Yeah, and there are some scientists that question the science of climate change too. Meanwhile the planet burns. The OVERWHELMING evidence is that masks are one of the only measures that mitigate the damage of the virus. You can argue that the Earth is flat too, but that just makes you a harmless nutjob. In this case he is not being harm…
Yeah, and there are some scientists that question the science of climate change too. Meanwhile the planet burns. The OVERWHELMING evidence is that masks are one of the only measures that mitigate the damage of the virus. You can argue that the Earth is flat too, but that just makes you a harmless nutjob. In this case he is not being harmless, he is effectively yelling fire in a crowded room. It's disinformation and it puts lives in danger to do what he did. And again, it'd be one thing if he was just blogging about it (like he does about 9/11 conspiracies and various other garbage) but he spouted off on this to his students, and that crosses a line. And I repeat: I HATE CANCEL CULTURE. This isn't that.
So ... arguing that someone should be fired for what they say isn't "cancel culture"? You are either punking us, or are seriously misguided on just what constitutes cancel culture ...
Some cunt sitting in a class on communications at NYU who posts a tweet complaining about something they misunderstood?
Some group of bureaucrats at some college who aren't medical professionals themselves?
Some CIA goons in a darkened room deciding how best to disrupt a society so that they can bend it to their will?
Rudolph Hess?
Chairman Mao?
Ronald Reagan?
Who?
I'll tell you, cunt: the Constitution. It grants free speech without guardrails.
You are sitting here defending the indefensible and acting as though you have some moral high ground. You don't, and neither did Hitler, Mao, Trump, Bush or Obama.
They are a real-time death cult hell bent on controlling the whole globe, it's people, it's resources.
They KNOW it's not sustainable and they don't fucking care. They just want to be around ling enough to pick up the pieces and forge a new society afterward, and guess what? You're still going to be trammeled under the boot, even as you glance upward with puppy dog eyes and say, "But... I defended your right to censor things! I believed in you!!!"
I strongly protest your calling someone a cunt just because you disagree with that person. We should be attempting to exchange ideas and opinions here, not throwing around anger and insults. Why should that be necessary?
We may have to agree to disagree. Scott is the man. I think vulgarity is one of the highest expressions of democracy. 1st Amendment, etc.
An unsubstantiated theory: in the USA, one can discern much about a person's social class by what they define as "appropriate" language to use in public (as --very much -- opposed to private) fora.
I fully endorse Scott's use of the word, "cunt" in this, or any other context. In fact, I think we should use cunt more often. We need to democratize cunt. We need to fuck the ever-loving shit out of cunt as a matter of principle.
From Scott: "I fully endorse Scott's use of the word, "cunt" in this, or any other context. In fact, I think we should use cunt more often. We need to democratize cunt. We need to fuck the ever-loving shit out of cunt as a matter of principle." Were you trying to post from a different identity but you accidentally used the same identity?
I see. There are two people called Scott here. So, the Scott with the avatar picture had a complaint from a student, and the Scott without the avatar picture backed up the Scott with an avatar. That's the whole story?
That's silly. There are plenty of angry feelings going back and forth here. That comment of mine was one of my most reasonable. Some others may have been overreactions.
I was harking back to when you scolded us for taking part in frivolous drinking games while _very_serious_stuff_ was going down, like a presidential debate or some such.
What I think is serious is Trump's destructive conduct, police violence against people of color, extreme income inequality, overpopulation, and climate change. The pandemic was caused by the last two items in that list. Our civilization is in deep trouble here on Earth -- and also I just don't like drinking games. They are dangerous, and I've seen too much alcoholism, in fact. Sorry I'm taking things too seriously for your taste. I am here to learn.
Yup. I've said it before and I'll say it again. Substack is Subpar. Their software is slow and unreliable, and it's years behind in terms of features for a comments section. I dread to think what it's moderation features are like.
I don't know how it managed to gain such mindshare in the last year. Even Wordpress obviously is better than this. Is it really so hard to deploy WP on something like Digitalocean that Matt, Matt, GG, and now Krystal really don't have the option?
Sometimes little details of appearance and various quirks get settled into users' minds and create a sort of platform identity that sticks in the minds of the public and content creators. I'd suggest that the substack software team (if they have one!) fix the problems, or rewrite the whole thing, but keep the appearance unchanged to retain the loyalty of those creators.
I'm not picking on Ralph here. I think the appearance of his same comment 3x is proof Substack needs to up its software game. I don't think all of this shit is "operator error."
Thanks for pointing that out. I deleted two of them. I had no idea that had happened. Substack seems to lose its way fairly often. For a few minutes it stops responding. Has anyone else noticed that?
Mine is a parody of a famous recent quote from AOC in which she scolded people for tolerating Jimmy Dore's potty mouth. The old-school emoticon was your clue.
I was not referring to your comment. I was referring to the comment by Scott, starting with this: "So who gets to be the brain police, Mark?" That is the one of the comments I was objecting to.
I know. And my reply was a parody of all that "Oh my! Such language! Well I never. Such indecency ..." bullshit.
I am so tired of that. Given the horrors rained down by this empire on its victims at home and abroad, and the complicity of its citizenry in supporting the propaganda that has permitted these routine outrages at least 70 years straight, when someone tells me I'm out of line for using the strongest language I can muster to express my anger, well fuck your fucking delicate sense of decency.
No disrespect to you Ralph. I have the sense you're a good person doing your best but your ejaculations of moral indignation in the comments here seem, to me at least, often quite comical. I get a kick out of reading them
By the way, I agree with you about the horrors rained down by the empire. Every civilization seems to have some of that in its past, and probably will in its future as long as we have nation-states, which are always destructive in many different ways.
Your words "well fuck your fucking delicate sense of decency" sound a lot like a direct taunt directed at me, in direct contradiction to your "no disrespect" disclaimer. Also "ejaculations of moral indignation" and "comical" and "I get a kick out of reading them" are all both insulting and, yes, disrespectful. I suggest you are fooling yourself if you can't see at least a little bit of what I'm talking about in your own words. That is covert aggression, and I'm sure you absolutely have good reasons for doing it, but in the end it is only harming you because people sense that aggression, no matter how much you try to hide it. I know this because I used to do it too.
"well fuck your fucking delicate sense of decency" isn't intended as a direct taunt directed at you. It's a protest of how I truly feel and have done for years. And it's a provocation available for anyone who wants to defend civilized discourse. Cus words are, imo, useful in rhetoric and more legitimate than all the strawmen, whataboutism, BS syllogisms, false equivalencies, illogic, deflection, ad homenims, etc. you find so much of here.
This is blog comments. Don't take it so personally. It's not worth it.
What this kid did is such playground behavior: "I'm going to tell!" Except she doesn't (to be charitable) understand that she needs to clarify before she tattles on people. So much for the university as a training in reasonable discourse.
Where does this current relish come from, to get people into such hot water at their jobs?
Kids will always be a bit socially backward and immature, that's fine, they'll grow out of it. But this thoughtless malice and spite is horrible. Where did they learn to act like this? Is narking rewarded in the public schools?
In related news, even the UK Court of Appeal agrees with Scott's comment below (this from Dec 18th 2020):
"...Judges have insisted that freedom of speech includes the 'right to offend' in a landmark ruling...presiding over a case in the Court of Appeal, Lord Justice Bean and Mr Justice Warby said: 'Freedom only to speak inoffensively is not worth having.'
They added that 'free speech encompasses the right to offend, and indeed to abuse another'. The judgment from two senior members of the judiciary will set a precedent for future cases involving freedom of speech.
The ruling has emerged only now, but came in the successful appeal decided last week in favour of mother-of-two Kate Scottow, from Hitchin in Hertfordshire, after she had been found guilty under the 2003 Communications Act earlier in the year..."
FWIW for masks...this unroll intro is quite thought provoking..and it's way back in September!!
"...Remember, they tell you that mask wearing reduces how far an aerosol can travel (absolutely true) and this equates to reduced infections. So do we see this in any of the global data?..Let's have a look....."
Amusing side note, someone mentioned getting into an elevator where someone had been wearing very generous amounts of aftershave recently. Their cloth mask was no match for the scent. I was thinking they should have worn their 3M powered air purifying respirator instead 😀
I gotta agree with Commentorinchief. Unless you are just being a provocateur, you are a case study in what propoganda does the brain.
which wouldn't be all bad. You could reflect on the experience and maybe get some insight into how your buttons are getting pushed. Maybe you will get famous and end up in a case study as patient privileged white male.
Your non-ironic slinging of the reflexive woke epithet whilst assailing me for being part of cancel culture is absolutely hilarious. Especially considering you don't know anything about me. Gross.
Oh please you have NO evidence that the planet is burning because of climate change! None at ALL. Even the scientists admit that. And there really is no real evidence masks work or do more than make people feel better. Or work as a political statement. I have no problem wearing them inside places especially if asked to, but this is ridiculous.
"masks work" according to the CDC PRIMARILY to stop the spraying of droplets of infected people wearing them. That's all. It's pretty well established that to block out viruses one needs a hermetically sealed and filtered-down-to-.1micron filter.
That's not really disputed by any medical personnel anywhere.
It's the oversight in letting people think they are protected just by wearing a mask that is abhorrent.
You wouldn't walk around with a condom on your willy when you're not having sex, would you?
No, you are mistaken. According to evidence, masks are highly effective to stop the dispersal of virus by infected people, but in addition, people who wear masks are less likely to get Covid-19 by inhalation of other people's spray of saliva and mucus after a cough, sneeze or loud talking. Where did you get the idea that it was established that masks do not work to protect the wearer? That is not established, and it is not true.
Welcome to your introduction into the enigma that is Ralph Dratman.
We've all been trying to get our heads around this guys hyperbole for months now. Is he supporting the argument? Which part of it? Is he arguing against it? How?
These and many other questions will enter your mind when reading Ralph's comments but remember: not even Ralph knows the answers to these questions.
Ralph seems to deserve pity, but then he doesn't. He is like a riddle.
I appreciate the attention you are paying to my opinions, but at the moment I do not even know which post of mine you are referring to, so it is difficult to react more specifically. In general, I try to have opinions one at a time, not grouped together in the mold of US liberal or conservative orthodoxy. Thus, for example, I support gay and lesbian freedom of sexuality and those people's right to be treated decently, and to marry, but I am strongly opposed to encouraging (or even allowing) minors to change gender by means of drugs or surgery, because significant numbers of them will later want to change back but are left with irreversible anatomical changes. This often leads to suicide. As another example, I hate racism and other kinds of prejudice. Nevertheless I think it is terrible that some people, even if the are racist, might lose their jobs and their professional reputations without due process. Is that all really so peculiar?
Before you jump to those conclusions, read the pre-Covid studies Dr. Miller was pointing out to his students. You know, the studies Dr. Fauci, et al. were relying on in March to say that masks don't work. I am not an anti-masker but the evidence is not OVERWHELMING (although the common sense reason for wearing masks is).
Better still... if you want to be laughed out of a lab, hand people surgical masks before they enter a containment area where the most virulent strains are kept.
No, never mind the filtered full bunny suits, you'll say... and they'll all turn and walk away. You might even get sued for attempting to expose them all to deadly viruses.
The doctors and nurses taking care of Covid patients wear masks to keep themselves safe. Most of them are still not infected. What kind of strange belief/disbelief operation are you running? You sound like either you are being intentionally provocative or your thinking is not clear.
I actually believe in masks (believe being the operative word) but in the interest of seeking truth and having an open mind, I will not shut down contrary evidence.
An excerpt from the above linked study:
"Our analysis confirms the effectiveness of medical masks and respirators against SARS. Disposable, cotton, or paper masks are not recommended.
"The confirmed effectiveness of medical masks is crucially important for lower-resource and emergency settings lacking access to N95 respirators. In such cases, single-use medical masks are preferable to cloth masks, for which there is no evidence of protection and which might facilitate transmission of pathogens when used repeatedly without adequate sterilization "
Thanks. I'm with you - willing to hear evidence for the other side.
I think part of the confusion is purpose. Reusable "cloth masks" may be ineffective for use for medical personnel treating SARS patients (per the meta-study quote), yet could still have value for people buying groceries, which really is a different situation.
If you watch the "mask testing" videos with illuminated clouds of exhalate, it looks like most of what the "cloth face masks" do is redirect the flow to avoid projecting it as widely, rather than passing most exhalate through a filter and removing virus containing particles.
If you are standing 6' from somebody in a line, that deflection could be a very useful dynamic, compared to blowing it in their faces. But if you are operating on somebody right in front of you, a actual air filtering mask is much more necessary.
The official turnabout in message to the public was basically from "you don't need medical grade masks (please don't deplete the supply because medical folks DO need them)" to "please do use face coverings (which need not be medical grade)". However the shorthand versions of that can be changing from "don't use masks" to "do use masks", which confuses people.
But then, some segments of the population are already confused and distrust scientists because the newspaper has carried stories like "wine is good for you" and "wine is bad for you", and people fail to understand that the studies were talking about different aspects of health, instead seeing it as "scientists don't have any idea what they are doing, they keep changing their minds, believe whatever you like".
The media is horrific in handling science and scientific findings. I taught my children to read all mass media science stories by first going down to the bottom of the article and trying to determine who is distributing the story to the media (because God knows US mass media is not paying people to survey scientific literature for useful information!), and who, if anyone, benefits from a particular interpretation of the data.
If you pay attention, it becomes clear that skepticism of media-distributed "science" is a sound principle.
I was referring to my own belief, not entirely based on all the evidence because I simply don't have the time or training to evaluate all the evidence. Therefore, it is a belief.
I see what you mean, and that makes sense to me. Practically no one has time or training to evaluate all the evidence. That's why people use techniques of indirect trust. That is, institutions, individuals, published results and public statements all have to be evaluated over whatever time period we can spare. It is not easy to do this well, but it definitely can be done, and to great advantage. How else would we have potent drugs and vaccines if no one researching them knew who they could trust? We use an imperfect process, and it works.
I said he is cancel culture because he is literally advocating for cancel culture in his comment. You and he can say you hate it as much as you want but if you advocate for it as well, then you and he would obviously be lying about hating it. BTW - This applies to any side of the political spectrum. People on the Right can engage in cancel culture as well, although, it is typically to prove to the Left how destructive the thing they unleashed on the world is. But it is still cancel culture.
Where would you get the impression that I am advocating for "cancel culture"? I take that to refer to persecution, loss of jobs and opportunities and so forth, on the basis of opinions about a person/victim expressed online, often on Twitter. I hate that phenomenon because it is justice of the mob, which is no justice at all.
It is true that "the planet burns" is exaggerated for the sake of emphasis. But in light of the fact that global warming is a real situation, there is no reason to see that message as a conspiracy theory. A conspiracy theory claims that an organized group of people is perpetrating lies or committing crimes. That comment refers to no conspiracy at all.
Every single sentence in this comment contains at least one bald-faced example of bad faith argumentation. I'm sorry you feel so emotional about it that this is the result. Just like I'm sorry Prof Miller's late-comer, uninformed student was so emotional she took to twitter to demand he be fired.
You say he crossed a line. What consequences do you think would be appropriate for him? If you think he should be silenced, how is that not cancellation?
I'm not seeing that. My only quarrel with this comment from Mark Read is where he writes, "he spouted off on this to his students, and that crosses a line" -- I'm not sure there is a prohibition against giving students low quality information, or if there is, what crossing a line would imply.
And...I guess your skeptical analysis stops before you get to the fact that the accusation is a lie? THAT doesn't bother you?
Then maybe, if you hadn't stopped there, you might have noticed the ridiculous escalation of charges and accusations contained in the succeeding responses from faculty and administrators.
Mark clearly thinks that's okay, because he approves of the original misrepresentation of what Prof Miller said. And you do also?
I didn't know the accusation was (might be?) a lie.
"No WONDER cancel culture wins so much!"
Good point. I was taking rumors or lies to be true, but at the moment I still don't know. I should have checked out the facts before I wrote anything. Sorry.
Can anyone recommend a good article about the Prof. Miller situation, or narrate your own understanding of what really happened? I will also see what I can find out on my own.
I believe Prof Miller gives his account of the events in the Useful Idiots interview he did with Matt and Katie Halper. It's basically that his remarks in the class (delivered while wearing a mask) dealt entirely with the fact that there was substantial questioning from credible scientific sources about the efficacy of masks, and urging students to question the current rigid insistence that everyone MUST adhere to the "accepted narrative". Which is what his class is all about. Sounded pretty innocuous, but her reaction was kind of on par for Twitter hysterics. The reaction from the school administration and his "fellow academics" is where things really depart from any relation to reality.
The guy seems like he must be sort an ass, and may not be as "conspiracy-resistant" as some of us have become. That said, when the CIA, the "Deep State" (which exists by definition because our elected reps are more temporary than many powerful people in government), and the legacy media start using "conspiracy theory" as an automatic dismissal of certain disfavored ideas...maybe I'm the one who needs to re-think "conspiracy resistance".
I finally found something about Prof Miller online. According to what I read, Miller is still in his position and hasn't been fired. So, a student complained. Is that all? Why is it so awful that someone put in a complaint if nothing happened?
I hear your dislike of cancel culture. What the article describes is a hybrid; we might take the original motive to be "protect students from hearing scientifically wrong statements from a professor, by any means available".
But then then the condemnation accuses "intimidating tactics, abuses of authority, aggression and microaggressions, and explicit hate speech, none of which are excused by academic freedom and First Amendment protections.”
Is there any evidence of those misdeeds? Or is this boilerplate cancel culture take-down?
This sounds like those concerned by his mask heresy and desiring to stop it "by any means possible" may have wound up reframing this as a social justice issue, after observing that such issues seem to have the ability to penetrate academic freedoms like the spike protein allows SARS-CoV-2 to penetrate cell walls. That is, maybe the intent was "good" (if you believe in face covering, as I do) and the attackers just used a wokist reframe as a cynical but effective tool to take him down, because normal due process was judged insufficient or too slow. Grab the handiest tool with a proven sharp edge.
How do you feel about using (and thus reinforcing) cancel culture methods - but for a good cause which you do support? Would you do that?
And I agree with you about the quality control on his blog entries.
"intimidating tactics, abuses of authority, aggression and microaggressions, and explicit hate speech, none of which are excused by academic freedom and First Amendment protections.”
This is really what the school administrators are up to.
Agreed. The letter that those faculty wrote is full on wokist horseshit. I hate it and they all suck for writing it. AND Miller should be canned for discouraging mask use. No good guys in this story. Miller is no martyr for free speech.
Again, he specifically told his students to wear masks AND wore one himself. You seem to believe that if you just lie often enough, that makes it true.
He should read the CDC's official statements on mask use and he'd see that even THEY say that the primary, (PRIMARY!) reason to wear a mask is to prevent your own droplets from being sprayed around if you sneeze, cough or drool.
As for "protection" from becoming infected, they're pretty clear that this is not the intended purpose of cloth or surgical masks.
This misconception has endured though, and I wonder how many people caught COVID because they assumed they were "protected" because they simply wore a mask and washed their hands.
Yes, the primary function of a mask is to prevent your contagion from spreading, and the secondary function is to partially prevent virus from entering your mouth and nose and infecting you. That is why CDC recommends that people take advantage of both the primary and secondary mask functions, and therefore tells people to wear a mask whenever they are near other people, anytime during this active period of the pandemic.
Re: overwhelming evidence?....FWIW on masks...this unroll intro is quite thought provoking..and it's way back in September!!
