Search Results - SC2 Mafia
Register

Search:

Type: Posts; User: oops_ur_dead

Page 1 of 40 1 2 3 4

Search: Search took 0.05 seconds.

  1. Forum:General Discussion

    Thread:trump 2020

    Thread Author:Bruno

    Post Author:oops_ur_dead

    Replies
    38
    Views
    620

    ►►Re: trump 2020◄◄

    Quote Originally Posted by Oberon View Post
    How did you arrive at that conclusion?
    I see poor people being the most affected by covid bc it means they cannot work / have less money due to covid and economic recessions (crises of any kind, really) hit the poor the hardest but that doesn’t mean they’re ‘holding up’ today’s society by any means. The poor are also not the ones who made MRi, CT scans, cars, lamps, computers, modern medicine and so on.
    You might have a point overall but all the examples you listed are the dumbest fucking examples you could have used, because every single one was independently invented by random scientists, researchers, and engineers, all of whom probably weren't that wealthy (except potentially Charles Babbage who invented the computer).
  2. Replies
    23
    Views
    163

    Poll: ►►Re: Riots (or worse) post-election in the US◄◄

    Quote Originally Posted by Voss View Post
    i will be taking part in protests if trump loses and declares himself the winner. trump supporters will call me a rioter though.
    If Trump loses and declares himself the winner there should be riots.
  3. Forum:Serious Discussion & Debate

    Thread:Debating

    Thread Author:Oberon

    Post Author:oops_ur_dead

    Replies
    19
    Views
    157

    ►►Re: Debating◄◄

    To be clear I don't advocate for going around calling people retarded and thinking that's good debate. I was just making the point that there are a lot of people who hold that all opinions are valid and should be considered which is something I disagree with.

    I think the greater issue is the matter of debate versus discussion. Structured debate on a certain topic, where both people follow the rules and debate in good faith, has no room for leeway in this sort of thing. However, if we're talking about real-world issues and discussion I advocate for the approach of stepping back and looking at the big picture occasionally to get a better sense of a person's point, and the ways through which they are trying to sway opinion and change the flow of discussion.

    For example, let's say that you are engaged in a discussion about climate change with a person. They show you articles about emissions, greenhouse gasses, etc. Then you find out this person is an executive at an oil company and has a vested interest in moving public opinion in a certain direction regardless of what the facts on climate change truly are, and thus will not publicly accept any evidence or conclusions to the contrary, or admit defeat. This is something that deserves to be pointed out, not because it invalidates their actual arguments, but because it frames the discussion in a context where one can more easily notice biases in the types of arguments that said person makes, and to consider carefully what information they present and omit and how they may try to sway others through deceit. Very strictly, this is an ad hom attack and is not necessarily kosher debate strategy, but it does reframe the discussion into a bigger picture where we can look at motives behind goals and how those motives will influence the discussion. This also applies for any sort of fallacious and underhanded arguments people try to use, such as the Ben Shapiro example I gave. If you have a friend who constantly lies about everything, it's more useful and practical to let people know that their stories are probably made up rather than sit there and try to refute each story individually with facts and evidence.

    There is a lot of precedent to this type of stuff in actual science and debate. Authors of research papers have to disclose funding sources and conflicts of interest. If you see a paper that says that sugar is actually great for you and extends your lifespan by 10 years, you'll think differently of it and scrutinize it more if you learn that the study was funded by Coca Cola.
  4. Forum:Serious Discussion & Debate

    Thread:Debating

    Thread Author:Oberon

    Post Author:oops_ur_dead

    Replies
    19
    Views
    157

    ►►Re: Debating◄◄

    Well are you discussing my opinion or more generally? It's up to an individual whose arguments they dismiss as unworthy of even considering.

    I'm not sure what conservatives have to do with any of this.
  5. Forum:Serious Discussion & Debate

    Thread:Debating

    Thread Author:Oberon

    Post Author:oops_ur_dead

    Replies
    19
    Views
    157

    ►►Re: Debating◄◄

    Quote Originally Posted by Oberon View Post
    ‘I hate the prevailing opinion’
    Thats not the prevailing opinion by any stretch of the imagination. In any event dismissing your opponents ideas by virtue of who they are doesnt work because its possible for absolute idiots to be right by sheer dumb luck (and stupidity isnt the only reason they may (generally) be wrong; stupidity when an enduring personality trait is unchangeable, but not all factors are immutable.

    In any event, this is not how scientific or academix debates work. You dont sit and attaxk your opponent preciselt because your opponent can be right, even if by accident. The only reason why you’d do this is either becahse you dont know how to debate, or you just want to make uourself feel better.
    Yes, someone who is really dumb can be right every so often. Applying a heuristic to their opinions that they can be dismissed (not necessarily claimed as wrong, just not worthy of consideration) by virtue of that makes you reasonably right in most situations.

    It is not how scientific or academic debate work. However, most of the online internet debates you engage in (or any sort of politics debates tbh) are not scientific or academic debates. That is my point; it's a matter of practicality versus rigour. The scientific/academic response to someone like Terry Davis ranting about the CIA hunting him down is to rationally explain how that isn't possible, or unsupported by evidence. The practical response that doesn't waste your time is to understand that he's mentally ill and dismiss his points by that virtue.

    These kinds of intelligent debate only happen when everyone is following the rules of rationality. That rarely actually happens.

