ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 31st December 2018, 10:35 AM   #201
Ron_Tomkins
Satan's Helper
 
Ron_Tomkins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 43,512
Originally Posted by banquetbear View Post
...what the ****?



And the reason you didn't post that in response to my initial question was because?



Not trolling at all. It was a simple question for ***** sakes. Are you talking about this link?

https://www.msn.com/en-us/lifestyle/...bia/vp-BBRdtgH

At 30 seconds one of the organisers gave one example of why he was being asked to leave: Patel immediately interrupted her, didn't let her finish her sentence and she never said another word after that. Patel was overbearing and intimidating and has a "generation" more experience at silencing people and he did that here.

At 1.01 in the video you can see an example of a joke that BOMBED. I suspect the rest of the set went equally as badly as that moment.

At 2.27 he was clearly expecting a clap and applause: he didn't get it. Because he was an ********. And he was bombing.

So no, I don't think your characterization of what happened is a fair one. The organizer may well have given other examples but Patel didn't let the organizers speak.

And the reaction of the audience says it all really.
It's really fascinating to hear people's twisted interpretation of reality.
Lets see:

Quote:
At 30 seconds one of the organisers gave one example of why he was being asked to leave: Patel immediately interrupted her, didn't let her finish her sentence and she never said another word after that.
I listened to it twice. He never interrupted them.

Girl: I don't think you're entitled to tell certain jokes. And I don't think it's appropriate
Patel: Why?
Girl: I think the comments you were making about being gay and black were disrespectful
Patel: That came from a gay and black dude!.... (pause).... he gave me that joke (Pause. No one says anything so he develops on how he obtained the joke)

If at that point, the girls had any thought/idea they hadn't finished, they had plenty of space to do so. You can hear there's plenty of pauses between Patel's responses for them to continue talking.

I mean, they even gave him an opportunity to give a "closing statement"! At that point, it's clear that they had nothing to say. You'd think if they felt he didn't let them say what they had to say, they would have first used that moment to finish their thoughts??

Quote:
At 1.01 in the video you can see an example of a joke that BOMBED. I suspect the rest of the set went equally as badly as that moment.
He wasn't telling a joke. He said he got paid anyway so he's good. That's not a joke, so of course he wouldn't expect a laugh. Some people laughed anyway though.

Quote:
At 2.27 he was clearly expecting a clap and applause: he didn't get it. Because he was an ********. And he was bombing.
Once again, since he wasn't telling a joke, he couldn't have been bombing. He was expressing why he didn't think he was being disrespectful.

The organizers had plenty of time to continue developing on anything else they wanted to say. There was plenty of awkward silences in that video where the girls could have easily interjected anything else they had in their minds. And considering this is three girls against one guy, it should have proven very easy for them. But generally speaking, in any exchange where two people are talking and one of the persons who hasn't finished a thought gets interrupted, you will see that they will still keep talking over the person who's interrupting them, because it's in their interest to be heard. You see it all the time in debates. We all do that, in great part cause of our ego. Cause if we really have something to say and a person is interrupting us, we will wrestle against the sound of the person and raise our voices to keep talking. These girls clearly had nothing else to say, or else they would have said it.

But again, in case this needs repetition (And I'm sure it will): They gave him a closing statement. If they really had anything else to say, they would have used that time to speak their minds first.
__________________
"I am a collection of water, calcium and organic molecules called Carl Sagan"

Carl Sagan

Last edited by Ron_Tomkins; 31st December 2018 at 10:37 AM.
Ron_Tomkins is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st December 2018, 10:35 AM   #202
autumn1971
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,695
Originally Posted by Ron_Tomkins View Post
... which, by the way, is incredibly racist
And only tangentially true. They hired him because he is an Asian-American comic, but his set was outside of the already stated mission of the event. He also had lost the room, and was at that point a liability not only to the event promoters, but to the other acts at the event.

It still amazes me that the right hates the free market so much.

The left: trying to keep government out of business decisions more effectively than “conservatives” since about 1980.
__________________
'A knave; a rascal; an eater of broken meats; a base, proud, shallow, beggardly, three-suited, hundred-pound, filthy, worsted-stocking knave; a lily-livered, action-taking knave, a whoreson, glass-gazing, superservicable, finical rogue;... the son and heir of a mongral bitch: one whom I will beat into clamorous whining, if thou deniest the least syllable of thy addition."'
-The Bard
autumn1971 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st December 2018, 10:39 AM   #203
Mycroft
High Priest of Ed
 
Mycroft's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 19,474
It's quite possible he was kicked off mostly for his exchange with the audience member which even Patel describes as awkward and a fishing expedition that was going nowhere, and that the decision was short-sighted and that Patel’s act would have been a success had he been allowed to complete it. I'd still like to see the act and judge it for myself, but so far it seems to me a subjective "middle ground" is more likely than either side being entirely in the right.
Mycroft is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st December 2018, 10:51 AM   #204
Belgian thought
Master Poster
 
Belgian thought's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 2,131
Please read the following with a Bernard Manning voice. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QKnwn9SEkdA

"******'ell! I had a big black gay guy in't back of me cab the other night. Best sex ever!"




I shall walk out without my coat.
__________________
... er, that's it
Belgian thought is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st December 2018, 11:01 AM   #205
qayak
Penultimate Amazing
 
qayak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 13,334
Originally Posted by banquetbear View Post
...not lying at all. Do you understand what a "lie" means?



What the **** are you going on about?

I've summarized our exchange already in this post here:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...&postcount=186

I asked you a question.

You didn't answer it.

I asked you again.

You responded that the answer to my question was in my second link.

I said that I read the second link, I couldn't find the answer, then requested you be specific and quote exactly what was said.

You then told me to "watch the video."

I said there wasn't a video in the second link to watch.

You then stated that you never claimed there was a video in the second link.

It turns out that you had posted the video link in response to someone else in this thread: not me. You didn't provide the video in response to me. You provided it in response to someone else. You didn't tell me you had posted the link. You didn't at any stage (until after I had pointed it out) let me know that when you stated that the answer to my question "was in your second link, halfway down", that this was not true. (And in some places, people would characterize that as a lie.)

So no I"m not lying. I haven't lied, you haven't demonstrated I've lied, I haven't been dishonest at all. If there has been any miscommunication in our exchange it has been entirely your fault.



I think that its pretty crystal clear that I'm not the person who is lying here.
Not what happened at all. You asked a question that I assumed anyone interested in the facts would know so I ignored it. I stated there were two pieces of evidence to support my claim. When you asked the question again, I sent you to the article in the second link. You said it didn't count so I told you to go watch the video. You assumed the video was in the second link which I never said. Once again, I assumed that someone who was so sure of the facts would know there is only one video and would watch it to know what happened but you didn't, you just continued making up your own narrative based on an alternate, and bizarre, universe (Through the looking glass reference).

I rewatched the video this morning and your take on it is false, and bizarrely so. Patel was very polite and reasonable.
__________________
"How long you live, how high you fly
The smiles you'll give, and tears you'll cry
And all you touch, and all you see
Is all your life will ever be."
qayak is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st December 2018, 11:13 AM   #206
Checkmite
Skepticifimisticalationist
 
Checkmite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Gulf Coast
Posts: 23,125
Originally Posted by Ron_Tomkins View Post
I listened to it twice. He never interrupted them.