"...Remember, they tell you that mask wearing reduces how far an aerosol can travel (absolutely true) and this equates to reduced infections. So do we see this in any of the global data?..Let's have a look....."
You want to draw a distinction between critical thinking and cancel culture. But that distinction is difficult to maintain at the moment. Why? Because most of the US population is so deeply divided into two factions that everyone is expected to attach to one side or the other and fight for it. If one side is opposed to something, that something then must be opposed without exception or compromise. Since "cancel culture" is a term that has been attached to the Democrats, it is not possible to oppose cancel culture, as you do, yet still criticize someone who has become associated with Republican positions.
I did make a point. My point was that one can oppose "cancel culture" (railroading individuals via group opinion), yet not support some other positions of people on the right who also happen to oppose cancel culture. What's so strange or incomprehensible about that? It's like ordering a la carte from a menu rather than just taking the whole meal as offered.
Cancel culture has not only been attributed to the left. They are certainly getting away with harsher cases, but the right has been doing it for years and years with censorship over homosexuality, satanism, etc. You are trying to make this political, and it just fucking isn’t. The student was wrong, misguided, and maybe even malicious. But, agree or disagree with his views, he has only committed the cardinal sin of teaching people HOW to think, as opposed to WHAT to think. If you’d like further reading about how this shit goes down, read into the Inquisition, the Salem Witch Trials, McCarthyism (a right cancel example, btw), etc. This is not new stuff, but it has been exacerbated by social media.
Did you say I was trying to make it political? I never tried to make it political. In my comment I was just trying to make the point that I am not accepting a package of beliefs from either left or right. I am judging each point on my own.
You said cancel culture was a left problem. That is not true, but it has been very prevalent on that side lately. I’m also still not sure what “positions on the right” you aren’t supporting. What is “right” in this situation. The professor did not state a political view, nor did he tell any student anything other than to read and question everything and study various sources. Without trying to sound like a smart ass, you do know what propaganda is, right?
Like "Wally" you are using a written style that suggests intentional bullying and intimidation. I will not participate in such an exchange. You also do not sound like an American to me.
No way. I’m not trying to bully. I’m merely trying to understand what your objection is. If I made you feel uncomfortable, that is unfortunate, but I truly do wonder if you understand exactly what the definition of propaganda is. Also, I’m from Ohio. Not sure why that matters in the first place.
"Also, I’m from Ohio. Not sure why that matters in the first place."
Getting accused of "not sounding like an American" by Ralph is a rite of passage here. Consider yourself a member of the club. You move up to the next level when you get told you're a bot.
What is your background? I am not used to having a conversation in which there is an undertone of bullying and threats. What do you do for a living in Ohio?
No, Wally, I think you are exactly right. And in the spirit of “not ganging up” on anyone (I do hate mobs), I truly want to repeat that I have no intention or wish to bully or make fun of anyone. This isn’t twitter, and we are all fans of MT. I assume that means we can find some common ground.
Let me see if I understand this. You seriously feel you have the personal authority to tell me with some finality that I support cancel culture, even after I clearly said I hate it? So in your view my word counts for nothing, and yours for everything, when I describe what I like or support? That is a mighty strange way to show enthusiasm for first amendment rights. Apparently they only have meaning if you agree with the point of view being put forward. Otherwise what I say gets cancelled out by your overriding power of proclamation. I'm getting a bad feeling about living in a society run by your rules.
You wrote, "This bothers you. Good." You sound like a professional criminal. We are discussing US politics here. Are you from the US? And since you want to "bother" me, what are your own political positions? It is one thing to write nonsense, something else altogether to use the language of intimidation.
I will not exchange comments with someone who uses language in the way you are. It's obvious bullying. You are not expressing yourself like an American and personally I do not think you are one.
Describing someone pejoratively is not bullying. Bullying involves a threat that is either expressed (I will hurt you) or implied (it would be too bad if anything happened to you). I wrote neither an expressed or an implied threat.
Why would I want to delete my own posts? This is not a war or a propaganda battle. I assume this is a constructive dialog. No one is going to win or lose here.
Exactly. You are not expressing yourself like someone whose purpose is constructive dialog, aimed at trying to reach consensus or truth. You seem to be expressing yourself like someone who wants to intimidate the other party. Why would I want to have a dialog of that nature? It is pointless.
Yeah, and there are some scientists that question the science of climate change too. Meanwhile the planet burns. The OVERWHELMING evidence is that masks are one of the only measures that mitigate the damage of the virus. You can argue that the Earth is flat too, but that just makes you a harmless nutjob. In this case he is not being harmless, he is effectively yelling fire in a crowded room. It's disinformation and it puts lives in danger to do what he did. And again, it'd be one thing if he was just blogging about it (like he does about 9/11 conspiracies and various other garbage) but he spouted off on this to his students, and that crosses a line. And I repeat: I HATE CANCEL CULTURE. This isn't that.
So ... arguing that someone should be fired for what they say isn't "cancel culture"? You are either punking us, or are seriously misguided on just what constitutes cancel culture ...
So who gets to be the brain police, Mark?
YOU?
Some cunt sitting in a class on communications at NYU who posts a tweet complaining about something they misunderstood?
Some group of bureaucrats at some college who aren't medical professionals themselves?
Some CIA goons in a darkened room deciding how best to disrupt a society so that they can bend it to their will?
Rudolph Hess?
Chairman Mao?
Ronald Reagan?
Who?
I'll tell you, cunt: the Constitution. It grants free speech without guardrails.
You are sitting here defending the indefensible and acting as though you have some moral high ground. You don't, and neither did Hitler, Mao, Trump, Bush or Obama.
They are a real-time death cult hell bent on controlling the whole globe, it's people, it's resources.
They KNOW it's not sustainable and they don't fucking care. They just want to be around ling enough to pick up the pieces and forge a new society afterward, and guess what? You're still going to be trammeled under the boot, even as you glance upward with puppy dog eyes and say, "But... I defended your right to censor things! I believed in you!!!"
I strongly protest your calling someone a cunt just because you disagree with that person. We should be attempting to exchange ideas and opinions here, not throwing around anger and insults. Why should that be necessary?
I have to agree. Your language Scott cheapens your argument and shuts it down for many who need to hear.
We may have to agree to disagree. Scott is the man. I think vulgarity is one of the highest expressions of democracy. 1st Amendment, etc.
An unsubstantiated theory: in the USA, one can discern much about a person's social class by what they define as "appropriate" language to use in public (as --very much -- opposed to private) fora.
I fully endorse Scott's use of the word, "cunt" in this, or any other context. In fact, I think we should use cunt more often. We need to democratize cunt. We need to fuck the ever-loving shit out of cunt as a matter of principle.
