I don't have a problem with people criticizing me, and given that I think chez is being too heavy-handed in his moderation of that particular style of posting anyway, I suppose I couldn't complain too much even if I wanted.

No, well named is not an SJW. I have no personal beef with well named. We have had many discussions.

This is my point and apologies for using a pretty innocuous example involving you in making it.

Yes it is.

Threads about posters bans/exiles are tricky because the poster is the content. As we now know the situation and Juan is just exiled from P, this thread will be closing soon.

This did not happen. I've corrected you before. And reminded you of all the caveats in that post, which I only wrote to appease your ridiculous request. This is an example of what I mean when I say you are blatantly dishonest.

And I did respond later. Yes? I believe so. In any case, I've explained my positions to you multiple times in great detail and you've consistently ignored all of the actual substantive points while lying about what I've said, so if on some occasions I've also decided not to bother responding to things you've said which I thought were irrelevant distractions, then I remain unapologetic.

For example, do you remember all those times I provided evidence of discrimination and inequality that you asked for and you refused to actually engage with any of it?

I provided the sources for all my claims. None of my claims were made based on my own authority.

As usual, you make assertions without providing any argument. The fact that I didn't bring up something that you think is relevant but which is not discussed in the primary source upon which the thread is based (R&C vol. 4) does not actually demonstrate that the data and ideas presented in the thread are "junk science."

You make lots of other claims in this post, but I'm no longer particularly interested in discussing this topic with you, so I'm not going to bother responding, except to note that as usual your presentation of our previous discussions is breathtakingly dishonest.

I don't believe you can quote a single example of a time in which I was "completely blind to seeing any negative aspects of a single one of the groups [I] want to protect."

Again, I don't think you can provide a single quote which would substantiate this claim about what I believe.

I am not interested in doing so. Let's see it play out in your future posting.

If I see you doing it, I'll point it out.

lol listing segregation and different forms of discrimination totaling 100% is attributing 100% of the disparity due to racism. are you serious?

i predicted you have no explanation for simple questions about disparity in outcomes and that you would duck. you did. youre even doing it here. declare an excuse to duck a simple question. how do you explain the disparity in race in the NBA and usa track n field? its not a lot of labor or difficult. you have ducked it a dozen times for a reason. you now preemptively provide a duck disclaimer as a fixture in your responses

the only reason i brought is up again isn't to take an extra victory lap after crippling your extensive claims with a basic question you have to duck a dozen times, its because you volunteered a completely hypocritical opinion in this thread about avoiding honest conversations. i mean, while your reading this and ducking again, just think about whats happening. nobody asked you to chime in here, its just a total lack of self awareness

youtubes are tedious. I don't know why it's so hard to type these things out.

In any case, you need to do more than provide anecdotes of what certain professors say. If your claim is that there exist professors who teach dumb things in a gender studies classroom, then I'll agree. But that's also true of economics and many other subjects. If you are claiming that gs in general teaches unscientific things then you are going to have to provide evidence for that claim, and citing individual professors isn't good enough.

Well why (keep in mind I find Juan pretty much unbearable but I still defend his "right" to join in the conversation if he follows the rules) was he singled out for the "hot seat" in the first place? Could it be a differing political view?

Something that's typed can be quoted and replied to. The reply can show the quote is nonsense. If you don't want people to show your material is wrong, youtube is the superior choice.

I took to writing out transcripts to help those who are adverse to watching videos, and that ended up being something people didn't like either.

I was asked then to paraphrase and summarise.

Can't win really. Because the bottom line is that if you don't agree with the thing, you don't want the thing.

LOL

Of course it is

He asked me about the difference between racism and systemic racism. He inserted himself in to a conversation. He had already banned me for a petty reason. I had no interest in engaging him. He repeatedly demanded i engage him. Its absurd. I told him to answer his own question. Make a point. He never did. How is he not on the "hot seat"? He literally provided zero content in multiple posts in my thread, even when i told him he could go ahead and make a point and i would repond. Even after i said i didnt want to answer his questions I provided another example of different types of discrimination from harvard. He didnt respond to that, he said if i refue to discuss things with him, im exiled. Its clearly emotional for him and he's clearly a hypocritical knob. He didn't go down that road because like most sjw's he can't articulate anything. Thats why they specialize in gotcha questions and shutting down free speech like authoritarians. This is the same thing we see on college campus protests. Frothing at the mouth chanting labels and buzzwords. The the speakers they are protesting have an open debate, and they get completely wrecked, because their ideas are weak and untested from being in a bubble. Thats what we see with wookie.

Anyone is welcome to drop a recent quote from wookie that is insightful. The guy accumulates thousands and thousands of posts full of pissy nonsense. Its a very common here, the highest post counts are highly correlated with the most pissy and miserable posters/people who also generate very little actual content. Just pissy squabbles. People like toothsayer constantly deliver an articulate thought. That drives actual discussion. On the other side, so does wellnamed, even though i disagree. Thats a rare acception. Wellnamed is an example of someone with an absurd post count that articulates their point and has some depth to their argument. Thats exactly what not to expect from wookie or all the high volume posters in the P section, and the sjw crowd in general

This is your absurd desire to argue with total ignorance. You dont know anything about the topic and then make excuses as to why you wont view the material. I bet you think it sounds clever to dismiss something as if youtube is a source and not a platform for sharing information

Its not just an anecdote when you dont have any info on the contrary and the info being provided doesn't contradict any gend studies courses. You cant make that claim or back it up because you have zero knowledge of the topic, yet you insist on arguing. If its just an anecdote then fill me in on what professors it contradicts, how are the professors is showed any different? You claim to not have even view the content showing the professors views and you claim not to know what other professors are teaching, yet you find yourself actively trying to argue about the topic. Its weird

The material you posted was irrelevant. You made a claim: genders studies programs teach unscientific things. Then you posted videos of people complaining about pronouns in canada...or something.

Why would I watch a 15 minutes video for information you could relay to me with a paragraph. It's absurd. And when I watched one of your videos--which was irrelevant to your claim, btw--and showed where the professor was LYING about a letter that Obama had sent and you just hand-waved it away. It's not my job to prove your claim.


I guess just keep that evidence super secret. Very convincing.

Wookie isn't a SJW. He's a centrist in the worst sense. He's part of the truly selfish crowd, blind to the suffering in the world or his role in it, who thought everything was just great and why can't we just go with Hillary because she's the most (lol) qualified. I can recall him even arguing with Jiggs and I, several years ago, the point that the recovery wasn't lackluster. I mean, facts don't even matter to wookie when it comes to these issues. He's not a SJW out there putting blame on people and trying to stir up action. He's trying to keep the world, and all the destructive programs in it, just the way it is. Meanwhile he is, of course, completely blind to the role of his block in producing the outcomes we now see.