Girl: I don't think you're entitled to tell certain jokes. And I don't think it's appropriate
Patel: Why?
Girl: I think the comments you were making about being gay and black were disrespectful
Patel: That came from a gay and black dude!.... (pause).... he gave me that joke (Pause. No one says anything so he develops on how he obtained the joke)

If at that point, the girls had any thought/idea they hadn't finished, they had plenty of space to do so. You can hear there's plenty of pauses between Patel's responses for them to continue talking.
"He never interrupted them."

(gives a transcript of Patel interrupting them, twice)

Could you not pick up that the reason they didn't make use of the "plenty of space" to continue their ideas is because it was obvious Patel was just going to defensively interrupt them again halfway through their next idea?
__________________
"¿WHAT KIND OF BIRD?
¿A PARANORMAL BIRD?"
--- Carlos S., 2002
Checkmite is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st December 2018, 11:46 AM   #207
Ron_Tomkins
Satan's Helper
 
Ron_Tomkins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 43,512
Originally Posted by Checkmite View Post
"He never interrupted them."

(gives a transcript of Patel interrupting them, twice)

Could you not pick up that the reason they didn't make use of the "plenty of space" to continue their ideas is because it was obvious Patel was just going to defensively interrupt them again halfway through their next idea?
Technically speaking (in the most technical sense) yes: he interrupted them, in that he spoke over them right as they were finishing the sentence, so that the last two words of what they said were cut off. But we all do that when we talk to each other all the time. That's normal in a human conversation. However, sometimes when we do that, we cut someone off before they had something important to say. But in this case, it's evident that that was not what happened. If he really cut them off before they had something important to say, they had plenty of time to say it at any given instance during that exchange. Instead, after he finished talking, they even gave him time for a final statement. Again: It's pretty evident that they had nothing else to add at any point. This whole issue was, in fact, about the gay/black joke.
__________________
"I am a collection of water, calcium and organic molecules called Carl Sagan"

Carl Sagan
Ron_Tomkins is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st December 2018, 12:26 PM   #208
tyr_13
Penultimate Amazing
 
tyr_13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 15,919
Originally Posted by qayak View Post
Cool. Got any links to your material?

Patel isn't my taste in comedy, just too vanilla.
Sadly, I don't have any good ones. My former producer has most of the video, and we had some major differences.

Keep in mind that I've never been paid for stand-up (although I have been compensated for helping hone material for others). It's only this year that I'm getting back into stand-up after ten years of improv. Without multi-cameras and a lot of work, improv does not lend itself well to recording.

I do have one clip though. I'm no longer associated with Nameless Comedy and had nothing to do with the editing of this clip. If I had been, a lot would be different, and I would have made it more clear that the game we were playing was 'Scenes Cut from a Movie', and the movie we were on was 'Fight Club'. It was at an anime convention, so that's why we're dressed like that (half in costume). More than twenty events and MCing that convention...so much work...so tired just remembering it...

https://youtu.be/77xPN0D3WGE
__________________
Circled nothing is still nothing.
"Nothing will stop the U.S. from being a world leader, not even a handful of adults who want their kids to take science lessons from a book that mentions unicorns six times." -UNLoVedRebel
Mumpsimus: a stubborn person who insists on making an error in spite of being shown that it is wrong
tyr_13 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st December 2018, 01:04 PM   #209
banquetbear
Graduate Poster
 
banquetbear's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,545
Originally Posted by banquetbear View Post
...what the ****?



And the reason you didn't post that in response to my initial question was because?



Not trolling at all. It was a simple question for ***** sakes. Are you talking about this link?

https://www.msn.com/en-us/lifestyle/...bia/vp-BBRdtgH

At 30 seconds one of the organisers gave one example of why he was being asked to leave: Patel immediately interrupted her, didn't let her finish her sentence and she never said another word after that. Patel was overbearing and intimidating and has a "generation" more experience at silencing people and he did that here.

At 1.01 in the video you can see an example of a joke that BOMBED. I suspect the rest of the set went equally as badly as that moment.

At 2.27 he was clearly expecting a clap and applause: he didn't get it. Because he was an ********. And he was bombing.

So no, I don't think your characterization of what happened is a fair one. The organizer may well have given other examples but Patel didn't let the organizers speak.

And the reaction of the audience says it all really.
Originally Posted by qayak View Post
Not what happened at all.
...its exactly what happened. I quoted the entire exchange.

Quote:
You asked a question that I assumed anyone interested in the facts would know so I ignored it.
Exactly what I said happened. You agree with me. The problem was your assumption. I asked a question because I didn't know the answer. Your assumption that I actually had the answer to my question was a stupid one that makes no sense.

Quote:
I stated there were two pieces of evidence to support my claim.
This never happened. You never made this statement. I provided two cites, not you, you indicated my second cite contained the information I was looking for. It did not.

Quote:
When you asked the question again, I sent you to the article in the second link. You said it didn't count so I told you to go watch the video
I never said "it didn't count." I said "the Reason article cites the statement from the AAA, which I cited in my first link and I quoted in its entirety. I can't see what you are talking about. I might be missing it. Can you quote exactly what they said?"

Quote:
. You assumed the video was in the second link which I never said.
Of course I assumed the video was in the second link. Because that was where you said the information I was looking for was located.

Quote:
Once again, I assumed that someone who was so sure of the facts would know there is only one video and would watch it to know what happened but you didn't,
Another stupid assumption. The reason I asked the question in the first place was because "I wasn't sure on the facts." So I asked you to clarify.

Perhaps you should stop making assumptions and just take things on face value.

Quote:
you just continued making up your own narrative based on an alternate, and bizarre, universe (Through the looking glass reference).
Nope.

Quote:
I rewatched the video this morning and your take on it is false, and bizarrely so. Patel was very polite and reasonable.
Through the looking glass I see. He was rude and arrogant and dismissive. But obviously YMMV.
banquetbear is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st December 2018, 01:44 PM   #210
banquetbear
Graduate Poster
 
banquetbear's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,545
Originally Posted by Ron_Tomkins View Post
It's really fascinating to hear people's twisted interpretation of reality.
Lets see:
...ROFL!

Quote:
I listened to it twice. He never interrupted them.
Yeah but...

Quote:
Girl: I don't think you're entitled to tell certain jokes. And I don't think it's appropriate
Patel: Why?
Girl: I think the comments you were making about being gay and black were disrespectful
Patel: That came from a gay and black dude!.... (pause).... he gave me that joke (Pause. No one says anything so he develops on how he obtained the joke)
He just interrupted them!

Quote:
If at that point, the girls had any thought/idea they hadn't finished, they had plenty of space to do so. You can hear there's plenty of pauses between Patel's responses for them to continue talking.
I would encourage anyone who hasn't already watched the video to do so. Because Ron's transcript has stripped the context of the exchange and doesn't accurately represent what actually happened.

Quote:
I mean, they even gave him an opportunity to give a "closing statement"! At that point, it's clear that they had nothing to say. You'd think if they felt he didn't let them say what they had to say, they would have first used that moment to finish their thoughts??
What was clear was that they had a speaker on stage who was visibly upset (and understandably so), and that "finishing their thoughts" would probably only prompt Patel to escalate. They just wanted him off the stage. They indulged him when they answered his question "why" but when he started to speak over the top of them it became pretty obvious that the best thing to do was to let him finish speaking and get him off stage as quickly as possible. They weren't looking for a debate.

