Total posts: 2,768
Posted in:
“Fake News” was the moniker used initially by the left to describe false information circulating in Twitter, and propagated by a number of news farms that drove fake stories and information for clicks, or in some cases by Russian troll farms with the goal of misinforming the electorate.
It’s currently used by many on the right to describe any news article or story that describes any event, fact or purports any opinion that is negative of the right. It is used exclusively as a means to reject any contradictory information.
Not everyone, but many; with a substantial number of people on this forum definitely falling into this category.
On social media, it’s worse: if you shared a Washington post story, cnn, msnbc, with an average trump supporters - you will almost invariably get multiple responses rejecting the article out of hand. What if a right wing source, source as Fox News, say, called the Election for Biden? Fake news.
While I’m sure there are many on the left who do that; the magnitude, and severity is not the same.
If you shared a Fox News article about a reported fact: an inflation report, economic indicators, or a leaked email - you’ll probably not get far less push back on the facts (based on the source) on the left as you would on the right.
You’d get a lot of push back on the left if you shared oann, newsmax or fox articles for which there is a clear bias or pro trump opinion about some element that is highly factually contested - and you would certainly get push back on any source that has a clear history of lying on multiple issues. Which is almost all of the cases I have seen when a Fox News link has been rejected.
So sure: A significant number of Trump supporters will reject everything any unflattering news article says - but this is not necessarily the same thing as most left wing individuals saying “I’m not watching your Tucker Carlson video on white replacement theory because I think he’s lying sack of sh*t”
Which segues nicely to this: Other than the sheer magnitude of rejection on the right - issue with the underlying assumption involved in drawing equivalence on both sides - is that it presumes that what is rejected on both sides is equivalent. They’re not.
Comparing the level of bias and broad inaccuracy in CNN to that of say, newsmax; especially given how they have clearly and repeatedly circulated outright lies more vigorously and extensively than CNN ever has. Same with cases like OAN, Fox and infowars. CNN has specific issues, it’s very much sensationalist and lowbrow journalism - but it is no where near the level and nature of factual bias that is present within many popular right wing media channels.
At its very core, the issue with the equivalence is that it’s way, way more valid for people to question the validity of articles coming out of those organizations than it is, say, from the Washington Post or the New York Times. Because of the history.
If the right was only calling the YoungTurks or vice “fake news”, you’d probably a fair point, but they aren’t - who publishes it rarely matters. It’s all mainstream media - they’re all lying to you to promote Biden. Of all them, no matter which link you chose.
Which again segues to my next point: consistency. If you present Fox News articles - and someone points out that Fox News is not a reliable source - which arguably it isn’t in some specifics respects - if you present the same facts from other sources, say, the LA times, they’re generally accepted. It’s often not a general objection to facts in the same way it is on the right - but a specific rejection of specific media organizations that show inordinate factual bias in their reporting.
Finally; one key and important contention I would make here is that if you are constantly bombarded with people rejecting a news article because it’s from the Washington Post, or CNN; and then someone shares and equally, or more biased sources, there is very much an element of fair play that starts creeping in - “okay, if I can’t cite sources you don’t like, why is the same not valid the other way around”
These two things are clearly incompatible. The rejection of facts as fake news on the right is deeper, stronger, broader, more extreme and less justified than rejection on the left.
Again this is just another example of clearly different standards being applied to both sides. If the right calls the left liars a million times, at every opportunity, constantly - and the left calls the right liars once: “both sides do it.”
It’s currently used by many on the right to describe any news article or story that describes any event, fact or purports any opinion that is negative of the right. It is used exclusively as a means to reject any contradictory information.
Not everyone, but many; with a substantial number of people on this forum definitely falling into this category.
On social media, it’s worse: if you shared a Washington post story, cnn, msnbc, with an average trump supporters - you will almost invariably get multiple responses rejecting the article out of hand. What if a right wing source, source as Fox News, say, called the Election for Biden? Fake news.
While I’m sure there are many on the left who do that; the magnitude, and severity is not the same.
If you shared a Fox News article about a reported fact: an inflation report, economic indicators, or a leaked email - you’ll probably not get far less push back on the facts (based on the source) on the left as you would on the right.
You’d get a lot of push back on the left if you shared oann, newsmax or fox articles for which there is a clear bias or pro trump opinion about some element that is highly factually contested - and you would certainly get push back on any source that has a clear history of lying on multiple issues. Which is almost all of the cases I have seen when a Fox News link has been rejected.
So sure: A significant number of Trump supporters will reject everything any unflattering news article says - but this is not necessarily the same thing as most left wing individuals saying “I’m not watching your Tucker Carlson video on white replacement theory because I think he’s lying sack of sh*t”
Which segues nicely to this: Other than the sheer magnitude of rejection on the right - issue with the underlying assumption involved in drawing equivalence on both sides - is that it presumes that what is rejected on both sides is equivalent. They’re not.
Comparing the level of bias and broad inaccuracy in CNN to that of say, newsmax; especially given how they have clearly and repeatedly circulated outright lies more vigorously and extensively than CNN ever has. Same with cases like OAN, Fox and infowars. CNN has specific issues, it’s very much sensationalist and lowbrow journalism - but it is no where near the level and nature of factual bias that is present within many popular right wing media channels.
At its very core, the issue with the equivalence is that it’s way, way more valid for people to question the validity of articles coming out of those organizations than it is, say, from the Washington Post or the New York Times. Because of the history.
If the right was only calling the YoungTurks or vice “fake news”, you’d probably a fair point, but they aren’t - who publishes it rarely matters. It’s all mainstream media - they’re all lying to you to promote Biden. Of all them, no matter which link you chose.
Which again segues to my next point: consistency. If you present Fox News articles - and someone points out that Fox News is not a reliable source - which arguably it isn’t in some specifics respects - if you present the same facts from other sources, say, the LA times, they’re generally accepted. It’s often not a general objection to facts in the same way it is on the right - but a specific rejection of specific media organizations that show inordinate factual bias in their reporting.
Finally; one key and important contention I would make here is that if you are constantly bombarded with people rejecting a news article because it’s from the Washington Post, or CNN; and then someone shares and equally, or more biased sources, there is very much an element of fair play that starts creeping in - “okay, if I can’t cite sources you don’t like, why is the same not valid the other way around”
These two things are clearly incompatible. The rejection of facts as fake news on the right is deeper, stronger, broader, more extreme and less justified than rejection on the left.
Again this is just another example of clearly different standards being applied to both sides. If the right calls the left liars a million times, at every opportunity, constantly - and the left calls the right liars once: “both sides do it.”
If the right is constantly calling the left liars, when they aren’t to any particular significant extent : that’s bad.
If the left is constantly calling the right liars, when they are, to a relatively significant extent : that’s not bad.
Equating the two sides in this respect is part of the same underlying attempt at misinformation; to muddy the waters, and drag the conversation into a place where reality and facts don’t actually matter any more.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
It's been my experience that Atheists love to show up to religious threads. They get to have their say. They get to destroy their opponents. They get to prove how cool they are in the world of philosophy.But this is why I say they are cowards. Because they are afraid to reveal what they believe. For instance, what do Atheists believe?
Look at my profile, select forum, and review my forum posts. I post in politics, current events, religion in the past. I’ve made arguments on all manner of things.
The idea that you could read this list of posts - and somehow conclude that I am afraid of telling people what I believe, is the most hilarious and ridiculous position I have ever heard - and I have argued with creationists.
This goes the same for almost everyone on this site, save for maybe BdT - but he is speshul.
Nothing. One common doctrine. God doesn't exist. An argument based on a negative. That is it. Nothing else. We are not allowed to know what else they believe.
What would you like to know? I’m a capital A Atheist, morality is subjective, market capitalist recognizing the need for social involvement in corporate business. Highly socially liberal; I run and cycle a lot. Have two small kids whom I am filling with 90s references and 2000 pop culture references because I can, and while they will disagree in 12 year - I won’t categorize as abuse . I believe strange new worlds is a pretty decent Star Trek series, Picard was okay, discovery is a guilty pleasure - the new star wars films were a bit crappy; the last Jedi was actually pretty decent ; the new miniseries - even boba felt were pretty cool; westworld is pretty good once you figure out wtfs going on, the world is on a bit of downward spiral of authoritarianism, but has ability to get better, Total Anihiliation is the best game of all time, pineapple does not belong on Pizza. Capybaras are the best animals, Toronto is the least canadian city, and; I cannot stress how firmly or unwaveringly I believe this: Han. shot. first.
Hence why Atheists are COWARDS. They criticize - but without fear of being criticized. That is not criticism. That is safe ground. Bogus. really.
Criticism does not need to be reciprocal to be valid. You can criticize the criticism after all.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
Compare and contrast to the democratic media. More cautious about it than they may have been with Trump, lots of scepticism, not as many column inches - many articles talking about how fishy it all is, how the New York post journalists didn’t want to put their name on it - etc. It’s an uncomfortable niggle - with a little wariness that there maybe something a little dodgy going on, but no clear smoking gun that highlighted some official act, or leveraging political power against the needs of the people. At worst a little nepotism, some lies, and possibly leveraging former power to make a little money.
Given that this was unambiguously an attempt at a political hit job; has the Trump campaigns fingerprints all over it, and given that at worst Biden did a handful of things that Trump, and most other politicians have been doing consistently before and since and no-one cares about: why the democrats haven’t handed a political nuclear weapon to republicans misinformation machine right before the midterms by opening an investigation - sort of answers itself.
Is it a shining example of the democrats being absolutely 100% above board in all circumstances - of course not, but it’s at least understandable and not wholly unreasonable.
However even that line of questioning and that reaction - demonstrates the huge asymmetry between the democrat and republican misinformation machines.
The suggestion of how bad democrats are, because they won’t launch a public congressional investigation into Biden for various highly implied nepotism on a political hit job laptop - whilst the top to bottom malfeasance and corruption of republicans, Trump and various individuals in his circle is largely uncontested or simply accepted without thought.
It’s as if, it doesn’t matter how badly the republicans act, or how many lies Trump tells, how much money he bilks his supporters for, how much he damages the country - but the moment the Democrats don’t live up to some idealized perfect standard - this is pointed out as “just as bad”.
Is it a little bit hypocritical - absolutely. And you would be right to be concerned if this was normal, rational political environment. But it’s not. The republicans, their media, and their supporters don’t particularly care about Republican corruption, or the media ecosystems drowns out any claims: waiting for the FBI to do their thing, and keep a little quiet until they so that a side that doesn’t particularly care at all about corruption can use it bombard the airwaves with distorted misinformation and lies about democratic corruption right before an election is not something I have a particularly big issue with - we have the right wing media foaming at the mouth to find something real, and FBI investigations - I’m happy relying on that. If this were 1988 republicans - I would be right there asking for an investigation. But its not.
4.) double down. Pivot to racism and fear mongering.
So you’re kinda right that we all do this a little bit. It’s kinda natural. There’s a brilliant example of GP in this thread where he demonstrated this point brilliantly - instead of engaging on the strengths or flaws of the original issue - he pivoted to fear mongering and related whataboutism.
