Total posts: 5,890
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
Y’all are so out of touch with the average American. Please continue doing and saying what you are saying.
Telling us we're out of touch with the "average American" isn't a response to your hypocrisy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Additionally, while the far-left authoritarian argues that the highways south of 60th Street are state-controlled and therefore exempt from federal approval
No one said or even implied that. This is why your arguments, including the ones you didn't bother to write like this one, are always so stupid. Pay attention.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
Whats the point of workout for legs?
Depends on what your goal is. If all you care about are your arms then cool, but having some muscle groups that are well stronger than others can lead to injuries, plus off you're interested in weight management the legs use up way more energy so it helps you stay fit. Plus, do you really want chicken legs? That just looks terrible.
But other than that, go for it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
Wow, yall are cutthroat.
No, not really. The topic of this thread is the professed right wing value of each state to be able to solve its own problems without the big bad federal government stepping in, so telling me what the governor of a whole other state thinks is totally irrelevant.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Several federal roads lead into Manhattan, New York:
- Interstate 95 (I-95): This runs along the eastern edge of Manhattan (via the George Washington Bridge) and connects to the Cross Bronx Expressway.
- Interstate 87 (I-87): Connects from the north via the Major Deegan Expressway.
- U.S. Route 1 (US-1): Crosses into Manhattan via the George Washington Bridge.
- U.S. Route 9 (US-9): Runs along the western edge of Manhattan via Broadway and the Henry Hudson Parkway.
They're not "federal roads" genius
Typing words into Chatgpt and copying and pasting it back isn't a substitute for knowing what the hell you're talking about.
The first two do not go south of 60th street so they have nothing to do with it. The next do but those are not considered federal highways, they're state highways that connect to the federal system are thus receive subsidies from the government which is what makes them subject to the congestion pricing program.
No, a state cannot unilaterally apply tolls to a federal road without federal approval.
No one claimed they did or should be able to. Are you even paying attention, or is putting effort into your trolling too much to ask for?
I don't support secession...Cool, then obey the Orangeman.
Stop being stupid
Created:
-->
@WyIted
Making decisions about your body does not mean you get to do whatever you want with it, especially to and around other people.That's literally what it means.
So is it a violation of my bodily autonomy to tell me I can't stabb you?
As for you tangent at the end, it's irrelevant. It doesn't matter if it's like mask mandates.It's about whether there is consistency with the bodily autonomy argument.
How do you not see the logical contradiction in this?
To show an inconsistency you need to show how two similar examples are treated differently. If they're not simmilar to each other (as in they're not alike) then comparing them accomplishes nothing.
I am not arguing a position here. I am pointing out an inconsistency in the arguments some liberals use
Then address the counter argument I made. Don't just sit there saying "it's irrelevant" and move on.
Do you understand the difference between punishment and torture? Do you understand why that difference leads to different results with regards to how we treat people? Do you understand how that difference applies to pregnancy vs literally every other example you gave?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
Then why is Phil Murphy saying he supports the move?
Why would I care what the governor of New Jersey thinks about NYC's traffic programs?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
It's a federal road bro
They're not "federal roads" genius, the toll program is subject to federal approval because there have been a number of projects on various roads in lower Manhatten that have received federal subsidies.
do you believe in State secession or not?
They another stupid and trollish question from the most unserious person on this site. I only bother for the exercise in dealing with stupidity.
I don't support seccession, but it's a funny question to ask given that NY, like most blue states, are donor states so they send more money to the federal government than they get back. So these projects are not money just being handed to NY, it's NY getting it's own money back while donating to other (mostly red) states.
Created:
-->
@WyIted
That is not a definition of bodily autonomy that any reasonable person would use.I literally gave the definition at the beginning of the thread
And the definition you gave does not fit into the example you provided.
"*Bodily Autonomy refers to each person’s right to make decisions about their own body, without coercion or limits imposed by outside forces*"
Your argument was that being forced to cover up ones genitals violates this, it doesn't. Making decisions about your body does not mean you get to do whatever you want with it, especially to and around other people.
If you don't want to engage in that then don't leave your house. You have a choice, that's called bodily autonomy.This doesn't work for the same reason as saying "if you don't want to get pregnant don't have sex"
These are not similar examples. You're invoking a causality argument to justify adverse consequences, that has nothing to do with it. The justification for enforcing one to cover their genitals is that they are actively choosing to be in a space where they are around others and are therefore subject to the rules that apply. Pregnancy isn't an activity, nor can you cut it on and off as you choose. That's very different.
Self ownership taken to its extreme is a logical impossibility.I haven't defended self ownership in this thread or from my memory any thread.
I wasn't attacking any defense of self ownership, I was drawing the contrast for clarity.
The only actual criticism you have made but I think it fails if you consider the fetus a person because if wearing a mask to protect the health of others is fair than telling a woman to carry a baby until birth as long as it is safe to do so to save a human life seems fair.
Whether it's fair is a different question, and yes the personhood question plays a large role in that. It's why I often say that abortion debates are futile until we can agree on whether and/or at what point the fetus is a person because we will probably never see eye to eye on anything that follows till that is resolved. But what you are pointing to here is hypocrisy, which is why the self ownership vs bodily autonomy distinction is important.
In addition to the arguments I've already offered, if you are looking for the biggest reason why your mask or vaccine arguments are fundamentally different I would ask you to think about a simple question; if an inmate was suffering from a medical condition for which treatment was available and practical, would it not be incumbent upon us to provide it? The answer according to every civilized developed nation on earth is a clear yes. This is why we offer medical care to inmates.
So even in any scenario where a person's actions were deemed so egregious and so irresponsible that we found it justifiable to remove their freedom, we still do not force them to endure the suffering that comes along with any ailment within their bodies. That is the literal difference between punishment and torture.
Forcing a woman to go through the physical discomfort, pain, and risk to their own heath and life of creating another human being, when done against their will, is in fact torture on a scale well worse than what we have put some terrorists through. It's not a joke.
And what's worse is that the justification offered for this enforced torture is the fact that the woman had the audacity to engage in one of the most basic human activities there is. We are literally programmed biologically to desire sex, so punishing someone simply for giving into that desire is absurd.
And all of that is before considering the fact that it isn't even the woman who was in control, the man is the one who ultimately had to make the decision and is the one who acts out on the first step of creating a baby, so the woman's involvement in that decision is minimal at the outset.
Now I get that the issue is complicated, the counter balance if you believe in life at conception is another life so I never said it was easy, but what it is not is hypercritical. Forcing someone to use their body to make another human being is not comparable in any way at all to forcing someone to wear a mask.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
This is one of the things where cities just attack the poor.
The biggest beneficiaries from this program are buss travelers in the short term, and subway riders in the long term.
Btw a majority of newyorkers prefer to pay a reasonable amount for parking
A majority of new yorkers take public transportation. Maybe you would know that if you knew anything about this city.
Maybe instead of 1st class hotels for illegal immigrants they do lower end motels.
Also maybe instead of of prosecuting innocent mayors after they criticize Biden they save their money
These are federal charges
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IlDiavolo
Come on, you're putting it as if it were the end of the world.
No, I'm pointing out blatant right wing hypocrisy.
The only outcome of this is that there will be more congestion.
Uh, yeah, that's literally what the program was implemented to fix.
The public transport is going to be ok because the US will have more available money as a result of the work done by DOGE
The entire federal workforce accounts for 1.7% of the federal budget. That's barely more than a rounding error, and 30% of that is the military. Tell me more about DOGE will fix our budget.
Didn't you hear about USAID and all the money wasted for woke programs around the world?
I heard about all of the claims of waste fraud and abuse they found, still waiting on them to produce a single shred of evidence to support any of it. But why produce evidence when half the country will just repeat anything they say uncritically, even when we know for a fact that at least some of the BS they are spreading is false.
What's also remarkable is that even if we take their claims at face value, even they have yet to claim to have found 1% of the budget of any of the agencies they've shuttered as fraud. So they're justifying getting rid of 99% to eliminate 1%. Setting aside the fact that they're lying about the 1%, that's still absurd.
This is what I'm talking about when I say Americans are morons. I don't say it to throw ad hominems at anyone, I say it because it's objectively true. We've lost our ability to think rationally, to tell the difference between fact and fiction, and we've ceded all of that to a reality show star who just claimed Ukraine started the war with Russia. We're so fucked.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
It's such a losing issue for New York, because inevitably, it will look like...
Irrelevant. Do you believe in states rights or not? Do you believe in small federal government or not? I thought that was your shit, what happened?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
Maybe yall first need to figure it out amongst yourselves.
We did, it's been implemented already.
Do better.
Created:
Posted in:
The Trump administration is moving ahead with its plan to kill New York City’s congestion pricing – a controversial tolling program designed to help raise millions in critical infrastructure funding and decrease traffic in Manhattan’s most congested zones.
In a letter to New York Gov. Kathy Hochul on Wednesday, US Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy said the Department of Transportation would rescind the agreement, effectively ending the tolling structure which went into effect early this year.
“New York State’s congestion pricing plan is a slap in the face to working class Americans and small business owners,” Duffy wrote in his letter. “Every American should be able to access New York City regardless of their economic means. It shouldn’t be reserved for an elite few.”
Boy, I can't wait till all those small government states rights conservatives find out and demand Trump stay out of it.
Created:
-->
@WyIted
Those are completely different things. No one was pinned down and forced to get vaccinated, it was a requirement *if* you decided to join the work force and expose yourself to other people. Again, of the freedom to swing your arms ends at someone else's nose, that's perfectly consistent.??????????????????????
What part did you not understand?
It literally does violate your bodily autonomy to force you to cover your genitals in front of children
That is not a definition of bodily autonomy that any reasonable person would use.
You're talking about complying with a set of rules as a condition of being in a particular space. The violation (exposing yourself to children) is itself an action one must take. If you don't want to engage in that then don't leave your house. You have a choice, that's called bodily autonomy.
You can say "well you get to choose how your body is enslaved" but it would violate the concept of self ownership.
