Subject:
|
Re: Libertarian SPAM (Propaganda)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 18 Jun 2001 08:25:10 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1318 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Tom Stangl writes:
> Dave Schuler wrote:
>
> > > > I have already [demonstrated why the LP's demographic composition matters],
> > > > and Dave has too.
> >
> > > You haven't *demonstrated* squat, all you've done is make yourself look
> > > stupid, and basically defamed any white person who has ever worked their ass
> > > off for racial equality.
> >
> > It is not for the LP, nor any of its passionate proponents, to declaim
> > that the demographics of the party are not a problem--it is for society to
> > decide, and, given the tepid national support of the party, I'd say society
> > has made its decision known.
> > In addition, since I appear to be one of the people in "you,"
>
> I in no way, shape, or form was lumping you in with Scott. I would never do that
> to you, Scott is in a class all by himself.
So where do Dave and I differ on this? How is there a class is difference
between our views?
>
>
>
> > I would take
> > issue with your claim that I've made myself look stupid. I have (as Bruce
> > has done) observed that, while the validity of a group's message is
> > independent of that group's demographic makeup, the fact that so much of the
> > party is made up of middle class white males is provocative, considering the
> > fact that the party's agenda would be of particular benefit to middle class
> > white males. If, in fact, the party's agenda does not unduly benefit middle
> > class white males, then it is in the party's interest to establish clearly
> > why this is not so, rather than simply saying "well, non-white-males will
> > benefit, but they just don't see it yet."
> > Further, to infer some defamation of the efforts of activists, based on a
> > skewed reading of the reasonable and appropriate concerns about an
> > overwhelmingly white party, is inflammatory ad hominem rhetoric.
> > If, on the other hand, I was not intended as part of "you," then retract
> > my indignation. 8^)
>
>
> Retract away, Dave! (see, I can pull a ++Lar too!)
>
> Scott seems to want to state that a predominantly white male party can't have
> ideas that are good for non-white males.
Where did I say that? Where? I think they are less likely too. I think any
ideas they would have would be treated very sceptically. But I do not think
“a predominantly white male party can't have
ideas that are good for non-white males”.
> The stupdity of this assertion is mind
> boggling (ignore LP party discussion part and just think about this single
> assertion).
My mind is boggling right now.
>
> Your arguments with DETAILS are fine, it's Scott's inflammatory one-liners that
> tire me.
All your input to this debate (which I have read) has been nothing but
one/two-liners and insults. But this does not tire me Tom - although, I do
feel a little bemused.
Scott A
>
>
> --
> | Tom Stangl, iPlanet Web Server Technical Support
> | Netscape Communications Corp
> | A division of AOL Time Warner
> | iPlanet Support - http://www.iplanet.com/support/
> | Please do not associate my personal views with my employer
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Libertarian SPAM (Propaganda)
|
| (...) I in no way, shape, or form was lumping you in with Scott. I would never do that to you, Scott is in a class all by himself. (...) Retract away, Dave! (see, I can pull a ++Lar too!) Scott seems to want to state that a predominantly white male (...) (23 years ago, 15-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
271 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
