Oh obsrvr…I wish I had the confidence and certainty to tell others that “everything you feel was informed by mainstream media.” But the reality is, I don’t know enough about anybody, especially through an internet forum, to determine not only what somebody feels, but where those feelings originate.
People DO still read books, scholarly papers and essays, you know…
Observ, that’s funny, but it’s not really a response. Calling them communists is not going to make anything clear in their minds. Second you lose nothing calling them whatever they identify with, say Liberals, and then making your case that their Liberal actions will lead to Communism. Or The Left.
The conclusion you mocked was not my conclusion. A parody of a strawman.
And any specific arguments I made are simply not responded to.
Whatever. Have a nice thread.
I sexually Identify as an Attack Helicopter. Ever since I was a boy I dreamed of soaring over the oilfields dropping hot sticky loads on disgusting foreigners. People say to me that a person being a helicopter is Impossible and I’m fucking retarded but I don’t care, I’m beautiful. I’m having a plastic surgeon install rotary blades, 30 mm cannons and AMG-114 Hellfire missiles on my body. From now on I want you guys to call me “Apache” and respect my right to kill from above and kill needlessly. If you can’t accept me you’re a heliphobe and need to check your vehicle privilege. Thank you for being so understanding.
But not you. But are you now saying that YOU know where people get their information?
I know better than to assume.
I think we all wish that was true.
And what I wish you could learn is to put some meat into your arguments - something other than just denials and ad homs. You started off with pretty good in depth questioning but now you just deny everything anyone says - “dismissal” then hypocritically accuse them of being dismissive.
it’s safe to assume the source of people’s information
when they’re parroting talking points from one side or another
word for word
Only with my undeniable charm and temperance. So no.
And therefore it’s easy to get accused by accusers.
It’s not so easy to accuse yourself and honestly and relentlessly pry out all the weaknesses that you might not have previously seen in your own point of view, to correctly place it within the wider context of as many other points of view, to draw upon as many sources as possible and iron out all the counterpoints you’ll likely be challenged with in advance, to build the strongest possible position before you even open your mouth - which is basically all I do as a human being aside from see to day-to-day essentials. It’s been mentioned that people don’t like to think, but I need it like breathing. The drawback is that as soon as you reveal a point of view, all the criticism you’ve already considered ad nauseum and thoroughly dealt with gets thrown at you by people who insist “you’re wrong” because you don’t think what they do, and that you’ve not thought of what they’re saying before, and you either hate or cannot understand their point, and the more you lead them through the well-rehearsed reasoning that solves the flaws in their point of view, the more they dig their heels in and the lower they stoop to try and rationalise their view…
People are tiresome - I come here just to confirm there’s nothing I’ve missed, and as a vain hope just to check if I can’t quite convince someone, or at least succeed in teaching somebody something they’ve not considered before. Yeah, I know. But in practice the majority of my time is taken up correcting people trying to misrepresent me in a desperate attempt to elevate their opinions back up by dragging a bastardisation of my opinions back down.
It’s not so much that they’re hypnotised, they’re just so rarely prepared to be wrong, and irrationally fear and overestimate the shame of being outsmarted. Being wrong is easy, and you actually gain respect from admitting it - I just miss the opportunity to get to do that and instead just grow weary and grumpy that I’m not being challenged. And of course these others will just claim the same is the case for them when it’s so plainly obvious to me that they have absolutely no idea.
Hence the common exasperation and impatience in my tone.
The problem is that there’s no way to prove this to anyone. They’ll rightly claim that plenty of people think they have the same problem, and think of themselves in the same way. This easily dismisses the whole plight and only appears to level the playing field, but it’s like a specialist meeting an enthusiastic amateur with a bit of an overinflated opinion of themselves because they’re better at what they do than laymen (or at least think they are). They present what they’ve got and you don’t want to demoralise them, but at the same time you can’t tell them they’re as amazing as they think they are. The only thing in the way is their ego, without which it’d be so simple. This is why teaching children is so much easier than teaching adults.
But whatever, I know only too well what will come to me as a response to this - probably better to ignore the above rant and just get to this TDS stuff.
Oh absolutely.
Great language, right? I like to use what I find to be a tasteful amount of colour in what I post - makes it more interesting to write, if not to read.
