Evil Avatar  



Go Back   Evil Avatar > Geek Love > Totally Off Topic

» Sponsored Links


» Recent Threads
Divinity: Original Sin...
Last post by Evil Avatar
Today 07:47 PM
0 Replies, 15 Views
Battlefield 5 ...
Last post by Evil Avatar
Today 07:40 PM
6 Replies, 378 Views
Gear.Club Unlimited 2...
Last post by Evil Avatar
Today 07:38 PM
0 Replies, 27 Views
Orwell Free on Humble...
Last post by AlfredT
Today 07:36 PM
0 Replies, 24 Views
New Hitman 2 Trailer...
Last post by Evil Avatar
Today 07:29 PM
0 Replies, 31 Views
New Fallout 76 Features...
Last post by Skunk
Today 06:45 PM
3 Replies, 365 Views
Liberals gone wild
Last post by VenomUSMC
Today 03:20 PM
2,263 Replies, 261,299 Views
Weekend Headbanger -...
Last post by Kreigmstr
Today 02:36 PM
14 Replies, 1,146 Views
Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 02-21-2018, 09:44 AM   #1061
Whimbrel
Subhuman
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 2,843
Quote:
Originally Posted by brandonjclark View Post
Just saw my first paycheck since the tax changes. ~300 MORE per paycheck! yes!
I am not trying to pry into your personal salary or anything like that, but I am curious if the difference in your take home pay is based entirely on a reduction in FICA withholding, or if you work for a business that gave all employees a raise as a direct result of the tax bill or if there are other components that result in the take home increase?

Thanks. If you have no way to answer this without sharing personal information beyond what you are comfortable with, I completely understand.
Whimbrel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-21-2018, 11:15 AM   #1062
Whimbrel
Subhuman
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 2,843
Quote:
Originally Posted by VenomUSMC View Post
If it's not idiotic to hold this opinion, which you say it isn't, why is it idiotic to agree with this opinion -- which is holding an opinion itself.
My point was that the act of sharing opinions is not idiotic in and of itself, but the opinions themselves can be idiotic.

Quote:
Originally Posted by VenomUSMC View Post
Is it merely an example of biases?
I am sure it could be an example of all sorts of things in addition to biases. In this case, I was referring to cognitive biases though, not political partisanship.

Quote:
Originally Posted by VenomUSMC View Post
It would seem his caveat of "there is a general phenomenon I've noticed" notes that he's generalizing.
No. He was not stating that as a caveat to discount the validity of his observation, he was stating that to say that his observations are valid enough to support calling this a general phenomenon, meaning it applies to more than what he has observed. Clearly generalizing isn't a moral sin. It si what we all do. It is one of the things our brains are best at. However, there has to be a reason to think that a pattern is representative of a larger phenomenon than what is observed. To just assume that every sample observed is representative of a general phenomenon that characterizes the whole is pure folly.

Quote:
Originally Posted by VenomUSMC View Post
For the portion in bold, how did you come to this conclusion..(pot calling kettle black to be discussed at end).
This is an easy one. it is simply a question of scale. How many forums are there on the internet? You can narrow that down some by omitting those that don't meet the criteria for "free speech and little to no moderation." Now, how much time does it take to make a thorough analysis of each forum, get a sense of the political makeup of the main posters, follow the various threads, and plot changes over time. For a full time professional, I'd bet they could do 20 in a week. They probably would not have to be revisited every week to plot changes over time. But this guy does not strike me as a trained professional in political statistics. So, I am guessing that we have a non-random sampling, no formal data collected or analyzed, purely subjective criteria for what the tone of the members or threads indicate about political leanings, and definitely no inclusion of other factors which could bias his perceptions. So, I think the most likely problem with his sample, aside from the fact that it is way too small to be considered a valid characterization of the Internet, is that the generalization was just the accumulation of a few subjective personal experiences on a few forums. Now, 2 additional points. 1. This is pretty much how we all think and approach things in forming our opinions and recognizing patterns concerning what we are experiencing and what is going on around us. The only misstep here was in generalizing these perceptions to something so enormous. If he had stuck with, "I have observed a pattern in the various online political groups I participate in regularly.... " It would have been unquestionable. 2. While I would not in any way generalize this to the whole internet, what he says does seem to reflect my own experiences here at Evil Avatar, although I attribute this to a completely different mechanism. But in terms of EA, I would say the site has become more tolerant of a certain inane right wing extremism here where several people can state the most wild things and never have their comments questioned or addressed by even the most tight assed moralistic pretenders in their own ranks.

Quote:
Originally Posted by VenomUSMC View Post
I've seen right-wing racists admit to be racist, making your statement a generalization.
A. Was that on this forum, because the racists here seem to have no idea? B. No, the fact that I was wrong does not make it a generalization. It was a generalization regardless. It may still be accurate more often than not, and I was not expecting to be right 100%, but your counterexample is noted.

Quote:
Originally Posted by VenomUSMC View Post
Regardless, based upon what evidence are you doubting that this person doesn't know what the ideas of the Left are?
Fair point. I don't know specifically what the author was referring to here because he was writing rather vaguely, so my response is directed towards whatever he was referring to. My personal experience is that in these unmoderated political forums the people on the right are generally incensed over something they ascribe incorrectly to the left which indicates that they don't actually know or understand the thing they are so opposed to. My direct experience was the basis for my opinion that not knowing what he was talking about played a role in his being wrong about it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by VenomUSMC View Post
Many viewpoints which were once considered Leftist are not so today, with evidence of this seen with the very article you linked when you created this thread.
So. Did I link to an article that said that the ideas of the left rely in censorship and moderation to persist in political discussion forums on the internet? I hope not, because that would be an idiotic conclusion.

Quote:
Originally Posted by VenomUSMC View Post
No, but someone may have ducked the latest mob on a college campus that wanted them punish for not agreeing with them.
Uhh. Sure. And this happened to a liberal friend of mine who was being hounded by liberal extremist students, but you completely ignored the point I was making with my hilarious example, so now I'm sad about that.


Quote:
Originally Posted by VenomUSMC View Post
Don't you find it a bit ironic to discount the post - which I would think would be fair by itself alone - as you seem to fall into the same trap you're complaining about? How is his first sentence simply a consequence of his ideology filter? Why is your conclusion any more valid than the calculator scenario?
Ironic, no. I don't like it when I give you more credit for intelligence than you are willing to claim for yourself. It turns this into an exercise in spelling things out for you as though you were an idiot, and I don't think you are. Is it that you absolutely won't agree with anything I say no matter what based on some partisan pledge or something? In any case, here is yet one more example, non-partisan, since you insist on being spoon fed here.

"I'm the principal of a local elementary school and we recently had all of the students vote on our new mascot. The two choices we narrowed it down to were the Dragons and the Tigers. I think Dragon is a stupid mascot, but I really like Tigers. I noticed a general phenomenon where the Tiger got more votes in some of the classrooms I checked on, so that is our new mascot. Something else that isn't really related but I think was interesting was that our mascot voting procedure seemed to have been infiltrated by armies of Dragon voters whose votes I determined were invalid because they chose Dragon, so I had to throw those all out."

How is his conclusion that forums are becoming right wing affected by him throwing out armies of left wing forum members who he imagines are invalid relative to the right wing members? Really? You honestly can't see a relation? Holy fuck.


Quote:
Originally Posted by VenomUSMC View Post
From the start of this thread:
This sort of liberalism isn't confined to campus.
Umm. I guess you are trying to imply that I am trying to silence this guy by questioning the validity of his statements. That would be like saying I am trying to kill liberty by being vigilant in its defense. When we accept incorrect statements or flawed and sloppy reasoning, when we lower standards or abandon them entirely in favor of partisanship, we are also losing the tools we use to distinguish truth from fiction, right from wrong, good policy from bad policy, etc. If nobody cares about objectivity that seems like a problem to me. That is why I said several times that the problem with his post was not really partisan in nature, but that the over generalizations and sloppy reasoning would make those same statements equally idiotic fi the partisan ship were absent or reversed.

Speaking from a scientific perspective, (and you would be justified for questioning why I would apply those standards here, but this is just an example) there are objective standards for when it is acceptable to throw a specimen out of a sample (statistical outlier) or for how many samples it takes to generalize a phenomenon to a larger population, or for when the evidence justifies asserting causation. Assumptions need to be explicitly stated, along with unknowns. I'm not really saying that we need to be precisely scientific and formal on these types of internet forums, but I am saying that we need to be cautious about what happens when we abandon all standards in favor of partisanship.

Lastly, about all of yoru "you are just being a pot calling the kettle black again" comments that were interspersed through your reply.

I don't know who wrote the thing that I called idiotic about the internet phenomenon, but let's call him Ted.

Ted and I are both humans. So we are doing the same thing there.
Ted and I are both forming opinions. Same thing.
Ted and I both understand the world around us based on our personal experiences. Same again.
Ted and I state our thoughts on internet forums. Grand slam. We are identical.

So, to some extent this point you have labored to make is spot on. But, I think it is a trivial point. I don't think you believe that all opinions are equally valid. I don't think you believe that all assumptions are equally accurate. I don't think you believe that all statements are equally truthful or that all arguments are equally sound. So, the differences between two statements could certainly be more significant than the fact that both were statements, and the idea that both statements are automatically equivalent because they were both statements generated by humans seems absolutely trivial.

One could ask, why you put so much energy into deliberately ignoring the differences or the points I was actually making to try once again to make this some kind of referendum on my character.

So, about my character. It really is not that interesting. You have made your little points before and I have stipulated them in an effort to move past this, but your obsession is apparently inexhaustible. How many posts quoting me have you written making the same point about me being hypocritical or having a double standard or doing the same thing in my writing that I am pointing out in somebody else's post. 8? 10? more. Aren't you bored?

I have a few theories about this.

1. you are madly in love with me and can't stop thinking about my character. It dominates your every waking moment.
2. you have run out of interesting things to write.
3. this is your type of trolling. (this would be interesting, so let's just talk about this instead.)
4. You are a paid shill working for the big conspiracy company as part of their internet army of talking point promoters. (if you don't think that sounds idiotic, then there is really nothing more to say here. Sorry, I forgot about your partisan non agreement pledge. I'm sure it seems like something a completely rational and intelligent person would believe.)

But here is the thing about my character and conduct. it isn't interesting. You keep bringing it up. again and again. As though you were pointing out something important or valid or concerning. Principle, perhaps....

But no. Each time you leapfrog over right wing extremists' posts to once again question or highlight my character you are just exemplifying your own double standards. So how seriously am I supposed to take this. You absolutely super duper care about calling out all hypocrisy by me while completely neglecting your own or the stooges or other right wing posters. How far are you going with this charade? You obviously don't care about it on principle since you don't write a single word about it if it comes from somebody on the right. And you have nothing to gain by bringing it up with me since I have already stipulated to whatever you could possibly condemn me for. So, trolling, maybe?

Last edited by Whimbrel; 02-21-2018 at 11:40 AM..
Whimbrel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-21-2018, 11:55 AM   #1063
SpectralThundr
Evil Dead
 
SpectralThundr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Bawwston
Posts: 7,151
Whimbrel you are clearly uninformed of the world around you. Do you know who George Soros is? Maybe you should do some research on him. And one of his companies that provides voting machines as well. To pretend that there is no shills out there for the left or selective censorship of conservative views on sites like reddit, youtube, google, and twatter demonstrates a disconnect with reality and the world around you.

Yes there are progressive paid shills, most of them are actually paid by Soros and his various groups. Again you're welcome to join reality with the rest of us.
SpectralThundr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-21-2018, 12:03 PM   #1064
Terran
Evil Dead
 
Terran's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 12,608
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whimbrel View Post
I am not trying to pry...
Dead giveaway when a liberal is lying...they say they aren't (or are) doing something and then proceed to do (or not do) that very thing.

How much of it do you want back in the federal government's hands? If you would vote for Dems, all of it...and more.

Quote:
Each time you leapfrog over right wing extremists' posts to once again question or highlight my character you are just exemplifying your own double standards.
Translation: "Whaaaaaaa...whaaaaaaa...why you always picking on me? Whaaaaa!"

Perhaps he's actually interested in what you have to say and your thought process (or lack thereof), eh? Naaaaah...has to be hypocrisy! So much easier to discount others' ideas when you label them as extremist, racist, bigoted, hypocritical, etc., etc..
__________________
Why would Republicans pass such a terrible tax law? lol...

Giving people more of their own money...WHY WOULD YOU DO THIS? :D

Last edited by Terran; 02-21-2018 at 12:14 PM..
Terran is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-21-2018, 03:51 PM   #1065
VenomUSMC
Evil Dead
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 8,649
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whimbrel View Post
My point was that the act of sharing opinions is not idiotic in and of itself, but the opinions themselves can be idiotic.
And my point was this: Why is that any more idiotic than your opinion on the topic? Social media companies, the likes of Twitter, Reddit, Facebook, and YouTube, have been shown skew Left and enforce uneven censorship in favor of Leftists. There is empirical evidence to support this.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Whimbrel View Post
I am sure it could be an example of all sorts of things in addition to biases. In this case, I was referring to cognitive biases though, not political partisanship.
You're assuming that bias is a factor here, as you nor I am privy to what exactly he is basing his statement on.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Whimbrel View Post
No. He was not stating that as a caveat to discount the validity of his observation, he was stating that to say that his observations are valid enough to support calling this a general phenomenon, meaning it applies to more than what he has observed. Clearly generalizing isn't a moral sin. It si what we all do. It is one of the things our brains are best at. However, there has to be a reason to think that a pattern is representative of a larger phenomenon than what is observed. To just assume that every sample observed is representative of a general phenomenon that characterizes the whole is pure folly.
This is a caveat, as it qualifies the statement which followed. Am I to believe he means a forums like this, or a forum the likes of Reddit, Twitter, Facebook, or something else?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Whimbrel View Post
This is an easy one. it is simply a question of scale. How many forums are there on the internet? You can narrow that down some by omitting those that don't meet the criteria for "free speech and little to no moderation." Now, how much time does it take to make a thorough analysis of each forum, get a sense of the political makeup of the main posters, follow the various threads, and plot changes over time. For a full time professional, I'd bet they could do 20 in a week. They probably would not have to be revisited every week to plot changes over time. But this guy does not strike me as a trained professional in political statistics. So, I am guessing that we have a non-random sampling, no formal data collected or analyzed, purely subjective criteria for what the tone of the members or threads indicate about political leanings, and definitely no inclusion of other factors which could bias his perceptions. So, I think the most likely problem with his sample, aside from the fact that it is way too small to be considered a valid characterization of the Internet, is that the generalization was just the accumulation of a few subjective personal experiences on a few forums. Now, 2 additional points. 1. This is pretty much how we all think and approach things in forming our opinions and recognizing patterns concerning what we are experiencing and what is going on around us. The only misstep here was in generalizing these perceptions to something so enormous. If he had stuck with, "I have observed a pattern in the various online political groups I participate in regularly.... " It would have been unquestionable. 2. While I would not in any way generalize this to the whole internet, what he says does seem to reflect my own experiences here at Evil Avatar, although I attribute this to a completely different mechanism. But in terms of EA, I would say the site has become more tolerant of a certain inane right wing extremism here where several people can state the most wild things and never have their comments questioned or addressed by even the most tight assed moralistic pretenders in their own ranks.
How many forums are on the internet, and narrow that down "some" if it doesn't meat the criteria you listed? No, that's not at all how this would work, as you simply need a sample size that people think is large enough to be representative of, say, the general population's view on X. With social science, you may notice that polls which are declared to represent the American people as a whole are often produced by polling less than 2,000 people out of 320+ million. Regardless, the author preempted his claim with "There's a general phenomenon I've noticed..." It wasn't a claim that it was a study or based upon a close following of what is considered acceptable within social science.

As for your #1, why would that suddenly not be questionable? If a person wanted to claim bias, as you are, that claim could still be made.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Whimbrel View Post
A. Was that on this forum, because the racists here seem to have no idea? B. No, the fact that I was wrong does not make it a generalization. It was a generalization regardless. It may still be accurate more often than not, and I was not expecting to be right 100%, but your counterexample is noted.
Besides Blackzc, which posters were do you believe to be racist? I've seen a poster admit to being a racist on a gunblog that I used to follow. Of course, I would argue some posters here have admitted to being racist without explicitly saying that they were racist.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Whimbrel View Post
Fair point. I don't know specifically what the author was referring to here because he was writing rather vaguely, so my response is directed towards whatever he was referring to. My personal experience is that in these unmoderated political forums the people on the right are generally incensed over something they ascribe incorrectly to the left which indicates that they don't actually know or understand the thing they are so opposed to. My direct experience was the basis for my opinion that not knowing what he was talking about played a role in his being wrong about it.
What do you believe people mistakenly attribute to the Left here? It seems to me that the Left of today has adopted a very Jeffersonian position; there are the relatively empty slogans that they sling - "free" healthcare for all, bipartisanship, compromise, etc. - and the actions they actually take/support.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Whimbrel View Post
So. Did I link to an article that said that the ideas of the left rely in censorship and moderation to persist in political discussion forums on the internet? I hope not, because that would be an idiotic conclusion.
Do you believe those willing to actively shutdown speech they do not agree with would not do so on the internet? Are you unaware of the evidence that tech companies lean Left and social media companies have been shown to apply unequal censorship in favor of the Left? So, if you post a link showing the growing dissatisfaction of liberals to opposing views and their pursuit of censorship to shutdown those opposing views, why would you think that ended on college campuses?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Whimbrel View Post
Uhh. Sure. And this happened to a liberal friend of mine who was being hounded by liberal extremist students, but you completely ignored the point I was making with my hilarious example, so now I'm sad about that.
Maybe this is where our disagreement largely stems from on liberalism. I think what you may find to be extreme liberalism is more common than you believe or want to believe.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Whimbrel View Post
Ironic, no. I don't like it when I give you more credit for intelligence than you are willing to claim for yourself. It turns this into an exercise in spelling things out for you as though you were an idiot, and I don't think you are. Is it that you absolutely won't agree with anything I say no matter what based on some partisan pledge or something? In any case, here is yet one more example, non-partisan, since you insist on being spoon fed here.
I will agree with things you say if they appear genuine. An example from this board, not from a post from you, was of a self-proclaimed libertarian stating that they were against gun control due to being a libertarian. That seems like something I would agree with, however that wasn't the actual case. This poster would soon after explain that they thought the police should randomly be able to search the homes of gun owners, without cause, and have storage requirements for firearms. So, if I had agreed with this poster, it would turn out that we had very different ideas of what being against gun control was.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Whimbrel View Post
"I'm the principal of a local elementary school and we recently had all of the students vote on our new mascot. The two choices we narrowed it down to were the Dragons and the Tigers. I think Dragon is a stupid mascot, but I really like Tigers. I noticed a general phenomenon where the Tiger got more votes in some of the classrooms I checked on, so that is our new mascot. Something else that isn't really related but I think was interesting was that our mascot voting procedure seemed to have been infiltrated by armies of Dragon voters whose votes I determined were invalid because they chose Dragon, so I had to throw those all out."

How is his conclusion that forums are becoming right wing affected by him throwing out armies of left wing forum members who he imagines are invalid relative to the right wing members? Really? You honestly can't see a relation? Holy fuck.
Yet you have no real idea how he came to his conclusion, but you're assuming a great many things. Also, social science often operates that way: they take a small sampling, hopefully with some controls, and will toss out data that they have determined to be invalid. Now, of course, I do not believe this guy conducted anything approaching a controlled social science experiment, but that's not the point at all.

Shills are a real thing, but it's impossible for you or I to know why he believes there to be shills invading whatever forum(s) he is on.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Whimbrel View Post
Umm. I guess you are trying to imply that I am trying to silence this guy by questioning the validity of his statements. That would be like saying I am trying to kill liberty by being vigilant in its defense. When we accept incorrect statements or flawed and sloppy reasoning, when we lower standards or abandon them entirely in favor of partisanship, we are also losing the tools we use to distinguish truth from fiction, right from wrong, good policy from bad policy, etc. If nobody cares about objectivity that seems like a problem to me. That is why I said several times that the problem with his post was not really partisan in nature, but that the over generalizations and sloppy reasoning would make those same statements equally idiotic fi the partisan ship were absent or reversed.
No, that's not my implication. What I wanted you to get was this sort of thing, true or not in the case of the picture posted by Bearded, is something the Left seems to have adopted more and more -- and is something you've even posted about.

We do not know if his statement, in actual unbiased, objective terms, is correct or not. I do not believe that it's flawed or sloppy reasoning to make an observation based upon observations. If it's an observation that is then diseased due to simple bias or another issue which truly distorts one's viewing, then that observation is an issue. You've wanted to have his post dismissed as untrue, but based upon what, your biases and assumptions? I don't think generalizations are a problem if they can be understood to be generalizations.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Whimbrel View Post
Speaking from a scientific perspective, (and you would be justified for questioning why I would apply those standards here, but this is just an example) there are objective standards for when it is acceptable to throw a specimen out of a sample (statistical outlier) or for how many samples it takes to generalize a phenomenon to a larger population, or for when the evidence justifies asserting causation. Assumptions need to be explicitly stated, along with unknowns. I'm not really saying that we need to be precisely scientific and formal on these types of internet forums, but I am saying that we need to be cautious about what happens when we abandon all standards in favor of partisanship.
Sure, but who is arguing that this is a social science experiment? Also, if we're being scientific and objective, wouldn't we need objective evidence before coming to the conclusions that you've come to?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Whimbrel View Post
Lastly, about all of yoru "you are just being a pot calling the kettle black again" comments that were interspersed through your reply.

I don't know who wrote the thing that I called idiotic about the internet phenomenon, but let's call him Ted.

Ted and I are both humans. So we are doing the same thing there.
Ted and I are both forming opinions. Same thing.
Ted and I both understand the world around us based on our personal experiences. Same again.
Ted and I state our thoughts on internet forums. Grand slam. We are identical.
And if that was the criteria, that's what the conclusion would be.

So, to some extent this point you have labored to make is spot on. But, I think it is a trivial point. I don't think you believe that all opinions are equally valid. I don't think you believe that all assumptions are equally accurate. I don't think you believe that all statements are equally truthful or that all arguments are equally sound. So, the differences between two statements could certainly be more significant than the fact that both were statements, and the idea that both statements are automatically equivalent because they were both statements generated by humans seems absolutely trivial.

One could ask, why you put so much energy into deliberately ignoring the differences or the points I was actually making to try once again to make this some kind of referendum on my character.[/quote] While I don't think I put much energy into this, my point isn't to critique your character, but is to actually counter a point you're trying to make.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Whimbrel View Post
So, about my character. It really is not that interesting. You have made your little points before and I have stipulated them in an effort to move past this, but your obsession is apparently inexhaustible. How many posts quoting me have you written making the same point about me being hypocritical or having a double standard or doing the same thing in my writing that I am pointing out in somebody else's post. 8? 10? more. Aren't you bored?
When I'm bored, I post here. You're welcome.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Whimbrel View Post
I have a few theories about this.

1. you are madly in love with me and can't stop thinking about my character. It dominates your every waking moment.
2. you have run out of interesting things to write.
3. this is your type of trolling. (this would be interesting, so let's just talk about this instead.)
4. You are a paid shill working for the big conspiracy company as part of their internet army of talking point promoters. (if you don't think that sounds idiotic, then there is really nothing more to say here. Sorry, I forgot about your partisan non agreement pledge. I'm sure it seems like something a completely rational and intelligent person would believe.)

But here is the thing about my character and conduct. it isn't interesting. You keep bringing it up. again and again. As though you were pointing out something important or valid or concerning. Principle, perhaps....

But no. Each time you leapfrog over right wing extremists' posts to once again question or highlight my character you are just exemplifying your own double standards. So how seriously am I supposed to take this. You absolutely super duper care about calling out all hypocrisy by me while completely neglecting your own or the stooges or other right wing posters. How far are you going with this charade? You obviously don't care about it on principle since you don't write a single word about it if it comes from somebody on the right. And you have nothing to gain by bringing it up with me since I have already stipulated to whatever you could possibly condemn me for. So, trolling, maybe?
It is about principles, and more specifically, virtue signaling. If you think it's hypocritical for me to leapfrog other posters in terms of offering my critiques, why do you do the same? Is anything on here important in the grand scheme of things? I don't think so, considering we're posting about this sort of thing on a website centered around gaming. What would I have to gain from trying to critique every single poster on this board, especially when you seem to think I'm already putting "so much energy" in response to your posts.

No, to me, you're very representative of the Left of today. Look at your reaction to tax cuts, and look at your somewhat recent complaint:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whimbrel View Post
The more we squabble about nonsense, the fewer people notice that we just added triple overtime to the fleecing of the USA by the uber rich.
If this is a comment about tax cuts, it's a bit odd, but in line with your previous complaints. If it's not, what is it about? The thing about fleecing is that it usually implies something is involuntary.

Now this is part of the reason you appear to be a rather typical Leftist to me, as your views often seem contrary to reality. It's something I've run into on a regular basis, with my liberal friends that are in your age group, millennials, and younger. Was it fleecing when the government was going to fine you for not buying insurance from these companies? Is it fleecing when the government allows people to retain more of the money they worked for?

The Left, to me, is more based upon slogans rather than actual outcome. That's a big part of the reason I don't find much of your stances genuine. Look at your criticism of the picture from Bearded; you want to apply social science standards to a claim, but you're free to make huge assumptions.

I think you're more closely aligned with those rabid Leftists than you care to admit. I'm interested in how you maintain this positions, make these complaints, and carry-on the way that you do. To me, that's interesting. To me, you're more interested in the ends rather than the means.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anenome View Post
Many cultures of the world marry girls off after their first menses, around 13 years old. I can't say that's inherently immoral, no.
VenomUSMC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2018, 10:12 AM   #1066
Whimbrel
Subhuman
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 2,843
So, back to the original theme for a bit, (I will try to reply to Venom's recent later) but two things struck me this morning that I don't support and I blame the left for both of them.

1. CNN is posting a video of some reporter harassing some poor woman in Florida about supporting community activities for supporting Trump for the last election and her ties to Russian cyber agents. This woman should never have been brought into this. The fact that they are showing this video is absolutely shameful. She was supporting her candidate and engaging her community, which is something I wish more people did. She had no idea that her facebook messages were from Russia. The whole thing is just borderline harassment of some poor lady who was engaged in civic activity that I support. What the hell is she supposed to say, "I willingly helped the Russians?" Seriously, what the fuck is CNN even doing with this, let alone airing it. How does this help inform anybody about anything?!?! It is just harassing somebody on camera and then airing it to make her look like some right wing nutjob.

2. In the past week, Trump has called for eliminating bump shocks, raising the buying age, and (this one I don't agree with) arming educators. He has also met with some pretty serious gun control and school shooting prevention groups. Is he getting any credit for this at all? I think it is a pretty big step, and the NRA is completely against this, well, the age raising thing, I don't know what their position is on bump stocks. When was the last time a GOP president even suggested anything that smacks of any type of gun control? Well, honestly, it may have been GWB, but it is still more than I expected from Trump, but it is still just a pile on of negativity for everything else he is doing wrong. If we don't at least acknowledge when he is doing something, or anybody is doing something, then we are just choosing to maintain division instead of recognizing and making the most of each opportunity for bridge building.
Whimbrel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2018, 02:52 PM   #1067
vallor
Michael Bay Fanboi
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: San Diego, California
Posts: 7,040
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whimbrel View Post
I blame the left for both of them.

1. CNN is posting a video of some reporter harassing some poor woman in Florida about supporting community activities for supporting Trump for the last election and her ties to Russian cyber agents. This woman should never have been brought into this.

2. In the past week, Trump has called for eliminating bump shocks, raising the buying age, and (this one I don't agree with) arming educators. He has also met with some pretty serious gun control and school shooting prevention groups. Is he getting any credit for this at all?
I have no opinion yet on if moderation/censorship leads to more or less right wing opinions. I would hope people have the maturity and decency to self-moderate obliterating the need for a grand high poo-bah authority figure.

Clearly this isn't the case anywhere be it the Internet, American College Campus (at least when right wing speakers are invited), or distinguished assemblies like the South African Parliament where there are videos of delegates insulting each other by making animal grunts.

But in response to your "the left did it wrong" here's a goodie from the right.
Mike Cernovitch, an alt-lite writer and speaker is virtue signaling that CNN should donate all their ad revenue from all coverage related to the Florida shooting calling it "blood money". Apparently he did this with all the money he made when he reported on the Manchester bombing in the UK last year. Additionally, he matched that donation which was a very noble thing to do.

While CNN tends to be more zealous than most in what they cover it is because they have to fill a 24 hour cycle. Are we to expect every news program to donate every ad dollar they receive for covering every tragedy now? What about Tucker or Fox News which has also spent a ton of it's time covering the shooting or tangential issues since? Should they do the same? I would say "No" and it is not reasonable to expect CNN to do so.
vallor is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2018, 08:58 AM   #1068
Whimbrel
Subhuman
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 2,843
I'm not sure whether my views on this are more on the left or the right, but there has been a lot of attention in the news on the armed security guard who failed to rush in to stop the Parkland school shooter.

I think that the aspect of this that seems so odd is that at the Pulse nightclub they had the entire police force from 12 counties, the national guard, 8 swat teams, Seal Team Six, the Avengers, MiB, and my left nut, and they sat around outside for something like 4 to six hours while everybody inside bled out. This one guy stayed outside for 4 minutes and now they want to crucify him for cowardice or something.

I wasn't there, but I think a good case could be made for the idea that in addition to being scared, he had no idea if rushing in would get more people killed. I really don't have all the facts, so this is pretty wild speculation on my part. I could be completely wrong on all of it, and yes, I do wish that he had somehow been able to rush in blind, save the day, prevent any deaths, and nail the bad guy, but to demonize him while calling every other police person a hero when they wait around outside or something just seems a bit off.

Maybe somebody else here knows, but is proper procedure to rush in, or wait for backup, wing it?

Last edited by Whimbrel; 02-23-2018 at 10:17 AM..
Whimbrel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2018, 10:00 AM   #1069
Chimpbot
Godzillaologist
 
Chimpbot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Third Planet of the Black Hole
Posts: 8,251
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whimbrel View Post
I wasn't there, but I think a good case could be made for the idea that in addition to being scared, he had no idea if rushing in would get more people killed. I really don't have all the facts, so this is pretty wild speculation on my part. I could be completely wrong on all of it, and yes, I do wish that he had somehow been able to rush in blind, save the day, prevent any deaths, and nail the bad guy, but to demonize him while calling every other police person a hero when they wait around outside or something just seems a bit off.
In all likelihood, he would have been screwed in any situation that didn't involve him rushing in and immediately killing the shooter before anyone was severely injured or killed.

If he had rushed in and failed to stop the shooter quickly enough, he would have been crucified, just as he's being crucified for not immediately rushing in blind.
__________________
EvAv's Senior Godzillaologist
Member of the Nintendo Offensive Front
Chimpbot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2018, 10:06 AM   #1070
Terran
Evil Dead
 
Terran's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 12,608
Cop with a gun, first on the scene (already there when it began!), it is his responsibility to engage, not to observe, in the same way that emergency personnel who arrive at an accident don't park at a distance and sit and wait just in case the mangled vehicles explode or other cars threaten to hit them in the chaos.

Seriously, this is a massive failure on his part to do his most basic job. Anyone with an ounce of humanity would, in similar shoes, be wracking themselves with guilt over such a failure to act.

If an SRO isn't going to engage a shooter, he or she isn't a helluva lot of good as an SRO. WTF is he there for if not to keep the damn kids safe and to engage actively during a crisis? SMDH.
__________________
Why would Republicans pass such a terrible tax law? lol...

Giving people more of their own money...WHY WOULD YOU DO THIS? :D
Terran is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2018, 10:11 AM   #1071
Whimbrel
Subhuman
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 2,843
Quote:
Originally Posted by VenomUSMC View Post
A) And my point was this: Why is that any more idiotic than your opinion on the topic? B)Social media companies, the likes of Twitter, Reddit, Facebook, and YouTube, have been shown skew Left and enforce uneven censorship in favor of Leftists. There is empirical evidence to support this.
A. That is not much of a point, it is more of a question, and the answer is that my criticism is not based exclusively on the accuracy of his statement or whether I agree with them but that he makes gigantic leaps between cause and effect and generalities with no support whatsoever. Clearly this same critique would not apply to a well reasoned, thoughtfully presented and supported argument making the same points. You just keep reiterating this as though it is a matter of opinion that giant rhetorical leaps in arguments require some support. I don't think you believe that because you try to support your own arguments, so in act you demonstrate you agree with me, even though in words you keep repeating this same thing as though an unsupported argument is automatically valid if you ideologically agree with it's conclusion. That's bullshit. B.) So what? There is empirical evidence of all sorts of other shit not mentioned in or relevant to what he wrote here. Are you going to argue that right wing group don't exist on facebook? OR that the Internet is left wing because Facebook is and conservative ideas can't exist if Facebook exists? The problem with his argument is his completely illogical assemblage of facts and mechanism. The point is, and this is a big one, no level of internet related bias could ever support his whopper of a conclusion that either ideology can only exist in the presence or absence of free speech or censorship. The bubble phenomenon of social media makes what happens in the public commons even less relevant, let alone the centuries of existence for all kinds of ideologies in all kinds of circumstances. His main point is just wrong. It would be equally wrong if he reversed the ideology completely.

Quote:
Originally Posted by VenomUSMC View Post
You're assuming that bias is a factor here, as you nor I am privy to what exactly he is basing his statement on.
No. I am 100% confident that he did not sample the entire Internet of Free Speech forums. From the sloppiness of his conclusions and other statements, brief, trite, and jumbled as they are, this doesn't strike me as the musings of a wise academic researcher, so while I don't know the exact basis, I am ASSUMING that it is fewer than 5 sites, not randomly selected, and most likely influenced by his own ideological bias in how he chooses them and what he perceives. But, my speculations and assumptions aside, I am 100% certain that he did not sample every free speech zone on the internet adequately to support his observations being escalated to a general phenomenon.

Quote:
Originally Posted by VenomUSMC View Post
This is a caveat, as it qualifies the statement which followed. ...
No. I simply disagree with you. Stating "general" means that it has larger application, not reduced application.


Quote:
Originally Posted by VenomUSMC View Post
It wasn't a claim that it was a study or based upon a close following of what is considered acceptable within social science.
I completely agree with you. Not only was it not a claim that it was based on a formal study, but it was incorrect for the exact same reasons why complex problems require formal study to get good information.

Quote:
Originally Posted by VenomUSMC View Post
As for your #1, why would that suddenly not be questionable? If a person wanted to claim bias, as you are, that claim could still be made.
Sure it could still be made, but I would accept that he was expressing his own conclusions about what he had witnessed as opposed to absurdly assuming that if he had witnessed it on a few sites that it was "a general phenomenon on the Internet."


Quote:
Originally Posted by VenomUSMC View Post
Besides Blackzc, which posters were do you believe to be racist? I've seen a poster admit to being a racist on a gunblog that I used to follow. Of course, I would argue some posters here have admitted to being racist without explicitly saying that they were racist.
Without naming specific individuals, I am still trying to figure out if a person says, "the 2% of crime caused by illegal immigrants means more to the 98% caused be citizens" is there another reason for that than racism? Same thing for "the 0.03% of improper votes cast by illegal immigrants upset me far more than all the other votes cast improperly combined" is there another reason for that aside from some type of racism? I asked several times and never got any good explanation. Is that racism? Maybe, maybe not. I don't understand it enough to really say what the mechanism is, but I think racism may be part of that kind of weird immigration/ dog whistle emotional reaction.

Quote:
Originally Posted by VenomUSMC View Post
What do you believe people mistakenly attribute to the Left here?
That may be too broad, but I will try to point it out if I see it again.


Quote:
Originally Posted by VenomUSMC View Post
1. Do you believe those willing to actively shutdown speech they do not agree with would not do so on the internet? 2.
Are you unaware of the evidence that tech companies lean Left and social media companies have been shown to apply unequal censorship in favor of the Left? 3. So, if you post a link showing the growing dissatisfaction of liberals to opposing views and their pursuit of censorship to shutdown those opposing views, why would you think that ended on college campuses?
1. No, but I don't think any one ideology has an exclusive claim to opposing speech they don't agree with.

2. Tech companies lean left. As do all groups associated with higher education, correct? is there some bias? Yes, so? Did you think there wasn't? The challenge here is to support a claim that a partisan ideology can only exist if there is censorship on an internet forum. It is an idiotic claim. But dig in if it means that much to you.

3. This is a really convoluted question. I don't think liberal or conservative idiocy ends on the internet, on campuses, on tv, or anywhere else. I have said, approaching ad nauseum, that retreating to partisan tribalism abandons the ideas that form the basis of why free speech is valuable to begin with.


Quote:
Originally Posted by VenomUSMC View Post
Maybe this is where our disagreement largely stems from on liberalism. I think what you may find to be extreme liberalism is more common than you believe or want to believe.
Maybe. I definitely can't point to a lot of perfect examples of what I would like to see, and as I have said before, a lot of the stuff liberals are doing seems absolutely counter productive for society. Very short sighted.


Quote:
Originally Posted by VenomUSMC View Post
I will agree with things you say if they appear genuine.
Genuine? Umm, thanks but no thanks. You have repeatedly stated that you don't think I am genuine, so whatevs.

I even threw you softballs in my first post replying to you on this, and no, you didn't agree.

I tried to make the point that the following statement was an example of an idiotic statement. Do you or don't you agree?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Whimbrel View Post
"There's a general phenomenon I've noticed on the Internet. Any forum with free speech and little to no moderation becomes left wing. Conservative ideas cannot exist without paranoia and racism.

This is why we have started seeing armies of paid shills trying to flood spaces with their talking points."

Quote:
Originally Posted by VenomUSMC View Post
Shills are a real thing, but it's impossible for you or I to know why he believes there to be shills invading whatever forum(s) he is on.
I disagree. I think we both know why he believes his right wing forums are being invaded by armies of paid shills.



Quote:
Originally Posted by VenomUSMC View Post
We do not know if his statement, in actual unbiased, objective terms, is correct or not.... You've wanted to have his post dismissed as untrue, but based upon what, your biases and assumptions? ...
No, and No. I can tell you absolutely that is is incorrect. Left wing ideas can and do exist without any reference to whether he thinks there is moderation and censorship on his x number of right wing forums. In fact, some exist in books, in the constitution, in other countries, a few centuries ago, and on and on. Secondly, no, I want his statement recognized as idiotic because it is poor reasoning, regardless of whether a part of it is true. Which I have also spelled out and exemplified numerous times. Here is yet another example.

"I just looked outside and saw that it is snowing because wild green monkey aliens crashed their spaceship into planet snowball and some shook out."

That statement is idiotic even if it is actually snowing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by VenomUSMC View Post
Sure, but who is arguing that this is a social science experiment? Also, if we're being scientific and objective, wouldn't we need objective evidence before coming to the conclusions that you've come to?
No. My conclusion is that we need evidence for a statement to be well reasoned and a sound argument. No need for additional regression.


Quote:
Originally Posted by VenomUSMC View Post
It is about principles, and more specifically, virtue signaling.
Virtue signalling? Jesus christ. Now, who's the liberal?


Quote:
Originally Posted by VenomUSMC View Post
Now this is part of the reason you appear to be a rather typical Leftist to me, as your views often seem contrary to reality. It's something I've run into on a regular basis, with my liberal friends that are in your age group, millennials, and younger. Was it fleecing when the government was going to fine you for not buying insurance from these companies? Is it fleecing when the government allows people to retain more of the money they worked for?
I'm far from millennial, Junior.

Simply put, if I give you 10 cents to support a policy that gives the policy sponsors $100,000 and you go off with a shit eating grin about your shiny new dime, you just got fleeced. That's what happened to working families with this tax plan.

Quote:
Originally Posted by VenomUSMC View Post
The Left, to me, is more based upon slogans rather than actual outcome. That's a big part of the reason I don't find much of your stances genuine. Look at your criticism of the picture from Bearded; you want to apply social science standards to a claim, but you're free to make huge assumptions.
Yeah. I'm really a conservative in disguise who enjoys being piled on by mouth breathers and sociopaths to defend the left. You caught me.

I am free to make huge assumptions, thank god. In this case, the one assumption that seems to have made you inexplicably apoplectic is this crazy fucking notion that it would be idiotic to accept as true arguments and wild exaggerated generalizations that defy logic, fact and reason and are completely unsupported by anything.

Quote:
Originally Posted by VenomUSMC View Post
I think you're more closely aligned with those rabid Leftists than you care to admit. I'm interested in how you maintain this positions, make these complaints, and carry-on the way that you do. To me, that's interesting. To me, you're more interested in the ends rather than the means.
One minute I am not genuine as a liberal, the next I am a rabid leftist. I have no response that even makes sense to that.
Whimbrel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2018, 10:16 AM   #1072
Terran
Evil Dead
 
Terran's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 12,608
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whimbrel View Post
Simply put, if I give you 10 cents to support a policy that gives the policy sponsors $100,000 and you go off with a shit eating grin about your shiny new dime, you just got fleeced. That's what happened to working families with this tax plan.
I seem to remember you saying the following in a post in this very thread:

Quote:
Originally Posted by brandonjclark View Post
Just saw my first paycheck since the tax changes. ~300 MORE per paycheck! yes!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Whimbrel View Post
Nice! (Thst was too short.)

Very nice!
Reason #4,962 why folks don't take a thing douchebag liberals say seriously is they're douchebag liars. It was never "nice" in your mind, it was simply the government giving up dollars you want it to have because...reasons!

Reason #4,963 is that progressives don't give a shit about how much 'the rich' pay in taxes, as evidenced by the fact that blue state Dems in NY, CA and elsewhere are working overtime trying to shield their wealthiest 10% from paying extra federal taxes now that they can't deduct all of their state taxes...going so far as trying to declare their state taxes as 'charitable contributions.'
__________________
Why would Republicans pass such a terrible tax law? lol...

Giving people more of their own money...WHY WOULD YOU DO THIS? :D
Terran is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2018, 01:08 PM   #1073
Chief Smash
Evil Dead
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: CT - USA
Posts: 3,495
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whimbrel View Post
Simply put, if I give you 10 cents to support a policy that gives the policy sponsors $100,000 and you go off with a shit eating grin about your shiny new dime, you just got fleeced. That's what happened to working families with this tax plan.
.
Remind me again how the other thread about the tax plan isn't political?
Chief Smash is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2018, 02:32 PM   #1074
Whimbrel
Subhuman
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 2,843
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chief Smash View Post
Remind me again how the other thread about the tax plan isn't political?
I think I was pretty clear in the OP. Taxes are certainly a political issue. I did not mean to imply that they were not. I was simply stating that I was not starting that thread to either advocate for or oppose any particular partisan ideology relevant to taxes. I just wanted to start a thread where people could discuss how the math was working out for them, if there were any surprises, and possibly motivating people to check if the changes to withholding would result in anyone owing or getting a refund.

Aside from this, I certainly do have my own political views of this tax bill, not all negative, but that wasn't what I wanted to discuss in the other thread because I was hoping it would not turn into a cesspool of partisan bickering.
Whimbrel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2018, 03:17 PM   #1075
Terran
Evil Dead
 
Terran's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 12,608
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whimbrel View Post
...that wasn't what I wanted to discuss in the other thread...
Like a good liberal, you were trying to control the parameters of OTHERS opinions and speech.

All aboard the liberal failboat.
__________________
Why would Republicans pass such a terrible tax law? lol...

Giving people more of their own money...WHY WOULD YOU DO THIS? :D
Terran is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2018, 05:21 PM   #1076
SpectralThundr
Evil Dead
 
SpectralThundr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Bawwston
Posts: 7,151
I love how admist all the evidence of Twitter, Reddit YouTube and Google either outright censoring conservatives or firing employees with conservative views in Google's case we have Whimbrel, champion of the left to hand wave it as "paranoid"

You are intellectually dishonest whimbrel, you always have been.
SpectralThundr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-24-2018, 08:57 AM   #1077
Chimpbot
Godzillaologist
 
Chimpbot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Third Planet of the Black Hole
Posts: 8,251
Quote:
Originally Posted by Terran View Post
Like a good liberal, you were trying to control the parameters of OTHERS opinions and speech.

All aboard the liberal failboat.
In this instance, he wasn't being any more "controlling" than anyone else who starts a thread. It's not being "controlling" to expect a thread about...say...God of War to be predominantly focused on God of War.

He wanted to talk about the results of the current tax plan and what people were seeing without diving into the politics of the situation. To me, it seemed like the intent was more about gathering information, which is all well and good.

He was asking what sort of results people have been finding in their paychecks.
__________________
EvAv's Senior Godzillaologist
Member of the Nintendo Offensive Front
Chimpbot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-24-2018, 09:17 AM   #1078
Terran
Evil Dead
 
Terran's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 12,608
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chimpbot View Post
He was asking what sort of results people have been finding in their paychecks.
I have more money in my paycheck...a larger pay raise (from reduced taxes) than I have had in years. Yes, that's exactly the reality.

And if I want to discuss how that was made possible POLITICALLY I damn well am free to do so (thank you EvAv for allowing free speech here!), regardless of his 'progressive' attempts to control the parameters of the debate. Because not a SINGLE Dem voted for my ability to have more of MY MONEY in MY WALLET for MY WIFE AND SIX KIDS.

They claim to be concerned with how much money rich people are gaining from this tax law, while simultaneously working to SHIELD THE RICH from paying more federal taxes due to the law. Give me a fucking break with that hypocritical bullshit.
__________________
Why would Republicans pass such a terrible tax law? lol...

Giving people more of their own money...WHY WOULD YOU DO THIS? :D
Terran is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-24-2018, 09:33 AM   #1079
Whimbrel
Subhuman
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 2,843
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chimpbot View Post
In this instance, he wasn't being any more "controlling" than anyone else who starts a thread. It's not being "controlling" to expect a thread about...say...God of War to be predominantly focused on God of War.
I edited the opening sentence of that tax thread again. It won't help, but I appreciate your willingness to acknowledge that I was not, in fact, trying to control what anybody else says or thinks. People can say whatever they want. I'm not in charge just because I explain my reasons for starting a thread. But, whatever. This guy is too far gone down his own rabbit hole.
Whimbrel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-24-2018, 06:48 PM   #1080
VenomUSMC
Evil Dead
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 8,649
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whimbrel View Post
One minute I am not genuine as a liberal, the next I am a rabid leftist. I have no response that even makes sense to that.
I'm a little surprised you're confused by this, so I brought it to the top. I do have to admit, I find it somewhat humorous that you are confused by it. I stated "I think you're more closely aligned with those rabid Leftists than you care to admit." Do you really not understand how that would fall under not being genuine? You seem to want to present yourself as if you even attempt to be objective, wanting evidence, etc., and then you do the opposite whenever it suits you. To be clear: I still do not think you're genuine (such as in your tax thread), and I think you're more aligned with the rabid Leftists than you care to admit -- both are really quite related.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Whimbrel View Post
A. That is not much of a point, it is more of a question, and the answer is that my criticism is not based exclusively on the accuracy of his statement or whether I agree with them but that he makes gigantic leaps between cause and effect and generalities with no support whatsoever. Clearly this same critique would not apply to a well reasoned, thoughtfully presented and supported argument making the same points. You just keep reiterating this as though it is a matter of opinion that giant rhetorical leaps in arguments require some support. I don't think you believe that because you try to support your own arguments, so in act you demonstrate you agree with me, even though in words you keep repeating this same thing as though an unsupported argument is automatically valid if you ideologically agree with it's conclusion. That's bullshit. B.) So what? There is empirical evidence of all sorts of other shit not mentioned in or relevant to what he wrote here. Are you going to argue that right wing group don't exist on facebook? OR that the Internet is left wing because Facebook is and conservative ideas can't exist if Facebook exists? The problem with his argument is his completely illogical assemblage of facts and mechanism. The point is, and this is a big one, no level of internet related bias could ever support his whopper of a conclusion that either ideology can only exist in the presence or absence of free speech or censorship. The bubble phenomenon of social media makes what happens in the public commons even less relevant, let alone the centuries of existence for all kinds of ideologies in all kinds of circumstances. His main point is just wrong. It would be equally wrong if he reversed the ideology completely.
It's not an actual question, as I was merely bringing up your stance on the topic as seemingly imploding in on itself. You're complaining about the lack of evidence of this or that, but you're ignoring any evidence sent your way and simply declaring your opinion on the topic to be correct.

What do you want, someone posting as "Anonymous" to abide by social science standards? I do think this poster has a point, and I supplied you with support as to why people may find the post agreeable. What do you think the main point of the post Bearded shared was? Did you perform a scientific study on the topic, or is that just for other people?

Who said anything about right-wing groups not existing on FB? What was argued was the evidence that FB has suppressed conservatives at what appears to be higher rates than Leftists. If you read the post that sparked this, you may notice that he's mentioning degrees of difference.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Whimbrel View Post
No. I am 100% confident that he did not sample the entire Internet of Free Speech forums. From the sloppiness of his conclusions and other statements, brief, trite, and jumbled as they are, this doesn't strike me as the musings of a wise academic researcher, so while I don't know the exact basis, I am ASSUMING that it is fewer than 5 sites, not randomly selected, and most likely influenced by his own ideological bias in how he chooses them and what he perceives. But, my speculations and assumptions aside, I am 100% certain that he did not sample every free speech zone on the internet adequately to support his observations being escalated to a general phenomenon.
Good, you're making an assumption. Have you conducted a study, or is that only required for those who disagree with you?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Whimbrel View Post
No. I simply disagree with you. Stating "general" means that it has larger application, not reduced application.
"There's a general phenomenon I've noticed on the Internet." Yeah, 100% means the entire internet /sarc


Quote:
Originally Posted by Whimbrel View Post
I completely agree with you. Not only was it not a claim that it was based on a formal study, but it was incorrect for the exact same reasons why complex problems require formal study to get good information.
You're making an assumption and concluding that your opinion is correct despite not conducing a formal study on the subject.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Whimbrel View Post
Sure it could still be made, but I would accept that he was expressing his own conclusions about what he had witnessed as opposed to absurdly assuming that if he had witnessed it on a few sites that it was "a general phenomenon on the Internet."
It seems as if you're reducing a complete sentence to confirm your own bias.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Whimbrel View Post
Without naming specific individuals, I am still trying to figure out if a person says, "the 2% of crime caused by illegal immigrants means more to the 98% caused be citizens" is there another reason for that than racism? Same thing for "the 0.03% of improper votes cast by illegal immigrants upset me far more than all the other votes cast improperly combined" is there another reason for that aside from some type of racism? I asked several times and never got any good explanation. Is that racism? Maybe, maybe not. I don't understand it enough to really say what the mechanism is, but I think racism may be part of that kind of weird immigration/ dog whistle emotional reaction.
It would depend why that person thought those crimes meant more. Is it because 100% of illegal immigrants are committing a crime by virtue of being here illegally and this is in addition to that? Is to due to a belief that they're causing even more economic strain due to being illegal and in the justice system?

