignore.

Also, as far as blindly trusting academia, and specifically the Ivy League, this recent story gives me pause...

https://news.yahoo.com/yale-speaker-says-killing-white-015402379.html

[BigPapaKain]

(06-11-2021, 11:34 PM)Wes Mantooth Wrote: It's not about trusting, or not trusting anyone.  It's taking the time to really explore these statistics, and how they relate to any number of other issues.  It's about you yourself investing the time in really understanding these things.  That's important no matter what the study is, or your initial stance. (Conservative, liberal, or something in between, do your own research to wrap you head around these numbers.)

Are singlular "anonymous Redditors" trustworthy?  Not usually.  But you can find a wealth of information in that thread, complete with a variety of links and resources.  Last I checked there were over 10k comments in that thread.  I spent a good 45 minutes in there today reading just about every single side of the debate you could imagine.

I may go in there and pull some stats for you, but here's two that might stand out.  Let's take the study at face value, and let's assume the parameters set are unbiased and completely accurate (fwiw, the 96.3% was proven to bs in the thread) ...

96.3% of BLM protest were peaceful.  (To quote the link: BLM is "overwhelming peaceful")

99.9999xxx of police interactions are non-lethal. (Justifed and non justified deaths are both included)

One is desribed as "overwhelming peaceful.  The other is descibed as an epidemic by some, depsite being a fraction of a fraction, of fraction of fraction less likely.

Does that make sense to you? 

You want me to bring up Covid death rates, which we all agree is a legitimate concern?

0.0014% of Americans have died from Covid.

So taking a 3.7% statistic, with a sample size that large, and pretending like it's somehow postive or no big deal seems completely disinegenous.  You can't pick and choose which statisics to hyperfocus on and other to ignore.

Also, as far as blindly trusting academia, and specifically the Ivy League, this recent story gives me pause...

https://news.yahoo.com/yale-speaker-says-killing-white-015402379.html

Comparing BLM protests to police brutality is pretty bad faith at best.

Nobody is infiltrating police unions and making them defend the pieces of shit who go around abusing their authority to completely undermind their message - they're doing that plenty fine on their own. Unless you're ignoring how police unions got the okay to cut out people who are smarter than the average cop.

Also, police brutality =/= lethal. So you'll excuse me if I spin my fingers sarcastically at a bunch of Redditors arguing the report and get back to watching Community for the 18th time.

[Wes Mantooth]

(06-11-2021, 10:26 PM)BigPapaKain Wrote:  I'm the kind of person who listens to scientists instead of Facebook, so maybe I really am in the wrong here. 

This is rich considering I'm almost postive you're the guy who claimed a person was beaten to death with a fire estinguisher on January 6th. (You sound like a "facebook guy.")

To me, it sure sounds like you're the type of guy who just hears something, does zero research it, and repeats it.  If only you could realize you're just as bad as those on the other side who do the same thing. You're the extreme.  You're the problem.  You lazily find something that supports your stance, your confirmation bias kicks into overdrive, and you repeat it as if you're not completely talking out of your arse.

God forbid you actually use the wonder that is the internet and google to find some semblence of the truth, and take the time to attempt to work out a legitimate opinion of your own.

[Wes Mantooth]

(06-11-2021, 11:52 PM)BigPapaKain Wrote: Comparing BLM protests to police brutality is pretty bad faith at best.

Nobody is infiltrating police unions and making them defend the pieces of shit who go around abusing their authority to completely undermind their message - they're doing that plenty fine on their own. Unless you're ignoring how police unions got the okay to cut out people who are smarter than the average cop.

Also, police brutality =/= lethal. So you'll excuse me if I spin my fingers sarcastically at a bunch of Redditors arguing the report and get back to watching Community for the 18th time.

I guess that went completey over your head. 

It wasn't about equating lethal force to whatever the oppositie of "peaceful protest" is.  It's about the level of attention that is deserved, and the narratives that often surround statistical debates.  Given the proper audience, you can frame them in almost anyway that you'd like.  

[BigPapaKain]

(06-11-2021, 11:56 PM)Wes Mantooth Wrote: This is rich considering I'm almost postive you're the guy who claimed a person was beaten to death with a fire estinguisher on January 6th.

