2014: Year of the fainting couch

[Sparko]

There's the minor problem, of course, that they DO say exactly what I claimed--that the Irish weren't grouped in with whom we now consider white.


Time for a quick game of "Replace a Phrase!"

"Conservative Christians tend to want to view the world through their own colored glasses, including manufacturing evidence from the past by selective means."

Wow, that was easy. See ya, NT Wright! Adios, Ben Witherington! Ciao, Craig Keener! I can completely ignore all your thorough studies and arguments now that I've graduated from The Sparko School of Illogical Debate Tactics!

*dies from so many poisoned wells

But in all seriousness, I am truly amazed--just not in a good way. You tried your darndest to discredit my source on some incredibly weak basis, and then when I provide more sources who don't have such affiliations, you simply bury your head in sand and protest that they don't actually say what I'm saying.

because your sources don't help you out.

If you had read Darth's link yourself, you'd notice that it in fact seems to agree with what I was saying--it simply pointed out that one particular example was invalid, not that the overall case was wrong.

example in point. What the guy on that page writes is HIS OPINION. He is not a source. The marriage certificate is a primary source. It proves that you were wrong. What the guy says in the web page is no more official than what you are saying here. An opinion is not a source. It is an opinion.

It must suck to be exposed as a hypocrite after you falsely accuse people not checking sources while you yourself don't check any.

But I did check them. You just let your bias blind you to the fact and your ignorance of what a primary source is makes things even worse.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]3621[/ATTACH]

The source says that what makes people white "is fair skin in a certain kind of society, one that attaches social importance to skin color." Obviously it wasn't saying that literally anyone who has any form of privilege can be considered white in our society, especially when the folks whom you mentioned have undeniably dark skin! Racial construction in our society isn't entirely based on skin color, which is why the Irish were considered different, but it's not completely unrelated to skin color either.

And besides, the privilege that those individuals enjoy come from wealth and fame rather than race, but that's a separate discussion that I won't even bother trying to rehash in this thread.

And the hypocrisy continues. You think that white people can't be white because they are not part of the social privileged, but that even when socially privileged that black people can't be white.

And you were arguing earlier that Ignoramus wasn't wanting to actually abolish the white race, since white had nothing to do with skin color. Yet here you are arguing that it does matter. So either you are an incredible racist or you don't understand what the heck you were quoting earlier at all. Or both. I go with "both"

Oh, come off it. As has been shown directly above and repeatedly throughout many other threads in this forum, it is almost always you who fails to understand the claim being made and instead can only respond with completely wrong-headed mockery rather than actually trying to understand it. I have not backpedaled from anything, because I can support the claims that I make, and in the instances in which I've been shown to be wrong, such as the smallpox blanket and marriage certificate issue, I have simply admitted that I was wrong and dropped those specific examples.

Can you please stop clutching onto your own pride and just admit that in your haste to lampoon and mock things, you erred in understanding and appear to be completely wrong in this case? We all make mistakes and jump to conclusions from time to time; it's only human. It's just annoying when people refuse to acknowledge it. All I ever wanted, right from the beginning when I joined the re-booted site, was to have polite and constructive dialogues with others, but it seems that you aren't willing to let that happen.

Yeah polite and constructive as long as people agree with you while you call them racists and homophobes and put down everyone who doesn't agree with you. Puhleeze. You jump into nearly every thread and create controversy and show your complete ignorance and then get upset when other people tell you what a liberal, socialist twit you are. Let me know when you graduate from whatever liberal college you seem to be going to.

[Jedidiah]

I was speaking of the tribal culture.

I was specifically thinking of the Irish. My point was that merely having light skin didn't always include you as "being white," as people divided racial categories differently. The Italians also dealt with this issue, although that was slightly more understandable, as some of them had somewhat dark complexions.

Sounds like this is more of a cultural issue than a racial one, at least for you.

[fm93]

because your sources don't help you out.

Odd. The literature showing that the Irish were considered to be of a different, inferior race doesn't support what I've said?

example in point. What the guy on that page writes is HIS OPINION. He is not a source. The marriage certificate is a primary source. It proves that you were wrong. What the guy says in the web page is no more official than what you are saying here. An opinion is not a source. It is an opinion.

I didn't say he was a source, and besides, he arrived at his CONCLUSION after reading sources such as the ones that I cited, who arrived at their CONCLUSIONS after reading PRIMARY SOURCES from the 1700s and 1800s describing the Irish as part of an inferior race.

But I did check them.

Then you wouldn't have said something as silly as "That's just an opinion." An opinion is something subjective in nature, whereas how the Irish were once perceived can be objectively examined. An opinion isn't "whatever disagrees with what Sparko says."

And the hypocrisy continues. You think that white people can't be white because they are not part of the social privileged, but that even when socially privileged that black people can't be white.

I said no such thing.

And you were arguing earlier that Ignoramus wasn't wanting to actually abolish the white race, since white had nothing to do with skin color.

He never said that being white in this society had nothing to do with skin color, and he didn't backtrack on the claim of wanting to abolish whiteness--he just explained what he meant by "abolishing" it.

Yet here you are arguing that it does matter. So either you are an incredible racist or you don't understand what the heck you were quoting earlier at all.

Or (hint: this is the correct answer) you don't understand what is actually being argued.

Yeah polite and constructive as long as people agree with you while you call them racists and homophobes and put down everyone who doesn't agree with you.

Except that I have never, EVER done that. I have never called anyone here a homophobe; I don't even believe that should be a legitimate term. I don't call PEOPLE racist; instead, I call ideas and institutions racist. The only people I've "put down" are you and lilpixieofterror, and only after you two made it clear that you would rather insult me than constructively engage with my posts. I never initiated anything negative against you; to the contrary, you two did so to me. Cow Poke disagrees with me on several issues, but I don't "put him down" because he is civil and actually engages with my arguments. Same with Zymologist, KingsGambit, and quite a few other posters.

Puhleeze. You jump into nearly every thread and create controversy

YOU were the one who initiated the Redskins tangent.

and show your complete ignorance

You were so unaware of the scholarship that you thought it was ridiculous, rather than a well-attested fact from primary literary sources, that the Irish were classified differently back then. Don't even try accusing other people of being completely ignorant.

and then get upset when other people tell you what a liberal, socialist twit you are.

You are the only person who's ever used this type of name-calling, because other people are smart enough to realize that I'm no such thing.

[Sparko]

Odd. The literature showing that the Irish were considered to be of a different, inferior race doesn't support what I've said?


I didn't say he was a source, and besides, he arrived at his CONCLUSION after reading sources such as the ones that I cited, who arrived at their CONCLUSIONS after reading PRIMARY SOURCES from the 1700s and 1800s describing the Irish as part of an inferior race.


Then you wouldn't have said something as silly as "That's just an opinion." An opinion is something subjective in nature, whereas how the Irish were once perceived can be objectively examined. An opinion isn't "whatever disagrees with what Sparko says."


I said no such thing.


He never said that being white in this society had nothing to do with skin color, and he didn't backtrack on the claim of wanting to abolish whiteness--he just explained what he meant by "abolishing" it.


Or (hint: this is the correct answer) you don't understand what is actually being argued.


Except that I have never, EVER done that. I have never called anyone here a homophobe; I don't even believe that should be a legitimate term. I don't call PEOPLE racist; instead, I call ideas and institutions racist. The only people I've "put down" are you and lilpixieofterror, and only after you two made it clear that you would rather insult me than constructively engage with my posts. I never initiated anything negative against you; to the contrary, you two did so to me. Cow Poke disagrees with me on several issues, but I don't "put him down" because he is civil and actually engages with my arguments. Same with Zymologist, KingsGambit, and quite a few other posters.


YOU were the one who initiated the Redskins tangent.


You were so unaware of the scholarship that you thought it was ridiculous, rather than a well-attested fact from primary literary sources, that the Irish were classified differently back then. Don't even try accusing other people of being completely ignorant.


You are the only person who's ever used this type of name-calling, because other people are smart enough to realize that I'm no such thing.

wow you are a complete study on how to sit on a fence.

"I never said that" seems to be your mantra, when it is obvious to everyone that is exactly what you said.

You have not provided any primary sources showing that the Irish were not white, in fact when you tried to show one, the marriage certificate, it was shown to you to be doctored. In addition when I brought up the questionability of your source and what a kook he was, claiming he wanted to abolish the white race, you defended him saying that "white" referred to a social construct and not the color of skin and that is why the Irish were not white, and how he could want to abolish the white race but not actually want to eliminate white skinned people, because he was referring to a social construct. This from a guy who has a web site called racetraitor. Yeah that sounds legit.

Yet when called on that, you claim you never said that, and that you were only referring to the Irish a century ago and that black people who are part of the white social construct are actually still black, but that not all white people are actually "white" because they are not part of the construct. talk about a double standard! and now you deny saying that too, of course.

Just pick a story and stick with it instead of bouncing from one side of the fence to the other.


How old are you anyway? 18-25? And you think you know everything already. Amazing.