Palouse whale sightings, pt. 6: baiting the race-baiters

While Moby Logic was floundering on the beach, Keely Emerine-Mix also gave me a response that was sincere and halfway intelligent. Coming after so much idiocy from other respondents, it was almost refreshing to read. Her remarks are quoted in my reply shown below.

(Please note, although I meant every word of it, I was deliberately writing in a way designed to elicit a quintessential Intolerista response from someone that will help demonstrate one of my key points. As we shall see in the next post, Joe Campbell was kind enough to oblige.)

Keely Emerine-Mix wrote:
{{ laughing at . . . "Ise Yo' President" while adding another joke . . . about the President's assassination a mere 20 min. after Inauguration -- does tend to convict you. }}

That is one of the most intelligent observations I have read in this V2020 thread. Mrs. Mix is like a breath of fresh air in this discussion. In retrospect I can see why somebody would be offended by both of those jokes and I acknowledge that I was lacking in sensitivity. Please allow me to make amends with the following new joke --

President Obama was visiting an elementary school. One class was in the midst of a discussion about the meanings of words. The president readily agreed when asked if he would like to take a turn leading the discussion, and our great leader requested that the class give him an example of "tragedy."

One boy stood up and volunteered, "If my three-year-old cousin, whose family owns a farm, is playing in the wheat when he is struck and killed by a combine harvester, I think that would qualify as a tragedy."

"No," said Obama, "that would be called an accident."

Next was a little girl's turn: "If a bus full of children careened off a precipice, killing everyone, certainly that would be a tragedy."

The president shook his head. "I can't agree -- that would be called a great loss."

The room fell silent, and nobody else offered an answer.

Obama scanned the room. "Come on, kids, can't any of you give me an example of a tragedy?"

At long last, from the rear of the room a teeny tyke gingerly raised his hand. In a small, hesitant voice he said: "If Air Force One flying with president Obama on board was blasted to bits by a 'friendly fire' missile, that would be a tragedy."

"Excellent example!" effused Obama. "You are correct. And can you explain why that would constitute a tragedy?"

"Well," the boy replied, "it could only be a tragedy, because it sure wouldn't be a great loss and it almost certainly wouldn't be an accident either."

======================

Mrs. Mix continues:
{{ Why don't you . . . condemn Kinism? . . . In fact, why not join millions of other Christians in lamenting the existence of any racism at all, anywhere, at any time? . . . I'd love to know you join me in hating racial prejudice and acknowledging its cancerous effect on this nation. }}

Mrs. Mix, my overriding concern is first of all to be found pleasing to God. I wish to conform my thinking to God's will as revealed in Scripture. I do have a genuine secondary concern to avoid giving unnecessary offense to other people, whether they be inside or outside God's covenant. There is a definite order of priorities there, and I think you and I are in agreement that those priorities are correct. Our job is not to be conformed to the thinking and ways of this world, but rather to be conformed to Christ. Christ was not concerned with winning any popularity contests among the ungodly, but rather was concerned with the truth and with doing His Father's will. Our focus should be the same.

A Christian sect can have some "nutty" features while remaining within the framework of orthodoxy. Kinism, and perhaps some (though definitely not all) of the groups subsumed under the rubric of "Christian Identity," have two important distinctive features that require fellow Christians to deal with them very carefully. First, they seem to manage to stay within the bounds of historical Christianity as regards the great theological and Christological controversies of the past. Now I put the qualifier "seem" in there because there is always an intimate connection between theology and anthropology, so if our doctrine of man is screwed up it will almost certainly tend to be accompanied by a corresponding theological problem, at least implicitly, and it may be that on closer inspection I will be able to discern problems that were not visible at first. Second, they seem to be trying hard to peg all their positions to Scripture, and they try to deal with the entire Bible. Any Christian who wants to criticize them needs to get deep into exegetical and hermeneutical issues.

