The cult of “anti racism” has fully taken over the NFL

[Chuck Naill]

If you're going to quote Mr. Sowell, at least provide a complete quote. Here is the remainder and context, "They want villains to hate and heroes to cheer - and they don't want explanations that fail to give them that.”

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news...ghts-12209705/

[dneal]

Yes Chuck, but partial or incomplete you still do not comprehend the quote. Who do you think the "they" is that Mr. Sowell is referring to?

The answer may be found in your bathroom mirror.

[dneal]

A meme points out hypocrisy.

Hardly. Memes point out very little. They're passed around the internet like little "gotcha" jabs, and they masquerade as insight.

Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk

Memes can do many things. Some simply prompt a giggle, like the one with the "elf on a shelf" legs sticking out of a baby Yoda's mouth (a reference to an episode of The Mandalorian. Some are more thought provoking. 21st century internet aphorisms, if you will. The do require a modicum of wit to understand, like a Twain quote; because they tend to center on satire or sarcasm, and usually point out hypocrisy (or "whataboutism", as Chuck calls it).

[Chuck Naill]

Yes Chuck, but partial or incomplete you still do not comprehend the quote. Who do you think the "they" is that Mr. Sowell is referring to?

The answer may be found in your bathroom mirror.

He’s referring to people like you. That’s pretty obvious.

[dneal]

lol, thanks for the chuckle, Chuck.

[TSherbs]

... Some are more thought provoking. 21st century internet aphorisms, if you will.

That's too generous. I've never seen one that I am impressed by. A giggle, sure. But giggles aren't much, either.

I have sent exactly one meme, once, to three friends (for its humor). But for wisdom? No. I'm just not impressed by thumbnail approaches to wisdom.


Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk

[Chuck Naill]

I’d probably lay off quoting Mr. Sowell.

[welch]

@welch that dude went to a lot of effort to compile that encyclopedia of offenses!

Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk

The Story is about Dan Snyder, who probably leaked the emails to or from Bruce Allen that Chuckie sent. Or Tanya Snyder did it. Thought I'd fill in the background, since only Kaz and I are likely to know why Redskin / Deadskin fans were not surprised -- horrified but not surprised -- when the Washington Post printed results of its investigation of the rape culture, or sex-cesspool, that Snyder operates as the Redskins / Washington Team of Football (WTF). The Gruden emails deserve a footnote in the much larger story of how Snyder destroyed the Redskins and built an organization dedicated to providing him with videos of the Redskin cheerleaders nude, or female employees he could sexually assault, or his media chief, Larry Michael, could assault, or his assistant general managers could grab, or etc etc.

The story is about Snyder, not Gruden. Maybe Gruden's lawsuit will force the NFL to release the other 649,998 emails that the NFL's investigation found.

The story I quoted, from a decade ago, just compiled some of the reasons Redskin fans hated Dan and Tanya Snyder back then. We didn't know the half of it.

[dneal]

... Some are more thought provoking. 21st century internet aphorisms, if you will.

That's too generous. I've never seen one that I am impressed by. A giggle, sure. But giggles aren't much, either.

I have sent exactly one meme, once, to three friends (for its humor). But for wisdom? No. I'm just not impressed by thumbnail approaches to wisdom.


Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk

Well I also noted that they required a modicum of wit, so I'm not surprised. Could be that your political views are on the receiving end, so your dislike isn't surprising either.

Your critique is fallacious though. An opinion, unsubstantiated, laced with condescension. I'd ask you to offer more of substance, but we already know that just turns into "I don't want to discuss this..." as you trundle off to shit in someone's for sale thread.

[dneal]

I’d probably lay off quoting Mr. Sowell.

Why? I'm the only one of us who understands him. If you did (as you like to claim), you wouldn't be such a "woke" internet hyena.

[Chuck Naill]

Well, your last attempt didn’t go as expected did it? Ha ha

[dneal]

You're right. I thought you would understand Sowell. You didn't. Ha ha

*yawn*

[Chuck Naill]

Lol! You completely misquoted the man. He obviously was referring to people like you who need a hero

[dneal]

Chuck, you don’t understand the quote or the definition of “misquote”.

Dear god you are a bore.

*yawn*

[Chuck Naill]

Please stop. You’re embarrassing yourself….😅😅😅

[dneal]

Chuck, I see you have made it to your bathroom mirror. Now contemplate the Sowell quote.

[Chuck Naill]

Just stop misquoting Mr. Sowell . You’ve done it a couple of times before. He deserves better .

[dneal]

Chuck, I can’t be responsible for your lack of comprehension. Claim I “misquote” all you like, if it makes you happy. It troubles me not in the least.

[Chuck Naill]

Chuck, I can’t be responsible for your lack of comprehension. Claim I “misquote” all you like, if it makes you happy. It troubles me not in the least.

It must since you keep on responding. It should be obvious to anyone reading your post you chose to provide an incomplete quote by Mr. Sowell. I provided both a complete quote as well as the article for context. That article does not support your reason for posting. You've done this before.

[dneal]

"Misquoting" is when you change the meaning of a quote by omitting key portions. Emerson's "Consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds" is often used as an argument against [logical] consistency. That's incorrect, and misquoting. What Emerson was saying is that it's ok to change your mind in lieu of new information, and consistency for consistency's sake is a "hobgoblin" of little minds.

Want a different example? How about your misquoting of Twain, in what I'm sure you believed was a clever rebuttal. You missed the sarcasm of America's most famed satirist (which in your case is not surprising), and thought it meant something completely different. I pointed that out to you two posts later, and you ran away (again, not surprising).

The portion of the Sowell quote I shared is:

"The reason so many people misunderstand so many issues is not that these issues are so complex, but that people do not want a factual or analytical explanation that leaves them emotionally unsatisfied."

but you think omitting the last sentence...:

"They want villains to hate and heroes to cheer — and they don’t want explanations that do not give them that."

...changes it. It doesn't. It is additive. It is a reiteration. It is redundant, and unnecessary. The point expressed is not changed with or without the last sentence.

It perhaps shines a light on the reasons you and your fellow wokenistas grab your rhetorical torches and pitchforks and storm this section of the forum. Look at the "why can't Trump folks believe he lost" thread. It is much more emotionally satisfying for you and yours like to ignore an objective answer to the question. To assign motive for emotional satisfaction.

Sowell was commenting on a principle I also cite Mark Twain about.

We all do no end of feeling, and we mistake it for thinking.

That quote (like all quotes) is taken "out of context".

Twain continues:

And out of it we get an aggregation which we consider a boon. Its name is public opinion. It is held in reverence. Some think it the voice of God.

Does that change Twain's first sentence? Does that negate the notion of emotion overriding reason? Of course not.

Sowell (and Twain) are talking about people like you.

Thus endeth the lesson.

QED