I Can't "Back Up" My Claims. Nor Would I Even Try
Now and again, a conversation takes place that is so dumb that I just can’t resist sharing it with you. This is one such conversation.
In my article, The Unbearable Tokenism of Joe Biden, I criticised Joe Biden’s choice to yet again put the “race” and sex of a high profile nominee front and centre. In this case, his Supreme Court nominee Ketanji Brown Jackson.
Not only does highlighting what she is over who she is, detract from the unique experience and qualifications she brings to the job, it offers a perfect justification to all the pundits who are just dying to criticise her, but are too cowardly to admit that it’s because she’s black and/or a woman.
Still, whatever else one might accuse Allan of, he had no qualms about going straight for the “woman” thing:
(I’ve added a few paragraph breaks to Allan’s replies so that reading them won’t be any more painful than necessary. Sadly, to anybody with a functioning frontal lobe, a certain degree of pain will be unavoidable.)
Allan:
Unlike the echo chamber, and the left leaning ideologues, I do not agree with this decision. A black, female? Really? He preset the parameters on gender and skin colour, instead of merit, and yes I still would NOT have chosen a female. I care not what some inept and weak immature people will respond to this notion. It is a false and flawed argument to suggest that we need a "gender balanced workplace", completely negating the age old standard of "the best man for the job". Yes MAN!
When it comes to positions of authority and the ability to administer punishment, a man is more pragmatic and able to distance themselves from the, normally emotional, element when dealing with certain people. So gender aside, this appointment confirms how inadequate and out of touch Biden and his lot are, by making an irrational, irresponsible, politically driven, in-appropriate decision like this. This is yet another decision of a long list of bad decisions, which proves my point for me, that Biden and the left should NOT now or ever be allowed to be in charge of ANYTHING!!!!.
“It is a false and flawed argument to suggest that we need a "gender balanced workplace", completely negating the age old standard of "the best man for the job". Yes MAN!”
Whether it’s sexism, racism, homophobia or some other flavour of bigotry, this kind of “thinking” is commonly found at the root of it. It’s not hatred or fear or even a desire to cling to power, it’s a lack of imagination and empathy, coupled with near-unimaginable stupidity.
Allan has grown up in a society where positions of power were pretty much exclusively held by men. He’s even heard the expression “the right man for the job,” somewhere. So that becomes the natural order of things in his mind.
I have no doubt he’d have made roughly the same argument against gay marriage and ending segregation and changing marital rape laws. It simply doesn’t compute that “the way things are” isn’t necessarily “the way things ought to be.”
Steve QJ:
Yes MAN! When it comes to positions of authority and the ability to administer punishment, a man is more pragmatic and able to distance themselves from the, normally emotional, element when dealing with certain people.
Haha! It's you again! [Editor’s note: Allan had posted another, sexist, antisemitic rant in a different comment.] You really are for real!!😅
Given that you're a man, and would therefore never make assertions like these from an emotional standpoint (you sure seem like a beacon of pragmatism and rational thought to me...), I'm sure you'll have no problem backing up your claims with empirical evidence.
I wait patiently for your adept, muscular insights.
Allan:
Steve au contraire’, I can neither “back up my claims with empirical evidence”, and/or neither would I even try. The information I have has been garnered, at best, anecdotally. The reason for this is exactly what one would expect to do if they were to “cover their tracks”, so to speak. Now having said this Steve, whether you believe me or not, is not the issue here. What you and others should be considering is, what if my findings are correct, as I believe they are??
People with little or no imagination or open minds, will believe or accept nothing, even proven, if they have a propensity, lean or belief contrary to what is being suggested or reported. Some indicators worth noting; the latest one, The Great Reset, just for openers. Then look into the WEF and the wealthiest of them, such as Rothschilds, Rockefeller, and many others. All part of the WEF.
One last point or question for you to mull over; Who the fuck gave these shit-bags/arse-holes the right to tell the world what to do, let alone take over and rule over us all?? Any of this sound familiar, or sinking in yet?? Let me know after you have done a little digging yourself, because it is patently obvious to me that you will resist, reject or not believe anything I may suggest.
“shit-bags/arse-holes”
Clearly very important to avoid lumping these possibilities together.