To me, it sure sounds like you're the type of guy who just hears something, does zero research it, and repeats it.  If only you could realize you're just as bad as those on the other side who do the same thing. You're the extreme.  You're the problem.  You lazily find something that supports your stance, your confirmation bias kicks into overdrive, and you repeat it as if you're not completely talking out of your arse.

God forbid you actually use the wonder that is the internet and google to find some semblence of the truth, and take the time to attempt to work out a legitimate opinion of your own.

Oh my bad for not reading the autopsy report released a month after the fact after the police said he died from injuries sustained from being beaten with an extinguisher. I guess every time you read anything, you just follow it until the day you die in case it changes.

Except that when called on it, I actually went and did my research and acknowledged my being wrong. I legitimately wonder the last time anyone else here did that instead of just standing by their original post and screaming the same talking points they've been repeating for 10 pages or setting up strawman after strawman - for instance, comparing BLM to police brutality or Covid.

But nah, I'm the problem here. I mean, I'm easily the most flexible person here on my stances when presented with things other than Reddit posters arguments.

Twirling my finger sarcastically again and going back to Community for at least another episode before going to bed.

[BigPapaKain]

(06-12-2021, 12:07 AM)Wes Mantooth Wrote: I guess that went completey over your head. 

It wasn't about equating lethal force to whatever the oppositie of "peaceful protest" is.  It's about the level of attention that is deserved, and the narratives that often surround statistical debates.  Given the proper audience, you can frame them in almost anyway that you'd like.  

I've never made the claim that police brutality got too much overblown publicity, just as I've never claimed that BLM got too much overblown publicity. But people kept talking about how violent those protest were despite all evidence to the contrary, so I figured posting statistical research would quiet the nonsense.

I guess not.

[Dill]

(06-11-2021, 11:34 PM)Wes Mantooth Wrote: Also, as far as blindly trusting academia, and specifically the Ivy League, this recent story gives me pause...

https://news.yahoo.com/yale-speaker-says-killing-white-015402379.html

??  Why??

[Wes Mantooth]

(06-12-2021, 12:11 AM)BigPapaKain Wrote: Oh my bad for not reading the autopsy report released a month after the fact after the police said he died from injuries sustained from being beaten with an extinguisher. I guess every time you read anything, you just follow it until the day you die in case it changes.

Except that when called on it, I actually went and did my research and acknowledged my being wrong. I legitimately wonder the last time anyone else here did that instead of just standing by their original post and screaming the same talking points they've been repeating for 10 pages or setting up strawman after strawman - for instance, comparing BLM to police brutality or Covid.

But nah, I'm the problem here. I mean, I'm easily the most flexible person here on my stances when presented with things other than Reddit posters arguments.

Twirling my finger sarcastically again and going back to Community for at least another episode before going to bed.

There was no autopsy report needed, nor a ME to weigh in.  No one was beaten with a fire estinguisher to begin with.  The guy you referring to (I think) was the officer who had a heart attack, and was completely seperate from this situation you've described.

A fire estinguisher was thrown at a group of cops and the one guy who was hopsitalized was released the same day.  How does this require "following the story until the day you die" to figure out what actually happened?

If you'd just take a second to be even the least honest you'd realize you're no different than many of the people you claim to detest.  You saw a BS story, never bothered to fact check it, and you've repeated it as fact months and months down the line because it fits your agenda.

And what's scary (to me at least) is that somehow I'll be associated with the right for pointing this hypocrisy out.  You can't go running around making completely bs claims when you've had ample time to properly inform yourself.  And if you choose not to do so then you should probably be really careful about what things you say, or just sit on the conversation entirely.

[Dill]

(06-12-2021, 12:11 AM)BigPapaKain Wrote: Oh my bad for not reading the autopsy report released a month after the fact after the police said he died from injuries sustained from being beaten with an extinguisher. I guess every time you read anything, you just follow it until the day you die in case it changes.

Except that when called on it, I actually went and did my research and acknowledged my being wrong. I legitimately wonder the last time anyone else here did that instead of just standing by their original post and screaming the same talking points they've been repeating for 10 pages or setting up strawman after strawman - for instance, comparing BLM to police brutality or Covid.

But nah, I'm the problem here. I mean, I'm easily the most flexible person here on my stances when presented with things other than Reddit posters arguments.

