Controversial General Political Discussion
- Thread starter AL sama
- Start date
- Tags #freepalestine are you having fun al? are you having van al? dei must go gaolang > your fav is not paying tax sexist is van having fun al? life goal sister harem real madrid reloaded is innocent tax is the best thing ever happened to us trans rights = human rights trans women are not interested in any of you weebs discussing politics lmao worst thread ever
The past of users ? No. Only the political leaning.
It's not hard to do. And that's what most people here do not get. It's like a triangulation.
In politics, there are what you may call points of conflicts. Those are the precise political point that will usually be the indicators for the distinction of two political side on a similar political spectrum.
To understand your political leaning, all I need to do is target those specific points. Of course there will be exceptions and sometimes aberration in the systems but by multiplying the points of attack, we usually arrive at a clear distinction of the political side of a person.
Basic example:
To distinguish people who understand the problem with colonialism and people who don't, ask them about the Israel Palestine conflict. If their answer is to minimize the oppression of Palestinian or the genocide happening, you can be sure that they do not understand the problem with the notion of imperialism, colonialism and have big biases for the crypto fascism of the far right gov of Israel. So you can by defaut place all those people on the right side of the political spectrum as the left is - by principle - against that process.
You repeat that with plenty of subject to get a more precise vision (trans people, capitalism, abortion, meritocracy) and you will manage to AT LEAST see who is close to you in term of political leaning and who is your major political ennemy.
It's just a question of logic.
It's not hard to do. And that's what most people here do not get. It's like a triangulation.
In politics, there are what you may call points of conflicts. Those are the precise political point that will usually be the indicators for the distinction of two political side on a similar political spectrum.
To understand your political leaning, all I need to do is target those specific points. Of course there will be exceptions and sometimes aberration in the systems but by multiplying the points of attack, we usually arrive at a clear distinction of the political side of a person.
Basic example:
To distinguish people who understand the problem with colonialism and people who don't, ask them about the Israel Palestine conflict. If their answer is to minimize the oppression of Palestinian or the genocide happening, you can be sure that they do not understand the problem with the notion of imperialism, colonialism and have big biases for the crypto fascism of the far right gov of Israel. So you can by defaut place all those people on the right side of the political spectrum as the left is - by principle - against that process.
You repeat that with plenty of subject to get a more precise vision (trans people, capitalism, abortion, meritocracy) and you will manage to AT LEAST see who is close to you in term of political leaning and who is your major political ennemy.
It's just a question of logic.
Lol goddamn. A perfect neo-nazi salute. That's an insane coincidence if it was unintentional. The smart thing would've been for him to apologize to emulating it, but instead called everyone stupid for saying it looked like a salute.
It's very important to to understand why someone thinks the way they do. One of the reasons Trump got so massive was because he listened to people and gave them very simple answers to their problems while validating their feelings. Also a reason shits like Andrew Tate could gain a massive following.
It's very important to to understand why someone thinks the way they do. One of the reasons Trump got so massive was because he listened to people and gave them very simple answers to their problems while validating their feelings. Also a reason shits like Andrew Tate could gain a massive following.
We're only 2 days in and we already have a myriad of executive orders that set back years and years of hard fought progress. It's infuriating seeing foreigners in this thread celebrate that knowing that families will be separated, dreamers are again threatened, while the billionaire class gets richer by the day.
It's a dark time for America.
It's a dark time for America.
Indeed ?
I never questionned that. I expressed the fact that almost no one here took a deep dive look at themselves DURING the debates on this forum. I'm the only one who actively expressed the fact - multiple time - of being fundamentally wrong in my political approach an some of my political beliefs. And yet, I'm targetted as the one who never questions their belief and think everyone is stupid.
I'm pointing out the contradiction.
From the moment I arrived here, you guyz have been confusing the form (my confrontationnal approach), with the legitimacy of my political knowledge.
My approach being very direct act as a offensive weapon for me, but also as a shield for you to justify your lack of questionning. On top of that, there is a bias here toward leftist ideas that can't be broken.
And you can test that very easily. Blax has been sharing a LOADS of very relevant knowledge about anarchism here and he has been ignored 95% of the time even tho we have a lot's of common point. This shows that in reality, it's not me, but the knowledge the problem. You guy will not reply to blax simply because you would need to find a new way to discredit his political approach and it will be very hard. So you prefer to attack my confrontational attitude instead. It's much easier. It does need you to think.
But this is ending now. I will let the field to those who want to talk about leftism in peace. And we will see if you guyz will be able to listen or not.
I hope to be proven wrong.
I never questionned that. I expressed the fact that almost no one here took a deep dive look at themselves DURING the debates on this forum. I'm the only one who actively expressed the fact - multiple time - of being fundamentally wrong in my political approach an some of my political beliefs. And yet, I'm targetted as the one who never questions their belief and think everyone is stupid.
I'm pointing out the contradiction.
From the moment I arrived here, you guyz have been confusing the form (my confrontationnal approach), with the legitimacy of my political knowledge.
My approach being very direct act as a offensive weapon for me, but also as a shield for you to justify your lack of questionning. On top of that, there is a bias here toward leftist ideas that can't be broken.
And you can test that very easily. Blax has been sharing a LOADS of very relevant knowledge about anarchism here and he has been ignored 95% of the time even tho we have a lot's of common point. This shows that in reality, it's not me, but the knowledge the problem. You guy will not reply to blax simply because you would need to find a new way to discredit his political approach and it will be very hard. So you prefer to attack my confrontational attitude instead. It's much easier. It does need you to think.
But this is ending now. I will let the field to those who want to talk about leftism in peace. And we will see if you guyz will be able to listen or not.
I hope to be proven wrong.
His problem is that he thinks reading research papers lend him credibility and thus whatever he says is truth and fact and is backed by science making him more arrogant than he was.
What he doesn't realize is research papers often don't represent complete pictures. They are often funded by institutions to further their cause and thus these papers suffer from academic dishonesty and selection bias. They often distort data and citations as well..
Nor these papers have any universal applications as even though political and sociology are referred as sciences but they are also humanities subjects.
However, because he thinks he's reading so called scientific papers he believes whatever comes from his mouth is the objective truth and he alone knows what's the context.
But he's far from what actual science is
Emotional appeal - blah blah blah
Families would be separated - don't go illegally to any country. Simple
And, if you are there illegally then be ready for the consequences.
What he doesn't realize is research papers often don't represent complete pictures. They are often funded by institutions to further their cause and thus these papers suffer from academic dishonesty and selection bias. They often distort data and citations as well..
Nor these papers have any universal applications as even though political and sociology are referred as sciences but they are also humanities subjects.
However, because he thinks he's reading so called scientific papers he believes whatever comes from his mouth is the objective truth and he alone knows what's the context.
But he's far from what actual science is
Post automatically merged:
Emotional appeal - blah blah blah
Families would be separated - don't go illegally to any country. Simple
And, if you are there illegally then be ready for the consequences.
Last edited:
https://x.com/realchrisrufo/status/1882136803467231257
Tactics done to regular people that are universally despised if came to light such as these could be a reason for a significant chunk of the US population turning away from the democrats and their influence while siding with Trump and the conservatives, but I'll let the rest here decide that.
Tactics done to regular people that are universally despised if came to light such as these could be a reason for a significant chunk of the US population turning away from the democrats and their influence while siding with Trump and the conservatives, but I'll let the rest here decide that.
Last edited: