Nobody said you are a minion of Satan. What was said is that you are so steeped in the unhistorical prejudice and self-inflicted ignorance that is the default position of the media in our time, that at least one of your reviews managed to do a thorough and utterly repulsive job of justifying evil and treating your ancestors as monsters. (But then, I don't know - for all I know, your ancestors may have been monsters. In which case you shouldn't take them to be the rule.) But with this gutless and classless whine to your friends, you have outed yourself as the kind of person who tries to mobilize people without telling them what the fight is for. AND YOU HAVE THE NERVE TO ABUSE ME BECAUSE I MENTIONED YOUR STINKING REVIEW TO SOMEONE ELSE?
Jesus Christ, dudetealterror0August 1 2011, 18:22:21 UTC
If you have issues with Inverarity's review, then address the points it made directly; you know, with actual quotes and links and stuff. Right now, the only person I can see who's "gutless and classless" is you.
And as for "unhistorical prejudice and self-inflicted ignorance"? No one who associates themselves with someone like John C Wright gets to toss around words like that.
Re: Jesus Christ, dudefpbAugust 1 2011, 18:31:13 UTC
Quite. Wright is right-wing, therefore he can't know history. Why don't you go and set him straight? Because of course it would never occur to you to just throw around insults from a safe distance and not try to prove what you say face to face with him, would it?
Re: Jesus Christ, dudefpbAugust 1 2011, 18:35:10 UTC
As for addressing Inverarity's appalling display of every deplorable intellectual quality - do I have to say AGAIN that I will, in my own LJ, in my own time? Certainly not here; for one thing, it would not allow me to deliver a sufficiently elaborate analysis of what the man HAS said (as well as a few notes about what he CLAIMS to have and not to have said), and I would be spending most of my time trying to deal with red herrings from people who have even less history than he. If I have to perform, as it seems inevitable I will, the unpleasant and thankless task of analyzing something that is objectively vile, I will do it in my own time and in my own space.
Re: Jesus Christ, dudetealterror0August 1 2011, 19:00:35 UTC
As you will. I might make a suggestion, though, that until you do that, you might want to hold off on the insults.
Thanks also for putting words in my mouth re: Wright. He doesn't know history, not because he's right-wing, but because he's a bigot. And I have far better things to do than trying to convince a bigot out of his bigotry. Like watching paint dry.
Re: Jesus Christ, dudefpbAugust 1 2011, 19:11:03 UTC
Which is the reason why I withdrew from the inverarity fan club. But I think you miss the point here. I have had so many clashes with johncwright that, if he sees me coming, he assumes the worst. But one thing he has never said, as you have just said, is that I should not associate with someone because of his view. You have just said that you judge me because you find me in the company of johncwright. Well, I quite agree that he's a bigot. But you, sir, are worse.
Re: Jesus Christ, dudetealterror0August 1 2011, 19:23:43 UTC
There is a difference, fbp, between "views" and bigotry. There is a difference between disagreement about politics, religion, philosophy, etc., and disagreement about whether or not minorities should be afforded full human rights.
I am not saying, and have never said, that you should not associate with someone because of his views. I am saying that you should not associate with someone because of his bigotry. Do not conflate bigotry with garden-variety ideology.
And being intolerant of bigotry is in no way worse than the bigotry itself. I would argue that it is, in fact, far better.
Re: Jesus Christ, dudefpbAugust 1 2011, 19:26:11 UTC
You have just proved yourself a bigot, and incapable of understanding that you are one. You are so steeped in the abnormal, the unreasoning, the extreme, that you are seriously offended when someone fails to pay them homage. To you, such things are not to be questioned; and anyone who speaks of them without the proper awe and admiration must become an unperson.
You have no idea what I have been "steeped in." Hell, you don't even know what my position is on this topic in particular--the morality of WWII and the Pacific Front. For all you know, I disagree with Inverarity.
In addition, I believe everything should be questioned. But if you question human rights for minorities, whether they be racial, religious, or sexual, you should not expect to be met by respectful disagreement.
I don't think bigots are "unpeople." I just think they're assholes.
Re: Jesus Christ, dudeanthonyjfuchsAugust 2 2011, 00:25:52 UTC
"You are so steeped in the abnormal, the unreasoning, the extreme, that you are seriously offended when someone fails to pay them homage. To you, such things are not to be questioned; and anyone who speaks of them without the proper awe and admiration must become an unperson."
I've never heard a more perfect description of a Catholic. I'd know: I'm an apostate.
(I know he's gone, but, really: speaking to him after he's been banned is just as effective as speaking to him when he could reply.)
Re: Jesus Christ, dudeanthonyjfuchsAugust 2 2011, 01:26:41 UTC
Of course you're right about my sweeping generalization of Catholics. I grew up Catholic, served four years as an altar boy, and went to CCD for two years after transferring to public school. The vast majority of the Catholics that I know are good people despite their theological inclinations
( ... )
Re: Jesus Christ, dudeanthonyjfuchsAugust 2 2011, 01:45:59 UTC
Incidentally: if you're a son of the father of lies, I think that makes us half-brothers. Are you the Mickey Haller to my Harry Bosch, or the Bosch to my Haller?
I suppose "a son of the father of lies" might not have been intended literally, but frankly, I think it was, and the discussion about how I have no morals certainly was
( ... )
Reply
And as for "unhistorical prejudice and self-inflicted ignorance"? No one who associates themselves with someone like John C Wright gets to toss around words like that.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Thanks also for putting words in my mouth re: Wright. He doesn't know history, not because he's right-wing, but because he's a bigot. And I have far better things to do than trying to convince a bigot out of his bigotry. Like watching paint dry.
Reply
Reply
I am not saying, and have never said, that you should not associate with someone because of his views. I am saying that you should not associate with someone because of his bigotry. Do not conflate bigotry with garden-variety ideology.
And being intolerant of bigotry is in no way worse than the bigotry itself. I would argue that it is, in fact, far better.
Reply
Bigot.
Reply
In addition, I believe everything should be questioned. But if you question human rights for minorities, whether they be racial, religious, or sexual, you should not expect to be met by respectful disagreement.
I don't think bigots are "unpeople." I just think they're assholes.
Reply
Reply
Reply
I've never heard a more perfect description of a Catholic. I'd know: I'm an apostate.
(I know he's gone, but, really: speaking to him after he's been banned is just as effective as speaking to him when he could reply.)
Reply
I've got no love for the Church, but I do know some decent Catholics.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment