Crimea and Putinishment (politics)

by **Youseff** » Tue Apr 01, 2014 23:31:55

Paul Ryan now citing well established racist Charles Murray in his speeches. Republican Party continues to be repulsive.

by **jerseyhoya** » Tue Apr 01, 2014 23:33:58

Youseff wrote:Paul Ryan now citing well established racist Charles Murray in his speeches. Republican Party continues to be repulsive.

http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2014/03/ ... -a-racist/

by **Werthless** » Tue Apr 01, 2014 23:34:21

april fools!

by **jerseyhoya** » Tue Apr 01, 2014 23:35:33

I thought there was a 50/50 shot Werthless had posted the same link to Sullivan

(we had this same argument three weeks ago with our high school friends when this topic was relevant)

by **jerseyhoya** » Tue Apr 01, 2014 23:38:36

L.P.D.: LIBERTARIAN POLICE DEPARTMENT - Spoof from the New Yorker. This amused me.

by **Youseff** » Tue Apr 01, 2014 23:52:07

jerseyhoya wrote:
Youseff wrote:Paul Ryan now citing well established racist Charles Murray in his speeches. Republican Party continues to be repulsive.

http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2014/03/ ... -a-racist/

Sorry for describing things that happened accurately.

by **drsmooth** » Tue Apr 01, 2014 23:53:56

jerseyhoya wrote:I thought there was a 50/50 shot Werthless had posted the same link to Sullivan

(we had this same argument three weeks ago with our high school friends when this topic was relevant)

Murray's dismissable on his prescriptives without even getting into any racial matters.

Is he repulsive? I dunno. Worth paying attention to? Not all that much really. IQ is just such a fraught metric anyway

Ryan, on the other hand, seems intent on becoming repulsive, up from merely annoying

by **Youseff** » Wed Apr 02, 2014 00:04:42

Look just cause a guy says IQ correlates to societal worth, and IQ correlates to race, and IQ is based largely on inheritance, and environment is not a provable means of affecting intelligence doesn't make him a racist, ok?

And just cause I quote the aforementioned irrelevant author doesn't mean I ascribe to a similarly deplorable world view, ok?

by **drsmooth** » Wed Apr 02, 2014 00:07:50

jerseyhoya wrote:L.P.D.: LIBERTARIAN POLICE DEPARTMENT - Spoof from the New Yorker. This amused me.

that's some good work there, yes

love the use of Lisowski

by **Youseff** » Wed Apr 02, 2014 00:15:26

the nuanced, well meaning, well intentioned & healthy world view of Brietbart readers, which exist in a vacuum far far away from Paul Ryan & the rest of the GOP.

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-Spor ... Unemployed

by **jerseyhoya** » Wed Apr 02, 2014 00:15:31

Youseff wrote:Look just cause a guy says IQ correlates to societal worth, and IQ correlates to race, and IQ is based largely on inheritance, and environment is not a provable means of affecting intelligence doesn't make him a racist, ok?

And just cause I quote the aforementioned irrelevant author doesn't mean I ascribe to a similarly deplorable world view, ok?

The opening paragraph of the Wikipedia! entry on The Bell Curve suggests, as Sullivan does, that Murray ascribes a great deal of influence to environment in intelligence - "Its central argument is that human intelligence is substantially influenced by both inherited and environmental factors and is a better predictor of many personal dynamics, including financial income, job performance, chance of unwanted pregnancy, and involvement in crime than are an individual's parental socioeconomic status, or education level."

So, having never read anything Murray has written outside this piece and something short he wrote for AEI defending Ryan a few weeks ago, I know you are wrong.

As Sullivan points out, people referencing Murray in debates about social welfare are generally talking about his earlier book that played a role in the welfare reform debates of the 1990s. But Murray said something controversial that involved race so clearly he's a racist and anyone who approvingly cites anything else he has written is also a repulsive racist. Because the left is very open minded and likes to hear all view points so long as the agree with the left. Otherwise -> racist.

by **Youseff** » Wed Apr 02, 2014 00:18:45

Cool that you're defending Charles Murray and Andrew Sullivan in one fell swoop. Good work. You should be proud lol

by **Youseff** » Wed Apr 02, 2014 00:20:51

Ryan wasn't talking about his old racist book! Also he's not racist so even if he was talking about his book that's ok too!

by **Werthless** » Wed Apr 02, 2014 00:23:01

Youseff, if you care to cite Murray's work (like... an actual quote), I'd be happy to give you a substantive response. Otherwise, I fear that you're relying on inaccurate interpretations.

by **Werthless** » Wed Apr 02, 2014 00:26:21

jerseyhoya wrote:L.P.D.: LIBERTARIAN POLICE DEPARTMENT - Spoof from the New Yorker. This amused me.

Meh.

This is pretty typical of a writer who doesn't understand libertarianism. Even if libertarians didn't believe in the legitimacy of a publicly funded police force (almost all do), enforcement of laws and contracts is a generally accepted requirement of functioning markets. Property rights without 3rd party enforcement, arbitration, and mechanisms for appeal are not property rights at all. Thus, libertarian utopias -- which is what the author is attempting to parody -- always have courts and police, along with other public goods like national defense.

Libertarian = Anarchism ... produces fairly predictable comedy.

by **jerseyhoya** » Wed Apr 02, 2014 00:28:11

Youseff wrote:Cool that you're defending Charles Murray and Andrew Sullivan in one fell swoop. Good work. You should be proud lol

I don't think I need to defend Sullivan. He's not my favorite person, and I disagree with him on a bunch of stuff in American politics (though probably not a huge gap on actual issues but definitely on means to the ends). I'm citing Sullivan as he defends someone he doesn't particularly like against charges from people whom he generally agrees with about books he has read and I (and you? and they?) have not.

by **Werthless** » Wed Apr 02, 2014 00:29:58

jerseyhoya wrote:
Youseff wrote:Cool that you're defending Charles Murray and Andrew Sullivan in one fell swoop. Good work. You should be proud lol

I don't think I need to defend Sullivan. He's not my favorite person, and I disagree with him on a bunch of stuff in American politics (though probably not a huge gap on actual issues but definitely on means to the ends). I'm citing Sullivan as he defends someone he doesn't particularly like against charges from people whom he generally agrees with about books he has read and I (and you? and they?) have not.

That's a long, complicated sentence, with many clauses and phrases. Ain't nobody got time for that. Me and Youseff dozed off while reading it. Sorry man.

by **Youseff** » Wed Apr 02, 2014 00:31:26

Haha so if I quote an author who is primarily only known for his controversial book on IQ and the implications of race therein, I have to quote something explicitly racist to lose credibility? It's not even about Ryan and his mole ilk being racist, it's about why are you taking the time to associate yourself with known dipshit Charles Murray. Or by extension defend him like human colostomy bag Andrew Sullivsn.

by **jerseyhoya** » Wed Apr 02, 2014 00:38:13

Plz keep doing the important things you do standing up for truth, justice and the American way by calling Michelle Malkin a half mole rat and phillychuck a cunt, and then expressing extreme dismay over Republicans saying things that ARE MEAN and can be interpreted poorly just as long as you make sure to assume what they said was meant in the most unlikely but offensive way possible.

by **Werthless** » Wed Apr 02, 2014 00:40:13

Have you read his stuff?

The people that call him racist often have not read his work itself. It's very hard to prove a negative (X person is *not* racist) without appealing to authority, and referencing people who are ideologically opposed to the viewpoints but respects the person as a scholar. You seem unconvinced by Sullivan's points, nor do you know anything specifically racist that he has said/written.

I've already wasted enough words on this.

Archived

Crimea and Putinishment (politics)

Re: Crimea and Putinishment (politics)

Re: Crimea and Putinishment (politics)

Re: Crimea and Putinishment (politics)

Re: Crimea and Putinishment (politics)

Re: Crimea and Putinishment (politics)

Re: Crimea and Putinishment (politics)

Re: Crimea and Putinishment (politics)

Re: Crimea and Putinishment (politics)

Re: Crimea and Putinishment (politics)

Re: Crimea and Putinishment (politics)

Re: Crimea and Putinishment (politics)

Re: Crimea and Putinishment (politics)

Re: Crimea and Putinishment (politics)

Re: Crimea and Putinishment (politics)

Re: Crimea and Putinishment (politics)

Re: Crimea and Putinishment (politics)

Re: Crimea and Putinishment (politics)

Re: Crimea and Putinishment (politics)

Re: Crimea and Putinishment (politics)

Re: Crimea and Putinishment (politics)