Real, True Headlines

[theweaselking]

"Study of Pot Smokers' Brains Shows That MRIs Cause Bad Science Reporting"

(Warning, crank site, full of bad logic and counterrational leaps. And they also make one of the very same mistakes they are complaining about: How do they know the MRIs *cause* bad science reporting, instead of just being correlated with bad science reporting in at least one case? But still, very funny.)

Comments

[harvey-rrit.livejournal.com]

Look, the whole entire goddamn point of Affirmative Action was obliging black people to vote for the liberals who gave them jobs as charity, on the supposition that they were not competent to get jobs if the only criterion were ability.

I was there when it was discussed at length. It was someone else who ripped off the Kennedy quote to name it, but the rest of its origin happened in our living room over coffee and Sara Lee pound cake. (The pound cake was why I was there instead of in my room reading.)

The weaseler's position is that it was never about quotas, quotas were abolished, it happened before I could have been present, it never happened, I wasn't really there, they didn't say that when it happened, and I didn't understand when they said that. (Scroll back. You'll find all seven of these mutually-inconsistent lies.)

The only reason for him to have insisted on all these things was his belief that this disgusting premise was true.

[theweaselking.livejournal.com]

The weaseler's position is that it was never about quotas, quotas were abolished,

Oh hey! You share with your fellow traveller a really *impressive* inability to tell who said what in a comment thread. Hint: Unlike Tommy, I don't use sock puppets, so the things that are said by accounts other than mine? Weren't said by me.

it happened before I could have been present,

Are you saying that your wiki'd[1] birth year of 1960 is wrong?
Because I suspect your claim to have been present at the invention of a concept that predates the 1960s, and got to the point where the President named it in *1961*, is a pretty slam dunk "nope, at best you've got a false memory" if you were born in 1960.

If you were born way earlier than 1960, your story gets possible. Not "plausible", just not "manifestly impossible".

it never happened, I wasn't really there, they didn't say that when it happened, and I didn't understand when they said that. (Scroll back. You'll find all seven of these mutually-inconsistent lies.)

Actually, I suggested that all of those things were *possibilities*. Since you would have been a preteen at the time. 50 years ago. Making your memory by definition unreliable.

The only reason for him to have insisted on all these things was his belief that this disgusting premise was true.

Actually I was providing the third one as evidence that, if you truly believe the things you're saying, your memory must be inaccurate. I gave the latter four as possibilities for *why* you might believe these things that are, given #3, false.

And, to reiterate, 1 and 2 weren't me. You can tell, because they don't have my name on them. I know that's a complicated thing to grasp, but it's consistent.

And now, we rewind, to:
the whole entire goddamn point of Affirmative Action was obliging black people to vote for the liberals who gave them jobs as charity, on the supposition that they were not competent to get jobs if the only criterion were ability.

You have made this assertion several times.

This assertion is not borne out by the facts, or by history. And you repeatedly declined to DEFEND this assertion, until you finally had what I can only describe as a minor meltdown - where you asserted that whites-only hiring results were *logical* because black people *really weren't* good enough to get jobs without cheating, because *integrated education* had caused black students to be uneducated and unemployable for reasons that didn't even make sense if we accepted your premises and ignored the major timeframe problem - to whit, the thing you claim as the cause happened long after the problem.

And you're still aggressively refusing to defend the positions you've taken and/or clarify where you feel you were misunderstood in response to "wait, did you really just say that? How do you think that even works?"-style questions.

And now we are here, and I continue to wonder if you are posting drunk.


[1]: Not Wikipedia, in this case. But *a* wiki with an entry on you, and a year. And when I suggested that you would be 12-14 in 1972-1974 you didn't point out a mistake? So I figured the first wiki hit on your name was a reasonable thing to go on.

Edit: OH HEY your profile has your birthday! Assuming your own profile is accurately, then, 1960 is right.

[lafinjack.livejournal.com]

We can't do good things or the undesirables might vote for the people that do good things instead of the people that don't do good things!


I was there when it was discussed at length.

Hitler was a vegetarian probably in part due to animal cruelty and Nazi Germany was anti-smoking after finding out smoking was linked to lung cancer therefore vegetarianism and not smoking are bad.