Apologies! I haven’t looked at this blog in years and didn’t even notice there were comments

LikeLike

my comment still awaiting moderation… 3 years long…

LikeLike

I think the issue with people who are difficult to categorise politically is that very often they turn out to be simply people who are seriously dedicated to following a non-materialistic worldview. And there aren’t many people like that in North America and Western Europe these days.

LikeLike

>When you’re in a hole, Hector, stop digging.

One iron law of the internet is that people who resort to this lazy cliche are in a hole themselves, and still digging.

Reducing what you claim to have said to a trivial tautology is not an escape.

LikeLike

There is no contradiction there.

LikeLiked by 1 person

Because “Black” American IQs being lower than “White” American IQs is a fact that when raised has a tendency to massively derail discussion. The causes may be debatable but the fact of its existence really isn’t, so it’s only worth bringing up if you actually want to discuss possible causes, which will drown out all other discussion…

LikeLike

You don’t know what you are talking about. The greatest differences in IQ are within populations, not between them.

However nice Mr S was about your mum (and let’s face it many very evil and nasty people have had lovely manners), you are an apologist for a very arrogant young man – see his 2016 interview with Laura McInerny https://schoolsweek.co.uk/andrew-sabisky-political-forecaster/.

LikeLike

“He went through quote by quote, in a quite detailed manner explaining the context for each”
No, he picked a subset, specifically – “those which have not (yet) been deleted and which show Sabinsky in a more positive light”. My point was that Sabinsky made a rod for his back by deleting much of the context himself. I can only speculate as to his reasons for doing this, given that the remaining context does – as shown by the author – exonerate him somewhat from some of the more egregious claims in the press. Not, it should be noted, all of them – the IQ/race one was balls-out stupid and he should be ashamed. Perhaps the ones he removed also reflected badly upon him.

It’s nice that he had the decency to inquire after the author’s mum (who I hope is fully recovered from her ailments), but wholly irrelevant – there are plenty of people whose manners are substantially more developed than their morality. Being a decent conversationalist qualifies you for nothing other than having conversations.

“You are a horrible person.”
Yeah, well, you smell of stale cake and my dad could beat your dad in a fight.

…is this really how you want to conduct things? It doesn’t feel very dignified.

LikeLike

You’re splitting hairs really.

The point is his quotes WERE taken out of context . I might not agree with everything he said but it’s clear this is a hit job.

His ideas are debatable but did he deserve to get fired for them? No.

LikeLike

Your snark is revolting.

He went through quote by quote, in a quite detailed manner explaining the context for each and you choose to attack him as if he is naive.

You are a horrible person.

LikeLike