111–120 of 138 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why are you lying about this groyper thing? https://i.4cdn.org/pol/1757787226815828m.jpg
If that's really all you have, then it is a stretch to accuse someone of lying. The evidence supporting him being a groyper is relatively stronger.
Edit: don't forget to provide sources!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, Wikipedia has multiple[0] definitions and argues that it is contested (as does encyclopedia britannica[1]) and people throw it around like candy[2]; so idkwym; From EB; > There has been considerable disagreement among historians and political scientists about the nature of fascism. Some scholars, for example, regard it as a socially radical movement with ideological ties to the Jacobins of the French Revolution…
This is arguing about the nature of the thing that is described by the word fascism, not arguing about what the word fascism refers to.
It’s used as a catch-all slur to mean “evil thing I don’t agree with”, they can mean any of the competing definitions or none - I doubt if they could come up with what they actually ascribe if challenged and not in front of a computer to look up one of the definitions to find something objectionable within that.
Which is my entire point really, not really getting what yours is here though. That it has a clear definition? I mean, I don’t think it does but it doesn’t matter. It’s not clear in practical use what people refer to.
Afaik, there are already specific political definitions. It's just that "the common man" isn't very educated in them, and the "language of politics" eschews logic and specificity in favor of generalization (in order to induce rancor and thus party-alignment). Here is the political classification of the top 50 developed nations (I tried to organize them, but it's hard...): Qatar Absolute monarchy Oman Absolute monarch…
Your "top 50 developed nations" list actually omits China, the nation with the most extensive modern rail and nuclear power, one of the top three space-exploring nations. Or do you consider them "not developed"?
"China is not in the top-50 group of “very high human development” countries. The United Nations Development Programme’s 2024 Human Development Index (HDI) places mainland China around the mid-60s globally (most recent figure is roughly 64th–68th, depending on the exact update). The “top 50 developed countries” list I used earlier is based on that HDI ranking, so China does not qualify as one of the top 50 most-developed nations. Hong Kong, which is a Special Administrative Region of China, does rank in the global top 10 and is why you saw “Hong Kong (China SAR)” in the earlier table—but that is treated separately from mainland China in the UN’s HDI reports."
Afaik, there are already specific political definitions. It's just that "the common man" isn't very educated in them, and the "language of politics" eschews logic and specificity in favor of generalization (in order to induce rancor and thus party-alignment). Here is the political classification of the top 50 developed nations (I tried to organize them, but it's hard...): Qatar Absolute monarchy Oman Absolute monarch…
Not sure, why you are voted down. :-) Why did you feel the need to specify that the USA are a representative democracy? A lot of other countries on your list are, I think this it is far more common then direct democracy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If that's really all you have, then it is a stretch to accuse someone of lying. The evidence supporting him being a groyper is relatively stronger.
It's not about what I have; it's about what's objectively true. Please lay out your strong case. Edit: don't forget to provide sources!
Does this mean he IS a groyper? Ha, of course not, it is just anecdotal evidence pointing in that direction. But your argument is that because law enforcement says he has a transgender roommate or partner, he can't possibly be a groyper. Uh, sure. Okay.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not about what I have; it's about what's objectively true. Please lay out your strong case. Edit: don't forget to provide sources!
This isn't debate club, you can figure out sources yourself. The guy spoke groyper lingo, dressed like a groyper, posed for pictures like a groyper. It is not unreasonable to use duck typing. Does this mean he IS a groyper? Ha, of course not, it is just anecdotal evidence pointing in that direction. But your argument is that because law enforcement says he has a transgender roommate or partner, he can't possibly be a…
I have plenty but it's your turn!
"dressed like a" vs "law enforcement says"
Uh, sure. Okay. I thought you said you had a stronger case.
I’m starting to think political definitions only have use as propaganda. Definitions are definite, yet political definitions are anything but. In the US, much is made about “the left” and “the right”, but we can hardly describe what these things mean. “The left” is simply more liberal than I, while “the right” is more conservative than I. On what issues, no one knows, because we hardly ask. The point, I think, is sim…
What is "liberal" here? Seems like that term has gone obsolete as well, what Americans call liberal is not what I call liberal, to me they are pretty authoritarian.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not about what I have; it's about what's objectively true. Please lay out your strong case. Edit: don't forget to provide sources!
This isn't debate club, you can figure out sources yourself. The guy spoke groyper lingo, dressed like a groyper, posed for pictures like a groyper. It is not unreasonable to use duck typing. Does this mean he IS a groyper? Ha, of course not, it is just anecdotal evidence pointing in that direction. But your argument is that because law enforcement says he has a transgender roommate or partner, he can't possibly be a…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Right wing issue: National Identity, community building, trust and safety (high trust society), belief that governmental power corrupts (though obviously they weigh this against the trust mentioned earlier and put a lot of merit in armed forces and police). Left wing issues: Equity and fairness, individual identity but mandatory collectivism and the belief that government is likely to be more fair than a charity or c…
Well spoken. I consider myself on the other end of things, but I experience, that for people with an active political stance, it's pretty obvious who is who (unless somebody is in propaganda mode). Unless you are on an extreme side, you can always sympathize with the other side for most issues, which is why we are able to find compromises and vote on laws at all. As for the example you mention (abortion), this is one…
So abortion is murder for you, and the ban against murder is usually based on the Bible's Old Testament for people in the USA (stemming from the 6th commandment "Thou shalt not kill.").
Assuming so, yet another specific religious belief has been dragged into our politics despite the fact that we have a clause in our constitution "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,...", the First Amendment, allowing freedom of religion.
Seems we have a basic problem here. I disagree with you for a number of reasons:
- I don't believe in any spiritual entities (e.g., a soul, God, Jesus, Satan, St. Peter, angels, djinn, souls, sin, etc.)
- for morality I have the universe and my fellow men as the elements, no more, so saints, souls, angels, devils, gods and heavens fall away from reality for me,
- And so my backstop is the Golden Rule ("Do unto others as you would have them do to you.").
Man has progressed. Much of what you claim would be fine except we now have
- birth control,
- largely safe (for the mother) abortion, and
- I am unwilling to tell a woman that anyone other than her has the right to make medical decisions about her body.
IOW science has rendered the traditional morality no longer applicable TO A CERTAIN DEGREE. That does NOT mean that science has rendered traditional morality irrelevant b/c evolution still applies and will dominate future generations:
- Humans will still be driven to have offspring,
- it remains safest to avoid unnecessary sex (b/c of disease) and
- it is best to be careful of the partner you choose b/c (s)he will contribute to the offspring's genes and (s)he will likely tend your offspring.
In summary, we got a problem: you have a religious belief (abortion is murder, perhaps based on another religious idea - that of a soul) that I do not accept. For me it's like the song says:
Queen - Fun It Lyrics
"Hey everybody everybody gonna have a good time tonight
Just shakin' the soles of your feet
Everybody gonna have a good time tonight time tonight Time tonight
That's the only soul you'll ever meet."