Self ownership taken to its extreme is a logical impossibility. The idea is that one has complete control not just over what happens within its body, but what it gets to use its body to do. So if I get to do as I wish that means I get to pick up this knife and stab you with it, an obvious violation of your right to life. Conflict is inevitable there, so it cannot exist without exceptions.
All of this is fundamentally different than forcing a woman to carry her fetus to terms. The pregnant woman doesn't have the choice to stay home to avoid having to be pregnant. She doesn't get to take it off when she gets into her car. Her condition, the thing that triggers her forceful compliance, is simply existing. Being told you must wear a mask to enter a grocery store is nothing remotely like that.
Created:
-->
@WyIted
Let's examine the bodily autonomy argument alone.
But you never did. You laid out the argument in syllogistic form, then talked about how other groups might see it. No where did you actually explain why you think the argument fails with regards to abortion, then you went on to argue why pro-choicers aren't consistent in other areas. I fail to see what this "analysis" accomplishes.
A consistent belief in bodily autonomy would not support vaccine mandates or forced mask wearing.
Those are completely different things. No one was pinned down and forced to get vaccinated, it was a requirement *if* you decided to join the work force and expose yourself to other people. Again, of the freedom to swing your arms ends at someone else's nose, that's perfectly consistent.
The mask wearing argument is too silly to even take seriously. That's like me saying it's a violation of my bodily autonomy to force me to cover up my genitals in the presence of children.
Income is derived from labor and it is income from this labor that is taxed. This means that at least some of the time you do not have the self ownership that is required to claim you have bodily autonomy. If you work 10 hours and the money from 1 of those hours goes to taxes, than the government owned your body for that hour.
Owing someone money does not = they owned your body. Your only requirement is to provide the money, how you got it is your choice. That is not comparable to telling a woman that her uterus must be utilized an in incubation chamber for another human being.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
This is what *causes* inflationRead again what I wrote. This time, try a bit better. Use AI to explain my words to you.
There is something wrong with your brain.
"printing money increases amount of money in the economy, so everyone has more money. This negates inflation and price increase."
So for short: 'Printing money negates inflation'.
"Negates" means stops, nullifies, or counteracts... That's the opposite of "causes" which is what I just finished explaining to you is actually how it works.
What part of this are you not understanding?
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
The usual stupid and meaningless response. Just what I thought.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Fairness must always require coercion by definition
The requirement of coercion to achieve fairness is a product of human nature, specifically, the fact that there will always be disagreement in any large group of human beings. It has absolutely nothing to do with the definition.
Loyalty requires the opposite of coercion. You have compliance with the use of zero force.
Except that loyalty even as Chatgpt defined it (don't think anyone here thought they were reading your words) is a personal choice. So your attempt to paint loyalty as a more viable governing foundation fails miserably.
Trump is now loyal to Maga, which is why he only hires Maga now instead of hiring non-Maga in 2016.
Trump is loyal to no one but himself. Everyone who has escaped his cult has gone on at length about it, and he had demonstrated that to all of us time and time and time again.
The reason he hired non MAGA before is because he is a moron who really thought the president could "do whatever he wanted". It never occurred to him that people would give their allegiance to the constitution because all he sees when he looks at it is a piece of paper. He is blind to the virtues it strives to actualize because as a clinical narcissist he doesn't hold those qualities.
But he's learned his lesson. He now knows that to accomplish his unconstitutional goals he needs to surround himself with the scum of the earth, just like him. So that's what he's doing.
That's not loyalty. Narcissists are not capable of that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
Lol so government decides which service you will pay for with your own money?
Correct. Google "Congress".
Also, what you missed is that government acts as irresponsible employer, employs people and pays them, thus reducing productivity.Government payed healthcare is probably the best example of such failure, but public schools are good example too, as well as many agencies government employs.
No idea what any of this means.
What you fail to understand, my dear friend, is that printing money increases amount of money in the economy, so everyone has more money. This negates inflation and price increase.
WTF???
This is what *causes* inflation. Are you really being serious? Cause again, if this is some attempt at devil's advocate it's pointless if you're stuck presenting arguments that are refuted by literal third grade economics.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
government spending by definition takes money from people.
Spending is, by definition, giving money to people.
So if you take money from people, you are going to have poorer people.
Setting aside your blatant error in logic, you're acting as if the government takes money and then throws it in the fire place. The government isn't "taking" money from taxpayers, it's using that money to pay for services to benefit those very taxpayers. And the services the government often provides are targeted towards the poor and middle class so this acts as a counter balance to the inevitable result of capitalism which is that the rich get richer while the poor get poorer. I don't know about you, but I consider that a good thing.
Any sane economist with a bit more than simple college education understands that printing money in decent amount is a more effective way than taxes.
Ok, now I know you're not being serious.
Printing money acts as a universal tax on all wealth, so top 1% are taxed on all their wealth this way.
Printing money boosts inflation, which boosts the net worth of anyone who holds financial assets. You know who holds financial assets? Wealthy people. It's not a tax on wealth, it's a tool for widening the gap between the rich and the poor.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
First, he is the only politician who is actually trying to do something better.
The difference between Trump and every president before him is that they all understood how the world works. You say Trump is trying and they didn't. Setting aside how you conclude that Trump is doing anything for any reason other than his own selfish childish petulant and narcissistic ends, the problem is that the rest of them understood this thing we call the constitution.
You see, in this pesky little document it clearly states that Congress controls the purse, so President's cannot just decide to shutter agencies by executive fiat. You might think his defiance of the constitution is a good thing, to that I would advise you to pick up a history book and take note of where this ends everywhere else it has succeeded.
Should he succeed and cut US budget by 3 or 4 trillions, Americans will become much richer
What do you think the US government does? In order to cut 3-4 trillion the government would have to cut almost every service it offers (medical research, food stamps, meals on wheels, etc) and then would have to cut into medicare and social security. Please explain how Americans b will become richer by having the programs they depend on cut.
Of course the only other big area of government spending we could really cut is defense, and yet the reporting right now is that Trump is planning to increase military spending.
Oh, and he's also planning another huge tax cut, so there goes your case that he's trying to balance the budget. The Americans who will become richer via Trump 2.0 are the top 1%. If that's the group you are advocating for just say so.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
The role of the government is to look out for the interests of the whole.In a Democracy, they look after 50.1% of the whole. That's why the government fails for so many people.
The department of defense wasn't invented to help 50.1% of the country. The department of education wasn't invented to help 50.1% of the country. The department of agriculture wasn't invented to help 50.1% of the country.
This is the problem with MAGA. Trump has so rotted your brains into thinking everything in politics is us vs them that you all forgot or are just to ignorant to have ever understood why we have a government in the first place.
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
Better for yourself? Of course. That's not the purpose of government.Someone loves government spending porn
No, someone understands civics 101.
The role of the private sector is to look out for its own individual self interests. The role of the government is to look out for the interests of the whole.
We can disagree on whether we should be spending money on X or Y, but blanket demonization on government itself, as if the private sector will suddenly fill in that gap and do what's in the best interests of the whole is egregiously ignorant.
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
I can spend my money better than the government can
Better for yourself? Of course. That's not the purpose of government.
Created:
-->
@WyIted
Not when the female is a baby though then we just murder them I guess.
Killing a baby is by definition, not abortion. Are even trying to have a serious conversation, or are you really this bad at it?
Will republicans help us figure out how to solve any of these problems? No,They already have. Read every article on Mises.org. implementing Austrian economics would turn us into a virtual utopia.
Show me a republican bill containing any of these magical solutions and we can discuss.
Created:
-->
@WyIted
You are literally brainwashed
This is called projection.
Throughout this thread I have made point after point, explained in detail, then expended on after you cherry picked it out of the group to respond to. And everytime, you have responded, not with any kind of coherent rebuttal challenging the factual premise of my argument or it's logic, but just to tell me I'm being brainwashed. You are incapable of forming an argument, probably because you know your positions are fallacious. I would respect you if you'd just admit that, but this little game where you try to save face by pretending I'm guilty of that which you are actively engaging in is just pathetic. I only engage with people like you and GP cause there's no one else here. Perhaps at some point soon there will be others who care about logic and reality that will have more to offer.
You descended from slaves
I'm a white Puerto Rican genius.
Democrats literally support abortion
"Supporting abortion" is not a thing genius. Democrats support women having control over their own bodies. That's kind of a basic right.
They support welfare which incentives single mother households as several studies support. They support increases in minimum wage which statistically have a bigger impact on black unemployment than white unemployment. They support immigration which honestly harms jobs that would normally go to blacks.
Democrats support helping people in need. Are there better ways to do so that might curb some of these issues of dependency? Sure there are. Will republicans help us figure out how to solve any of these problems? No, because republicans don't believe in the very concept of government, because republicans don't give a shit about other people. Most off what you just said is bullshit, these are talking points repeated ad nauseum because it's the excuse that people who don't give a shit about others need to repackage their inherent selfishness as virtue.
They tell you Michael Brown is an innocent victim and no imminent threat despite beating the shit out of a cop and going for his gun but you are a bit h who loves being a victim so you are like "yes daddy Obama, or Bernie I am a victim. I need you daddy"
What do you know about my position on Micheal Brown? Oh, that's right, not a damn thing, because you've never asked me.
And yet that little pesky fact doesn't stop you from going on at length about it. That should make you think, but it won't. Please snip that part and share it with your therapist so they can explain to you again how you aren't actually engaging in conversation with anyone but yourself accomplishing nothing except rehearsing your own prejudices against your old liberal self.
Get help.
You may cry because the media told you a fentanyl overdose was police brutality and your descendants will see you as the retarded nigger you are.
Wow, a full blown racist too.
Seriously, get help.
Created:
-->
@WyIted
I appreciate the effort you put into this but unfortunately I can't reciprocate.
I'm not asking you to reciprocate, I am pointing out how dishonest it is to claim that I don't back up my positions and instead try to portray me as some kind of puppet following my master. It's a lame excuse to avoid engaging in what I have to say. If you don't have time, that's perfectly fine, just say that. Hell I don't really care anyway, I have no illusions that I'm going to change your world view, I honestly just do this for the intellectual exercise.
That makes you complicit. You cannot reasonably argue the same the other way around no matter how hard you try.You really can because you are literally downplaying the riots and calling them mostly peaceful. The media did the same thing. Politicians bent the knee to that movement who was demanding crazy shit like removing funding from police .
No, you can't because this entire argument is just one big strawman.
No one is calling the riots peaceful, that doesn't even make sense.
No one is downplaying the riots. What we're actually doing and have been doing is addressing your false conflation of the riots and "the left"
Politicians didn't "bend the knee". What many did was recognize that the way we are policing our communities should be rethought. That's a common sense reaction to the fact that the people whose literal job it is to protect the public keep killing people who pose no imminent threat to anyone. That's the opposite of protect, so it is perfectly rational and reasonable to shift those funds towards addressing the root causes of why people are engaging in the activities police would have to later deal with in the first place.
And again, because this needs to be reiterated, there was no left wing figure inspiring and later excusing via official government action (pardons) the BLM riots. And if there was, that person would have been thrown out of the party. Meanwhile that is absolutely the case with J6.
So no, there is no equivalence between me telling you that your support for Trump makes you complicit in J6 (which it absolutely does), and you telling me that my left wing ideology makes me complicit in the BLM riots (because it doesn't).
Created:
-->
@WyIted
To be fair you don't usually clearly state your opinions so there is nothing to rebut.
Just thought I'd start by reposting this quote from you to note the irony of you constantly arguing that I don't back up my positions, meanwhile this is at least the second or third time in this thread alone that I've posted a multi thousand character response addressing multiple different points you made (the last post was 10 different sections) and you ignored every point I made except the one you cherry picked out of the post.
This is the projection I'm talking about.
All you literally have to do is google the Black bloc to see how they operate and see this is not about opportunism
The overwhelming majority of the people out there looting stores and burning buildings down were not in black bloc, and even for those that were, what you are wearing does not prove what your ideological (if any) motivations were. This was an extremely unique time in American history where civil unrest was taking place all over the country for a prolonged period of time, so anyone deciding to take advantage of the moment could have easily dressed the part for whatever personal motivation.
And this isn't just theoretical, google the story of the guy dressed in black wearing a mask who protested by walking up to a closed AutoZone with a hammer and breaking all of the windows right near the rest of the protesters. Except one problem... He wasn't a protester. He was an off duty police officer dressing up like the protesters so that he could cause damage that would later be blamed on BLM. And I don't even need to Google what Fox news broadcasted that evening to be pretty damn confident at least some segment of their huge audience heard the bullshit story but not the correction. This is the kind of stuff I be talking about.
then all you have to do is read Das kapital and read other Marxist writers as well as look at Marxist revolutions to see that the lumpenproletariat by design are used as cannon fodder to protect the revolutionaries who are looting and rioting.
I asked in the last post for you to explain why you think this talking point has any value in this conversation. Still waiting on your insight.
So no the looting was not merely opportunistic
I never said it was "merely" opportunistic, I said it was little more than opportunistic. So providing some alternative motivation by some nefarious shadowy group you conspiracy theorists love to refer to simply as "they" does little to show otherwise.
and ai am not sure how it helps your argument even if it is to portray leftists as opportunistic animals anyway
The point WyIted, is to separate those who were looting and rioting from "leftism". The point is that it is logically fallacious at best and dishonest at worst to conflate burning buildings down with left wing ideology. It doesn't matter if the people doing this are on the political left any more than it matters if a group of child rapists are all christians. The ideology is a separate thing from the actions being carried out.
And the reason what, in case you are wondering, separates this from us leftists holding MAGA responsible for the January 6th rioters is because those rioters were inspired by, defended by, and then pardoned by, the indisputable leader of MAGA whom you all voted for and continue to unequivocally support despite all of this. That makes you complicit. You cannot reasonably argue the same the other way around no matter how hard you try.
Created:
-->
@WyIted
Google "peer review process in science". Note the similarities between that and what I just described.The study i showed that was described by the New Yorker was peer reviewed
The conversation here began when I pointed out that one of the best ways to see whether your conclusions are right is to test them by presenting them to people who disagree. You told me that was wrong. So if you know what peer review is and you value it, how am I wrong?
For example you say the Jan 6 people deserve that amount of time because of attacks on police
I have never taken a position on whether the J6 rioters deserve any specific amount of time, so this is yet another reimagination of what I said.
and I have citations to show less than one third of them are actually in jail for that (at the time we were discussing it)
I never argued over whether J6 rioters were or weren't in jail for their crimes, so how would any of this address anything I said?
You made a claim that the BLM riots are misrepresented by the right as some sort of riot by blacks
No, I didn't. Why are you so averse to reading the words I write?
I argued that the riots are misrepresented in the sense that they are portrayed as a direct product of left wing ideology and condoned by the political left when it was really little more than opportunism for people who just wanted to steal things and break shit.
The fact is that the majority of those who actually cared about this cause were deeply against the riots because they recognized the way they would be painted politically as a valid source of opposition to everything the protesters were standing for, which is exactly what happened. Black lives matter used to be a mostly non-controversial statement, now it's been turned by the political right into a "woke" phrase and interpreted as solidarity with people who belive in burning buildings down as justice. It's complete bullshit but that's how propaganda works.
I guess you don't like the ideal of that so you would rather ignore the actual fact that blacks are used by the left as cannon fodder.
I ignore this talking point because it's stupid and has nothing to do with anything I'm talking about. What value do you really think there is in talking about this?
I guess you would rather think you are not being pimped than escape the clutches of your pimp.
This is just another one of those "I'm not a serious person to argue with" confirmations.
To be fair you don't usually clearly state your opinions so there is nothing to rebut.
I think the greater problem is that you don't read. But even if you have a point here and I have work to do on my communication you don't help the situation either, all you do is come back with strawman after strawman never questioning why I would believe something so apparently ridiculous (in your view) and then without any meaningful opportunity for clarification move on to how I'm being pimped by my master. If you don't think my positions are being clearly stated why not ask more questions?
There is plenty wrong with this. Besides the part where you think you have a correct belief. None of my beliefs are correct for the record though
To believe something is by definition to think it's correct
In fact discussing the hypocrisy could get us somewhere but you aren't into discussing the specifics. You like keeping stuff general.
It depends on what we're talking about.
I am very much into discussing specifics when those specifics are relevant to the disagreement and when we are on the same page up until that point. If your position for example is that the J6 rioters should be pardoned because the BLM rioters got off easy (as much of MAGA has argued) there's no point in that. Specifics in cases like that are just distractions covering up a fundamental lack of any moral compass and lack of any commitment to logical consistency, so we need to start there.
Created:
-->
@WyIted
Studies show that your beliefs become more ingrained when challenged. https://www.newyorker.com/science/maria-konnikova/i-dont-want-to-be-right?utm_source=www&utm_medium=tw&utm_campaign=20140519
This is how it works for most people yes. This happens because people become attached to their positions to the point where they are unable to distinguish between an attack of their position and an attack on themself personally. Three entire point of studying epistemology is to sever that attachment, and that journey begins with a value system that prioritizes the truth over tales of comfort or self affirmation. That's why I started all of this.
You don't actually challenge your beliefs.
I've already done that, it's why I came to those beliefs in the first place. Unlike most, I am not afraid to say "I don't know" and will not commit to a position until I feel confident I've researched and thought it through. The only thing that's left once I feel like I've searched everywhere and arrived at the right answer is to see if others can offer me something I don't have. That's when I come here, and sadly there just isn't much here for me.
You continue to watch the same types of content that create a confirmation bias and then you further ingrain your beliefs (see article linked) by arguing for the actual stuff you believe here.
Present facts and logic that is valid and which lead me to an alternative conclusion and watch how fast I change my mind, because that's what my positions are based on.
Created:
-->
@Shila
He is just being critical of you.
That would require a string of meaningful words, I don't see any.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
You know, the people whose literal job it is to investigate corruption within the government.Hmmmm, maybe if they did their job
They were genius, that's why Trump fired them.
The Orangeman wouldn't be trolling your party to support the 20% side of 80-20 issues...lulz...
Are you capable of stringing together a series of meaningful words to defend your position on anything that's not "dUh I'm right because other people say so"?
Created:
-->
@WyIted
One of the best ways to determine whether your position is legitimate is to make the case to those who disagree with you and see if any of them can refute it.Wrong.
lol ok bro.
Google "peer review process in science". Note the similarities between that and what I just described.
Notice how I brought up how the lumpenproletariat work and how you ignored it
I ignored it because it's entirely irrelevant to this conversation.
to avoid thinking about how blacks are used by leftists as cannon fodder
I gave you specific reasons why the BLM riots do not compare to January 6th. I explained what started them, why focusing on one part of them is appropriate depending on what the allegation is, why that point of comparison matters with regards to the political spin, and how they have been misrepresented by right wing propaganda. You offered no response to any of that. Instead all you did was offer your little buzz word in an attempt to allege my "true" motivations with no support for how that allegation is warranted.
If if that's too many words for you, you just made shit up about me to avoid addressing anything I actually argued - you skipped right to the end and forgot to apply any critical thought.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Trump has weaponized TDS to force the left to champion positions that only 20% of the population support, like corruption, waste, fraud
This is just so incredibly stupid.
The richest man in the world who just spent hundreds of millions of dollars to elect Trump is now wielding more power than anyone else in his administration. The investigations into this man's companies have suddenly all been stopped, and his net worth since the election has gone up by about $100 billion fueled by his companies stocks skyrocketing given that he is one of the largest contractors of the federal government. Oh, and as far as the conflicts of interest there... Don't worry, he'll let us know if there are any and recuse himself.
And also, Trump just fired all of the inspector generals. You know, the people whose literal job it is to investigate corruption within the government.
Oh, and Trump just gutted the federal agencies whose job it is to find fraud outside of the government.
And yet you are not bothered by any of this. So tell me more about how I don't care about corruption all because I... I don't know... support USAID?
Hypocrisy doesn't even cover this. It's beyond satire. Trump derangement syndrome is definitely real, it just doesn't mean what you think it does.
Created:
-->
@WyIted
You should be paranoid about how your thoughts are formed. We are all susceptible to propaganda.
Been there, done that. It's called critical thinking and epistemology, and practicing what I've spent years studying is literally the reason I frequent this site. The point is to study how knowledge is gained so that we are able to determine whether our positions are legitimate or based on nonsense. There are rules to this, you should take the time to learn them.
One of the best ways to determine whether your position is legitimate is to make the case to those who disagree with you and see if any of them can refute it. Unfortunately, most of the rational insightful members have departed and now I'm left to go back and forth with people who will ignore every argument I make and instead just tell me I need to learn to think for myself. *Sigh*
I think it's actually pathetic. We literally have uncovered 100 billion in government fraud and wasteful spending
And yet Trump hasn't provided a single shred of evidence to support any of that, in fact many of the things he said when asked about his moves are factually not true.
They really are brainwashed.
The projection is staggering. You repeat Trump's claims uncritically despite the fact that he is the most cartoonishly transparent bullshitter who has ever held public office in this country. His verbal diarrhea of allegations besides being completely vague to the point of meaningless and without evidence is also easily predictable. He repeats the same nonsense so much you can see how bored he is repeating it on his expressionless face in his monotone voice. The sillyness of it reminds me of when one of Vladimir Putin's opponents "fell out of a window", except you're the guy going "wow it's crazy how many people fall out of windows".
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Polls show the left is very weak on 1st amendment rights.
Polls at one point also showed the earth is flat.
All these polls prove is how ignorant and susceptible the American people are to bullshit. The republicans pretend democrats are bad on the first amendment because they got banned on social media (but couldn't give a shit less when Elon Musk actually bans people for left wing speech he doesn't like), meanwhile Donald Trump has threatened repeatedly to use the power of the federal government to attack news outlets and sued a pollster for a poll he didn't like and you guys have no concerns at all.
Reality is the opposite of what you guys claim, but you'll keep pretending democrats are the problem and when confronted with actual facts you will continue to point to polls as a defense because you know you are full of shit.
Created:
-->
@Math_Enthusiast
Is Elon Musk doing more work in one minute than everyone in an average American household combined does in 4.5 years?
Of course not, but we both know that.
I would rephrase and perhaps rethink your question though. A person's income/wealth in theory, ideally, is supposed to reflect that person's contributions to society. That comes in many different forms, not only how hard one works but what ideas one has contributed and what problems they have solved that lead to improvements in the quality of all our lives.
The problem with right wingers on this is that they seem to think capitalism answers this question almost tautologically. So if one became a billionaire that is proof in and if itself that their contributions were massive. The reality is however far different.
What they miss is that every billionaire today is just building on top of systems put in place by others for which they are merely taking advantage of. Joe Rogan has become a huge figure in the podcasting world. He could not have accomplished any of this without a strong functioning internet and the technology in place to produce these shows. A tech startup that blossoms into a multi billion dollar company could not have accomplished want of this without an educated workforce and infrastructure in place to make it happen. A top tier professional athlete didn't invent the sport, create the branding model, or figure out how to get their games broadcasted.
Contrary to the typical right wing "I pulled myself up by my bootstraps all by myself" fantasy, the fact is that we live in a society and no one benefits from the contributions of others more than the super rich.
Created:
-->
@WyIted
Modern leftists aren't really concerned with individual liberty. Obviously. They may pretend to with some pet issues like abortion but generally they are opposed to things like freedom of speech, freedom of association and self governance.
You don't know what any of those terms mean.
Created:
-->
@Shila
It was caught on tape all the republicans running to escape the rioters.
Apparently that doesn't matter. If I can show you video of republicans not running for the exits it seems that cancels out the videos of them doing it.
MAGA logic.
Created:
-->
@WyIted
I almost want to think you are dangerously close to figuring out that leftists use black people as cannon fodder l, but I have a feeling you are so deep in denial that overcoming the thought processes you have as a result of white people telling you what ideology to have is impossible.
Translation: "I have no rebuttal to any of the points you made so instead I'm just going to vaguely accuse you of not thinking for yourself thereby relieving me of any obligation to rationally defend anything I've said while still looking like I'm on top."
Created:
-->
@WyIted
I don't know what happened to "mostly peaceful riots" maybe that only applies to protests you agree with
What happened is that you are desperately trying to defend the indefensible by invoking a false equivalence.
The BLM riots were a civil uprising sparked by a YouTube video that took place all over the country throughout the entire summer. January 6th was an isolated occurrence that took place in one place at one time and was inspired by the sitting president of the United States in an attempt to illegally hold onto power after losing an election.
Attacking "the left" for those riots is ridiculous because while the protests certainly were based on left wing principals there is no political ideology to looting stores. That's opportunism, and it was carried out by people of all political strifes. One of the most notable examples of that summer was when they burned down the Wendy's after another black man was killed by police in their parking lot the night before. Yet the person who did that was a white woman who wasn't aligned with BLM and the whole thing was caught on video as the protesters were screaming "she's not with us". Did any of that matter to MAGA media? Of course not, they blamed it on BLM and "the left" anyway.
Not one person out there that summer burning down buildings was there because Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, or any other prominent left wing figures told them to be. January 6th meanwhile, was entirely incited by Trump. If there was a prominent figure behind the BLM riots specifically and that person was then chosen to be the Democratic nominee you would have a point of comparison. But even you know anyone on the left saying they condone those riots and pledging to pardon anyone who looted and burn down buildings would have had no chance in the Democratic primary. That's the difference between the left and the right.
but the reason this is so important is because the media portrayed it as some sort of unarmed insurrection where every single person there was there to attack cops and for the entirety of the time.
It has nothing to do with what "every single person" was there for. It's about whose lead they were following and what that person's (as in Trump's) intention was. He was the one trying to steal the election, that's what technically makes this an insurrection.
I will say however that I never use that term when describing January 6th because it's a distraction. People like you love to focus on things like that because then you don't have to admit what you're really defending. The mob attacked the US Capitol and the sitting president sat there for 3 hours watching it on TV. That's not defensible, so of course you will ignore it.
Also certain footage was hidden such as the police allowing protestors into the building.
It wasn't hidden, we all saw it on real time. That's why Joe Scarborough dropped the F bomb on MSNBC live the next morning. No one needs to hide that footage because it doesn't change what the rioters did in Trump's name and the fact that he did nothing meaningful to stop it.
Plus even you tried to claim the only people in prison were those who attacked cops
I never made that claim. You are again, as usual, just making shit up in your own mind because you cannot address the actual things I'm actually saying.
Do you know what I would have did if I was a politician there while the place was being stormed by literally working class people.
You probably would have ran for your life like every republican did that day
This isn't the lumpenproletariat, so they aren't really just going to randomly get violent. I would have just addressed the crowds and had a back and forth. The same thing you see Vivek Ramaswamy and Obama do when they were on the campaign trail. Just talk to people
lol.
The 140 Capitol police officers who sustained serious injuries that day I'm sure would have loved to see you try.
Created:
-->
@WyIted
Hopefully the Trump administration releases less than 10% of the available footage to fox news so we can have the full context.
A reference to the idea championed by Tucker Carlson that videos showing no violence at the Capitol somehow cancels out the videos that show violence.
It's almost like the prosecution showing video of the defendant committing the murder being charged and the defense responds by showing a video of the defendant later on not committing murder. It truly is one of the stupidest arguments I've ever heard and yet it still to this day gets repeated by MAGA. No wonder you guys think Trump is a great choice for president.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
so more of the same since the last 100 years...how about no.
Funny, over the last 100 years America went from an average nation to the world's premier superpower. So yeah, some more of that.
You're not even consistent with your MAGA cohorts. Make America great again wasn't talking about pre civil war America, so you guys say.
And if you're looking for a rough starting point to what I was referring to (which we both know you're not because honest rational productive conversation is clearly not something you arrive for), I would start the story in 1980 with Ronald Reagan's "government is not the solution to our problems, government is the problem" speech. When you begin as a governing party with the notion that the very thing you are trying to control is itself the problem... The absurdity of Donald Trump makes a lot of sense. From absurdity you can only get more absurdity.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
That's even more shameful as that effectively means we spend 3x as much on crap outcomes if we compare cost per student per day.
Maybe we'd get better results if we had two political parties that believed in working to make government better instead of one while the other works to sabotage it so they could point back and go "dUh see, I told you government doesn't work".
Created:
-->
@WyIted
They need to be locked up. What types of pieces of shits storm a federal building?
Let me know when they brake windows, beat up police officers and spread their feces all over the walls.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
They weren't forced by a court genius, they responded to an FCC inquiry by releasing it.
In any case, the age of spin has gotten a wake-up call to the limits of yarn-spinning a cool tale for quick money.
So strange that the most vehement defenders of free speech all seem to have no problem with the government telling news organizations how they are required to edit their footage and threatening to remove their licenses if they don't comply.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
It's a bad bill because it's a bad bill.
lol well there you have it. You've convinced me with your onslaught of facts and logic.
It never ceases to amaze me the amount of faith some people have in [right wing podcasters].
Fixed.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@cristo71
No, you came here for an argument.
Yes, that's what a conclusion derived from premises and logic is called
Ah, that must be why you have so many debates under your belt— you love the art of debate and make superior arguments.
lol
I don't get into too many debates because I don't care to commit to the time it takes to craft a 10k character response with limited internet service. So glad I was able to clear your genuine inquiry up.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
If the bill were written by democrats that would be bad, of it is written by republicans that would be bad.
When either of the only two outcomes both affirm your position, that should be a red flag to you that your position is not based in reality or any coherent set of principals.
But that would only matter to people who care about those silly little concepts.
Created: