The Liberalists

[Damocles]

I did enjoy the description of Free Republic et al as left wing Twitter echo chambers. They would not be happy.

No. I didn't say you have no exposure to anything but left wing echo chambers. You're on here and get exposed to plenty of alternative views every day. That would be a pretty stupid thing to think I said isn't it?

I implied that left wing echo chambers are the only views you actually consider legitimately. Everything else is dismissed quickly because the wrong person said it.

I guess with Peterson you can either challenge his points and views, my preferred option,

But you didn't do this and you rarely do.

This is the entire point. You didn't challenge Peterson's arguments, you said he's a twat* or his "followers" are twats. That is not an has never been an argument. It's not in this thread, it wasn't in the Peterson thread and it never will be in any thread ever. It's not how arguments work. That's how crap strawmanning stemming from groupthink works.

*By twat you can insert whatever grouping you want. Right wing, alt right, racist, sexist, whatever.

or you can do the fan boy worship and puff yourself up on the back of it. As I said in that thread I wanted to hear what people actually thought rather than just hear posters regurgitating Peterson’s pap. Once we got beyond the pap I thought there was some interesting discussion.


And no. Reactionary shite is just reactionary shite. Trying to call it liberal is like sticking a label on a Fiat Uno with ‘Ferrari’ written on it. I mean props for trying but it’s only fooling those who have no idea what a Ferrari or a liberal is.


Anyway here’s the thing I don’t get with all the parrot and canary references (and whats with your avian obsession?). You have literally started threads parroting the views of Peterson, C**t Ducula and the Prison Planet weirdo. There was no framing other than ‘ooh these speak for me let’s all fawn over these wise words’.

It's a forum. Starting threads saying "hey look at this" is the entire MO of the place. Suggesting that I'm "fawning" over something because I've created a thread to start a discussion on something is ridiculous.

And no matter how much you look at the views in the original post and call them "reactionary shite", it's still never going to be true. Not unless almost every democrat in history was somehow reactionary shite.

Number of threads I have started parroting some left wing nut jobs? Nil. Null. De nada. Zero. I do have the ‘Book of Bob’. An eclectic mix of the profound, the amusing and the insane but beyond that the one thing I do not do is parrot any fucker. The only fucker I think is worth parroting is me.

Now you may not like what I say but it’s all me baby. It’s all me.

Toodles.

Everything you say is a parroting of "left wing nut jobs". There is no "you" to parrot, or at least not one that seems to have any actual political thought that doesn't conform literally to a letter whatever the mainstream internet left's opinion is. I said this to you in the post up there and I maintain this idea; I never have to ask you what you think on any subject because all I need to do is think about what the left Twitterati would think about it, and every single time that's what you think. Using arguments phrased almost entirely identically. Making the same mistakes as they do, making the same strong points as they do. This tells me you're sharing sources.

You've never got anything surprising or independently intelligent to say. Even in THIS thread, your entire posting position has not been "well here's what I think about what they said" it has been "well here's what I think about the people who said it".

This isn't X-Factor. I don't really care what you think of people nor what ism labels you can attach to them momentarily. Say something about the points they make, something that requires you to read, analyse, consider, mull over then reply. That's all I'm asking for. Not "Youtubers bad". That's fucking boring.

 

[1.618034]

 

[blueinsa]

Pie for PM!

 

[BobKowalski]

No. I didn't say you have no exposure to anything but left wing echo chambers. You're on here and get exposed to plenty of alternative views every day. That would be a pretty stupid thing to think I said isn't it?

I implied that left wing echo chambers are the only views you actually consider legitimately. Everything else is dismissed quickly because the wrong person said it.

But you didn't do this and you rarely do.

This is the entire point. You didn't challenge Peterson's arguments, you said he's a twat* or his "followers" are twats. That is not an has never been an argument. It's not in this thread, it wasn't in the Peterson thread and it never will be in any thread ever. It's not how arguments work. That's how crap strawmanning stemming from groupthink works.

*By twat you can insert whatever grouping you want. Right wing, alt right, racist, sexist, whatever.



It's a forum. Starting threads saying "hey look at this" is the entire MO of the place. Suggesting that I'm "fawning" over something because I've created a thread to start a discussion on something is ridiculous.

And no matter how much you look at the views in the original post and call them "reactionary shite", it's still never going to be true. Not unless almost every democrat in history was somehow reactionary shite.



Everything you say is a parroting of "left wing nut jobs". There is no "you" to parrot, or at least not one that seems to have any actual political thought that doesn't conform literally to a letter whatever the mainstream internet left's opinion is. I said this to you in the post up there and I maintain this idea; I never have to ask you what you think on any subject because all I need to do is think about what the left Twitterati would think about it, and every single time that's what you think. Using arguments phrased almost entirely identically. Making the same mistakes as they do, making the same strong points as they do. This tells me you're sharing sources.

You've never got anything surprising or independently intelligent to say. Even in THIS thread, your entire posting position has not been "well here's what I think about what they said" it has been "well here's what I think about the people who said it".

This isn't X-Factor. I don't really care what you think of people nor what ism labels you can attach to them momentarily. Say something about the points they make, something that requires you to read, analyse, consider, mull over then reply. That's all I'm asking for. Not "Youtubers bad". That's fucking boring.

It was a joke.

We did have a discussion on Peterson and his views. To pretend otherwise is dishonest. At some point it even became an interesting discussion.

It is a forum. People start threads. Some people start threads in homage to their YouTube & Philosophical heroes. Which is fine. It’s not my cup of tea but it’s nothing to be ashamed of.

Dude. You are quoting the Prison Planet dude and Milo the Paedo. What did you expect? A round of applause? Meal for two at Pizza Hut? Hilary Clinton gimp masks optional. Bottom line I ain’t buying what they, or you, are selling. It’s not complicated.

As for the rest. Meh you’re just venting with a dash of personal insult. You don't like what I say or the way I say it. It happens.

 

[blueonblue]

Pie for PM!

If only ;0)

 

[Damocles]

It was a joke.

We did have a discussion on Peterson and his views. To pretend otherwise is dishonest. At some point it even became an interesting discussion.

It is a forum. People start threads. Some people start threads in homage to their YouTube & Philosophical heroes. Which is fine. It’s not my cup of tea but it’s nothing to be ashamed of.

Dude. You are quoting the Prison Planet dude and Milo the Paedo. What did you expect? A round of applause? Meal for two at Pizza Hut? Hilary Clinton gimp masks optional. Bottom line I ain’t buying what they, or you, are selling. It’s not complicated.

As for the rest. Meh you’re just venting with a dash of personal insult. You don't like what I say or the way I say it. It happens.

You don't say anything. That's what I don't like. Everything you say targets the person rather than the point, in fact you've just literally done it again. I don't care who in the world I quote if they've got something to say because I'm not arrogant enough to believe that "my side" are the only people worth listening to. You thinking that the person you quote is more important than the words, is the problem.

You're not the only person who holds the views that you do on here, but you're the only person who has an inability to articulate why.

 

[idahoblues]

Pie for PM!

Agreed!

 

[BobKowalski]

You don't say anything. That's what I don't like. Everything you say targets the person rather than the point, in fact you've just literally done it again. I don't care who in the world I quote if they've got something to say because I'm not arrogant enough to believe that "my side" are the only people worth listening to. You thinking that the person you quote is more important than the words, is the problem.

You're not the only person who holds the views that you do on here, but you're the only person who has an inability to articulate why.

Again you are being disingenuous. Everything I say does not target the person rather than the point. Sometimes I target the point and some times I cut to the chase and target the person because, as in this case, it’s the Prison Planet dude whose body of work I am familiar with and it’s a body of work riddled with rancid shite.

And you should care ‘who you quote’. Character, morality matter. Who a person is and what he stands for matters. What a person does matters. How a person treats others matters. What they say springs from who they are. They are not seperate. What they say doesn’t exist in a vacuum. Who they are as a person colours my attitude on what they say because that’s what people do. We make value judgements. Trustworthy. Not trustworthy. Etc. You judge what they say within the whole of what they say as that gives you context and allows you to measure the sincerity of what they say on any given subject.

I get you are trying to paint your methodology as some sort of purist ideal that separates what they say from who they are or have said in the past and that’s your choice. But I ain’t obliged to go along with it as I think it’s flawed and to be honest immature. So when it comes to your posts I will be looking at not just what they say but who they are, what they have said in the past, what they do etc and sometimes I will argue the points made and sometimes I will point out the guy whose arse you are blowing smoke up is a c**t. I may even do both on occasions if I’m in the mood.

 

[Ban-jani]

He’s going places

 

[Damocles]

Again you are being disingenuous. Everything I say does not target the person rather than the point. Sometimes I target the point and some times I cut to the chase and target the person because, as in this case, it’s the Prison Planet dude whose body of work I am familiar with and it’s a body of work riddled with rancid shite.

And you should care ‘who you quote’. Character, morality matter. Who a person is and what he stands for matters. What a person does matters. How a person treats others matters. What they say springs from who they are. They are not seperate. What they say doesn’t exist in a vacuum. Who they are as a person colours my attitude on what they say because that’s what people do. We make value judgements. Trustworthy. Not trustworthy. Etc. You judge what they say within the whole of what they say as that gives you context and allows you to measure the sincerity of what they say on any given subject.

I get you are trying to paint your methodology as some sort of purist ideal that separates what they say from who they are or have said in the past and that’s your choice. But I ain’t obliged to go along with it as I think it’s flawed and to be honest immature. So when it comes to your posts I will be looking at not just what they say but who they are, what they have said in the past, what they do etc and sometimes I will argue the points made and sometimes I will point out the guy whose arse you are blowing smoke up is a c**t. I may even do both on occasions if I’m in the mood.

No but that's flawed and completely unworkable. Not only is it not immature, the system you're talking about is a justification for intellectual laziness.

Let's take an extreme example and say that I post a Hitler quote where he gives the benefits of socialised medicine.

Somebody with my views would then take that and argue that he's right and that socialised medicine is a good thing.

Someone with your view would suggest that Hitler is a **** so don't listen to him. Which is a completely pointless thing to add. What your opinion is of the character of somebody is totally irrelevant to whether socialised medicine is a good idea or not.

There's a reason this is called the ad hominem logical fallacy - because that's what it is; completely fallacious thinking.

And you dressing this up as some sort of "trust relationship" is bollocks. I don't trust Adolf Hitler but that isn't to suggest that literally everything that Adolf Hitler says was wrong. That's as stupid as thinking that every single thing he said was correct, a sort of reversed type of demagoguery.

People you don't like can say things that you agree with. Their points are separate to their morality. It's amazing that you have to be told this.