Saturday, August 25, 2012

An Expert At Brandishing the Double Standard

From Crossroads:
From a comment following a post titled "Is Connie Chastain a Rainbow Confederate?"  July 23, 2012

(Quoting Connie Chastain): Link to where I have depicted the Confederacy  as a diverse society, culturally and racially tolerant. Link to ANY statements of mine that argue that the Confederacy was really about “fighting hate” or “fighting racism” and had nothing to do with slavery or white supremacy.

(Simpson's reply): Now here’s Connie’s problem: she’s staked out some narrow ground for herself by daring someone to post that she’s said these things. Note, however, that she does not say whether she believes in them … just that she’s not expressed them in print.


From Crossroads:
Post titled "The desperation of Some People" August 25, 2010

(Quoting Tim Kent): I had a discussion with an Arizona State University history professor who was completely sold on slavery being the only reason of the war.

(Simpson's reply): Sigh.  I have never said any such thing, as readers of this blog or my other writing know.  Note that Mr. Kent produces no proof in support of his allegation.
Now here’s Brooks D. Simpson's problem: he's staked out some narrow ground for himself by saying he has never said any such thing. Note, however, that he does not say whether he believes it … just that he has not expressed it in print.

He wants someone to provide proof in support of an allegation against him -- but didn't provide proof in his allegation of the same thing against me. 

Snicker-snack, goes the double standard...

This post about Tim Kent is a marvelous illustration of how Simpson's devious mind works. He demonstrates his willingness to use faulty logic to lie about people... Like this:

(Quoting Tim Kent): Mr. “S” insisted that the American Civil War had nothing to do with anything except the northern states being more moral and upright than the evil slave holding states.

(Simpson's reply): ... Mr. Kent.  And note your own intellectual confusion about what I’ve said.  First you said it was all about slavery; then you say it was all about Yankee superiority.

My perception is that Brooks D. Simpson is not a stupid person.  He appears, from his writings, to be of average intelligence.  He's no smarter than many of the people whose intelligence he likes to disparage because, presumably, it gives him some kind of rush -- but he's not particularly dumb, either.

So, no, I don't really doubt his intelligence. It is his integrity that's highly questionable.

But you gotta wonder about his last statement above.  How intelligent is it to play dumb in order to portray someone else as confused?  I understand he's a professer of history, not math, but you don't have to be either one to put two and two together. The superior yankee meme is part and parcel of the it-was-all-about-slavery stance.  The very reason they were "righteous" was because they fought the evil South ... over slavery.  If they'd fought only over, say, land/territory, they wouldn't be considered particularly righteous.  It is the fraudulent claim that they fought solely to free slaves that gives them their phony righteousness in the eyes of so many dupes.

For Simpson to illustrate that he can't put two and two together and come up with four, simply because doing so would validate that Mr. Kent was not being self-contradictory, is somewhat surprising.  I wonder if it just didn't occur to him how it would come across -- as his being unable to make known and logical, even obvious, connections -- or if he did know how it would look, but found it worthwhile in order to falsely disparage Mr. Kent. I also wonder if he thinks his readers are too stupid to notice his lapse in cognition.  Perhaps some of them are.  Perhaps some of them, like Simpson, don't really care, as long as the people they disagree with are portrayed in an unflattering manner.

From Crossroads:
From a comment following a post titled "Occidental  Dissent Answers Connie Chastain"  Jan 17, 2012

(Quoting Connie Chastain):  “Once again, Simpson is seeing, or purporting to see, similarities between people and the ideas they hold, for the purpose of guilt-by-association tar-smearing, while ignoring the differences, which are what’s truly important.”

(Simpson's reply): "I love how she attributes motives to me."
And I scorn how he attributes motives to Mr. Kent.  Apparently, he thinks it's perfectly fine to attribute motive, whether it's true or not, as long as its him doing it.  Not fine for anyone else, even when they are honest and accurate in their attribution.

Know what? I disagree.  I think he has more than amply demonstrated his motives and people who point out what those motives likely are not attributing motives to him -- they're simply identifying what he  has already demonstrated.

I don't know Mr. Kent, never heard of  him until today .... but the more I see of Brooks D. Simpson and his highly questionable ethics, the more disturbing it is to think of the college students whose education he has access to and authority over.... 

1 comment :

  1. Connie, this is the Mr. Kent you speak of and I can guarantee that everything I said about Mr. Simpson is true. He would like proof of the conversation, but he has long since deleted that conversation. I have only read one of his blogs, but he assumes he lives in my head. He is a legend in his own mind. Tim.


Comments are welcome, but monitored.