BrainDeath23
lol
Leftwing narratives getting destroyed
Posts
Total:
81
-->
@Theweakeredge
And MisterChris no being a racist isn't a left-winged view
Race denialism is leftwing.
Furthermore, to claim that evolution happened in everything but humans(lactose intolerance, average height, immune diseases in general etc.), or everywhere but the human brain (I.Q.), should be self-evidently absurd.
-->
@Theweakeredge
That's correct, I'm a right leaning moderate. It's weird that he considered the idea that slaves were whipped "a left-wing narrative."
-->
@MgtowDemon
Except I never claimed that, and if MisterChris did, I'm 95% sure you misunderstood his point, you seem to do that a lot. Also that fact doesn't support your argument, you have to do a lot of mental gymnastics to get even close to your positions and ignore a literal bible full of sources that say you're wrong.
-->
@MgtowDemon
But also, no its not. Admitting that racism is a thing, and calling it racism is an everybody who's actually rational thing
-->
@MgtowDemon
I don't care. You make the jump from "some people insulted me on the site and the mods didn't do anything" to "let me make a thread full of everyone I disagree with online + insults"
-->
@Sum1hugme
Right? I feel like that's a pretty universal position, maybe some white supremacists and the like don't hold it, but most people do.
-->
@Sum1hugme
It's weird that he considered the idea that slaves were whipped "a left-wing narrative."
This is not what I argued.
Clearly, the thread in question is titled "overall", which leaves room for *some* slaves being treated extremely poorly (which they were).
My argument is that overall, the vast majority of slaves were treated well, not that every, single one of them was treated well.
-->
@Theweakeredge
Except I never claimed that
I never claimed that you did. I was responding to the argument you were referring to, as it was clear you were not purporting it yourself.
and if MisterChris did, I'm 95% sure you misunderstood his point, you seem to do that a lot.
You're entitled to this wrong opinion.
Also that fact doesn't support your argument, you have to do a lot of mental gymnastics to get even close to your positions and ignore a literal bible full of sources that say you're wrong.
Anyone can write a narrative, and if there is financial incentive involved, anyone can write one that is fabricated (think reparations). That isn't to say that all these narratives are fabricated, it's that we have quotes like "all slaves were whipped", and there is no data/objective measurement to verify this. This is precisely the issue with these kinds of sources. These "sources" are narratives that are not nearly as valuable as data, hence why I asked if they had any data in them United States slaves were, overall, treated quite well (debateart.com) .
Btw, you, in response for my asking to clarify your sources, stated that it was my responsibility to check your sources, which is ridiculous argument and indicative of either (1) your laziness, or (2) the fact that you haven't read your sources (this seems likely, given your history). You also said that they couldn't have data on the topic, yet several of my sources deal with data United States slaves were, overall, treated quite well (debateart.com)
-->
@Theweakeredge
But also, no its not. Admitting that racism is a thing, and calling it racism is an everybody who's actually rational thing
Your leftwing, slanderous terms are anti-science and rational thought Using the terms "racism" and "racist" makes you look stupid (debateart.com) .
I don't care. You make the jump from "some people insulted me on the site and the mods didn't do anything" to "let me make a thread full of everyone I disagree with online + insults"
You do care because you continue to harangue over it.
Get over it.
-->
@MgtowDemon
Yes, you can't prove someone wrong unless it's through an official debate.
Why not debate?
-->
@MgtowDemon
Can you make a list of views that the left tends to disagree with?
-->
@Reece101
Can you make a list of views that the left tends to disagree with?
Capitalism, smaller government, lower taxation (or even flat tax), social hierarchies, gender duality, homogenous countries (both racial and cultural), validity of I.Q. etc.
-->
@MgtowDemon
Capitalism
This will have to boil down to policy. From my understanding most people are for a mixed economy which tends to lean left in the U.S. (ignoring hot rhetoric).
smaller government
In what way do you want smaller government? In terms of political sets, budget, regulation, or all? And in what regards?
lower taxation (or even flat tax)
I’m not sure you know what flat tax is. Flat tax doesn’t mean no tax.
“A flat tax system applies the same tax rate to every taxpayer regardless of income bracket.”
You can say its in contrast with a progressive tax (an unbiased term).
“It imposes a lower tax rate on low-income earners than on those with a higher income“
social hierarchies
This is a broad topic. Do you mean the nuclear family? Can you get into specifics?
gender duality
I don’t know what you mean exactly.
There’s a difference between sex and gender.
You might be conflating the two.
homogenous countries (both racial and cultural), validity of I.Q.
Historically intelligent civilisation have been pretty diverse and enervative in which “western civilisation” been built upon.
But no, I do not deny todays validity of the average I.Q. In various countries.
——————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————
It will be interesting to see which ones you pick to tackle or if you’ll pick to tackle them all.
-->
@MgtowDemon
innervative*
-->
@Reece101
You do realise that you asked for "a list of views that the left tends to disagree with," not leftist views I personally disagree with?
Anyway, I'll attempt to respond to your points, seeing that you went to effort of constructing them.