    Quote Originally Posted by Oberon View Post
    Also, I think saying ‘your opinion is fucking stupid’ is counter productive because if our line of thoughts differ that significantly, I can literally say the same thind about your opinion - and it wouldn’t even matter because you couldn’t change my opinion.
    Sure, if you want. I won't be too upset.
  6. Forum:Serious Discussion & Debate

    Thread:Debating

    Thread Author:Oberon

    Post Author:oops_ur_dead

    Replies
    19
    Views
    157

    ►►Re: Debating◄◄

    Opinions and thoughts are not inherently deserving of respect. That's a snowflake ideology. If someone holds a fucking stupid opinion, such as "I think legally everyone should have to shit on my chest because I have a shit fetish" then calling their opinion fucking stupid is entirely a valid response, if not the most strictly intellectual. I hate the prevailing opinion that we should pretend that some people aren't just inherently fucking idiots and their opinions can be dismissed simply by that virtue. We don't give the day of light to every unhinged psycho spouting nonsense at the street corner, and try to engage them in well-intended debate, and if we can't counter every point they make then accept them as the intellectual victor.

    I conversely hate the tone policing (itself an ad hominem attack) where one shuts down someone engaging emotionally in any sort of argument or debate. Showing emotion does not invalidate one's opinions. Bringing emotion into an argument is not a criticism of one's stance. Arguing certain points of view is inherently harmful, as it may spread misinformation and muddy the waters of discourse, and discussing how these types of discussion are harmful is not counter-productive nor an ad hominem attack.

    I also think that if someone's frame of logic or argumentation is is so warped that they are already outside of the regular rules of debate, that it is their state of mind or logical thinking that should be attacked. Look at someone like Ben Shapiro: he spits an enormous amount of falsehoods and misquoted, misrepresented facts so quickly that there's no way someone arguing in good faith can counter all his points, it would take an entire introductory college course. Instead it is more productive to point out the flaws in his pattern of arguing rather then the flaws in his points themselves. Say another person takes everyone that a given person says, or written in a given book, as the truth. You can't argue against the statements a person like that makes; their axioms of truth are fundamentally different than yours. You can attack those axioms, or their pattern of thought, directly though. Think of it as someone saying "1+1=4" and you say "no that's wrong" and they're like "well I think 1=2". You cannot argue against their point that 1+1=4 without arguing against their base method of thought.
  7. Replies
    23
    Views
    163

    Poll: ►►Re: Riots (or worse) post-election in the US◄◄

    I hope there are riots regardless of the winning side.
  8. Forum:General Discussion

    Thread:Post some music you like :)

    Thread Author:Bruno

    Post Author:oops_ur_dead

    Replies
    56
    Views
    806

    ►►Re: Post some music you like :)◄◄

  9. Forum:General Discussion

    Thread:trump 2020

    Thread Author:Bruno

    Post Author:oops_ur_dead

    Replies
    38
    Views
    620

    ►►Re: trump 2020◄◄

    the virgin Ganelon: so shit at arguing that he convinces people to vote for Biden, thinks other people are being mean to him by arguing against him, can't even vote in the US
    the chad Bruno: convinces people to vote for Trump ironically, "kill yourself before i kill you myself", legally votes 10 times with each of his personalities
  10. Replies
    258
    Views
    3,612

    ►►Re: Führer Trump◄◄

    Quote Originally Posted by Helz View Post
    That was something my professor covered in my college course "Green building." A big part of his focus was helping students to understand that the majority of 'green' solutions pushed are not actually very green at all and to identify which solutions actually had a positive impact on the environment.
    I am not sure where he got that figure but he hammered pretty hard on 'basic' solar energy and recycled metal studs. He did mention some new tower design that used mirrors to basically focus solar energy into a laser as being promising specifically because it cut out solar panels. I just spent some time poking around looking for the thing he covered but I couldn't find it.
    He was also excited about wind energy that was attached to blimps which could change their altitude to catch the wind and tidal energy. Although because tidal energy used hydraulics it has a positive carbon footprint but a very very negative economic one. Anything hydraulic is very costly..
    I get you, and I agree that green energy isn't a bandaid fix for overconsumption which is the vast majority of the issue leading to global warming. I remember reading an analysis somewhere that even if we go to full 100% green energy and everyone drives electric cars and shit we're still fucked because the amount of food and commodity production we need for our population is high enough alone to fuck us over.

    But I still don't buy your statement that solar energy is more CO2 releasing than fossil fuels. I can't find a single source that backs that statement up. I do agree with the tidal energy though, from what I've seen it isn't feasible.

    Quote Originally Posted by Oberon View Post
    depends what you mean by less polluting methods. i do agree that the more efficient energy collection mechanisms played a (large) role in it, but probably not in the way you're saying.
    coal itself has gotten much, much cleaner in the last ~50 years or so, to give you an example.
    the transition to natural gas also helped considerably because natural gas does not pollute as much coal (even clean coal is 'dirtier' than natural gas)
    theres also the idea that energy usage has become more efficient simply because technologies become more efficient as time passes by. you wont generate as much sulphur in a chemical plant today as you would've in 1960.
    I mean you can actually read the article I linked and find out what I mean by less polluting methods. I'm not gonna summarize it for you, because you can read it and I think you glossed over some of the points yourself.

