TakeYouToTasker

I’m not concerned with what you want. I’m concerned with why you accept such a diminishingly small amount of personal responsibility that you won’t even accept blame for not articulating what you’re asking for using commonly understood language. How can you possibly expect to be taken seriously? “We want X.“ <others explain massive real world issues with agreeing to do X> “When we said we want X, we didn’t mean we wanted X. We meant something entirely different from X, that requires entirely different words to explain, but it’s your fault for not knowing this.“ GTFOH

@Margarita Yes. Using words as they’re properly understood is a right wing talking point. Why can’t you just clearly explain what you want, using words as they are commonly understood instead of blaming everyone else for your miscommunications. This coming from an individual who fully supports abolishing the police.

He hasn’t been hiding. Some of his first posts here were praising Marx for the accuracy of his predictions, which is of course laughably absurd as Marx was wrong about pretty much everything outside of being the first person to accurately identify what capital is. Following that he built a predictable pile of intersectionalist dogma, using circular logic to bind it together, and is now standing on it, using it as a soap box to declare his preferred “ism’s” as a panacea for his non-preferred “ism’s”. Same tired nonsense his ilk have been peddling since the 1960’s.

Remember, he doesn’t adhere to logic, because logic is racist. As such, he has no logic to accord to. He’s just out here speaking HIS truth, man.

They never can. Also hilarious is that for whatever reason Marxists never seem to read much Marx. Anyone who has read Marx knows that his predictions failed to come true. He was a lousy prognosticator.

His end game is advancing Marxist structures by attempting to shame people. The people he’s trying to shame have nothing to be ashamed of, however, which is why he insists on the wholesale creation of new definitions for commonly understood words; and insists that the application of logic and the understanding of truth itself is racist. The purpose is the rejection of Western Enlightenment values. He thinks this is clever or novel. It isn’t.

If an American genocide is your favorite, by all means add it to your list! The list is yours, after all, and I don’t want to influence you one way of the other. The short sampling I provided you with was limited to acts of the last roughly 100 years, and only scratched the surface of genocides globally during that time. As for the definition of racist, it has already been provided for you by another poster, and was provided early on in your short stay. Moving on to your inquiry about objectivity, where you imply that logic itself is racist, and will no doubt continue on to that there is no truth but instead there are 7 billion or so personal truths; again I‘ll simply ask why you’re taking up my task in our argument, and working hard to defeat yourself.

Wrong, I’ve asked you to rank human suffering because your posts here seem to imply that there are certain genocides that don’t merit concern. These aren’t words that I’ve chosen to use, they are words that you have chosen to use. If you don’t like it, choose to use different words. As for the list, it’s be no means comprehensive. If you have any personal favorite genocides that I failed to include in my brief list, feel free to add them, and feel free to share a few anecdotes about why you enjoy them. Once you’re done with that, I’ll happily hear you lecture me about what my stances on the American government are, as I’m sure you’re more informed of them than I am.

In this post you make more absurd claims. I’m not going to continue to make the same argument in parallel threads. Come join me in the other thread where I’ll continue to help you make yourself look foolish.

Quoted from the other thread because I’m not going to type the same thing out twice. To your point about language evolving, while that is true that’s not what’s happening here. Evolutionary change is organic, and happens gradually over a long period of time. It is also generally rejected by linguists because the meaning of words is essential to idea sharing and communication. People attempting to abruptly force feed starkly different new meanings to commonly understood words, who then attempt to use those words as political clubs in order to bully people into accepting Marxist dogma are #######s of the highest order who should be soundly rejected as dishonest at best, and evil at worst. With that said, are there certain genocides you find acceptable? Stack rank your genocides for me with those you find most acceptable at the top, and those more reprehensible at the bottom. The Holocaust, the Armenian Genocide, the Holodomor, the Rape of Nanking, the Serbian Problem in Croatia, the Partition of India, the Biafra, the Killing Fields, the Burundian Genocide, and lastly the blossoming genocide in South Africa. Thanks in advance.

Circular logic is circular. And of course you then go on to argue that logic is racist. Are you sure you aren’t now arguing for me against you? Because this last post of yours really seems to be the final nail in your argument’s coffin.

This is formal logic. Your argument doesn’t stand up to its rigor. That’s not my fault, that’s your fault for making a poor argument. To your point about language evolving, while that is true that’s not what’s happening here. Evolutionary change is organic, and happens gradually over a long period of time. It is also generally rejected by linguists because the meaning of words is essential to idea sharing and communication. People attempting to abruptly force feed starkly different new meanings to commonly understood words, who then attempt to use those words as political clubs in order to bully people into accepting Marxist dogma are #######s of the highest order who should be soundly rejected as dishonest at best, and evil at worst.

Ohhhh, I remember you now. You’re the dope whose ass I handed to him several years back when your issue of the day was gun control. You haven’t gotten much better at making arguments since then. Your power words are powerless, any argument which relies entirely on the mutability of language is born a loser, and anyone who substitutes what he thinks are clever personal attacks in place of an argument has already lost.

Your attempt to redefine words to better suit your argument, while at the same time trying to borrow the connotations of the meaning of the word as prior understood, had been outright rejected. The attempt to then offer this as proof of your assertion is circular logic, and as such is self-defeating.

I love it. New guy demands that we revise the definition of words to suit his arguments, which are purposed for the mainstreaming of neo-marxism, and if we do not then we are simply labeled the thing that his new definition portends. Nothing but circular logic and the insistence that his power words are actually powerful. Hint: they aren’t Second hint: your attempt to redefine terms in order that they better suit your argument has been rejected.

I’m not at all moved by arguments which assert that life is a zero sum struggle against various grievance hierarchies, and depend on the mutability of language in order to be made. It diminishes the individual, and it’s intellectual underpinnings are the failed communist class warfare dogmas of the 50s and 60s.

I don’t assign people group identities as I don’t think they are particularly valuable, and they diminish the self. I don’t much care where a person comes from, but rather I value where they are going. So while I absolutely understand that individuals are shaped by their experiences, those experiences are anecdotal, personal, and don’t invalidate data and truth. I evaluate individuals based on the way they present themselves and their arguments. Do they seek a soap box from which to preach, condemning others; or do they seek to understand the arguments others are making, and then to honestly test their own ideas using the rigors of debate? This is exactly why I say I’m willing to have an honest discussion with anyone. I leave open the possibility that my argument may not be correct, and that others may have more knowledge, or more complete data. This has happened multiple times on this forum, and many more throughout my lifetime.

To be completely honest, I’ve given a good deal of thought to this, and after much consideration I cannot bring myself to ever vote for a Democratic candidate ever again, even as a protest vote. I will most likely not vote this year other than local offices. I am beginning to embrace agorism.

Trump has campaigned on a continued reduction of both. As such, if Biden’s position is that he will not cut regulations and taxes as much, if not more, than the President, his platform is higher taxes and more regulations than the President. With that said, Democrats have always campaigned on higher taxes and more regulations. I’m not sure why this time would be any different.

Middle income people will receive far more help from a reduction in taxes and federal bureaucracy than from an increase in either. This seems intuitive, no?

Who are you again, exactly? And can you point to an argument I’ve made on this board which hasn’t been buttressed by data, citing sourcable historical fact, etc? I mean, I have a lengthy posting history here, and there is a search function. Surely you can tie something I’ve said, nearly all of which is founded in Enlightenment moral philosophy, economics, and advocating for maximizing human freedom to the Alt-right by quoting me, right? Or are you just here to be a generally bad and dishonest person?

What I’m speaking to is the fact that you now have an established history of making baseless charges of racism towards anyone who disagrees with your assumptions. You come across not as intellectually curious, but rather as someone seeking to do others harm. This isn’t an attack on your character, but rather on your motives, and of the weight of your arguments. Further, what you have just offered isn’t data which supports your argument. Your argument has been that everyone is racist, that whites are free to kill blacks with impunity, and that cultures descending from Enlightenment philosophy are somehow white supremacist in nature. You have offered nothing to substantiate these claims. And no, I have no desire to allow you, a perfect stranger who I don’t believe to be operating with pure motives, to take me out of context in order to try to damage my reputation. As I said, you don’t appear to be operating with intellectual integrity or curiosity here. Try that first, and see where it takes you.

Seems mildly threatening and inappropriate, given that you haven’t demonstrated anything that would/should lead anyone to believe that you plan to act in good faith, or that you’re prepared to be intellectually honest. I’ve engaged with you in good faith on several fronts now, and I’ve yet to see you bring any data to support your assertions. I’ve come to you with my own data, and you in turn came to agree with my assessment on one front; and I’ve engaged you asking you for data on another, and you’ve yet to supply it. I am happy to engage with anyone, on any topic, who approaches the arena with intellectual honesty, prepares to back their position with data, and leaves room for the possibility that they may, in fact, be wrong. The purpose of discussion/debate is to vet the merits of what you believe to be true against those who would challenge and scrutinize your ideas. And, if I’m being honest, you come across more as a ####-sure firebrand, here to make personal attacks against anyone who challenges your ideas, more than someone making inquiry, and searching for truth. I am more than happy to continue to engage with you, and am hoping that you prove me wrong.

Speaking as an individual who sits above the fray, and views both parties from an economic and social vantage, through an Enlightenment moral lens, you are absolutely out of your mind if you believe this to be true; or have redefined the political spectrum in such a way which renders all formerly understood terms meaningless. Please explain yourself, and provide definitions and context.

Poor thread title aside (In order for something to be legal there needs to be law specifically condoning it), there are no laws which state white people can murder, or even simply kill (again, “murder” is a legal term with a narrow meaning), black people with impunity. Present your crime data demonstrating three things: 1) there is an epidemic of white on black violence. 2) a disproportionate number of suspected white on black crimes which go unsolved. 3) the percentage of suspected white on black crimes which go uninvestigated until there is an uprising. Or, you can allow me to save you the time: there is zero data demonstrating what you say is true.