tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5129515758261094307.post8983739997882052680..comments2023-10-22T06:05:37.689-03:00Comments on O Mangue: Regarding my tiff with Menelik Charles and my ban from Abagond...Thaddeus Gregory Blanchettehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09359423010378429288noreply@blogger.comBlogger136125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5129515758261094307.post-38595510863637241712012-10-07T15:32:52.465-03:002012-10-07T15:32:52.465-03:00I think the branding of black men as "dogs&qu...I think the branding of black men as "dogs" is indeed bullshit, Rob. That's an issue black men and women need to hammer out on their own, however. Thaddeus Gregory Blanchettehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09359423010378429288noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5129515758261094307.post-3417408768162506172012-07-04T10:00:53.742-03:002012-07-04T10:00:53.742-03:00I really don't have a problem with interracial...I really don't have a problem with interracial relationships..but my problem is, if there's any is when black women act civilized around other race and only show the black man the hood mentality (the TV black woman with attitude...it really aches me a lot....but at the same time i understand some black men do alot of hateful and degrading things towards black women. I just want black women to know that all men and people all act differently in the things we do as "Dogs" as we are branded. <br /><br />All men cheat, but we do it differently. A black man is careless because he gets praise and more women still sleep with him even after knowing he is a dog. A white man wil be married and cheat on his wife and you will never know, but the difference is he might be spending a lot of money on you and makin u his mistress...bottom line is all men of all race mess up. So we deserve to all get the same treatment.<br /><br />To stop blackmens stupid behavior, women should protest by actions such as "stop having sex with (black )men until they respect you and treat you right. Blackmen get blamed saying we degrade women and see them as sexual object..well look around and turn on the TV, all you see is black women barely dressed shaking their behinds in some degrading song. When those women stop and save some things for the bedrooms and mens eyes people will see women differently...Because of women who don't respect theselves alot of other women get mistreated...I understand black women got beautiful bodies/figures but save some for a mans imagination. not all do this but they few ruin it for everyone.<br /><br />Us men too need to learn to respect women no matter what class she is from (Ghetto, educated, normal). We need to be faithful in our relationship and stop trying to emulate every rap video we see. No one side is right but if we work together and stop the negative in society maybe 20yrs from now we can get the days of videos with fully dressed black women back. we can get the days of blackmen praising the black woman. Mayb someday racial profiling and discrimination may not exist as bad as it do today. Only we can make tomorrow better by being better ppl instead of pointing fingers.<br /><br />im sorry if anyone got offended but this is just to shade some light on certain issues and hoping we can all help each other see things clearer.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04618209000068970869noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5129515758261094307.post-12532702830981771982012-07-04T09:59:54.380-03:002012-07-04T09:59:54.380-03:00This comment has been removed by the author.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04618209000068970869noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5129515758261094307.post-87075564356840775912012-07-04T09:58:11.049-03:002012-07-04T09:58:11.049-03:00This comment has been removed by the author.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04618209000068970869noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5129515758261094307.post-51133162601340364102012-04-15T07:28:27.247-03:002012-04-15T07:28:27.247-03:00What was the post that got you banned? Could you p...What was the post that got you banned? Could you post a link?Satanforcenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5129515758261094307.post-76790071808453718422011-05-22T04:12:53.155-03:002011-05-22T04:12:53.155-03:00hehehehe, .....as someone whose gotten in a little...hehehehe, .....as someone whose gotten in a little trouble at Feminist blog's--they always tell me that I am blind to my privilege....<br /><br />Always makes me think of that episode on the Simpsons where Homer gets invited to some Masonic order and all of the sudden he gets all kinds of "free passes."<br /><br />I've seen your posts on Hugo Schwyzer's site and I do think you've ruffled his feathers. That's all good in my book, looks like I'm banned there. ;) I saw a bumper sticker that said Well Behaved Women Rarely Make History....Well if we make that statement gender neutral, you get the idea...<br /><br />I heard an old statement that says you don't choose the deck of cards your given, just how you play the hand and I think that's all I've got to say on such matters....Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5129515758261094307.post-67682623351857136342010-12-09T11:21:29.126-02:002010-12-09T11:21:29.126-02:00Dear Aisha,
