> Except for the pendant comment. That's just a case of taking yourself too seriously. Yet another nail in the coffin of his credibility.
What nails? You're treating his every statement as suspect by default based on the racial, sexual and political stereotype you are projecting onto him. Judging by the admittedly superficial evidence of your post history, you are a Randian libertarian with a stereotypical dislike of women and racial minorities who claim victimhood. You must be used to people automatically classifying you by a stereotype and refusing to engage with you. If only in that respect, you're exactly like him and others whose arguments you reject offhand.
Elsewhere in this thread you explain that your skepticism is based on personal experiences. Many people reading that will assume you're lying or that your view of what happened was warped. How does that make you feel? Like a victim of stereotyping? You may even write off those people as dumb liberal motherfuckers.
It's a blog post, not a legal document, so what do you expect? I have gotten independent albeit second-hand verification of a few of the episodes. Ignoring that, I still see nothing to warrant accusations of whining and lying. People yelling 'hypocrisy' and using it as evidence against his truthfulness are looking to rationalize their gut response, nothing more. Hypocrisy may be a weighty accusation against grandstanding moralists in the public square, but it has absolutely no relevance here.
Randian libertarian? Really? No, I'm actually quite moderate. I'm a left of center person here in the U.S., and my time in the deep south has made me keenly aware of how horrible the excesses of conservatism can be. However, my time in liberal areas of the nation (northern California, Massachussetts, etc.) has shown me how horribly wrong the classic ivory tower liberalism can go also. I don't dislike people victimized by discrimination. I just dislike systems in which discrimination is fixed by more discrimination. I also recognize how horribly wrong nanny state laws can go.
Look at California's renter protections. They go way, way beyond reason in dragging out an eviction process. As a result, people who would otherwise rent out properties do not, or do so at a much higher price to ensure that only high income people move into said properties. By protecting the poor people from landlord abuses, the result is that decent poor people who pay rent are punished by the indecent poor people who abuse the system and take advantage of squatter rights. Protections always, always come with a cost, hidden or not. I don't think (like Randians do) that this cost should ALWAYS be avoided and we should all go the path of John Galt fantasy land. I just think that too often, ivory tower liberals (by this I mean people who don't work in the private sector and confine themselves to academic and gov't advisory roles) don't see the costs of the protections they chase after, or don't consult with industry to find out what they truly are.
I will be voting for Obama this November. You know, because I hate minorities and women's rights and I worship Ayn Rand.
To make my point, I was jumping to conclusions based on flimsy evidence.
> You know, because I hate minorities and women's rights and I worship Ayn Rand.
I don't believe you do any of those things. But I do believe you unfairly prejudged him on insufficient information and that someone doing the same in reverse would come to those sorts of conclusions about you.