Author Topic: Hypocrisy courtesy of Maureen Dowd  (Read 368 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.

Giuliano Taverna

  • Dominus et deus
  • Cives
  • *****
  • Posts: 439
  • Karma: +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Location: Chelsea MA USA
    • View Profile
Hypocrisy courtesy of Maureen Dowd
« on: September 14, 2009, 07:10:47 am »
op-ed new York times columnist to the great tumult and emphatic appreciation of the race baiters in the far left wrote a columnist recently condemning the actions of south Carolina senator Joe Wilson in accusing Obama of lying as motivated by racism along with the entirety of the anti Obama, tax day tea party/ democrat healthcare reform protests.



Now, taken aside the absurd arrogance of accusing a movement that I know first hand is multi racial, of being racist. I'm going to show how based on her own standard of racial politics, namely that anyone who criticized a black man for any reason is only motivated by race must prove that she herself is a racist.

Former potential justice Clarence Thomas was accused by Dowed in yet another New York times op-ed column of "low tech lynching"

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/07/opinion/07dowd.html?hp

in his decision to stop the recount in Florida totally ignoring the serious effect such an attempt to subvert the political process contesting the result of a lawful democratic election had, and its un presented nature. Silly things like tradition and common sense never occur to liberals anyway. Much less the sanctity of a respected institution like the electoral college. Clinging to the popular leftist belief that the election was stolen by sinister republicans and sinister conservative "activist judges" as if such an oxymoron could be taken seriously. She slams him over and over attacking the premise of his political beliefs as ungrateful, not authentically black, and she audaciously contends that she a white female new yorker is somehow more informed as to the state of black males in this country than a black male who was subjected to Jim crow growing up in the south.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/13/opinion/13dowd.html?adxnnl=1&ref=opinion&adxnnlx=1252926262-T2aZpsJtdGGCpsGoJylScw

Since she is fully justified in attacking conservatives for being racist for attacking liberal policies and those that appose them, (which by the way they should be entirely expected to do by definition as conservatives) without any proof and hardly any timidity, I'd like to return the favor and claim that she is racist without any proof, (excluding her standard of proof which is having criticized a black man for any reason.) I challenge liberal race baiters to prove she isn't a racist, in the same way they expect me to prove a negative and find evidence that any given obama protester up to and including Joe Wilson is not a racist. Based on their line of reasoning, I have to conclude a flying spaghetti monster created earth and mankind due to a lack of evidence to the contrary.
"It is the duty of a good shepherd to shear his sheep, not to skin them." Tiberius Caesar

Social Buttons


Alia

  • Grammar Nazi
  • Patricians
  • Cives
  • *****
  • Posts: 196
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Hypocrisy courtesy of Maureen Dowd
« Reply #1 on: November 22, 2009, 11:45:06 pm »
Now, taken aside the absurd arrogance of accusing a movement that I know first hand is multi racial, of being racist. I'm going to show how based on her own standard of racial politics, namely that anyone who criticized a black man for any reason is only motivated by race must prove that she herself is a racist.

You just don't understand. You're using logic, when I've been trying to tell you that predefined terms simply are what they're defined as, and logic does not apply. This is why American culture is so degenerate; the media controls the opinions, and the opinions control the definitions.

If most people accept something as true they'll find a way to define it true. We have a language that allows for murky terms to begin with, and moreover, allows for those terms to change with popular usage.

Racism as it exists now in popular usage - and thus Truth as our dynamic language allows this - is such:

If 1 OR 2 are true, [action] OR [opinion] = [racist].

0. Check if [individual] = minority. If true, then no possible [action] or [opinion] = [racist].

1. [Opionion] = negative about a member of a minority or an entire minority.

2. [Action] = more detrimental on average to minorities than non-minorities OR [action] = beneficial to a non-minority over a minority on an individual basis.

If you truly do not believe that logic applies before popular conviction in terms of definitions and labels, then tell me plainly how Pluto can suddenly become a non-planet, and why an invertebrate that is not a fish is called a starfish, a silverfish, or a jellyfish. Scientists tried to rename the jellyfish the jelly-animal but it didn't take, and they'll be called jellyfish for the rest of eternity, because they are jellyfish. As a Republican you must be familiar with the Fairness Doctrine, which states that equal time must be given on the air to Liberal opinions. Despite the fact that this results in the "unfair" allocation of funds since programs that bring in listeners like Rush Limbaugh are forced to share time with programs that can cost radio stations money, it is still called the fairness doctrine, because that is what it is.

Some terms are pretty much defined as bad, or if you like, "evil" - and those terms, in turn, are defined by popular opinion. Popular opinion is whatever the now Liberal media wants it to be. Just look at the definition of "equal opportunity employer". In my opinion, a language form that allows this is a recipie for cultural disaster, and I would much rather have a precise and unflexible language with each and every term with one exclusive, perfectly clear and unambiguous definition.

If you're unhappy that others can define you into moral wrongness in this fashion, create a language without this fundamental flaw. There is no way the media-dominating ***cough*** could pull off a guilt-induced, forced culture suicide in the confines of such a language.

Maybe you'll be the one to do it - Change the dictionary. Create your own dictionary utterly devoid of ambiguity that has unflinching, perfectly-designed rules for creation of new words... A dictionary only a computer could love [understand]. In the meantime, you're just going to have to accept that things mean what they're generally understood to mean, and that people can use this to make logic simply unapplicable.

Giuliano Taverna

  • Dominus et deus
  • Cives
  • *****
  • Posts: 439
  • Karma: +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Location: Chelsea MA USA
    • View Profile
Re: Hypocrisy courtesy of Maureen Dowd
« Reply #2 on: November 28, 2009, 09:34:42 pm »
Hmm... rewrite the dictionary...

*makes notes in world domination scheme*

On a serious note, lets just say the extent of my seething hatred for people who mock and refute the concept of logic can't be described in any language I know.
"It is the duty of a good shepherd to shear his sheep, not to skin them." Tiberius Caesar