Re: What Are the Race Deniers Denying?
Jeffrey G. Brown (email@example.com)
Fri, 22 Nov 1996 23:29:21 -0500
In article <3296798E.4B6@conterra.com>, firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
> Your absolutely perfect PC stance really went too far this week. See
> my comment on it in a new string: "Finsten Really Gets Filthy..."
> A scientist with a hell of a lot better credentials than you disagrees
> with PC, so you accuse him of child molesting.
You're a liar, Whitaker, and a transparent one at that. No such accusation
Of course, we know from what you wrote twenty years ago that you prefer
the ad hominem approach to anything that might require facts:
"...[E]very spoiled juvenile, every intellectually sterile
social activist, can be taken as an errant idealist only so
long as no one makes it clear that he is merely foolish,
that he is spoiled or sterile.
"The same sort of rule holds with the liberal establishment:
a man who dismisses policies which are stupid as merely
stupid is far more dangerous than one who is erudite and
verbose in opposition. A Buckley conservative, who uses long
words and complex moral questions, factual corrections and
respectful disagreement in his discussion with liberals
(with a few exceptions) is far less dangerous than the old
[George] Wallace, who called callousness callousness,
stupidity stupidity." ("A Plague on Both Your Houses" [1976:
Robert B. Luce, Inc.], pages 96-97)
Why bother with facts when you can pretend you're "dangerous" just by
calling the opposition names, right?
Jeffrey G. Brown email@example.com
"What's going to happen?" "Something wonderful..." -- '2010'