Please read the author’s article again so that it’s fresh in your mind.

Then read through your first post and our entire exchange from beginning to end. Note where you went ad hom – several times.

Any fact that I asserted can be verified independently, especially those that showed the author made factually incorrect assumptions by overtly stating that “white people” had uniform opinions about slavery and blacks. I showed that was untrue before, during and after the Civil War.

As former President Obama correctly pointed out – facts matter.

Your degrees (and mine) do not matter as the factual examples I presented about the different ways that white people historically thought and acted regarding slavery and blacks can be independently verified.

“White people” did NOT hold uniform opinions then nor did they behave in a uniform manner and I provided eight examples where they did not – each example easily independently verifiable.

Assigning a common thought, belief or behavior pattern to an entire group of people solely on the basis of their race (like “white people”) is the very definition of racism.

As for the rest, I’ll make it simple.

The author asserts a collective pattern of historical thought about slavery and blacks that “white people” held in common.

That was false during the time of slavery and it is false now.

“White people” did NOT hold those thoughts in common then (as per the examples I provided) and they do not hold those thoughts in common today.

To assert (as the author did) that an entire group of people – like white people – previously all thought or acted the same way about ANYTHING is a racist stereotype.

It is as repugnant as saying that “black people” like watermelon.

It is stupid.

The author is ignorant of history, ignorant of the nuances of human behavior and ignorant of the differences between people of the same race…and apparently ignorant of the similarities in people of different races.

He is – in a phrase – an ignorant racist because he assigned common thoughts, beliefs and actions to a group – “white people” – solely on the basis of their race – and he did so in writing.

Defending his false racial stereotyping – is an unworthy endeavor.

Those are mighty charged words.

I’m not defending a racist, and I am laughing that you even used that word. I’m getting a different perspective out of an op-ed piece (which by definition is not an academic paper) than you are. And I can guess why.

But by calling me “intellectually dishonest” and a defender of a racist, you lose by ad hominem.

If you want to approach the author’s piece with your own assertions that he is wrong, as you have done, well, fine. But I didn’t notice you sourcing any of your arguments. Not even one. You just asserted that he was wrong because you didn’t like what he was saying, got all defensive while insisting on missing his point, and even tried to mansplain your version of history without ever revealing any qualification other than you have lived in a lot of places, which by itself is supposed to make your understanding of the historical context and perceptions of the author more complete than anyone else’s?

You rode your train of thought, which wasn’t even on the same tracks as the reason I posted the link in the first place, all the way into Self-Righteous Station.

Good for you.

But you don’t get off calling me names without a shout-out. I didn’t call you any, although I can think of quite a few.

Denying what the author wrote by pretending he either didn’t write it (which he clearly did) or that he somehow meant something entirely different than his unambiguous written words – is intellectually dishonest.

You are defending a racist – and lying about doing so at the same time.

Your reveal more than you perhaps think when you make the false comparison between an article and an invoice – if it’s in writing, therefore it’s gotta be true? And if I don’t like what I’m hearing, then it’s not credible?

Pleez. Whatev.

Have a great day.

Crowley was smart enough to warn Jack Parsons away from Hubbard. Unfortunately, Parsons waited too long to take his advice.

I”ll close out my end of this thread with this:

The author of the article makes numerous factually incorrect statements about historical events that never occurred as he describes them, then lumps all “white people” into a non-existent single category of thought and action which he clearly and unambiguously put down IN WRITING.

He then expresses his outrage about his personal “experience” as a result of those factually incorrect and non-existent events which all “white people” collectively committed.

Since the events never occurred as he described and all “white people” did not commit the acts he incorrectly asserts as being the basis for a cultural milieu – that also never existed – his outrage about those events and the cultural milieu that never sprang from them – is delusional.

He is – making shit up that only exists in his head.

His line of thinking is not a great deal different from accusing someone of stealing your car because they are black. Somewhere, sometime, a black person did steal a car, so OF COURSE, all cars ever stolen were stolen by a black person. (See how stupid that kind of thinking is?)

As a final comment, since the person put his thoughts down unambiguously in writing – denying that he meant what he clearly wrote – is intellectually dishonest and factually incorrect.

If you doubt this, next time you receive your written monthly invoice from the power company for $500 worth of electricity, try sending them a check for $75 with a note that says ” you didn’t mean $500 – you meant $75 – here’s your payment in full.”

At some point deliberate nonsense – and further attempts to justify that nonsense – go so far off the rails that a person trying to do the justifying is no longer communicating credibly.

That’s what has happened here.

Imagine the BT’s surprise and confusion if that 16-y.o. goes on to rebel, reject the family fortune and becomes a psych, investigative reporter, social worker or Presbyterian minister or, worse yet, missionary helping those in need. For good measure, the host may even turn out gay! Xenu, why hast thou forsaken me…

“- but when the person is operating from factually incorrect historical assumptions, their “experience” often has more to do with their own errors of perception, versus the behavior of others.”

Funny but that’s real close to a point the author was making.

What is your name? I do not hide behind of a picture of a dog. You want info from me? Give me some.

” I find value in an underrepresented voice’s perception of his own experience.”

I do too – but when the person is operating from factually incorrect historical assumptions, their “experience” often has more to do with their own errors of perception, versus the behavior of others.

If one wants to finds ways in which they are being victimized (real or imaginary) they will never – ever – run out of examples.

If one understands that the world is a complex place with a near infinite number of “personal experiences” one learns to interoperate with others without immediately assigning heinous attributes to people that might have a different opinion or background.

Identity politics (which is what the author is conducting) is counterproductive because it assigns blanket attributes (just like he did in writing) on the basis of race, sex, national origin, etc. to people that do not share those characteristics simply by virtue of membership in whatever group “identity” the accuser is labeling. That is WHY doing so has been made illegal in the US – except (apparently) for folks that do it rhetorically to advance whatever their grievance driven agenda might be.

“This is happening to me – it MUST be because I’m (insert “victim” category here) and the (insert “oppressor” category here) is willfully causing it to happen.”

The author is doing EXACTLY the same “thinking” by which he claims to be victimized.

It is intellectually lazy and unlikely to lead to much useful change.

EDIT to add: I did not “take out” the quotes from the article.

The author put them in there. They are his words – not mine.

He asserted nonsense – and I called out the nonsense.