|
unwantedplatypus posted:For my entire lifetime, the Republicans have always been crypto-fascists. Why is this surprising to anyone? Because they were polite about it before which let some people not think about it very closely.
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2018 20:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 14:11 |
|
|
MooselanderII posted:Why are you quoting me to prove your assertion? My point was that continual pressure from primary challenges keeps these guys from becoming clueless, out of touch, fart huffing, dinosaurs. I didn't speak to Manning at all. Perhaps someone needs to work on his reading comprehension! Yes what could your post about the benefits of primarying Cardin possibly have to do with the Manning candidacy? I quoted your post to prove Ytlaya’s assertion wrong, not to disagree with you or your premises. That’s, ironically, very clear in the post you failed to comprehend. Ytlaya posted:You're not wrong that they haven't supported those claims (though the idea that being primaried puts more pressure on a candidate than not being primaried is sort of trivially true), but those claims also aren't necessary to defend supporting Manning's campaign. Even if they're wrong, it doesn't disprove the general idea that there's nothing wrong with supporting Manning. Your claim (or at least the one I'm arguing with) is specifically that Manning's campaign would be harmful. This actually requires some sort of evidence, since it obviously isn't the default position that political campaigns should be opposed. Nope. Here’s what you posted before. quote:The initial claim that an action would have a particular outcome was made by JC. Prior to that people were just saying "I like Manning and want to vote for her" which doesn't really require any proof/evidence (unless they specifically say they like Manning for some reason that is demonstrably untrue). But as I’ve shown, your description of the debate is dishonest. I didn’t make the first prediction about the likely electoral consequences of the Manning campaign. So why is the onus to start supporting my claims with evidence that meets your arbitrary standard of quality put on me, other than it’s convenient for your tedious strategy? quote:As I said before, the problem is that your claim is completely dependent upon evidence that supporting Manning causes harm. The people supporting Manning do not need to provide any sort of evidence to justify doing so. They can make arguments about why supporting Manning is helpful, and maybe those arguments are wrong or not adequately supported, but even if they're wrong it still doesn't imply that there's anything wrong with supporting her. “People who agree with me do not need to provide evidence, people who disagree with me do”. I’m not criticizing the conjectures put forth about the benefits of primarying Cardin due to their lack of evidence. I realize this thread is never going to support every claim with an ideal, peer reviewed study. It’s absurd for you to suggest that my claims, and my claims alone, must be supported by research that meets your (conveniently) exacting standards. If you were willing to hold every claim about the primary to those standards, maybe I’d have some incentive to fastidiously warrant every post. But you aren’t. And you won’t be. The selective demands for evidence you make, followed inevitably by attacks on provided evidence as insufficient, are a transparent, lazy substitute for actual argumentation. I’m happy to debate evidence you provide with evidence of my own, but I’m not going to play your dishonest game. I know how it ends, and it’s boring.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2018 20:20
|
|
|
Those sure are a lot of words posted in the debate forum on how you're not going to bother debating the position you've taken because you've convinced yourself that Manning's run will harm the Democrats despite having literally no proof. "I'm more left than 80% of Democrats" JC says as he busts out his skull measuring device to determine the emotional intelligence of Hillary's slaves.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2018 20:31
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Yes what could your post about the benefits of primarying Cardin possibly have to do with the Manning candidacy? I quoted your post to prove Ytlaya’s assertion wrong, not to disagree with you or your premises. That’s, ironically, very clear in the post you failed to comprehend. Uh wrong, my point was that these dinosaurs need primaries generally and I did not speculate about Manning at all. You used my general statement to indicate to Ytlaya that other people were specifically speculating on the impact of Manning's candidacy. Reading comprehension, JC!