There’s a bit of “moving the goalposts” going on here - sure in theory I could befriend him and really get to know him, just to really be as sure as possible that my impression of his character as a whole was exactly and entirely justified to the highest possible degree that practicality would permit. But I ask you, is that really a realistic requirement that anyone at all really applies to anyone outside of psychiatry and clinical psychology, just to get a reasonable idea about somebody? And moreover - should it be? Even for lovers and married couples, this is probably a bit much - to treat another like a scientific experiment and thoroughly dissect their entire being just to rationally qualify one’s feelings? Even the process of attempting to do such a thing would skew it, as if in a quantum experiment where you change the results by measuring them…
Of course that’s an extreme, and of course I could get to know him better to some normal extent, which brings me to the realm of intuition. As a third “of course” to add here, we all know how infamously people make up their mind about one another within the first minute - and experiment rather hilariously correlates first impressions within the first 1/10 of a second very highly with lasting ones. This goes for job interviews, dates, friends, everything - and as a final “of course”, wouldn’t it be nice if we had more of a chance? Though you can see the value to human evolution of this instinct being so honed, probably being life and death for much of human existence and prior to that.
Nonetheless, I still make an attempt to give people a chance, and experience tells you when is a reasonable time to relax your efforts - and I still try to push it beyond that and remain as open as I can to further evidence indefinitely. I apply all of this to Trump no differently than anyone else. Yet to date all the exposure that I have had has shown me nothing different to what I saw from the start - and I cannot stress enough that I really do genuinely make this attempt to give people a chance above and beyond what I presume to be the norm. Though I cannot deny that I suffer things that make me cringe quite intensely, and there’s only been one interview that I watched that I can remember where I was surprised that he actually seemed almost lucid - and no it wasn’t MSM. I also remember watching something that presented a little like a comedy sketch seemingly intended to demonstrate just how rich and successful he is, clearly commissioned by him. I came away from the experience with probably the exact opposite impression to what he probably intended to give - as though he was particularly careless with money, and really didn’t give a shit about anything else, which again wasn’t MSM. I admit that all the MSM I’ve seen where I listen to him give a speech has been nothing short of painful. They’re less speeches than incoherent meanderings towards the periodic ends of self-praising and reassuring others/himself of his self-assessed competence. It reminds me of all the times I’ve seen people try to pass off an obvious lie when they’re really not that good at it. It’s different from when career politicians lie - they don’t even try to cover it up, and everything about it seems sinisterly thought out beforehand and carefully crafted. It’s just as easy to see through, but at least the better liars present an air of education and sophistication as they completely dodge the question, twist truths and advertise their agenda. The Donald lines his spiel with absolutely none of that, and when he dodges a question or twists truth, he just goes for straight out denial that anything that could work against him even exists - as if perfectly oblivious to the world around him or even things he’s said in the past. I’m sure you’ve read transcripts of his speeches - surely there’s no way you can justify them: I appeal to any sense of decency that I can get here. They read like a mix between a valley girl and an old man rambling in a retirement home - I just don’t get how anyone can experience that and develop a positive impression as a consequence (maybe unless they’d already made up their mind beforehand and were filling up the void with what they wanted to think anyway, or they’re mentality is on the same level). I dunno, it’s just genuinely beyond me. I really wish I had reason to change my mind, I really do. I don’t enjoy finding the guy to be all the things I’ve called him.
But that’s enough of that - it’s a tough position to be in to really want to be able to agree with you, but to also be so averse to ever having to endure any experience of him ever again. The conflict of interest really makes it hard for me to communicate just how sincere I am that I don’t want to have to have this opinion about anyone…
To clarify on different point though, I think I did make it abundantly clear that however detestable he is, this doesn’t excuse “the only alternative being offered”. I do keep saying I’m not pro-Biden, surely you’ve not managed to miss that? I know you believe that alternative to be the end of the world, and I agree that going back to the status quo smells depressingly like a return to the slow tendency back towards more social authoritarianism and more neo-liberalism. As a leftist I want the exact opposite of both of these things. As a rightist I know you agree with the first bit, but at least you’re probably cool with the second bit - lucky you. I dunno, all the above seems perfectly rational to me, insofar as you can be about emotions. Though I’m sure you’ll disagree.
No problem.
Did you ever consider getting qualifications for litigation?
The discipline always struck me as an endless exercise in plugging holes in a ship, and with a long history. I prefer more orderliness and closure, hence the logic obsession.
i see you there little guy
copying my lines
tsk tsk tsk
Two or three lines here, two or three lines there.
You can do better. 
So that is asking for forgiveness followed by sarcasm?
The question is WHICH of the opponents in each argument are actually doing those things. And that tends to be evident. Some people rant on with their opinions providing no actual evidence (including mere reasoning) that they might be right. Others state an opinion and provide what evidence or reasoning they have to support why they have that opinion.
Which are you - which am I?
Just examine our posts (from now on if you prefer) to see and self-examine. That is really all I have been saying. And that reveals to the person himself as to whether he really has any evidence concerning his opinion. And that gives clue of possible and probable sly, possibly inadvertent hypnosis.
When I suggest hypnosis it comes from witnessing someone who isn’t displaying why he believes things but rather just insisting they are true - especially with vitriol. That is not definitive proof - only a clue - something for the person to question on his own.
Isn’t that fair for both of us?
So you don’t actually believe what you write. You just like to use “tasteful colour” language to be more interesting. Isn’t that being disingenuous? Or perhaps now merely making excuse and being self-forgiving?
So you exaggerate what I said to extreme then ask me if your extreme is reasonable of me? - “strawman”?
Now there’s a thought. I should have thought of that. Actually all I was suggesting was to research the facts. I didn’t suggest to go meet the bloke.
Perhaps YOU missed that you have no choice in the matter and attacking the Allied powers during a world war when the only other option is the Axis powers is seriously irresponsible - “I don’t like anyone. Everyone is wrong! I don’t like either side”. Okay then who cares and shut up because you are not helping anyone and certainly not yourself - actually self-defeating. Try telling Gen Eisenhower, PM Churchill, Hitler, or Mussolini that you are just being “tastefully colourful” and really hoping that no one wins. Go to a sports game and sitting in the crowd (if that is every allowed again) shout insults at both teams. See where that gets you. Which team do you think will win - neither? It won’t be yours.
If you can’t vote for the clowns at least vote for the circus. Else you are just being another pesky nihilist. Wouldn’t that be true of me too?
you be ragging on my style and flair? (^{[1]})
How unbecoming of someone so completely adorable as me (^{[2]}) to not cite my sources.
References:
Way ahead o’ya, buddy. We’re in no disagreement about examining our own posts as I have been doing for years.
It’s actually an achilles heel of mine to go to thorough lengths to explain every point I make - because the posts get too long and people lose interest and/or get frustrated, if they read them at all. You’re preaching to the choir here.
Like I said, vitriol is just one of the colours on my pallette - and to abduce that this is a clue that someone is merely insisting without reasoning is insufficient evidence. As you say: not definitive proof.
I manage perfectly fine to be vitriolic, sincere and logical all at once, so I’m afraid I’m going to have to reject your hearing on this case
The real question is how somebody might detect what you’re calling hypnosis. Do the hypnotised know that they are hypnotised? Can one be hypnotised that they are good at identifying hypnosis over others? I say it’s the real question rhetorically - what I mean is that it’s unfalsifiable given that a judgment of hypnosis requires no hypnosis to be affecting the judge, who therefore must be judged by another judge ad infinitum.
I absolutely believe what I write. Colour and all.
It would indeed be disingenuous to do otherwise.
I don’t think opinions require forgiveness.
Forgiveness is for that which can be correct/incorrect, such as rationale for opinion etc.
You mistake me. I present the extreme case in order to give appropriate context to what can be expected from any exercise in “factual justification of opinions” such as you’re asking of me.
Along with my mention of the limitations of “first impressions”, I intended to frame the degree of validity to “actually getting to know him better to some normal extent” - just to highlight how little more would be gained from doing so to “justify my opinion”. My point being that there would be barely any.
Ah yes, “attention deficiency” strikes again. mb.
This reminds me of the old Bush-Jr.-ism of “if you aren’t with us then you are against us”. Remember that I’m not the one who sees the stakes anywhere near so high. You have your reasons for thinking they are and doubting my reasons and vice versa - and we agree that researching the facts is a positive step for all. You’re saying pick the lesser of two evils to side against just to avoid oblivion. I’m saying there is no such war just yet, and that we ought to keep trying to succeed in the goal of not being limited to a choice of one of only two evils in future elections - the previous setbacks are recoverable, but I agree that we’re on a downhill slope.
That’d make us more pessimists than nihilists. But maybe that’s just me being an optimist.
wow. same. crazy.
Another scheme being examined involves getting Ms Pelosi in as President.
If the electoral college isn’t definitive and the election goes to the House Ms Pelosi will try to prevent the matter from being settled. If she can delay it until Jan 21 (and she is very practiced at delaying things) then she automatically becomes the US President. Even Ms Harris doesn’t get to be the first.
This ^^^ is just simply an A-class shade of cray. lololol
That concept, should become, your avatar… forget the whole spider thing, I think you’ve found your niche/your true calling, hahaha!
nancy pelosi would make a great president
Then it’s Civil War, as predicted.
howd that last civil war go lol
republicans won last time, remember? duh!
omg lol u dont know about the parties changing platforms in the 60s u r so dumb