Quote:
He wasn't telling a joke. He said he got paid anyway so he's good. That's not a joke, so of course he wouldn't expect a laugh. Some people laughed anyway though.
It was either a joke or he is simply a repugnant human being who says ridiculous things out-loud because he doesn't care how he is perceived. I prefer to give him the benefit of the doubt. It was a joke. And it bombed. Apparently you do not. If you would prefer to think that he said "I got paid anyway so he's good" in complete sincerity then you are welcome to do so.

Quote:
Once again, since he wasn't telling a joke, he couldn't have been bombing. He was expressing why he didn't think he was being disrespectful.
The silence was deafening. He had completely lost the audience.

Quote:
The organizers had plenty of time to continue developing on anything else they wanted to say. There was plenty of awkward silences in that video where the girls could have easily interjected anything else they had in their minds. And considering this is three girls against one guy, it should have proven very easy for them
Once again: I would encourage anyone who hasn't watched the video to do so and not to rely on Ron's editorializing here. The power dynamics on stage should be crystal clear.

Quote:
. But generally speaking, in any exchange where two people are talking and one of the persons who hasn't finished a thought gets interrupted, you will see that they will still keep talking over the person who's interrupting them, because it's in their interest to be heard.
We aren't "generally speaking." This was a specific incident, with a unique context, and that context has to be taken into account.

Quote:
You see it all the time in debates.
This wasn't a debate. Patel wanted to turn it into a debate. Because as an experienced comedian and public speaker he would have clearly have had the advantage. By choosing not to indulge Patel, in not turning it into a debate, they took the power away from Patel, deescalated and got him off stage.

Quote:
We all do that, in great part cause of our ego. Cause if we really have something to say and a person is interrupting us, we will wrestle against the sound of the person and raise our voices to keep talking. These girls clearly had nothing else to say, or else they would have said it.
They may well have had something else to say. But it was entirely the wrong time to say it. The objective wasn't to engage Patel in debate. The objective was to get him off stage.

Quote:
But again, in case this needs repetition (And I'm sure it will): They gave him a closing statement. If they really had anything else to say, they would have used that time to speak their minds first.
That would have been a stupid thing to do, would have unnecessarily inflamed the situation more than it already was, and would have made their goal (of getting Patel off stage) even harder.
banquetbear is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st December 2018, 01:50 PM   #211
Checkmite
Skepticifimisticalationist
 
Checkmite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Gulf Coast
Posts: 23,125
Originally Posted by Ron_Tomkins View Post
Technically speaking (in the most technical sense) yes: he interrupted them, in that he spoke over them right as they were finishing the sentence, so that the last two words of what they said were cut off.
Many ideas take more than one or two sentences to express; so because the interruption came "two words before the end of a sentence" doesn't actually mean the people he talked over were actually finished expressing their idea, and it also doesn't mean those sentences wouldn't have been longer if he hadn't interrupted them.

And again, after he interrupted them - twice, in immediate succession - the fact that they didn't then continue to try and talk when he "gave them time" doesn't mean either that they had exhausted whatever it was they had initially planned to express - because there comes a point at which it's obvious you're not going to be allowed to get a complete thought out of your mouth without being talked over, and at that point most people who aren't interested in shouting matches are going to stop trying. Repeatedly interrupting people until they give up trying to respond is an extremely common rhetorical tactic.
__________________
"¿WHAT KIND OF BIRD?
¿A PARANORMAL BIRD?"
--- Carlos S., 2002
Checkmite is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st December 2018, 07:22 PM   #212
qayak
Penultimate Amazing
 
qayak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 13,334
Originally Posted by banquetbear View Post
This never happened. You never made this statement. I provided two cites, not you, you indicated my second cite contained the information I was looking for. It did not.
In post 171 you asked me for a citation of the organiser stating Patel was removed because his black/gay joke was offensive and you then provided two cites for something unrelated.

I actually read your citations, you should try it, and my response was that your second citation provided an account (written). That's post 173.

In post 176 you claimed that the reason article cited the official statement but not an account which is wrong. There is a written account in the article.

In post 178 I was tiring of your being so obtuse and told you to go look at the only video available of the incident which has the woman telling him the joke was offensive and is what the article author used to write their account.

For some bizarre reason you thought the video was in your citation. There was no reason for you to think that because I never said that's where it was and they were you ******* citations and you should have known what was in them.

So I patiently explained to you that there was one and only one video of the event . . . hence my reason for calling it THE VIDEO . . . and where you could find it.

And here we are on the ISF, a day later and several IQ points dumber.
__________________
"How long you live, how high you fly
The smiles you'll give, and tears you'll cry
And all you touch, and all you see
Is all your life will ever be."
qayak is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st December 2018, 07:30 PM   #213
qayak
Penultimate Amazing
 
qayak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 13,334
Originally Posted by Ron_Tomkins View Post
This whole issue was, in fact, about the gay/black joke.
Exactly correct and something else the SJW apologists refuse to acknowledge is that nothing else in the video is the reason he was interrupted. It all happened later so cannot be the cause. Plus it happened after he was told his joke, which was in no way, shape, or form racist or homophobic, was racist and homophobic and his behaviour, which I think was excellent under the circumstances, was caused by that and not indicative of his comedy set.

What would be interest is to see the response to the AAA in regard to support and membership numbers since the incident. Going by their Facebook page, support for them has been almost zero.
__________________
"How long you live, how high you fly
The smiles you'll give, and tears you'll cry
And all you touch, and all you see
Is all your life will ever be."
qayak is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st December 2018, 08:17 PM   #214
banquetbear
Graduate Poster
 
banquetbear's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,545
Originally Posted by qayak View Post
In post 171 you asked me for a citation of the organiser stating Patel was removed because his black/gay joke was offensive and you then provided two cites for something unrelated.
...yep. Here is that post.

Originally Posted by banquetbear View Post
...do you have a cite for the organizers stating the black and gay joke was why they asked Patel to leave the stage?
Quote:
I actually read your citations, you should try it, and my response was that your second citation provided an account (written). That's post 173.
Yep. And here is that post.

Originally Posted by qayak View Post
It was in your second link, halfway down.
I had read my cites. No need to "try it." When you claimed it was in the second link, I re-read my cite, thinking I had missed it. You know this because I told you this in the following post:

Originally Posted by banquetbear View Post
...the Reason article cites the statement from the AAA, which I cited in my first link and I quoted in its entirety. I can't see what you are talking about. I might be missing it. Can you quote exactly what they said?
Quote:
In post 176 you claimed that the reason article cited the official statement but not an account which is wrong. There is a written account in the article.
This is the so-called "written account" from the Reason article.

Originally Posted by Reason
AAA is run by students, which means it was their decision to pull Patel from the stage after he made jokes that they deemed racist and homophobic, according to The Columbia Daily Spectator. I emailed AAA to ask what exactly Patel said that was so offensive; the group sent me a statement that did not clarify matters.

The Spectator, though, lists one of the allegedly inappropriate jokes:

During the event, Patel's performance featured commentary on his experience living in a diverse area of New York City—including a joke about a gay, black man in his neighborhood—which AAA officials deemed inappropriate. Patel joked that being gay cannot be a choice because "no one looks in the mirror and thinks, 'this black thing is too easy, let me just add another thing to it.'"
So from that account: the author of the article contacted the AAA to ask "what was said that was so offensive." The AAA responded. The author of the article makes the editorial decision not to include the AAA response in the article. "The joke" is mentioned in the article: but only in the context of "one of the allegedly inappropriate jokes."