There was a long time when I would have considered the eschatological position known as Full Preterism (or Hyper-Preterism) to be within the pale of Christian orthodoxy. I am less inclined to do so now, since over time some of the more pernicious implications of their hermeneutic have been coming out. Sometimes problems that are present implicitly come out over time, and sometimes they do not. One could say that by implication both Roman Catholicism (with its praying to Mary and the other saints) is polytheistic. One could say that about Dispensationalism too. However, there are no signs that either Roman Catholics or Dispensationalists are actually drifting into polytheism. Accordingly, it would be unwise to attack either of those groups as polytheists. So I think we need to be a bit patient when dealing with theological controversies. God will make everything clear in due time, and I am working, within my limited capacity, to make things as clear as possible with regard to Kinist doctrines.

In a certain sense, it would be easy to just go along with the world's sense of outrage at such people and condemn them as "haters." But I can't in good conscience do that. I think they are wrong, but I feel it is incumbent upon me to attempt a thorough and decisive refutation that deals with all the pertinent aspects of Scripture. It's a big project. If someone with the wherewithal to do so were to undertake such a project, in the end, I think that neither the Kinists nor the world's popular wisdom concerning racism will be vindicated. However, God would be vindicated. And that is what all parties concerned should be desiring -- that God would be vindicated, always.

Mrs. Mix, you could help me (and many others too, I'm sure) a lot by providing a biblical definition of racism. Not necessarily by pointing to a definitive proof text but at least by drawing on a network of texts to show how God defines racism. Even looking at the Wikipedia article makes it clear that people can't agree on what constitutes racism. Of course, one person (or even no person) plus God is an absolute majority, so if we can get our definition from the Bible, we're good to go. Surely if millions of Christians are lamenting racism, we can biblically define what it is we are lamenting. You know, like the way millions of Christians can define the evil of, say, abortion.

Palouse whale sightings, pt. 5: the "Logician" pulls rank

Joe Campbell couldn't of course actually bring himself deal with the content of anything that I wrote, as he would have to acknowledge that he's wrong. His whale of an ego, and his inability to use simple logic, show through loud and clear in the way that he chose to respond.

You can't tell me, on the one hand, that your monkey jokes aren't offensive and, on the other hand, that you're interested in RATIONAL DISCOURSE. You're interested in pissing people off, period.

As for rational discourse, 250 folks signed up for my logic course at WSU this fall. How many signed up for your class?

Let me know when you want to run up to Spokane and test whether your jokes are offensive or not. I'm ready when you are! Until then, we can assume that you know they are offensive, which is WHY you tell them.

If hiding behind privilege in an effort to insult and harrass minorities doesn't constitute racism, what does?

I let Mr. Campbell, this self-described "logician," know how much I thought of his fallacious reasoning:

Joe Campbell wrote:
{{ You can't tell me, on the one hand, that your monkey jokes aren't offensive }}

That, right there, can be Exhibit A if any of the 250 suckers who signed up for Mr. Campbell's logic course should decide they want to sue him for false advertising. Based on his interactions with me here, I have to conclude Mr. Campbell can't even read a sentence. After committing multiple genetic fallacies and abusive and circumstantial ad hominem errors, as well as association fallacies, Mr. Campbell then turns around and boasts about the number of students in his logic class. Somebody owes 250 ripped-off consumers a full refund.

Now please feel free to move your lips if it aids comprehension in reading this. First of all, I don't have monkey jokes. I don't even have one monkey joke. The monkey joke belongs to Roy Blunt. I am not Roy Blunt. Apparently the joke was a favorite of Mr. Blunt even before Obama became president, which I suppose proves that Blunt's racism is not a recent phenomenon. He must have danced a little jig when Obama got elected because finally, after all these years, he had a real living target in his sights upon which he could discharge his vile racist joke. The moral of the story is, never mention monkeys in a joke, because monkey=Negro and Negro=monkey. That IS your point, is it not, Mr. Campbell? (Proverbs 26:4-5)

{{ If hiding behind privilege in an effort to insult and harrass [sic] minorities doesn't constitute racism, what does? }}

I know it's not polite to answer a question with a question, but if shearing billy goats in an effort to intimidate and frighten Holstein cows doesn't constitute speciousness, what does? I stand guilty as charged, your honor. Off with me head!

Palouse whale sightings, pt. 4: Mixing it up with Moby and his "chum"

Continuing the saga of my online encounter with the intolerant, bigoted mind of Joe Campbell, I answered Ol' Baitbreath here:

The main thrust of my reply was that in today's America, race-baiting and race hustling by people who want to bash whites is a far bigger societal problem than white racism, and I deplored the hypocritical double standards being employed such that racism is virtually by definition a sin that only whites are capable of committing.

In typical Intolerista form, Mr. Campbell simply refused to acknowledge facts that refute his view.

I answered Mr. Campbell and Tom Hansen, another denizen the Vision2020 Pond who had jumped in to help slander with a stupid, baseless comment, as follows --

Joe Campbell wrote:
{{ Sorry for trying to communicate with you. I won't make that mistake again! }}

If you call that diatribe an attempt at communication, It explains a lot. Anytime you are interested in RATIONAL DISCOURSE, just let me know. Next time you might want to focus less on "communicating" and more on writing something that rises to the level of an argument.

Tom Hansen wrote:
{{ Apparently what [he] is trying to say is that it isn't racism if you don't use the N-word. And to paraphrase a supreme court justice . . . "I may not be able to define 'racism', but I know it when I hear it, read it, or smell it." }}

Tell us what racism is, Tom. My Webster's New International Dictionary of the English Language (1930), despite being large and certainly one of the most authoritative dictionaries of the English language at that time, does not even include the words "racism" and "racist." That's right, the words weren't even in the dictionary as of 1930, despite the fact that today the label "racist" is apparently one of the worst things that can be applied to someone. Today if you label someone a racist you apparently gain the right to look down on that person in scorn, dismissing not only everything that he might have to say, but even dismissing him personally as a human being. And yet, when our parents were children, the word didn't even exist, at least not such that it would qualify for a spot in the dictionary.

Go check out the Wikipedia article on racism.

There are so many competing and conflicting ideas of what exactly constitutes this greatest and most heinous of crimes that it is pretty ridiculous.

I am NOT convinced that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities, and NOT convinced that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race. I am NOT convinced that any one ethnic or racial group is particularly loved or hated by God on account of their physical attributes, and NOT convinced that racial integration is against God's will. I AM married to a person of another race and I would not be surprised if it turned out that I have had far more close contact with poor black people in the United States than anyone criticizing me here has -- since I was actually living under the same roof with some of them prior to leaving the United States -- and yet somehow I'm a "racist."

I'll tell you why I'm a "racist." First of all, I actually have an open mind and am not afraid to give politically incorrect ideas a HEARING. (As opposed to embracing them, mind you -- God gave me a mind and I intend to use it to think for myself.) Second, I do not suffer fools (such as you) gladly. I don't hesitate to point out the hypocrisies and inconsistencies rife throughout the thinking of people who seem to have given up thinking altogether, perhaps because they harbor a fear of being seen as politically incorrect. Pointing out such hypocrisies and inconsistencies is not difficult in today's world. It's like shooting fish in a barrel.

Something is very wrong when an entire society can be gripped by a nebulous fear and loathing of something that they can't even define, and which just a generation ago did not even exist in the public consciousness. George Orwell had a term for this sort of phenomenon; he called it the "Two-Minute Hate."


I'm well aware that it is often "racists" who are accused of living in such a world, but I think a strong case can be made that people ready to hurl accusations of "racism" at the drop of a hat are no less victims of that very hate-filled mentality. "Who are they?" asks the video. "They" are the racists, apparently. Shout and scream at the screen all you like, Tom. I don't care.

Palouse whale sightings, pt. 3: Moby Dork, a whale of an Intolerista

Picture of Joe Campbell from his faculty page at the WSU website (used without permission)

It turns out that Andreas Shou was just a sideshow act; it took Joe Campbell to really demonstrate the degree of idiocy required for someone to be an Intolerista of the first rank. As you read his comments, remember that these are the words of a professional philosopher who claims to be able to speak with authority about epistemology and logic.

I don't think you'll get very far with the "I'm not a racist" theme if you can't see that jokes about African-Americans being monkeys are not funny. Suppose a joke began with the following. "Darwin was walking with some monkeys -- and by the way, all the monkeys were Christians . . . " I'm sure you'd be offended. And rightfully so. And we're not even mentioning why it might be even more offensive to blacks, given the history of racism in America. So I don't think you are going to convince many people that you're not a racist by defending those monkey jokes. To anyone but your white friends (and maybe your wife), those jokes are clearly racist. That you defend them only shows that you are either racist or clueless. If I give you the benefit of the doubt, I'll have to suppose you're an idiot.

And it won't help if you say that anti-Christian jokes don't bother you. Of course they don't. You want liberals to be offensive, for in your sick little mind they only justify your own insults. But of course that's just the fallacy of two wrongs make a right. Nothing justifies your insults.

Give it up. If you're not a racist, you might as well be since you certainly look like one. Go up to Spokane and run around telling those jokes and we'll see how far you get. Let's test your confidence.

Wwjd? He'd tell black monkey jokes!?! Holy crap!

The multiple layers of beetle-browed arrogant stupidity manifested in virtually every sentence of the above rant are the sign of one deeply imbued with the Intolerista spirit.

Who said Roy Blunt's joke was about African-Americans being monkeys? That "fact" is purely a fabrication of Mr. Campbell's mind. The example Mr. Campbell offered to elaborate his point is simply ridiculous: 'Suppose a joke began with the following. "Darwin was walking with some monkeys -- and by the way, all the monkeys were Christians . . . "' That bears ZERO similarity to Roy Blunt's joke. I'll tell you what would have been analogous to the situation surrounding Roy Blunt's joke: Roy Blunt's joke. If we had just elected a conservative Christian to the White House, and some politician had stood up and told Roy Blunt's joke, word-for-word the same, and Christians took offense at that as being an insult to Christians, that would be exactly analogous to actual situation. For a scholar who claims to be well-informed about epistemology and logic to offer a radically different example in an analogy, and for him to simply assume as fact that which needs to be proven, is nothing short of amazing. And it is equally amazing that from beginning to end, nothing Mr. Campbell says in his entire exchange with me is able to rise above that level. How on earth did he manage to get a Ph.D. in philosophy? Based on what he has shown me, the guy would deserve to flunk out of entry-level college courses on epistemology and logic. And yet he's teaching such courses. With such gross incompetence manifested even among college faculty, is it any wonder that many college educations in America today are so substandard that they would be a poor value even if they were given away for free? Life is too short to be wasting four years of it on such junk.

Mr. Campbell writes, "To anyone but your white friends (and maybe your wife), those jokes are clearly racist." First of all, we are not talking about "those jokes." We are talking about ONE joke told by Roy Blunt -- a joke that he was fond of telling even before Obama was elected president. Second, monkeys are probably the type of animal most commonly used to razz politicians in general. A Google image search on the words Bush and monkey turns up more than 2.7 million hits! There is absolutely NO reason to assume any sort of a racial slur was intended by that joke. So contrary to Mr. Campbell's baseless assertion, I would suggest that anyone who hears racism in that joke is seriously in need of spiritual counseling.

As utterly ridiculous as Mr. Campbell has been up to that point, he manages to make things still worse:

"And it won't help if you say that anti-Christian jokes don't bother you. Of course they don't. You want liberals to be offensive, for in your sick little mind they only justify your own insults. But of course that's just the fallacy of two wrongs make a right. Nothing justifies your insults."

How about that? He doesn't even need me to say anything in order to engage in a "conversation," because he already knows what I'm thinking. And he has the nerve to tell me I'm guilty -- based on words that HE stuffed in my mouth -- of committing a logical fallacy! Is this guy a piece of work or what? And he harps that "Nothing justifies your insults"; note also that the insults he's referring to are insults that exist only in his mind -- they are insults that he imagines me saying and he excoriates me for them. And this guy is teaching a college course in logic? The mind boggles.

He says, "If you're not a racist, you might as well be since you certainly look like one." In other words, I'm a racist because he thinks I'm a racist.

He concludes his tirade with "Wwjd? He'd tell black monkey jokes!?! Holy crap!"

It's not very holy but it sure is crap. Repeat, for the benefit of college professors with bullet-proof skulls, THE BLACK MONKEY EXISTS ONLY IN YOUR MIND, BOZO.

Palouse whale sightings, pt. 3: the smearbund continues

Not content that I should be smeared only as a racist, Mr. Shou then further upped the ante with this little gem accusing me of anti-Semitism:

To that I responded as follows:

Mr. Schou,

Speaking for myself, I want to try to criticize other people on the basis of positions that they actually hold, rather than attacking straw men. I do not want to violate the ninth commandment when I criticize other people. I don't doubt that I have fallen short of the mark in that department on occasion, but at any rate that is how I try to approach people I disagree with. If you are only interested in insulting and slandering people you dislike, then please feel free to ignore the rest of this post; go ahead and assume whatever you like, putting words into my mouth, misconstruing my statements and my motives, etc. However, if that's not the case -- if you want to actually understand where your opponent is coming from -- then please read on.

1. I acknowledge that in today's world, charges of racism (whatever that might mean) or sexism (whatever that might mean) or even anti-Semitism whatever that might mean) can be hard to refute because subjective feelings of offense held by an offended party virtually constitute proof of the objectively offensive nature of the behavior. The following link provides one recent example, although many more could be cited.
2. Apparently the fact that I read and comment at a Kinist blog is taken as evidence that I am a racist, even though I explicitly reject Kinism. According to that sort of logic it would make just as much sense to lump me together with Keely Emerine-Mix. For the record, I visit that site primarily to ask questions and try to understand their whole system, without embracing it. Let me add that although I strongly disagree with much of what they say, they also not infrequently make some very good points. In my opinion, the sort of treatment that David Thompson was subjected to by EGC (the example in 1. above) is simply crazy. The Kinists can provide a seemingly endless list of examples of such Kafkaesque situations relating to race in America today. If the Kinists are wrong on race-related matters, it does not automatically follow that people who oppose Kinists are correct on race-related matters. The whole subject of race is one of the most difficult areas to discuss rationally in America today; everybody is dragging around so much baggage that it is really rare to find clear, dispassionate thinking on race-related issues. As a Christian, I'm still trying to figure out where "race" fits into God's scheme for things; I am acutely aware of the need to keep an open mind and consider various views on the subject. I'm not going to reject out of hand EVERYTHING a politically incorrect person says simply because some of what they say is wrong or because the source of the information is "tainted."
3. As to the charge that I am a racist, I wonder whether you are aware that I am married to a person of a different race. I have been advised by Kinists that if I ever want to become a Kinist, the first thing I need to do is divorce my wife and send her and the mongrel kids "away."
4. Since I never mentioned it, there is no way you could be aware that in a previous life I operated a shelter in the middle of a poor black neighborhood that took in troubled (mentally ill, destitute, etc.) people referred to me by the city's social care workers. I lived under the same roof and broke bread with black people (along with people of other races), some of them with really serious issues, more or less continually over the course of two years.
5. As to the charge of anti-Semitism, for whatever it might be worth, I should point out that I have close relatives who are Jewish; we get along just fine and I am not aware of harboring any animosity toward Jews on account of their Jewishness. I do have serious misgivings about Zionism, but then so do many Jews. Your accusation that I think "Jews are the enemy of God" is simply false; I emphatically deny thinking that Jews are THE enemy of God. I believe that ALL MEN who have yet to come to faith in Christ are in a condition of enmity with God. That would include Jews but not in any special sense. I view the apostasy of Christians, such as my own mother, with far more concern than I do any Jew.
6. Because of point 1. above, I am aware that points 2. through 5. may mean nothing: I could still be a "racist, sexist anti-Semite" because somebody else took offense at something I said. Frankly, I gave up caring a long time ago. There is no such thing as a right to not be offended.
7. As an example of 6. above, perhaps somebody might have taken offense that I said the Nazis got a bum rap. Please note well, that is not the same as saying the Nazis did not do any of the things they have been accused of. (I made that quite clear in the statement you misquoted.) However, it remains true that the Nazis have been widely accused of things that they never did. For example, for nearly half a century they were accused of having massacred something in the neighborhood of 25,000 Poles in 1940, when in fact that was actually committed by the Soviets. The USA and the U.K. were deliberately complicit in hiding the truth until the Soviets themselves finally admitted the truth in 1990. And that is hardly the only example of lies that have been told, and continue to be told, about the Nazis. I rejoice that Hitler is and shall always be tormented in eternal damnation. He deserves every bit of his eternal punishment. But I fail to see why it is necessary to perpetuate lies and distortions about ANYONE, including the Nazis. They were plenty bad enough for what they actually were, and what they actually did, without any need to paint them as worse than they really were. I also think it is disgusting that some Jews have produced fake Holocaust memoirs that they attempt to pass off as factual, and that some Jews have managed to turn the Holocaust into an industry from which they make a very nice living indeed, thank you. The Nazis were human beings JUST LIKE US and that should scare all of us. One reason why fastidious adherence to the truth, without embellishment or exaggeration, is so important is that failure to do so can play into the hands of genuine haters who want to paint the Nazis as "the good guys" and who think that all the world's problems would somehow just disappear if every last Jew could only be killed.
8. Regarding Qaddafi, I never said that I agree with him. I do not agree with him. However, given that the police work surrounding the JFK assassination was so terrible as to be criminal in its own right, and given that the Warren Commission's investigation was somewhat of a fiasco, we really cannot say with any confidence that JFK was assassinated the way the Warren Report claimed it was. Under the circumstances, Qaddafi's guess is as good as anyone's. We have the U.S. government to thank for that.
9. Regarding Iran's nukes, I was glad to see that Obama got rid of the missile shield over Poland that was ostensibly supposed to be protecting from Iranian missiles. That whole thing was an unwarranted provocation of the Russians and the fact that the shield project was dropped simply proves that it never had anything to do with Iran in the first place. However, I worry that as part of the deal Russia may have agreed to allow Israel to take some sort of military action against Iran in the near future. This prospect really bothers me; I consider the United States and Israel to be the two big trouble-making bullies on the block, not that any other country one might care to mention deserves our praise as a paragon of national virtue. Relatively speaking, however, we can say two things. 1) Iran has been repeatedly shat on by the USA. Considering all the harm that we did to their country, the Iranian people as a whole are remarkably amicably disposed toward the American people. Pat Robertson and his ilk could learn a thing or ten from the Iranians. 2) In matters nuclear, Iran is playing by the rules. It has signed the NPT, has informed the IAEA of its nuclear facilities (which are entirely legal in the context of international law), and is allowing inspections. Contrast that with Israel, which has hundreds of nuclear warheads and the ability to deliver them anywhere in the Mideast, has never signed the NPT, and has refused repeated requests from the IAEA and the United Nations to allow inspections of its nuclear facilities. Iran is playing by the rules and Israel is not.

So if this be racism/sexism/anti-Semitism, then I say make the most of it. Let the people who take offense over words like "niggardly," or over political monkey jokes that have been told for years and suddenly become off limits because we've got a black president in the White House, etc., stew in their own juices. I agree with the sign at the Tea Party: "It doesn't matter what this sign says; you'll call it racism anyway."

Palouse whale sightings, pt. 2: a typical Intolerista smearbund

One of the hallmarks of an Intolerista is that key rules of argumentation, necessary for civilized discourse, are tossed out the window. There will be serious illogicality, hurling of abusive insults, lack of impartiality, resentment of those holding opposing views, egotism, ignoring (or downplaying) of areas of agreement or areas deserving approval, use of generalizations without substantiation, and failure to define key terms. Indeed, rather than making a sincere attempt to interact with someone's actual views, or indeed even to ascertain them, the Intolerista will frequently try to smear an opponent as crazy and/or evil so that he can be summarily dismissed. Any "sound bite" or any "factoid" that can cherry-picked and misconstrued without regard for context is gleefully presented as evidence that the opponent is a person whose views are beneath contempt.

We see all of the above in the recent posts attacking me (and Rev. Wilson, and by implication the other members of Christ Church) on Vision2020.

Andreas Shou kicked off the smearbund by saying that googling me would turn up a "gold-mine of racism." As evidence of this, and alleged "proof" that I am a Kinist, he offered:

"This is one white man who can do just fine without swastikas . . . I have to reject those symbols as somehow representative of me as a Christian white man because of their connections with the Nazis. Although the Nazis have gotten a bum rap there was far too much in Nazi ideology that is detestable for the Christian."

and

"I don't know if I'd call 'em "niggerisms" [i.e., the ridiculous, even sacrilegious things some Christians do in worship] but whatever they are I'm praying for a total meltdown of the electrical power grid in their part of the country every time they gather for "whoreship."

In other words, the "gold-mine of racism" offered as evidence that I'm a Kinist are the following:

1. The fact that I made comments at a Kinist blog
2. The fact that I said the Nazis got a bum rap (by which I meant they have been charged with doing things that they didn't do, such as the Katyn Forest Massacre)
3. The fact that I quoted, without approval, another person's use of the word "niggerism"

The fact that I explicitly rejected Nazi ideology as detestable to Christians is apparently not a mitigating factor in Mr. Shou's eyes. Even more serious than that, however, is Mr. Shou's decision to omit the following comment by me at the same blog:

"I'm still waiting for someone to invest the effort required to do an adequately nuanced critique of various "racist" perspectives. That's one reason I hang around here and ask questions . . . I should hate to think that I'm the only person in Christendom who is critical of Kinism and yet willing to take the trouble to actually identify my target before squeezing the trigger. "

What kind of a person ignores a statement like that in order to describe the target of his criticism as a Kinist? An Intolerista, that's who. It's a standard modus operandi of the Intoleristas: if there is any evidence that clearly contradicts your attempted smear of your opponent, simply ignore it.

I should add that Mr. Shou's statement "Wilson ended up disclaiming 'kinism' when it got politically inconvenient, but it looks like some kinists keep running around defending him" reveals more about Mr. Shou's lack of character than about either Rev. Wilson or myself. Doug Wilson has always had problems with Kinism and to suggest that he only distanced himself from Kinism as a matter of political expediency is to lie.

Palouse whale sightings

The resident pod of bottom-feeding Intolerista whales has been seen surfacing lately in the polluted waters of Vision2020 Pond. Even from a safe distance they can be readily identified -- visually, aurally and olfactorily -- by their characteristic spouts of bellowing bilgewater directed at the “racism” and “hate-mongering” they perceive among any and all creatures different from themselves.

Recently one particularly large and aggressive bull, a prideful beast that has been given its own taxonomical name of Philosopher macrogluteus var. Joecampbellii on the suspicion that it might be a separate species, has been bemusing observers by antics that seem, frankly, to be downright retarded. To varying degrees such bizarre behavior tends to be characteristic of all Intolerista whales; no doubt part of the cause for this peculiar behavior is found in the polluted waters that Intolerista whales favor as their habitat. Indeed, the more the Intolerista whales remain in any one area, the more polluted the waters become, and eventually the buildup of toxins apparently leads to serious brain damage in these fetid cetaceans.

My next few posts shall be devoted to a description of the recent sightings and observations of these strange creatures and their pathologies.