I think Ana's intimidated that mo...Dear Aisha,<br /><br />I think Ana's intimidated that most of the readers of this blog are English speakers and she only writes in Portuguese. So either I need to do tons of translation - which is a chore for both of us - or she just needs to write away and not worry about it (which is what I tell her) and maybe we'll gain a lusophone readership. <br /><br />The article on black tourism in Brazil, linked to the right, is in English and is an example of her work. <br /><br />I see "sex" and "gender" as being effectively the same thing, following Thomas Laqueur's thoughts on the subject. At least, I no longer sweat that divide between social gender and biological sex. "Sex" here should properly read "the sex/gender system", but it also refers to the sweaty (at least in this town) biological act. Ana and I want to start posting bits from our field work here, sooner or later, so simple "sex" it is.<br /><br />I've not seen Irateirishman's site. I do my anti-racist internet duties trolling Stormfront now and again. Usually, however, I just ignore the flat-out, in your face, gross white supremacists as they are really not convincing anybody other than their fellow zealots.<br /><br />What worries me far more are the politically-correct (in a right wing sense), smarmy little "scientific" neo-biodeterminists, such as RR's intellectual heroes. They have little scientific respectability, but because America by-and-large truly does believe in race as a determinist biological construct, they have <br />great popular oomph among non-scientists. If a shift to the bad old days were ever to occur, it will probably start there, with people like Stevie Sailor convincing Joe Palooka that blacks are really genetically limited in intelligence, poor things, through no fault of their own... <br /><br />That sort of shift has to come first before guys like the Stormfront krewe can ever come close to bringing back the "fun" of institutionalized lynching and white supremacy. So that's more the front I fight on.<br /><br />Vulgar white-supremacist racists, at this point in time at least, deserve more to be put in freak shows than rationally addressed.<br /><br /><br /><br />Dear Anon,<br /><br />Thanks and blush, presuming that you aren't a troll! :DThaddeus Gregory Blanchettehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09359423010378429288noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5129515758261094307.post-69771999922809455442010-12-09T04:20:17.442-02:002010-12-09T04:20:17.442-02:00Ok, thanks for the clarifications. I would love to...Ok, thanks for the clarifications. I would love to see Ana's views on the topics you write about, I always feel that topics dealing with gender need to be addressed by both genders in order to be taken seriously (less bias) in my opinion and i'm wary of men who highjack discourse and claim to speak on any woman's behalf (not blaming you of this)<br /><br />Just a few more questions for you:<br />"Race, sex and Gringos..."<br />is the "sex" here referring to "gender" although gender is a social construct which has nothing to do with biological sex?<br /><br />Also, what do you make of people like Irateirishman and his disgustingly racist website (which got taken down but he promptly created a new one)<br /><br />When I first read this section, I had tears of anger by the time I got to the last "fact"<br />http://irateirishman.com/blog/?page_id=438<br /><br />Maybe I'm too sensitive, and I'm smart enough to think of counter-arguments for the vast majority of them, but it still hurts to think that there are people who still think this way in this day and age :(Aishanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5129515758261094307.post-72183699731273902642010-12-09T03:58:53.743-02:002010-12-09T03:58:53.743-02:00Your intelligence is a major turn on :p
Ana is luc...Your intelligence is a major turn on :p<br />Ana is lucky to have you ;)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5129515758261094307.post-23518802584538108692010-12-09T02:45:48.128-02:002010-12-09T02:45:48.128-02:00(To RR, final...)