    I'm wondering what your conclusion from pointing this out is meant to be.
  11. Replies
    258
    Views
    3,612

    ►►Re: Führer Trump◄◄

    Quote Originally Posted by rumox View Post
    We need a SC2Mafia CringeCheckâ„¢©
    Refuting someone else's points with objective sources and facts is suppressing their free speech.
  12. Replies
    258
    Views
    3,612

    ►►Re: Führer Trump◄◄

    Requiring that people post evidence to back their claims up is suppressing their free speech.
  13. Replies
    258
    Views
    3,612

    ►►Re: Führer Trump◄◄

    Quote Originally Posted by Helz View Post
    The carbon footprint of solar panels and whole home batteries are much larger than burning fossil fuels to generate energy but its presented as a 'green solution.'
    Source on this? The only sources I can find state that solar energy has a very low carbon footprint.

    I can fault the Democrats for historically being against nuclear energy, since I think nuclear power is great. This is a stance that they've changed in their 2020 platform, however, and now they fully endorse nuclear energy.

    Quote Originally Posted by Oberon View Post
    Don't particularly care about the political aspects of climate change, but are you aware that carbon emissions and the rate at which temperate is increasing have both been going down for the past 20 years in post-industrialized countries?
    carbon emissions are down 20% in the US, if I'm not mistaken.
    The reason that carbon emissions have been going down in post-industrialized countries is because of the transition to less polluting methods of energy generation. Source: https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis...-14-since-2005

    If your argument is that we should stop trying to be so environmentally conscious because emissions are down, then... well....
  14. Replies
    258
    Views
    3,612

    ►►Re: Führer Trump◄◄

    Quote Originally Posted by Oberon View Post
    "those already exist"
    i'm happy to hear that but they never get talked about, and many of the most popular socialist politicians seem to ignore them or advocate ideas/policies that have essentially nothing to do with worker co-ops.
    Because socialist politicians deal with national policy, while worker coops are a private concern. National policy on worker coops is just... regular socialism.

    All my socialist friends talk about how worker coops are great all the time. It's not an ignored thing at all.
  15. Replies
    258
    Views
    3,612

    ►►Re: Führer Trump◄◄

    That you assert that most people are unaffected by national policy comes from a place of profound privilege, and it's fortunate for you that you have not experienced these effects. I, for one, know many people whose lives and life plans have been changed due to the American federal government's decisions, myself included. I even have family whose lives have been directly positively influenced by Trump being elected. You are essentially faulting people for having empathy, no matter which party they support.

    I'm also not gonna comment on your large post where you talk about Republican/Democrat problems. There are things I take issue with there but my points are largely irrelevant to the discussion and I don't want to get sidetracked. I would like to point out, though, that you notably didn't provide a stance of your own or how that stance would be accomplished (or maybe you did and I glossed over it). Could you, more concretely, talk about that?

    The whole point about the "lesser of two evils" does make it seem quite bleak, yet it's the best you'll get under the flawed structure that we have in the US now. If you want to get anything better, you'll have to go with serious electoral reform (not just the Electoral College thing, but changing the voting system to get rid of a two-party system and allow niche parties to get representation) or some other drastic change. I truly don't believe that will come without a phenomenal paradigm shift, in fact I think it would take no less than armed revolution and/or the dissolution of the US as we know it. That is a very dire outcome, in my opinion. I can't say I love the Democratic party, particularly not the establishment, I actually think they suck in many ways, but I've resigned myself to the real-world facts that it's the best we'll get.
  16. Replies
    258
    Views
    3,612

    ►►Re: Führer Trump◄◄

    I'll answer this even though I'm not a socialist.

    Quote Originally Posted by Oberon View Post
    a) why aren't co-ops and shit like jewish kibbutzim discussed in the context of socialism? i think theyre the most compelling and successful examples and yet hardly anyone talks about them
    They are. Especially worker coops, people talk about them all the time.

    Quote Originally Posted by Oberon View Post
    b) why aren't socialists advocating for 'personal socialism' or in any event a socialism that comes from people rather than the government? i mean i dont think the government can grant 'true' socialism for a variety of reasons, and even if it did, it would come through coercion since not everyone wants to partake in a socialist society.
    Isn't this the charity vs welfare debate? The reason that this isn't advocated for as much by socialists is because private determination of where funds go potentially results in conflicts of interest and coercion and lobbying of charities by the wealthy. Additionally, charities that people donate to are often not in line with what a nation might need. People donate for big, glamourous causes such as disasters like hurricanes, but the scale of donations to end poverty and hunger in America are severely dwarfed by what the government does (which is still not enough, at least in the US, since there's still a large amount of poverty). Almost 1/3 of charity dollars in the US are donated to religious institutions, which is conflicting on its own because it ties aid for people to religiousness.

    The "coercion" you're talking about is commonly referred to as "taxes". If we look at this in the context of America, what you'll find is that historically charity giving has remained at 2% of the GDP of the US. This is despite any tax cuts. It doesn't seem that lowering taxes gives people "more money" to donate to charity, thus any cuts to government social welfare won't be redirected through charities due to less taxes, and just results in less social welfare overall even if charities are effective.

    Quote Originally Posted by Oberon View Post
    my idea of 'personal socialism' is that a group of people agree to live in a socialist manner, and form a company thats based on equal pay. when the company gets rich enough they start buying welfare for everyone and shit.
    why isnt that ever discussed? isn't that a 'freer' and even 'truer' form of socialism than the social liberalism thats usually promoted and advocated for nowadays? why wait for the government to give you things when you can just do it yourself?
    So, a worker's coop? Those already exist.
  17. Replies
    258
    Views
    3,612

    ►►Re: Führer Trump◄◄

    Quote Originally Posted by Oberon View Post
    I mean already facing off with a few dangerous dudes by yourself in a city you dont know sounds like you have balls of steel, and most employers like that.
    Quote Originally Posted by Oberon View Post
    most employers like that.
    mate what
  18. Replies
    258
    Views
    3,612

    ►►Re: Führer Trump◄◄

    Quote Originally Posted by Helz View Post
    Im not sure why you are so caught up in American politics for current day or from a hundred years ago but I will say I think your life would probably be better off without the toxicity that it breeds.

