Miscellaneous And Off Topic Subjects

[iam416]

I find the whole flip on Assange to be remarkable. 6 years ago the Rs were condemning him as a terrorist or in terms of that nature. And Michael Moore was offering to post his bail. And various liberal outlets were singing his praises. Fast forward to today.

Trump clearly can't appreciate that meddling in the election doesn't mean affecting its outcome. Assange is, IMO, awful. He's always been. That said, I haven't seen anything to suggest he'll pay much of a political price for this latest bit of jackassery.

My girl, HRC, heh, though was always shitting on Wikileaks. Good for her.

[Jeff Buchanan]

Re the Hack and talent dialogue.

Maybe I'm missing something here .......

We started out with an assertion that intelligent people usually don't draw blanket conclusions about a (social, cultural or political) group by the actions of one member ("bad apple") of that group.

From here, I'm seeing Hack allege talent has done just that with BLM. i.e., Hack thinks talent implied by some posts back in September that BLMs actions reflect the beliefs of all AAs.

Do I have this right? Hack, talent?

Related, I see a difference between an activist group being associated with a larger social, political or cultural group (e.g., BLM is a subset of the set of all AAs) and some wing-nut teenagers (the Chicago 4) conducting themselves badly and then extrapolating from that conduct that all AAs are likely to conduct themselves badly too.

Hack, I'm not sure you draw that distinction. Just what I'm reading into your posts. Correct me if I'm wrong.

[AlabamAlum]

Leave AA outta this.

[iam416]

Buchanan:

You are correct as to the events of the day. I think the posts are clear. I haven't equated BLM to all black people, of course. Hence the crickets chirping when I ask for proof.

The one-off teenagers are, of course, considerably different from BLM. The latter, by it's very nature, includes multiple persons across the country. It wasn't particularly natural to force BLM -- a group -- into a point about individuals not representing a group. But, when you have an ax to grind -- when you really loathe someone -- you'll take whatever opportunity presents itself. Like I said, I need to get up to 100%.

[entropy]

I find the whole flip on Assange to be remarkable. 6 years ago the Rs were condemning him as a terrorist or in terms of that nature. And Michael Moore was offering to post his bail. And various liberal outlets were singing his praises. Fast forward to today.

Trump clearly can't appreciate that meddling in the election doesn't mean affecting its outcome. Assange is, IMO, awful. He's always been. That said, I haven't seen anything to suggest he'll pay much of a political price for this latest bit of jackassery.

My girl, HRC, heh, though was always shitting on Wikileaks. Good for her.

I'd suggest that Assange is the only one who hasn't changed. Amazing how similar the D's and R's can be.. or are..

[iam416]

Correct. Assange is still, IMO, an asshat.

[hack]

wikileaks is whining on twitter today about others leaking.

Jeff, Talent had a problem back in February with that distinction. I'm sorry I hurt his fee-wings, and I hope he recovers. I'll reply further later.

[Dr. Strangelove]

Trump's candidate Timken wins over Kasich's guy Borges

Borges oversaw the Ohio Republican Party coming to dominate state politics. But speak ill of lifelong Republican Donald Trump and you and FIRED

[iam416]

Ridiculous.

[Jeff Buchanan]

.........Jeff, ....... I'll reply further later.

Looking forward to your response. This is an interesting discussion with regard to the important issue of drawing conclusions about a particular group as a result of the actions of one element within it.

My view is that contrary to a view expressed here, if I understand it correctly, that intelligent people tend not do do that, I believe there are way too many people, intelligent or otherwise that do draw conclusions about a group based on the actions of individuals.

I re-read talent's post on BLM. I can't find anything there that draws wide conclusions about AAs based on the actions of BLM. Maybe you see something I don't or there are other posts which lead you to believe he draws no distinctions between the messaging of BLM and that this messaging is, by-and-large, a refection of all AA's.

Frankly, I think there are behaviors of elements within a group that can reflect how other elements within that group as a whole might behave. I also think there are risks associated with predicting outcomes in the area of law enforcement, politics and international relations if you ignore these.

[hack]

Finally, the discussion is there for all to read. I read back through it and wouldn't change a word I posted. I thought SLF's endorsement at the end was well-deserved.

You an recast it any way you want and make up whatever assertions you want about me and what I've said.

I, however, did err in addressing what I thought was an innocuous post. I need to do better than ignoring 99% of those. That's my fault. I get that you really, REALLY don't like me in a very genuine, visceral way. I'll try to get up to 100% so as not to provoke some hostile response. That doesn't mean they'll stop -- I still may use quotation marks or other punctuation inappropriately, but I'll just have to run that risk.

Given your self-appointed role here as Arbiter of Correctness it should be no surprise when others hold you to your own standards. If you don't want that, then don't do it to others. I don't recall the exact phrase but recently you asked for something akin to the benefit of the doubt in how things are interpreted. You should give it too, which is what I said at the time.

I agree that that discussion is there for all to read, as are others had about BLM in that period. At that time I initially responded to what I noted was some notable cherry-picking of the results, and I did so in what I intended as an "attack the idea not the poster" approach. As I see it, you responded with the opposite treatment, and have ever since. Or maybe it originated with the Easterbrook article, but either way the timeline goes back to basically that period.

You obviously see this differently. If I contributed more to this problem than I think I have, well, my sincere and genuine apologies. I don't dislike you. At all. If I did I would not have advocated for you a few months back when you were banned. Would you like to hit the reset button? I'd rather do that than carry on like this. We can both appreciate that reasonable minds may differ.

[iam416]

Reset hit.

Ftr, I was trying to do so today. Given our recent history, however, an explicit detante was needed. I didn't appreciate that. You did. Appreciated.

[hack]

Glad to hear it. Thanks for saying that.

[AlabamAlum]

Talent,

Got your email about BLM representing all African Americans. Yes, I will keep it on the "Down Low."

[AlabamAlum]

Ooops.