Tuesday, June 30, 2020


Who is in control? Given events of the past few weeks and months, that’s hard to say. Another question would be: Is anyone in control? In his dystopian novel 1984, British author George Orwell created the character “O’Brien” a powerful member of the Inner Party who tells Winston Smith: "Who controls the past controls the future: who controls the present controls the past.”

Some literary analysts claim Orwell was depicting the Nazi Party in 1984, while others claim it was the Communist Party. All agree that Orwell was portraying a totalitarian party in complete control of past, present and future for poor Winston Smith, an ordinary guy trying to figure out answers to the questions with which I opened this column.

Journalist Tucker Carlson openly claims Democrats are in control of recent events in the streets of our cities. Other conservative journalists contend Democrats support Antifa, Black Lives Matter, and the hordes of anarchists who turn peaceful demonstrations into riots, and who tear down historical monuments across our country — the latter a dramatic, visible effort to control the past. We see it on our TV screens every night.

Last Saturday, Maine’s own Graham Lloyd, 37, was one of four charged with pulling down the statue of President Andrew Jackson in front of the White House. As of this writing I was unable to find where in Maine Graham lived or any other information about possible criminal or political activities in which he may have been involved locally.

Hannah-Jones with Henry Louis Gates
As a former US History teacher in Maine, I was surprised at the New York Times Magazine publication of the 1619 Project — an alternative US History curriculum contending the United States was founded not in 1776 when the Declaration of Independence was adopted, but in 1619 when the first African slave was brought to Virginia. I was also dismayed to learn that it was being adopted by public schools across the country.

The 1619 Project -- another effort to control the past -- is a creation of New York Times writer Nikole Hannah-Jones for which she was given a Pulitzer Prize. That’s curious given the dubious, racist, historical claims she’s made in the past. In a letter to the University of Notre Dame’s campus newspaper The Observer, she declared: “the white race is the biggest murderer, rapist, pillager, and thief of the modern world.” She called whites “bloodsuckers” and “barbaric devils,” and accused them of “pumping drugs and guns into the black community.”

Hannah-Jones also claimed that: “Africans had been to the Americas long before Columbus or any Europeans… [and] had the decency and respect for human life to learn from the Native Americans and trade technology with them…” She cited Aztec and Olmec pyramids as proof although historical evidence of these claims can be described as thin or none. Nonetheless, the New York Times and the Pulitzer Prize Committee consider her a respected historian.

One of the men beaten by Black Lives Matter
As a Roman Catholic, I’m further appalled that Black Lives Matter and Antifa are assaulting fellow Catholics and their statuary. When Catholics gathered over the weekend to say the rosary around the now-defaced statue of St. Louis — the saint after whom the city was named — the leftist mob beat at least three of them. I watched a horrifying video of three black men chasing down and beating a white Christian man following the rosary service but I’ll bet none of you readers ever saw it on CNN, NBC, CBS, ABC, or anywhere else. It doesn’t fit the “white privilege/systemic racism” narrative of our mainstream media.

Elsewhere in St. Louis, the leftist mob broke down a gate leading to a private home. In a video taken by Black Lives Matter protestors, a barefoot man was pointing what looked like an AR-15 at the mob. His barefoot wife stood beside him aiming a pistol. Both were warning the mob to leave. Thankfully it did before shots were fired. It was very tense and we can assume scenes like this are playing out elsewhere.

The Washington Post ran an article declaring: “St. Louis couple points guns at peaceful crowd of protestors calling for mayor to resign.” The homeowner, an attorney named Mark McCloskey, was interviewed by a local TV station and described the scene quite differently. He said the Black Lives Matter mob broke down a steel gate guarding the private drive leading to his house, threatened to kill him, his wife, their dog, and burn down their house. At least one had a semi-automatic pistol. He said the mayor didn’t live there.

Clearly this leftist-sanctioned violence occurring almost everywhere has reached a critical stage. Is it out of control already? One could make a serious case that it is. If so, can control be regained? By whom? Answers to these questions, or lack thereof, are likely to determine the outcome of the November elections.


Brian said...

It's in the eye of the beholder. I'm sure many claimed at the time that the Boston Tea Party was a group of angry, rioting destructive thugs. Others see it as a necessary rebellion/uprising. Same for the Stono Rebellion of 1739,the New York City Conspiracy of 1774, Gabriel’s Conspiracy in 1801, Nat Turner’s Rebellion in 1831, and the uprising that forced the Civil Rights Act in the 1960s. Unfortunately leftist opposition within Germany during Hitler's rise to power proved ineffectual, as the Security Police (Sipo) crushed the leftist political organizations by force. It seems many would like to see the current day protests crushed by force as well.

Anonymous said...


Uber_Fritz said...

Brian . . . and just how would you characterize this? This is not isolated but is pervasive throughout the US.

Brian said...

Uber, what exactly is "this"? The rebellion/uprising? Or the violence that has nothing to do with the cause? I'm not saying some of the violence/destruction isn't being done in the name of the cause, but not nearly all of it.

Montedoro44 said...

I just stumbled on a recent edition of Candace Owens' show, where she and Marc Lamont Hill go at it. It's 1:20, so it takes some patience, but it is good to see opposing sides politely, if sometimes excitedly, expressing themselves. And as they are both black, the horse-apple rhetorical dismissal of white guilt/fragility/privilege/racism/X/Y/Z cannot be invoked.

IMO this chat is well worth the time, as 1) they are both outspoken & practiced opinionators, and 2) as there are many facts presented (mostly by Candace, surprise) and chewed over. The question of violence as a tactic is one of many that they process.

Re [slight rephrasing]: "not nearly all of the violence/destruction is being done in the name of the cause": that's identical to "some of the violence is being done in the name of the cause". And that evokes the old joke whose punchline goes like "I already know what you are — now we're just haggling over the price." (Searchable, if you need it.) In short, BLM advocates/supports/allows/tolerates — choose any of these — violence. Whatever justification is given for it, one known effect is that the violence tends to grow, especially when it is not opposed, its purveyors tend to go beyond whatever BLM or the violence-mongering group du jour claims as their limit of toleration. In the current case — violence in the name of racial justice — the hardest-hit victims tend to be the people whom BLM claims to be defending. The excitement may magnetic for the moment, but in the long run, it hurts. You can see Marc Lamont Hill try to justify it — up against a less-informed, less assertive opponent, he might have got away with it.

Brian said...

Yes, I left it open that some of the destruction is being done in the name of the cause because I view toppling statues that honor racists in public spaces to be in the name of the cause. This I believe BLM advocates/supports/allows/tolerates, but I'm not 100% sure that is the case. I do not believe that BLM at all condones any other destruction and certainly not violence. Trump demonizing the movement as a "symbol of hate" is just another sign of his racism. It is no surprise that years of his continuous race-baiting, combined with the on-going murders by police has erupted into these protests. The protestors/rioters certainly have as much cause for an angry rebellion as did colonists upset with taxes.

And again, there has been way more death and destruction in the name of far right causes than there has been for BLM and ANTIFA combined.

As far Candace Owens goes, she is getting the attention she wants now by realizing that being a pretty black face for conservatives would really pay off, and she could make a name for herself better doing that than by trashing Trump and the Tea Party like she was doing a few years ago. How can we take her seriously after she stupidly claimed on Fox News that the National Rifle Association was founded as a civil rights organization that protected Black people from the KKK? And who about the mail bombs sent to Democrats said, "there is a 0% chance that these ‘suspicious packages’ were sent out by conservatives." and called them "fake bomb threats". She's turned herself into a joke; defending the racist Amy Cooper? C'mon.

Montedoro44 said...

To demean Candace Owens as a "pretty black face" can be parsed as an act of unashamed sexism, if not racism. What amount of disdain and hatred that maligner must have to say such a thing about an articulate person who stands up to the mob — and especially in these walk-on-eggshells times — a black person?

Candace Owens is also a person who believes in, and wants others to believe in the American legal foundation of innocent until proven guilty. That would be the underlying principle that she employed when she gave the destroyers of Amy Cooper a reminder to not rush to judgment — in her words, to not assume racism. Anyone who bypasses this principle does not operate mentally as an American. If she made a mistake, at least she erred on the side of generosity.