The nut of the matter is this: ...(To RR, final...)<br /><br />The nut of the matter is this: there is no cohesive "black" genetic mix which can account for lower IQ scores of blacks versus whites. Furthermore, what little comparative IQ studies have been done so far have huge sampling issues. Until you can show us statistically significant samples and a reasonable definition of how "black" is defined in biological terms, none of these statistical games your mentors are playing have any scientific weight at all, let alone the weight you wish to give to them: to wit, that they somehow "prove" blacks are intellectually inferior to whites.<br /><br />Here's one big methodological hole in those comparative IQ studies you love to cite: the authors are infering biological results from the data, but they do not control for biological make up when they select informants. They allow informants to define themselves - which is, of course, a sociological and not a biological definition of race. An American with 1 in 8 black ancestors will unproblematically call himself black in this situation whereas a Brazilian with the same sort of ancestral proportion will call himself white. Your mentors classify one as "black" and the other as "white" when they very well might have an extremely similar genetic make-up.<br /><br />So if you really want to talk about something NEW - and not get accused of gratuitous dumbfuckery - I suggest that you think about how one can infer genetic data from sociological defintions. <br /><br />If your mentors were serious about attempting to prove their point (instead of just whining about how unfair it is that folks demand proof of their theories), they'd do IQ tests in randomly selected, statistically significant populations all over the world and then COMBINE those tests with DNA tests. Until they do something like that, their results are simply not scientifically sound.<br /><br />Q.E.D.<br /><br />Now PLEASE don't fill up our blog with the same old, threadbare arguments you've repeated unto the death on Abagond and elsewhere. Concisely address the point I brought up regarding inferring biological data from sociaologically selected samples or be prepared to have your posts shit-canned.Thaddeus Gregory Blanchettehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09359423010378429288noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5129515758261094307.post-17649439257315363912010-12-09T02:45:27.684-02:002010-12-09T02:45:27.684-02:00(To RR, continued...)
(Your Dana Farber people, b...(To RR, continued...)<br /><br />(Your Dana Farber people, by the way, were making a popular call for donors in terms laymen can understand, which is why they used race. You show me a peer-reviewed paper by a Dana Farber scientist who believes that categories such as "black" and "white" are determinative in screening for bone marrow transplant donors and then you might have something.<br /><br />Good luck.)<br /><br />With regards to "limiting scientific endeavors", white boy, PLEASE! No one is censoring Stevie, you or anyone or impeding you from doing scientific research. What people are saying is "Where's the beef?" Radical claims need radical proof to back them up and so far, that proof has not been forthcoming from anyone, anywhere. Don't whine to me about "restrictions": racialist science has TONS of private market financial donors. Pick some of that cash up, construct a reasonable methodology to test your hypotheses and GET THE DATA. Until you do, you ahve no cause to whine that you're being ignored: people without reliable data are RIGHTFULLY ignored in science. That's not censorship, that's the way the game works, RR.<br /><br />And RR, if you don't want to get banned here as well, PLEASE don't make me go through our entire set of discussions that are already up on Abagond, ad nauseaum, about the "proof" that's supposedly out there regarding black genetic intellectual inferiority. <br /><br />That would definitely be gratuitous dumb-fuckery in my book. Say something new or don't bother. Repeating the same damned ladainha about black/white IQ scores which you've repeated several times on several different blogs and which has been thoroughly and effectively addressed by dozens of people isn't necessary. <br /><br />People have torn apart your arguments and your debating style seems to be that if you ignore what they say and stick to your guns, your bad arguments will somehow magically metmorphose into science. Science is a dialogue: you make a hypothesis, it gets tested, people point out the holes, you do a better test and compare results with your colleagues, etc. When you refuse to address peoples' concerns or issues regarding your methodology and definitions, you are no longer doing science: you're engaging in politically correct politics.Thaddeus Gregory Blanchettehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09359423010378429288noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5129515758261094307.post-38883567988411131812010-12-09T02:44:39.285-02:002010-12-09T02:44:39.285-02:00RR, first of all, the "hard sciences" ar...RR, first of all, the "hard sciences" are a misnomer, given the fact that even physics has determined that perspective influences results. Secondly, a man who's trying to ressucitate one of the most discredited scientific notions of all time, flying in the face of the vast majority of the best human genetic scientists on the planet, is really in no position to be making claims as to what scientific forms of knowledge are "hard" and what aren't.<br /><br />Third, I do not deny that race is a human attribute. You don't seem to get my point, for all that you've heard it enough times: race is indeed a human attribute, a socio-poitical and historical one. What it is NOT is a biological constant.<br /><br />We've been around the block many times re: Steve Sailor and his amusing theories. Again, I'll take the expertise and clearly apolitical understanding of race of award winning, renowned human geneticist Luigi Cavalli-Sforza over the ramblings of a journalist-cum-computer salesman when it comes to human biology, thanks. If Stevie manages to start publishing peer-reviewed papers on human biology in scientific journals, let me know. Until then, he's a pundit and not a sceintist. Case closed.<br /><br />But even given that, Steve's definition of race does not allow one to make the sweeping claims he and you do. A family is not an evolutionary unit on the scale necessary to establish subspecies. Lineages are not races in the sense that you ascribe to them. From a family/lineage point of view, there are something like 50,000-200,000 biologically more-or-less inbreeding human groups on the planet. The macro-style, 19th century races you and Stevie love to talk about - Caucasians, Negroids, Asians and etc. - simply have no meaning at all in that sort of human genetic picture.<br /><br />Now, if you want to squint your eyes REALLY HARD and claim that a relatively in-breeding group of 10-20,000 people is a "race", OK. But my question then would be why are you trying to revive an inadequate term to describe a qualitiatively new understanding of human biodiversity? And if that is indeed your view of race, why then do you always talk about it using 19th century terms and not the clinactic and populational terms you'd need to use if you were seriously contemplating breeding groups as races?Thaddeus Gregory Blanchettehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09359423010378429288noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5129515758261094307.post-74043027524010735072010-12-09T02:06:32.644-02:002010-12-09T02:06:32.644-02:00Dear Aisha,
If you can tell me of a way in which ...Dear Aisha,<br /><br />If you can tell me of a way in which I can disagree with a black woman without running a non-trivial risk of being called a sexist and/or a racist, I'd love to hear about it! :D<br /><br />For the record, my views on Fanon are hardly unusual and parallel a series of other anti-racist commentators' views - of many colors and both genders. <br /><br />IIRC, the woman who was complaining about my "patriarchical attitude" hadn't even bothered to read the book in its entirety and became upset when Fanon used a few terms which, in her mind, sullied the entire book. That's not really a winning strategy if one wants to truly engage with an author's ideas and to point that out is hardly racist or sexist.<br /><br />Here's my views on "including authors": I write about what I'm interested at the time, as long as it has a connection to race, gender and particularly Brazil. Note that I have not written about a single author yet on this blog, though I have critiqued some early 20th century Brazilian intellectuals, so how is it, precisely, that this blog is supposedly over-representing male authors? <br /><br />On Abagond's blog, I talked quite a bit about Nell Painter and also about Angela Davis, Deborah Grey White, Denise Ferreira da Silva and, of course, Ana Paula da Silva. <br /><br />I'm not much for identity politics of any kind, as I see it as a retreat from modernity into an anti-modern sort of romanticism. But regarding "women as producers of knowledge", Ana's a co-author on this blog. She's not as active as I am, but that's her choice as well.Thaddeus Gregory Blanchettehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09359423010378429288noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5129515758261094307.post-18585441079591804542010-12-09T01:40:05.957-02:002010-12-09T01:40:05.957-02:00You and Wise are not essentially the same, althoug...You and Wise are not essentially the same, although the belief that race is a non-scientific (and l am referring to hard sciences) construct undergirds both of your arguments. Wise is clearly a racial opportunist. He makes good money enunciating his wish for the death of the white race. You don't do that, but in your refusal to treat race as another human attribute, you aid and abet the likes of Wise. As I <br />pointed out to you previously on Abagond's blog, what is needed is a good definition of race. As you know, I prefer Steve Sailer's definition:<br /><br /> Race is an extremely extended family that inbreeds to some extent.<br /><br /> This is why bone marrow researchers like those at Dana Faber use race as a criterion in assaying potential bone marrow donors. This is why forensic scientists can determine the "race" of a given deceased victim of crime or the alleged perpetrator of crime through DNA samples. <br /><br /><br /> I would say that people can be divided into two groups: <br /><br /> 1) People who believe in the scientific method and who favor no restrictions on scientific endeavor, regardless of where such endeavors lead.<br /><br /> 2) People who believe in limiting certain scientific endeavors for fear of where such endeavors might lead us.<br /><br /> You, Wise, the late Stephen J Gould et al fall into group 2. Of course, belonging to group 2 has its virtues. It is reasonable to fear delving into historically and politically sensitive areas (this is why we have religions. You belong to the secular religion of racial gnosiophobia). But as Sailer has noted, truths have a habit of leading to other truths and lies require the support of additional lies. We can't go on living by lies with respect to race just to sooth our souls. The lies promulgated by Marxists regarding the malleability of human nature led to the deaths of millions. Is the world destined to repeat this error again?<br /> <br /> You rightly decry phrases like "white skin privilege", but hypocritically use equally empty phrases like "scientific racism" when the mood strikes you. In this, you are similar to Wise. Since you have characterized my positions on race as inherently racist/racialist and white supremacist, perhaps additional definitions are in order. My definition of racist is the following:<br /> <br />racist - a person who has an abiding irrational hatred of people of a given race.<br /> <br /> Your definition seems to be <br /> <br />racist - a person who believes in the scientific (biological) notion of race.<br /> <br /> Your definition clearly begs the question. By your definition, the researchers at Dana Faber are racists. My doctor would also be racist for advising me at age 40 to begin getting yearly prostate exams since I am of West African descent and men of West African descent are twice as likely to get prostate cancer than men of European descent. This increased likelihood is related to the fact that West African descended blacks have higher testosterone levels on average than men of other racial groups.<br /> <br /> In your opinion, is it possible for the word racist to have a non-pejorative meaning?<br /><br /> Menelik has a….unique perspective. He can be quite obnoxious. But you seemed to revel in trading barbs with him. Why? What was the point?RRnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5129515758261094307.post-59486584390288942472010-12-08T23:48:22.187-02:002010-12-08T23:48:22.187-02:00I noticed that you seem to idolize Fannon, calling...I noticed that you seem to idolize Fannon, calling him a brilliant psychologist etc<br />One commenter on Abagond essentially described you as a sexist wanting to shove your patriarchal ideas down black women's throats...<br />While I don't truly believe you are a sexist, it would be more reassuring to me if you included the works of prolific black female writers in your blogs as your views CAN come off as quite sexist. Patricia McFadden for example, is a radical African feminist who has written works that I find to be in-keeping with the subject of your blog. <br />Some links about her:<br /><br />http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/30/152.html<br /><br />http://www.escueladefeminismo.org/spip.php?article147<br /><br />I find you to be extremely well-spoken and clearly enjoy a healthy dose of debate and you have an incredible ability to CLEARLY explain your views, however, as a female reading your blogs (and yes i'm black, but i'm one of those people who consider myself to be a woman first, my "race" is only the secondary part of my identity) but as I was saying, as a woman reading your blog, I would love to see you incorporating the female voice in your texts as well (perhaps you have and I have missed it somehow?) <br />The blogs seem to have women as the subjects, something to be studied, dissected rather than equal producers of knowledge?Aishanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5129515758261094307.post-49567659929686786852010-12-08T15:19:31.619-02:002010-12-08T15:19:31.619-02:00menelick calls black women 'sellouts'? Whe...menelick calls black women 'sellouts'? When and where?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5129515758261094307.post-15215124720795190292010-12-08T08:53:18.322-02:002010-12-08T08:53:18.322-02:00RR, first of all, you're not even stating my p...RR, first of all, you're not even stating my position correctly: I believe that human race has no BIOLOGICAL basis and that it does not determine human comportment. It does indeed have scientific utility as a SOCIAL construct. The social sciences are also sciences, despite what your dogmas might indicate.<br /><br /><br />Secondly, if you believe that Tim Wise and I are "essentially alike" because we both believe that race has no biological existence among human beings, then that's a really big tent you're tossing us into, given that it's pretty much the consensus among scientists - social and otherwise - that race is socially and not biologically constructed.<br /><br />Following the same sort of "logic", you could say that both Hitler and Ghandi had essentially the same views because they both believed the world to be round. <br /><br />I mean, if that's how you view the world - "us" scientific racists over on one side and "them", the politically correct brainwashed idiots who see race as a social construct on the other - then it must be very lonely to be RR.<br /><br />As for the idea that "everyone who believes in race is a Nazi", I think I've made it VERY clear that racism stretches well beyond Nazism as a political phenomena. However, the idea that "everyone who believes that race is a biological construct is a scientific racist or racialist" is simply true as that is the defining characteristic of a racist/racialist. It doesn't mean, necessarily, that one to believe in races one needs must believe that some are inferior and others superior. Simple belief in the biological existence of races is properly called "racialism".