Why do old, white, liberal, men, think that they are qualified to make such broad sweeping statements about what black people should want, do, or support? Phil Vischer probably just needs to shut up at this point when it comes to criticizing black men for not being black enough.
Monday, March 7, 2022
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
53 comments:
Paul Vischer the Veggie Tales mope? I'm guessing you're referring to this:
https://capstonereport.com/2022/03/05/peak-woke-phil-vischer-says-voddie-baucham-doesnt-represent-black-christians/37637/
Well, I'm sure Baucham doesn't represent every single black person any more than does Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton or Louis Farrakhan. So what? How is it even possible? To the lefty, Baucham, like Owens, is the wrong black voice to lend one's ear. Indeed, those two are among the black voices they don't want people hearing.
Praytell: What has Vischer said that criticizes black men for not being black enough? And what are the odds that you're pulling this from your ass and Vischer hasn't said anything of the sort?
I've googled words to that effect and got nothing.
I'd be willing to bet that you can't support this claim factually and that you don't understand Vischer's words any better than you understand my words any better than you understand the Bible.
Also, on what basis do you think Vischer is a liberal? Because he's more progressive than you on racial issues?
I mean, maybe he is liberal. I don't know the guy. But having watched a bunch of at least his early Veggie Tales, I don't see that.
From what I have seen, he is a traditional pretty conservative Christian BUT one who believes that white Christians should be paying attention to the least of these and to justice and racial issues. Sort of like many of the ultra conservative people I grew up around.
Vischer, on homosexuality:
“If I get pressure from Hollywood to show two men getting married because we’ve all decided it’s right and correct, my pushback is: ‘No, I won’t. Because that’s not what I believe is best for kids’”.
https://www.christian.org.uk/news/veggie-tales-creator-i-wont-compromise-on-biblical-values/
Art,
Yes, I am. I guess that Dan was too lazy to do the research.
Vischer has announced that Voddie Baucham shouldn't be elected president of the SBC because he doesn't "speak for many" black people or some such nonsense.
As art correctly pointed out, many "black leaders" don't speak for "many" black people. But why point out the double standard.
In the words of a black woman with the Twitter handle of Adrienne. "Excuse me. AA who are true believers don't view their ethnicity as more important than their identity in Christ, so we are not looking for a pastor/ministry leader to "speak for us". We are looking for a MAN of God to preach & uphold the word of God in season & out of season."
I could be wrong, but it seems like a couple of things could be True here.
1. Electing any black person to the SBC presidency would be a significant move.
2. The job of the SBC president isn't primarily about "racial reconciliation".
3. If it's so vitally important that we "listen to black voices", then why try to limit the "black voices" we listen to?
4. If Baucham runs, and if he wins, then isn't Vischers opinion rendered somewhat worthless?
5. Isn't this why we have elections for these roles, to determine what people want?
6. What is gained by an old, white, liberal, trying to stop/discourage/prevent a black guy from running for SBC president?
"And what are the odds that you're pulling this from your ass and Vischer hasn't said anything of the sort?"
Slim.
"Also, on what basis do you think Vischer is a liberal? Because he's more progressive than you on racial issues?"
His recent public statements on various issues.
I don't care about your opinions abut what Vischer might have been at some point in the past. I'm sure you are aware that people can change and that it's stupid to try to take someone's past positions and apply those to one's current positions.
Finally, Visacher is just a recent public example of old, white, rich, liberals telling blacks what's best for them. See Joe Biden and his "You ain't black" comment or the various examples of Hillary adopting black dialect or playing to black stereotypes (I carry hot sauce in my purse).
The fact that he, at one point, had a "conservative" view on homosexuality (a view shared by many liberals until recently, and which isn't devoid of evidence), really doesn't mean that much.
Craig... "I guess that Dan was too lazy to do the research."
