[Emitt Evan Baker]

Originally Posted by John Riley

There are tapes of Trump on the Howard Stern show saying that he thinks blacks are more prone to violence. His behavior in the Central Park rape case was motivated by clear racism. He didn't even deny it. And the topper of course was his clearly racially motivated leadership on the bogus birther conspiracy. That would have been impossible to pull off on a white president. To not be able to see how much race has motivated Trump astounds me. It's impossible to take anything else said seriously.

In addition, this thread started with Charles Murray who has staked his reputation on his claim that he's proven blacks have lower IQs than whites. Regardless of how many times his faulty reasoning is pointed out he clings to it. It's shabby thinking to say that although this is a horrible human being you can't mention that but what about these people. It's like the old joke: "Besides that, Mrs. Lincoln, how did you enjoy the theater tonight?"

Trump is a stone cold racist. His Nazi and Klan followers know that as do his supporters in the Congress. The only difference is the Nazi and Klan supporters are honest enough to admit it in public.

Agreed. All fairly elementary observations. Strange it needs to be said. Then again, I figure that his election despite his locker room rapist video makes it clear that elementary observations can't overcome subconscious desires for authoritarian rule.

[William A. Baurle]

Originally Posted by Emitt Evan Baker

Plus Orwell would punch this thread in the eye.

Interesting bits from the Wiki article on Orwell:

Historian John Rodden stated: "John Podhoretz did claim that if Orwell were alive today, he'd be standing with the neo-conservatives and against the Left. And the question arises, to what extent can you even begin to predict the political positions of somebody who's been dead three decades and more by that time?"[114]

In Orwell's Victory, Christopher Hitchens argues, "In answer to the accusation of inconsistency Orwell as a writer was forever taking his own temperature. In other words, here was someone who never stopped testing and adjusting his intelligence".[122] - Wiki

[William A. Baurle]

Originally Posted by Jim Moonan

I'm with Bill. Who will go to the middle with us?

Well, Jim, there's Jesus, Spinoza, Gautama Buddha,
Julian of Norwich, [See her writings about the Point, the middle point] and of course, Euclid. Geometry begins with a point, and draws a line, and from that we get a circle. And more circles. Galaxies. Dimensions. Universes.

[William A. Baurle]

Originally Posted by Emitt Evan Baker

Agreed. All fairly elementary observations. Strange it needs to be said. Then again, I figure that his election despite his locker room rapist video makes it clear that elementary observations can't overcome subconscious desires for authoritarian rule.

Nothing to see here. [apart from Leftist bullshit] Please move on...

[Matt Q]

Originally Posted by William A. Baurle

I wonder if we can have a reasonable and rational discussion about this?

Bill,

I'm not sure that referring to Emitt's post as "leftist bullshit" and telling people not to pay it any attention meets with your original intentions for this thread. I'd understood that the dismissing of other people's view with partisan insults was something you disliked.

So, you've said that Trump isn't racist. John has presented and evidenced a contrary view. Are you now dismissing Emitt's view because he agrees with John, or because he posits a less-than-rational motivation for Trump's election? If the latter, what's your contrary view on the amount people were prepared overlook in order to elect Trump? It certainly looked like a form of madness and delusion from this side of the Atlantic. Or maybe those who voted for him made rational, well-informed decisions? Or do you think they consciously rather that sub-consciously wanted authoritarian rule? Or do you not see Trump as authoritarian? Or something else? I have no idea what your view is or why you dismissed Emitt's comment.

best,

Matt

[Emitt Evan Baker]

Originally Posted by William A. Baurle

Interesting bits from the Wiki article on Orwell:

On Hitchen's political stances via Orwell's influence:

Great cook books can still lead to burnt refuse in the wrong hands.

[Emitt Evan Baker]

Here is Klein on the Left-ish scene. Worth a listen, I thought.

https://www.theguardian.com/books/au...ast?CMP=twt_gu

[William A. Baurle]

Originally Posted by Matt Q

Bill,

I'm not sure that referring to Emitt's post as "leftist bullshit" and telling people not to pay it any attention meets with your original intentions for this thread. I'd understood that the dismissing of other people's view with partisan insults was something you disliked.

So, you've said that Trump isn't racist. John has presented and evidenced a contrary view. Are you now dismissing Emitt's view because he agrees with John, or because he posits a less-than-rational motivation for Trump's election? If the latter, what's your contrary view on the amount people were prepared overlook in order to elect Trump? It certainly looked like a form of madness and delusion from this side of the Atlantic. Or maybe those who voted for him made rational, well-informed decisions? Or do you think they consciously rather that sub-consciously wanted authoritarian rule? Or do you not see Trump as authoritarian? Or something else? I have no idea what your view is or why you dismissed Emitt's comment.

best,

Matt

Matt, Emitt has done precious little since 2015 besides harp on me and join in threads where I am active. And now he's being a bit of a creep via private message. Please check his posts, and you'll see what I mean.

I've invited him, cordially, to engage one-on-one via email, but he prefers to do his thing here, where he has the majority behind him, and the safety he seems to need, re: confirmation bias.

This thread started out having nothing to do with D.T. It is about the obvious threat to free speech, and freedom in general, being marshaled from the regressive left.

All the classic twists and dodges have been implemented: Just demonize anyone who isn't a socialist. Demonize anyone who doesn't kneel down and yield to the powers that be in the Left-plagued universities. Anyone who isn't a socialist is a closet racist, this, or a that. Choose your popular go-to cliched slur.

I'm with Sam Harris, Dave Rubin, David Horowitz, Jordan Peterson, Larry Elder, Dennis Miller, Jon Voight, George Carlin, Lauren Southern, Thomas Sowell, Thaddeus Russell, Andrew Klavan, and scores of others...

Enough's enough.

[William A. Baurle]

Matt Q,

You deserve a better response about this racist thing:

First, notice John Riley is willing to write me off for not calling Trump a racist. But his university education should have let him know a few things:

Let's say I say a bunch of things, then all of a sudden I am saying that 2+2 equals 5. Obviously, 2+2 does NOT equal five. John is suggesting that since I don't consider Trump a "racist", that he doesn't therefore have to take anything else I have written seriously. And he has written exactly that:

To not be able to see how much race has motivated Trump astounds me. It's impossible to take anything else said seriously.

Somewhere in John's education I would assume that he has had some philosophy classes, and some education as to what is wrong with his argument here. But perhaps I assume to much?

This is all part of the bigger problem.

If someone is wrong on one issue, there is absolutely NO reason to presume that they are therefore wrong on other issues; and there is most certainly NO reason to assume that they are wrong about EVERYTHING.

This is a convenient means of shutting down rational discussion. X was wrong on Y, therefore it is perfectly okay to ignore X when it comes to anything else X says.

Um. No.

[Emitt Evan Baker]

William,
You privately emailed me to ask me to stop responding to your posts.
Told you I was busy anyway and that seemed fine.
I said something to John and John in reply to their posts.
You then personally attacked those emails.
I wrote you and told you that that was bullshit and that this sort of thing didn't seem good for you. It was a remark based on your own public speeches regarding all this. You are free to send the exchange to anyone you wish. I will happily not post on threads were you are teaching any longer. This topic interested me. I had just wanted to finish a conversation we had started a while back that was cut-off. I stand by the remark that this discourse you have tied into with Horowitz et al. is toxic. Your choice though. So long.