Wait, Scott endorses Scott's use of the word cunt? Did you momentarily forget that you are Scott?
Great Scott!
I may reincarnate myself as Scott the 3rd to further up the confusion quotient.
Please do. A trio of vulgar cunts would amp it nicely.
From Scott: "I fully endorse Scott's use of the word, "cunt" in this, or any other context. In fact, I think we should use cunt more often. We need to democratize cunt. We need to fuck the ever-loving shit out of cunt as a matter of principle." Were you trying to post from a different identity but you accidentally used the same identity?
Or... When I signed up for Taibbi's SubStack, I entered my actual name and that just so happens to be the same name for another person.
I see. There are two people called Scott here. So, the Scott with the avatar picture had a complaint from a student, and the Scott without the avatar picture backed up the Scott with an avatar. That's the whole story?
There is no collusion.
Well, that's a relief.
Such a scold.
That's silly. There are plenty of angry feelings going back and forth here. That comment of mine was one of my most reasonable. Some others may have been overreactions.
I was harking back to when you scolded us for taking part in frivolous drinking games while _very_serious_stuff_ was going down, like a presidential debate or some such.
What I think is serious is Trump's destructive conduct, police violence against people of color, extreme income inequality, overpopulation, and climate change. The pandemic was caused by the last two items in that list. Our civilization is in deep trouble here on Earth -- and also I just don't like drinking games. They are dangerous, and I've seen too much alcoholism, in fact. Sorry I'm taking things too seriously for your taste. I am here to learn.
One difficulty here is that it's often tricky to know which comment is being replied to. None of yours was a problem at all from my point of view.
Yup. I've said it before and I'll say it again. Substack is Subpar. Their software is slow and unreliable, and it's years behind in terms of features for a comments section. I dread to think what it's moderation features are like.
I don't know how it managed to gain such mindshare in the last year. Even Wordpress obviously is better than this. Is it really so hard to deploy WP on something like Digitalocean that Matt, Matt, GG, and now Krystal really don't have the option?
Sometimes little details of appearance and various quirks get settled into users' minds and create a sort of platform identity that sticks in the minds of the public and content creators. I'd suggest that the substack software team (if they have one!) fix the problems, or rewrite the whole thing, but keep the appearance unchanged to retain the loyalty of those creators.
I'm not picking on Ralph here. I think the appearance of his same comment 3x is proof Substack needs to up its software game. I don't think all of this shit is "operator error."
Thanks for pointing that out. I deleted two of them. I had no idea that had happened. Substack seems to lose its way fairly often. For a few minutes it stops responding. Has anyone else noticed that?
Same thought here. Neat that it happened in response to a Substack is Subpar comment.
And to be 💯% honest... a bummer to see figures excuse comments like “cunt.” That’s not tone, that’s violence
:P
The conflation of verbal "violence" with actual physical violence in public discourse is one of the most utterly risible developments of my lifetime.
Only one kind can kill you. That's the real kind.
That is one of the comments that sounded like bullying to me. Verbal bullying, of course. Not physical.
Mine is a parody of a famous recent quote from AOC in which she scolded people for tolerating Jimmy Dore's potty mouth. The old-school emoticon was your clue.
I was not referring to your comment. I was referring to the comment by Scott, starting with this: "So who gets to be the brain police, Mark?" That is the one of the comments I was objecting to.
I know. And my reply was a parody of all that "Oh my! Such language! Well I never. Such indecency ..." bullshit.
I am so tired of that. Given the horrors rained down by this empire on its victims at home and abroad, and the complicity of its citizenry in supporting the propaganda that has permitted these routine outrages at least 70 years straight, when someone tells me I'm out of line for using the strongest language I can muster to express my anger, well fuck your fucking delicate sense of decency.
No disrespect to you Ralph. I have the sense you're a good person doing your best but your ejaculations of moral indignation in the comments here seem, to me at least, often quite comical. I get a kick out of reading them
By the way, I agree with you about the horrors rained down by the empire. Every civilization seems to have some of that in its past, and probably will in its future as long as we have nation-states, which are always destructive in many different ways.
Your words "well fuck your fucking delicate sense of decency" sound a lot like a direct taunt directed at me, in direct contradiction to your "no disrespect" disclaimer. Also "ejaculations of moral indignation" and "comical" and "I get a kick out of reading them" are all both insulting and, yes, disrespectful. I suggest you are fooling yourself if you can't see at least a little bit of what I'm talking about in your own words. That is covert aggression, and I'm sure you absolutely have good reasons for doing it, but in the end it is only harming you because people sense that aggression, no matter how much you try to hide it. I know this because I used to do it too.
Again, you're being too sensitive.
"well fuck your fucking delicate sense of decency" isn't intended as a direct taunt directed at you. It's a protest of how I truly feel and have done for years. And it's a provocation available for anyone who wants to defend civilized discourse. Cus words are, imo, useful in rhetoric and more legitimate than all the strawmen, whataboutism, BS syllogisms, false equivalencies, illogic, deflection, ad homenims, etc. you find so much of here.
This is blog comments. Don't take it so personally. It's not worth it.
I'm glad it wasn't directed at me, but I guarantee I am not the only person here who would be unhappy if s/he were the recipient of that comment.
I'm not here to make people happy.
What this kid did is such playground behavior: "I'm going to tell!" Except she doesn't (to be charitable) understand that she needs to clarify before she tattles on people. So much for the university as a training in reasonable discourse.
Where does this current relish come from, to get people into such hot water at their jobs?
Kids will always be a bit socially backward and immature, that's fine, they'll grow out of it. But this thoughtless malice and spite is horrible. Where did they learn to act like this? Is narking rewarded in the public schools?
In related news, even the UK Court of Appeal agrees with Scott's comment below (this from Dec 18th 2020):
"...Judges have insisted that freedom of speech includes the 'right to offend' in a landmark ruling...presiding over a case in the Court of Appeal, Lord Justice Bean and Mr Justice Warby said: 'Freedom only to speak inoffensively is not worth having.'
They added that 'free speech encompasses the right to offend, and indeed to abuse another'. The judgment from two senior members of the judiciary will set a precedent for future cases involving freedom of speech.
The ruling has emerged only now, but came in the successful appeal decided last week in favour of mother-of-two Kate Scottow, from Hitchin in Hertfordshire, after she had been found guilty under the 2003 Communications Act earlier in the year..."
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9066069/Woke-folk-beware-Freedom-speech-includes-right-offend-say-judges-landmark-ruling.html
FWIW for masks...this unroll intro is quite thought provoking..and it's way back in September!!
"...Remember, they tell you that mask wearing reduces how far an aerosol can travel (absolutely true) and this equates to reduced infections. So do we see this in any of the global data?..Let's have a look....."
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1306277076442525697.html or here: https://twitter.com/CovidSenseBloke/status/1306277076442525697
One more thought: why does this product exist, when industrial health and safety could save money with cloth masks instead?
https://www.amazon.com/3M-Versaflo-Easy-Clean-TR-300N/dp/B07J4WCK6R
Amusing side note, someone mentioned getting into an elevator where someone had been wearing very generous amounts of aftershave recently. Their cloth mask was no match for the scent. I was thinking they should have worn their 3M powered air purifying respirator instead 😀
I gotta agree with Commentorinchief. Unless you are just being a provocateur, you are a case study in what propoganda does the brain.
which wouldn't be all bad. You could reflect on the experience and maybe get some insight into how your buttons are getting pushed. Maybe you will get famous and end up in a case study as patient privileged white male.
HEY! I'm a privileged white male, and I don't act like that ... easy on the stereotypes ... ;-)
there surely has to be something to be learned from the reactions to your unhinged rants.
Your non-ironic slinging of the reflexive woke epithet whilst assailing me for being part of cancel culture is absolutely hilarious. Especially considering you don't know anything about me. Gross.
LOL now go back and read your post with this last comment in the FRONT of your mind; not the back.
Now you'll see.
Oh please you have NO evidence that the planet is burning because of climate change! None at ALL. Even the scientists admit that. And there really is no real evidence masks work or do more than make people feel better. Or work as a political statement. I have no problem wearing them inside places especially if asked to, but this is ridiculous.
There is lots of evidence that the planet is heating up and that masks work. You cannot get rid of all that evidence just by saying it does not exist.
"masks work" according to the CDC PRIMARILY to stop the spraying of droplets of infected people wearing them. That's all. It's pretty well established that to block out viruses one needs a hermetically sealed and filtered-down-to-.1micron filter.
That's not really disputed by any medical personnel anywhere.
It's the oversight in letting people think they are protected just by wearing a mask that is abhorrent.
You wouldn't walk around with a condom on your willy when you're not having sex, would you?
No, you are mistaken. According to evidence, masks are highly effective to stop the dispersal of virus by infected people, but in addition, people who wear masks are less likely to get Covid-19 by inhalation of other people's spray of saliva and mucus after a cough, sneeze or loud talking. Where did you get the idea that it was established that masks do not work to protect the wearer? That is not established, and it is not true.
https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/coronavirus/in-depth/coronavirus-mask/art-20485449
LOL. Another flat earther. It'd be funny if it wasn't so dangerous.
over-reactive hyperbole.
Welcome to your introduction into the enigma that is Ralph Dratman.
We've all been trying to get our heads around this guys hyperbole for months now. Is he supporting the argument? Which part of it? Is he arguing against it? How?
These and many other questions will enter your mind when reading Ralph's comments but remember: not even Ralph knows the answers to these questions.
Ralph seems to deserve pity, but then he doesn't. He is like a riddle.
I appreciate the attention you are paying to my opinions, but at the moment I do not even know which post of mine you are referring to, so it is difficult to react more specifically. In general, I try to have opinions one at a time, not grouped together in the mold of US liberal or conservative orthodoxy. Thus, for example, I support gay and lesbian freedom of sexuality and those people's right to be treated decently, and to marry, but I am strongly opposed to encouraging (or even allowing) minors to change gender by means of drugs or surgery, because significant numbers of them will later want to change back but are left with irreversible anatomical changes. This often leads to suicide. As another example, I hate racism and other kinds of prejudice. Nevertheless I think it is terrible that some people, even if the are racist, might lose their jobs and their professional reputations without due process. Is that all really so peculiar?
Before you jump to those conclusions, read the pre-Covid studies Dr. Miller was pointing out to his students. You know, the studies Dr. Fauci, et al. were relying on in March to say that masks don't work. I am not an anti-masker but the evidence is not OVERWHELMING (although the common sense reason for wearing masks is).
Better still... if you want to be laughed out of a lab, hand people surgical masks before they enter a containment area where the most virulent strains are kept.
No, never mind the filtered full bunny suits, you'll say... and they'll all turn and walk away. You might even get sued for attempting to expose them all to deadly viruses.
The doctors and nurses taking care of Covid patients wear masks to keep themselves safe. Most of them are still not infected. What kind of strange belief/disbelief operation are you running? You sound like either you are being intentionally provocative or your thinking is not clear.
Ralph-- know of what you speak please
In the case of masks, I think I do know of what I speak. But what specifically do you say I am getting wrong about that?
I did a quick skim for those pre-Covid studies and found this meta-study from 2017 which concerned the effectiveness of masks for HCW. https://academic.oup.com/cid/article/65/11/1934/4068747
I actually believe in masks (believe being the operative word) but in the interest of seeking truth and having an open mind, I will not shut down contrary evidence.
An excerpt from the above linked study:
"Our analysis confirms the effectiveness of medical masks and respirators against SARS. Disposable, cotton, or paper masks are not recommended.
"The confirmed effectiveness of medical masks is crucially important for lower-resource and emergency settings lacking access to N95 respirators. In such cases, single-use medical masks are preferable to cloth masks, for which there is no evidence of protection and which might facilitate transmission of pathogens when used repeatedly without adequate sterilization "
Thanks. I'm with you - willing to hear evidence for the other side.
I think part of the confusion is purpose. Reusable "cloth masks" may be ineffective for use for medical personnel treating SARS patients (per the meta-study quote), yet could still have value for people buying groceries, which really is a different situation.
If you watch the "mask testing" videos with illuminated clouds of exhalate, it looks like most of what the "cloth face masks" do is redirect the flow to avoid projecting it as widely, rather than passing most exhalate through a filter and removing virus containing particles.
If you are standing 6' from somebody in a line, that deflection could be a very useful dynamic, compared to blowing it in their faces. But if you are operating on somebody right in front of you, a actual air filtering mask is much more necessary.
The official turnabout in message to the public was basically from "you don't need medical grade masks (please don't deplete the supply because medical folks DO need them)" to "please do use face coverings (which need not be medical grade)". However the shorthand versions of that can be changing from "don't use masks" to "do use masks", which confuses people.
But then, some segments of the population are already confused and distrust scientists because the newspaper has carried stories like "wine is good for you" and "wine is bad for you", and people fail to understand that the studies were talking about different aspects of health, instead seeing it as "scientists don't have any idea what they are doing, they keep changing their minds, believe whatever you like".
The media is horrific in handling science and scientific findings. I taught my children to read all mass media science stories by first going down to the bottom of the article and trying to determine who is distributing the story to the media (because God knows US mass media is not paying people to survey scientific literature for useful information!), and who, if anyone, benefits from a particular interpretation of the data.