Wow. Even now, eeing that the story has to do with the Southern Baptist convention and this black pastor, if I Google those specific names and words, then I get hits on a bunch of of small time religious websites and groups. There is NO news about this being covered by journalists. It's not in CNN, NPR, BBC , AP, Fox News... How would anyone possibly be able to know this information unless they're tuned in to the far right religious niche sources that you fellows haunt?
As it is, all I see is a bunch of gossip. I don't know what was and was not said and Twitter is hardly reliable... I'm not engaging in gossip with you boys.
As to whether or not Vischer is liberal or conservative, in other words, you have NO information and you don't know the state of his theology or politics. You're just calling him a liberal because you don't like him.
Again, small time baseless gossip is the stuff of 3rd graders. It has no place in the church or people speaking as if they are part of the Church. Just more unsupported, baseless false claims. Just more of the stuff of modern so-called conservatism. Petty gossip.
You're right. Following SBC related social media is the very definition of "far right" haunts. Because if it's not on the mainstream, legacy, easily accessed, media, it's just not real. Maybe you need to broaden your self, and expand your mind.
Again, when folks like Vishcher make statements that tend to align with the left side of the political spectrum, some folks take their words at face value.
This is a lot of effort you're putting in to a conversation about which you are admittedly ignorant.
FYI, I'm not sure how using Vischer's exact words is somehow "gossip". It strange that taking someone's public comments and responding to them is "gossip" when it suits you. If there's anything close to "gossip" it's Vischer making and publicly sharing his hunches about Baucham and his alleged run for the SBC presidency. Or, one could conclude that Vischer is engaged in some level of character assassination against Baucham, if one wanted to do so. It's unlikely, but not beyond a reasonable conclusion.
I guess Art's just better at the Google machine than some people.
I don't trust your sources as to whether or not Vischer actually said any of the things he's alleged to have said.
And yes, speaking as one who's got a lifelong history of working with Southern Baptists and being raised Southern Baptist... they are a far right group now. At least their leadership is.
Did you not know this?
Also, your hypocrisy is exposed because you never say anything about old white conservative men talking down to or telling black people what they need to do... Or calling them stupid, as Marshal does.
Dan,
I'm sorry if you don't trust Phil Vischer's actual words, but I just don't care that much. I'm not sure what you're perceived impression of the SBC being "far right" (compared to you pretty much anyone is "far right") has to do with Vischer and his comments.
As far as your bullshit "hypocrisy" claim. I'm a finite man, with a finite amount of time and bandwidth, who has a finite amount of time in any given day, to post/comment on a finite amount of things. Given that reality, I post/comment on things that I choose. Given the reality that I've always opposed hypocrisy by politicians, the fact that I choose to occasionally point out specific instances, doesn't mean that my general opposition to hypocrisy doesn't exist. But I guess that's why you hold yourself to a different standard than you hold others to.
That's funny...Dan accusing others of hypocrisy. I wonder which "old conservative white men" he has in mind. And those black people I regard as stupid are stupid for the same reasons I call people Dan stupid. Their race is irrelevant to their stupidity. This is clearly true given the many brilliant black people I've cited so many times, as well as black people I know personally who don't behave as the black people Dan defends.
It's interesting that he's denying the actual words Vischer used in a public forum, yet fails to provide any actual examples of his claims.
Craig...
"It's interesting that he's denying the actual words Vischer used in a public forum"
1. Again, not what I said. Another stupidly false claim/misstatement about something I didn't say.
2. What I did say quite clearly is that I DON'T KNOW what Vischer has said. I know YOU referenced (well, alluded to... I don't know what sources you're hinting at in your vague statements because you gave no sources) some links that SAID that Vischer said this... but I don't trust gossip and hearsay. That's kind of biblical, you know?
Also, perhaps you haven't heard about the horrible spread of misinformation by Russians and conservative types and others.
I don't trust unknown sites that are not actually journalism sources with some decent reputation. With the spread of misappropriation these days, I try hard not to be gullible that way.
You say (hint at) Vischer said something but I don't know that this is true.
Give me reputable sources and then we can talk. This is why reputable sources are important. This is why NOT being vague is important. This is why actual links are important.
You DID pass a basic high school level English class at some time, didn't you?
Dan,
I literally quoted Vischer's words. The fact that you choose to act like I made them up or some other bullshit excuse isn't my problem.
If Vischer's own words aren't enough for you, then nothing will satisfy you. Beyond that, your excuse for ignoring things (that the sources aren't "reputable" enough for you) is simply silly. The Truth of something isn't dependent on the source that reports it. The fact the you choose to put your trust in "reputable" sources that have a history of being wrong, is your choice.
It's interesting that one of the "features" of the internet was purported to be the ability of anyone to become a journalist. I'm pretty sure we've had bloggers and the like win court cases affirming them as journalists. Yet in Dan's world, none of that matters. The only thing that matters is if something is reported by a mainstream/legacy news organization, or by an affinity group that agrees with his opinions. I guess Dan's opinion on what's reputable supersedes Dan's commitment to what's True.
I'll give you a hint, start with Vischer's Twitter account. Unless you're going to make some bullshit claim about Vischer's Twitter not representing the Truth of what he's said.
Craig... "I literally quoted Vischer's words."
You literally TOLD me you literally quoted his words. I have no proof of that, nor of what specific words he may or may not have said nor of the context of those words.
If you want to slander or gossip about someone, then at the least, you should begin with a reference so those who are not inclined to gossip or slander will know if you're at least actually quoting someone correctly.
Not sure what is unclear about this for you.
That just anyone repeats words or makes claims does not make them a journalist. I was a journalist (or in school to be one) and I know about the requirements it takes to be a legitimate journalist using journalistic tools with integrity.
One can be a legitimate journalist in an operation that is not a name-brand, known journalistic source. But one can't be a legitimate journalist in an outfit that does not embrace journalistic ethics.
Not sure what's hard to understand about that, either.
And I'm not on Twitter.
Craig... "The Truth of something isn't dependent on the source that reports it. "
No. But an outfit that regularly makes known false claims reporting something means that one can't trust that particular story to be True.
And again, not sure what's hard to understand about this.
What happened to conservatives who appreciated character and virtue and truth-telling?
So, your argument boils down to your hunch that I'm lying when I quoted Vischer, and I won't spoon feed you enough "proof" to satisfy you.
Guess what, it's interesting that you (essentially) calling me a liar isn't slander in your bizarro world, but my accurately quoting Vischer somehow is.
Thanks for the laugh, I needed it.
Interesting. You seem to be saying that news organizations who "regularly" make "false claims" aren't worthy of your trust, while simultaneously claiming that the mainstream/legacy media outlets ARE worthy of your absolute trust. Are you really suggesting that the "mainstream/legacy" media don't "regularly" make statements which are factually "false"?
The problem with your construct, is that it's measuring Truth not by it's fidelity o reality, but by your opinions about what outlets are "reliable".
Truth isn't measured by who reports it, but by what is in accordance with reality.
For example. A bill referred to the "don't say gay" bill, which doesn't prohibit anyone from "saying gay" isn't in accord with reality.
Hey, I'm the one arguing that the Truth isn't measured by who reports is, but by it's fidelity to reality.
For example, I find Pelosi's blatantly false comments about government spending and inflation to be so far beyond Truth as to leave me speechless thinking that people believe her. Likewise Biden trying to blame inflation on Putin.
Craig.. "your argument boils down to your hunch that I'm lying when I quoted Vischer..."
Again, I'm not sure what's unclear about any of this. I'm not suggesting you are lying about his words.
I'm saying
I don't know.
You've provided no quote and no source. I don't know you.
I do know that there's a serious problem with misinformation on the Internet these days. And I know the conservatives are very guilty of passing on missing information. As a point of object of fact.
Is that what's happening here? I don't know. Because you've provided no quote and no source.
I don't know you well enough to trust you are rightly quoting Vischer and just to take it you at your word that this is what Vischer said because you say he said this .
