All-Purpose Smartypants Thread

[YangYing]

You haven't read it yet though

yea I did, s why i wrote what I did

 

lay out the facts of one side then disregard the facts of the other because of x and y reasons

 

not helpful

 

edit: the solution to this (and i suppose any contentious issue) as far as I can tell is to have the bloody discussions

 

but nwae i don't know nearly enough on the free speech issue in particular to hold a reasonable one, the point I have been making as of late is that the discussions should be had in a reasonable manner that's all

[Silent Member]

Someone please delete that post at once it hurt my feelings

[hello spiral]

You must be a very fast reader. I'm quick and I didn't read it that fast

[YangYing]

Ive read about half but the structure is infuriating to me because it implies what I said (this is how it is, disregard the other side)

 

edit: actually on the latter half it almost makes the point but then no, is actually the fault of capitalism ofc

 

edit2: perhaps my reading comprehension is flawed that's also a thing

 

but I rehearse the point: we need proper discussion between the opposing opinions, this is the only way to solve these issues

[drome]

.

[drome]

Good read here which I think is relevant to the concerns of some people in this thread (and the JP thread RIP)

 

https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/jul/26/the-free-speech-panic-censorship-how-the-right-concocted-a-crisis

Interesting read but the headline and precis are quite loaded. Journalists in the mainstream realm are undoubtedly censored to a greater degree than in the past. These journalists don’t have the freedom/platform to report on armed conflicts as they did during the Vietnam war, for instance.

You only get the overarching, partisan message via the mainstream outlets.

Social media doesn’t help. People tend to align their opinions with those with the loudest voices, setting upon those that question the official narrative like a rabid mob.

Critical thinking is essential. Ask yourself, to whom do these news stories serve to benefit?

[iococoi]

all-purpose smarty pants

[YangYing]

heres some other article related in some way or other to all of this etc

 

I have really become too lazy to discuss this stuff lately tho, s always the same

 

https://nyti.ms/2LHYmzO

[koolkeyZ865]

[YangYing]

[Salvatorin]

mixl2 you need to stop repeating yourself as if other people that have opinions different from you are uneducated and can't see the other side. you repeat it over and over again but you never explain what sides you are even talking about. it's sophomoric and petty.

[YangYing]

mixl2 you need to stop repeating yourself as if other people that have opinions different from you are uneducated and can't see the other side. you repeat it over and over again but you never explain what sides you are even talking about. it's sophomoric and petty.

I'm talking of arguments in general I suppose

 

I guess I just don't wanna take sides u know, the more I start agreeing with one side of an issue the more I find counterarguments from the other

 

I see how u can derive that I imply that other people different from me are uneducated and can't see the other side, there's an important distinction tho all people myself included are uneducated and can't see the other side

 

this is why we need discussions and I mean discussions not fights, most (perhaps not most but u kno) of the internet debates u find (be it here, youtube etc etc) are two people trying to fight and win with no respect to whatever the other side is

 

and that devolves into why free speech is so important to keep democracies functioning etc etc but eh whatever what do i know (what does an idm forum know)

 

rant rant, I'm too tired for this bs

 

edit: *cleans room*

[Tricone RC]

listening to Aphex Twin makes you cleverer

[Silent Member]

Have you tried watching Rick and Morty while Aphex Twinning? I literally almost grew a second brain.

[dingformung]

edit: *cleans room*

 He says that left-radicalism is much more dangerous than right-wing radicalism yet there is much more right-wing violence and there are much much more right-wing terrorist attacks than from the left, by far.

[YangYing]

 

edit: *cleans room*

 He says that left-radicalism is much more dangerous than right-wing radicalism yet there is much more right-wing violence and there are much much more right-wing terrorist attacks than from the left, by far.

 

yes , this is what you see.. he has another worldview.

 

which one is correct? both? none? probs a bit of both 

[drome]

 

edit: *cleans room*

He says that left-radicalism is much more dangerous than right-wing radicalism yet there is much more right-wing violence and there are much much more right-wing terrorist attacks than from the left, by far.

Well said. The ‘right’ are synonymous with hatred and ignorance.

[YangYing]

 

 

 

 

edit: *cleans room*

He says that left-radicalism is much more dangerous than right-wing radicalism yet there is much more right-wing violence and there are much much more right-wing terrorist attacks than from the left, by far.

Well said.

guess I'll explain

 

from what I have seen (and I have seen quite a bit) Jordan is way way more scared of the radical right then the radical left (the point is made clear pre 2017 stuff, is kinda been lost now)

 

the radical left is more dangerous why? because it's ideas can still be sold, people buy them, and the more the push to the left increases the more the true monsters on the right rise (regressive nationalism, nazism etc)

 

I have pointed it out before, is irrelevant really where the pathology rises the point is we must learn to not do horrible things because of what we believe

[auxien]

heres some other article related in some way or other to all of this etc

 

I have really become too lazy to discuss this stuff lately tho, s always the same

 

https://nyti.ms/2LHYmzO

 

When I see articles like this, almost always opinion pieces of course, I just find it so hard to believe that people get paid money to write this drivel. Not that he's particularly 'wrong' just that it's useless. Seems useless to me, at least. But I don't see the value: I honestly can't believe of people who are going to come across a NYT David Brooks opinion piece speaking directly to the Dems that an article like that presents literally anything new, unique, or even moving. It's just his morning mindshit spilled onto a keyboard.

 

Derp, climate is angery and so dems need to be nice in 2020, also long term worries I guess too? let me mention some historical presidents to pad it out without actually saying anyfucking thing okay cool, here u go editor. oh, ur actually letting that go thru lol k like u r really ok publishing that in an internationally recognized paper  hahahaha thanks lmao

[YangYing]

u could say that about any opinion ever

[auxien]

Ones that get paid for their opinions, perhaps.

 

Read closer buddy.

[YangYing]

I was referring to it being useless and it being morning minshit spilled onto a keyboard

 

a good description of the watmms

[Salvatorin]

 

mixl2 you need to stop repeating yourself as if other people that have opinions different from you are uneducated and can't see the other side. you repeat it over and over again but you never explain what sides you are even talking about. it's sophomoric and petty.

I see how u can derive that I imply that other people different from me are uneducated and can't see the other side, there's an important distinction tho all people myself included are uneducated and can't see the other side

 

 

This is the ultimate discussion stopper. It's also a rhetorical fallacy known as argumentum ad temperantiam (aka balance fallacy) When you shrug and post your smiley face and say shit like "there's probably something right on both sides" you are shutting down the discussion by making the provability of statements irrelevant. You did this over and over again for 57 pages in the JBP thread. People presented coherent arguments and explanations to back up their assertions and instead of continuing the discussion you tended to go "hmm yeah maybe you're right" and or even worse respond with this tangential non-argument:

 

 

we must learn to not do horrible things because of what we believe

 

Do you not understand that this is just a truism and adds nothing to the discussion?

[Salvatorin]

 

 

edit: *

*

He says that left-radicalism is much more dangerous than right-wing radicalism yet there is much more right-wing violence and there are much much more right-wing terrorist attacks than from the left, by far.

Well said. The ‘right’ are synonymous with hatred and ignorance.

 

I would say that the 'right' tends to usually be synonymous with conservatism. And what really is conservatism? It is context specific to each country, each culture, each community, each generation, and what it really is resistance to change, belief in the value of stasis or static social structures. Reactionaries are radical conservatives who are so resistant to change that they look to prior times and actively seek to reverse changes to social structure instead of converse things as they are.

[Salvatorin]

What is so ironic about conservatism in the USA and many other countries is that it tends to reinforce economic processes that result in change. It's a schizophrenic blend of trying to keep cultural and social norms entrenched while embracing accelerationist neoliberal economics completely derail those very social structures.

 

I don't want to keep posting guardian links because honestly I find it to be an impotent liberal rag but this article at least explains what accelerationism is:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/may/11/accelerationism-how-a-fringe-philosophy-predicted-the-future-we-live-in