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2018 20:32
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:“People who agree with me do not need to provide evidence, people who disagree with me do”. If you want to after Lightning Knight for also not having evidence, I guess go for it, but "other people started making evidence-less assertions, before I started making other, different evidence-less assertions" isn't much of an argument.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2018 20:38
|
|
|
twodot posted:If you want to after Lightning Knight for also not having evidence, I guess go for it, but "other people started making evidence-less assertions, before I started making other, different evidence-less assertions" isn't much of an argument. I'm sorry, we've reached the point of the argument where JC's posts are simultaneously stupidly long and repeating themselves so I started glossing over them, what did you want me to provide evidence for? GlyphGryph posted:Lincoln only did it because the war made it politically feasible does not mean the war forced his hand. Another President may well have allowed slavery to continue - and Lincoln was clear that while without the war he would not have up and declared emancipation, he still had every intent of working towards eventual abolition. I'd argue that even framing it as "Lincoln ended slavery" is itself incorrect, which I believe was the original point. Lincoln was a part of the process, and an important part I would argue, but a constellation of factors led to the legal end of slavery and even after that occurred de facto slavery continued on some level to this day. The entire original implication was that the "Lincoln is the great emancipator" narrative is actually false and Lincoln was pretty flawed, which I don't think is controversial.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2018 20:47
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:I'm sorry, we've reached the point of the argument where JC's posts are simultaneously stupidly long and repeating themselves so I started glossing over them, what did you want me to provide evidence for? If you missed the post, specifically, they think this post lacks evidence: Lightning Knight posted:I don’t know if we have to primary Cardin because I know nothing about him but I don’t see any harm in having primary challenges in general. If there’s no pressure on sitting Dems they inevitably start drifting right. twodot fucked around with this message at 21:00 on Jan 19, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2018 20:56
|
|
|
twodot posted:Sorry, that wasn't phrased well, I don't want you to provide evidence for anything, I was trying to express that was a fruitless thing to do, and I'm telling JC that them arguing you've failed to provide evidence one time isn't an argument against them needing to provide evidence, even if they are right (which in this particular case I think they are not). Oh ok. Yeah that makes sense, I'd argue that it kind of doesn't matter what I think since I don't live in Maryland and I'm just some guy posting on a dead comedy forum, but we already had an argument about that too so who knows.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2018 21:01
|
|
|
twodot posted:I think that's basically tautologically true, "politicians who are not experiencing pressure from a class of voters seek votes from a class of voters that are pressuring them".
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2018 21:17
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:“People who agree with me do not need to provide evidence, people who disagree with me do”. I’m not criticizing the conjectures put forth about the benefits of primarying Cardin due to their lack of evidence. I realize this thread is never going to support every claim with an ideal, peer reviewed study. It’s absurd for you to suggest that my claims, and my claims alone, must be supported by research that meets your (conveniently) exacting standards. If you were willing to hold every claim about the primary to those standards, maybe I’d have some incentive to fastidiously warrant every post. But you aren’t. And you won’t be. The selective demands for evidence you make, followed inevitably by attacks on provided evidence as insufficient, are a transparent, lazy substitute for actual argumentation. I’m happy to debate evidence you provide with evidence of my own, but I’m not going to play your dishonest game. I know how it ends, and it’s boring. Because I think that the thing you're arguing - that people shouldn't support left-leaning candidates who aren't likely to win - is bad. I want the resulting dialogue and increased media presence regarding left-leaning ideology resulting from such campaigns to occur. I don't know for sure whether these things will end up having a positive net outcome, and I don't have the information to argue either way, but that doesn't really matter because it's just my personal opinion and I don't expect to convince anyone based off of that. I don't think there's any particular harm in someone using an unsupported argument in favor of something that I think is either good or not harmful, especially if the argument isn't necessary to support the action in question. If something is obviously wrong or disprovable, I'll point it out, but otherwise I don't see a reason to nitpick over things like "increased leftist dialogue is good." So when someone says they think Manning should be supported because it'll increase dialogue about left-wing ideas, even if they don't support that claim (or are wrong about it) there's no harm from supporting her. But the claim you're making - that supporting Manning is harmful - doesn't make any sense unless it's accompanied by either 1. an ideological disagreement with Manning (or preference for her opponent) or 2. something supporting the validity of that claim. Since you claim the former isn't the case, you're left with just the latter. If you just said "I don't want Manning to run because I just don't like her," well, people would probably judge you for that, but at least you wouldn't need any data to support that claim. But, as mentioned a zillion times, you are directly saying "I'm against campaigns like Manning's because they will have a harmful effect" (which implies you wouldn't be against them if they didn't have that effect). Think of it this way - if you had a group of Republicans using unsupported arguments in favor of harmful ideas and a group of Democrats using unsupported arguments in favor of good/neutral ideas, you'd want to spend more time debunking the former, right? The person using a bad argument against LGBT rights is higher priority than the person using a bad argument in favor of them, for example (not to mention the fact that people having rights should be the default state that needs to be argued against, rather than for). In the same way, I consider a leftist being able to run in a Democratic Primary to, by default, be a thing that is okay and acceptable, so an argument needs to be directly provided to justify being against that. Someone doesn't need to prove that running in a primary in our political system is beneficial in order to justify doing so.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2018 21:21
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/adamjohnsonNYC/status/954387845602562048
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2018 21:34
|
|
|
The saddest thing about JC's dumbshit drivel is that even if you accept his claims at face value, then what does it really say about the Dems when their incumbents apparently run the risk of being sunk in the general by some no-chancer running against them in the primary, in what JC repeatedly has claimed to be a inevitable wave year?
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2018 21:38
|
|
|
Surprise! Trump's lovely judicial nominees are terrible.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2018 22:13
|
|
|
Chelsea Manning interview in the Guardian. She's got some very good points, but "100% open borders" and "close all prisons and release all inmates" is 2018 political suicide, I'm sorry to say. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/jan/19/chelsea-manning-interview-wikileaks-senate-maryland
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2018 22:15
|
|
|
Megaman's Jockstrap posted:"100% open borders" and "close all prisons and release all inmates" has my vote
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2018 22:16
|
|
|
self unaware posted:has my vote It has mine too...that's not the issue.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2018 22:17
|
|
|
Megaman's Jockstrap posted:It has mine too...that's not the issue. Meh. It's already unlikely that she wins the primary. She might as well use her platform to push ideas into the mainstream, especially stuff like prison abolition and anti-nationalism.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2018 22:19
|
|
|
I agree but what this shows me is she's not serious about winning. I'm glad she's doing what she's doing and wouldn't ask for anything else but my expectations for her campaign have cratered. Too bad. Cardin is a sack of poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2018 22:20
|
|
|
Megaman's Jockstrap posted:Chelsea Manning interview in the Guardian. She's got some very good points, but "100% open borders" and "close all prisons and release all inmates" is 2018 political suicide, I'm sorry to say. Who cares if it's political suicide. The very fact that such a platform is being proposed by a high profile candidate is a victory.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2018 22:22
|
|
|
Megaman's Jockstrap posted:I agree but what this shows me is she's not serious about winning. I'm glad she's doing what she's doing and wouldn't ask for anything else but my expectations for her campaign have cratered. Too bad. Cardin is a sack of poo poo. I'm not sure we should define having far left of center positions as "not serious about winning." The question is more about how she conducts the campaign on a strategic and tactical level and how she defends those positions.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2018 22:26
|
|
|
It's going to be a huge blow when Chelsea gets less than 20% of the vote, I don't understand how this is bouncing off people. The reason Bernie matters is because he demolished the idea that "if you believe/say <left wing issue> people won't vote for you", saying extremely leftwing poo poo and then not getting any votes is exactly what people expect and won't be noteworthy at all. She went directly for Senate, didn't run for any smaller office to learn or get credibility, and is now saying "we need to close all the prisons and release all the inmates" and "I'm waiting for people to come to me" in her first interview, give me a break. This is not a serious campaign and she's going to crater and that's bad. It's exactly the same dynamic as the Green Party spending decades saying far-left stuff and taking absolute beatings at the ballot box. That's what this is. It's a drat Green Party run in the Dem primary and it's going to have the same effect.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2018 22:33
|
|
|
Megaman's Jockstrap posted:It's going to be a huge blow when Chelsea gets less than 20% of the vote, I don't understand how this is bouncing off people. The reason Bernie matters is because he demolished the idea that "if you believe/say <left wing issue> people won't vote for you", saying extremely leftwing poo poo and then not getting any votes is exactly what people expect and won't be noteworthy at all. Megaman's Jockstrap posted:I'm going to post something I've started noticing/figured out/stumbled upon in the last couple of years: every centrist I know (both IRL and online) thinks that politics, in part, is a game of obfuscation of intention. Like "oh Person X thinks they got the better deal but in fact I did" or "My policies are actually unpopular, so I'll disguise them by making this very complicated and then describing it on a technicality while disguising the real intent". If you believe in this kind of political calculus - that people shouldn't actually know what you're scheming at, that politics is actually in part a game of hoodwinking people into accepting something they wouldn't otherwise - then you say things like Hillary Clinton did, "you need to have a public and private position", or you start thinking that the out-and-proud transperson plainly speaking their (correct) moral beliefs under the banner of your party is a problem.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2018 22:40
|
|
|
How is prison abolition even supposed to work, genuine question. Because I dunno, there's a whole, whole lot of people in our prisons for stupid bullshit reasons who should be let out, not to mention needing to reform the system in general to weed out the inhuman practices of it all, but I'd be pretty cool with keeping rapists and child molesters and thrill killers and that sort locked in a hole for the rest of their days, not a big fan on the thought of them getting a pat on the back and let free.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2018 22:46
|
|
|
Yardbomb posted:How is prison abolition even supposed to work, genuine question. Because I dunno, there's a whole, whole lot of people in our prisons for stupid bullshit reasons who should be let out, not to mention needing to reform the system in general to weed out the inhuman practices of it all, but I'd be pretty cool with keeping rapists and child molesters and thrill killers and that sort locked in a hole for the rest of their days, not a big fan on the thought of them getting a pat on the back and let free. https://www.currentaffairs.org/2017/08/can-prison-abolition-ever-be-pragmatic
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2018 22:47
|
|
|
twodot posted:Manning's doing the right thing, openly advocating for policy, having the conversation. Maybe those policies aren't popular, but they're never going to be if we don't talk about them. Again, the Green Party has been doing this for years and nobody gave a poo poo. I'm just mad at the artlessness of it, the proposing radical solutions and then sitting back and waiting for people to come to you. That's not serious. Radical ideas require radical tactics to introduce them, not blurting them out with a hashtag.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2018 22:50
|
|
|
There is a massive difference between a third party run and a primary run. Primaries are about changing the party from within.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2018 22:56
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:There is a massive difference between a third party run and a primary run. Primaries are about changing the party from within. Fair enough and a good point, but I don't think the party's old guard is going to be too worried when Manning crashes out with 13% of the vote. I would loooooove to be wrong.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2018 22:57
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:https://www.currentaffairs.org/2017/08/can-prison-abolition-ever-be-pragmatic so it's basically about reframing the conceptual framework of the justice system more than about the particular policy proposal i'm on board with that
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2018 23:01
|
|
|
Megaman's Jockstrap posted:Again, the Green Party has been doing this for years and nobody gave a poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2018 23:01
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:Meh. It's already unlikely that she wins the primary. She might as well use her platform to push ideas into the mainstream, especially stuff like prison abolition and anti-nationalism. Does an unlikable person saying things make them mainstream just because they get attention? Because boy howdy does that say some terrible things about the future as regards Trump.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2018 23:05
|
|
|
Megaman's Jockstrap posted:Again, the Green Party has been doing this for years and nobody gave a poo poo. She just announced like two days ago, let’s see how she runs her campaign before accusing her of just sitting back
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2018 23:06
|
|
|
Megaman's Jockstrap posted:Fair enough and a good point, but I don't think the party's old guard is going to be too worried when Manning crashes out with 13% of the vote. I would loooooove to be wrong. Manning getting 13%+ of the primary vote while running on this platform would be massive. Consider how further left than Sanders she is. This is how you shift the Overton Window. Now if there was a more moderate leftist running who had a good chance in the primary, I can see the argument Manning might split the vote.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2018 23:07
|
|
|
Mulva posted:Does an unlikable person saying things make them mainstream just because they get attention? Because boy howdy does that say some terrible things about the future as regards Trump. Yes, this is exactly what we mean when we talk about the Overton Window.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2018 23:09
|
|
|
Mulva posted:Does an unlikable person saying things make them mainstream just because they get attention? Because boy howdy does that say some terrible things about the future as regards Trump. I don't see how that's relevant unless you're asserting that Manning is an unlikable person, in which case lol. GreyjoyBastard posted:so it's basically about reframing the conceptual framework of the justice system more than about the particular policy proposal I think the point is that we should strive to create a world where crime and prisons aren't normal parts of life, not to create a world where these things are merely out of sight and out of mind for most people.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2018 23:10
|
|
|
twodot posted:But you just made a post about how you were tired of politicians adopting private and public positions, and then someone runs for Senate openly advocating for what they think is just and now you seem mad. This is what you wanted earlier in the day, did you skip lunch or something? Like we can have a conversation about whether prison abolition is a good goal, but I don't see how you can get up in arms about a person who thinks prison abolition is a good goal running a campaign on prison abolition being a good goal. You cannot just say "abolish prisons" without some setup. I'm not saying she should hide that she wants to abolish prisons, I'm saying "Abolish all prisons and release all inmates #WeGotThis" is a bad way to get this across and will cause potential hearts and minds to slam shut. Everyone has made good points so I'm just gonna see what happens, but running a campaign where you have 2 staffers and taking a "who will come see me?" approach seems bad to me. But then again I was convinced Trump would never be president, I'm not infallible. Megaman's Jockstrap fucked around with this message at 23:16 on Jan 19, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2018 23:13
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/popeguilty/status/954469515437527040
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2018 23:15
|
|
|
Megaman's Jockstrap posted:You cannot just say "abolish prisons" without some setup. I'm not saying she should hide that she wants to abolish prisons, I'm saying "Abolish all prisons and release all inmates #WeGotThis" is a bad way to get this across and will cause potential hearts and minds to slam shut.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2018 23:19
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:I don't see how that's relevant unless you're asserting that Manning is an unlikable person, in which case lol. Yes, amazingly enough the transgender candidate that got caught leaking classified information and spouts a lot of idealistic and impractical talking points is, in fact, not going to be liked by the majority of people. Shocking right? Which brings us back to "Do you think there's intrinsic value to having an unlikable person say things just to get them out there?" WampaLord posted:Yes, this is exactly what we mean when we talk about the Overton Window. And I'd argue that often the opposite happens. Donald Trump may have a death lock on 30% of the voting population, but he's increasingly toxic to literally everyone else. And it's having the practical effect of driving people away from the things he champions. Amazingly enough putting the things they think inside their head outside into the world openly has actually put the Republicans in a really, really bad position. It hasn't normalized those beliefs at all.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2018 23:21
|
|
|
Mulva posted:And I'd argue that often the opposite happens. Donald Trump may have a death lock on 30% of the voting population, but he's increasingly toxic to literally everyone else. And it's having the practical effect of driving people away from the things he champions. Amazingly enough putting the things they think inside their head outside into the world openly has actually put the Republicans in a really, really bad position. It hasn't normalized those beliefs at all. He also won
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2018 23:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 14:11 |
|
|
Megaman's Jockstrap posted:You cannot just say "abolish prisons" without some setup. I'm not saying she should hide that she wants to abolish prisons, I'm saying "Abolish all prisons and release all inmates #WeGotThis" is a bad way to get this across and will cause potential hearts and minds to slam shut. Has she ever said this? The posted article doesn't include the word "all" when discussing prisons, and what I can find via Google is unspecific stuff like "imagine a world without prisons". I agree that if she's planning to run on a campaign of "immediately release all criminals" that's massively stupid in several ways, but I don't see any reason not to believe her platform is actually to work toward prison abolition in a more reasonable and gradual way. Mulva posted:And I'd argue that often the opposite happens. Donald Trump may have a death lock on 30% of the voting population, but he's increasingly toxic to literally everyone else. And it's having the practical effect of driving people away from the things he champions. Amazingly enough putting the things they think inside their head outside into the world openly has actually put the Republicans in a really, really bad position. It hasn't normalized those beliefs at all. This is absolutely in contradiction with reality. Donald Trump's campaign and election has visibly and dramatically empowered Nazis both domestic and foreign. We now have to have serious public debate over whether or not Nazis should have their ideas suppressed from public discussion, and the political party that controls the country has to ask permission from right-wing extremists whether or not they can pass legislation that huge majorities of the country support. Count yourself lucky if you get to believe that Trump hasn't normalized that poo poo, because it means you haven't had to watch friends and family members start repeating 4chan Nazi memes to your face. Mornacale fucked around with this message at 23:36 on Jan 19, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2018 23:29
|
|