After all, look at all the number of times you've said here's what Dan is saying, when it was NOT anything that I was saying. I think it is as equally likely that you are misunderstanding him as you are quoting him correctly. AND it is as equally likely that the source you're providing is not a is not a legitimate source. It could be Russia. I don't know.
I do know that modern conservatives have proven them untrustworthy when it comes to saying someone said something.
I'm curious, can you acknowledge that there is a real problem with misinformation out there?
Can you acknowledge that this is also a problem, at least in part, coming from conservatives sharing misinformation?
Have you read about this?
Craig... "Are you really suggesting that the "mainstream/legacy" media don't "regularly" make statements which are factually "false"?"
I'm saying that NPR, BBC, ABC and others are trustworthy news organizations. Sometimes they make mistakes because, you know, they're humans and all. But they generally follow journalist guidelines for reporting integrity. As a point of fact.
I'm saying there's no information to suggest anywhere at all that NPR or BBC, for instance, are not reliable.
I'm saying outright that conservatives who would make a claim like BBC and NPR areuntrustworthy are, themselves, not reliable And that their partisan biases have blinded them. It's a stupidly false claim. Or at least a stupidly exaggerated claim.
If someone is saying that at least the quality journalistic groups regularly make false claims, I would say that that person is a liar and the can't support that claim.
There's a difference between making mistakes, which will happen, and making false claims.
Are you saying that NPR and BBC regularly make false claims? Do you have any data to support such nonsense, if so? Or can you agree that these two (at least) are quality journalistic outfits, reliable and trustworthy?
Craig... "Truth isn't measured by who reports it, but by what is in accordance with reality."
Yes. Of course. BUT, if the reality is that a report is coming from an unreliable organization that doesn't engage in reliable journalism, THEN that is a strike against spending much time considering it. Bad company corrupts good character.
And it is a reality that if you treat disreputable groups who regularly pass on misinformation as a reliable group, then you set up other, more gullible, people for a fall, because they may mistake it for a reputable organization.
Do you disagree with those observable realities?
Look, if the KKK Daily does a report about how dangerous black men, are you going to give that one second's thought? What if they had two or three actual facts (or partial facts) in the mix of the story, does that mean it's a trustworthy source?
You'd be a fool to think so. IF that "source" passed on something that was factual, I'd believe it when I found it from a reliable source, not coming from them. And, by citing KKK Daily, you'd be giving it credibilty, and that would be dangerous to do.
Do you disagree?
Craig... "The problem with your construct, is that it's measuring Truth not by it's fidelity o reality, but by your opinions about what outlets are "reliable". "
That's not my construct. Another instance of you not understanding my words.
Tell me: What do you think my "construct" is?
Craig... "Guess what, it's interesting that you (essentially) calling me a liar isn't slander in your bizarro world, but my accurately quoting Vischer somehow is.
Thanks for the laugh, I needed it."
Of course, I did not (essentially or otherwise) call you a liar. Another stupidly false claim/instance of you reading and failing to understand. But your inability to understand words so consistently IS worthy of a laugh.
Craig... " You seem to be saying that news organizations who "regularly" make "false claims" aren't worthy of your trust, while simultaneously claiming that the mainstream/legacy media outlets ARE worthy of your absolute trust."
Not what I said. That is, I never said that mainstream media are worthy of "absolute trust."
I've said that the data shows they do an exceedingly good job of reporting the facts. They may offer some conservative (FoxNews) or more liberal (CNN) spin, but the facts tend to be right.
As you noted somewhere recently, journalism has a history of being extremely partisan in its origins. I'd say today, we're living in a Golden Age of Journalism, at least in so far as the better news groups go - NPR, BBC, AP, for instance.
Craig... "A bill referred to the "don't say gay" bill, which doesn't prohibit anyone from "saying gay" isn't in accord with reality."
Let's deal with specifics, rather than the vague sort-of accusations you favor. Here's NPR's coverage of that story...