Whoever jettisons the entire output of a person based on a presentation of a few targeted statements is not functioning ethically, or has an agenda; the act of doing so constitutes an elementary rhetorical fallacy that goes by several names, like false generalization, confirmation bias, cherry picking, etc. If that is the test, then everyone fails. The Cooper v. Cooper case has enough complexity to suggest that both of the Coopers have some complicity in that freakish event. Had a white Republican Christian Cooper initiated the transaction with a black Democrat Amy Cooper and it ran its course as it did, what's the likelihood that the Twitter inquisitors would have sympathized with this Christian Cooper?

My hope is that the two Coopers will reach a rapprochement and so show the hate-spewing Twittermongers and the world a needed example of tolerance and forgiveness. But the Twitter wolves don't want that, do they? They would lose their poster child and so harm their agenda. Never let a good crisis go to waste.

Brian said...

Oh stop the act, you know damn well that the "pretty black face" was written as a comment on how she would be viewed by Fox viewers. Are you really that desperate?

And with Amy Cooper.....Really? We all saw her reaction and her horrendously racist bogus BS about an "African-American man threatening my life, and my dog" as she mistreats her dog. Three times stressing the "African-American" part. Give it up, Monte, everybody knows that is racist behavior. How can I trust anything you claim to believe when you try to pretend the racism there is not obvious? I have doubted that you were a racist yourself, but wow, if you really can't "assume" that what you saw was blatant racism....

And he was complicit? I guess you saw something I didn't, can you give me a link to something showing how he was partially at fault in causing her hysterical and racist behavior(besides having black skin)?

Tolerance? No, that behavior is not to be tolerated at all. The whole BLM movement is due to people not wanting to "tolerate" such racist crap. Don't let a good crisis go to waste? Sounds to me like you wish Floyd's "crisis" of being murdered went to waste, that it just all blew over smoothly in a sea of tolerance.

Oh, and I missed your excuse for Owens presuming with 100% certainty that the Democrats were guilty of staging those bomb threats in the mail. After all, you did stress the "innocent until proven guilty" portion of your post. Maybe you can enlighten me on how my holding her accountable for that is an "elementary rhetorical fallacy" or some such hogwash.

I can only laugh when you bring up "hate-spewing Twittermongers". Because we all know who is the king of hateful tweets.

Montedoro44 said...

Out of respect for Tom's blog, I won't feed you anymore, Brian. Don't think this hasn't been fun.

Brian said...

I'd give up as well at this point if I were in your position.

MsL said...

A history teacher like Mr. McClaughlin might find this disturbing.

Kafir said...

I’m guessing if Brian is an NFL fan, he’ll be singing the “Black National Anthem” during the first week of games this season.

I am curious if Brian or the BLM Marxists know that actual slavery still exists in many countries, particularly in the Islamic Republic of Mauritania.

Brian said...

I don't know the "Black National Anthem" but its cute that you are thinking of me.

Yes I know about modern slavery. One of the biggest offenders is led by Trump's boyfriend Kim Jong Un. Trump: "And then we fell in love, OK? No, really, he wrote me beautiful letters, and they’re great letters. We fell in love.” Maybe the slavery thing is one of the things Trump loves about him. I have no idea why you are asking about modern day slavery though.

Brian said...

Oh, and just imagine the hysteria and enraged outcry from Fox viewers if the "falling in love" thing was said by Obama about one of our biggest enemies, say some terrorist Muslim!

I wonder if Putin, the dominatrix of this weird ménage à trois of two dictators and a wanna-be, got jealous over that.


Montedoro44 said...

Regarding the subject of Tom's article, who's in control, here is a glimpse into a group that wants to gain control; article "Islamists Appropriate Black Lives Matter Movement, Despite History of Anti-Black Bigotry":


Brian said...

Nice that muslims are showing solidarity with this civil rights movement.

It's great seeing what is going on during this Independence Day. Good to see such patriotism all over the country! On July 9, 1776, a rowdy group of American colonists banded together at a political rally in New York City and marched to a public park that featured a statue of King George III, Britain's ruler, and knocked the 4,000-pound statue off its 15-foot pedestal. The head of the statue was then decapitated and perched on top of a spike. Sound familiar?

