"Bob LeChevalier" <lojbab@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> jbrock@xxxxxxxxx (John Brock) wrote:
>>In article <8rfvv1t9rlgv9rdvqv98nbrfpvri47oegs@xxxxxxx>,
>>Bob LeChevalier <lojbab@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>jbrock@xxxxxxxxx (John Brock) wrote:
>>>>Let me see if I understand your reasoning Bob:
>>>> Anyone who believes that "race" exists is a subhuman(!)
>>>> racist, and because racists are evil anything such a person
>>>> says about the issue is not worthy of consideration.
>>>The second part I said. I don't care what people believe. It is what
>>>they talk about and what they favor as opposed to what they criticize.
>>>And even then, I may only consider them a bigot. When they continue
>>>ranting about race, then their bigotry has become an obsession and
>>>they have been infected with nincompoopus racisti.
>>You know, I wasn't even going to bother to respond, but after seeing
>>the following exchange between you and deowll in another post I
>>couldn't resist. You say you don't care what people believe, you
>>care about what they say. But then you tell deowll:
>>=== BEGIN QUOTE ===
>>In article <iu8402pv8un17idl8bmbbkunkv2c8t37tn@xxxxxxx>,
>>Bob LeChevalier <lojbab@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>"deowll" <deowll@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>Of course his views don't matter. He has the physical evidence and you
>>>>the political inside line and no he isn't a racist
>>>He believes that human races actually exist rather than being a
>>>figment of his imagination; therefore by definition he is a racist.
That, by nature, is 1984. It's irrational, illogical and well, either this
is beneath you - or you are really neurotic or worse. I never thought of
that option before.
How about this Absolutely Declaration then: he that pretends that human
races do not exist is psychotic - and (inferred) employers would be wise not
to hire psychotic people. How about that 1984ism? Alls fair, right?
I'm not going to repeat what I said about human races, clades, breeds or
whatever you want to call it, or species or classes of phyla. The FACT is,
I truly do not see a bit of difference in, let's make this explosive,
KILLING a human or KILLING a worm. It's the same. The only difference
would be SUBjective human laws humans made to protect themselves. And yeah
indeed, you CAN chock that up to CULTURE - or - OR maybe it is innate.
>>=== END QUOTE ===
>>So, um, it looks like you *do* care what people believe, don't you? :-)
> No. Because if he never said anything and never acted on his beliefs,
> I wouldn't know he had them, and therefore would have nothing to
That is 1984, it is tyrannical in the sense that people either SHUT UP or
YOU are going to libel them with a brand that's pretty bad, these days -
with the R word, and SUBHUMAN R to boot. Wow, my irony meters have
No, a person that believes that human beings, like dogs, come in breeds is
"a person that believes in racial categories of humans." The person is NOT
a racist and you damned well know the difference in the meanings of the
words IN SOCIETY (since you are SO hung on SOCIETAL PERCEPTIONS here). "He
is a person that believes that the human species is divided up into specific
races" is a neutral statement, it neither harms nor can it harm. "He is a
racist" is a harmful statement that CAN HARM a person. But you now damned
well that what it DOES do is make a person go on the ing defense. Then
again, some of us don't give a flying shit about defenses. I'd kill humans
I dislike as EASILY as I kill fire ants - IF IT WAS LEGAL. Yeah, I'm a
freaking INhuman monster - I'm a TATAR. HA. See how that mind game you
play can BACKFIRE?
That, on YOUR part, is criminal in intent and yeah, you don't have the power
except to play little mind games - and one of these days SOMEONE might sue
you for it. You don't care what people think, so long as they don't FREELY
SPEAK it. Interesting. I, on the other hand, DEFEND a person's right to
think and SPEAK ABOUT about any ing god damned to ing hell they WANT
to speak about - even if it's loathsome speech, like black nationalist "KILL
the white men, RAPE all their women." They have a right to SPEAK it and
THINK it and FEEL it. And god dammit, they DO speak it, think it and
definitely FEEL it. IF they kill someone, they'll go to jail. If they rape
someone, they'll maybe go to jail - that's debatable. Personally, I'd
rather KNOW if someone I work with feels that way than have them SHUT UP and
NOT voice what they are feeling at all. I'd rather KNOW. Knowledge IS
power. Fear is weakness. YOU live in fear. I do not.
> I'll go beyond that and say that if he and all the rest weren't
> posting subhuman racist tripe to the education newsgroups, I would
> probably neither know nor care what any of you think.
>>Of course even aside from that, don't you think that there is
>>something kind of questionable about saying that you don't care
>>what people believe, as long as they don't actually talk about it?
> No. I have a right to feel that way. And I do.
>>Something kind of -- as DK pointed out -- Stalinistic?
> Stalin killed people for their words, and sometimes even for other's
> perceptions of their words. I have neither the power nor the desire
> to practice Stalinism.
Nice out for you there, Bob. Right, you DO NOT have the power to do it -
but don't even TRY to tell me that you don't have the DESIRE to do it. Way
too much time on your part is INVESTED in 1. READING their posts and not
killfiling them by nick and then 2. repeatedly responding to people, even if
they have not shown an ounce of hate, by libeling them. 3. WAY WAY too much
time and energy on your part. Unlike me - you don't have 24/7 to SLUM on
usenet - yet I'm here a hell of a lot LESS than you are cuz I'd rather be
elsewhere playing and enjoying self. I'm home now (duh, obviously), and
SLUMMING. And finally - 4. you ARE on usenet and you know what usenet is
like even after 1 WEEK of experience on here - you are NOT on some moderated
>>And I notice you had no comment on my observation that your logic
>>is exactly analogous to that of a religious fanatic, i.e., "If you
>>don't believe what I believe then you are evil, which means that
>>nothing you say is worthy of consideration".
> I have a right to feel that way. And I do. I don't pretend that my
> feelings are "logical".
You don't just feel that way and no, your feelings are not logical at all.
They are neurotic as hell. You take time out, spend energy reading and
writing and engaging in dialogue - LOTS of it, too - like a good little
zealot - when most of what you have to say has been turning libelous.
>>Oh yes, one more thing. Are you really oblivious to the irony of
>>your referring to racists as "subhuman"? :-) :-) :-)
> Those who are familiar with me and my postings over the years know
> that the irony is quite intentional. Those who are familiar with the
> subhuman racist nincompoop sometimes calling itself "John Knight" or
> "fathersmanifesto" or more recently "JacobIsrael" will probably be
> able to guess why.
I never heard of these people, but I'm sure you have spent time and energy
reading their posts and writing to them. Zealot.
>>>>You know, I had noticed that there was something weird about the
>>>>way you were responding to my posts. You seemed strangely obtuse,
>>>>mostly missing the point of what I was saying, and wandering off
>>>>instead into your own little sermons.
>>>Your posts have no point except to promote a racist agenda. Otherwise
>>>you would talk about something else.
>>If you had read my posts carefully -- I know you consider it a
>>point of pride not to read things you disagree with -- you might
>>have noticed that I actually had nothing to say about race itself.
>>I merely disagreed with a statement having to do with the perception
>>of race 100 years ago, and then made some arguments backing my
>>claim up. Standard Usenet chitchat. But I guess for the fanatic
>>any disagreement at all, however slight, is enough to make you "an
>>enemy of the people".
YES - bingo.
> Those who post about race in the education newsgroups have painted a
> bullseye on their tail and asked for me to fire at it. I am happy to
> oblige. I will continue to do so, subject to time available, as long
> as the postings continue.
Zealot. WHO posted in your - u h, YOUR newsgroup? No, make a god damned
yahoogroups egroup for REAL conversation with no distractions. Otherwise,
you are a zealot and a libeler.