Quote:
In post 178 I was tiring of your being so obtuse and told you to go look at the only video available of the incident which has the woman telling him the joke was offensive and is what the article author used to write their account.
I didn't know of the existence of the video. I had no idea what you were referring too.

The article author makes no claim about the video. The article author cites the Spectator. The author cites the AAA. The author does not cite the video and I can't even see where the author even talks about the video. On what basis are you making the claim that the video is "what the article author used to write their account?"

Quote:
For some bizarre reason you thought the video was in your citation. There was no reason for you to think that because I never said that's where it was and they were you ******* citations and you should have known what was in them.
I thought the video was "in my citation" because you told me the answer to my question was on the video and to watch the video FFS. Where else was I supposed to look?

I did know what was in my cites. Which was why when I couldn't find what you claimed was in that cite I asked you directly to clarify.

Quote:
So I patiently explained to you that there was one and only one video of the event . . . hence my reason for calling it THE VIDEO . . . and where you could find it.
There has been nothing patient about any of your responses to me. You've said I'm not being honest, you've said I offer nothing but SJW lies. You never eventually told me where I could find the video. I had to do it myself. You did not provide two cites as you claimed in your last post: that was an invention.

A patient response would be "sorry, that wasn't what I meant. Watch this video on this link." But that isn't what you did.

Our entire exchange is summarized here.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...&postcount=186

I have no idea why you have chosen to re contextualize our exchange. But everyone can read what really happened.

Quote:
And here we are on the ISF, a day later and several IQ points dumber.
This thread has done nothing to my IQ. However it has become increasingly difficult to read your posts. Every time you post you create a new version of our exchange. It will be exciting to see what fantasy you decide to post next.

Quote:
Exactly correct and something else the SJW apologists refuse to acknowledge is that nothing else in the video is the reason he was interrupted.
What the MRA apologists refuse to acknowledge is that the video provides context what the organizers said on the evening, and why they didn't say more.

Quote:
It all happened later so cannot be the cause.
Nobody has claimed it was the cause.

Quote:
Plus it happened after he was told his joke, which was in no way, shape, or form racist or homophobic, was racist and homophobic and his behaviour, which I think was excellent under the circumstances, was caused by that and not indicative of his comedy set.
This is your opinion: not an objective fact.

Quote:
What would be interest is to see the response to the AAA in regard to support and membership numbers since the incident. Going by their Facebook page, support for them has been almost zero.
ROFL!

Yep. And the Last Jedi was objectively a bad movie. Because internet trolls haven't figured out how to make comments on a facebook page right?

I saw the reaction from the crowd on the video you cited. I think the AAA is going to be just fine.
banquetbear is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st January 2019, 03:02 AM   #215
qayak
Penultimate Amazing
 
qayak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 13,334
Originally Posted by banquetbear View Post
I saw the reaction from the crowd on the video you cited. I think the AAA is going to be just fine.
You seem awefully worried. Thanks for admitting you were wrong about our exchange though.
__________________
"How long you live, how high you fly
The smiles you'll give, and tears you'll cry
And all you touch, and all you see
Is all your life will ever be."
qayak is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st January 2019, 06:07 AM   #216
banquetbear
Graduate Poster
 
banquetbear's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,545
Originally Posted by qayak View Post
You seem awefully worried.
...about something happening on the other side of the world? Nah.

Quote:
Thanks for admitting you were wrong about our exchange though.
Another fantasy.
banquetbear is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st January 2019, 07:56 AM   #217
applecorped
Rotten to the Core
 
applecorped's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 19,114
I like my beer like my violence, domestic.
__________________
All You Need Is Love.
applecorped is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st January 2019, 09:40 AM   #218
qayak
Penultimate Amazing
 
qayak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 13,334
Originally Posted by applecorped View Post
I like my beer like my violence, domestic.
Well played!
__________________
"How long you live, how high you fly
The smiles you'll give, and tears you'll cry
And all you touch, and all you see
Is all your life will ever be."
qayak is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd January 2019, 09:14 AM   #219
Ron_Tomkins
Satan's Helper
 
Ron_Tomkins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 43,512
Originally Posted by Checkmite View Post
Many ideas take more than one or two sentences to express; so because the interruption came "two words before the end of a sentence" doesn't actually mean the people he talked over were actually finished expressing their idea, and it also doesn't mean those sentences wouldn't have been longer if he hadn't interrupted them.

And again, after he interrupted them - twice, in immediate succession - the fact that they didn't then continue to try and talk when he "gave them time" doesn't mean either that they had exhausted whatever it was they had initially planned to express - because there comes a point at which it's obvious you're not going to be allowed to get a complete thought out of your mouth without being talked over, and at that point most people who aren't interested in shouting matches are going to stop trying. Repeatedly interrupting people until they give up trying to respond is an extremely common rhetorical tactic.
That's one interpretation. The other interpretation is: They never had anything to say in the first place. And again it is obvious if you listen to the exchange. Do listen and pay attention to the pauses he makes when he says something... makes a pause... notices they have nothing else to reply to what he said.... and then continues talking. In not a single one of these pauses do these women ever retort with anything. Then, at the end, when the girls clearly had nothing else to say, they just give him a moment to give a closing statement. It couldn't be more obvious that they had nothing else to say. They had already made their only point: This whole thing was about the gay/black joke.

Again, brief overlaps of interjection happen all the time in a conversation. But when the person who got "interrupted" actually had something important to say, (and especially in cases such as this one, where the people being "interrupted" are triggered and are trying to "expose" the "perpetrator"), normally people fight back to interject what they had to say. If you don't like Patel, that's fine. But don't try for one second to try to sell me the idea that he stopped them from saying anything important that they never got a chance to say.

If you want to actually run the test, show this to someone who has absolutely no idea about what happened and isn't biased toward any side, and ask them if you think he was "rudely interrupting them".
__________________
"I am a collection of water, calcium and organic molecules called Carl Sagan"

Carl Sagan

Last edited by Ron_Tomkins; 2nd January 2019 at 09:18 AM.
Ron_Tomkins is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd January 2019, 12:26 PM   #220
qayak
Penultimate Amazing
 
qayak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 13,334
Originally Posted by banquetbear View Post
Nobody has claimed it was the cause.
That's another lie. You and a couple others have made it out as justification for his being asked to stop his set even though the only reason given was the joke. You go on to insist that you can read the organiser's mind and what she really meant was [insert BS reason here].

Quote:
This is your opinion: not an objective fact.
Well, that's true. The joke could be offensive to racists, homophobes, and SJWs who completely missed the point.

Quote:
Because internet trolls haven't figured out how to make comments on a facebook page right?
And everyone who comments on a Facebook page is a troll? Most are? What about the very odd one that was in favour of his being kicked off, troll or no troll?

Your reasoning has been this lame through the entire thread. You try to shoot down a fact with an assertion, blissfully unaware that your assertion shoots down your own argument.

Were the Columbia students who went to Patel's next show and apologised to him Facebook trolls? Are all the articles written in support of him, and countering the claim that the joke was racist, or homophobic, authored by internet trolls as well?

