Click for the thrill.
You mean how I judged how little girls, religious or otherwise, aren't required to be traumatized when their clothes are touched as they sleep.
And even here, you need to misrepresent your behavior? Okay, then. To the other, you still admit, in mitigating the description of your judgment, that you actually did judge.
By your imbecilic logic, if a white supremacist suggests that you get a flu shot, then advocating flu shots is an act of white supremacism.
No, that's entirely yours.
I have family stories that alluded to Native American ancestry, but our DNA tests did not indicate any. My wife on the other hand had no family recollections of Asian or native ancestry, but her test happened to put her in the range of Warren’s native results. Lots of people have similar assumption regarding their ancestry, and you don’t validate them by ignoring the potential evidence that's available these days.
That's not quite beside the point, but, still: Stop presuming the legitimacy of kitchen-sink racism. That's one of the supremacist behaviors you show that makes the point.
More directly, there is this particular detail, therein:
I have family stories that alluded to Native American ancestry ....
Lots of people do, which is why the insistent demands of blatant white supremacists make so little sense; it's as if those white Americans suddenly forgot this part of our history. To wit—
Warren dug a hole for herself by publicly identifying as Native American back in the eighties.
—that's what white supremacists say. As you noted, you have family stories. Lots of people did. And this was always a circumstance that only mattered at all
because of white supremacism. You and others set that history aside and pretended otherwise for political convenience. It was a very clumsy and racist tack.
Once the issue was exposed in her 2012 Senate campaign, it would not go away by simply ignoring it. Her best option in my opinion, and apparently her’s too, was to try to be as factual about the issue as practical, take responsibility for any errors, and move on.
Well, there is a white supremacist narrative for us, which makes all manner of points, but try this one:
Liberalism, progressivism, or leftism aren’t monolithic movements, like any movements there is a spectrum of thought. If you expect them to be in lockstep with your brand, that’s just another notch in your imbecile belt.
Basic comprehension is not lockstep. Inasmuch as we wonder about your white supremacist pitch, the point that you're running on fallacy is not insignificant.
My argument in that case had nothing to do with race, it was an acknowledgment of the finding by the FBI civil rights investigation, that under the circumstances the officer was in fear of his life from the charging suspect. If it had been a black cop, I guess you’d brand him a white supremacist as well. You must see them everywhere. Better dead than perceived white bread.
Just like at the time, you refuse to acknowledge the arguments presented and want to talk about something else. You posted contradictions for argument when you bothered trying to make any point at all, and even now run on fallacy and projection.
And you’re playing a fool for this whole line of critique. Go color some more pictures and excite yourself.
Neither is such fury of incomprehension anything new.
The question remains why you bothered with this pretense of Devil's advocacy in the first place, since it was a change of subject (
#282↑). Iceaura (
#287↑) was pretty direct on this point; doubling (
#292↑) and tripling (
#298↑) down wasn't really a good idea, especially if intending retreat to a pretense of Devil's advocacy (
#300↑) as mockery justifying your white-supremacist distraction (
#311↑). You ask how else to play Devil's Advocate (
#305↑), and the thing about the Devil is that he isn't supposed to be stupid; properly playing Devil's Advocate requires some effort, intelligence, and, as strange as it might seem, good faith and appropriate charity in one's characterization of the Devil.
And maybe our neighbor would have gotten to actually arguing open white supremacism on his own, but in the moment it's true, we're discussing your spectacle. It's also true, SA6 has little or no incentive to ever support his association about Joseph not being a Jew; putting up a real argument may have been beside the point of his posturing. Whatever the real thesis is, though, your priority has been putting on a different supremacist spectacle all your own. Which, in turn, reminds another point about playing Devil's Advocate: When one has a habit of voicing particular opinions, claiming Devil's advocacy on a given occasion can become rather quite complicated compared to history, if that devilish pretense accords with history. If we consider, for instance, the question of judging other people's feelings about being sexually molested, once we set aside the obvious—(
Really? You're going there?)—the question arises why your present summary, quoted at the start of this post, differs from
your argument at the time↗; note that inherent to your standard is judging how those girls are supposed to feel about being sexually molested, and not being safe from such violation in their own homes, but, still, you minimize the molestation in the course of justifying your judgment of the girls' offense. There are diverse important aspects about this behavior, but in our moment we might consider a more general aspect, which is the inherent supremacism of the sex-based subordination your arguments supported. When we consider that beside examples of white supremacism, the point of
supremacism itself seems less and less surprising, especially as you persist. More directly, claiming Devil's advocacy ought to be believable. Thus, a straightforward piece of advice on how to play Devil's Advocate is to not reflect your own habits so directly; the idea that you're playing Devil's Advocate just isn't believable, unless of course we wish to backengineer that excuse for application to your history, at which point a rather quite extraordinary question of your priority emerges.