“If you have always believed that everyone should play by the same rules and be judged by the same standards, that would have gotten you labeled a radical 60 years ago, a liberal 30 years ago and a racist today.“ Thomas Sowell

submitted by [deleted] from (specials-images.forbesimg.com)

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]jmichaelhudsondotnet 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

You might like some of my work: https://leanpub.com/expandeddefinitions

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 3 fun1 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 3 fun -  (5 children)

Thanks I'll give it a look.

Edit: given it a look, no thanks.

[–]jmichaelhudsondotnet 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

70k word book analyzing recent degeneration of the english language, with new terms, intense discussion of police state, most difficult disputed words, and new maps of meaning, all original and independently produced.

Your response: like you were offered a plate of french fries

lol thanks for sharing about yourself, not surprised though given your reverence for sewell and friedman

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

From our other discussion: Let me put it another way. The segregation that was in the immediate past back then wasn't based on the beliefs Sowell was promoting. He was given his position to be a voice to the black community because the white people that shared these beliefs thought they were universal even though they didn't apply them universally up until then.

I'm sorry I was dismissive of your work but I could see from the synopsis that you're engaging in a type of semantics that seeks to prejudice language e.g. Blue Church, rather than respect its function for facilitating discussion, which is what the Hayek quote is about.

[–]jmichaelhudsondotnet 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

"The segregation that was in the immediate past back then wasn't based on the beliefs Sowell was promoting. He was given his position to be a voice to the black community because the white people that shared these beliefs thought they were universal even though they didn't apply them universally up until then."

That is not coherent english, would you like to restate this?

"I could see from the synopsis that you're engaging in a type of semantics that seeks to prejudice language e.g. Blue Church, rather than respect its function for facilitating discussion,"

That is not true, I actually eviscerate the idea that there is a blue church in this very book and point out that is itself a propganda tactic.

If you even just read the introduction I state clearly that I am trying to elevate and generate productive discussion, and am open to any suggestions for improvement.

What in the synopsis told you the opposite?

But to me it sounds like you judged the book by its cover, labeled it "blue church" and then cancel-cultured it prior to any real consideration.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Disingenuous bullshit. Grow up.

Edit: If anyone is interested in what these deconstructionists are doing let me explain.

They are finding arguments that they think will draw people away from their cause and redefining the terminology used in them in order to misrepresent the arguments. It's the root cause of all the hate and confusion we see today. It's essentially the same as a teenager spreading malicious gossip about someone they don't like to get everyone else to dislike them. Here's a tip for dealing with them in real life: tell them something personal about yourself that your mutual friends will know isn't true and wait for them to gleefully show everyone that they're full of shit and untrustworthy. In adults you can bet that they either have alcohol or cocaine issues, or they have a personality disorder.

[–]jmichaelhudsondotnet 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Who is "they"?

There are so many incoherent aspects to this sentence.

Are you saying my 70k book on contemporary etymology is the same as a teenager's gossip?

How does that appy to this thread about thomas sewell or my comment in any way? How is me telling you you are incoherent the same as gossip?

For someone named mr obvious, your comments are impossible to decipher, and frankly seem randomly generated to waste everyones time.

[–]sproketboy 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

No we won't commie.

[–]jmichaelhudsondotnet 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

u/magnora7

Debate pyramid ad hominem

[–]sproketboy 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Oh is daddy going to save you commie?