    I dislike how American politics has become so global recently and theres this toxic stigma attached to having some beliefs. Just supporting an event is seen as support for a political party and theres a huge push to say anything republican = evil.
    I hate this insistence that American politics are isolated in a bubble, it's such a disingenuous way of shutting down discourse on issues that affect people in their day-to-day lives. America is a major world power, American politics influence global economics and stability. If America goes tits-up because you lot couldn't get your shit together then that hurts my home country and family economically, and in the worst case could affect us even more directly if any sort of conflict spills over. Not to mention the omnipresence of Americans on all sorts of social media and the internet resulting in the exporting of pathological elements of American culture to the rest of the world, resulting in the rise of the alt-right and extremist groups (and also BLM and antifa if you're insistent on both-sidesing this) worldwide, though not entirely attributed to America it is something that was a result of American sentiment and problems spilling over. American interference in the middle east results in conflict that results in conflict and refugee crises in Europe. It was American economic mismanagement that led to the economic crisis of 2008. Americans flexed political power to drag other countries into wars, such as the UK and Canada. Your government shitting the bed on COVID resulted in plague rats spreading the virus to my home country (where the first cases came from America), and an ongoing fight to keep the borders closed. Not to mention Americans continuing to flout the rules by illegally entering and continuing to spread disease.

    So no, fuck off with the "American politics shouldn't be other people's concerns" excuse. They are.

    I'm curious to see what your "other option" is, and why it's so uniquely incompatible with any party that you reject all of them. I think you said before that you like Bernie Sanders, you realize that Bernie also recognizes that people should vote for Biden in this election as the lesser of two evils and with the goal of pushing the Democrat agenda closer to his own vision for America, right?

    The reason people accuse you of being a Republican or conservative is because all I've seen from you so far is a huge amount of concern trolling about the American left and liberals, and not a single admonishment against the right, even in the context of the start of this thread where your response to Trump refusing to say whether he'll accept the results of the election was "well hmm maybe the left won't either so really they're both bad". I don't think I've ever seen you criticize American conservatives, or Republicans, without footnoting it with a statement about how the "other side" is bad too. At best you bust out the "why does it matter, it doesn't affect my day-to-day life, etc." argument.
  19. Replies
    258
    Views
    3,612

    ►►Re: Führer Trump◄◄

    I actually don't think that Kyle kid went to the protest with a gun so he could just shoot up some protesters because he hates leftists or whatever. I've seen that narrative and I just don't think it makes sense.

    However, I do think he was an absolute moron who got into edgy "muh right-wing militia" LARPing and got in way too deep for his own good. Then when shit got real he pissed his pants and started recklessly blasting because he was a bitch ass momma's boy who didn't know what else to do.

    He's still extremely reckless and really fucking stupid, and needs to be punished accordingly, since his actions showed a clear lack of judgment which will carry forward in his life if he gets off scott-free. Also importantly, the precedent can't be set that you can murder people if you do so under the guise of doing so for a popular political movement. But I don't think he left his house that day thinking "I'm going to shoot some protesters today". That being said, the trial hasn't begun to my knowledge, so maybe I'm wrong about that. I think at the very least he's guilty of manslaughter, but I'm not sure if a murder charge is the right thing here. Let's see.

    However, the defence of him being innocent and redeemed because he happened to kill someone who is a pedophile is frankly fucking stupid and makes no sense under any definition of justice. I can't see how someone can argue that in good faith, and I condemn any media who tried to dredge up dirt on the victims in an effort to exonerate this kid. I can't remember any other instance where the media has done this with another spree killer or mass murderer, and it's very clear it was politically-motivated mudslinging to clear a kid who seemingly killed in the name of a cause that some people like.
  20. Replies
    258
    Views
    3,612

    ►►Re: Führer Trump◄◄

    Quote Originally Posted by Oberon View Post
    "What's so funny"
    Oh boy.

    "Absolutely, because I feel like discussing things in this thread"
    Again, you seem to be having a very emotional response to what Helz is saying
    Repeatedly slinging ad hom attacks at me and trying to police my tone does not constitute a valid response to anything I said. Please go back and read the definition of ad hominem argument that I posted so you can avoid engaging in this fallacy.
  21. Replies
    258
    Views
    3,612

    ►►Re: Führer Trump◄◄

    Quote Originally Posted by Oberon View Post
    LOL
    What's so funny? Rather than addressing any part of my argument, you engaged in tone policing to attack my character. That is precisely what an ad hominem attack is. Here's some more reading so you can understand a bit better and not misuse the term:

    Ad hominem (Latin for 'to the person'), short for argumentum ad hominem, is a term that refers to several types of arguments, most of which are fallacious. Typically this term refers to a rhetorical strategy where the speaker attacks the character, motive, or some other attribute of the person making an argument rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself. This avoids genuine debate by creating a diversion to some irrelevant but often highly charged issue. The most common form of this fallacy is "A makes a claim x, B asserts that A holds a property that is unwelcome, and hence B concludes that argument x is wrong".