"They're patriots," says historian Erika Doss, an American studies professor at the University of Notre Dame, of today's protesters. "They're looking at the symbols and these visual and martial emblems and icons in their midst and they're saying this doesn't stand for who we are today."

"The people who are out yelling in the streets today are no different than Paul Revere yelling 'The British are coming!''' says Melanye Price, a Texas professor. "It's the American way to voice criticism of the government and to rebel against oppressive forces."

The widespread use of masks is also a patriotic sign. Americans looking out for each other, showing they care about their fellow citizens by putting up with inconveniences like their glasses fogging over. Te percentage of unselfish patriots are see are very encouraging.

Will the horrifically un-patriotic president come up with a modern day version of "bone spurs" to once again wimp-out and thus avoid being humiliated as a huge loser? My friends are worried he will, but I try and reassure them that his massive ego combined with his delusion will not allow this to happen.

TRD said...


Montedoro44 said...

There's an informative video from June 30 — Dinesh D'Souza is interviewed by Jan Jekielek; in its inadvertent way, it addresses the topic of Tom's blog. As there are massive complexities hidden in the question of who is in control of the current political activities that are visible in the streets, the conversation may appear to wander a bit, but it is all connected. 46 interesting minutes:


Brian said...

Who is in control of what is going on in the streets? It can't get much simpler. I don't need to watch a lengthy, wandering video to know the answer. The obvious answer of who is in control is...the PEOPLE. The patriotic citizens of the USA. Sure, BLM people may help organize some of the protests, but the people that come and protest are concerned citizens trying to help. No political agency is telling them what to do, they see what is going on and have taken to the streets.

Montedoro44 said...

There is data now that perhaps 2000 more-than-usual black-on-black homicides have occurred, and the expectation that this will get even worse, as police are increasingly demeaned, endangered, and defunded.


Brian said...

I'm not sure why you and the right-wing media are suddenly so concerned with the ongoing violence in poverty stricken black neighborhoods. Oh wait, yes I do...as a distraction. It's nice that people are paying attention to what systemic racism and the poverty that comes with it causes, but the timing is suspicious. Well, it's another step in the right direction I suppose.

Nick Peace said...

Africans had travelled to the Americas before the Europeans? That's a new one for me. I've heard of the possibility of Phoenicians - but they are a Middle Eastern group not African.

As for the commonality of the pyramids, there is far more likelihood that they come from a single advanced civilization that visited both the Americas and Egypt. That would be Atlantis, which Plato wrote about.

Brian said...

Watch the 2 minutes starting at 32:20 of the Ringo Starr Birthday special. If it makes you uncomfortable you are on the wrong side of history.


Brian said...

Marine Corps Gen. James Mattis
Marine Corps Gen. John Allen
Navy Adm. Mike Mullen
Air Force Gen. Richard Myers
Army Gen. Martin Dempsey
William Perry
Navy Adm. William McRaven
Navy Adm. James Stavridis
Army Gen. Raymond A. "Tony" Thomas
Air Force Gen. Mike Hayden

Our military leaders who have spoken out against Trump. "A threat against our Constitution" - Mattis

But maybe you think the ego-maniac reality tv star and his right-wing media sycophants know better than them.

Or you can listen to a pro-life, gun-owning veteran: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nytBEWbwOkw

Or maybe the 89 former defense officials including people like former defense secretaries Leon Panetta, Chuck Hagel, Ashton Carter, and William Cohen, who called Trump's pledge to send the US military into American cities to respond to unrest "shocking."

It's reassuring knowing that when Trump tries to stay in office after protesting the election he won't be able to count on the military to have his back.

Montedoro44 said...

OMG! Here's another black guy who gets it that Black Lives Matter isn't the same as black lives actually mattering! Zuby is polite, patient, and articulate. Someone here needs to go to the URL below and leave a bunch of messages what a pawn he is, misguided Right-wing sycophant bigot — actually thinking about complex matters and spreading his racist agenda. He's on the wrong side of history!


And DO NOT go to this website if you want to keep your worldview intact:


Ben Shapiro — OMG, not Ben Shapiro! — shreds BLM and in particular, Don Lemon's disgraceful heavy-handed & condescending treatment of Terry Crews — see how the Lemon talks right over him, even degrading Crews' sound track to prevent his words from being heard by millions of people. How transparent and embarrassing. Control the narrative! That's the only way to keep the streets filled, that's the only way to prevail, and that's what's coming for America. OMG! – It's already here! On your knees, bigots!

Brian said...

Nah, I'll keep listening to the military leaders over the squeelish teen-girl sounding post above.

Brian said...


Montedoro44 said...

Nah, I'll keep listening to people who get what's going on, who don't kneel before the hate-filled race-baiting Left, and who don't feature insulting the opposition.

Brian said...

Right on! Only you goofed and wrote "Left" instead of "Right". But by the rest of the sentence I knew that's what you had to have meant. Listen to them and listen good.

Montedoro44 said...

Brian, I have a serious question for you — it's personal, and we're not exactly on friendly terms, considering the disdain you display for those who oppose your worldview, and your cleverness with repartee — so for sure, no problem if you don't answer it: do you have bi-polar disorder, or ADHD, or ODD, or some other behavioral disorder? To respond in the same gotcha style as usual will only add credence to the possibility, so I hope you will take this question seriously, even if you prefer to not divulge personal information.

Brian said...

That's very cute, but no. And I do not disdain everybody whose worldview differs from mine. I do not disdain those wanting the right to bear arms. I do not disdain those that want to make abortion illegal. I do not disdain those that for some reason still honestly believe in "trickle down" economics, or arguing for different taxes than I would have. But I admittedly have disdain for racists and bigots, for anybody that flies the confederate flag, for people that use babyish insults like "libtard", for people that won't admit that the Central Park incident was racist, for people that constantly lie to help their cause, for those that knowingly pollute and destroy our woods, streams, rivers, lakes, and our beautiful country in the name of profit. I disdain hypocrites. I disdain the mean and petty. If that covers much of Trump's base, then yes, I find most of them deplorable. Is there anybody in that group I mentioned that you do not feel disdain for? I answered your question so its your turn. I know you are holding out on the Central Park thing because not doing so really hurts your cause, but how about any of the others?

Montedoro44 said...

How close to a near-amiable conversation this is, Brian. But my question, as I wrote, was serious, not "very cute". I am familiar with behaviors associated with these disorders, and your standard behaviors evoke them.

Your list of not-disdained beliefs and expressions pretty much matches mine, and likely most everyone else's here. Offhand insult words like "libtard" are disdainable, as is your own "racist Ted" and other lesser insults here. Calling "racist" IMO is more reprehensible than "libtard". Calling "racist" frequently begins to define you, not the person you accuse. I hope you understand that.

A lot of the items on your list need parsing, like "disdain for racists and bigots", as your belief system drives how you parse statements and events — yes, so does everyone's — but you throw too many people summarily into the bigot bag. That says more about you than about them, so you lose your audience. "Mean and petty"? -- who makes such a judgment? Some folks here believe that your writing is mean and petty. They have dismissed you, and you can't get them back with more of the same. That's the problem with insults and other manifestations of standing in judgment. You don't have standing, you haven't demonstrated your superiority. Your vision of the best possible future for America, and how to achieve it is debatable. The wisdom of, and your understanding of, and support for the forces of the crowds in the street is debatable. Your demeaning style crushes debate, not your opponents.

If anyone is "holding out" about any issue here with you, it is likely more because your consistently demeaning style thrives on clever repartee, accusations, personal put-downs and dismissals. I.e., why bother? Defense of what we believe is not difficult; what is hard is to regain a decent ambience after you. Maybe that's what you want. It doesn't matter; either way, you're not gaining any converts to your worldview.

Brian said...

Sorry Monte, but trying to claim that using the word "racist" to describe somebody is reprehensible is complete and utter nonsense. The word "racist" has a definition, and it is a fact that many, many people fit that definition. So it is ridiculous to tip-toe around calling a spade a spade. Weird that the far-right is becoming the PC police now. What word do you suggest racists be called instead? "Color sensitive"? Because that racist woman in the park sure was "sensitive" to the fact that the man was "African-American". As if his color, or origin, had anything to do with anything. Unless you are racist..er, "color sensitive".

And no, as I already said earlier people here do not dismiss me because of your accusation of being mean and petty. Because they also dismiss the polite and well-thought out questions and comments by people like Steve, and it is quite debatable to begin with that I am any more obnoxious in my posts than others here. We are dismissed because they oppose our worldview, and so when they can't logically discuss it they ignore it. They hide. So stop with the petty excuse that it is my style that is crushing debate, because you can go back for yourself and see how Steve and others were completely ignored.

As to whatever you were trying to accomplish with your bi-polar "question" I can only guess. It seems that you feel that people that don't see the world as you do must have some kind of dis-order. And that, my friend, says a lot more about you than it does me.

Montedoro44 said...

You may have something there, Brian. Bye now.

Brian said...

Just to let you know, I was not using "friend" to be a smart ass. We've spent some time bouncing ideas off each other and that is one thing I respect about you. You are not one of the hiders. Bye for now...

Montedoro44 said...

I appreciate your saying that, Brian. In return, I will respond in detail to your challenge to address the Amy Cooper/Christian Cooper event — not to argue, just to explain. I hope that I speak for others here, but I don't know that. Sorry, this takes some setup.

The contested framework IMO is the perception that racist v. not-racist is or isn't best seen as two mutually opposing & crystal clear categories. You give the impression that you have a set of criteria, and if a situation meets just one criterion, then X is a racist, end of story.

The binary approach dismisses people who commit perceived evil acts. I hesitate to do that. E.g., infidel teenagers who come under the spell of ISIS recruiters and run off to the caliphate; white babies in Alabama who grow up in a racially-prejudiced family environment; black babies who grow up in an anti-white family environment. They commit an act, maybe it's just a nasty word, maybe much worse. I can't in good conscience stick them in the racist/not-racist dichotomy. You have, and further, you have attached the label to anyone who does not — I hope I do not misrepresent you here.

It takes a brave act of introspection to challenge what you were given as a child and so break your lifelong bonds. Not everyone can do this. I eventually came to grips with my communist/socialist/despise-Republicans background when I began to expose myself to what the most thoughtful conservatives had to say. BTW, I was a child in the 1950s.

So, the Cooper affair. Amy freaked; for sure, part of that looks like performance. Christian came prepared to initiate an aggressive interaction; he threatened to coax Amy's dog away from her with dogfood. Christian accosted Amy (approach and address (someone) boldly or aggressively). Christian clearly had rehearsed his performance; he had an agenda. To achieve leash-compliance, to induce a viral racism moment? Either way, Christian prevails. Amy has to assess her situation and make snap judgments, and she failed spectacularly. Interesting (to me), in her 911 call, she described Christian as "an African-American man", not a black man, and not the n-word. That suggests a frail recognition of the larger issues of the moment, and a failed attempt to achieve innocence. Nonetheless, she left an ugly trail.

The moment has its nuances. You stamp it Amy-is-racist-period, and those who hesitate are also racist-period and you are done with it. I hesitate, so as to see both Amy and Christian as complex, not altogether exemplary beings. Amy has apologized, Christian has shown compassion for her and has also shown understanding of the larger picture, so some good has come from the moment. All this harmony is lost in the meager victory of Amy-Cooper-is-a-racist-period.

Why would anyone here accept your challenge to address the Cooper affair with you, knowing in advance that the conversation is DOA, and it is certain that you will attack them and keep at them until they go away? And so you attack them for hiding. Remaining hidden is the safer choice for such a lose-lose proposition. I doubt that anyone here approves of Amy's performance. And I doubt that any of the hiders wants to hand control of the conversation to you.

I don't want to pursue the details of the Cooper affair here, just respond to your challenge — I know your perception, and now you know mine. We can disagree and move on. IMO, there are greater issues of perception and worldview involved, and the Cooper affair exposed them. There are many more events coming.

Brian said...

There are a lot of things I would argue about the Cooper case (especially the idea he might have been purposely trying to "induce a viral racism moment".) But I agree we should move on.

I admit that I am very sensitive to racial issues. I have mentioned my foster brother and sister, and our experiences growing up stick with me very strongly. Things that maybe taken one at a time could be brushed aside. Things like climbing a tree together and having an adult tell Herve to "go back to Africa and climb trees with the other monkees". Being treated differently by police and other authority figures. Herve being followed around in stores when I wasn't. It was undeniable, even though some incidents were more subtle than others. It wasn't alway the "n" word. Sometimes I'm sure that the people did not even intend to "be racist" and certainly didn't think of themselves as such. Like perhaps was the case with the Cooper. But whatever her intentions/feelings were, in that instance she was being racist. Undeniable. And I feel strongly on this because of so many people turning their heads on systemic racism. I am open to discussing how to fix the problem: the merits of BLM, reparations, racial quotas, welfare, etc, etc, but I have a hard time with people that won't even admit to the problem in the first place. And minimizing or excusing everyday occurrences like the Cooper affair is a big part of denying the extent of the problem. Others here may not "approve" of her performance but they certainly are hesitant to admit to the racist aspects of it. Blacks and other minorities constantly live with such BS, whether it is little things or things like not getting call backs for jobs or having a harder time finding a place to rent. The head-in-the-sand denial of this is extremely frustrating and will only result in our countries racial problems lingering on and on.

And for the third or fourth time, why do you keep using the excuse of my style "of attacking" for others not engaging in conversation? Again...what is the excuse for not engaging with Steve and others? Why keep ignoring this fact? Talk about frustrating...

Montedoro44 said...

Brian, I can speak to your question about attacking people who don't engage in conversation. Several comments ago you wrote: "We are dismissed because they oppose our worldview, and so when they can't logically discuss it they ignore it. They hide. So stop with the petty excuse that it is my style that is crushing debate,...". Is the word "attack" too strong? Ok, maybe. You attributed a motive (they can't logically discuss something) to peoples' non-engagement with you. That seems to say that you know that non-responders are incapable of logical discussion. You can't know that, and to say that seems to me to be describable as something personally derogatory -- attack, criticism, charge, insult, et al. That's what I meant.

I don't see any post by Steve here; in any case, I did respond in my last post why people might not want to engage with you -- the entire penultimate paragraph. But of course, I can't speak for anyone else, only guess. You say now that I "keep ignoring" it. You might not like my answer, but I didn't ignore it. It's the best I can do.

Regarding my "excuse of [your] style . . .", here is a collection of (IMO) your pretty strong negative language: "stop the act, you know damn well", "you try to pretend", " I missed your excuse for", "or some such hogwash", " complete and utter nonsense", "stop with the petty excuse", "you keep using the excuse of". Maybe we parse these phrases differently, Brian. They all seem deliberately abrasive, unfairly judgmental, accusative of false motive, so not conducive to either civil discussion or the target, in these cases me, wanting to continue. I'm taking the chance with you though, and I think we made some progress -- less antagonism, somewhat safer environment for discussion.

I don't know if you agree that these phrases I quoted are accurately described as abrasive, etc., and so are put-offs to conversation. That's why I asked before about ADHD, et al. I have had thousands of students for nearly 50 years, and I have seen some who really were unable to sense the emotional content contained in discourse.

Brian said...

You have been around long enough to see that several other posters are polite and intelligent...and ignored. Go back and check if you really want to verify for yourself. That is much better proof of people not engaging because they can't rationally do so than does your incessant parsing over my posts to gauge what you feel is the level of aggression and how that might effect others. I have been in long "discussions" with verbally aggressive people here in which I answered every question they asked and in which they refused to answer my questions but instead continued to rant. Hmmm, I wonder why? So maybe you are serious with your armchair psychology, but the evidence is out there.

Montedoro44 said...

Add "incessant parsing" to my list, Brian, and it is now cessant, as the point is made. I have engaged with you politely & thoughtfully at all times, despite your occasional personal negativity; I can't speak for others either ignoring your comments or responding severely. When a person whose worldview I oppose goes rogue I generally just stop. When a person whose worldview I share goes rogue, either initiate or by response to perceived indignity, I am saddened that they make my worldview more attackable, and I hope that people don't attach that behavior prejudicially to the worldview and all of its adherents.

Respond if you wish of course, but IMO it is (past) time to stop this thread, so yours will be the last word. Thank you for engaging.