|
I'm not doing any of that. I don't care if you, specifically, accept my argument or not. I'm making historical claims that, I think, point out your position doesn't fit reality. How do I submit "falsifiable," claims if not by referring to history? You already have falsifiable claims I've given. You've chosen not to argue with them and instead pretend you need more information, somehow. You're the "person in the room." I thought you knew everything? Discendo Vox posted:Again, falsifiability is a question here; either you're referring to the goals and methods of lobbyists, and arguing for a level of sophistication and success in lobbying that just is not the case, or you're talking about "the lobbying" as a collective set of systemic effects, in which case it's both completely unfalsifiable and reflecting the basic functioning of a representative democracy. A general explanation of all politics that's so falsification-resistant is closer to a just-so story, and it occludes, rather than clarifies, the more complex and subject-specific interactions that are how both public and officeholder positions are formed. I can't stop myself from taking a potshot at this. This is completely untrue. The kind of lobbying and paid political messaging that exists in the United States is counted, by the United States itself, as clear corruption in its indexing of global democracies. The only reason it's not in the US is because it's legal under US law. Most representative democracies don't operate this way. Here's something I'll ask of you. Find me a country that's a representative democracy where this amount, in relation to GDP, of funding for political messaging exists and is legal. ErIog fucked around with this message at 04:53 on Oct 26, 2023 |
#
?
Oct 26, 2023 04:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 12:31 |
|
|
ErIog posted:I'm not doing any of that. I don't care if you, specifically, accept my argument or not. I'm making historical claims that, I think, point out your position doesn't fit reality. You articulate falsifiable claims by constructing them in terms the material that would be sufficient to falsify them. The broad form of your current position is as far from falsifiable as possible, because it can morph to justify itself from the continued existence of any policy you disagree with, which is asserted as the product of a deliberately nebulously defined "powerful". The narrower subclaims that could be falsifiable, such as "Tons of issues have very clear solutions that most often involve the federal government itself not violating the laws of the US", you've not supported evidence for, and to the degree I can think of examples, the explanation lies in Congress and, usually, Republican interference with funding increases for individual agencies. Again, it's beneficial, and necessary, to work from specifics. If you create an overarching general rule "from history" that explains everything, it's very likely an inductive historicism and directly unfalsifiable. ErIog posted:You're the "person in the room." I thought you knew everything? I have no idea what you're even trying to imply here. ErIog posted:I can't stop myself from taking a potshot at this. This is completely untrue. The kind of lobbying and paid political messaging that exists in the United States is counted, by the United States itself, as clear corruption in its indexing of global democracies. ErIog posted:The only reason it's not in the US is because it's legal under US law. Then by your own statement it's lawful and not an example of your previous claim of the solution being not violating federal law. ErIog posted:Most representative democracies don't operate this way. In what way? Are you talking about, what, superpacs? The existence of lobbying laws? ErIog posted:Here's something I'll ask of you. Find me a country that's a representative democracy where this amount, in relation to GDP, of funding for political messaging exists and is legal. That seems more like a function of economic size than anything else? What do you mean by "funding for political messaging"? How is this related to your previous claims? ...so am I looking for proportion of GDP that's spent on political messaging? I don't think those values are even calculated for a lot of places. Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 05:17 on Oct 26, 2023 |
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2023 04:54
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Okay. What information would render that claim false? This is a good post. Here's an answer: an example of a significant factor in support for Israel among politicians, other than the proportion of Jewish voters in their constituencies. Here's an example: https://twitter.com/_waleedshahid/status/1717303519764529453#m If the Jewish vote is "all that matters" then what's the significance of AIPAC or DMFI "getting involved" in a district? They're not going to import more Jewish voters. Getting involved means spending money, and in the cases described here, it's obviously that money which is exerting pressure on politicians to be more pro-Israel. So the Jewish vote is not 'all that matters," because even in contexts where the number of Jewish voters is fixed, other factors clearly matter in affecting a politician's support for Israel. quote:is not the same as "American support for Israel all comes down to the power of the Jewish vote". When someone says "that's all that matters" I take it straightforwardly to mean "that's what this all comes down to." If "X is all that matters" and "if all comes down to X" are very different ideas, then that's my mistake.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2023 16:48