Now this is not to say no one on the left ever does this - but this is taken to extremes on the right.
On the left - we are often wrong. Jesse Smollet - the kid CNN implied was a racist - the avenati guys claims about Kavanaugh. There have been a bunch more. Let’s take Russian Collusion.
The truth is that there are some significant misdeeds and unethical behaviour committed by Trump that he should have known better about; the actions of Manafort, the Trump tower meeting, etc. it’s largely dropped of the radar, with the odd nugget coming back up now and then.
Imagine if this was Hilary. Hell - just look at Benghazi. The findings of the Mueller report were mostly, but not entirely, accepted - there was no big impeachment push. The collusion narrative would likely have been a constant talking point by republicans - there would have been multiple investigations, likely an attempt at impeachment - and the whole thing would have had far more legs than it did; instead of sort of fizzling out.
This is not to say that you won’t find any democrats that don’t believe in a peepee tape - or that Trump really did collude with Russia in some widespread nefarious way. I for example accept the vague possibility of a peepee tape, and that the evidence points to willingness - and limited collusion; but probably nothing beyond simply highly unethical behaviour - I would not be surprised at all if it was revealed to be more than that; but no one - to my knowledge - is waving the dossier as if it’s 100% accurate. Most democrats probably go a fair bit further than suggested by the evidence - but there’s little I’ve seen that isn’t embellishment or extrapolating from known Kernels of truth.
Compare this to, say, the election was stolen. No basis for this claim. Every single claim has been pretty systematically debunked - and yet if you say the election wasn’t stolen, they are all of the thrown back at you as if you are standing in a room being honked at by a group racist Pingus.
Seth Rich? Uranium One, Biden firing a Ukrainian prosecutor to help his son? Ukraine servers? DNC hack? Unmasking scandal? Or any one of the inordinate number of falsehoods and conspiracies peddled - you will still today get people who continue to push them.
I honestly don’t begrudge anyone being proven wrong and doubling down at the time - that’s how humans work - but you slink off and modify your opinions or stop talking about it - which is mostly - though not always - what happens on the left.
On the right - that doesn’t happen as much - primarily because (2) and (3) either systematically drown out any disproof, and sufficiently muddy the waters or that the misinformation machine has simply given supporters cover to reject the facts.
This is all to say that I would absolutely, and wholeheartedly agree that we have issues on the left. I have no doubt that if the democrats instantiates the same sort of disinformation machines as republicans - democratic supporters would all follow the same path as republicans today. We’re all people, with similar psychological drives that can be manipulated in similar ways. I could argue that perhaps not as many, and that you’d probably find a bigger schism in the Democratic Party than in the right today if they tried - but there are still definite issues. I wish everyone was able to act and behave and believe perfectly, but I’m also a realist.
However to say, or suggest that the issues with the left, or the Democratic Party - whilst similar in some ways - even comes close to matching the extent, magnitude and outlandish extremes of the systemic Republican misinformation machine is so far beyond wrong I can’t begin to express it. Similarly, in many cases the issues with the Democratic Party are often attributable to the impact of this extremism of the right poisoning the entire nature of political discourse - not exclusively, but enough.
A big part of this whole conversation today - not specificaly you - talking about lies, corruption, misinformation, politician machinations, abuse of power appears to be held under the premise that the Republicans are held to a standard of being shitty, machinating, lying misinformation peddlers; and still fail to meet that low standard: democrats are held to the standard of being upstanding, perfect, exact, truth speakers, who should do no wrong; and cannot meet that standard.
The argument then becomes that we’ll, no one meets the standards we hold them to - so they’re the same, and it’s unreasonable for democrats to complain - they’re just as bad.
Given that this was unambiguously an attempt at a political hit job; has the Trump campaigns fingerprints all over it, and given that at worst Biden did a handful of things that Trump, and most other politicians have been doing consistently before and since and no-one cares about: why the democrats haven’t handed a political nuclear weapon to republicans misinformation machine right before the midterms by opening an investigation - sort of answers itself.
Is it a shining example of the democrats being absolutely 100% above board in all circumstances - of course not, but it’s at least understandable and not wholly unreasonable.
However even that line of questioning and that reaction - demonstrates the huge asymmetry between the democrat and republican misinformation machines.
The suggestion of how bad democrats are, because they won’t launch a public congressional investigation into Biden for various highly implied nepotism on a political hit job laptop - whilst the top to bottom malfeasance and corruption of republicans, Trump and various individuals in his circle is largely uncontested or simply accepted without thought.
It’s as if, it doesn’t matter how badly the republicans act, or how many lies Trump tells, how much money he bilks his supporters for, how much he damages the country - but the moment the Democrats don’t live up to some idealized perfect standard - this is pointed out as “just as bad”.
Is it a little bit hypocritical - absolutely. And you would be right to be concerned if this was normal, rational political environment. But it’s not. The republicans, their media, and their supporters don’t particularly care about Republican corruption, or the media ecosystems drowns out any claims: waiting for the FBI to do their thing, and keep a little quiet until they so that a side that doesn’t particularly care at all about corruption can use it bombard the airwaves with distorted misinformation and lies about democratic corruption right before an election is not something I have a particularly big issue with - we have the right wing media foaming at the mouth to find something real, and FBI investigations - I’m happy relying on that. If this were 1988 republicans - I would be right there asking for an investigation. But its not.
4.) double down. Pivot to racism and fear mongering.
So you’re kinda right that we all do this a little bit. It’s kinda natural. There’s a brilliant example of GP in this thread where he demonstrated this point brilliantly - instead of engaging on the strengths or flaws of the original issue - he pivoted to fear mongering and related whataboutism.
Now this is not to say no one on the left ever does this - but this is taken to extremes on the right.
On the left - we are often wrong. Jesse Smollet - the kid CNN implied was a racist - the avenati guys claims about Kavanaugh. There have been a bunch more. Let’s take Russian Collusion.
The truth is that there are some significant misdeeds and unethical behaviour committed by Trump that he should have known better about; the actions of Manafort, the Trump tower meeting, etc. it’s largely dropped of the radar, with the odd nugget coming back up now and then.
Imagine if this was Hilary. Hell - just look at Benghazi. The findings of the Mueller report were mostly, but not entirely, accepted - there was no big impeachment push. The collusion narrative would likely have been a constant talking point by republicans - there would have been multiple investigations, likely an attempt at impeachment - and the whole thing would have had far more legs than it did; instead of sort of fizzling out.
This is not to say that you won’t find any democrats that don’t believe in a peepee tape - or that Trump really did collude with Russia in some widespread nefarious way. I for example accept the vague possibility of a peepee tape, and that the evidence points to willingness - and limited collusion; but probably nothing beyond simply highly unethical behaviour - I would not be surprised at all if it was revealed to be more than that; but no one - to my knowledge - is waving the dossier as if it’s 100% accurate. Most democrats probably go a fair bit further than suggested by the evidence - but there’s little I’ve seen that isn’t embellishment or extrapolating from known Kernels of truth.
Compare this to, say, the election was stolen. No basis for this claim. Every single claim has been pretty systematically debunked - and yet if you say the election wasn’t stolen, they are all of the thrown back at you as if you are standing in a room being honked at by a group racist Pingus.
Seth Rich? Uranium One, Biden firing a Ukrainian prosecutor to help his son? Ukraine servers? DNC hack? Unmasking scandal? Or any one of the inordinate number of falsehoods and conspiracies peddled - you will still today get people who continue to push them.
I honestly don’t begrudge anyone being proven wrong and doubling down at the time - that’s how humans work - but you slink off and modify your opinions or stop talking about it - which is mostly - though not always - what happens on the left.
On the right - that doesn’t happen as much - primarily because (2) and (3) either systematically drown out any disproof, and sufficiently muddy the waters or that the misinformation machine has simply given supporters cover to reject the facts.
This is all to say that I would absolutely, and wholeheartedly agree that we have issues on the left. I have no doubt that if the democrats instantiates the same sort of disinformation machines as republicans - democratic supporters would all follow the same path as republicans today. We’re all people, with similar psychological drives that can be manipulated in similar ways. I could argue that perhaps not as many, and that you’d probably find a bigger schism in the Democratic Party than in the right today if they tried - but there are still definite issues. I wish everyone was able to act and behave and believe perfectly, but I’m also a realist.
However to say, or suggest that the issues with the left, or the Democratic Party - whilst similar in some ways - even comes close to matching the extent, magnitude and outlandish extremes of the systemic Republican misinformation machine is so far beyond wrong I can’t begin to express it. Similarly, in many cases the issues with the Democratic Party are often attributable to the impact of this extremism of the right poisoning the entire nature of political discourse - not exclusively, but enough.
A big part of this whole conversation today - not specificaly you - talking about lies, corruption, misinformation, politician machinations, abuse of power appears to be held under the premise that the Republicans are held to a standard of being shitty, machinating, lying misinformation peddlers; and still fail to meet that low standard: democrats are held to the standard of being upstanding, perfect, exact, truth speakers, who should do no wrong; and cannot meet that standard.
The argument then becomes that we’ll, no one meets the standards we hold them to - so they’re the same, and it’s unreasonable for democrats to complain - they’re just as bad.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
I think the list is pretty clunky - but pretty accurate.
For step 1. You can look at voting restrictions, gerrymandering maneuvering in the senate, and obstructionism.
Given a Minority of the votes (one presidential popular vote win since 1988); the Republican Party have leveraged this with various shenanigans to wield an outsize amount of power and push for various unpopular policies in abortion, healthcare (2016), and others. The various maneuvering here has gone from obstructionism - blocking all court picks, through ridiculous Supreme Court pushes - to now - trying to block and reverse an election loss.
This is not to say that democrats never gerrymandered at various points, or haven’t massively increased usage of the fillibuster more recently. But the extent and severity of it; and what they have achieved with it, especially given the general country wide minority status - is orders of magnitude apart.
2.) Create and Promote disinformation to scare their base.
3.) create and vilify a specific villain.
So these two points are all sort of mixed up together; let’s look at some of the right wing themes over the last 20 years
2000 : policy. (Scraped by)
2002 : The Terrorists!
2004 : The Terrorists! (John Kerry is a flip flopper): won.
2006:?
2008: Obama is a Muslim and policy (crushed)
2010: Obama is a socialist (won)
2012: wishy washy policy (lost)
2014: Obama is a socialist (won)
2016: illegal immigrants are destroying the country, our leaders are destroying the country.
2018: immigrants with smallpox are coming in the caravan! witch hunt!
2020: the radical democrats are trying to destroy the country and take away your freedoms and impose socialism.
This is not even getting into the culture wars: the democrats want to destroy religion, the gays are coming for you with their gay agenda, wokism, cancel culture, my bathrooms!
Almost the entire underpinning of Republicans politics for the last 30(?) years has been almost invariably based upon this fear. The Republican base is being attacked, your identity is under threat, specific people - terrorists - illegal immigrants - are coming to take your things. It’s pervasive through the fabric of conservatism.
It’s why democrats are terrible at attack ads; because they don’t grasp the visceral motivation of fear in quite the same way.
Does this mean democrats have never channeled fear? Of course not: they have very much run on platforms that a given politician will do harm; normally based upon the stuff they do; they run on platforms of major issues affecting society - climate change - healthcare crises - wealth inequality - COVID - they run on problems that they have solutions for, whether or not you like those solutions. Republicans, often run in large part on problems that they will protect you from implicitly or explicitly.
For the culture wars: you are bombarded with a constant stream of distortion to constantly and deliberately oversell the significance and impact of the actual problems, to feed in to their supporters prejudice and drive up levels of anger, at their opponents - all to pull together and motivate their base.
Are there similar themes with what democrats do - for sure: but they’re orders of magnitude different.
Take abortion: it’s an issue that effects a lot of people - rights are being taken away - abortion laws are hugely restrictive, and some new laws are grotesque in terms of lack of exceptions; so democrats are running on the platform that republicans are trying to take away abortion rights. Because they are. Or perhaps COVID - that republicans oppose public health measures, or are prioritizing businesses over people, or are playing down the severity of the crisis - while you can very much argue democrats did go to far the other way - the campaign narrative that republicans didn’t do enough - and even encouraged the rejection of public health measures - that’s not particularly unfair or even really misinformation.
Compare this to running on the platform that democrats are trying to teach white kids to be ashamed of themselves; making your daughters unsafe because of men going into the bathroom; omg BLM AntiFa! and various other examples of culture war misinformation where an issue up for a valid discussion gets blown up beyond all recognition into a grotesque Mischaracterization.
Similar themes maybe, perhaps: but orders of magnitude different.
2/3a) The Republican media ecosystem.
I’m sure you have trump supporting friends, and are on social media - you can see in real time, almost, the way misinformation trickles down and affects people at the low level.
Take something like the Zelensky phone call. If this was a regular politician environment - that would have ended up in the removal of the president.
So, what happened - in terms of shared posts and comment on my, admittedly, anecdotal Facebook feed - was when that came out; the first was accusations of a witch hunt/ democrats at it again - then details came out - and there is a short latent period.
Then, you start getting a pot pouri of various accusations and explanations; well it’s actually the servers - Trump is actually a genius because… this is what Biden did when…
Then through evolution, they settled on one or two examples which then continued to be the defence.
The replies match exactly the trickle down of information in the media. Trump denials, percolating to Fox News, newsmax, oann; and primarily then shared over and over again through various memes. The underlying facts and explanations being peddled - especially given Biden and Ukraine - were based largely on nonsense - but the way that information all percolated around social media - bombarded the consumed media of supported with enough misinformation that they didn’t think too hard about explanations.
The election - great example - I explained to a Trump supporting friend how the election would go down: Trump would be winning Thursday night, and will have lots by Saturday - likewise how Biden would win Florida early on, and then probably lose over the course of the evening ; I explained why, how the various counting laws impacted things. They were happy with the explanation and that it if that happened they’d obviously accept the result.
Then came election night, Trump, Trump friendly news networks, memes, social media then bombarded the shit out of everyone with accusations of fraud. All of them utter bullshit - but drowned out the reality: Now this is partly the Facebook algorithm, partly republican disinformation - and not all party endorsed disinformation - but there is absolutely a comprehensive ecosystem on the right that is geared - almost top to bottom - to drown out opposing point of views with almost invariably misleading or distorted claims - with either the effect, or intent of keeping supporters broadly loyal to right wing leaders.
This is not to say that all of it is always misinformation - but that there is a system that goes into overdrive to absolutely drown out any competing information supporters receive - and keep supporters in line by offering them comfortable, nice misinformation that counter the uncomfortable facts and arguments.
There is absolutely no democratic or left wing mirror of this industrialized misinformation process - there’s nothing even close.
Compare for example - to Hunter Bidens laptop. Imagine that was Trump Jrs laptop. You would have the right wing media destroy it, talk about it being a fabrication, a plot, russia gate all over again, you should see systematic attempts to try and change the subject and keep people onside; they would call for treason charges against Bidens old campaign manager, and current lawyer (who gave it to the New York Times), and talked non stop about how it’s the democrats trying to steal the elections.Senators and congressmen would have demanded investigations into how and why the campaign tried to undermine trump this way, and everyone would go in the news non stop to proclaim how everything in the laptop was fine.
Created:
-->
@TWS1405
And as I said above, you do not have the requisite academic, professional or other requisite knowledge and experience to correctly read, interpret and correctly apply statutory law.
And?
You're understanding is 100% wrong.
How? I have laid out explicitly how this violates the law:
You have not proven me wrong.
Yea I have:
It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer -(1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin;Are the employment conditions afforded to a woman different from that afforded to a man - if a man may not wear the same clothes? Indisputably yes.Is the employee being fired , on the basis of those conditions that are applied to one sex but not the other? Indisputably yes.If you answer yea to both those questions - which you must - because that’s clear and unambiguous reality - then that behaviour is illegal as per the text of title VII.
I await your namecalling
Created:
-->
@TWS1405
A biological man being terminated for dressing like a woman has nothing to do with him being a woman (because he is not [a] biological woman)
Correct. But as I’m not arguing that it is - this is largely irrelevant to what I’m saying; and is a hit of a straw man
but everything to do with him being a biological man and not conforming to the terms of his employment when hired as a biological man.
Bingo.
You nailed it.
Get this man a cookie.
It has everything to do with him being a man, and being fired for not conforming to the terms of his employment. That’s my point - you said it. He’s being terminated for being a man - because he is subject to male specific terms of employment. You’re so close:
What are those terms. They’re terms that say that having a penis precludes you from doing these things: those terms are discriminatory.
Imagine white people had to wear white, black people had to wear black, Asian people had to where yellow - and a black man was fired for refusing to wear black - it’s an identical issue of discrimination - covered by title VII under the race provision. Imagine Christian’s had to wear a crucifix, atheists nothing, Jews a Star of David - of a Jew was fired for refusing to wear a star - discrimination on conditions of employment in the basis of religion. If I make men wear trousers and woman wear skirts - where is the title VII exception that allows for that? Exactly.
You nailed it.
Get this man a cookie.
It has everything to do with him being a man, and being fired for not conforming to the terms of his employment. That’s my point - you said it. He’s being terminated for being a man - because he is subject to male specific terms of employment. You’re so close:
What are those terms. They’re terms that say that having a penis precludes you from doing these things: those terms are discriminatory.
Imagine white people had to wear white, black people had to wear black, Asian people had to where yellow - and a black man was fired for refusing to wear black - it’s an identical issue of discrimination - covered by title VII under the race provision. Imagine Christian’s had to wear a crucifix, atheists nothing, Jews a Star of David - of a Jew was fired for refusing to wear a star - discrimination on conditions of employment in the basis of religion. If I make men wear trousers and woman wear skirts - where is the title VII exception that allows for that? Exactly.
You have NO legal background. You lack the requisite education and knowledge to correctly read let alone interpret statutory law.
There’s so many things I want to say here lol.
Let me first ask you how you know this, exactly? For all you know, I could be a practicing lawyer.
Even if I wasn’t - you started a thread in a debate website forum asking people to prove you wrong. What exactly were you expecting? Gorsuch to find out and argue with you personally?
Speaking of Gorsuch - he is a judge, for many decades who definitely does have the requisite education and knowledge to read and interpret statutory law - he agrees with me - does that mean you’re now willing to defer to what he says?
Given that I know your answer - that would appear to mean the level of one’s law education makes no difference to how right they are - and that you’re quote here is just nonsense ad-hominem that has no bearing in anything..
Let me first ask you how you know this, exactly? For all you know, I could be a practicing lawyer.
Even if I wasn’t - you started a thread in a debate website forum asking people to prove you wrong. What exactly were you expecting? Gorsuch to find out and argue with you personally?
Speaking of Gorsuch - he is a judge, for many decades who definitely does have the requisite education and knowledge to read and interpret statutory law - he agrees with me - does that mean you’re now willing to defer to what he says?
Given that I know your answer - that would appear to mean the level of one’s law education makes no difference to how right they are - and that you’re quote here is just nonsense ad-hominem that has no bearing in anything..
Created:
-->
@TWS1405
But it is NOT! Your explanation is pure liberal fictional BS that has no application in either the real world, or the real legal world.
What an exceptional, well thought out argument
“It’s not”:
Recall - my pesky, inconvenient post above:
It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer -(1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin;
If men are subject to specific limited conditions of employment compared to woman, that’s illegal.
The law explicitly says so.
Thus, if you are a man, and wear heals, make up, dress - and are generally presentable - then the TEXT of title VII prevents employers firing you, or discriminating against you - if that same behaviour would not get you fired if you didn’t have a penis. You would be being fired, and forced to adhere to different conditions of employment on the basis of your sex.
Plain as day - spelt out in the laws text - explicitly.
Open.
And.
Shut.
Are the employment conditions afforded to a woman different from that afforded to a man - if a man may not wear the same clothes? Indisputably yes.
Is the employee being fired , on the basis of those conditions that are applied to one sex but not the other? Indisputably yes.
If you answer yea to both those questions - which you must - because that’s clear and unambiguous reality - then that behaviour is illegal as per the text of title VII.
You may continue to baselessly assert how wrong I am for the next 8492 posts if you wish - you’re feelings do not change the text of Title VII.
Created:
-->
@TWS1405
Being a man claiming to be a woman is just yet another afront to women by men claiming to be better than women.
Is there any specific examples of any transgender woman ever claiming or even implying to be better than woman in any way that has any actual material impact on woman at all?
What is the material effect, not hand waving, or vague statements.
Please explain how any specific person in society 1 or society itself, is or would be harmed; by us all deciding not to give a sh*t about whether men want to identify as a woman.
I’ll brush over transgender men.
Men have NO business claiming to be a woman, like "Lia" Thomas who sucked as a man at swimming just to prevail claiming he is a woman, case in point.
That’s your main objection? how to appropriately let transgender woman compete in sports?
If that’s your go-to #1 complaint then perfect! Let’s not give a sh*t about transgender men and women; let transgender men compete in male sports if they want - and we can try and work on some reasonable way to be physiologically fair in sports.
If that’s you’re only material objection - then you’re not particularly far away!
Created:
-->
@TWS1405
And men pretending to be women isn't covered by Title VII isn't covered either.
But it is. I explained why above.
I quoted the exact law.
I applied the specific parts of the law that applies
I explained how transgender discrimination meets the prohibited example described by the law.
Thus is illegal.
Your response was to. Wait. You stripped that entire part out of your reply. How odd!!!
Note: Just telling me I’m wrong over and over again doesn’t make me wrong
No, it is not. Hence the "bona fide occupational qualification" allowed by law. Idiot.
Bone fide occupational qualification refers to cases where a business legitimately relies on a particular gender in a particular way - like strippers, or hooters.
It’s a recognized exception to cases where men and woman can be discriminated against but it’s ok due to gender being “a bona fide occupational qualification” for the job.
That there are legally recognized exceptions to discrimination does not mean treating people differently based on their gender isn’t normally discrimination. It is.
Quoting out of context.The rest of your retort is illogical nonsense with ZERO legal founding.
How exactly do you feel I quoted you out of context. I think the issue is that you don’t understand the context yourself.
You said:
Your entire reasoning is a semantic argument that defies social, psychological, social-psychological, cultural and anthropological expectations of a sane society.
My argument - to which you were responding - was that affording rights in the workplace to one gender but not another - is sex discrimination ; and thus illegal. You replied with the post above.
Given that this is a legal argument, based on the content of the law - the only reason any of the sh*t you said had any relevance - was if it’s relevant to the legality of the discrimination - IE: was relevant to the legalities of discrimination (for example - by being an exception written in title VII).
Last time I checked, what you feel is the cultural expectations of a sane society has absolutely no relevance to the textuaist interpretation of discrimination law.
So I’m not quoting you out of context. I’m just using a question to point out the absurdity of including that objection in an argument that is inherently about what the law says.
Created:
-->
@TWS1405
No, I meant what I said. I used it in the same form/reference is ideology. It just hasn't caught on yet. Either way, you understood you were in fact being an idiot.
Ahh you mean idiocracy.
And if you arrive to work dressed as Michael Myers every day...is that Halloween discrimination!?! That's what it amounts to when a guy suddenly comes to work dressed as a woman and demands to be treated as a woman. Would you demand to be treated like a serial killer!?!
You probably could call not being allows a halloween costume “halloween discrimination” - but given that it’s not covered by Title VII it would obviously not be illegal.
Your entire reasoning is a semantic argument that defies social, psychological, social-psychological, cultural and anthropological expectations of a sane society.
My reasoning is that not letting a man do something a woman can do is discriminating based on sex. Because it is.
“Social, psychological,social-psychological, cultural and Anthropological expectations of a sane society”
Feel free to share the portion of Title VII that includes the above as a legal exception to discrimination.
“Under the law, it is not, nor has it ever been sex discrimination until Gorsuch created new law via judicial activism (legal fiat)”
It’s covered by.
It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer -(1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin;
If men are subject to limited conditions of employment compared to woman , that’s illegal. If one sex is prevented from do something the other can - it’s illegal.
Why do even you care so much? I’ve worked with a transgender woman for a while - she was nice, had a strong work ethic, and her Genitalia or clothing has absolutely no impact on my life. This stands opposed to Simon - who was a backstabbing asshole, and other Kaylen who occasionally microwaved soup for 8 minutes at peak lunch break. They had a material impact on my life - yet no one is suggesting a fish microwaving ban - of objecting to that behaviour.
It’s literally being angry at people for absolutely no reason - out of sheer spite - I imagine that sort of pointless hate has to be eating you up inside.
Created:
-->
@TWS1405
Your idiocrasy never ceases to amaze me.
I think you mean Idiocy. Idiocrasy means peculiar - like idiosyncratic.
It's okay because she [is] a biological woman conforming with not only societal, cultural but also the employers dress code.There is NO "sex discrimination" under the law that prohibits an employer from firing a longstanding male employee coming to work dressed as a woman unscientifically claiming to be a biological woman after having already been hired as a biological male employee.
If a long-standing male employee is fired for coming to work dressed as a woman - he is being fired because the company is negatively penalizing a man for doing something that is okay for woman. That is sex discrimination.
You may be okay with that discrimination; and think that the discrimination is acceptable - but it is still sex discrimination.
Created:
-->
@TWS1405
A woman goes to work, wears heals, make up and a dress - and it’s okay.
If you’re suggesting that I can be fired for doing the same thing solely on the basis that I have a penis.
How this that not open and shut sex discrimination?
Created:
-->
@TWS1405
**YAWN**
That is an absolutely great answer to the argument.
Let me reiterate some of your errors, as you seem to want to ignore them.
1.) You’ve posted sloppy data to support claims of pride and self determination, which partially refuted your own claims.
2.) you m posted a bunch of links to support claims that the black community has no pride or determination that did not show that, and instead made explicitly suggested that both systemic racism and on-going racism was the course of some specific issues.
3.) You claimed a peak of out of wedlock births drove mass incarceration - yet the peak occurred after.
4.) You blamed crime rates on out of wedlock births and fatherlessness - despite little correlation after the mid 90s, and little correlation with murder rate after the mid 70s.
5.) You incorrectly claimed that wedlock birthrates were not at record lows - yet they are.
6.) You blame crime rates in “black culture” despite the crime rates having fallen drastically since the culture you talk about was around.
7.) You rejected my staying common knowledge data about the drop of the crime rate and the timing of mass incarceration. Despite the data mentioned being specific - and trivially googleable.
8.) You rejected several citations of actual racial skew in crime data - despite them being easily googleable and clear cut instances of racial skew in crime data.
9.) You remain unable to justify how or why simply repeating a data point justifies the list of conclusions you draw from them.
10.) You can’t cite ANY examples of prominent leftists denying the data.
11.) you accuse me of denying the data - yet can’t cite any examples or me doing so.
12.) You’ve been provided clear examples of where your language is explicitly racist - which you are unable to defend. You’ve been provided clear examples where you have injected unsupported value statements - which you have been unable to defend - and it’s been pointed out that it’s not unreasonable to presume your unceasingly abrasive, and excessively negative tone aimed solely at a minority - is motivated by your negative opinion of that race.
You have been systematically unable to defend any of your arguments thus far - and have capitulated the entire argument to the point that all you have left is calling me a sanctimonious narcissist.
Well, this sanctimonious narcissist would very much like to hear what you have to say in the above points; though I don’t hold my breath given that it has been my opinion that people holding positions like yours have a tendency to either end capitulate in the face of scrutiny as you’re doing here.
Though I’m hoping I can drag you kicking and screaming back to the points you no longer seem willing to defend.
Created:
-->
@CoolApe
The global insulin market is controlled completely by 3 companies. Imagine the price of insulin if all 3 of these companies lost their patents worldwide and prescriptions on all insulin drugs were removed. Not only would the price of insulin fall, but the quantity manufactured would increase everywhere. Monopolies primarily have pricing power because of their tight hold around production quantities. I'd prefer those patents stripped away from these companies. It makes more sense than the government putting price controls on insulin companies which benefit by their keeping supply tight.
1.) Those same 3 companies, selling the same type of insulin, have prices that are a fraction of the US in other countries with better regulation.
2.) Almost every single parent relating to insulin has expired. Insulin is over 100 years old and there is nothing at all stopping many companies developing equivalent products to those around 10-20 years ago, that were fine.
3.) Patents are less of an issue, for modern insulin analog biologics, the issue is as much the manufacturing process; which is covered by trade secrets (that never expire) - doesn’t matter if a company no longer has a patent if everyone else has to spend billions figuring out how to make the thing. But again - not an issue with older insulin.
Not that patents aren’t an issue in general - but they aren’t really why the prices are high for insulin specifically.
4.) The underlying issue of price here, is because of free markets, it’s the result rather an aberration - one cannot have a system where groups compete with each other and expect it to go on forever without anyone winning. That’s the fundamental insanity of free market proponents. You either have to eventually live with regulation, or OCP.
There are three big companies primarily because they were the best at producing drugs, navigating the market and crushing or buying out the competition. They had plenty of competition and yet we are still here.
The fundamental error here is presuming that given that three companies who already mostly beat out the competition over the last 70 years, one can simply wave a wand and have new people to “compete” with a multi-billion dollar pharmaceutical company, on any basis. This is no longer guys in the lab with cow pancreas where you can just patch together to create a workable analog. It’s a mature market and a relatively advanced product that’s going to take hundreds of millions of dollars to set up even if the FDA just ran minimal established safety tests - the alternative, is to go for perfectly fine 10 year old technology that is almost but not quite as good - which there will be almost no market for.
The only ones that will be able to compete in that market are not plucky newcomers - it’s going to be other billion dollar pharmaceutical companies - and until we figure out that it’s really hard to drum up competition in mature tech based markets - round and round we will go.
Created:
Yeah, you did. It was implicitly implied.
How does one imply anything other than implicitly?
"I have yet to see Oromagi talk about how good he is at debating, research, linking, considering etc -"
You said straw man. A straw man is when I take your position, modify it. And attack the modification. I’m clearly doing none of those things here.
I point this out, as it indicates that you clearly don't understand what a straw man is; despite you asserting it (obviously without any explanation) multiple times.
However - in your response; it appears you have conceded that you have broadly done all the other things, and as I summarized in my last post - and highlighted in 307-312 - you’re clearly a terrible researcher with little command of the facts.
You are just being your usual narcissistic sanctimonious denialist self.Go away. You're just continuing to make a fool of yourself.
How exactly, do you feel I’m making a fool of myself?
Each time I post, I explain the detail of why you’re wrong, I link back to points you ignore, demonstrate the logical issues in what you say, and with every post you demonstrate that you have no real answer to anything I say.
For example - I pointed out in my last post at how you are clearly a terrible researcher, and point out all the elements of research you got wholly wrong and, as yet, have not been able to defend - everyone is able to see that you completely ignored it before - and completely ignored it again.
I’m more than happy to keep going through and pointing out all the data you’re ignoring, how you’re argument is refuted by facts - as I showed in post 307-312 above.
If you feel that providing a list of excuses of why you don't want to respond to detail data that proves your argument wholly wrong makes me look like a fool - I am more than happy not to correct you
Created:
-->
@TWS1405
Never claimed to be good, great or awesome at debating. Strawman.
Did I say you did? For it to be a strawman, I have to misrepresent your position - I didn’t even mention your position
I am good at researching the topic that I initiate and engage in, not those I did not initiate. I use the shotgun effect.
No you’re not.
Cases in point:
You cited data on out of wedlock births that contained only partial data - when there was easily searchable complete data easily available.
You claimed to have data supporting your contention on pride and determination - but posted one link that partially showed the opposite, followed by four more on unrelated topics - that pretty blatantly espoused the validity of systemic racism.
You made claims about the spike out of wedlock births causing mass incarceration - despite happening after; disputed the occurrence of the peak - which occurred well after you suggested; disputed that wedlock births are at the lowest ever a which they are.
You also disputed claims on when mass incarceration happened, disputed the existence of data on skews in the criminal Justice statistics - which I cited specifically; and disputes the validity of the claim that various crime rates have fallen massively.
The evidence of your research prowess is clearly refuted by your consistent inability to Google facts and parameters given to you, citing poor or contradictory sources, and having a rather poor command of the facts.
Anyone can link, doesn't take any measure of expertise you clown.
Of course - expertise is demonstrated by an ability to disentangle statistics, explain why their position is wrong, what logical errors they are making; to the point the other person is unable to respond.
Oh, he has said another is incorrect without proving it. That's for sure.
Where?
You need to check your arrogance and sanctimonious narcist banality at the door, Mr. Dunning Kruger.
This sounds like you’re trying out madlibs.
Created:
-->
@TWS1405
Now that I can agree with you on..."definitely not" you are.A lot of your debate tactics are sophomoric.One day, with the right debate topic, I will take you on.
Sophomoric as they may be - I have yet to see Oromagi talk about how good he is at debating, research, linking, considering etc - in a discussion as an argument. I have also never heard him tell someone they are wrong, incorrect or mistaken - without also providing an explanation of why at the same time.
Two key behaviours that you would be best served to copy.
Created:
Exclusivity granted by the FDA gives pharmaceutical manufacturers…
But Insulin manufactures haven’t been granted exclusivity….
Strict regulatory programs, such as the patent system and…
Almost all of the insulin patents have expired, right? It’s been around for 100 years…
If only there were more regulations on patenting that prevented companies exploiting the valid patent system to protect incremental improvements on their products and use marketing to drive older products out of the market - glad you agree more regulation here is necessary.
a drug maker must file a New Drug Application (NDA), which requires costly investment in formal testing to prove the safety and effectiveness of the new.
How dare they ensure new drugs are safe. How very dare they!
This restraint allows the brand name drug company to refuse to sell its sample to a generic drug company, hindering access. Despite brand name companies claims that FDA policy prevents them from distributing samples, the FDA specifically allows brand name companies to sell samples to generic drug manufacturers.
Hmm; the FDA is prohibiting competition by not enforcing a regulation - and forcing companies to se drugs to generic manufactures?
It’s awesome that you agree with this regulation and believe it should be enforced!
I mean - it would stupid to presume you were suggesting that pharma companies would sell samples to generic drug manufactures if the requirement to so was removed, no?
This is all misleading garbage; that pretty succinctly underpins the key message that we need to regulate these industry’s more tightly.
You know - like Canada - where there is no generic insulin either - and the same companies - selling the same insulin - where insulin is super cheap - because the government more deeply regulates the industry - and negotiates prices - because companies you can’t trust major billion dollar companies not to do things that harm the population for profit.
But hey, who cares about facts when you can just delete your posts, amiright!
Created:
@greyparrotIn short, you can have competition ONLY if the FDA "allows" it.
The FDA for sure doesn’t allow you to compete with insulin with injections Radium, fecal transplants and tinfoil hat therapy.
At some point after a long slew of deaths, and injuries we figured out that it’s best if drugs are safe and effective before along them to be sold in competition.
You know, because corporations can’t really be trusted.
Created:
insulin is expensive because of corporate lobbying to restrict competition
There’s just as little competition in Canada. There’s been development and approvals of non-similar
Semglee in 2020, and biosimilar versions in 2021 and from Merck - the issue wasn’t that approval is too expensive or prohibitive - the barrier is not regulatory - but issue relates to the competition in PBMs: manufactures have relatively low prices, but compete on market share with how much money they rebate to PBMs - which bloats the price.
So your right, in that it’s a competition issue; where lobbyists fight to not have this market regulated, or broken up, or to allow the government to negotiate minimum prices (like they do in Canada) - but it’s not an FDA regulatory issue.
Created:
@GreyparrotNewsom is now my favorite Democrat willing to fight the FDA restrictions on insulin production.
But that’s just untrue; and you know it.
There’s not really any restrictions - you certainly can’t name any. You’re just spinning your own tires, and deleting your own posts telling me how there is, instead of explaining which ones.
The safety rules are mostly the same as in Canada - Canada has exactly the same insulin sold, with no generics competitors driving the price down - and has much cheaper prices with strong government regulation. The big barrier is that the human analogues are expensive to design, all the manufacture is covered by trade secrets and have to be developed from scratch, and needs to follow the process of making sure medication doesn’t kill people before it’s sold; and needs to be interchangeably prescribed to take off; and if you can do all that, you need to be able to compete for PBMs, and recoup the development costs.
The problem isn’t lack of competition is causing manufacturers to collude to hike prices - it’s that the companies are not competing on lowest price - they’re competing on what percentage of the sale price they can rebate to PBMs - who will pick the one that will give them most profit.
The main difference is the US allows markers to set the price on critical medicine, where is in places like Canada - that you’ve talked about multiple times - the government is involved with making sure the different companies are selling at reasonable prices.
Created:
-->
@Swagnarok
Firstly - the CBO report is about the INSULIN act - not the current reconciliation price cap. So we’re not really talking about the same thing - as the price cap in this bill isn’t what the CBO said is what raises net prices.
Like I said - a Medicare price cap and/or insurance price cap would absolutely increase spending and premiums on insulin - because the little people can now afford to use it; and the cost is either spread out across tax payers (the point of socialized medicine), or across premium payers of insurance (the point of insurance). But that’s not actually a bad thing.
Secondly - the issue is - as you said - the pharma and PBM oligopoly, lack of regulation in marketing, PBMs and business practices which are not particularly regulated or enforced for anti-competitive behaviour.
After all - it’s not like there are multiple generic insulin brands by competing manufacturers in Canada - and that’s what’s keeping the prices low - they’re provided by the same 3 companies, and near identical safety and pharmaceutical manufacture regulations. Yet Canada doesn’t have the same issue.
If those monopolies at the insurance, PBM and pharmaceutical level are broken up or better regulated to avoid anti-competitive behaviour, or regulated in such a way that key players aren’t driven by market forces due the industry structure to drive up the offered price in order to make sales - prices will come down.
Regulations relating to how it can be proven that your insulin is safe, works well, and can be prescribed interchangeably with another are all pretty critical factors and are somewhat unique for insulin; it’s probably not a big deal for a pharmaceutical company to develop their own brand of their own insulin, but if it’s safe, effective - but can’t be prescribed interchangeably - that presents a specific market barrier that isn’t fixable by any regulation you wouldn’t really want to remove - and aren’t issues in multiple other countries who have far lower prices due to stronger regulation.
Created:
I swear! that almost seemed like pure satire straight out of the Onion.
That’s 5 deleted posts in a row - at least this time you left it around long enough.
Onion titles such as “conservative blaming insulin prices on over regulation checks watch, states ‘is that the time’ when asked which regulations and how?”
Or maybe “conservative accidentally points to substantially more regulated Canadian pharmaceutical system as example of regulation done right”
Those are better.
Insulin is 100 years old technology - there’s been cheaper insulin sold 10 years ago. The issue is not that it’s now expensive to produce, or even that it’s particularly burdensome for a new company to come along and create a new product (it’s not).
The issue is what incentive does a new company have to come in and set up the manufacture of cheap, low margin insulin; when they face stiff competition from 3 entrenched competitors that will prevent your cheap, low margin insulin from getting to consumers through anti-competitive practices - because that’s what happens in poorly regulated low oversight market capitalism, especially when a variety of rebate and marketing systems exist that provide a structural market advantage to existing companies.
Created:
@GreyParrotGet this: deregulation would not only make insulin as affordable as Canadian insulin, but also pull us out of the recession.Did you know FDR took the advice of business experts and deregulated industry in order to produce the massive amounts of planes and tanks needed for the war? We need this level of deregulation again from Biden if we are to recover from this recession. The starved people of America deserve to actually live in a land of free commerce.
Deleted post #4
Conservatives love to splutter about regulations - but the reality here is that other than regulation to prevent drugs killing people, and making sure they work; because there once was a time people marketed snake oil as cures, and suggested X-rays would be an awesome cure all.
The price of insulin is purely driven by capitalist interests and not any form of production costs - and we can tell that because GP is deleting and reposting this nonsense each time instead of simply specifying the government regulation (or regulations) that have caused the cost of insulin to skyrocket, and how.
Everyone, the Republican politicians, the media, GP, all lay the blame on regulation - yet they can’t and won’t specify which, what and how that regulation has raised the price of manufacture.
Given that Gp will delete his post a fifth time rather than explaining which regulation(s) has caused the issue will be fairly instructive.
Created:
@GreyparrotGet this: deregulation would not only make insulin as affordable as Canadian insulin, but also pull us out of the recession.Did you know FDR took the advice of business experts and deregulated industry in order to produce the massive amounts of planes and tanks needed for the war? We need this level of deregulation again from Biden if we are to recover from this recession. The starved people of America deserve to actually live in a land of free commerce.
So - as this is the third time you’ve removed this post and re-added it, for some reason; I will assume that you’ve been seriously triggered by my post, and are now trying to find some way to make me stop posting.
I’ll try and add a little bit more to the argument each time.
Insulin is expensive because of the free market - there’s no onerous regulation: no new or unreasonable huge hurdles or steps that require pharmaceutical companies to spend much more - it’s not regulation causing the issues at all - this would be a lie.
Created:
Get this: deregulation would not only make insulin as affordable as Canadian insulin, but also pull us out of the recession.Did you know FDR took the advice of business experts and deregulated industry in order to produce the massive amounts of tanks needed for the war? We need this level of deregulation again from Biden if we are to recover from this recession.
“The starved, rabid bear keeps trying to bite us from behind the bars of its cage - we just need to let it out and it will solve all our problems”
Created:
Insulin is the poster child of crony capitalism. Why American voters allowed Congress to have so much power over Commerce and the free market is a testament to haw badly education has failed to instill a healthy level of skepticism for government fiats. A direct result of the government managing education itself.
Crony capitalism is capitalism. Because why bother being better, cheaper, faster and stronger when you make just as much profit, for less investment lobbying politicians.
It’s market forces.
Crony capitalism is just the consequences of market capitalism that market capitalists don’t want to talk about.
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
Get this. The Inflation Reduction Act…doesn’t reduce inflation.
Creating debt and giving it to people and corporations apparently increase inflation, right?
On what economic basis do you believe that doing the opposite (in the form of corporate rates and buyback tax) won’t decrease it?
Created:
-->
@Swagnarok
Insulin is literally the poster child for a commodity for which the price should be through the floor due to market forces. The fact that it isn’t, given how cheap it is to produce, is not down to the “cost” of insulin.
If you are concerned that private insurance would have shared the cost across all those who are insured (which is kinda the point of insurance), it’s not an issue of “passing on the cost”, but “passing on consumers being f***ed” - given that the people telling us that the cost will be shared are the people raking in billions - I’m not entirely convinced.
Created:
Remember the time when the government would provide assistance directly to affected people instead of engaging in corporate welfare?
Let’s help people.
“That’s socialism”
Okay, let’s end corporate welfare then
“That will wreck the economy”
So you don’t want to do anything?
“Yeah - and it’s your fault.”
Created:
-->
@cristo71
We absolute need comprehensive price reform.
But in the absence for that, I’d rather not have anyone needing to rationing insulin - even though there would have gaps in that.
Created:
And worms.
I think the phrase was “worm man” - and was in reference to the crazy anti-semitic far right actual Nazis.
Perhaps you affiliate with those Nazis - but the rest of us are just the self hating Nazis that are derogatory about Nazis, and a party that openly allows Nazis - which apparently makes us Nazis.
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
If it passes, I’m half expecting ads saying that Democrats failed to lower insulin costs for people on private insurance….
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Amoranemix
Appropriateness is not something that’s easy to discern in international diplomacy stuff like this; as it’s all a matter of perspective and values.
The best we can do, is ask whether there was geopolitical benefit to the trip; did the harms outweigh the gain.
This type of thing is all weird layers, smoke and mirrors.
So - what this was, was an obvious attempt to lend official whitehouse support to Taiwan, but be a bit less overt and obvious than a formal presidential trip. That alone tempers it a little bit - they could have made a bigger statement; while it’s clear that this is 100% Biden/executive support of Taiwan, that Pelosi went puts a little distance in that support.
The history with Taiwan has been sort of quiet support, with some strategic ambiguity - indicating support enough to make China not invade, but not so much that Taiwan does something super antagonistic.
The geopolitical landscape right now, is dominated by Ukraine, the western response; and it’s a bit naive to think China would not to be analyzing the response with respect to how it could relate to their strategic goals.
There’s been a tonne of rumbling around the South China Sea with concerns about structures in the islands, harassment of shipping. I honestly am not sure whether this is an uptick in activity; or just normal.
In the context of of the visit - this *seems* to be a visit that is saying something along the lines of “don’t do it”.
Now - whether it’s the right call, depends on many factors: was the likelihood of China doing something rising? (I’m not sure), is it more likely to dissuade than provoke (I lean towards yes - but I am not certain), and whether it is likely to encourage Taiwan into do something stupid (I think this is unlikely)
I find it very hard to understand China’s motivation, as it’s a lot about face saving, and their view of Taiwan: being born on the taking end of imperialistic current/former countries - it’s hard for me to understand the level of impact being on the “taken from” side; If the Chinese/Taiwan relationship can be thought of in those terms.
This is all to say, the jury’s out; I expect that if there is no war in the next two weeks, then the visit was likely worthwhile, as it does demonstrate a level of commitment by the US if Chinas analysts were starting to presume otherwise.
Created:
The Brave Republicans showed - again - how they are fighting for the little guy - by voting to strip out a cap on insulin prices in private insurance.
I guess $35/month insulin costs just make those poor people lazy.
Created:
-->
@FLRW
Apparently talking negatively about actual Nazis or the anti-democracy party which actual Nazis support, makes you a Nazi.
Guess we’re all Republicans here.
Created:
-->
@Reece101
It was actually a consultant to Doug mastriano; not Doug mastriano.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Danielle
What I'm asking is what if U.S. voters continue to legitimize or simply ignore and disregard the nonexistent claims of fraud though? Are we watering down the accusation to the point where it means nothing, and if so couldn't that be dangerous?
Yes. Very.
People will follow what is normal and acceptable in their group. When their group doesn’t really believe in the validity of any election in which they do not win, any narrative in which the democrats are not the villains; if this is normal and acceptable - someone is going to say or do something a little abnormal or a little unacceptable. If no one challenges it, the the mile marker of acceptability is dragged a little bit more to the extreme.
For example, police violence against protesters, unmarked federal officers pulling individuals off the streets, armed men taking to the streets and shooting protesters, tear-gassing - etc - if your group cheers when this happens, if you celebrate the police who do it; and you all believe that people critical of your leaders are out to destroy the country - then it drags the level of acceptability to the extreme to the point where it may not be unrealistic to expect that such people would cheer of protesters were run over, shot, teargassed or dispersed - for being critical of the government.
People will follow what is normal and acceptable in their group. When their group doesn’t really believe in the validity of any election in which they do not win, any narrative in which the democrats are not the villains; if this is normal and acceptable - someone is going to say or do something a little abnormal or a little unacceptable. If no one challenges it, the the mile marker of acceptability is dragged a little bit more to the extreme.
For example, police violence against protesters, unmarked federal officers pulling individuals off the streets, armed men taking to the streets and shooting protesters, tear-gassing - etc - if your group cheers when this happens, if you celebrate the police who do it; and you all believe that people critical of your leaders are out to destroy the country - then it drags the level of acceptability to the extreme to the point where it may not be unrealistic to expect that such people would cheer of protesters were run over, shot, teargassed or dispersed - for being critical of the government.
yet tens of millions of people are simply like "NOPE! FAKE!" because charismatic people like Trump and Alex Jones say so.
It’s far more pervasive than that: the inner core of Trump support - the QAnon crazies, and the core die hards have been systematically trained in how to maintain beliefs.
They have been trained, online, through their media, their politicians that when confronted with contrary information - to find a reason for that piece of data that can be ignored. It’s a cult like parroting some specific mantra to reject anything.
Conspiratorial thinking is actually a symptom of a way of interpreting evidence - generally speaking - it’s when people have a belief or narrative - and look for any evidence that is consistent with that narrative in order to validate it. When you do that, you will descend into conspiracies given the right push - because there is no attempt to determine whether that evidence is consistent with other things, or weighing inconsistent data.
Both elements allow people to literally justify belief in anything; so all that is required is to be caught up in a crowd.
Religion plays a big role in this - imo - as this way of thinking is literally hammered into evangelical Christian kids from a young age. Look how creationism debates and conversation were THE most common religious topic of discussion prior to 2015 and literally ended overnight the moment Trump entered the scene. That’s not a coincidence.
They have been trained, online, through their media, their politicians that when confronted with contrary information - to find a reason for that piece of data that can be ignored. It’s a cult like parroting some specific mantra to reject anything.
Conspiratorial thinking is actually a symptom of a way of interpreting evidence - generally speaking - it’s when people have a belief or narrative - and look for any evidence that is consistent with that narrative in order to validate it. When you do that, you will descend into conspiracies given the right push - because there is no attempt to determine whether that evidence is consistent with other things, or weighing inconsistent data.
Both elements allow people to literally justify belief in anything; so all that is required is to be caught up in a crowd.
Religion plays a big role in this - imo - as this way of thinking is literally hammered into evangelical Christian kids from a young age. Look how creationism debates and conversation were THE most common religious topic of discussion prior to 2015 and literally ended overnight the moment Trump entered the scene. That’s not a coincidence.
Isn't this a bit more problematic than Democrats mincing words about what a "recession" is?
Of course it is. Provides that you’re not in the group for which the democrats are doing everything for the purpose of destroying the country. The problem with the regular political discourse is that the democrats are still acting in the normal window of political behaviour from 20 years ago. A few lies maybe, some policy, maybe a few shady deals - but nothing out of the ordinary - and are making the political arguments as if the republicans are too, because that’s all they really know. But the republicans have largely gone to crazy town - they’re just exploiting peoples anger offering no solutions other than “don’t let the democrats win”. When your political platform is “we must win at all costs and we’ll, you know, do stuff to make America great” it’s indicative that power is the sole goal.
What if heavily armed minority groups or militias refuse to accept the results of the next election?
I think you’re looking at the wrong place. Russia has elections. Most highly authoritarian regimes have elections. If American is going to turn into autocracy - it will be within stretched constitutional parameters. Various laws for entrenching political advantage, laws that limit voting rights or ability; vast Gerrymanders; take overs of electoral machinery, takeover of the judiciary, voter intimidation; winning close elections and using the resulting power to constrain opposing thought and control education and then make opposition illegal. As long as enough people cheer it on - which they will - it’s the inevitable conclusion of the constant shift to ever more extreme benchmarks of normal.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
He’s trying to derail the thread - with the irony being that he’s doing so with obvious disinformation and intellectual dishonesty - which is exactly the key point this thread was trying to highlight.
The things he’s talking about are clearly and obviously not the same type or nature as the clear cut misinformation we’re talking about - which is almost invariably republican. We know that, he knows that.
But, like I said, it’s not about an intellectual argument - he’s trying to derail the conversation so that people don’t talk about topics that makes him uncomfortable.
The strategy he is using is every bit the same style as the Republican misinformation strategy - specifically whataboutism. There’s a slither of overlap between republican misinformation, and politicians lying about things - in that they both involve lies, even though the nature, intent, purpose and broadness is entirely materially different. He can’t defend anything related to the Republican misinformation machine - no one can, nor has any argument to add - but he apparently has to say something - can’t let a critical point stand - so tries to derail the thread, and stifle any conversation by trying to shift it to talking about democrats.
That’s the point - he doesn’t really believe any of this nonsense - he’s doing it because if we are now spending all our time talking about democrats in this thread - we’re not talking about Republicans any more. Whether you or I destroy his logic or argument is not relevant - because either way he’s changed the subject to being about democrats and has achieved his aim.
This absolutely typifies much of the online strategy of Republican misinformation - political discussion is often no longer about finding the right solutions, the truth, or discussing policy - but finding the best way to disrupt the conversation in a politically preferrable way.
As I said, look up - exhibit A.
Created:
-->
@oromagi
It appears his ability to defend his point of view is particularly superficial given his replies.
Also, the idea that you have narcissistic personality disorder is clearly false.
We all know it’s borderline histrionic personality disorder all day long.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Conservatives: We support the confederate flag because it’s a rebel flag.Me: If you support rebels so much, do you support the undocumented? They got Rebel Pride too.Conservatives: No. They need to comply. But not us.Me: Smh.
If that makes you shake your head, just wait until you see literally every other thing conservatives have said over the course of the last 20 years.
Created:
-->
@TWS1405
Not false, fact. You're all about my delivery and nothing about the facts given.
There was no name-calling in that statement above. Adjectives do NOT = nouns.
And no, I have capitulated to nothing of the sort. (Delusions of graduer on your part)
If you feel my argument is “all about delivery”, and not “the facts given”, please by all means go through posts #307-312 above and specify how and why you have drawn this conclusion - I would like you spend extra attention in posts #310-#312 - because here I specifically go through and contest your conclusions based on facts and demonstrate how your conclusions are unsupported - or refuted by the data. Also, in #307-309 while I talk a little about language and tone; I would like you to explain why you feel taking about the logical issues and poorly reasoned arguments in your posts is “all about your delivery.
Telling me that I’m just so gosh darn wrong - doesn’t make me wrong.
Telling me that I’m just so gosh darn wrong - doesn’t make me wrong.
Yes, you are [denying the data]. Yes, they are. Yes, they most certainly are. And in doing so it only perpetuates the problem.
Where?
Please quote the part of my post - any of my posts - where I have “denied the data”. Be specific.
Please quote the part of my post - any of my posts - where I have “denied the data”. Be specific.
Then you clearly do not know very many leftists or democrats then. Denial = acceptance
Quote one. Find me a blue tick leftist on Twitter or instagram, left wing journalist in any news or magazine organization with an about page that shows ownership, or any left wing politician or activists for which there is a wiki page, and quote to me where they explicitly “deny the data” that you are listing here.
Not “provide an explanation for” not “provide context to” not “work through underlying causes and reasons for it” - a quote where the data is explicitly denied.
Not “provide an explanation for” not “provide context to” not “work through underlying causes and reasons for it” - a quote where the data is explicitly denied.
And they (leftists and democrats) are full of denial … yadda yadda yadda.
This is just an opinionated rant - there is no argument for me to respond to.
As soon as I or anyone like-minded (to include black conservatives) presents that data, out come the derogatory labels written on the palm of the hand raised to silence that information.
And yet - as shown, those conclusions in this case aren’t wholly unreasonable.
None of the statements I made are factually inaccurate. Truth is NOT racism.
This is conclusion is absolutely untrue - I explained in detail why in post: #307 -by all means quote the argument and explain how and why my reasoning is wrong.
Repeating a claim after it’s been debunked, with no attempt to justify it is a bit intellectually dishonest.
Some of the statements such as “whites not whining about slavery”, contain a factual point - but imply value. The fact is a fact - the value you insert into those statements is not. (Again see posts above)
So these statements which imply value can clearly be interpreted as racist as a result (see #307 for more detail.
A bunch - are not based on any specific data; and is purely your opinion that you are asserting is fact. I concentrated on pride - which thus far (given posts #315) you still haven’t provided data for and tried to change the subject.
By all means, If you disagree - by all means explain why that interpretation is not correct. Simply denying everything, is not intellectually honest.
Some of the statements such as “whites not whining about slavery”, contain a factual point - but imply value. The fact is a fact - the value you insert into those statements is not. (Again see posts above)
So these statements which imply value can clearly be interpreted as racist as a result (see #307 for more detail.
A bunch - are not based on any specific data; and is purely your opinion that you are asserting is fact. I concentrated on pride - which thus far (given posts #315) you still haven’t provided data for and tried to change the subject.
By all means, If you disagree - by all means explain why that interpretation is not correct. Simply denying everything, is not intellectually honest.
[that you have regularly conflated “black people” with “a specific limited set of the black population” is a ] Semantics argument.
As pointed out, a post including language that admonishes an entire race (which you did) sounds racist even if in error. It is not unreasonable for people to conclude you are a racist, when you frequently make terminological errors that make the things you say sound racist.
By all means feel free to explain why that logic is invalid - why you feel it’s semantics, and what about semantics makes it false - saying it is so, doesn’t make it so
By all means feel free to explain why that logic is invalid - why you feel it’s semantics, and what about semantics makes it false - saying it is so, doesn’t make it so
The topic or issue is correcting the false narrative put out by the left…
So you said a bunch of stuff here admonishing me telling me they’re wrong - re-iterating how right you are, that people have 1 dimensional thinking etc, etc - you haven’t actually addressed the point at all:
The underlying point is that if someone blustered into a thread and was solely fixated on constantly posting negative statistics about Volvos, admonishing people for not acknowledging all the negative statistics about Volvos, and abrasively posting their unvarnished opinion about how some of the new models are terrible shitty cars - with the odd choice of initial thread, and sole apparent topic of interest being how no one accepts your negative Volvo fact based data - it would not be unreasonable for someone viewing this behaviour to conclude you have an issue with Volvos.
Perhaps you can explain - given my list of your behaviour, and this explanation - why you feel it is unreasonable for individuals to attribute this abrasive, negative behaviour to racism in the same way?
The underlying point is that if someone blustered into a thread and was solely fixated on constantly posting negative statistics about Volvos, admonishing people for not acknowledging all the negative statistics about Volvos, and abrasively posting their unvarnished opinion about how some of the new models are terrible shitty cars - with the odd choice of initial thread, and sole apparent topic of interest being how no one accepts your negative Volvo fact based data - it would not be unreasonable for someone viewing this behaviour to conclude you have an issue with Volvos.
Perhaps you can explain - given my list of your behaviour, and this explanation - why you feel it is unreasonable for individuals to attribute this abrasive, negative behaviour to racism in the same way?
Ah, there's that delusion of grandeur again.
Only "nuh-uh" banality here is all on you.
“Nuh-uh” indicates a case where you say in wrong, but provide no explanation - as you have done exclusively in this post . Feel free to find an example of me claiming “nuh-uh” on a point where you provided a justification of your opinion.
Easy to claim, harder to prove. Nothing I've said has been inconsistent with the data since it is based specifically off the data.
In 311,312 and 313 I go out of my way to explicitly detail all the aspects of your opinions that are refuted by data - I provided the data you asked for, backed up everything with sources - and comprehensively demolished multiple attributions you made. This includes data, interpretation, and pointing out logical errors you make in your attribution.
If you don’t agree with that assessment, and you take issue with my argument and logic, by all means feel free to explain exactly what part of my argument is wrong - and why.
Without that, your response is just a meaningless denial
If you don’t agree with that assessment, and you take issue with my argument and logic, by all means feel free to explain exactly what part of my argument is wrong - and why.
Without that, your response is just a meaningless denial
Nope. Only in your fictional world is it capitulating.
When someone posts a detailed rebuttal to every point raised that spans multiple posts - and the other side is unable to address the claims in any way shape or form; and whose only response is to either a) repeat the debunked claims or b.) simply repeating how wrong someone is - it clearly demonstrates that person is unable to deal with the points raised.
That no attempt is made at all to address the point, and this reply descends into just repeating assertions that the other is wrong - renders the lack of response a capitulation.
That no attempt is made at all to address the point, and this reply descends into just repeating assertions that the other is wrong - renders the lack of response a capitulation.
You've made no points worth answering (points are not answered, questions are answered).
How can the readers here tell that these points aren’t worth answering - as opposed to you being unable to answer them, and then lying that the points are not worth answering because you know how bad it looks not answering a detailed argument?
You're bitching about delivery and ignoring the truth of it all.
please cite one example of a truth you feel I have e “ignored”
I've already explained why you are wrong.
By all means, feel free to quote the part of your posts where you feel you have addressed a point of contention - I will be happy to draw your attention to a post that explains why your response is inadequate or illogical.
Otherwise, again, your reply is merely a base assertion without merit.
Otherwise, again, your reply is merely a base assertion without merit.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
I am broadly of the opinion that people like GPs goal is not an assessment or discussion of politics or the truth - but simply to make people saying things he doesn’t like stop talking.
Perhaps it’s related to his own discomfort or triggering; that it’s not enough to believe something - one has to stop other people saying differently.
His strategy is typically to say stuff to make you not want to talk about the original point any more; and if it doesn’t works, he goes to other extremes. Like blocking people - a great one a while back was that he went through and deleted a post after I replied, and then reposted the original.
This is all to say that we know that the HB laptop is egregious, that the majority of spam in this thread is not the same thing as misinformation, and has little to know real bearing on the topic at hand - GP knows it to.
The issue isn’t Hunter Biden, or his laptop, or Biden - if never has been; I don’t think he really believes any of this deep down. It is merely the tool of choice that he feels offers his best chance of shutting people up.
Look at this thread - does he really believe in the details of any of this stuff: or is he just reeling it off to derail the thread so we don’t talk about it, and this topic just offers a cover of legitimacy?
I think we should stop treating people who with every post demonstrate they are disinterested in an intellectually honest discussion - as if they are interested in intellectually honest discussion.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
I think you can now label this thread exhibit A - it pretty deftly exemplifies the issue on the right.
Whenever you try and have a discussion on a topic that the right finds uncomfortable, along comes a true believer to try and completely and utterly derail the thread with subject changes, whataboutism, gaslighting, etc. Anything but an actual, genuine, intellectual conversation on the topic.
Such forbidden thought about republicans is obviously intolerable; and the moment such thoughts appear, these intellectual brown shirts must say or do literally anything, as much as possible, as often as possible, by whatever means to prevent and suppress a topic they don’t like being legitimately discussed - even if it’s just constant spamming a thread with stuff they prefer talking about. If they don’t want to talk about the topic - no one will the topic.
After all, why bother going through the complex process of formulating and justifying an argument when you can just bombard any argument so much, and so often that everyone else just gives up wanting to talk about it in the first place.
Created:
Posted in:
Corruption is a cancer: a cancer that eats away at a citizen's faith in democracy, diminishes the instinct for innovation and creativity; already-tight national budgets, crowding out important national investments. It wastes the talent of entire generations. It scares away investments and jobs.
YOU’RE NOT TALKING ABOUT INFORMATION THAT PAINTS REPUBLICANS FAVOURABLY. WE MUST TALK INSTEAD ABOUT THE SQUIRREL.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Hey pal, it’s Dad,”“It’s 8:15 on Wednesday night. If you get a chance, just give me a call. Nothing urgent. I just wanted to talk to you.”“I thought the article released online, it’s going to be printed tomorrow in the Times, was good. I think you’re clear. And anyway if you get a chance, give me a call, I love you.”
Fourth, they never apologize or back down once their lie is exposed, but instead, they double down, and in times of doubt, always pivot towards racism and fear-mongering.
I think this probably needs to be expanded to include, deflection, subject changing and whataboutism - or just plain gaslighting.
Because that’s what typically happens when they’re challenged on open and shut facts.
Created:
-->
@TWS1405
Wow...one superfluous retort after another whining about semantics and delivery but never addressing the fact-based data in and of itself.
“nuh-uh” Assertion - also false. If you take a look at my posts - I actually go through and detail all the “fact based data”
Given that you are now resorting to name calling and bald assertions - I will work under the assumption that you have capitulated on the entire argument.
Simple question: do a tiny, small % of black males in America commit over 50% of the entire nation's homicides/murders and non-negligent manslaughters or not?Obvious answer: yes.Do blacks kill 2x as many whites every year, yes or no?Obvious answer: yes.Since a tiny, small % of black makes are committing more violent crimes than whites, both intraracially and interracially.
Yes - but no one js denying this. I’m not denying it. Leftists aren’t denying it. Democrats aren’t denying it.
and the entirety of the LEFT, DEMOCRATS and DENIALIST BLACKS are unwilling to accept this fact.
I’m a leftist - I accept it. I know of no democrat or leftist that doesn’t accept it. This is a false premise.
however you slice and dice it (attributable to, linked to, fact based criminological data, etc.)... is my point.
But it’s a false point. No one rejects the data - this is literally the first part of my response to you. Are you unable to actually my address why this premise is wrong - or are you just going to repeat the same faulty claims?
As a result, when these fact based truths are mentioned, even lightly, you get reported by the leftist denialists and then banned from the social media platforms for "discrimination" via "hate speech and symbols."End of story.
Actually, as I have argued and presented in the posts above: the issue isn’t that your describing data - it’s that you’re making value statements based on it, such as:
There are no historical references to whites bitching and moaning about their enslavement.They're not born immoral, but they are certainly taught to be.It is a foregone conclusion that black communities with high crime rates know exactly what is happening, but they are just too chicken sh!t to do anything about it.lack of a proper upbringing by the single parent, lack of discipline, and lack of the sense and importance of taking personal responsibility and accountability for their choices and actions.They need to learn discipline, respect, and the importance of taking personal responsibility and accountability for their choices and actions - and understand the consequences of any bad choices and actions they make.Before civil rights black Americans had pride, self-respect, and determination to succeed in AmericaBlacks wanted to succeed then, but after civil rights, everything changedBlack culture is the problem that fuels crime, abuse, rape, murder, poor parenting, drug use, gangs, so on and so forthMore like mass paranoia and psychosis of the victimhood mentality hammered into their heads generation after generation is the true inherent problem.In fact, blacks in the Caribbean and South America do not act/behave as black American’s do precisely because they do not have the level of freedoms and luxuries that blacks in America haveThe difference is the culture. Any measure of success among those in the black community was frowned uponWhat is are the low standards some people have for themselves and others that makes the choice for them easier to consume illegal drugs.
All of these employ either explicit or implicit negative value statements about blacks - it’s value statements that change “facts” to “racism”
In addition, you’re frequently super sloppy in your language, either Freudian, or accidental when you say stuff like:
Why are so many resilient to fact-based truth regarding black criminality?And when I present the data that proves them wrong, they refuse to accept such data could be attributable to blacks in America,The data across all interrelated relative areas, clearly demonstrate black males are far more of a problem for America than what the left claims.
Where you cast your net fat too widely to present blacks or black males as the problem. If your language often applies to blacks in general - why is it unreasonable to presume you’re talking about blacks in general?
Finally, and probably more relevant to the conversation - you seem utterly and totally fixated with bombarding everyone, non stop, constantly, repeatedly, without cease - solely negative statistics about a given race - you are uninterested in context, uninterested in attribution, explanation, and discussion or causes or biases or prejudice in the data.
You are, unabashedly, systematically, and apparently indefatigably dedicated - not to discussion, or intellectual debate, or exploration of data - but to bombard everyone with your thoughts about how big a problem black crime statistics, black culture, and blacks not taking responsibility is.
Why on gods green earth could anyone imagine that such a single and dedicated focus on yelling at everyone about how bad all this crime and social data is for black people - would not come away with the sense that you probably didn’t have a great opinion of black people.
That behaviour is instructive - the lack of your willingness to explore or navigate the data, is also instructive; that your posts are solely about trying to convey negative data about blacks without caveat or discussion - is absolutely instructive.
That’s almost certainly what you were banned, and given all the issues above, which I have explained at length and you have mostly dismissed - the specific conclusion that this behaviour, and these statements are racist - is not a wholly unreasonable one.
PS. I am NOT going to repeat myself proving you wrong, ove rand over again.
But you’re not. As I’ve explained, the bulk of your responses are poorly reasoned “nuh-uh”, in your last response on your links you appeared to give up all pretext of argument and simply insisted I was wrong without explanation on almost every link.
As shown; the remainder of your posts are poorly thought out, inconsistent with the data or just plain illogical.
This is clearly an issue of you capitulating - unable to answer any of the points, and are going through this weird denial phase where you pretend nothing I’ve said actually exists.
Perhaps if you spent more time explaining why I’m wrong rather than telling me you have 400 books, you would fare better.
Created:
-->
@TWS1405
First and foremost <snip> rebuttal to my clearly stated position(s).
He asserts, without justification or argument - “nuh-uh”
Recall. In a previous reply - you suggested that blacks in the 1960s had pride and determination - and implied this wasn’t the case today. In the context of your OP - that people are resistant to fact based data: I pointed out that this assertion isn’t actually supported by any data; you just drew this conclusion from your own bias - not anything explicitly objective.
To support your assertion with data, as I stated before - you must have a metric or data showing a valid measure or indication for pride and determination, and a comparison with today. Without this, your original assertion is mere assertion - not fact.
Recall. In a previous reply - you suggested that blacks in the 1960s had pride and determination - and implied this wasn’t the case today. In the context of your OP - that people are resistant to fact based data: I pointed out that this assertion isn’t actually supported by any data; you just drew this conclusion from your own bias - not anything explicitly objective.
To support your assertion with data, as I stated before - you must have a metric or data showing a valid measure or indication for pride and determination, and a comparison with today. Without this, your original assertion is mere assertion - not fact.
“Self-Perceptions of Black Americans: Self-Esteem and Personal Efficacy on JSTOR
You simply do not understand/comprehend the intended purpose in citing this data. Despite the fact that it is antiquated, the underlining personal issues addressed are still very much relevant present day.
He asserts, without justification or argument - “nuh-uh”
It does not show or indicate that pride and determination is lacking now, or was high before; the data contradicts what you said.
It does not show or indicate that pride and determination is lacking now, or was high before; the data contradicts what you said.
I am sure you have heard of Dinesh D’Souza, if not, no matter.…. <stuff>
Instead of defending your link, you’re trying to change the subject.
The Legacy of Self-hatred in the Black Community - The Black Detour
Reading comprehension matters. Another example of you not understanding/comprehending that which you are reading/reviewing.
He asserts, without justification or argument - “nuh-uh”
Moreover, dismissing it in its entirety just because it is a blog piece is a genetic fallacy.
I am not dismissing it all, partially or entirely - I think it’s a relatively decent opinion piece, and sounds reasonable - but it’s not a data point that shows a loss in pride or determination.
This citation is about the self-sabotage of black Americans.
Yes - self sabotage that the writer attributes to the legacy of racism. Unrelated to pride determination - or comparrison with the 60s
Do you agree with the writer that:
“The white man forced slaves to whip and punish other slaves, treating house negros better than field negros, and forced male slaves to sexually assault female slaves. This began the sowing of self-hatred and division among slaves, causing a ripple effect that can still be felt over one hundred and fifty years after slaves were emancipated. Still, we are not free because our minds are not free”
Do you agree with the writer that:
“The white man forced slaves to whip and punish other slaves, treating house negros better than field negros, and forced male slaves to sexually assault female slaves. This began the sowing of self-hatred and division among slaves, causing a ripple effect that can still be felt over one hundred and fifty years after slaves were emancipated. Still, we are not free because our minds are not free”
Do you agree with this quote from the text - it seems rather different an explanation than you have used so far, no? I suspect not.
If not - does this mean you are holding up this author as a credible authority on the subject of black experience when they agree with you, but a full of sh*t leftist who doesn’t the first clue of what she’s talking about when she doesn’t. This would be “cherry picking” right?
If not - does this mean you are holding up this author as a credible authority on the subject of black experience when they agree with you, but a full of sh*t leftist who doesn’t the first clue of what she’s talking about when she doesn’t. This would be “cherry picking” right?
an issue elegantly covered by scholar John McWhorter….
Instead of defending your link, you’re trying to change the subject.
Restoring self esteem and black pride - Consciousness.co.za MagazineYet another example of your lack of reading comprehension on your part.
He asserts, without justification or argument - “nuh-uh”
It’s not data - it doesn’t show anything about pride or determination that the original point was about
It’s not data - it doesn’t show anything about pride or determination that the original point was about
This citation speaks to John McWhorter’s subsequent book….
Instead of defending your link, you’re trying to change the subject.
Why I hate being a black man | Orville Lloyd Douglas | The Guardian
Yea, I read it. Are you sitting there telling me that the author of this “opinion” piece, a black man, has no say or stake in this discussion?
To clarify - this post does not contain any data point about pride, or determination (the original point). It explicitly contradicts your attribution of many of these issues - which I suspect you didn’t realize.
Is his experience not data? Are not the experiences of black Americans either individually or collectively, not data? According to you it appears not.
This is a textbook straw man. My contention is that this isn’t data - you portray my position as the experience is not valid.
Where to begin. Firstly - the writer is not American, he’s Canadian - which has you read the article would have been clear. He’s talking about taking the street car in Toronto; and while I’m sure the experience for black people in Canada is not great, it’s not identical to America.
Secondly - I think his experience is of course valid - if you are holding up his opinion as a credibly authority then you must also be agreeing that an element of the self perception black people have about themselves is due to the inherent racism shown to them every day - then I would wholeheartedly agree, and would welcome you to the side that believes inherent racism is still alive, well and shaping the world in negative ways.
Given that I suspect this isn’t your position, I would suggest that it is not me rejecting the opinion of this individual.
Given that data is defined as “facts and statistics collected together for reference or analysis.” I would not call the perception of a single individual expressing their opinion in an oped, as “data”; the collective experiences of black peoples could be data depending how it’s gathered and collected - but not being “data” in the strict sense doesn’t make less important or less valid.
Secondly - I think his experience is of course valid - if you are holding up his opinion as a credibly authority then you must also be agreeing that an element of the self perception black people have about themselves is due to the inherent racism shown to them every day - then I would wholeheartedly agree, and would welcome you to the side that believes inherent racism is still alive, well and shaping the world in negative ways.
Given that I suspect this isn’t your position, I would suggest that it is not me rejecting the opinion of this individual.
Given that data is defined as “facts and statistics collected together for reference or analysis.” I would not call the perception of a single individual expressing their opinion in an oped, as “data”; the collective experiences of black peoples could be data depending how it’s gathered and collected - but not being “data” in the strict sense doesn’t make less important or less valid.
So, everyone can just automatically disqualify the National Crime Victimization Survey from the Bureau of Justice Statistics then, eh!?!
No - classic straw man - that would be a collated set of broad representative experiences - right? So that is data.
That is what you are inferring here with your obvious genetic fallacy.
Genetic fallacy would imply I argued the Op Ed is wrong. It’s just not a data point - and that doesn’t make any statements about pride or determination which is the main point.
Charles Barkley and the Plague of 'Unintelligent' Blacks - The Atlantic
Opinion piece. Not data. Not about pride. Not really about pride. I don’t think you read it.
Yet another ignorant genetic fallacy. No need to keep referring to your logical fallacies any further.
I’m not saying it’s false - only that it doesn’t qualify as data (it doesn’t).
You also shipped out the part where I quoted the link you shared, and explained its highly critical for people like you quoting things like charles Barkley. It criticized your exact behaviour!
“This version of history is a mistake. It allows the Charles Barkleys of the world and the racists who undoubtedly will approvingly quote him to pretend that they are exposing some heretofore arcane bit of knowledge”
You also shipped out the part where I quoted the link you shared, and explained its highly critical for people like you quoting things like charles Barkley. It criticized your exact behaviour!
“This version of history is a mistake. It allows the Charles Barkleys of the world and the racists who undoubtedly will approvingly quote him to pretend that they are exposing some heretofore arcane bit of knowledge”
They are quite clear. And rather pathetic given your clear lack of reading comprehension skills and ability to follow along with the discussion that I am presenting you.
He asserts, without justification or argument - “nuh-uh” why? How?
The rest of your diatribe (to include your subsequent retort on data this, data that) is what is truly hilarious. You come off as somewhat intelligent, but when you open your mouth and speak, you sound like an ignoramus. You’re like a child afflicted with ADHD who forgot to take their medicine, completely incapable of drawing a straight line between to interrelated points.
He asserts, without justification or argument - “nuh-uh” why? How? Example?
If you need more, I have 400 other suggestions.
If I wanted to argue with John McWhorter - I’d argue with John McWhorter, If I wanted to argue with Dinesh D’souza - I’d argue with Donesh D’souza.
I would suggest you work on the quality of your links, providing reasoning and justifications in your posts, rather than block quoting other people, link spamming, and bald assertions about how wrong everyone is - you would fare much better.
Created:
-->
@TWS1405
You know what's truly comical, you thinking you know what you are talking about.It is to you who is cherry-picking. Reading comprehension matters.I mean really...Quoting out of context.False comparisons.Strawman arguments.Numerous genetic fallacies.Argument from Repetition.Bad reason fallacy.Shotgun Argumentation all abound.It's late. I will debunk your nonsense later.PS. Again, not showing you all my cards up front. The books come later/next.And I do not care what you believe. Your belief about my degree and library is not a requisite here. All good things...come to those who wait.
A bunch of assertions and accusations and an empty sack is worth the sack.
Created: