More From My Censor

A series of questions from my good buddy J. Scott or J.P. Scott (jpscott@post.com) or whoever it really is:

jscott said: I noticed that you have removed Steve Sailer’s articles from your blog. I’ve enjoyed reading many of the articles and posting that you’ve posted on multiracial issues but was appalled to see that Ms. Powell had posted Sailer’s articles not to criticize them but to use them to further her biased views.

Actually, Ms. Powell has posted hundreds of times and only LINKED or QUOTED a Sailer column on five or so occasions, three of which she admonished him for racism or illogic. You are flat out lying when you claim that I’ve “removed Steve Sailer’s articles.” His articles have never been on the blog. But his writings have been talked about. There is a big difference, and you know it, yet intentionally skew the record for some strange reason. Some would call that lying.

jscott said: What did surprise me was that you expunged my posting from your site. Normally, I understand when a site’s editor censor postings because of foul language; but, since I didn’t use any such words, I found it disquieting and Orwellian.

You demanded that I kick Ms. Powell off the blog, and when you didn’t get your way you turned your attentions towards my children by claiming I was raising them wrong and turning them into immoral bigots and bullies. That is why you were kicked off. And I’ve told you such repeatedly. Arguing a point is one thing, but picking on a person’s family when you don’t get your way is quite another. Quit pretending that its otherwise.

jscott said: I could only assume that my words about your giving tacit approval to Ms. Powell’s methods and politics by publishing the Sailer articles was too much for you.

You are going to assume whatever you want and continue to lie as well, so why bother asking? You attacked my family and then called it “intellectual debate.” In the real world that’s called trolling. You repeatedly used fake email addresses as well, giving further evidence of your intent to engage in disruption, rather than intellectual debate.

jscott said: Let me be clear on this, Ms. Powell is a bigot. She repeatedly seeks to champion her status as a white multiracial with the emphasis being on “whitenes” and the seeming desire to benefit from white privilege by denigrating “blacks.”

Wrong. She believes in scrapping “racial” classifications and you believe in keeping them – even if you have to lie and exaggerate about others in the process. If you dislike her approach, which is to co-opt the so-called “white” category, rather than continue to live under the one-drop rule, then that’s your issue, not mine. If you hate her because her experiences differ from yours, again – your problem. You even went so far as to refer to a popular “black” conservative academic as “dirty” for the crime of having the wrong skin color and disagreeing with you. Interesting choice of word – “dirty.” Pot, meet kettle.

jscott said: “Again, I find her logic amazingly bizarre but familiar. The character of the self-hating this or that is a cliched character in literature and film. Ms. Powell’s writings point clearly to her view that “blacks” are “other” to her whiteness, disconnecting from her African heritage and, more importantly, her own family. Through her constant use of phrases or words like “whining” to describe “blacks” shows an utter lack of sympathy towards the struggles of her own ancestors. Given the plethora of examples of Ms. Powell’s writings available across the Internet, I cannot point to any that show a positive multiracial attitude. Virtually every article or essay is about white multiracials or mulattos victimization by “blacks”; thus, making the impression of her bigotry as solid as steel.

In other words, you came here with an axe to grind, intent on picking a fight. You don’t like A.D.’s style and beliefs. You badmouth her because her experiences differ from yours. So what? Not every multiracial person has walked the same path. You demand conformity of thought and conformity of action. Take that demand somewhere else, you lack the authority to make it.

You also called me “egotistical,” “sad,” “pathetic” and implied I was a bad father after I refused to kick Ms. Powell off the blog. You used what I would deem to be hate speech to describe Ward Connerly and Thomas Sowell in the comments. And you have the nerve to judge someone else? Go pound sand.

jscott said: “However, the revulsion that I felt towards Ms. Powell after seeing her use the words of Steve Sailer freed me from most of the sympathy I might have for her and whatever personal pain she may have suffered to bring her to this point of intellectual and moral bankruptcy. Recently, “USA Today” signed Ann Coulter to be a columnist for its coverage of the Democratic Convention. However, no column was published because the first column proved unprintable for its pages. The editors made a judgement that some words, filled with hatred, were not worth printing.

A.D. Powell is not Ann Coulter. She linked to a columnist she disagrees with the overwhelming majority of the time and discussed his work and a handful of occasions out of hundreds of blog entries. And in your hysteria, you want her murdered for it. You really need to check that hate. Its not becoming of someone who has self-appointed themself censor of this website.

jscott said: “And that brings me to you. As you said, you pay the bills on your site. I don’t understand how you could have left her Sailer postings up there for so long.

Once again, since you intend to exaggerate and lie about it. She posted links to FIVE or so Sailer pieces. She has hundreds of posts on the blog. Get a grip and stop the drama and exaggerations. Its only a short walk from that to full-blown lying. But then, you fully intend to continue with the falsehoods, don’t you? That’s what trolls do best.

jscott said: “I don’t understand how you couldn’t have felt the revulsion that I did. I don’t understand why it took my words to move you to act.”

Oh, I’m feeling plenty of revulsion. Calling a man “dirty” based on his skin color and ideology tends to do that to me. Picking on my family and then lying about it afterwords tends to do that. Lying, badgering and harassing me by email in order to provoke a response tends to do that.

jscott said: “”Even more, I don’t understand why you then removed my words. All of my comments disappeared. It’s not from vanity that I question the removal of my words but of integrity, your integrity. A blog is a journal, a written public legacy. Changing the public record, history, is deeply saddening; and words like Orwellian and Kafkaesque easily come to my mind. We don’t like slavery, do we erase it from the history books? We don’t like the holocaust, do we erase it? We don’t like the terrors of Rwanda, do we erase it? You wrote to me about black conservatives. I thought one of the goals of modern American conservatism was the vilification of “political correctness.” Surely, your expunging of my comments would draw the ire of most true conservatives.”

Surely not. You have revealed yourself to be a troll, capable of using the most important thing in a father’s life against him – his children. Your posts are gone – as they should be. Again, you have revealed yourself to be a troll. Its just that simple. I don’t make excuses for trolls. You’ll have to find a way to live with it. Oh the horror of it all.

jscott said: “I guess that’s all that I have to say. I can’t imagine returning to your site or recommending my family, friends, or anyone else read your site. The inherent dishonesty you’ve shown is far too great. In my last comment to you, I questioned when did the ends justify the means philosophy become an ethical modus operandi. I guess you’ve shown me that ethics or not, it’s not only Ms. Powell’s tactic but also yours.”

I’m not the one who lied about my actions and then badgered someone by email. And then lied some more. You demanded I kick Powell off the blog or you are going to publish an attack piece questioning my credibility. You have continued to hide behind a vague screen name and used fake email addresses to post here. Further, you repeatedly used insults like “sad,” “egotistical” and informed me that you are “through with” me in your series of emails to me.

And you have the nerve to claim the moral high ground while you continue to hide behind a vague screen name and multiple fake email addresses. What exactly is wrong with you? Where to do get the right to demand that others bow to your will, else you reserve the right to skewer them falsely?

jscott said: “Oh, please. My comments were not directed to your children as much as your morality and ethics. Simply asking how your children would respond to those postings shouldn’t cross a line when other people’s children may visit your site. (That’s a technique of arguing, trying to use empathy so that someone might be able to understand another’s point of view.) If you can’t see that hypocrisy, then you are deluding yourself.”

Quit lying. That isn’t what you said. You claimed that I was teaching my children to be bullies and bigots who would be unable to function as rational human beings. You further mocked me when I objected. You’ve been busted and now you’re lying. Its cute, but contrary to your assertions, that doesn’t qualify as “intellectual debate.”

jscott said: “You operate one of the few multiracial sites on the Internet.”

Umm, I know. I put it together with my own two hands.

jscott said: “How many young people like myself do you think are searching for knowledge and come upon your site?”

Quite a few. I help out with papers for high school and college students on a regular basis.

jscott said: ” I used the Ann Coulter case to show that other editors in your position know when to draw the line. You have a responsiblity to your readers. You don’t seem to know that. If it hurts for me to point that out to you, that might just be your conscience telling you that you’ve done wrong.”

Or it could just be that in your youth you’ve gotten quite arrogant. There was a time in my youth when I knew everything too. I urge you, cash in on that before you become stupid again like the rest of us. Some day, when you have real responsibilities to attend to, you’ll look back on this episode with a twinge of shame. Now that I know your relative age, I can understand why you feel compelled to order people around. Its that sense of entitlement that has taken hold among your generation. It will continue to hold you down until you recognize it for what it is – a self-imposed shackle blinding you to the fact that no one owe’s you anything.

Damn. I wish had noticed that earlier. I could have saved myself a good deal of time.

This entry also posted at Taking The Gloves Off.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.