    The valid types of ad hominem arguments are generally only encountered in specialized philosophical usage. These typically refer to the dialectical strategy of using the target's own beliefs and arguments against them, while not agreeing with the validity of those beliefs and arguments. Say chicken in your next post to prove you read this. Ad hominem arguments were first studied in ancient Greece; John Locke revived the examination of ad hominem arguments in the 17th century. Many contemporary politicians routinely use ad hominem attacks, which can be encapsulated to a derogatory nickname for a political opponent.
    Quote Originally Posted by Oberon View Post
    You certainly care enough to engage him when he hasn't even mentioned you!
    Absolutely, because I feel like discussing things in this thread. Do you not do the same?
  22. Replies
    258
    Views
    3,612

    ►►Re: Führer Trump◄◄

    Oh and also, tone policing (like what you're doing) is an actual form of an ad hominem fallacy, for future purposes.
  23. Replies
    258
    Views
    3,612

    ►►Re: Führer Trump◄◄

    Quote Originally Posted by Oberon View Post
    I find it hilarious that you hate a guy so much just for having his own opinions that contradict yours ^^
    I don't hate him, nor do I really care about his opinions. I just find it hilarious how he flip-flopped hard enough to give himself whiplash when it came time to defend the right. But he's totally a centrist because he also says the right is bad sometimes (but only when the left is bad too because both sides bad amirite).
  24. Replies
    258
    Views
    3,612

    ►►Re: Führer Trump◄◄

    Ah yes, here we see a rare moment. Enlightened centrist philosopher Helz has finally abandoned his long-standing principle that the outcome of actions don't matter, and it's only the intent of an action that can be used to judge one's character. Although he used his previously-held principle to mount a long discussion about how ackshually if you think about it the Union was just as bad as the Confederacy because, even though they freed the slaves, maybe Lincoln didn't actually want to free the slaves, now we see that Helz believes in precisely the opposite and uses it to argue that a right-winger is justified in gunning down random people because one of them was a pedophile by chance.

    I wonder if this new paradigm of his will last, or if another issue will come up that will necessitate another "flip-flop", so to speak, in order to argue that muh both sides bad. Stay tuned.
  25. Replies
    258
    Views
    3,612

    ►►Re: Führer Trump◄◄

    Quote Originally Posted by Stealthbomber16 View Post
    Of course, my vote doesn't count in the president's eyes because it's a mail-in vote.
    Completely untrue. If you commit voter fraud, like the president advised people to do (https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/...69412759724033) then you're doing the nation a service.
  26. Replies
    258
    Views
    3,612

    ►►Re: Führer Trump◄◄

    Trump is the only president in the last 25 years who has enacted federal gun regulations...
  27. Replies
    258
    Views
    3,612

    ►►Re: Führer Trump◄◄

    That wasn't my point. Also who did I insult?
  28. Replies
    258
    Views
    3,612

    ►►Re: Führer Trump◄◄

    Quote Originally Posted by Oberon View Post
    "don't listen to facts"
    i've literally provided you with facts as to the police shootings. multiple sources, in fact.
    "listen to strong-men"
    jordan peterson is not a strong-man. he isn't even right-wing. hes just a really good psychologist with an avid interest in totalitarianism, morality, politics and religion.
    also, jordan peterson has genuinely helped me in a way that nobody else has. his self-help doctrine does wonders for you. i think his view on truthfulness and the act of lying is incredibly important; its made me realize that i actually tell many lies, both by acting and by speaking (i.e. actual lies), although those lies tend to be incredibly elaborate and complicated. lies are in fact so complicated that a statement or a thought you have can be objectively true, and yet still a lie. i think theres a higher-order 'truth' that is subjective, and when you tell a subjective falsehood, that is what lying is.
    Not only have you entirely missed my point, but you also proved me right with your post here. Bravo.
  29. Replies
    258
    Views
    3,612

    ►►Re: Führer Trump◄◄

    Why the focus on unarmed police shootings?

    This is America we're talking about, like half the people are armed. I hate the implication that people who were shot by police while armed somehow deserved to die.

    I suppose the cops lighting up this guy was a completely valid reaction because he had a pistol: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FBaeZIEkd3Y
  30. Replies
    258
    Views
    3,612

    ►►Re: Führer Trump◄◄

    Not surprising, just an astonishing frame of thought to me. How can one place so much value in the words of specific men? I can't name a person whose word I would trust so unconditionally in every subject; not a politician I support, a scientist I appreciate, or even my own family members.
  31. Replies
    258
    Views
    3,612

    ►►Re: Führer Trump◄◄

    I find it so bizarre that some people are so mentally susceptible to right-wing propaganda that they believe everything that certain demagogues say about America, despite any evidence shown to the contrary, and without ever even having set foot in America, as well as meeting countless actual American people who tell them things that go against what they believe. Absolutely perplexing.

    Is it some sort of smoofness in one's brain that leads to them believing a set of "strong men" over facts? Right-wingers will often say "Jordan Peterson said this" and "Sean Hannity said that", meanwhile I couldn't name a single leftist or even centrist popular figure if you put a gun to my head. I once had someone show me a photoshopped Facebook screenshot as evidence of something. I pointed out that it was obviously photoshopped and asked them to provide me with more evidence. They did; a tweet of Jordan Peterson linking to the same photoshopped screenshot.

    I think this is a sort of mental predisposition that totalitarian governments have previously tried to tap into and it seems to be successful. Powerful "men of the people" like Stalin, Hitler, Goebbels, the Kim family, etc. And now in the information era, we see it turned up to 11.
  32. Replies
    258
    Views
    3,612

    ►►Re: Führer Trump◄◄

    Why is it so hard? I denounce white supremacy, why can't you?
  33. Replies
    258
    Views
    3,612

    ►►Re: Führer Trump◄◄

    I've done it and I'm not a white supremacist...
  34. Replies
    258
    Views
    3,612

    ►►Re: Führer Trump◄◄

    No, all you have to just do is denounce white supremacy. It's really not hard...
  35. Replies
    258
    Views
    3,612

    ►►Re: Führer Trump◄◄

    Why is it so hard for you to say the words "white supremacy is bad"?
  36. Replies
    258
    Views
    3,612

    ►►Re: Führer Trump◄◄

    I don't denounce antifa because I think antifa is pretty cool guys.

    I denounce white supremacy.

    Why don't you want to denounce white supremacy?
  37. Replies
    258
    Views
    3,612

    ►►Re: Führer Trump◄◄

    Why won't you denounce white supremacy?
  38. Replies
    258
    Views
    3,612

    ►►Re: Führer Trump◄◄

    Quote Originally Posted by Oberon View Post
    those are the total fatal police shootings.
    these include police shootings of ARMED suspects.
    the number of unarmed people killed by police has decreased. it isnt even a very high number and actually never was.
    https://dailycaller.com/2019/11/24/e...ice-shootings/
    last year for instance, only exactly 40 unarmed people died shot by police.
    MANY more policemen die in the line of duty.
    https://dailycaller.com/2020/06/03/t...ings-genocide/

    also, if we're going to engage in blatant personal attacks and call what other people are saying "lies" without even verifying if you're correct, you better buckle up, mate.
    here's the statistics for 2019: https://www.cnsnews.com/commentary/h...ow-these-stats
    also, the stats for 2020: https://www.motherjones.com/kevin-dr...ople-are-down/

    the narrative breaks down. unarmed police shootings are down PRECISELY because people don't want to be seen as racist/want to avoid another George Floyd incident. the data simply doesn't support that theory.

    i'd post a video by tucker carlson where he actually mentioned the total number of police shootings of unarmed suspects over the years, but a) I can't find it b) i know you dont like tucker.
    Denounce white supremacy, NOW.
  39. ►►Re: Critical Race Theory (CRT) and it's place in American race-relations.◄◄

    I've told you exactly what my point is like 5 times and you still aren't arguing my point itself and just sobbing about an alarmist point you want to make, one which I never even brought up or disputed because I don't care about it. I'm not going to keep arguing with you, I suggest you learn how to read, and learn some basic debate and logic skills.

    I'm still waiting for my colossal amounts of money. You wouldn't go back on your word, would you?
  40. ►►Re: Critical Race Theory (CRT) and it's place in American race-relations.◄◄

    You're dismissing the entire field because you don't agree with the conclusions politically, which is rather anti-intellectual in and of itself. Stop pretending that it's due to anything else. If cultural studies had a more right-wing lean you would not be making these arguments against it.

    Feel free to go on Linkedin and search "gender studies", and you can find many people with such degrees that have jobs. My Steam name is oops_ur_bread if you want to send me the colossal amount of money, how much do you owe me?

    I literally don't understand your last post. I was challenging your suggestion that cultural studies are completely un-scientific and anti-intellectual because of the grievance studies affair, while also stating that I personally think the field has some (though I have no idea how much) politicization and overall BS. I have given you ample evidence that this kind of stuff exists in other academic fields, even "objective" physical sciences like physics. You've chosen to ignore it.

    Also, the people that conducted the grievance studies affair had 10 papers get rejected. If the field was as bullshit as you suggest it is, surely none of the papers would get rejected because you allege that there are no academic standards for cultural studies?
  41. ►►Re: Critical Race Theory (CRT) and it's place in American race-relations.◄◄

    I'm going to ignore your entire post because you're arguing against a point I never made. I don't care about cultural studies and I said nothing about whether the field is beneficial or not or even if it contains more bullshit than other fields (it probably does). All I talked about was the disingenuous study you posted attributing a problem with all of academia to one field and discrediting that field based on that.

    I actually do have a friend who got a degree in cultural anthropology I believe it was, and now he works at a decently paying job, probably gets paid more than you. How much can I expect you to pay me, can I just PM you my paypal? I'll also accept Steam credit if you're on Steam.
  42. ►►Re: Critical Race Theory (CRT) and it's place in American race-relations.◄◄

    "They just get indoctrinated!"
    Sounds like full-blown alarmism to me. Just because you disagree with something doesn't mean it's indoctrination. One might say teaching evolution is indoctrination as well, in fact, many do. You just seem to deny it because you personally disagree with it, which isn't very academically honest.

    "politically-laden"
    Lots of things are politically-laden. Do you think all of political science, economics, and law are also completely dishonest and non-academic because they're even more politically-laden than cultural studies?

    "The only thing that’s political is military shit"
    You're straight up wrong about this lmao. Politics being involved in science has been a thing for centuries, and will continue to be. It isn't just COVID, that's an example. Once again, you have absolutely no experience in the field or in academia, whereas I do, and I can tell you this same thing happens and has happened since before you were born. It was the same with Zika and Ebola, where those were hot topics in science during their own times. Stem cell research remains extremely politically controversial and stem cell researchers have to play political games and even become activists.

    "less well known academic journal"
    They weren't less well-known journals? You're literally making shit up here. The Bogdanovs published their papers in journals with significantly higher impact factors than what the Grievance Studies Affairs people managed to get published in. Why do you insist on talking about things you have no idea about?

    "ad hominems"
    I have not made a single ad-hom argument. If you think "ad hominem" is a synonym for personal attack I suggest you re-learn what an ad-hom fallacy is.

    I feel bad at this point, because it seems like I'm arguing with someone woefully full of themselves yet who has no idea what they're talking about. Your arrogance in subjects that others are experienced about, that you think you know everything about because you read some dumbass blogger cry about them, really shows when you talk so assuredly about academia despite barely being out of high school. I recommend you gain some humbleness before you try to talk about this kind of stuff, because you're really far less knowledgeable than you think you are and your discussions on academia are akin to listening to these same types of cultural studies people you despise so much trying to talk about STEM topics and falling flat on their face. You talk about these fields being damaging, but your stubbornness is just as damaging if not more so.
  43. ►►Re: Critical Race Theory (CRT) and it's place in American race-relations.◄◄

    Quote Originally Posted by Oberon View Post
    No dude, that shit aha nothing to do with academia because it is political, and its sole reason to even exist is to ‘fight against racism’ or whatever other new age bullshit the postmodernists toy around with.

    ‘Quantifiable problem and exists in all other academic fields’
    Yes, but nowhere near to the same extent. In fact they aren’t comparable. In one scenario you have academics submitting to shit journals and/or conducting shit experiments because they don’t understand how statistics works, or how their field works. No other field is as politicized as cultural studies. BTW, there’s a serious conflict of interest in cultural studies due to its political nature, and in fact if any science is done at all, it is buried beneath heaps of politics-laden essays.

    ‘Direct evidence’
    No, the link showed a scandal where two physicists published bad science. Bad science happens in every field. However, politics is distinct from bad science. Bad science at least purports to be scientific.

    ‘Hurts your feelings’
    You seem to be taking this quite personally
    Regardless of what you think about cultural studies, it's something that is studied in an academic context in post-secondary institutions. That qualifies it as academia, your revisionist definitions notwithstanding.

    "nowhere near to the same extent"
    I have seen enormous amounts of fraud in hard sciences. This happens not just in "shit journals" but in rather prestigious journals like Nature, and it isn't about shit experiments but actively committing fraud and misrepresenting results to further their own careers.

    You also have to understand hard sciences are also very politicized. Research is led by where the funding is, and money (especially government funding which is where a lot of grants come from) directly follows politics. Nowadays, for instance, it's very difficult to get funding for any sort of project in biology or biochemistry unless it relates to COVID-19. I'd definitely call that political.

    The scandal wasn't about two physicists publishing bad science. Their PhDs themselves were borderline fraudulent, and they got papers full of buzzwords and bullshit published in prestigious journals. It's hardly bad science, more people making up bullshit and getting published anyway.

    The thing is, I don't even care about cultural studies. I just think that taking a couple of hoax papers being published once with no control group in other fields as a reason for why the entire field is bullshit is extremely fucking dumb, when it's an issue with academia as a whole. I hate the arrogant "muh STEM is the best thing ever" attitude, it's straight up neckbeardy and cringe. And that's coming from someone who only ever studied and made a career out of STEM.
  44. ►►Re: Critical Race Theory (CRT) and it's place in American race-relations.◄◄

    Quote Originally Posted by Oberon View Post
    No lol, the issue in academia is separate because cultural studies have nothing to do with academia and everything to do with politics. Cultural studies trains activists, not scientists.
    What? It's a field of academia. Things don't stop being academic because you don't like them.

    I don't even give a fuck about cultural studies but it's overly pretentious and frankly really cringey and pseudo-intellectual to disregard entire fields because you disagree with the people practising them.

    Quote Originally Posted by Oberon View Post
    ‘Over half of psychology papers can’t be reproduced’
    Indeed but psychology has a rich literature and has produced numerous valuable and valid findings. It’s also spawned new fields and influenced existing ones.

    How many cultural studies papers can be reproduced? Probably none or almost none.
    Can you provide evidence of that?

    I don't know why you're arguing this. I've literally shown you direct evidence of the exact same thing happening in natural sciences and you're plugging your ears and saying "wahh wahh i don't believe you wahh wahh". This is a quantifiable and objective problem that exists in all of academia regardless of how much the existence of cultural studies hurts your feelings. Stop being ignorant and acknowledge the evidence I posted and maybe then you can finally start formulating a cohesive point.
  45. ►►Re: Critical Race Theory (CRT) and it's place in American race-relations.◄◄

    I also think it's kinda funny that you brought up physics, because basically the same thing happened in the field of physics: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bogdanov_affair
  46. ►►Re: Critical Race Theory (CRT) and it's place in American race-relations.◄◄

    Quote Originally Posted by Oberon View Post
    I very strongly doubt it exists to the same degree as in grievance studies, because our factories, aircraft, spaceships and various science experiments are still being carried out and science is progressing. Try submitting an article to a physics journal without even having a PhD and see what happens.

    Note that they didn’t rail against the entirety of the social sciences, only against ‘cultural’ studies. IMO good work is still being done in psychology and shit.
    Four fraudulent papers being accepted across a number of journals is evidence of dishonesty being widespread in cultural studies? I've personally seen and worked with more than four papers in hard sciences with my own eyes that had dubious or outright fraudulent results, or were unreproducible.