If you pay attention, it becomes clear that skepticism of media-distributed "science" is a sound principle.
Excellent.
I must disagree. The operative word is not "believe". The operative words are "rely based on evidence".
I was referring to my own belief, not entirely based on all the evidence because I simply don't have the time or training to evaluate all the evidence. Therefore, it is a belief.
I see what you mean, and that makes sense to me. Practically no one has time or training to evaluate all the evidence. That's why people use techniques of indirect trust. That is, institutions, individuals, published results and public statements all have to be evaluated over whatever time period we can spare. It is not easy to do this well, but it definitely can be done, and to great advantage. How else would we have potent drugs and vaccines if no one researching them knew who they could trust? We use an imperfect process, and it works.
You hate cancel culture? You ARE cancel culture.
Also, I am looking out my window right now and don’t see anything burning much less “the world”.
You are a case study in what propaganda does to the brain.
If Mark Read says he hates cancel culture, why would you say "You ARE cancel culture"? If he says he hates it, he hates it.
I say the same thing: I hate cancel culture. But that does not mean I can't pick and choose what other ideas I am for or against.
Oh Ralph.
I said he is cancel culture because he is literally advocating for cancel culture in his comment. You and he can say you hate it as much as you want but if you advocate for it as well, then you and he would obviously be lying about hating it. BTW - This applies to any side of the political spectrum. People on the Right can engage in cancel culture as well, although, it is typically to prove to the Left how destructive the thing they unleashed on the world is. But it is still cancel culture.
Where would you get the impression that I am advocating for "cancel culture"? I take that to refer to persecution, loss of jobs and opportunities and so forth, on the basis of opinions about a person/victim expressed online, often on Twitter. I hate that phenomenon because it is justice of the mob, which is no justice at all.
I said you “can” and “if”. It was a hypothetical.
The planet burns? Who is the conspiracy nut?
It is true that "the planet burns" is exaggerated for the sake of emphasis. But in light of the fact that global warming is a real situation, there is no reason to see that message as a conspiracy theory. A conspiracy theory claims that an organized group of people is perpetrating lies or committing crimes. That comment refers to no conspiracy at all.
Ok, the planet is always warming or cooling, it isn’t a static relationship. Given that reality, I agree, it’s not conspiratorial.
Thanks for your reply! We can work together.
“Cogito, ergo sum...”; I think....
Every single sentence in this comment contains at least one bald-faced example of bad faith argumentation. I'm sorry you feel so emotional about it that this is the result. Just like I'm sorry Prof Miller's late-comer, uninformed student was so emotional she took to twitter to demand he be fired.
You say he crossed a line. What consequences do you think would be appropriate for him? If you think he should be silenced, how is that not cancellation?
I'm not seeing that. My only quarrel with this comment from Mark Read is where he writes, "he spouted off on this to his students, and that crosses a line" -- I'm not sure there is a prohibition against giving students low quality information, or if there is, what crossing a line would imply.
And...I guess your skeptical analysis stops before you get to the fact that the accusation is a lie? THAT doesn't bother you?
Then maybe, if you hadn't stopped there, you might have noticed the ridiculous escalation of charges and accusations contained in the succeeding responses from faculty and administrators.
Mark clearly thinks that's okay, because he approves of the original misrepresentation of what Prof Miller said. And you do also?
No WONDER cancel culture wins so much!
Thank you!! an adult in the room.
I didn't know the accusation was (might be?) a lie.
"No WONDER cancel culture wins so much!"
Good point. I was taking rumors or lies to be true, but at the moment I still don't know. I should have checked out the facts before I wrote anything. Sorry.
Can anyone recommend a good article about the Prof. Miller situation, or narrate your own understanding of what really happened? I will also see what I can find out on my own.
Appreciate the civil response, Mr. D.
I believe Prof Miller gives his account of the events in the Useful Idiots interview he did with Matt and Katie Halper. It's basically that his remarks in the class (delivered while wearing a mask) dealt entirely with the fact that there was substantial questioning from credible scientific sources about the efficacy of masks, and urging students to question the current rigid insistence that everyone MUST adhere to the "accepted narrative". Which is what his class is all about. Sounded pretty innocuous, but her reaction was kind of on par for Twitter hysterics. The reaction from the school administration and his "fellow academics" is where things really depart from any relation to reality.
The guy seems like he must be sort an ass, and may not be as "conspiracy-resistant" as some of us have become. That said, when the CIA, the "Deep State" (which exists by definition because our elected reps are more temporary than many powerful people in government), and the legacy media start using "conspiracy theory" as an automatic dismissal of certain disfavored ideas...maybe I'm the one who needs to re-think "conspiracy resistance".
I finally found something about Prof Miller online. According to what I read, Miller is still in his position and hasn't been fired. So, a student complained. Is that all? Why is it so awful that someone put in a complaint if nothing happened?
I hear your dislike of cancel culture. What the article describes is a hybrid; we might take the original motive to be "protect students from hearing scientifically wrong statements from a professor, by any means available".
But then then the condemnation accuses "intimidating tactics, abuses of authority, aggression and microaggressions, and explicit hate speech, none of which are excused by academic freedom and First Amendment protections.”
Is there any evidence of those misdeeds? Or is this boilerplate cancel culture take-down?
This sounds like those concerned by his mask heresy and desiring to stop it "by any means possible" may have wound up reframing this as a social justice issue, after observing that such issues seem to have the ability to penetrate academic freedoms like the spike protein allows SARS-CoV-2 to penetrate cell walls. That is, maybe the intent was "good" (if you believe in face covering, as I do) and the attackers just used a wokist reframe as a cynical but effective tool to take him down, because normal due process was judged insufficient or too slow. Grab the handiest tool with a proven sharp edge.
How do you feel about using (and thus reinforcing) cancel culture methods - but for a good cause which you do support? Would you do that?
And I agree with you about the quality control on his blog entries.
"intimidating tactics, abuses of authority, aggression and microaggressions, and explicit hate speech, none of which are excused by academic freedom and First Amendment protections.”
This is really what the school administrators are up to.
Agreed. The letter that those faculty wrote is full on wokist horseshit. I hate it and they all suck for writing it. AND Miller should be canned for discouraging mask use. No good guys in this story. Miller is no martyr for free speech.
Again, he specifically told his students to wear masks AND wore one himself. You seem to believe that if you just lie often enough, that makes it true.
No, Mark is just trying to find his fire.
That's commendable, really.
He should read the CDC's official statements on mask use and he'd see that even THEY say that the primary, (PRIMARY!) reason to wear a mask is to prevent your own droplets from being sprayed around if you sneeze, cough or drool.
As for "protection" from becoming infected, they're pretty clear that this is not the intended purpose of cloth or surgical masks.
This misconception has endured though, and I wonder how many people caught COVID because they assumed they were "protected" because they simply wore a mask and washed their hands.
Yes, the primary function of a mask is to prevent your contagion from spreading, and the secondary function is to partially prevent virus from entering your mouth and nose and infecting you. That is why CDC recommends that people take advantage of both the primary and secondary mask functions, and therefore tells people to wear a mask whenever they are near other people, anytime during this active period of the pandemic.
Re: overwhelming evidence?....FWIW on masks...this unroll intro is quite thought provoking..and it's way back in September!!
"...Remember, they tell you that mask wearing reduces how far an aerosol can travel (absolutely true) and this equates to reduced infections. So do we see this in any of the global data?..Let's have a look....."
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1306277076442525697.html or here: https://twitter.com/CovidSenseBloke/status/1306277076442525697
One more thought: why does this product exist, when industrial health and safety could save money with cloth masks instead?
https://www.amazon.com/3M-Versaflo-Easy-Clean-TR-300N/dp/B07J4WCK6R
(sorry for the double up from below, but Mark had overwhelming in capital letters, so I thought it would be OK ;-)
You want to draw a distinction between critical thinking and cancel culture. But that distinction is difficult to maintain at the moment. Why? Because most of the US population is so deeply divided into two factions that everyone is expected to attach to one side or the other and fight for it. If one side is opposed to something, that something then must be opposed without exception or compromise. Since "cancel culture" is a term that has been attached to the Democrats, it is not possible to oppose cancel culture, as you do, yet still criticize someone who has become associated with Republican positions.
Once again you start off looking like you're going to make a point and then.. you don't.
Ralph.... what's going on man?
I did make a point. My point was that one can oppose "cancel culture" (railroading individuals via group opinion), yet not support some other positions of people on the right who also happen to oppose cancel culture. What's so strange or incomprehensible about that? It's like ordering a la carte from a menu rather than just taking the whole meal as offered.
Cancel culture has not only been attributed to the left. They are certainly getting away with harsher cases, but the right has been doing it for years and years with censorship over homosexuality, satanism, etc. You are trying to make this political, and it just fucking isn’t. The student was wrong, misguided, and maybe even malicious. But, agree or disagree with his views, he has only committed the cardinal sin of teaching people HOW to think, as opposed to WHAT to think. If you’d like further reading about how this shit goes down, read into the Inquisition, the Salem Witch Trials, McCarthyism (a right cancel example, btw), etc. This is not new stuff, but it has been exacerbated by social media.
Did you say I was trying to make it political? I never tried to make it political. In my comment I was just trying to make the point that I am not accepting a package of beliefs from either left or right. I am judging each point on my own.
You said cancel culture was a left problem. That is not true, but it has been very prevalent on that side lately. I’m also still not sure what “positions on the right” you aren’t supporting. What is “right” in this situation. The professor did not state a political view, nor did he tell any student anything other than to read and question everything and study various sources. Without trying to sound like a smart ass, you do know what propaganda is, right?
Like "Wally" you are using a written style that suggests intentional bullying and intimidation. I will not participate in such an exchange. You also do not sound like an American to me.
No way. I’m not trying to bully. I’m merely trying to understand what your objection is. If I made you feel uncomfortable, that is unfortunate, but I truly do wonder if you understand exactly what the definition of propaganda is. Also, I’m from Ohio. Not sure why that matters in the first place.
"Also, I’m from Ohio. Not sure why that matters in the first place."
Getting accused of "not sounding like an American" by Ralph is a rite of passage here. Consider yourself a member of the club. You move up to the next level when you get told you're a bot.
I knew that I was missing something in my life. This sounds like it could fill the void in my black heart.
What is your background? I am not used to having a conversation in which there is an undertone of bullying and threats. What do you do for a living in Ohio?
No, Wally, I think you are exactly right. And in the spirit of “not ganging up” on anyone (I do hate mobs), I truly want to repeat that I have no intention or wish to bully or make fun of anyone. This isn’t twitter, and we are all fans of MT. I assume that means we can find some common ground.
I kind of wish you would.
Thank you for using your break from work to present the best response yet Wally. The logic seems to escape many but you presented it well.
Let me see if I understand this. You seriously feel you have the personal authority to tell me with some finality that I support cancel culture, even after I clearly said I hate it? So in your view my word counts for nothing, and yours for everything, when I describe what I like or support? That is a mighty strange way to show enthusiasm for first amendment rights. Apparently they only have meaning if you agree with the point of view being put forward. Otherwise what I say gets cancelled out by your overriding power of proclamation. I'm getting a bad feeling about living in a society run by your rules.
lol ... he pointed out that contradictions of your arguments - what authority does he need?
I'm not sure whether you are replying to me or to someone else.
Wally, you have complete authority over your judgement that Ralph is this, that or the next thing. It's *your* judgement.
In my judgement Ralph is overly sensitive.
That may be true. It was late at night here and I was feeling alarmed.
You wrote, "This bothers you. Good." You sound like a professional criminal. We are discussing US politics here. Are you from the US? And since you want to "bother" me, what are your own political positions? It is one thing to write nonsense, something else altogether to use the language of intimidation.
Absolutely not. I will not continue any substantive dialog with someone who uses the language of intimidation, either subtly or openly.
You sound like a genuinely dangerous megalomaniac.
I will not exchange comments with someone who uses language in the way you are. It's obvious bullying. You are not expressing yourself like an American and personally I do not think you are one.
Um ... Wally is NOT the bully in this conversation, Ralph.
If you feel I am bullying him, I'd appreciate if you would tell me what I wrote that sounds like bullying to you. I hope I was not doing that.
"genuinely dangerous megalomaniac" I can list more if need be.
Describing someone pejoratively is not bullying. Bullying involves a threat that is either expressed (I will hurt you) or implied (it would be too bad if anything happened to you). I wrote neither an expressed or an implied threat.
Let's all stop bullying poor Ralph. He doesn't deserve it. What did he do to earn it?
Literally, what did he do to earn so much attention?
Time for you to find another thread Ralph
Why do you say that?
Why would I want to delete my own posts? This is not a war or a propaganda battle. I assume this is a constructive dialog. No one is going to win or lose here.
Exactly. You are not expressing yourself like someone whose purpose is constructive dialog, aimed at trying to reach consensus or truth. You seem to be expressing yourself like someone who wants to intimidate the other party. Why would I want to have a dialog of that nature? It is pointless.