|
|
|
Civilized Fishbot posted:This is a good post. Here's an answer: an example of a significant factor in support for Israel among politicians, other than the proportion of Jewish voters in their constituencies. Yeah, I agree with your first part of the response, that does show the role of these groups in, at a minimum, activating Jewish voters and likely other voters, which does falsify the "only Jewish votes" claim if it excludes intermediary elements like how organizations are involved in that process. It certainly falsifies the claim at the national level (though I think that the Jewish vote may be determinative in key areas). However, I think the source of the whole argument was mostly in talking past each other, and you're hitting the nail on the head with that quote! The second part of skeleton warrior's quote there has to be part of the reading of their claim: quote:1. They get Jewish voters. That’s all that matters. Yep, falsifiable and falsified, pretty straightforwardly. But the second part... quote:2. If opposing Israel wasn’t seen as a complete political death sentence in the US, we’d support it a lot less." Suggests they're more broadly in agreement with you, that other factors are involved, particularly the "seen as" and that there are other sources and reasons for support. It's why I wanted skeleton warrior to also restate their position.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2023 19:41
|
|
|
I think the craziest and most unexpected thing I've encountered with RWM over the last year or two is the complete and total 180 degree turn they're attempting to logistically straddle as it relates to law enforcement. One or several of these Conservabots/shills was decrying the very idea of America becoming a police state, which is what they think the 91 indictments against Trump are instead of the cops they worship doing their gog damned job. Motherfuckers, you're the ones that are always railing about building more jails, hiring more cops, fast tracking executions, locking up drug dealers and giving police carte blanche to murder anyone they see fit for any reason at all. It's amazing listening to them twist themselves into knots while trying to, for once, rail against law enforcement overreach and emphasize due process. And it's only because their Golden Calf finally got caught up in it. Their problem is more that Hunter Biden hasn't been put in solitary confinement yet, Hillary Clinton is still not jailed, Soros remains on the loose running the world and (more to the point) that Trump is finally facing charges and possible consequences for attempting to overthrow the united states government and commit fraud and treason, among other things. I thought they were patriots who worship cops, the flag and who demand very strict law enforcement? Listening to them hate on cops is a new one I didn't see coming.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2023 23:35
|
|
|
BiggerBoat posted:I think the craziest and most unexpected thing I've encountered with RWM over the last year or two is the complete and total 180 degree turn they're attempting to logistically straddle as it relates to law enforcement. They love cops when they are brutalizing minorities and others and making them feel safe, they hate cops when they are seen to be persecuting people that look like them. You're overthinking this.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2023 23:52
|
|
|
Yeah it's still the classic laws that protect and do not bind and laws that bind but do not protect.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2023 00:16
|
|
|
LionYeti posted:They love cops when they are brutalizing minorities and others and making them feel safe, they hate cops when they are seen to be persecuting people that look like them. You're overthinking this. Probably, but the mental gymnastics and disingenuous logic on full display I have to admit took me off guard. I know that there's no real bottom to this poo poo and that these pundits will say and do anything to rationalize why horrible crimes like fraud and insurrection are good, actually, so long as patriotic christian conservative white men are orchestrating them and "here's why" but I guess dropping down another rung on the credibility ladder still blindsided me. I underestimated their bullshit reservoir and capacity for blatant hypocrisy. So now it's "we only like THESE cops" but the rest are deep state operatives trying to take down patriotic americans like Trump who only care about the good of the nation. Those cops looking for the mass shooter (who's probably a liberal democrat) in Maine right now? Those guys are heroes. Jack Smith is a Soros Agent who hates America. And it's kind of quaint in its own way listening to them bitching about cops violating civil rights and becoming weaponized. Welcome to our side, motherfuckers.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2023 01:12
|
|
|
Has the right wing media ever decided whether J6 was 'good actually', or a 'false flag operation used as an excuse to jail the True Patriots'? Because the last time I paid attention to them on that issue they were trying to say both at the same time.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2023 01:22
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:Has the right wing media ever decided whether J6 was 'good actually', or a 'false flag operation used as an excuse to jail the True Patriots'? Because the last time I paid attention to them on that issue they were trying to say both at the same time. It's still both, depending 
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2023 01:30
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:Has the right wing media ever decided whether J6 was 'good actually', or a 'false flag operation used as an excuse to jail the True Patriots'? Because the last time I paid attention to them on that issue they were trying to say both at the same time. It, along with any other fact, is true or false depending on what they need it for the current argument.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2023 01:35
|
|
|
BiggerBoat posted:Probably, but the mental gymnastics and disingenuous logic on full display I have to admit took me off guard. I know that there's no real bottom to this poo poo and that these pundits will say and do anything to rationalize why horrible crimes like fraud and insurrection are good, actually, so long as patriotic christian conservative white men are orchestrating them and "here's why" but I guess dropping down another rung on the credibility ladder still blindsided me. It makes more sense when you understand that they don't disagree with the tactics. They disagree with the targets. The fact they spent 50 years making sure defendants eat poo poo in court isn't a soul-searching moment because their idea is that, "well, nobody innocent goes to prison anyway.. the system works!" no matter how much evidence. So when anyone they agree with is subjected to this stuff they decry the tactics, but really, they're mad they got targeted by it. This is also the same thing with the way SCOTUS works. Chevron deference to agencies was a conservative masterstroke. They control the court and the executive, so of course the executive should be able to interpret laws to not enforce them.. that's just good policy. Now that they haven't had a 2 term president since GWB, with a very shallow bench, they are now flipping toward a position that guts agencies entirely and shifts all decisions to the court via interpretation of laws. You see this with all the domestic wiretapping stuff too. "You were supposed to violate everyone's privacy.. but not ours! That's unfair!" The targeting piece is how they square everything. They like everything about this when it's black, brown, queer, or Muslim people. When it's their team then suddenly it's somehow deeply unfair. When you're a very stupid person that believes in "good people" and "bad people," it's extremely easy to be like.. "they weren't supposed to go after the good people!" ErIog fucked around with this message at 03:36 on Oct 28, 2023 |
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2023 03:34
|
|
|
The funny and sad thing about conservatives is how impotent they make themselves look by projecting this sense of helplessness about their plight. Like they love the second amendment, and they think the constitution was written specifically with them in mind, yet... They never follow through. Like they're mad that the Jan 6 people got thrown in solitary confinement for a long rear end time? Well then just second amendment them out , after all they think it's a miscarriage of justice that they got charged in the first place. So why not spring them from prison? Upset they have to wear a mask in the hospital? Well why didn't they take up arms when they weren't allowed to visit their dying grandpa or whoever? They think these bureaucrats are all dickless stooges for the government with no real power so what's stopping you from doing something about it Lynnrd? . I swear it's like the Race War equivalent of a middle school dance where they've shown up but they're too shy to actually touch hands and poo poo. In the wake of chuds like Zimmerman and Rittenhouse getting away Scott free I was worried you'd see way way more incidents since they'd be more confident the law would be on their side of the confrontation. While I'm sure it has broadly increased it hasn't exactly exploded in frequency to the degree I feared thankfully. One theory I have is that with a lot of leftists, particularly those regularly engaging in on-the-street activism or politically active minorities, there's much more personal experience with this kind of partisan violence since it's likely directly affected them one way or another (that goon that shot at a Proud Boy, for instance, had allegedly been shot across the chest by a chud in a previous altercation). Often when one experiences violence firsthand they have a much better concept of escalation and risk. But conservatives rarely are on the receiving end of that kind of violence. Certainly not the kind of violence they think is rampant in the country right now. Since they don't have that experience they can't accurately gauge how far they can escalate things and they usually don't want to risk overplaying their hand because while it can drum up sympathy for their allies it also makes them look weak in the process.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2023 04:35
|
|
|
Panfilo posted:The funny and sad thing about conservatives is how impotent they make themselves look by projecting this sense of helplessness about their plight. Like they love the second amendment, and they think the constitution was written specifically with them in mind, yet... They never follow through. Some of them do attempt spectacular personal violence against their perceived enemies. Most recently, there was the guy in Maine.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2023 04:44
|
|
|
I AM GRANDO posted:Some of them do attempt spectacular personal violence against their perceived enemies. Most recently, there was the guy in Maine. While entirely possible, from what I've seen so far he appears to have been someone who suffered a psychotic break while having access to weapons. Just got found dead from what appears to be suicide at his old job site. Which is not to say it couldn't have been political or encouraged by the right's relentless drumbeat of hate and fear, just that for once it might have been a case of someone losing their last tethers to reality while still holding onto the key to their gun case.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2023 04:57
|
|
|
GOP is still running with the abortions after birth lies. But since they are posting it on the gov website its getting promoted higher in searches. https://twitter.com/katiebparis/status/1718078201195348197 "The inflammatory language targeting a reproductive rights measure on Ohio’s fall ballot is the type of messaging that is common in the closing weeks of a highly contested initiative campaign — warning of “abortion on demand” or “dismemberment of fully conscious children” if voters approve it." https://apnews.com/article/election-2023-ohio-abortion-amendment-misinformation-6b870f06abe5d70e8aa0a535b2e9dd1a https://twitter.com/OhioSenateGOP/status/1718051084202066248 And thus began the Great War between Ohio and California. OgNar fucked around with this message at 05:40 on Oct 28, 2023 |
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2023 05:33
|
|
|
OgNar posted:GOP is still running with the abortions after birth lies. "How dare you try to stifle our ability to spread harmful lies!" Didn't even fuckin' try to say it's not misinformation.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2023 08:42
|
|
|
The Islamic Shock posted:"You're spreading harmful lies" I've noticed the rallying cry has been a lot more "FREE SPEECH!" again. There's a lot less denial of what's being said and the argument is back to "Who are you to tell me what I can't say??"
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2023 11:29
|
|
|
Levantine posted:I've noticed the rallying cry has been a lot more "FREE SPEECH!" again. There's a lot less denial of what's being said and the argument is back to "Who are you to tell me what I can't say??" When you've spent the last 8 or so years class ming facts don't matter and your base buys it ...
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2023 13:01
|
|
|
 https://twitter.com/Acyn/status/1717357273993867639 Literally anything is a better solution to gun violence than gun control, apparently.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2023 13:29
|
|
|
Haley not laughing in Hannity's face is an incredible show of restraint. He loves to bring up his training in mixed martial arts on his radio show. He can supposedly take 4-5 gut punches from his sparring partner before he goes down. Anyone think they could drop him in one? (Not advocating actual violence, merely the fantasy comeuppance of a total blowhard)
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2023 13:33
|
|
|
...! posted:
Worse than that, the typical "solution" proffered by these people is "obviously we need more guns" Space Fish posted:Haley not laughing in Hannity's face is an incredible show of restraint. I'm not sure but I'm more interested to see how he does under a waterboarding.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2023 14:23
|
|
|
Space Fish posted:Haley not laughing in Hannity's face is an incredible show of restraint. Why would you waste an opportunity at the most punchable face on the planet with a gut punch? As for Haley not laughing in his face she's a Republican politician who regularly claims Republicans aren't racist after she literally changed her name to something more "white" so they would vote for her so I'd say that she perfectly adept at keeping a straight face in response to complete idiocy. It's kind of a GOP job requirement.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2023 15:31
|
|
|
...! posted:
just imagine that puffy clownshoe trying to do MMA. Just imagine it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2023 15:43
|
|
|
Rev. Bleech_ posted:just imagine that puffy clownshoe trying to do MMA. Just imagine it. I'm imagining an updated version of the Steven Segal aikido video.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2023 15:44
|
|
|
Rev. Bleech_ posted:just imagine that puffy clownshoe trying to do MMA. Just imagine it. He's put out a couple videos of him with his trainer. "Doughy flailing middle-aged man" appears to be his primary style.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2023 16:35
|
|
|
I AM GRANDO posted:Some of them do attempt spectacular personal violence against their perceived enemies. Most recently, there was the guy in Maine. While problematic, they are still outliers when contrasted with the number of them boasting if what they'd do. If they were as bold as they claim, we'd be seeing a lot more direct partisan violence-assassination attempts against democratic politicians, more shootings at left wing protests, more drag queens getting shot for trying to read to kids in the library, more doctors shot for offering gender affirming care to minors, etc. After all, they think they are on the right side of history in regards to all of this. Even their "militias" don't end up amounting to racking up much of a body count for all the tough talk.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2023 17:23
|
|
|
Rev. Bleech_ posted:just imagine that puffy clownshoe trying to do MMA. Just imagine it. Sean could probably kick my rear end, tbh, but lol at the idea of putting a bullet in a choke hold or karate chopping your way out of an assault rifle attack. These pundits and the people who listen to them every day, for all their talk about delicate snowflakes who need to toughen up, are the most fearful, paranoid, suspicious and easily triggered folks I know. They see threats and boogeymen, pedophiles and rattlesnakes loving everywhere. It's really how they view the world; scary, mean, threatening and with enemies surrounding you at all times. They LIVE for it. One talk radio host last week was telling his listeners to always scope out anywhere you go for exits, cover and concealment. Now, familiarizing yourself with fire exit locations isn't a terrible idea but this dude was talking about mass shooters, went on and on about where to hide, the difference between concealment vs protection and what a good idea it is for everyone to be walking around anywhere with a gun at all times.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2023 17:44
|
|
|
They're usually too old for this to be what actually influences them, but whenever someone pulls out the "always check your corners and have a plan to escape" thing, I'm reminded of my college friends getting way too into Modern Warfare 2, it's kind of how they would talk. Like it makes sense in the game's universe where you could conceivably kill a gunman who started shooting you from behind by sprinting as soon as you got shot for the first/second/third time, doing an elaborate crouch-dive to the side, and pulling up your SMG to riddle your assailant with bullets before they can adjust their aim. I'm pretty sure that strategy wouldn't work in real life very well, though.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2023 17:52
|
|
|
Crunch Buttsteak posted:They're usually too old for this to be what actually influences them, but whenever someone pulls out the "always check your corners and have a plan to escape" thing, I'm reminded of my college friends getting way too into Modern Warfare 2, it's kind of how they would talk. A big thing that 99% of people don't acknowledge when they discuss these things is reacting under normal circumstances vs. stress. Fight or flight is a powerful response, and even with training, people gently caress it up all the time. Even with a perfect strategy, most folks will absolutely gently caress it up in some way or another just by following through imperfectly.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2023 18:18
|
|
|
The toxic macho siege mentality RWM loves to push has gotten a terrifying amount of people killed, I'm sure. Like I'm a gun owner myself. It lives in a locked box, and the ammunition in a different locked box. So many of my "peers" are convinced that they'll combat-roll out of bed, pull the loaded gun out of the night stand, and put down the local axe murderer. I've got rightie coworkers concerned about "defending my family." My shameless and correct home invader scenario is cry, piss my pants, and ask them to take what they want and don't hurt us. Meanwhile every day in the USA some kid finds your pillow gun and accidentally blasts a family member. And then further even in the rare case the imagined scenario happens, great, somebody got summarily executed for the television. I'm not really cool with that.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2023 18:26
|
|
|
What's the gun for?
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2023 18:51
|
|
|
Weatherman posted:What's the gun for? Don't kinkshame
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2023 20:45
|
|
|
Weatherman posted:What's the gun for? Target shooting and hunting is fun Also, I think the noble national fetish for guns is not going away within my kids' lifetimes, and given we live in the south and they will encounter guns- I prefer the idea that they learn to treat the murder tool with respect by one of us instead of being taught by a lunatic. If the woke mob cancels all the gun freedom god-king Washington gave us, I'm happy to give it up!
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2023 21:02
|
|
|
Weatherman posted:What's the gun for? It is for fun.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2023 21:09
|
|
|
what's the rifle for than?
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2023 21:11
|
|
|
...line....
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2023 21:22
|
|
|
Weatherman posted:What's the gun for? In many cases, suicide.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2023 21:42
|
|
|
Edgar Allen Ho posted:My shameless and correct home invader scenario is cry, piss my pants, and ask them to take what they want and don't hurt us. Quick Google search put only 28% of home invasions having a resident inside, so outside of a WFH situation, the "correct" plan A is coming home from work and filing a report.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2023 01:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 12:31 |
|
|
Edgar Allen Ho posted:So many of my "peers" are convinced that they'll combat-roll out of bed, pull the loaded gun out of the night stand, and put down the local axe murderer. See? When push comes to shove, they really don't give a poo poo about small regional entrepreneurs.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2023 03:08
|
|