Quote:
I saw the reaction from the crowd on the video you cited. I think the AAA is going to be just fine.
They halfheartedly clapped when the SJW battle mantra was spoken, big deal. One would actually expect more applause and cheering at a meeting full of SJWs. SJW groups tend not to last too long. They self implode. Atheists+ being the classic example.
__________________
"How long you live, how high you fly
The smiles you'll give, and tears you'll cry
And all you touch, and all you see
Is all your life will ever be."
qayak is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd January 2019, 12:51 PM   #221
banquetbear
Graduate Poster
 
banquetbear's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,545
Originally Posted by qayak View Post
That's another lie. You and a couple others have made it out as justification for his being asked to stop his set even though the only reason given was the joke. You go on to insist that you can read the organiser's mind and what she really meant was [insert BS reason here].
...maybe I misunderstood you. You said "It all happened later so cannot be the cause."

What was it you meant by "it?" What was it exactly that "happened later" and how could it not have been "the cause?"

Quote:
Well, that's true.
Of course its true.

Quote:
And everyone who comments on a Facebook page is a troll?
Not my claim.

Quote:
Most are?
Not my claim.

Quote:
What about the very odd one that was in favour of his being kicked off, troll or no troll?
I'm sure there are plenty of people on the AAA facebook page that were not in favour of Patel getting kicked off stage that weren't trolls. And there are plenty of people on the AAA facebook page that were not in favour of Patel getting kicked off stage but don't belong to AAA and don't even live in the same state. Unless you can quantify exactly how many of the comments came from people in some way affiliated with either AAA or the school then then on what basis are you speculating membership numbers and support?

Quote:
Your reasoning has been this lame through the entire thread.
ROFL!

Quote:
You try to shoot down a fact with an assertion, blissfully unaware that your assertion shoots down your own argument.
You seem blissfully unaware of what my actual arguments are. Because you continue to assume what I'm saying rather than reading what I've actually said.

Quote:
Were the Columbia students who went to Patel's next show and apologised to him Facebook trolls? Are all the articles written in support of him, and countering the claim that the joke was racist, or homophobic, authored by internet trolls as well?
Strawman.

Quote:
They halfheartedly clapped when the SJW battle mantra was spoken, big deal. One would actually expect more applause and cheering at a meeting full of SJWs. SJW groups tend not to last too long. They self implode. Atheists+ being the classic example.
Your mistake is assuming (once again making unwarranted assumptions) that the audience was full of SJW's. I'm a registered Social Justice Warrior. Its an exclusive club. If you want to claim the audience was "full of SJW's" I'd have to see their membership cards.
banquetbear is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd January 2019, 12:53 PM   #222
banquetbear
Graduate Poster
 
banquetbear's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,545
Originally Posted by Ron_Tomkins View Post
It couldn't be more obvious that they had nothing else to say.
...it couldn't be more obvious that it wouldn't have been constructive to say any more, that the best course of action to get Patel off-stage quickly was to let him have his say and then let him get off stage.
banquetbear is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd January 2019, 03:12 PM   #223
qayak
Penultimate Amazing
 
qayak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 13,334
Originally Posted by banquetbear View Post
...maybe I misunderstood you. You said "It all happened later so cannot be the cause."

What was it you meant by "it?" What was it exactly that "happened later" and how could it not have been "the cause?"
Really? You're not the Amazing Kreskin? Funny, you claimed to have psychically figured out what everyone else meant, despite what they actually said, from Patel and the woman who interrupted him, to everyone you respond to in this thread.

By "it", and as I have stated many times, I refer to the claims about Patel's behaviour in the video.

Quote:
Of course its true.
Which leads to the question: Which one do you identify as, a racist, a homophobe, or a SWJ who has completely lost the plot?

Quote:
Not my claim.
Never said it was.

Quote:
Not my claim.
Again, never said it was. Nice dodge too. You would have managed to avoid the contradiction in your reasoning except that I bring it up again: If internet trolls have figured out how to post on Facebook as you claim, how do you know which posters are trolls and which aren't? Is this another Kreskin like trick or do you just figure anyone who isn't echoing your SJW dogma is a troll?

Quote:
I'm sure there are plenty of people on the AAA facebook page that were not in favour of Patel getting kicked off stage that weren't trolls. And there are plenty of people on the AAA facebook page that were not in favour of Patel getting kicked off stage but don't belong to AAA and don't even live in the same state.
So you discount them but not the SJW author who wrote the article you quoted who does not belong to the AAA?

Quote:
Unless you can quantify exactly how many of the comments came from people in some way affiliated with either AAA or the school then then on what basis are you speculating membership numbers and support?
You are having trouble with the English language again. One has nothing to do wih the other as I stated. (For your edification: I mentioned wanting to see their membership numbers BECAUSE Facebook is not an accurate indicator of the fallout from the incident.)

Maybe you better get your reading, and Kreskin, skills recalibrated.

Quote:
ROFL!
First coherent thing you've said. It doesn't shed any light on the subject but it is understandable.

Quote:
You seem blissfully unaware of what my actual arguments are. Because you continue to assume what I'm saying rather than reading what I've actually said.
And then your right back to incoherent. If you think your point is being misread, you should try clarifying it.

Quote:
Strawman.
I don't think that word means what you think it means.

Quote:
Your mistake is assuming (once again making unwarranted assumptions) that the audience was full of SJW's. I'm a registered Social Justice Warrior. Its an exclusive club. If you want to claim the audience was "full of SJW's" I'd have to see their membership cards.
There is evidence that audience was filled with SJWs. The fact that he lost the audience immediately following the black/gay joke is an serious indicator. The fact that some people cheered when the woman claimed the joke was racist is another indicator. Unless of course your claim is that they aren't SWJs who have lost the plot but racists and homophobes . . . but then one would have to wonder why racists and homophobes would be upset with someone who they say told a racist and homophobic joke.

Maybe you'd like to try again after recalibration?
__________________
"How long you live, how high you fly
The smiles you'll give, and tears you'll cry
And all you touch, and all you see
Is all your life will ever be."

Last edited by qayak; 2nd January 2019 at 03:13 PM.
qayak is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd January 2019, 03:17 PM   #224
qayak
Penultimate Amazing
 
qayak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 13,334
Originally Posted by banquetbear View Post
...it couldn't be more obvious that it wouldn't have been constructive to say any more . . .
Oh, yeah, it could be waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay more obvious.
__________________
"How long you live, how high you fly
The smiles you'll give, and tears you'll cry
And all you touch, and all you see
Is all your life will ever be."
qayak is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd January 2019, 03:40 PM   #225
Mumbles
Philosopher
 
Mumbles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 6,768
Originally Posted by qayak View Post
There is evidence that audience was filled with SJWs. The fact that he lost the audience immediately following the black/gay joke is an serious indicator. The fact that some people cheered when the woman claimed the joke was racist is another indicator. Unless of course your claim is that they aren't SWJs who have lost the plot but racists and homophobes . . . but then one would have to wonder why racists and homophobes would be upset with someone who they say told a racist and homophobic joke.
I'd consider this paragraph an "indicator" that SJW is still nothing mor than a meaningless sneer term.
Mumbles is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd January 2019, 03:59 PM   #226
banquetbear
Graduate Poster
 
banquetbear's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,545
Originally Posted by qayak View Post
Really? You're not the Amazing Kreskin? Funny, you claimed to have psychically figured out what everyone else meant, dispite what they actually said, from Patel and the woman who interrupted him, to everyone you respond to in this thread.
...nope. I'm not the Amazing Kreshkin. This is the Amazing Kreshkin.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kreskin

Just to let you know: Kreshkin isn't psychic. He doesn't claim to be psychic. So if I was the Amazing Kreshkin I wouldn't be claiming to have psychically figured out what everyone else meant.