"Proposed legislation in Florida would restrict how teachers can discuss sexuality and gender in the classroom, the latest effort by Republican lawmakers to remove the teaching of LGBTQ issues from schools.
Supporters say the measure empowers parents who deserve to have a say in what their children learn, but critics — who've dubbed the proposal the "Don't Say Gay" bill — argue that it will strip protections from LGBTQ kids and have a chilling effect on educators...
Under the House bill, a Florida school district "may not encourage classroom discussion about sexual orientation or gender identity in primary grade levels or in a manner that is not age-appropriate or developmentally appropriate for students." The bill doesn't specify how "age-appropriate" and "developmentally appropriate" would be defined.
https://www.npr.org/2022/02/09/1079541236/florida-dont-say-gay-bill
Feel free to read the whole story.
Now, is there ANYTHING that is a false claim in that story?
Critics HAVE been calling it the "Don't Say Gay Bill." They've been doing so for fairly reasonable reasons - "may not encourage classroom discussion about sexual orientation or gender identity" is fairly equivalent to saying "Don't say/talk about being gay or transgender - so it's not an unfair characterization. And it IS a chilling bill for LGBTQ folks and their families and allies. It's a reasonable concern for many people. Thank God for NPR reliably reporting on it.
Is there anything false in the story?
Craig... " A bill referred to the "don't say gay" bill, which doesn't prohibit anyone from "saying gay" isn't in accord with reality."
The point, I hope you understand, is that teachers and students can't talk about issues of homosexuality or transgender status. In theory, if a child were abused or mocked for being from an LGBTQ home or presenting as LGBTQ, the teachers/school couldn't talk about how this is not something that can be talked about. The teachers would be blocked from saying something as simple as "Some children who were born boys later on may want to wear dresses and that's NOT something we should make fun of..." Would you want that?
In other words, the point is not that teachers can't talk about the word, they can't talk about the concept, even if it's an appropriate thing to talk about. And that's dangerous and does have a chilling effect on LGBTQ folk and their allies. Do you understand how that would be?
Craig... "A bill referred to the "don't say gay" bill, which doesn't prohibit anyone from "saying gay" isn't in accord with reality."
IF one takes it as a literal fact that the reporters were saying, "This bill is LITERALLY called 'Don't Say Gay Bill' because teachers LITERALLY can't say the word, Gay..." then it might be the case that it's an instance of bad reporting.
But - and this is vital - it's NOT the case that this is what reporters were saying. They're referring to the bill as it has been dubbed by opponents. "Don't Say Gay" is a briefer and catchier title than "Parental Rights in Education bill." It helps make clear what the point of the bill is, as opposed to simply "parental rights," which is vague.
The media is under no obligation to report the story using the politicized words of the authors of a bill present.
Do you understand then why your vague accusation that the "Don't Say Gay Bill" is being falsely reported upon is, itself, a false accusation?
Conversely, the conservative FoxNews (also a legitimate news source, but much less credible than NPR) reported this story this way...
"We in Florida showed a commitment to education, not to indoctrination, and I want to think the Florida legislature for doing that," he said. "As the parent of three kids that are aged 5 and under, thank you for letting me and my wife be able to send our kids to kindergarten without them being sexualized."
DeSantis was referring to the Parental Rights in Education bill – dubbed by Democrats as the "Don’t Say Gay" bill – which bans Florida school employees or third parties from giving classroom instruction on "sexual orientation" or "gender identity" in kindergarten through third grade.
"People actually said that if you don't have classroom instruction on sexual matters in grades K through 3 that somehow businesses don't want to be in Florida," DeSantis said. "I think people need to get out of their bubble and actually talk to parents in this state, because they do not want this in kindergarten or first grade or second grade."
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/desantis-critics-parental-rights-bubble
In contrast to the even handed reporting from NPR, they just gave a soap box to the GOP and let his softball answers and claims go unaddressed, unchallenged. De Santis called it indoctrination, but who is saying ANYTHING about "indoctrination..."?
De Santis said he and his wife want "to be able to send our kids to kindergarten without them being sexualized." WHO is trying to sexualize children? That's an incredibly libelous and slanderous charge (not to mention certainly false!), but it goes completely unchallenged.
De Santis said about Florida parents, "because they do not want this in kindergarten or first grade or second grade." But again, says who? I'm sure some parents don't and other parents do. What is the level of support amongst parents?
By only posting the unsupported and libelous charges from one party, this undermines FoxNews credibility as a legitimate news group.
Now, maybe there's another story on this topic where they do a better job. I just picked the first FoxNews reference to the story (just as I picked the first NPR reference to the story). But if you were raising questions about THIS story, I'd agree with you.
Also, from what little I can find (I suspect more polls will be coming), I suspect that De Santis would be right... IF he had said that some 30-40% of Florida parents probably support his dangerous and probably unconstituional legislation, but not that all Florida parents support it or even a majority.
The case for this being a Golden Age of Journalism:
https://www.businessinsider.com/a-golden-age-for-journalism-2013-8
https://www.poynter.org/reporting-editing/2020/explanatory-journalism-is-entering-a-golden-age-in-the-middle-of-the-coronavirus-pandemic/
"Is that what's happening here? I don't know. Because you've provided no quote and no source."
I did provide both a quote and the source. I'm sorry that you missed those or can't verify them to your satisfaction. But, I don't particularly care.
"Give me reputable sources and then we can talk."
If Vischer's own words aren't reputable enough for you, then I can't help you.
"I'm curious, can you acknowledge that there is a real problem with misinformation out there?"
Yes, I can. Especially given the reality that virtually every mainstream narrative about COVID has been proven to be less than accurate. Studies show that Ivermectin is beneficial, yet the mainstream news spent months ridiculing those who suggested it's value.
"Can you acknowledge that this is also a problem, at least in part, coming from conservatives sharing misinformation?"
Since you can't acknowledge the misinformation coming from the mainstream/legacy media, I see no reason to agree with your hunch in this case.
"Have you read about this?"
Yes, I've read quite a bit about the mainstream/legacy media pushing false narratives.
!0 comments of bullshit.
The reality is that this post IS NOT about the "reliability" of the media. It's not about Truth being determined by who reports it.
It's about old, white, liberals telling black folks what's good for them.
I'm not indulging any more of your diversions. I'll post the comments because it's a great examples of the lengths you'll go to in order to follow your diversions. But I'm done beyond that.
Lie. Dodge. Obfuscate. Slander. Gossip. Ignore.
We see.
Look. You've been caught gossiping about someone and making stupidly false claims that the data doesn't support. Just admit it and move on. Let's be adults here.
"Lie. Dodge. Obfuscate. Slander. Gossip. Ignore."
Yet, I haven't done any of those things. Maybe I'm ignoring your off topic digressions and obfuscations, but none of the rest. If I had, you'd have demonstrated where I'd done so. But you can't.
"We see."
More of your pretending like you represent some vast, silent, lurking mass of people. Just admit that you're only one person and stop this weird attempt at intimidation.
"Look. You've been caught gossiping about someone and making stupidly false claims that the data doesn't support. Just admit it and move on. Let's be adults here."
Except I haven't. You can't point to one objectively "false claim", I've made. What's strangest here, is watching you engage in everything you are accusing me of.
Craig... "Except I haven't. You can't point to one objectively "false claim", I've made."
Also Craig..."your argument boils down to your hunch that I'm lying when I quoted Vischer"
False claim. I have no such hunch.
Also Craig... " "A bill referred to the "don't say gay" bill, which doesn't prohibit anyone from "saying gay" isn't in accord with reality."
False claim.
There are two right off the top of my head.
Craig... "You can't point to one objectively "false claim", I've made. What's strangest here, is watching you engage in everything you are accusing me of"
The irony is, of course, that I just pointed to easy examples of false claims on your part and yet you accuse me of making false claims while you literally cannot point to a false claim that I have made. You failing to understand my point and misinterpreting my words is not equivalent to me making a false claim.
You still can't point to any objectively false claim I've made. Your entire "argument" hinges on your assertion that my Visher quote is false. Ergo, if it's false, then I'm lying abut it.
The fact that you have to lie about the FL bill is just incredibly ironic.
But please, continue to obfuscate and try to ignore the point of the post as well as your implicit claim that Truth is determined by who reports it.
Craig... "Your entire "argument" hinges on your assertion that my Visher quote is false. Ergo, if it's false, then I'm lying abut it."
God-bless your little heart. You just don't understand words, do you?
If someone runs up to me and says, quick jump off this cliff there's a lion coming!... I'm not going to jump off the cliff. If I don't see a lion, I'm not going to jump off the cliff..
Does that mean I'm assuming he's lying? No. It just means that I don't know and I see no reason to believe him unless I see a lion.
Add to that, if this guy has a history of thinking he sees lions and saying there's a lion coming, it's still reasonable not to jump off the cliff... And even more so. That doesn't mean that in this case I'm saying these lying. It just means that I do not know and I have no reason to accept it on his word alone. There's a difference. Words matter.
Craig... " The fact that you continue to lie about the Florida bill..."
WHAT LIE ???
Good God in heaven have mercy! You're impossible to talk with on a rational adult level. You make vague false accusation after false accusation and never support them and when you're called on it, You just repeat the false accusation.
What specific lie have I offered?
If you can't support it, and you can't, then admit it. There's no harm in admitting you were wrong.
Craig... "as your implicit claim that Truth is determined by who reports it."
Implicit. Implied by the speaker.
Once again, I did not say this nor did I imply this. That you continually read things into other people's words is part of the problem. If you can't read and understand, ask questions.
For the last time, I do not believe truth is determined by who reports it. That is a stupidly damnably diabolically false claim. I have never said that nor have I implied it. It is false. You are making a stupidly false claim. Do you understand this? Stupidly. False. Do you need me to provide the definitions for these words?
Good Lord have mercy!
That's all there is, just Dan repeating himself. Clearly that makes his claims True.
But the determination to beat this dead, off topic, horse is sort of admirable in a perverse, bizarre, warped, way.
You said I LIED. YOU lied when you said that. Anyone can see that you're not answering the question.
The Bible/God/Jesus tell you NOT to bear false witness, but you've just done it multiple times on this post alone. Not to mention the slander and gossip you're engaging in.
You can't point to a place where I lied about the Florida bill. Me pointing out that factual reality is not beating a dead horse, it's trying to hold you accountable for repeating stupidly false claims.
Shame on you if, when confronted with your clear error, you aren't adult enough (let alone Christian enough) to apologize for the mistake.
What has become of modern conservatives that they trample and puke so easily upon truth and facts and reality?
You're so certain that "I LIED" that you can't even provide an example of this alleged lie. I guess if the source of something is all that's needed to make judgements abut Truth, then I can make judgements about this.
But, please keep beating the off topic dead horse if your arm needs the exercise.
Modern conservatives aren't the ones arguing for "multiple Truths", but you just stay in your fantasy world, your narratives are safer there.
?
YOU SAID,
The fact that you continue to lie about the Florida bill
Given that I have not lied about the Florida bill, THAT CLAIM THAT YOU STATED AS A FACT, is, itself, a false claim.
What are you not understanding here? This is such a strange, strange, strange conversation style you engage.
Craig... "Modern conservatives aren't the ones arguing for "multiple Truths"
Ironic, when it is fairly easy to demonstrate that modern conservatives have not given much care to ANY truth, much less one. Modern conservatives have largely become identified as Trump conservatives (although the problem precedes Trump) which are those who don't care about facts, who just regularly make empty stupidly false claims. As we see you have done.
History will remember modern conservatives as the "alternative facts" people. Unfortunately.
Still beating the dead horse.
Still not answering the questions. Still repeating stupidly, objectively, demonstrably false claims.
Shame on you.
Still haven't addressed the topic of the post, still haven't proven any of your claims. But the dead horse is well and truly beaten.
Topic of the post...
"Why do old, white, liberal, men, think that they are qualified to make such broad sweeping statements about what black people should want, do, or support?"
1. They shouldn't make sweeping uninformed proclamations of what black people should want.
2. Nor should white conservative men or women, which has long been a serious problem.
3. And which is the case with Vischer (IF he's done this, which remains to be seen, since gossip and out of context quotes/perhaps quotes), since Vischer is clearly much more conservative than liberal.
4. "Liberal," being one of the scare words that conservatives have often used to demonize even one of their own.
5. However, noting correctly things like
a. Black people largely vote for Democrats
b. Black people tend to approve of and support BLM
c. Black people tend not to be in alignment with much of SBC's extreme right social positions
...echoing the reality of black voices is just being an ally... NOT "telling black people what to think."
Indeed, in Vischers case his argument appears to be directed towards other white conservatives, not black people at all.
It only took this many comments for you to actually address the topic of the post, and it's more of the bland, equivocal, excuse making that you always serve up.
Still not an answer as to the "why", but it's at least on topic.
The question remains, why would you isolate someone who is conservative, but identify him as a liberal, and then cast the question as if this was a liberal problem more so than a conservative one? You do recognize that conservative white men almost certainly do this more than liberal white men?
Where are the places where you've condemned white conservative men were doing this? Hell, with Vischer, you have an instance of a conservative white man doing it (at least in your mind he's liberal). Why did you feel the need to falsely cast him as liberal?
I mean, ranting about what black people SHOULD be doing is sort of the schtick of old conservative white men, you know? (See Marshal and Glenn)
And oftentimes, when white folks do it, it's because or in the context of us listening to black voices and and trying to be an ally with what the majority of black people are saying. Do you recognize that?
Craig... ""Why do old, white, liberal, men, think that they are qualified to make such broad sweeping statements about what black people should want, do, or support?"
Or, in short (and as I've already answered at least once), white liberal people will sometimes listen to what black people are saying and they'll repeat those sweeping statements they hear FROM black people to spread the message of black people. Because, of course, they are. And should.
It's called being an ally.
Do you think they SHOULDN'T repeat what black people are telling them and what the data shows the majority believes?
If so, why?
I don't expect any response to this, as this post requires scrolling too far for some. I just had nothing to do, so I looked beyond the first pages of posts. Anyhow, we see the same old, same old with this guy. There's a huge difference between what the Veggie guy was doing and what conservatives of any race do. (And no, I don't believe Vischer's a conservative. Dan thinks he is, but Dan has no clue about conservatism.) This "listen to black voices" crap is tired and boring, as well as futile for determining what is truly necessary to improve the lives of the black community. What jokers like Dan fail to realize is that what a conservative might offer as a path for the black community is no different from what a conservative would offer to anyone regardless of race. That's because what is offered is time-tested and proven to work should one put in the effort to follow the plan.
Dan also thinks it's important "what the data shows the majority believes". Well, only insofar as it enlightens others as to just how off course they are. The most obvious is the nonsensical notion that blacks get different treatment from cops, and usually brutal treatment. The stats don't back that up, and that belief never comes with a complete and objective self-reflection. I've no doubt too many black people believe such things. That's not as important as why they believe it, particularly when their "why" doesn't have any evidentiary backing.
A true "ally" of anyone, black or otherwise, is one who speaks truthfully after "listening to" whatever voice is speaking. To simply listen and not respond with legitimate feedback accomplishes nothing. To simply listen and act on that which is not true helps no one. And to listen only to those who say the same false things over and over gets us nowhere.
Apparently patronizing black people by telling them what to do is what old, white.liberal guys do, they just pretend like they're repeating black folk.
Post a Comment