This will have to boil down to policy. From my understanding most people are for a mixed economy which tends to lean left in the U.S. (ignoring hot rhetoric).
Yes, I'd argue policy, rather than the label for the United States economy as a whole. It's not of consequence whether the U.S. is labelled "left" or "right", when it comes to economics. All that matters are the policies.
In what way do you want smaller government? In terms of political sets, budget, regulation, or all? And in what regards?
I think smaller government is a pipedream, and a lot of people on the right waste time speculating and postulating as to what a smaller government would manifest as. Government is not subject to relinquishing power by contracting, given that it nourishes its very existence. You'd be burdened with convincing the thing you want less powerful to become less powerful, if you wanted smaller government.
Truth be told, I've put little thought into it, further than that.
I’m not sure you know what flat tax is. Flat tax doesn’t mean no tax.
The implication within my words was that flat tax is different and more extreme (in terms of lower popular support) than lower taxation, hence the "even" signifying this extremity, not extreme in the sense that flat tax is more extreme by having non-existent tax.
For the record, flat tax isn't a good idea, due to wealthier people snowballing their wealth out of control with their surplus income.
This is a broad topic. Do you mean the nuclear family? Can you get into specifics?
Not nuclear families.
Basically, its formal recognition of people's job/social status, such as being a boss of an organisation, or having lower status as a manager. Some leftists argue that everyone should be treated in all regards, and that's what "social hierarchies" responds to.
There’s a difference between sex and gender.You might be conflating the two.
In recent times, there has been a push to have semantic distinction with these terms, in order to aid the left's push to normalise gender/sex fluidity. Currently, this distinction is formally recognised through dictionary definitions, but I believe this to be folly because what you would refer to as "sex" is genetically determined, and thus there is no room for a term such as "gender", despite the latter being formally recognised.
The left has been quite excellent at controlling language, hence why they get their way on many things.
Historically intelligent civilisation have been pretty diverse and enervative in which “western civilisation” been built upon.
I'd argue this diversity occurs prior to civilisational collapse, in that it also causes it to some degree.
-->
@Theweakeredge
What's your point?
-->
@MgtowDemon
That you have no idea what you're talking about.
-->
@Theweakeredge
Prove it.
You do realise that you asked for "a list of views that the left tends to disagree with," not leftist views I personally disagree with?
nonetheless, leftwing narratives getting destroyed? hyperbole maybe.
I’ll choose the issues you’ve decided to challenge. Hmm it seems coincidental both subjects fall under identity politics
“Social hierarchies:”
Not nuclear families.Basically, its formal recognition of people's job/social status, such as being a boss of an organisation, or having lower status as a manager. Some leftists argue that everyone should be treated in all regards, and that's what "social hierarchies" responds to.
I don’t really see much of the left arguing for tearing down management. I see quite the opposite. Worker cooperatives for example. What are your thoughts on them?
“Gender duality:”
In recent times, there has been a push to have semantic distinction with these terms, in order to aid the left's push to normalise gender/sex fluidity. Currently, this distinction is formally recognised through dictionary definitions, but I believe this to be folly because what you would refer to as "sex" is genetically determined, and thus there is no room for a term such as "gender", despite the latter being formally recognised.The left has been quite excellent at controlling language, hence why they get their way on many things
Throughout history cultures have been defining sex and gender separately. This is not a new phenomenon.
Femininity and masculinity is one clear example. It falls under gender, not sex.
What people call masculine and feminine has changed over time.
Humans like to categorise things. Sex and gender is an obvious one.
-->
@MgtowDemon
Above ^
-->
@Theweakeredge
Hey, did I ever get back to that post I said I would? If I didn't think you could direct me to it's location? Because I feel bad if I said I would and hadn't gotten to it
You did. It was I who never got back to that discussion. I will at some point this week.
9 days later
-->
@zedvictor4
Narratives are just that, Narratives. They are all opinions not based in any kind of fact. The purpose of a narrative is to indoctrinate dullards with weak minds. And as you can see they work very well on dullards with weak minds. They regurgitate the narratives verbatim.
-->
@sadolite
Very true.
-->
@David
@MgtowDemon
Banned from:11.30.2020 06:36PMBanned until:01.20.2103 06:36PMBanned by:Ban reason:Permanently banned for a body of work spewing hate speech and general toxicity.
Is "hate speech" somehow different than "ad hominem attacks"?
-->
@MgtowDemon
The mods have made it clear that they don't care about people teeing off on each other (especially since one of them engages in such behaviour), and not to do so would put me at a disadvantage.
If by "disadvantage" you mean, "appearing to be reasonable and mature", then, well, I guess?
Do you believe "appearing to be reasonable and mature" is a poor life strategy (generally)?
-->
@Username
When I say insulted I'm referring to the action (i.e. saying something r00d). Not the effect that the action has on the person receiving the insult.
Seriously?
Can an action be unintentionally insulting?
-->
@MgtowDemon
He'll take a statement and either give the worst, bad faith interpretation of it, or he'll engage in hyper-reductionism to the point where everything is meaningless.
I wonder if this statement was made in "good faith"?