Twirling my finger sarcastically again and going back to Community for at least another episode before going to bed.

(06-11-2021, 11:56 PM)Wes Mantooth Wrote: This is rich considering I'm almost postive you're the guy who claimed a person was beaten to death with a fire estinguisher on January 6th. (You sound like a "facebook guy."

To me, it sure sounds like you're the type of guy who just hears something, does zero research it, and repeats it.  If only you could realize you're just as bad as those on the other side who do the same thing. You're the extreme.  You're the problem.  You lazily find something that supports your stance, your confirmation bias kicks into overdrive, and you repeat it as if you're not completely talking out of your arse.

God forbid you actually use the wonder that is the internet and google to find some semblence of the truth, and take the time to attempt to work out a legitimate opinion of your own.

Hey, easy guys.

Know what I would like to see? More talk about "parameters" and the like.  How do we measure the proportion of violent protests/protestors? 

In the case of BLM, remember there were BLM like protests all over the world. What counts as an example?

Also, it appears there were there were hundreds, maybe thousands of protests in the U.S. with no violence at all, including in my little town of Indiana, PA. 

But there were only two protests in my town. There were many in Minneapolis and maybe 100+ in Portland.  How many people, total, were involved in all the protests, and/or how many in a given city over time, and on a particular day/night? Without some solid answers to questions like that, we can't make claims about percentages.


Also, who are the people who actually riot and break things? We see evidence of broken things the next day, but is it clear that BLM protesters are involved? Even if some are, are the other elements who just look for mayhem, whose actions are not ethically motivated?  Mass demonstrations in some cities attract thugs and counterdemonstrators and others who may have an interest in seeing things go bad.

Good studies generally explain their methodology. When we discuss statistical studies/claims about civil unrest in the U.S., perhaps we should see if they present, or we can find, what they say about their methodology. 

[Wes Mantooth]

(06-12-2021, 12:21 AM)Dill Wrote: ??  Why??

Did you read it?


"Psychopathic Problem of the White Mind"

Khilanani told her audience about her own rage and that she "had fantasies of unloading a revolver into the head of any White person that got in my way, burying their body, and wiping my bloody hands as I walked away relatively guiltless with a bounce in my step."

.......

"My style of language is different and expressive, with fluidity between conscious and unconscious, time, and uses Masala (exaggeration) for punch and comedy," she said in an email. "It's why we love Richard Pryor, telenovela forms and rap. I believe it makes this conversation more relatable across generations."

.......

Her comments and the negative feedback she's received are more revealing about white supremacist thoughts than about Khilanani's view on racism, said Nikki Coleman, a psychologist and consultant on diversity, equity and inclusion.

The anger is more directed at a woman of color talking about her vivid rage than a woman of color talking about the years in which she went to therapy, which should be one of the safest spaces for a person, Coleman said, only to have her truth and experiences doubted.

"We would call that abuse," Coleman said. "In a heterosexual relationship where a man gaslit and denied the reality of the woman, we would tell her it's emotional abuse."

.......

"Whose speech do we view as dangerous?" said Grzanka, who is White. "I think it's pretty clear and excessively evident that when [people of color] articulate anger in the public that is one of the fastest way to activate White outrage machine."

[Dill]

(06-12-2021, 12:34 AM)Wes Mantooth Wrote: Did you read it?

Yes. I'm not particularly upset by what she said.  

As Dr. Kilhanani explained, she was referencing the "emotional labor" required to explain black issues/grievances to whites. 
We are not provided with the actual talk she gave, but to it sounds like she was just expressing rage via fantasy, not 
expressing a literal desire to kill white people. "This is what it does to me."  This is not the same as a Klan member fantasizing about hanging a black person. 

If a rape victim said she had fantasies about killing men, I wouldn't get all upset about that, even though I would assume it to be more literal.

"Black Psycho doctor fantasizes about Killing whites!!" This just seems like another of those news bits thrown out to prove that blacks can be racist too, and that there is a terrible double standard against whites (imagine if a white doctor fantasized about shooting blacks in the head!), so maybe black people shouldn't be throwing stones, "both sides do it," so let's all just roll back talk about race. But no, libs want to keep it going . . . etc. 

E.g., look who pounced: Sebastian Gorka, an adviser in the Trump White House, tweeted that Khilanani was the "definition of a psycho." Rod Dreher, senior editor for the American Conservative, wrote a story that called her an "anti-White racist psychiatrist" and tweeted that she was an "appalling example of woke totalitarian capture of elite U.S. institutions."

LOL

My objection would be she should be more cognizant of how language which might clearly contextualized in a graduate seminar will sound if the news media get hold of it. Or perhaps she wanted the clicks? 

But again, I have not heard her talk, and I'd like to see the videos which are supposed to be the occasion of her anger. Without that, I have no concrete ideal of how the white killing fantasy fits--was she imitating, creating a counter balance? Was this reductio ad absurdum?  No idea. 

[Wes Mantooth]

(06-12-2021, 12:54 AM)Dill Wrote: Yes. I'm not particularly upset by what she said.  

As Dr. Kilhanani explained, she was referencing the "emotional labor" required to explain black issues/grievances to whites. 
We are not provided with the actual talk she gave, but to it sounds like she was just expressing rage via fantasy, not 
expressing a literal desire to kill white people. "This is what it does to me."  This is not the same as a Klan member fantasizing about hanging a black person. 

If a rape victim said she had fantasies about killing men, I wouldn't get all upset about that, even though I would assume it to be more literal.

"Black Psycho doctor fantasizes about Killing whites!!" This just seems like another of those news bits thrown out to prove that blacks can be racist too, and that there is a terrible double standard against whites (imagine if a white doctor fantasized about shooting blacks in the head!), so maybe black people shouldn't be throwing stones, "both sides do it," so let's all just roll back talk about race. But no, libs want to keep it going . . . etc. 

E.g., look who pounced: Sebastian Gorka, an adviser in the Trump White House, tweeted that Khilanani was the "definition of a psycho." Rod Dreher, senior editor for the American Conservative, wrote a story that called her an "anti-White racist psychiatrist" and tweeted that she was an "appalling example of woke totalitarian capture of elite U.S. institutions."

LOL

My objection would be she should be more cognizant of how language which might clearly contextualized in a graduate seminar will sound if the news media get hold of it. Or perhaps she wanted the clicks? 

But again, I have not heard her talk, and I'd like to see the videos which are supposed to be the occasion of her anger. Without that, I have no concrete ideal of how the white killing fantasy fits--was she imitating, creating a counter balance? Was this reductio ad absurdum?  No idea. 

Here's the audio since you'd like to hear her talk.  And I'm not sure if your read the intial article I provided, but no video is being released (for obvious reasons).

https://bariweiss.substack.com/p/the-psychopathic-problem-of-the-white

And here's some quotes from her lecture (with timestamps) in case you don't want to read or listen through everything...

This is the cost of talking to white people at all. The cost of your own life, as they suck you dry. There are no good apples out there. White people make my blood boil. (Time stamp: 6:45)



I had fantasies of unloading a revolver into the head of any white person that got in my way, burying their body, and wiping my bloody hands as I walked away relatively guiltless with a bounce in my step. Like I did the world a ***** favor.  (Time stamp: 7:17)



White people are out of their minds and they have been for a long time.  (Time stamp: 17:06)



We are now in a psychological predicament, because white people feel that we are bullying them when we bring up race. They feel that we should be thanking them for all that they have done for us. They are confused, and so are we. We keep forgetting that directly talking about race is a waste of our breath. We are asking a demented, violent predator who thinks that they are a saint or a superhero, to accept responsibility. It ain’t gonna happen. They have five holes in their brain. It’s like banging your head against a brick wall. It’s just like sort of not a good idea. (Time stamp 17:13)



We need to remember that directly talking about race to white people is useless, because they are at the wrong level of conversation. Addressing racism assumes that white people can see and process what we are talking about. They can’t. That’s why they sound demented. They don’t even know they have a mask on. White people think it’s their actual face. We need to get to know the mask. (Time stamp 17:54)


Keep in mind, this lecture took place at Yale, this women is still employed, her medical liscense is still intact, and none of this evokes the comedic talents of Richard Pryor, who she linked herself to.  Also, this is a college, not a comedy club.

If nothing about this bothers you, but you feel we need to be careful with words and pronouns, and things of the sort that surround other issues  then I'm not sure there's much of conversation to be had.  In this thread or any other.  Tell me now and I'll save my breath in the future.