Anti-Redskins Tribal Leader Decries Redskins as Offensive, While Donning Blackface for Halloween

[mudwhistle]

Oh please of Trump dressed up as a black guy for Halloween the entire left wing would shit themselves.

Why would they do that? Do you have proof?

UW-Stout students upset over blackface Halloween costume
Blackface” is a racist means of perpetuating stereotypes and misappropriations under the guise of entertainment.

Blackface Halloween: A Toxic Cultural Tradition
It’s already started this year, with the white elementary school teacher who dressed up as Kanye West. And the Florida teenager who thought it was a good idea to cover herself in shoe polish to pull off an authentic Nicki Minaj.

There's just two examples of liberal outrage over blackface.

Guess it's okay when someone that shares your demented PC views does it

Noticed your avi.....U.S.S. Ranger.

I was stationed on the U.S.S. Kitty Hawk CV 63.....the Shitty Kitty.

My dad was on Kitty in Nam, come to think about it

Then he may know about the racial incidents that happened. 1972 they had a big one while deployed. Racial Incident aboard USS Kitty Hawk (CV 63)

 

[Ringel05]

Oh please of Trump dressed up as a black guy for Halloween the entire left wing would shit themselves.

Link?

Are you drunk?

I didn't trot in a speculation fallacy, did I?

Speculation fallacy or statistical probability?
Sometimes I wonder if you aren't using that as an excuse to justify you own personal bias.

http://newsroom.ucla.edu/releases/Media-Bias-Is-Real-Finds-UCLA-6664

These are just a few of the surprising findings from a UCLA-led study, which is believed to be the first successful attempt at objectively quantifying bias in a range of media outlets and ranking them accordingly.

"I suspected that many media outlets would tilt to the left because surveys have shown that reporters tend to vote more Democrat than Republican," said Tim Groseclose, a UCLA political scientist and the study's lead author. "But I was surprised at just how pronounced the distinctions are."

Media Manipulation and Public Relations

Value judgements infuse everything in the news media … Which of the infinite observations confronting the reporter will be ignored? Which of the facts noted will be included in the story? Which of the reported events will become the first paragraph? Which story will be prominently displayed on page 1 and which buried inside or discarded? … Mass media not only report the news – they also literally make the news. (Lee and Solomon 1990: 16)

 

[Mac1958]

Here's one for Lakhota. Let's see what kind of excuses she makes for her fellow native American piece of shit hypocrite.

Anti-Redskins Tribal Leader Decries Redskins as Offensive, While Donning Blackface for Halloween​

Filed under the heading of "You Just Can't Make This Stuff Up," I give you Terry Rambler, who is the Chairman of the San Carlos Apache Tribe in Arizona. Rambler was in DC recently to represent his tribe at Tribal Nations Conference. He is also a signatory to a pledge calling for the Washington Redskins to change their name, because racism.

With me so far? Good.

While in DC, Rambler decided to partake in Halloween festivities where he dressed up as Bob Marley. Okay, no worries. Perfectly acceptable Halloween costume. Except for a certain altering of the facial complexion that Rambler seems to have added on. ..​

We must be fair.

While yes, this would represent an absolutely hilarious case of PC Police hypocrisy, we must remember that only the PC Police can determine what is and is not racist.

So really, if they say this would not qualify as amusing hypocrisy, it must not.


.

 

[DigitalDrifter]

Now that's some heap big hypocrisy.

 

[SwimExpert]

Oh please of Trump dressed up as a black guy for Halloween the entire left wing would shit themselves.

Why would they do that? Do you have proof?

Well there was that one time at band camp where a white girl did the same thing, and shit hit the fan.

Julianne Hough slammed for donning ‘black face’ Halloween costume

No Trump in that story either.

Oh, I see what you're getting at. I actually have a name for this. I call it the rain in the desert fallacy. It's a fallacy that occurs when a person argues that a prediction is inherently invalid based on nothing more than the fact that the event has not been precisely recorded in to have occurred at some point in history.

An example could be when a weatherman predicts rain in a normally dry desert, while a second person who has always observed the desert to lack rainfall rejects the prediction because neither individual has seen it before. The weatherman attempts to explain that his prediction is based on his knowledge of how rain is formed and when it falls, but the second person challenges that since the weatherman has never seen rain fall in the desert he has no evidence that those factors will produce rain in the desert.

