goldfish21
Veteran
Joined: 17 Feb 2013
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 22,612
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
17 Jan 2021, 5:32 am
Pepe wrote:
goldfish21 wrote:
Pepe wrote:
goldfish21 wrote:
A summation of Pepe’s politics over the last couple pages = he’s coming across a little too “white privilege is just fine with me,” and “the coloured folk in America have nothing to complain about,” for my personal liking.
This is coming from a partisan point of view, imo.
It is also simply your opinion.
Your opinion, to me, seems to have the intent of playing the 'racist card' against me to silence my contribution.
That doesn't work on me, btw.
I try to see things from a holistic perspective.
People may have noticed that I continually mention that both sides of politics have problems with extremists.
I also mention that both sides of the political divide have good policies.
I point out that there are bad policy aspects to both sides of politics, also, health care not being adequately addressed by the Republicans, as an example.
I find it odd that I am seen as partisan when clearly I am not.
I also find it odd when people mock critical thinking skills.
I do have more (Australian) conservative leanings, due to my more rational, rather than an emotional way of thinking, so I reject any philosophy which embraces the concept of: "Morality is more important than the facts".
My best assessment is that having a partisan mindset distorts reality and filters out certain aspects of an argument.
This is the 'confirmation bias' phenomenon in evidence.
I did make a study, over 7 years ago, on how emotions distort reality, and I do think this is one of the main problems in political discussion, generally speaking.
Making a statement is fine, but not supporting that statement with a rational argument, especially when it can be construed as a personal attack, is not.
For clarity's sake, could you explain what makes you think I think "white privilege is just fine with me,” and “the coloured folk in America have nothing to complain about"?
Could you cut and paste examples of where you think I did this, and I will explain why I made those statements?
Perhaps your level of self awareness is not as high as you think it is. Now you know how you are perceived by others.
Are you saying that every person sees me the same way?
Are you saying that everyone is engaging in groupthink?
I don't see any evidence of that.
goldfish21 wrote:
Like I said, your posts from the previous couple pages or so are examples. I’m not going to quote them all and explain them to you word by word. Go re-read them and see why myself, Fnord, and the mods perceive that from them.
Presumably, you aren't "going to quote them" because there isn't anything for you to quote.
I gave you, and Fnord, a chance to "put your money where your mouth is", but you both declined to ram home your opportunity to put me in my place.
You do realise how weak you position sounds here, right?
If you had 'evidence', you should have no qualms in presenting it.
You could validate your argument with substance.
Perhaps now that I have called you out, again, you will be motivated into doing the 'hard yakka', rather than engage in mere verbal accusations.
It shouldn't be too difficult, since you allegedly have pages of material to use.
F. I just typed a response to this crap and the forum ate it.
Cliffs:
Fnord, myself, and the site Admin are all imagining it. Riiight.
No. Go read it yourself. I have better things to do.
_________________
No
for supporting trump. Because doing so is deplorable.17 Jan 2021, 5:39 am
GGPViper wrote:
Well, I could just be a partisan and irrational person who lacks critical thinking skills, but I find that people who have a constant need to brag about their non-partisanship, rationality and critical thinking skills are often quite partisan and irrational persons who lacks critical thinking skills.
All talk but no substance.
I actually point out how others seem to have a partisan mindset, rather than brag about my greater objectivity.
A person with a partisan mindset doesn't:
-Admit there is wrong on both sides.
-Admit that there are good policies on either side.
-Consider the situation holistically.
Your argument is invalid.
17 Jan 2021, 5:45 am
goldfish21 wrote:
Pepe wrote:
goldfish21 wrote:
Pepe wrote:
goldfish21 wrote:
A summation of Pepe’s politics over the last couple pages = he’s coming across a little too “white privilege is just fine with me,” and “the coloured folk in America have nothing to complain about,” for my personal liking.
This is coming from a partisan point of view, imo.
It is also simply your opinion.
Your opinion, to me, seems to have the intent of playing the 'racist card' against me to silence my contribution.
That doesn't work on me, btw.
I try to see things from a holistic perspective.
People may have noticed that I continually mention that both sides of politics have problems with extremists.
I also mention that both sides of the political divide have good policies.
I point out that there are bad policy aspects to both sides of politics, also, health care not being adequately addressed by the Republicans, as an example.
I find it odd that I am seen as partisan when clearly I am not.
I also find it odd when people mock critical thinking skills.
I do have more (Australian) conservative leanings, due to my more rational, rather than an emotional way of thinking, so I reject any philosophy which embraces the concept of: "Morality is more important than the facts".
My best assessment is that having a partisan mindset distorts reality and filters out certain aspects of an argument.
This is the 'confirmation bias' phenomenon in evidence.
I did make a study, over 7 years ago, on how emotions distort reality, and I do think this is one of the main problems in political discussion, generally speaking.
Making a statement is fine, but not supporting that statement with a rational argument, especially when it can be construed as a personal attack, is not.
For clarity's sake, could you explain what makes you think I think "white privilege is just fine with me,” and “the coloured folk in America have nothing to complain about"?
Could you cut and paste examples of where you think I did this, and I will explain why I made those statements?
Perhaps your level of self awareness is not as high as you think it is. Now you know how you are perceived by others.
Are you saying that every person sees me the same way?
Are you saying that everyone is engaging in groupthink?
I don't see any evidence of that.
goldfish21 wrote:
Like I said, your posts from the previous couple pages or so are examples. I’m not going to quote them all and explain them to you word by word. Go re-read them and see why myself, Fnord, and the mods perceive that from them.
Presumably, you aren't "going to quote them" because there isn't anything for you to quote.
I gave you, and Fnord, a chance to "put your money where your mouth is", but you both declined to ram home your opportunity to put me in my place.
You do realise how weak you position sounds here, right?
If you had 'evidence', you should have no qualms in presenting it.
You could validate your argument with substance.
Perhaps now that I have called you out, again, you will be motivated into doing the 'hard yakka', rather than engage in mere verbal accusations.
It shouldn't be too difficult, since you allegedly have pages of material to use.
F. I just typed a response to this crap and the forum ate it.
Cliffs:
Fnord, myself, and the site Admin are all imagining it. Riiight.
No. Go read it yourself. I have better things to do.
Just give *one* of the best examples.
That shouldn't be hard.
Let me reply to your specific accusation.
That is only reasonable.
For the life of me, I don't know why it is so difficult.
This is a discussion forum.
Supply material to discuss.
If my argument is faulty, I want to know so I can adjust my thinking.
That is not an unreasonable request by any means.
17 Jan 2021, 6:34 am
17 Jan 2021, 10:23 am
17 Jan 2021, 11:11 am
goldfish21 wrote:
The_Walrus wrote:
slam_thunderhide wrote:
The attack on civil liberties that you first saw with the Patriot Act 20 years ago is now going to be ramped up even further with the hysteria about "domestic terrorists",
I think this is a legitimate concern. While domestic terrorism is no triviality, current legislation should be largely adequate for dealing with the threat. Politicians often have very poor understanding of technological issues in particular and history shows us that they often pass laws with little understanding of their implications.
There is often a failure among lawmakers to consider issues holistically. It would be a crying shame if, perhaps less than a year after the George Floyd protests, anti-terror legislation is passed which grants sweeping new powers to law enforcement - it doesn’t take a genius to guess who the likely victims will be.
Perhaps the victims will be the white supremacists who have infiltrated law enforcement agencies all over America & then advanced to becoming domestic terrorists and their sympathizers?
You mean those people? 
So you’re claiming:
- the police are full of white supremacists
- if we give the police more power, they’ll use it to stop white supremacists
Is that right?
I think it’s much more likely that giving the police more power will disproportionately target the people who have always been the victims of the police state:
- ethnic minorities
- immigrants
- homeless people
- poor people
goldfish21
Veteran
Joined: 17 Feb 2013
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 22,612
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
17 Jan 2021, 12:06 pm
The_Walrus wrote:
goldfish21 wrote:
The_Walrus wrote:
slam_thunderhide wrote:
The attack on civil liberties that you first saw with the Patriot Act 20 years ago is now going to be ramped up even further with the hysteria about "domestic terrorists",
I think this is a legitimate concern. While domestic terrorism is no triviality, current legislation should be largely adequate for dealing with the threat. Politicians often have very poor understanding of technological issues in particular and history shows us that they often pass laws with little understanding of their implications.
There is often a failure among lawmakers to consider issues holistically. It would be a crying shame if, perhaps less than a year after the George Floyd protests, anti-terror legislation is passed which grants sweeping new powers to law enforcement - it doesn’t take a genius to guess who the likely victims will be.
Perhaps the victims will be the white supremacists who have infiltrated law enforcement agencies all over America & then advanced to becoming domestic terrorists and their sympathizers?
You mean those people? So you’re claiming:
- the police are full of white supremacists
- if we give the police more power, they’ll use it to stop white supremacists
Is that right?
I think it’s much more likely that giving the police more power will disproportionately target the people who have always been the victims of the police state:
- ethnic minorities
- immigrants
- homeless people
- poor people
American police, as well as Canadian, ARE full of white supremacists. Canada’s national police force was literally formed to fight/kill Indigenous people, America’s to round up slaves. Culture carries on.
Not just give them more power and let them do what they want with it. Direct them to investigate their own & deal with their internal problems vs perpetuate the old boys club. Total daydream, but just sayin.
_________________
No
for supporting trump. Because doing so is deplorable.goldfish21
Veteran
Joined: 17 Feb 2013
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 22,612
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
17 Jan 2021, 12:09 pm
@Pepe part of the reason I’m not interested in wasting time quoting and explaining your own posts to you is that my only internet connected device for the last couple years is my iPhone. It’s annoying quoting massively long posts and scrolling up and down to respond to each paragraph, and even more annoying to try to break them up into multiple quoted posts. I have plenty of other things to do than that with my time. Go find the post where I pointed it out and click back 2-3 pages and re-read your own posts. You can do it!
_________________
No
for supporting trump. Because doing so is deplorable.17 Jan 2021, 2:43 pm
Pepe wrote:
GGPViper wrote:
Well, I could just be a partisan and irrational person who lacks critical thinking skills, but I find that people who have a constant need to brag about their non-partisanship, rationality and critical thinking skills are often quite partisan and irrational persons who lacks critical thinking skills.
All talk but no substance.
I actually point out how others seem to have a partisan mindset, rather than brag about my greater objectivity.
A person with a partisan mindset doesn't:
-Admit there is wrong on both sides.
-Admit that there are good policies on either side.
-Consider the situation holistically.
Your argument is invalid.
The "Orrukal of Troofths" says he doesn't brag about his "greater objectivity"
SURE...
Your ideas of objectivity sound remarkably like instructions for false equivalency. Is it not basically saying "unless you treat all things equally equal, you're biased"...? So giving facts more weight than bullsh!t is "bias", cos in order to not be "partisan", one has to "find the good" in the bullsh!t even if there isn't any, and "find the bad" in facts, as though unpleasant facts cease to be facts.
"Holistic" thinking is a red herring. All it does is make the scope so large, it swallows everything as an "outlier". By forcing the consideration of "the whole as a whole", one then argues that since no component of the group composes the entirety of the group, it is "unfair" to characterize that group by any of the sub-populations, no matter how much they do actually represent that group.
Your "invalidation" of an argument is irrelevant. You can "invalidate" whatever you want. Unfortunately, saying so isn't like a harry potter spell, where by saying "Invali Dattus!" it makes reality reshuffle and suddenly you're in an alternate universe where you're right, and the opposing viewpoint ceases to exist.
While you're at it, why don't you also veto it, object to it, and cancel it while you're at it, for all the weight it carries.
17 Jan 2021, 4:26 pm
17 Jan 2021, 5:24 pm
goldfish21 wrote:
The_Walrus wrote:
goldfish21 wrote:
The_Walrus wrote:
slam_thunderhide wrote:
The attack on civil liberties that you first saw with the Patriot Act 20 years ago is now going to be ramped up even further with the hysteria about "domestic terrorists",
I think this is a legitimate concern. While domestic terrorism is no triviality, current legislation should be largely adequate for dealing with the threat. Politicians often have very poor understanding of technological issues in particular and history shows us that they often pass laws with little understanding of their implications.
There is often a failure among lawmakers to consider issues holistically. It would be a crying shame if, perhaps less than a year after the George Floyd protests, anti-terror legislation is passed which grants sweeping new powers to law enforcement - it doesn’t take a genius to guess who the likely victims will be.
Perhaps the victims will be the white supremacists who have infiltrated law enforcement agencies all over America & then advanced to becoming domestic terrorists and their sympathizers?
You mean those people? So you’re claiming:
- the police are full of white supremacists
- if we give the police more power, they’ll use it to stop white supremacists
Is that right?
I think it’s much more likely that giving the police more power will disproportionately target the people who have always been the victims of the police state:
- ethnic minorities
- immigrants
- homeless people
- poor people
American police, as well as Canadian, ARE full of white supremacists. Canada’s national police force was literally formed to fight/kill Indigenous people, America’s to round up slaves. Culture carries on.
Not just give them more power and let them do what they want with it. Direct them to investigate their own & deal with their internal problems vs perpetuate the old boys club. Total daydream, but just sayin.
Infiltration of local law enforcement has been an integral strategy for white supremacists in the US for about as long as there have been white supremacists. White supremacists were the de jure police in the segregation south and beyond. That didn't vanish with the end of segregation. There were notable surges in this infiltration in the 90's, after Obama was elected, and after Trump was elected.
FBI Intelligence Assessment on the White Supremacist Infiltration of Law Enforcement from 2006
2017 article on FBI Counterterrorism Guide's acknowledgement of widespread police infiltration by right-wing extremists
17 Jan 2021, 5:27 pm
17 Jan 2021, 5:54 pm
kraftiekortie wrote:
I don’t care what anybody says.
Many of the people who invaded the Capitol were pathological. There was urine and feces left in the corridors.
I am on the side of people who to heal......rather than be reactionary.
Many of the people who invaded the Capitol were pathological. There was urine and feces left in the corridors.
I am on the side of people who to heal......rather than be reactionary.
[humorous mode activated]
"When you gotta go, you gotta go."
17 Jan 2021, 6:05 pm
Redd_Kross wrote:
Tempus Fugit wrote:
slam_thunderhide wrote:
As I've said elsewhere, I think that for a lot of people on this sub-forum, supporting left-wing politics is really, subconsciously just a way of getting back at the meanies who used to steal your lunch back at high school.
The attack on civil liberties that you first saw with the Patriot Act 20 years ago is now going to be ramped up even further with the hysteria about "domestic terrorists", and you people are going to cheer it on just because it's presented in terms of protecting "marginalized people" from "haters". This thread makes that clear. If anarcho-tyranny ever negatively impacts your lives, it'll be hard to say you didn't ask for it.
The attack on civil liberties that you first saw with the Patriot Act 20 years ago is now going to be ramped up even further with the hysteria about "domestic terrorists", and you people are going to cheer it on just because it's presented in terms of protecting "marginalized people" from "haters". This thread makes that clear. If anarcho-tyranny ever negatively impacts your lives, it'll be hard to say you didn't ask for it.
Yep. "Be careful of what you wish for, you just might get it".
Ironic, given how well the current situation embodies exactly those principles, but on the right wing of U.S. politics.
At least the slightly-less-right-wing Democrats (news flash, they're NOT left wing) haven't actually fallen into their own irony trap yet.
I'm still trying to work out how "anarcho-tyranny" is only a bad thing when it applies to white guys, but it's been fine for decades when applied to everyone else. Meaning it's not actually a matter of left / right politics per se, but of elitism, exploitation and control of the social hierarchy. That in turn means any finger pointing at the not-very-left-wing from the definitely-more-right-wing is nothing more than farcical "who, me?" play acting. Plenty of exploitation going on by Republicans; the only reason they dislike regulation and taxation is because it limits their abilities to extract more. If you think this is about "freedom" that's very naive. Freedom from what? Conscience, morality, common decency, truth, social obligation, moderation? The only difference between the two main parties is the degree to which they extract wealth, and the sweetners they offer to make it acceptable.
The State generally acts as a limiting force on greed. It isn't particularly effective but I can guaranteed an unfettered economic free-for-all would be worse, unless you're already one of America's wealthiest 10%. Because all that would do is give those already in control further opportunities to rig the deck in their own favour. That's the fundamental problem with capitalism, there's very little to prevent ever-more extreme exploitation of the many by the few. I'm not a communist for saying that, I still believe capitalism has more going for it than communism precisely because it is a system based around human greed, which is pretty much universal, rather than selfless brotherliness with our neighbours, which clearly isn't. But to be effective for all, it needs limiting. Without boundaries it stops working for everyone and starts only working for those right at the top. That's just how it is. Anyone thinking a libertarian Government would benefit the masses is only correct if the freedoms granted are far more liberal at the bottom of the tree than at the top. Otherwise you're just letting the lions roam free when you're a gazelle.
You have Pepe's tick of approval, in regard to being non-partisan.
Welcome, brother.
17 Jan 2021, 6:12 pm
17 Jan 2021, 6:15 pm
| Similar Topics | |
|---|---|
| Apparent third Trump assassination attempt thwarted |
14 Oct 2024, 6:37 pm |
| Trump projecting... Again. |
01 Oct 2024, 11:03 am |
| Trump appointees |
Yesterday, 9:55 am |
| Trump Worked At McDonald's |
25 Oct 2024, 2:30 pm |