Quote:
By "it", and as I have stated many times, I refer to the claims about Patel's behaviour in the video.
So "Patel's behavior in the video happened later so cannot be the cause."

Patel's behavior happened later than what? Patel's behavior could not have been the cause of what?

Quote:
Which leads to the question: Which one do you identify as, a racist, a homophobe, or a SWJ who has completely lost the plot?
None of those things.

Quote:
Never said it was.

Again, never said it was. Nice dodge too.
There is no dodging going on.

Quote:
You would have managed to avoid the contradiction in your reasoning except that I bring it up again: If internet trolls have figured out how to post on Facebook as you claim, how do you know which posters are trolls and which aren't? Is this another Kreskin like trick or do you just figure anyone who isn't echoing your SJW dogma is a troll?
Welcome to the ******* internet. You've been on these forums since 2006? You are aware that the moderators here choose not to moderate trolling because the distinction between "trolling" and "not trolling" all comes down to a matter of subjective interpretation?

I never stated that every comment on the facebook page was a troll. I asked a rhetorical question: "Because internet trolls haven't figured out how to make comments on a facebook page right?" Because the assumption that "Going by their Facebook page, support for them has been almost zero" is (yet again) another stupid assumption for a number of reasons that I've elucidated in this and my previous posts. Trolling is simply the most obvious reason.

You even accused me of trolling even though none of my posts fit the characteristics of what most would regard as a "troll." So how do I figure out which posts are a troll? The same way you did.

Quote:
So you discount them but not the SJW author who wrote the article you quoted who does not belong to the AAA?
In regards to speculating on membership numbers and support, yeah I do discount them.

Quote:
You are having trouble with the English language again. One has nothing to do wih the other as I stated. (For your edification: I mentioned wanting to see their membership numbers BECAUSE Facebook is not an accurate indicator of the fallout from the incident.)

Maybe you better get your reading, and Kreskin, skills recalibrated.
You stated "Going by their Facebook page, support for them has been almost zero." Facebook is clearly a metric you used to determine that support for them has been almost zero. It's literally what you wrote.

Quote:
First coherent thing you've said. It doesn't shed any light on the subject but it is understandable.
LOL.

Quote:
And then your right back to incoherent. If you think your point is being misread, you should try clarifying it.
I've been clarifying my posts for you the entire thread. I asked you a question. It was your inability to answer that question that landed us where we are now.

Quote:
I don't think that word means what you think it means.
Of course I do.

Quote:
There is evidence that audience was filled with SJWs.
You need to define "SJW" first. Its commonly understood that to be a SJW you need to be registered to the International Society for the Advancement of Social Justice Warriors. You need to be registered. You need an ID card. Were anyone in the audience registered SJW's?

Quote:
The fact that he lost the audience immediately following the black/gay joke is an serious indicator.
The fact that he lost the audience immediately following the black/gay joke is a serious indicator that maybe the audience didn't find the joke funny.

Quote:
The fact that some people cheered when the woman claimed the joke was racist is another indicator. Unless of course your claim is that they aren't SWJs who have lost the plot but racists and homophobes . . . but then one would have to wonder why racists and homophobes would be upset with someone who they say told a racist and homophobic joke.
Humor is subjective. Not finding something funny does not make you racist nor does it make you a homophobe.

Quote:
Maybe you'd like to try again after recalibration?
I'm good thanks.
banquetbear is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd January 2019, 05:00 PM   #227
AlaskaBushPilot
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 4,160
A police state is not successful because it employs a large force of police.

It is by turning the entire populace into police: reporting every state crime, especially thought crimes. Jokes are really dangerous to thought control freaks.

I'll be retiring in a free country so it isn't that much of an issue to me although it would have been really nice to see my kids grow up in a free America. But we're gettin' on the boat as soon as the law says I am retired.

It is absolutely amazing to see the difference in the vast majority of the world, where being a fat old white guy especially - it's like being Elvis Presley.

In some corners of the world they'll execute you for what is legal possession of pot in many states. So you cut that out of your life. But it is a small price to pay. An armed security guard, a body guard, is about $8 a day. You'll need that too, but talk about being King for pocket change...

Slavery ended a century and a half ago in America. By half a century ago we had a civil rights movement that not only cleaned up the vestiges of Jim Crow, but gave us gay pride marches, the anti-war movement, eventually the Church Committee and spying on Americans, etc.

Feminism, I didn't know what to think as it angrily unfurled itself calling me, a child, hateful names and condemning me just like Old Testament Adam and Eve with the Original Sin. Burning the Bras - what the heck was being protested? They bought them voluntarily, invented and produced by men for women, and of all people who would love to see naked tits - it's men! So how is giving it up a "protest"?

Draft Protesters were burning draft cards over being sent to die in vain... so I guess women had to burn something too. Ironic, but the arbitrariness of feminism is just as important as the arbitrariness over speech. Orwell taught us all this in the 1940's.

The control of language already began in my childhood of the early 1960's. To prove we were not racists, only blacks could say "******". That was the first nationwide form of censorship I recall. But the women were pushing hard for a Victorian Era list of censoring men's speech while at the same time being extremely vulgar themselves to prove their liberation. Telling good office jokes could now get you fired, unless you were a woman.

The marching with the pussy hats is nothing new. In the 60's it was running around topless, "free love", drugs, and at the same time calling men "male chauvenist pigs" for noticing their near-naked bodies. Telling jokes transformed from fun to censored speech in gradual corners of culture until it is now run completely amok.

It was strange growing up to see the media creating this war between men and women, yet the girls I grew up with had no animosity whatsoever. Keeping them from kissing you was more of a problem than feminism. I never knew a feminist my age until they got to be adults. It was something that took a lifetime of training, indoctrination, day after day after day.

I've seen a lifetime of it. You cannot watch anything out of Hollywood now. No television or live performances. It is all censored. Old movies will come under attack just like statues are being pulled down. Orwell explained the State has to re-write history. They make you an "Unperson" for not complying. Erase your existence.

Everyone who complies has an oppressively dull, drab, monotonous existence of abject conformity.

I'd rather risk being shot to live free.
AlaskaBushPilot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd January 2019, 05:05 PM   #228
mgidm86
Philosopher
 
mgidm86's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 5,274
Quote:
Patel joked that being gay cannot be a choice because "no one looks in the mirror and thinks, 'this black thing is too easy, let me just add another thing to it.'"
That's it? That's the offensive joke? I've heard the "why would someone choose to be gay" line before used by people debating whether or not homosexuality is something that can be cured. I'm sure I've used it.

But ya I see, now it's, "Who says being gay is a bad thing?" Or being black for that matter. Well being either one sure sounds like a pain in the ass to me, which was the point of the comedian.

I read the news and see how these groups of people are sometimes treated, and I'm glad I don't have to put up with that crap. What's wrong with saying that? I would not choose to be gay or black in this country, or most others.

A comedian got kicked out of a college comedy act for that? The Ministry Of Overly Offensive Jokes?

George Carlin would have been a shoe salesman today.
__________________
Franklin understands certain kickbacks you obtain unfairly are legal liabilities; however, a risky deed's almost never detrimental despite extra external pressures.
mgidm86 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd January 2019, 05:17 PM   #229
mumblethrax
Species traitor
 
mumblethrax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 2,228
Originally Posted by AlaskaBushPilot View Post
It is absolutely amazing to see the difference in the vast majority of the world, where being a fat old white guy especially - it's like being Elvis Presley.
Meaning they'll let fat old white guys **** fourteen-year-olds, develop truly prodigious drug habits, and die on the toilet?

[picture of a bald eagle with a tear in its eye]
mumblethrax is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd January 2019, 05:18 PM   #230
banquetbear
Graduate Poster
 
banquetbear's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,545
Originally Posted by mgidm86 View Post
That's it?
...nope. That wasn't "it." For greater context read the entire thread.
banquetbear is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd January 2019, 05:41 PM   #231
qayak
Penultimate Amazing
 
qayak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 13,334
Originally Posted by banquetbear View Post
.Just to let you know: Kreshkin isn't psychic.
And neither are you. His show hinged on him "knowing" people's thoughts though. You seem to think you know people's thoughts.


Quote:
So "Patel's behavior in the video happened later so cannot be the cause."

Patel's behavior happened later than what? Patel's behavior could not have been the cause of what?
The cause of your reading difficulties.

Quote:
None of those things.
We can wait for you to figure it out.

Quote:
There is no dodging going on.
That's your whole routine. You insist there are times when the joke would be offensive but refuse to say if those conditions were met at the AAA show.

Quote:
Welcome to the ******* internet. You've been on these forums since 2006? You are aware that the moderators here choose not to moderate trolling because the distinction between "trolling" and "not trolling" all comes down to a matter of subjective interpretation?
So you're suggesting it's the ISF moderator's fault that SJWs took offense at Patel's non-offensive joke?

Quote:
I never stated that every comment on the facebook page was a troll. I asked a rhetorical question: "Because internet trolls haven't figured out how to make comments on a facebook page right?"
You used that to argue against a point that was of your own making. Something you do a lot of.

Quote:
Because the assumption that "Going by their Facebook page, support for them has been almost zero" is (yet again) another stupid assumption for a number of reasons that I've elucidated in this and my previous posts. Trolling is simply the most obvious reason.
The stupid, it burns! The only evidence available is their Facebook page and by that the support is pretty low.

Quote:
You even accused me of trolling even though none of my posts fit the characteristics of what most would regard as a "troll." So how do I figure out which posts are a troll? The same way you did.
I never claimed everyone on Facebook should be disregarded because they are trolls, you did. We do not use the same criteria. I know a troll when they post because they are completely uninformed about the subject they comment on. They do things like ask for citations for videos that were already posted and insist the citation isn't where people say it is, and then claim the person wasn't prompt enough in providing it.

Quote:
In regards to speculating on membership numbers and support, yeah I do discount them.
So you discount membership numbers. Good insight. Why would you discount membership numbers as an indicator of how popular an organization is?

Quote:
You stated "Going by their Facebook page, support for them has been almost zero." Facebook is clearly a metric you used to determine that support for them has been almost zero. It's literally what you wrote.
No, it's not. That was the second sentence in a complete thought. You know how you complained that Patel wouldn't wait for someone to finish another sentence, or spoke over their second sentence? You're worse. You get both sentences and then disregard one to make things fit your SWJ narrative.

Quote:
LOL.
Your second cohertent thought of the day. You should keep your entire post that short.

Quote:
I've been clarifying my posts for you the entire thread. I asked you a question. It was your inability to answer that question that landed us where we are now.
Actually no. It was your inability, or obstinant refusal, to understand simple English.

Quote:
Of course I do.
Well, that makes sense.

Quote:
You need to define "SJW" first. Its commonly understood that to be a SJW you need to be registered to the International Society for the Advancement of Social Justice Warriors. You need to be registered. You need an ID card. Were anyone in the audience registered SJW's?
SJW is someone who puts idiology above evidence when it comes to social issues.

Quote:
The fact that he lost the audience immediately following the black/gay joke is a serious indicator that maybe the audience didn't find the joke funny.
Except he wasn't kicked off for being funny. He was kicked off for being racist and homophobic. You can hear that same joke in a couple other citations I made. In the TEDTalk one the entire audience laughed. So the joke is funny enough but he may have messed it up with his delivery. Kicking a comedian offstage because a joke wasn't funny is like firing an artist because they don't hold the brush the way you want, or a mechanic because he used a wrench instead of a socket to tighten a bolt.

Quote:
Humor is subjective. Not finding something funny does not make you racist nor does it make you a homophobe.
Telling a joke that isn't funny doesn't make you racist or homophobic either and yet that is what the organiser of the event claimed, and what their statement reinforces.

And that is the entire point.
__________________
"How long you live, how high you fly
The smiles you'll give, and tears you'll cry
And all you touch, and all you see
Is all your life will ever be."
qayak is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd January 2019, 06:08 PM   #232
qayak
Penultimate Amazing
 
qayak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 13,334
Originally Posted by mgidm86 View Post
George Carlin would have been a shoe salesman today.
If George Carlin ever performed for that crowd they wouldn't be paying hundreds of thousands of dollars for an education, it would go for psycho-therapy.
__________________
"How long you live, how high you fly
The smiles you'll give, and tears you'll cry
And all you touch, and all you see
Is all your life will ever be."
qayak is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd January 2019, 07:20 PM   #233
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 45,647
Ah here I thought we would be defending Loius CK now about how Asian Man is a contradiction in terms.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd January 2019, 07:36 PM   #234
banquetbear
Graduate Poster
 
banquetbear's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,545
Originally Posted by qayak View Post
And neither are you.
...I've never claimed to have been psychic.

Quote:
The cause of your reading difficulties.
If you aren't going to answer my perfectly reasonable request for clarification then I'm going to have to assume that my original interpretation of your response was accurate, and that my answer "Nobody has claimed it was the cause" is correct, and I did not lie.

Quote:
We can wait for you to figure it out.
No need to wait. I've figured it out already.

Quote:
That's your whole routine. You insist there are times when the joke would be offensive but refuse to say if those conditions were met at the AAA show.
Because "offensive" is subjective, not objective. It isn't "conditional."

Quote:
So you're suggesting it's the ISF moderator's fault that SJWs took offense at Patel's non-offensive joke?
Nope.

Quote:
You used that to argue against a point that was of your own making. Something you do a lot of.
Nope.

Quote:
The stupid, it burns! The only evidence available is their Facebook page and by that the support is pretty low.
"Going by their Facebook page, support for them has been almost zero" are your words. You own the stupidity of those words.

Quote:
I never claimed everyone on Facebook should be disregarded because they are trolls, you did.
I never made this claim.

Quote:
We do not use the same criteria. I know a troll when they post because they are completely uninformed about the subject they comment on.
This does not fit the normal definition of "a troll." Where did you get this definition?

Quote:
They do things like ask for citations for videos that were already posted and insist the citation isn't where people say it is, and then claim the person wasn't prompt enough in providing it.
I didn't originally ask for a citation for a video that was already posted. I asked for evidence of something you said, you directed me back to one of my cites, I said I couldn't find what you claimed was there in my cite and asked for clarification, and things went downhill from there. No trolling.

Quote:
So you discount membership numbers.
Nope. I discount posts on facebook from people not do not attend the university and are not likely to be able to join the AAA. Have you lost track of the conversation already?

Quote:
Good insight. Why would you discount membership numbers as an indicator of how popular an organization is?
I wouldn't and I didn't.

Quote:
No, it's not. That was the second sentence in a complete thought. You know how you complained that Patel wouldn't wait for someone to finish another sentence, or spoke over their second sentence? You're worse. You get both sentences and then disregard one to make things fit your SWJ narrative.
I'm not a SWJ. I'm an SJW. The SWJ's are an entirely different kettle of fish. So lets look at "your complete thought."

"What would be interest is to see the response to the AAA in regard to support and membership numbers since the incident. Going by their Facebook page, support for them has been almost zero."

There is no indication there at all that you were skeptical of what has been posted on their facebook page. I stand by my original statement.


Quote:
Your second cohertent thought of the day. You should keep your entire post that short.
LOL

Quote:
Actually no. It was your inability, or obstinant refusal, to understand simple English.
I'm understanding everything perfectly fine.

Quote:
Well, that makes sense.
It sure does.

Quote:
SJW is someone who puts idiology above evidence when it comes to social issues.
And you can tell that people put "ideology over evidence" because they didn't laugh at a joke? And you call me Kreshkin?

Quote:
Except he wasn't kicked off for being funny.
All we can tell from "the fact that he lost the audience immediately following the black/gay joke" is that they probably didn't find the joke funny. We can't tell that the audience was full of "SJW's."

Quote:
He was kicked off for being racist and homophobic.
This is not the case. Here is the official statement from the AAA. You may have read it. I've posted it before.

https://www.facebook.com/ColumbiaAAA...7658?__tn__=-R

Originally Posted by the AAA
Next, we want to address the performance of Nimesh Patel. His remarks did not align with the mission and message of Asian American Alliance and cultureSHOCK.

...

Patel’s remarks ran counter to the inclusive spirit and integrity of cultureSHOCK and as such, the choice was made to invite him to leave.
Quote:
You can hear that same joke in a couple other citations I made. In the TEDTalk one the entire audience laughed. So the joke is funny enough but he may have messed it up with his delivery.
Humor is subjective. What part of that are you struggling to understand?

Quote:
Kicking a comedian offstage because a joke wasn't funny is like firing an artist because they don't hold the brush the way you want, or a mechanic because he used a wrench instead of a socket to tighten a bolt.
Kicking a comedian offstage because "their remarks ran counter to the inclusive spirit and integrity" of the event he was speaking at sounds exactly what the organizer of an event should do.

Quote:
Telling a joke that isn't funny doesn't make you racist or homophobic either and yet that is what the organiser of the event claimed, and what their statement reinforces.
The organizer never claimed Patel was racist or homophobic. Their statement does not reinforce this false claim.

Quote:
And that is the entire point.
The point is you don't understand what is going on?
banquetbear is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd January 2019, 08:20 PM   #235
qayak
Penultimate Amazing
 
qayak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 13,334
Originally Posted by ponderingturtle View Post
Ah here I thought we would be defending Loius CK now about how Asian Man is a contradiction in terms.
What do you make of the fact that the crowd at that venue is said to have thoroughly enjoyed his set? Do you suppose people who go to comedy clubs go there to have a laugh and get a break from PC BS or do you think they go there to look for reasons to be offended?
__________________
"How long you live, how high you fly
The smiles you'll give, and tears you'll cry
And all you touch, and all you see
Is all your life will ever be."
qayak is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd January 2019, 10:16 PM   #236
Mumbles
Philosopher
 
Mumbles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 6,768
Originally Posted by ponderingturtle View Post
Ah here I thought we would be defending Loius CK now about how Asian Man is a contradiction in terms.
I'm assuming that discussion will show up later...

Originally Posted by qayak View Post
What do you make of the fact that the crowd at that venue is said to have thoroughly enjoyed his set? Do you suppose people who go to comedy clubs go there to have a laugh and get a break from PC BS or do you think they go there to look for reasons to be offended?
Change your set for your venue.

College kids may see the whole "you're a bunch of SJWs" as an attack on them, rather than any sort of clever comedy.

In most cases, they're right, as your many mosts above have illustrated.

And while the back-and-forth is confused, I still see no clear reason to move from my own initial view. The comedian bombed, and whined afterwards. Okay, fine, his right. I see no reason to care, or to view it as an example of anything.

(and BTW, I'm amused that your own definition of "SJW" - "someone who puts ideology above evidence when it comes to social issues. " matches you as much as anyone else. Three guesses as to why.)
Mumbles is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd January 2019, 12:28 AM   #237
mumblethrax
Species traitor
 
mumblethrax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 2,228
My favorite moment from the Joe Rogan interview was Patel saying "I didn't bomb! I wasn't bombing for 60%, 70% of the set!" or something to that effect. It's like claiming you didn't fail because you got an A on most of the test.

I keep wondering how he would fare down the street....

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE
mumblethrax is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd January 2019, 01:08 AM   #238
qayak
Penultimate Amazing
 
qayak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 13,334
Originally Posted by Mumbles View Post
Change your set for your venue.
So the unoffensive joke was offensive. I really wish you people would make up your mind.

Quote:
College kids may see the whole "you're a bunch of SJWs" as an attack on them, rather than any sort of clever comedy.
Citation needed.

Quote:
In most cases, they're right, as your many mosts above have illustrated.
I don't make my living as a comedian so I guess they messed up on that part.

Quote:
And while the back-and-forth is confused, I still see no clear reason to move from my own initial view. The comedian bombed, and whined afterwards. Okay, fine, his right. I see no reason to care, or to view it as an example of anything.
That claim was disproved by every piece of evidence cited.

Quote:
and BTW, I'm amused that your own definition of "SJW" - "someone who puts ideology above evidence when it comes to social issues. " matches you as much as anyone else. Three guesses as to why.)
Do tell! What evidence did I ignore? I took all the witnesses at their word, unlike you who requires them all to be lying or meaning something completely counter to what their words said. But that is your history on the ISF, isn't it?
__________________
"How long you live, how high you fly
The smiles you'll give, and tears you'll cry
And all you touch, and all you see
Is all your life will ever be."
qayak is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd January 2019, 01:15 AM   #239
cullennz
Embarrasingly illiterate
 
cullennz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,009
Maybe the best idea is for comedians who do colleges should run every joke in their set past a group of student SJW representatives a few days before and they can take out all the ones they don't like, maybe suggest a few ones about cats in to fill in the gaps.

Problem solved.
__________________
I generally oppose gun control, but I support the ban on assault weapons and I support a slightly longer waiting period to purchase a gun. With today’s Internet technology we should be able to tell within 72-hours if a potential gun owner has a record.

Source: The America We Deserve, by Donald Trump, p.102 , Jul 2, 2000
cullennz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd January 2019, 06:58 AM   #240
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 45,647
Originally Posted by qayak View Post
What do you make of the fact that the crowd at that venue is said to have thoroughly enjoyed his set? Do you suppose people who go to comedy clubs go there to have a laugh and get a break from PC BS or do you think they go there to look for reasons to be offended?
Apparently they go there for public masturbators instead of on the subway where they belong.

ANd of course there is nothing wrong with a good old fashioned minstral show, those were loved for 150 years until the SJW's put a stop to them.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:18 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.