Steve QJ:
Let me know after you have done a little digging yourself, because it is patently obvious to me that you will resist, reject or not believe anything I may suggest.
😅 It's a simple question of resource management Allan. Should I do some "digging" because a random person on the internet started spouting conspiracy theories and correlation/causation errors? Should I devote my time to that? How about Pizzagate or Flat Earth or the moon landing hoax theories?
There is so much batsh** nonsense out there that one day, by the law of averages, some of it will turn out to have a tiny grain of truth in it. I don't believe today is that day. And I have far more pressing things to be "digging in to." It's totally fair if you consider that closed minded. There's just also the danger of having a mind so open that your brain falls out.
Allan:
Steve, through past experience in debates and discussions I have found that once I have given proof (where I can), the conversation is either curtailed by the other party or is simply dis-believed, without topical reason, or they were simply not interested and were being argumentative or petulant. To save time and confirming my point, I now suggest that if my comments are found to be negatively received, I suggest they be checked by others so as to be free of prejudice or bias, and thereby convincing the reader that my comments are true.
I do not keep records, other than what I can retain in my mind/memory. Once something is put out for public consumption, it is then “on the record”. Because of this, it is easy for anyone to confirm what I say, if it has not been removed for whatever reason.
So Steve before you accuse or attack anyone for no good reason, please consider the “why factor” of your retort or negativity. In other words, WHY would I say something that I am clearly not familiar with, in my daily life or routine. It has to be in reference to a third party, who has broadcast it for me to have received it and remembered it, even though I do not EVER bother with the WHO, because it has been put out there and once that happens, it takes the burden of proof off me.
Steve QJ:
Okay Allan, I think we're done here. This is actually a fairly comprehensive description of what it's like to be unable to think critically. Somebody else "put it out there" so even if it's utter nonsense, the burden of proof isn't on you if you repeat it and believe it.
Okay. I'm "putting it out there" that the phrase "I did my own digging," is used exclusively by people who have had their brains secretly modified by the US government. They’re programmed with the phrase so they can be identified by other test subjects. They're then subtly encouraged to engage with ridiculous conspiracy theories (convinced that this is all their own free will of course) to see just how incoherent and antisemitic/racist/sexist an idea a human being can hold in their head before it explodes. So far, most of them haven't hit bottom.
I don't keep any records or evidence to support this of course. The entire theory is based on what I can retain in my mind/memory (the human mind and memory being notoriously infallible of course) and conversations I've had online. Seems worth "digging into" to me.
Allan:
At least we agree on one thing: I also think we are done here. As you have attempted to profile, or think you know, me. You have lost focus and in doing so, you have unwittingly described yourself. I only wish I could meet you in years to come when the earth is not drowning or we are all not being burnt or cooked by the sun and the CO2 has in fact been proven to be beneficial to life on earth, and of course we can’t say that the anti-fossil-fuel wankers were wrong, because the same mongrels I am preaching about have succeeded in fooling all the fools to give up their lives and assets and to be enslaved by the very people you apparently side with or are a part of, because YOU are too set in YOUR beliefs, and refuse to consider anything that may just prove you wrong or go against your sensitivities and fragile feelings. BTW they hide and skulk within the walls of the WEF, and are the authors and promoters of The Great Reset! Open up your mind a little and give even the ridiculous a chance. You will be surprised at what you discover. OR NOT!!
I know, I know, some of you will be disappointed that I didn't try harder to get through to Allan (never change you guys, the way that you keep me honest and demand high standards of discourse is one of my favourite things about this place). But there are simply limits to what is possible.
The standard for online discourse needn’t be that you agree with each other or that you both have watertight arguments or even that you’re perfectly polite. They just need to provide a glimmer of hope that they’re capable of thinking.
I’ll offer the holders of even the most disgusting points of view the opportunity to explain their reasoning. We should always allow for the possibility that we’re the ones who are missing something. But if they’re not even interested in reasoning, it’s time to call it quits.
Belligerent people, ill-informed people, even racist people, there’s room to talk to them all. But people who can’t think? In the immortal words of Mark Twain:
Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.
I apologize in advance for stealing the phrase "I wait patiently for your adept, muscular insights". :)
Some days the fish just give you the finger from the barrel and you just gotta shoot them :)