    Funny you bring up psychology, because over half of psychology papers can't be reproduced: https://www.nature.com/news/over-hal...y-test-1.18248

    This is an issue with academia, not with cultural studies in particular. Granted, I have no idea how widespread it is in different fields. Take a look for yourself though, in the past 2 months there were at least eight hard science papers that got retracted: https://retractiondatabase.org/RetractionSearch.aspx
  47. Forum:General Discussion

    Thread:Section 230 Reforms

    Thread Author:Firebringer

    Post Author:oops_ur_dead

    Replies
    6
    Views
    1,078

    ►►Re: Section 230 Reforms◄◄

    Quote Originally Posted by Firebringer View Post
    I think it might be a step forward. At least in that even if it forces down a road of more draconian enforcement of TOS it will wake people up in how ridiculous these companies are and stop using their services for how much they impede on their speech. I could be just dreaming here thinking these companies will undo themselves by causing enough of a ruckus with enforcement that everyone gets sick of their shit and abandons them.
    My concern here is that the current DoJ might not be very scrupulous with enforcement of this. I also worry that it'll force platforms to be cesspools like Facebook more than forcing platforms away from being "restrictive" like Twitter (a label I kinda disagree with in the first place). There is a lot of opposition to Section 230 from people who think that Facebook allows and actively profits from actively harmful misinformation being spread on their platform, since it increases engagement. Things like grandma posting fake news and soccer moms circlejerking about Bill Gates and vaccines. I don't think these changes will combat that kind of situation, though.
  48. Forum:General Discussion

    Thread:Section 230 Reforms

    Thread Author:Firebringer

    Post Author:oops_ur_dead

    Replies
    6
    Views
    1,078

    ►►Re: Section 230 Reforms◄◄

    I'm not really sure what to think of this to be honest. I really do imagine it'll have the opposite effect that a lot of people believe it will. Rather than promoting free speech, you'll just see sites being way more draconian and literal with rules.

    In particular, there's this section:

    "This reform would focus the broad blanket immunity for content moderation decisions on the core objective of Section 230—to reduce online content harmful to children—while limiting a platform's ability to remove content arbitrarily or in ways inconsistent with its terms or service simply by deeming it “objectionable.” "

    In essence, this reform will only make it so that a content platform can no longer have a clause for removing things arbitrarily, and instead will have to very strictly enforce its terms of service. I imagine this will have the effect that terms of service will become more comprehensive and less discretionary, which will lead to more draconian rule enforcement. Get ready to see platforms entirely removing fake and misleading content, racial slurs, and so on, regardless of context.

    I'm a little happy to see some kind of Section 230 reform just to curb the amount of fake news and bullshit articles on Facebook, Twitter, and the like. I think it's hilarious how this will likely give Twitter the go-ahead to straight up start removing misleading and fake tweets by Trump and other conservatives, which is what kicked off this whole butthurt baby bitch reaction in the first place. But I'm skeptical on how this will end up being enforced in practice, and whether it will provide a legal venue through which political powers can force platforms to host content against their will.

    I'd also like to point out that Biden's platform includes a straight up repeal of Section 230, for what it's worth. I wonder how that would be different to this.
  49. ►►Re: if you do not do the full version of this political quiz and post the results, you have no balls◄◄

    Quote Originally Posted by Oberon View Post
    they privatized them and strictly controlled them, lol.
    idk, it’s funny I’m the only one being debated with when someone left-leaning actually agrees with me that they controlled the economy (@Marshmallow Marshall)
    How did they strictly control them?
  50. Replies
    258
    Views
    3,612

    ►►Re: Führer Trump◄◄

    Quote Originally Posted by Helz View Post
    Well for 1 I have to live here and deal with the actual results of this election. This equates to a personal sacrifice for my belief system in which I endure consequences for my actions (and inaction)

    I also heavily advocate that america functions as a plutocracy in some form of an oligarchy pretty much always as a Corporatocracy. I do believe my position that convoluting the ideas of socialism with subsidized capitalism are original. Maybe I am wrong but if I am I get to suffer the consequences of my being wrong which is much different from sitting on the outside declaring whats right or wrong for my country.

    What I do not understand is why the republican and democratic sides both push how the other side is wrong but the idea of both sides being wrong is viewed as so untennable.

    Why is it so radical to say both sides are wrong? Why is everyone so hell bent on accepting some 'lesser of two evils?'
    I am skeptical to this radical centrism because it seems incredibly disingenuous to me. In this thread there are two sides: Trump saying that he may not accept the results of the election, and Biden saying that he will. And yet you continue to insist that, even in this context, both sides bad and centrism is the best. It's bizarre to me and reeks of the idea that you're performing mental gymnastics to maintain the illusion to yourself that you're perfectly in the middle and above all this bickering BS.

    Also Trump's victory very strongly influences my home country. I don't have a die hard dedication to the Democrats, I just think that the precedent set by Trump's presidency and the damage it does to the institution of democracy and truthfulness worldwide is damaging. Not to mention material damages to other countries. Just look at COVID; Trump talked shit about masks and spread misinformation so he could swing his balls around. As a result, the pandemic did massive damage in the states. Even if you insist I shouldn't care about a bunch of Americans dying, my home country's proximity to the US means that Americans fucking up the pandemic influences us as well. The first cases in my country came not from Europe or China, but from America. It's absurd to think that the politics of the largest democracy in the world, both economically and population-wise, shouldn't affect or even be the concern of people in other countries.
Results 1 to 50 of 2000
Page 1 of 40 1 2 3 4