<br /><br />However, given the quantity of electronic ink that you'vge spilled trying to "prove" that race is not only a biological fact among humans but that, furthermore, blacks are intellectually inferior to whites, it is quite proper to call you a "racist". <br /><br />I haven't noticed any particular fascist bent to your thoughts, RR, but you are indeed a racialist, a racist and a white supremacist and I say that in the most pure classificatory sense possible, not as some sort of ad hominem.<br /><br />As for Menelik, I'm not aware of subjecting him to any particuarly nasty degree of personal invective - at least nothing near as bad as the terms he routinely uses to qualify the women he deems to be sell-outs. I simply called him like I saw him.Thaddeus Gregory Blanchettehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09359423010378429288noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5129515758261094307.post-57844769131119960172010-12-08T01:10:45.471-02:002010-12-08T01:10:45.471-02:00Thad,
I was sorry to hear that Abagond banned ...Thad,<br /><br /> I was sorry to hear that Abagond banned you. I am opposed to banning in <br />virtually all circumstances. Having been banned from multiple sites myself, I sympathize with you. That said, I don't understand why you insist on engaging in arguments that deteriorate into exclusive personal invective. It was obvious that your encounters with Menelik were not productive. Why didn't you just stop engaging him? I don't get that. Do you like drama? Why do you like <br />drama?RRnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5129515758261094307.post-88747695551716391002010-12-08T01:08:28.614-02:002010-12-08T01:08:28.614-02:00Thad,
Exactly. Your comment is a prime example...Thad,<br /><br /> Exactly. Your comment is a prime example of what you accuse Wise and others of. You believe that race has no scientific utility. You believe that race is exclusively a social construct. Because I don't agree with you, you conclude that I am a racist. Your views only differ in degree to Wise's. Everyone who disagrees with Wise is a Nazi/Racist. You have been hoisted by your own petard but are too dogmatic to realize it.RRnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5129515758261094307.post-19873151734798193412010-12-08T00:54:09.167-02:002010-12-08T00:54:09.167-02:00RR, only a full-fledged, committed racist could se...RR, only a full-fledged, committed racist could see my views as being similar to Tim Wise's.Thaddeus Gregory Blanchettehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09359423010378429288noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5129515758261094307.post-59976294119658460432010-12-08T00:06:48.581-02:002010-12-08T00:06:48.581-02:00Mira wrote:
All in all, Abagond's blog is no...Mira wrote:<br /><br /><b> All in all, Abagond's blog is not going to be the same without you, and we all know it.</b><br /><br />I have to agree with this. Though Thad is often wrong, he has a considerable degree of intellectual energy. I salute him!RRnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5129515758261094307.post-31831894847272696932010-12-08T00:05:19.564-02:002010-12-08T00:05:19.564-02:00Eurasian Sensation wrote:
I'll add though tha...Eurasian Sensation wrote:<br /><br /><b>I'll add though that I think the reason you got banned is a little different to your theory. My guess is you just tried Abagond's patience too much by being overly confrontational towards other commenters over a sustained period of time. You acted like this to almost all of us on the blog at some point or another.<br /><br />I think Abagond tries to be intellectually honest and I doubt he banned you because you were challenging him.</b><br /><br />This pretty much sums it up. Expressive invective seems to be your favored writing style. Your banning had nothing to do with your politics.<br /><br /><b> Many in the anti-racist crowd are sustained by righteous indignation at perceived racism or ideological incorrectness.</b><br /><br />But Thad <i>is part of this dogmatic anti-racist crowd.</i> His position is different only in degree, not in kind, with respect to Wise. He was often the head anti-racist cheerleader at Abagond’s.RRnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5129515758261094307.post-22599453361426334602010-12-06T19:10:54.715-02:002010-12-06T19:10:54.715-02:00Because I do not want to save you any trouble at a...Because I do not want to save you any trouble at all, Anon, especially when I've got my hands full to brimming with end-of-semester crap.Thaddeus Gregory Blanchettehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09359423010378429288noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5129515758261094307.post-28529387265567681382010-12-06T15:27:41.158-02:002010-12-06T15:27:41.158-02:00why don't you provide some evidence and save m...why don't you provide some evidence and save me the trouble?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5129515758261094307.post-81452429936204381022010-12-06T14:17:28.359-02:002010-12-06T14:17:28.359-02:00Here's an idea, Anon: why don't you hold y...Here's an idea, Anon: why don't you hold your breath while waiting?Thaddeus Gregory Blanchettehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09359423010378429288noreply@blogger.com