Essay talk:Allen G. Thurman, Chuck Schumer, and the perpetuation of Jim Crow racism

Do you understand why you have a topic ban 06:24, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

This conversation back in all things in moderation should sum it up:
 * Me: you have a history of sharing poor sources, or you're not very good at using reliable sources to support your arguments, which in turn are weak arguments
 * You: LeftyGreenMario, the articles I created prior to the topic-ban implementation were largely sourced with unbiased websites. ("I completely missed the part where LGM said "you're not good at using reliable sources") 07:37, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The already-evident process of leftist heads exploding, attributed to the induced cognitive dissonance caused by reading facts, indicates more essays are in need of being written. Not bad... Ushit the dipshit (talk) 15:16, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Guess you gave up the rest of what little intellectual honesty you had. 20:09, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * No specific points to offer and merely assailing at a supposed lack of intellectual honesty? Pitiful. Ushit the dipshit (talk) 20:28, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * You have entire saloon bar posts refuting your points. They're still applicable here. I don't need to offer specific points. 20:32, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Ah, the vain effort to construe (or in this scenario, misconstrue) separate topics; the fact remains you have offered no refuting points pertaining to the essay on the corresponding talk page here. The implication that the essay is false, deceitful, misleading, deceptive, ad infinitum proceeds with the assumption of something, somewhere not being truthful. And yet you fail to get to address specific points nor do you emphasize any hard facts, because of course you don't need to. Observing your moderator status, I am almost conflicted over whether your bizarre argument style is a pejorative stereotype of or merely representative of RationalWiki as a whole, er, mob. You did, after all, act as a self-appointed de facto spokesperson for RationalWiki by hanging up the banner stating the essay conflicts with RationalWiki consensus. Ushit the dipshit (talk) 21:01, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * You lost me when you said "And as the cries by leftists of "sedition" against the GOP have come, so do the continuous flails labeling Republicans as architects of Jim Crow." What the fuck are you babbling about? I didn't read the rest of the screed after that sentence. —cosmikdebris talk stalk 21:08, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Election fraud allegations, which caused the Capitol riot Trump faced impeachment over, had also prompted legislative efforts to secure elections in the aftermath of the 2020 presidential race. And cries by leftists of alleged "Jim Crow" have come about hurled endlessly at enacted bills of several GOP-controlled states seeking the prevention of election fraud. Ushit the dipshit (talk) 21:31, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Your essay rehashes the same points. It's not rocket science to figure this out. The precedent for the Belknap impeachment was the ability to try people after they're out of office, not because the trial was done by racists. It's a massive disingenuous stretch to then conclude that "The Democrats did things in the past that contradict what Democrats are doing today. Ain't that ironic?? They're the white supremacists. Libs owned."


 * The points you're rehashing include here, in case people forget; take note of the criticisms, "consensus disputed" is supported:
 * "The revisionist fiction of Joy Reid": you disputing that "Past racist KKK Democrats were right-wing!!!11"
 * "Left-wing segregationists": you arguing that a school holding an event for POC attendants is "segregation"
 * "Reality check for right-wing populists" - Racist guy laments about an act that supports immigrants without realizing there were more racist acts in the past being past!?!?!?
 * Talk page of one of your other essays
 * 21:36, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

"And cries by leftists of alleged "Jim Crow" have come about hurled endlessly at enacted bills of several GOP-controlled states seeking the prevention of election fraud."
 * Do you believe these bills are legitimate? 21:37, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * You're excessively veering off-topic in respect to the main points in the essay itself. Ushit the dipshit (talk) 23:01, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * No I am not. You accused the Democrats right in this essay on perpetuating white supremacy while you're disputing their accusations of Republicans for perpetuating racism ("continuous flails labeling Republicans as architects of Jim Crow"). Do you support the post 2020 election bills then? Why do you not believe that bills by GOP-controlled states are perpetuating Jim Crow/racism? 23:17, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * LeftyGreenMario, you evidently are not even paying attention. The essay's main emphasis pertains to Thurman, Schumer, and the cited argument used to advocate the impeachment of Trump. Not about controversies surrounding election bills. Ushit the dipshit (talk) 23:36, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

I've actually read the essay. If you want a summary: the Democrats want to impeach Trump for high crimes, and they cited precedent for the Belknap impeachment due to it being an impeachment trial that was practiced after the person left office. The motivations for that Belknap impeachment trial were highly suspect and probably to promote gross racism (and you fixate a lot on Thurman's beliefs here, but, like, that's not that relevant to your argument, it's just there to pad the essay), but the trial itself was performed, completed and was precedent to demonstrate you can do these trials. Why does this need an essay? This isn't evidence that modern Democrats are perpetuating white supremacy. This isn't a good counter to the claims that Republicans perpetuate modern racism. The allegations of racist Republicans are at least backed by multiple efforts by multiple Republican-led states to restrict voting:. This isn't a reason to oppose impeachment of Trump. What I said, you're using facts, yes, but you're stopping there and believing that's simply enough and you can trot out garbage interpretation of facts and defend your claims with weak "Well I cited facts", which doesn't even address the criticisms being made. 22:39, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I found sources bolstering my arguments while you unfortunately can't. Ushit the dipshit (talk) 23:01, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * You can't even really process my own words. If this isn't clear, I'm only reading your essay, reading your own sources, and finding out your sources don't really stack up with what you're saying. I'm using your own sources against YOU. I suggest going over and rereading... basically everything I said because you evidently didn't. You're basically supporting the very last sentence of my comment. 23:17, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh, I can process my own words alright. It still remains you are unable to bolster your own claims with sources (pitiful!). And if the fact that contemporary Democratic arguments are cited from a leading white supremacist doesn't trouble you due to the mere grounds the Belknap impeachment was pushed through to final congressional votes, it says more of you than it does of me. A process being successfully rammed through does not alone determine its validity on moral grounds for the purpose of deciding whether it is to be cited as precedent. Ushit the dipshit (talk) 23:36, 30 December 2021 (UTC)