For the voting, would it bother you if we called it foreign influence or meddling? Also, if you can hear the dog whistle... you're the dog.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Whimbrel View Post
That may be too broad, but I will try to point it out if I see it again.
There has to be something you can think of.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Whimbrel View Post
1. No, but I don't think any one ideology has an exclusive claim to opposing speech they don't agree with.

2. Tech companies lean left. As do all groups associated with higher education, correct? is there some bias? Yes, so? Did you think there wasn't? The challenge here is to support a claim that a partisan ideology can only exist if there is censorship on an internet forum. It is an idiotic claim. But dig in if it means that much to you.

3. This is a really convoluted question. I don't think liberal or conservative idiocy ends on the internet, on campuses, on tv, or anywhere else. I have said, approaching ad nauseum, that retreating to partisan tribalism abandons the ideas that form the basis of why free speech is valuable to begin with.
No ideology has an exclusive claim on opposing speech they don't agree with. Sure, but I didn't argue that they did. As it stands today, which side is more often seen promoting such censorship?

Not all groups associated with higher education lean Left, just the majority. If the claim is idiotic, perform a scientific study and prove otherwise. Meanwhile, a study noted that liberals would discriminate against open conservatives in the hiring process and paper reviews.

I don't think it's convoluted at all; the internet appears to increase partisan tribalism, so why would if be idiotic not to notice that Leftist forums more frequently experience censorship?

[QUOTE=Whimbrel;2506867]Maybe. I definitely can't point to a lot of perfect examples of what I would like to see, and as I have said before, a lot of the stuff liberals are doing seems absolutely counter productive for society. Very short sighted.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Whimbrel View Post
Genuine? Umm, thanks but no thanks. You have repeatedly stated that you don't think I am genuine, so whatevs.

I even threw you softballs in my first post replying to you on this, and no, you didn't agree.

I tried to make the point that the following statement was an example of an idiotic statement. Do you or don't you agree?
Just so we're clear, you're aware that I still do not believe that you're genuine, right?

No, I wouldn't think that statement was idiotic if that was your opinion. I don't know what forums, aside from this one, that you're on, and I wouldn't demand that you conduct a social science experiment.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Whimbrel View Post
I disagree. I think we both know why he believes his right wing forums are being invaded by armies of paid shills.
Do you believe that there is such a thing as paid shills, and if you do, do you think they're an issue?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Whimbrel View Post
No, and No. I can tell you absolutely that is is incorrect. Left wing ideas can and do exist without any reference to whether he thinks there is moderation and censorship on his x number of right wing forums. In fact, some exist in books, in the constitution, in other countries, a few centuries ago, and on and on. Secondly, no, I want his statement recognized as idiotic because it is poor reasoning, regardless of whether a part of it is true. Which I have also spelled out and exemplified numerous times. Here is yet another example.

"I just looked outside and saw that it is snowing because wild green monkey aliens crashed their spaceship into planet snowball and some shook out."

That statement is idiotic even if it is actually snowing.
No, you cannot dismiss his statement as being incorrect if you do not know what his statement is based upon. Considering he stated that he noticed it, you and I are not likely privy to what forums he was on that resulted in this conclusion. Where did the science demands go? It's as if you went from demanding objective, unbiased evidence to suddenly - and unscientifically - knowingly exactly what he was referencing, even if it meant you had to cut portions of his statements, simply because it's what you wanted to do.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Whimbrel View Post
No. My conclusion is that we need evidence for a statement to be well reasoned and a sound argument. No need for additional regression.
Yet you don't have any underlying evidence to what lead to his statement. It's almost as if your complaints over a belief that a lack of following some sort of social science protocol are less than genuine.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Whimbrel View Post
Virtue signalling? Jesus christ. Now, who's the liberal?
No, I don't think Jesus Christ has to virtue signal. Who is the liberal? You are, just in case you were confused on that portion.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Whimbrel View Post
I'm far from millennial, Junior.

Simply put, if I give you 10 cents to support a policy that gives the policy sponsors $100,000 and you go off with a shit eating grin about your shiny new dime, you just got fleeced. That's what happened to working families with this tax plan.
I didn't call you a millennial. I'm aware that you're closing in on 50.

By giving what appears to be the majority of working family's a tax cut, you've fleeced them? Notice how you're incorrectly framing this: you're saying you "gave" me 10 cents to support a policy. That's not how taxes work. When I get taxed, it's based on money that I worked for. So, when I get the amount of taxes taken from me lowered, I'm not being given something -- I'm having less taken from me.

Do you think someone working for a private company should thank the government for giving them money when they get a paycheck? Regardless of how you feel, you know that fleecing is taking away, right?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Whimbrel View Post
Yeah. I'm really a conservative in disguise who enjoys being piled on by mouth breathers and sociopaths to defend the left. You caught me.
Is this mid-mental breakdown or something?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Whimbrel View Post
I am free to make huge assumptions, thank god. In this case, the one assumption that seems to have made you inexplicably apoplectic is this crazy fucking notion that it would be idiotic to accept as true arguments and wild exaggerated generalizations that defy logic, fact and reason and are completely unsupported by anything.
Yes, you are free to make huge assumptions, but I guess the person in Bearded's pic isn't. The statement made by the poster isn't unsupported by anything; nor does it defy logic, or reasoning, but if the statement is a fact can certainly be questioned.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Whimbrel View Post
In the past week, Trump has called for eliminating bump shocks, raising the buying age, and (this one I don't agree with) arming educators.
Banning doesn't eliminate bump stocks. That would at least require confiscation if one even hoped of doing so. Regardless, it's fruitless -- you don't need a bump stock to bump fire. If you want to get rid of bump firing, you need to remove all semi-automatic firearms.

If they wish to raise the buying age, they need to (and should have) raised the age to join the military. As it stands, the military will hand you an actual machine gun at 17 years of age, not to mention grenade launchers and whatnot.

What's the issuing with arming teachers? As long as it's voluntary and they receive some training, I don't see the issue. My friend, a VA State Trooper, fires his handgun once a year to qualify. He does not go shooting outside of that, at least in the last few years, due to work and not really being interested in doing so.

We know that laws do not prevent such killings, and unfortunately we've seen that some of those sworn to protect and serve will wait outside while it happens. Things can go wrong, armed teachers could hurt additional people and completely fail to remove the threat (or become the threat themselves), but there is no answer that will guarantee this stops.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anenome View Post
Many cultures of the world marry girls off after their first menses, around 13 years old. I can't say that's inherently immoral, no.
VenomUSMC is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:17 PM.