DCP Wonders if Dr. Shades is a "bigot"
Posted: Sun Sep 20, 2020 4:07 am
It would seem that, despite a clear message that politics should be eliminated from "Sic et Non," the proprietor has nonetheless found himself unable to resist from engaging. Just take a look at some of these recent exchanges with "Sledge," who, If I recall correctly, some have suggested is a Will Schryver sock puppet:
Whatever the case may be, this seems like a very serious slip-up to me, especially in light of the prohibition that was given to him concerning politics.
DCP wrote:I'm a libertarian-leaning conservative, noel. Why would I vote for Clinton?
And why do you persist in addressing me as if I were a vocal Trump-booster? Have I endorsed Mr. Trump here?
Sledge wrote:Because the well being of the country is more important than your party lines?
Yeah, watch out, Dr. Peterson! You've been warned about discussing politics! You wouldn't want your funding to disappear, would you?DCP wrote:No, the well-being of my country is not more important to me than my principles -- the principles that I believe to be essential to its well-being.
I said absolutely nothing about either parties or party lines.
Sledge wrote:Have you thought about reconsidering? This is one of the problems on the right—it’s always about “me, me, me, me, me” and not what’s best for all of us.
Wow! Why so sensitive?DCP wrote:Your slanderous characterization of the right is contemptible, Sledge, and your attempt to depict commitment to principle as selfishiness is painfully ludicrous.
Sledge wrote:“The right” is not a person, and so can it really be slanderous to call out its immorality?
Whoa! That is *very* harsh. "Bigot" is not a term to be thrown around lightly, is it? I mean, I don't think that *I* have ever called any of the Mopologists a straight-up "bigot," have I? I've pointed out deficiencies in their handling of race- and -religion-related issues. But "bigot"? (And I admit that I can't remember: I don't *think* that I have. Though maybe I have. Perhaps they'll comb through their dossiers in order to provide proof?) In any event, the whole thing starts to unravel in a hurry:DCP wrote:"The right" is a group of persons, so it's slanderous and bigoted to baselessly stigmatize them all as immoral.
Not to mention ignorant, foolish, and false.
As I believe that I've said before, Sledge, you're a bigot.
I'm not sure what issue Sledge might have with Dr. Shades. Still, he seems to have found common ground with Dr. Peterson:Sledge wrote:Ouch! Strong words. I’ve only used them for one other person, and that’s Mr. Shades.
It’s true that I regard the philosophy and values of right wing thought as morally reprehensible, but I certainly do not hate anyone because they espouse them.
Hmmmm. Why go after Dr. Shades in this manner, especially after Shades was banned from commenting (and defending himself)? And didn't Dr. P. promise--for a substantial sum of money--to not say derogatory things about this message board?DCP wrote:You post as if you DO hate them.
You don't understand conservatism. You know nothing or next to nothing about it. You're not so very different from someone who knows nothing about Latinos or Jews or Blacks or Catholics or Muslims, except that they're all __________ (fill in the blank with the comprehensive expression of disdain that you choose).
I'm not sure that Shades deserves the term bigot, by the way, though maybe he does. Certainly some of the people to whom he's given a public platform deserve it (among other very negative descriptors).
Whatever the case may be, this seems like a very serious slip-up to me, especially in light of the prohibition that was given to him concerning politics.