The fallacy is in many ways a sort of meta-fallacy, where multiple faults in logic conjoin into a singular error. The person who invokes the rain in the desert fallacy demands proof that would ultimately be question begging; only when rain in the desert be established within an argument's premises will the invoker be satisfied to allow it as a conclusion. There is also a goalpost moving element at play. The weatherman can show evidence about how rain forms as well as evidence that the present conditions will result in rain, but the fallacy invoker demands a special degree of proof that the the present conditions will result in rain in the desert.

 

[Pogo]

Speculation fallacy or statistical probability?

There is no difference. Except that the former assumes the latter as an actual event and then constructs a strawman out of it. The actual fact is the hypothetical he states, by definition as a hypothetical, never happened, therefore he is unqualified to declare how one person "would" react ----- let alone an entire nebulous subset he makes up but doesn't bother to define.

So it's a speculation strawman that sets up a blanket generalization. But I let him off on a single charge.

That's why I ask him for a link. You can't prove a point when you made up a fallacy to get there.

 

[Lakhota]

Here's one for Lakhota. Let's see what kind of excuses she makes for her fellow native American piece of shit hypocrite.

Anti-Redskins Tribal Leader Decries Redskins as Offensive, While Donning Blackface for Halloween​

Filed under the heading of "You Just Can't Make This Stuff Up," I give you Terry Rambler, who is the Chairman of the San Carlos Apache Tribe in Arizona. Rambler was in DC recently to represent his tribe at Tribal Nations Conference. He is also a signatory to a pledge calling for the Washington Redskins to change their name, because racism.

With me so far? Good.

While in DC, Rambler decided to partake in Halloween festivities where he dressed up as Bob Marley. Okay, no worries. Perfectly acceptable Halloween costume. Except for a certain altering of the facial complexion that Rambler seems to have added on. ..​

What's the problem? He just looks like the Washington team logo.

 

[Ringel05]

Speculation fallacy or statistical probability?

There is no difference. Except that the former assumes the latter as an actual event and then constructs a strawman out of it. The actual fact is the hypothetical he states, by definition as a hypothetical, never happened, therefore he is unqualified to declare how one person "would" react ----- let alone an entire nebulous subset he makes up but doesn't bother to define.

So it's a speculation strawman that sets up a blanket generalization. But I let him off on a single charge.

That's why I ask him for a link. You can't prove a point when you made up a fallacy to get there.

I'm referencing well documented personal and professional bias of humans in general, a typically (proven) left leaning bias in the media and statistical probabilities which are greater than average. You know as well as I that right leaning media sources and left leaning media sources will include "value judgements" embedded in their reporting not to mention the nature of politics in general where the opposition is demonized for the slightest hint of making a "mistake". Look at how The View treated Carly Fiorina yet took Trump to task for essentially saying what they said.

 

[kaz]

Here's one for Lakhota. Let's see what kind of excuses she makes for her fellow native American piece of shit hypocrite.

Anti-Redskins Tribal Leader Decries Redskins as Offensive, While Donning Blackface for Halloween​

Filed under the heading of "You Just Can't Make This Stuff Up," I give you Terry Rambler, who is the Chairman of the San Carlos Apache Tribe in Arizona. Rambler was in DC recently to represent his tribe at Tribal Nations Conference. He is also a signatory to a pledge calling for the Washington Redskins to change their name, because racism.

With me so far? Good.

While in DC, Rambler decided to partake in Halloween festivities where he dressed up as Bob Marley. Okay, no worries. Perfectly acceptable Halloween costume. Except for a certain altering of the facial complexion that Rambler seems to have added on. ..​

One Hallowe'en in New Orleans I let the women dress me up as Ernie K-Doe.
Apparently I was a dead ringer too.

----- so what?

Fingerboy fails to think it through, yet again...

you mean he should have called you the racist instead of Lakhota. We can compromise, you both are, you both vote for racists

 

[kaz]

Here's one for Lakhota. Let's see what kind of excuses she makes for her fellow native American piece of shit hypocrite.

Anti-Redskins Tribal Leader Decries Redskins as Offensive, While Donning Blackface for Halloween​

Filed under the heading of "You Just Can't Make This Stuff Up," I give you Terry Rambler, who is the Chairman of the San Carlos Apache Tribe in Arizona. Rambler was in DC recently to represent his tribe at Tribal Nations Conference. He is also a signatory to a pledge calling for the Washington Redskins to change their name, because racism.

With me so far? Good.

While in DC, Rambler decided to partake in Halloween festivities where he dressed up as Bob Marley. Okay, no worries. Perfectly acceptable Halloween costume. Except for a certain altering of the facial complexion that Rambler seems to have added on. ..​

What's the problem? He just looks like the Washington team logo.

You didn't think that point through, did you, sweetheart?

 

[Lakhota]

Here's one for Lakhota. Let's see what kind of excuses she makes for her fellow native American piece of shit hypocrite.

Anti-Redskins Tribal Leader Decries Redskins as Offensive, While Donning Blackface for Halloween​

Filed under the heading of "You Just Can't Make This Stuff Up," I give you Terry Rambler, who is the Chairman of the San Carlos Apache Tribe in Arizona. Rambler was in DC recently to represent his tribe at Tribal Nations Conference. He is also a signatory to a pledge calling for the Washington Redskins to change their name, because racism.

With me so far? Good.

While in DC, Rambler decided to partake in Halloween festivities where he dressed up as Bob Marley. Okay, no worries. Perfectly acceptable Halloween costume. Except for a certain altering of the facial complexion that Rambler seems to have added on. ..​

What's the problem? He just looks like the Washington team logo.

You didn't think that point through, did you, sweetheart?

What point? That the team logo looks like a black Indian?

 

[Pogo]

Here's one for Lakhota. Let's see what kind of excuses she makes for her fellow native American piece of shit hypocrite.

Anti-Redskins Tribal Leader Decries Redskins as Offensive, While Donning Blackface for Halloween​

Filed under the heading of "You Just Can't Make This Stuff Up," I give you Terry Rambler, who is the Chairman of the San Carlos Apache Tribe in Arizona. Rambler was in DC recently to represent his tribe at Tribal Nations Conference. He is also a signatory to a pledge calling for the Washington Redskins to change their name, because racism.

With me so far? Good.

While in DC, Rambler decided to partake in Halloween festivities where he dressed up as Bob Marley. Okay, no worries. Perfectly acceptable Halloween costume. Except for a certain altering of the facial complexion that Rambler seems to have added on. ..​

One Hallowe'en in New Orleans I let the women dress me up as Ernie K-Doe.
Apparently I was a dead ringer too.

----- so what?

Fingerboy fails to think it through, yet again...

you mean he should have called you the racist instead of Lakhota. We can compromise, you both are, you both vote for racists

Links to either of those are .................. where?

How exactly did you get hold of my voting records btw? No one knows that. I pull the curtain when I vote. What did you do -- install spy cameras at the polling place?

And please ---- no links to your own sphincter. If you can't come up with a legitimate link or quote or post ---- just androgyne-up and say so. Thangyew!

 

[Pogo]

Speculation fallacy or statistical probability?

There is no difference. Except that the former assumes the latter as an actual event and then constructs a strawman out of it. The actual fact is the hypothetical he states, by definition as a hypothetical, never happened, therefore he is unqualified to declare how one person "would" react ----- let alone an entire nebulous subset he makes up but doesn't bother to define.

So it's a speculation strawman that sets up a blanket generalization. But I let him off on a single charge.

That's why I ask him for a link. You can't prove a point when you made up a fallacy to get there.

I'm referencing well documented personal and professional bias of humans in general, a typically (proven) left leaning bias in the media and statistical probabilities which are greater than average. You know as well as I that right leaning media sources and left leaning media sources will include "value judgements" embedded in their reporting not to mention the nature of politics in general where the opposition is demonized for the slightest hint of making a "mistake". Look at how The View treated Carly Fiorina yet took Trump to task for essentially saying what they said.

It doesn't even matter what "statistical averages" are. The poster flatly declared "if X happened, then, quote, 'the entire left would shit themselves'". If that ain't a blatant fallacy I don't know what is. Moreover read my post 28 which directly grinds his speculation back into the dust whence it came.

 

[Ringel05]

Speculation fallacy or statistical probability?

There is no difference. Except that the former assumes the latter as an actual event and then constructs a strawman out of it. The actual fact is the hypothetical he states, by definition as a hypothetical, never happened, therefore he is unqualified to declare how one person "would" react ----- let alone an entire nebulous subset he makes up but doesn't bother to define.

So it's a speculation strawman that sets up a blanket generalization. But I let him off on a single charge.

That's why I ask him for a link. You can't prove a point when you made up a fallacy to get there.

I'm referencing well documented personal and professional bias of humans in general, a typically (proven) left leaning bias in the media and statistical probabilities which are greater than average. You know as well as I that right leaning media sources and left leaning media sources will include "value judgements" embedded in their reporting not to mention the nature of politics in general where the opposition is demonized for the slightest hint of making a "mistake". Look at how The View treated Carly Fiorina yet took Trump to task for essentially saying what they said.

It doesn't even matter what "statistical averages" are. The poster flatly declared "if X happened, then, quote, 'the entire left would shit themselves'". If that ain't a blatant fallacy I don't know what is. Moreover read my post 28 which directly grinds his speculation back into the dust whence it came.

Maybe so but as you well know perspective is everything and it is somewhat true there is a double standard when it comes to the MSM and conservative vs liberal politicians. As for the "entire left", no of course that's a speculation fallacy so in that I agree.

 

[Pogo]

Speculation fallacy or statistical probability?

There is no difference. Except that the former assumes the latter as an actual event and then constructs a strawman out of it. The actual fact is the hypothetical he states, by definition as a hypothetical, never happened, therefore he is unqualified to declare how one person "would" react ----- let alone an entire nebulous subset he makes up but doesn't bother to define.

So it's a speculation strawman that sets up a blanket generalization. But I let him off on a single charge.

That's why I ask him for a link. You can't prove a point when you made up a fallacy to get there.

I'm referencing well documented personal and professional bias of humans in general, a typically (proven) left leaning bias in the media and statistical probabilities which are greater than average. You know as well as I that right leaning media sources and left leaning media sources will include "value judgements" embedded in their reporting not to mention the nature of politics in general where the opposition is demonized for the slightest hint of making a "mistake". Look at how The View treated Carly Fiorina yet took Trump to task for essentially saying what they said.

It doesn't even matter what "statistical averages" are. The poster flatly declared "if X happened, then, quote, 'the entire left would shit themselves'". If that ain't a blatant fallacy I don't know what is. Moreover read my post 28 which directly grinds his speculation back into the dust whence it came.

Maybe so but as you well know perspective is everything and it is somewhat true there is a double standard when it comes to the MSM and conservative vs liberal politicians. As for the "entire left", no of course that's a speculation fallacy so in that I agree.

Well I'd say the "entire" bit is a blanket generalization but his proposition of predicting what he predicts is where the speculation fallacy is.

I really don't care what "probabilities" are or what the 'trend' is. I argue on the merits, period. That's what I tried to break down in 28. Which seems to have been posted in an empty forest. When I get no response at all I suspect it means I'm on to something....

 

[Ringel05]

Speculation fallacy or statistical probability?

There is no difference. Except that the former assumes the latter as an actual event and then constructs a strawman out of it. The actual fact is the hypothetical he states, by definition as a hypothetical, never happened, therefore he is unqualified to declare how one person "would" react ----- let alone an entire nebulous subset he makes up but doesn't bother to define.

So it's a speculation strawman that sets up a blanket generalization. But I let him off on a single charge.

That's why I ask him for a link. You can't prove a point when you made up a fallacy to get there.

I'm referencing well documented personal and professional bias of humans in general, a typically (proven) left leaning bias in the media and statistical probabilities which are greater than average. You know as well as I that right leaning media sources and left leaning media sources will include "value judgements" embedded in their reporting not to mention the nature of politics in general where the opposition is demonized for the slightest hint of making a "mistake". Look at how The View treated Carly Fiorina yet took Trump to task for essentially saying what they said.

It doesn't even matter what "statistical averages" are. The poster flatly declared "if X happened, then, quote, 'the entire left would shit themselves'". If that ain't a blatant fallacy I don't know what is. Moreover read my post 28 which directly grinds his speculation back into the dust whence it came.

Maybe so but as you well know perspective is everything and it is somewhat true there is a double standard when it comes to the MSM and conservative vs liberal politicians. As for the "entire left", no of course that's a speculation fallacy so in that I agree.

Well I'd say the "entire" bit is a blanket generalization but his proposition of predicting what he predicts is where the speculation fallacy is.

I really don't care what "probabilities" are or what the 'trend' is. I argue on the merits, period. That's what I tried to break down in 28. Which seems to have been posted in an empty forest. When I get no response at all I suspect it means I'm on to something....

Okay, read #28 and I agree wholeheartedly. Obviously we're looking at this from two different angles, yours from the context, mine from the statistical.

 

[Pogo]

There is no difference. Except that the former assumes the latter as an actual event and then constructs a strawman out of it. The actual fact is the hypothetical he states, by definition as a hypothetical, never happened, therefore he is unqualified to declare how one person "would" react ----- let alone an entire nebulous subset he makes up but doesn't bother to define.

So it's a speculation strawman that sets up a blanket generalization. But I let him off on a single charge.

That's why I ask him for a link. You can't prove a point when you made up a fallacy to get there.

I'm referencing well documented personal and professional bias of humans in general, a typically (proven) left leaning bias in the media and statistical probabilities which are greater than average. You know as well as I that right leaning media sources and left leaning media sources will include "value judgements" embedded in their reporting not to mention the nature of politics in general where the opposition is demonized for the slightest hint of making a "mistake". Look at how The View treated Carly Fiorina yet took Trump to task for essentially saying what they said.

It doesn't even matter what "statistical averages" are. The poster flatly declared "if X happened, then, quote, 'the entire left would shit themselves'". If that ain't a blatant fallacy I don't know what is. Moreover read my post 28 which directly grinds his speculation back into the dust whence it came.

Maybe so but as you well know perspective is everything and it is somewhat true there is a double standard when it comes to the MSM and conservative vs liberal politicians. As for the "entire left", no of course that's a speculation fallacy so in that I agree.

Well I'd say the "entire" bit is a blanket generalization but his proposition of predicting what he predicts is where the speculation fallacy is.

I really don't care what "probabilities" are or what the 'trend' is. I argue on the merits, period. That's what I tried to break down in 28. Which seems to have been posted in an empty forest. When I get no response at all I suspect it means I'm on to something....

Okay, read #28 and I agree wholeheartedly. Obviously we're looking at this from two different angles, yours from the context, mine from the statistical.

Thanks. Now I'm awaiting a response from kaz on the same thing. Maybe (s)he'll run away like the OP did.

 

[Asclepias]

Oh please of Trump dressed up as a black guy for Halloween the entire left wing would shit themselves.

Why would they do that? Do you have proof?

Well there was that one time at band camp where a white girl did the same thing, and shit hit the fan.

Julianne Hough slammed for donning ‘black face’ Halloween costume

No Trump in that story either.

Oh, I see what you're getting at. I actually have a name for this. I call it the rain in the desert fallacy. It's a fallacy that occurs when a person argues that a prediction is inherently invalid based on nothing more than the fact that the event has not been precisely recorded in to have occurred at some point in history.

An example could be when a weatherman predicts rain in a normally dry desert, while a second person who has always observed the desert to lack rainfall rejects the prediction because neither individual has seen it before. The weatherman attempts to explain that his prediction is based on his knowledge of how rain is formed and when it falls, but the second person challenges that since the weatherman has never seen rain fall in the desert he has no evidence that those factors will produce rain in the desert.

The fallacy is in many ways a sort of meta-fallacy, where multiple faults in logic conjoin into a singular error. The person who invokes the rain in the desert fallacy demands proof that would ultimately be question begging; only when rain in the desert be established within an argument's premises will the invoker be satisfied to allow it as a conclusion. There is also a goalpost moving element at play. The weatherman can show evidence about how rain forms as well as evidence that the present conditions will result in rain, but the fallacy invoker demands a special degree of proof that the the present conditions will result in rain in the desert.

Thanks for making that longwinded post only to admit the statement was only a prediction. As we all know idiots make predictions all the time and look like fools when they dont come true. For example Rotagilla made a prediction we were going to have a country wide race riot that was going to start in I believe July of last year. Such is the fate of you and others that offered as your proof that people other than Trump dressed up and "all the left shit themselves". Which BTW never happened either.

 

[kaz]

Here's one for Lakhota. Let's see what kind of excuses she makes for her fellow native American piece of shit hypocrite.

Anti-Redskins Tribal Leader Decries Redskins as Offensive, While Donning Blackface for Halloween​

Filed under the heading of "You Just Can't Make This Stuff Up," I give you Terry Rambler, who is the Chairman of the San Carlos Apache Tribe in Arizona. Rambler was in DC recently to represent his tribe at Tribal Nations Conference. He is also a signatory to a pledge calling for the Washington Redskins to change their name, because racism.

With me so far? Good.

While in DC, Rambler decided to partake in Halloween festivities where he dressed up as Bob Marley. Okay, no worries. Perfectly acceptable Halloween costume. Except for a certain altering of the facial complexion that Rambler seems to have added on. ..​

What's the problem? He just looks like the Washington team logo.

You didn't think that point through, did you, sweetheart?

What point? That the team logo looks like a black Indian?

Your reading skills and grasp of simple logic is just horrendous

 

[SwimExpert]

As we all know idiots make predictions all the time and look like fools when they dont come true. For example...

Global warming.