Controversial General Political Discussion

[Logiko]

me telling you to focus on the arguments and stop the personal attacks
Is me being biased

ha, the irony is real

There is no personal attack just descriptions of the situation. You deny the scientificity of science because of bias you have due to exposure to right wing and antiscientific propaganda. You are therefore bias.

There is no judgment from me here.

A, you can just go with the what makes far right a bad thing

You are the only one talking about the arguement being a bad thing (it is, but that was not the point) so your argument don't stand.

B. you can argue far right is just used as a shaming term therefore has no objective basis

Same, there was no moral judgment in the statement that gun ownership is a far right argument.

C, you can say what does it far right or not as a position prove it's incorrect

That I can do:

- It appeals to ultra nationalist
- It denies the scientificity and the researches on the subject (which is what the far right sociology tends to do)
- It appeals to cognitives Bias
Etc.

D, you can just say what makes far right different to normal right wing

Well, yes. Sociologically, the democrate /less conservative are less approval of Gun freedom. Remember. What you think is left, is actually the right. So there is a big difference of treatment regarding that subject.

E, you can just say it's not further to the right cause it's a position that most right wingers hold

Didn't understand that one.

Not to say every argument here was correct but it's really flawed if some dude online can randomly just spit 5 out easily not trying despite you being so much more educated then me or whatever your arrogant ass thinks yourself as

Wuat ?

What moral panic and why is moral panic, a bad reason

Moral panics in politics are always bad reasons.

In that cases the moral panic is: There is violence that can only be countered with gun.

I dont fit into right wing or left wing servers

You fit in the confusionnist mindset. A left leaning centrist that is speeding up toward the far right because of bad exposure to right wing propaganda.. I know .. because I was like this. You can't hide your political leaning. You may have progressive ideas, yes, but right now they are outshined by your views on feminism or the "woke" agenda

The ironic things is that you understand some of the problem patriarchy is creating, you just don't put 2 and 2 together as for you its feminists fault..

AND BECAUSE I WANT TO HELP YOU FOR ONCE:

Here is a crash course giving you a very short yet very clear definition of what sociology is.

And here is a crash course from the same author explaining you the scientificity of sociology.

If that's not enough here is an awesome video on "why sociology is a science" that sociology teachers in university uses, I think it has a good english translation

You will not get all the french references but its pretty fun to watch still

To sum up rapidely the beginning of the video (because its a serie of 3). The author talk about Popper's (a science philosopher) concept of "falciability" . Falsifiability can be defined as follows: a statement is falsifiable "if logic authorizes the existence of a statement or a series of statements of observation which are contradictory to it, that is to say, who would falsify it if they turn out to be true - Source

This is what I used for example to create a good theory for the entrance of Carrot in the crew. I created an hypothesis "Carrot will join after Wano" and statued the faciability of that theory as such: This theory will be proven wrong if Carrot doesn't join once we see the crew sail, at the very narrative end of the arc. Meaning the brief period of panel between the end and the start of a new arc.

As such I created Falciability which created a strong theory. That was indeed proven wrong as we all know.

This is how natural science work. For example: Einstein relativity could be proven wrong if something goes faster than light or the nature of our universe could be proven wrong if we discorer - idon't know - strings smaller than quarks.. etc.

But sociology doesn't work that way and this video will explain you why.

 

[Zenos7]

You deny the scientificity of science because of bias you have due to exposure to right wing and antiscientific propaganda

Eh, ive had plenty profs of natural sciences that didnt really consider social sciences as legit scientific.

Thats not necessarily linked to political views

 

[Logiko]

Eh, ive had plenty profs of natural sciences that didnt really consider social sciences as legit scientific.

Thats not necessarily linked to political views

Yeah.. There is a blind spot in the scientific community concerning social sciences and expecially sociology.

And you are right this is not related to politic (even if sometimes there can be correlations), this is basically due to the scientific nature of sociology. The third video (in french sadly) explain very well why this happens.

To resume that video shortly (with a chainsaw) :

The pure langage of mathematic (for example) can't exist in social sciences, simply because we are not datas, but human beings. Socio-historical concepts can't be reduces to pure variables like we can do in popperian science (what I explained in my previous post) simply because well.. they depend on an historical and sociological context.

The empiric vulnerability of those theories can't therefore be present in experimentation like well-known popperian sciences. The falciability comes from somewhere else :

The reasonnings in sociology are "analogic" (meaning establishing a link of ressemblance between two things) so they are much more flexible than regular science. The example used in the video in for example when a child call "Dog" everything with 4 legs before understanding what a dog really is. In the example the link of parentality "4 legs" bring the child to categorize (with an error) the animals. This is something that we all do. In new situations we mobilize what we have assimilated in different situation to adapt. Analogy in this context is the fact of recycling experiences to adapt to new situations. Analogy is therefore a "Natural reasonning"

And here is the difference with other science. When the mathematics are artificial reasonning and have a former langage, the social sciences have a natural reasonning with an analogical langage. But both are sciences meant to create more knowledge.

Therefore, in term of scientificity, sociology brings a comparizon and the methodical study of different contexts. We need to see science social concepts like tools than permit to sort socio-historical situations to give them a meaning by using every manner possible : Interview / Data sorting / Experiments / archivism etc.

There is a good analogy after in the middle of the video to really comprehend all of this (10:33)

But yeah. Certain (not the majority fortunatly) of hard core scientists like biologist (its often biologists --') take really badly the existence of the social science. Sometimes its because social sciences are less mathematical and more sociological so they see this as a step back, but most of the times its simply because of ignorance on sociology and other social sciences.

This is one of the problem we have in the sceptic community in France. "Zetetician" are so attached to hard science that they forget to check sociological context and are making a LOT of mistakes.

And of course, the right has everything to gain in letting Sociology be unknown by the public, because sociology is the foundation for BIG social changes. Changes that are met with BIG moral walls as we can see with our friend Bob.

To finish, a little quote of a scientist:

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/695759776752496640

 

[Bob74h]

Listen, its not my job to make you learn about science, just don't go propagate fallacious arguments.

I can say my belief in nazism
is a science does that make it so??

germans certainly thought so
but it's not true


your modern 2023 leftist poltitical beliefs are not a science no matter hard you want them to be so much like the nazis before you, You can just keep pretending that your disillusioned view of reality would be the reality but it's not no matter how many like minded schizo's tell you that their imaginary friend only they see is real

And to clarify im not saying im a nazi just saying that all groups think are right
it makes no difference when your group suggests the same

. Remember. What you think is left, is actually the right. So there is a big difference of treatment regarding that subject.

At which point were not even in the same reality anymore
were talking about entirely different concepts and words

you said it best here
the left to me describes anyone with the set of beliefs such as abortion,lgbt rights or whatever else
self id can be a factor too

like if somebody says they are femminist then they most likely share the same values as someone else being femminst


to think that yknow alot of the democratic politicians are actually on a different camp to you seems odd when they share the same beliefs generally and your reasoning seems flawed like they support capitalisms or whatever
like wouldt it make more sense to say they are just center left and your far left or vice versa ig, generally point being with the ideological beliefs being the same say for the communisms would it really be rational to say that are a entirely different group to you

There is no personal attack just descriptions of the situation. You deny the scientificity of science because of bias you have due to exposure to right wing and antiscientific propaganda. You are therefore bias.

I literally watch more left wing content
then right content

However, I try to watch equal numbers of both due to them being the only news source for poltitical news that aint corporate trash
plus it gives me both perspectives

aswell as the whole truth
Both sides will exclude information that looks bad for them for obvious self preservation reasons

You fit in the confusionnist mindset.

We been over this but there's no source for this belief system
Even googled it rn and nothing comes up on it

so just seems like you made it up

- It appeals to ultra nationalist

always found the nationalist argument kinda foolish coming leftists
you guys are the same that for years on end have made your rhetoric about apppealing to the black man,the gay man, the transgender woman and the white woman.

it's kinda ironic that enemy of a poltitical/racial sorta identify focus is the party of a identity focus based on your membership in a poltitical group called interactionists which just includes all the ''opressed'' groups that the left likes

dont really think alot of the guys, you would call far right have any real focus on nationalism
such as matt welsh or sharpiro or crowder


Tbh the whole far right term seems to just be a shaming term to be used on any person the left hates
if you can have a libertarian and like a white supremist both being in the same far right box by alot of your elk, I really dont think it's talking about a actual phenomenon when you consider how the term is often used

it's not like leftist or liberal
where it kinda describes a group that you can solidly pin down the values and beliefs of

Ig even the same for conservative/Right winger
Where you say yea they agree on gun rights and anti immigration or whatever else as like their set of values

- It denies the scientificity and the researches on the subject (which is what the far right sociology tends to do)

it's not like the case of flat earth thing where we literally have real photo's of the round earth

and besides these socialists can just be wrong, it's simple as that

there is no situation where you even explain how women having it rougher then men can even make sense
as a woman, you can have a man pay for what goods and desires you want where as a guy kinda have to man up and just do it yourself so you dont get help

That's just a example of it ofc
there's more like many more

you even agreed that men cant cry where women are allowed too to cry and have emotional support
like how you acknknowldge that and then come away thinking men are privileged assholes who have it way too easy

it's not at all consistent at all
it's like getting stabbed in the chest then saying there's no pain which just does not follow from the comment prior


it's a entirely opposite conclusion from the fact told which can be a result of insanity or sheer fucking ignorance
with you, it's the latter not the former as your not insane just biased towards your idealogy so you gonna ignore the facets of reality that arent in line with the belief

I dont really have a hardcore leaning one way or another
like if the left ie your side was correct on everything then id side with them cause ultimately my core values are truth and objectivity

im going to be real, I think leftism is a belief much like right wing politics
and if you choose to take those beliefs up as perceived fact to you then good on you ig but tbh it's like religion

it's like you gonna think your god is the real truth and everyone else is a sinner, like im not changing your mind you got intrinsic belief in whatever and nothing will change that
you can argue till your red in face but unless im to have that same religious belief, it's just going on death ears cause im not in that social sphere and there's no evidence that could prove that belief is right so im just going to not have a belief regardless


not to say liberals/leftists are the same as a belief in god, it's just analogy to explain how im to see it
im never gonna be a vote blue every election guy like you or vote red everytime guy

your that type of guy im not
I dont have that level of personal investment in this shit like you do not to say that is bad


Maybe you can disprove me one position in particular if evidence is sucifident
but yea going to doing something like that to cheering on my fav football team as you do is never going to be something possible for me

im too argumentive and skeptical

Wuat ?

just saying it's kinda ironic
despite your educated presentation

Im often able to debunk fairly easily

- It appeals to cognitives Bias

And you dont have cognitives bias
you spend pages arguing about your leftist beliefs with me for months really

Like we know each other for that long and you still hold the same same kinda views on everything
you really gonna tell that you arent biased in favor of femmisism or black lives matters group?


I would say the right wing is biased if that's the claim here and would say it's correct however it means nothing as like a own if your side ie the left is as equally bias

Here is a crash course giving you a very short yet very clear definition of what sociology is.


And here is a crash course from the same author explaining you the scientificity of sociology.

I have a understanding of both ideas

infact

The video is flawed
they argue that marganinzation happens to intersectional groups

And here's the thing, What legally or even socially makes any of these groups opressed

Am i opressed if im to like femboys like just right now went to screw a femboy
would you now say im a opressed person as compared to five seconds ago despite my character not changing at all in that time frame

like the only difference was the existence of me having sex, I didt tell anyone or anything
i just did it once and now passively exist as if it never occured would by intersectional logic would that make me opressed

you see how dumb this can get??


agreed with the video
on one thing such identities can influence how people interact with you or you to them vice versa but same is true with any other group

Didn't understand that one.

it's saying
since far right is being further to the right on the poltitical spectrum

wouldt a popular right wing talking point like gun rights be by definition not a far right talking point

Moral panics in politics are always bad reasons.

So it's bad to panic about mass shootings and use that as a excuse to ban guns?
yknow as the left does

A left leaning centrist

Idk anymore with you
Sometimes you say im a far right dude and right wing centrist now im a left wing one

I didt change all that much politically then to now so what's with the constant change in perception of my poltitical stance
like im to not get it

 

[Mathias]

I believe in the right to bare arms. But we should regulate it thoroughly and ban assault weapons.

Just ban them all. Ban them aaaaallll !!!!!

Post automatically merged: Jul 6, 2023

Talking about "fallacious arguments" and thinking that "the left is all virtue"

 

[Marine Piece]

Macron is the first to go from Centrist to Right
Let's see if he's a part of a trend of so called Centrists showing their true colors in europe

He was never a centrist to begin with

 

[Bisoromi Bear]

Eh, ive had plenty profs of natural sciences that didnt really consider social sciences as legit scientific.

Thats not necessarily linked to political views

Literally the first lecture in the history university course we were meant to collect arguments for why history is a science and why some people don't consider it a science.

Academia is filled with bias, tribalism and supremacy mindset it's so annoying

Also Bob not understanding what science is is just what I expected

 

[Logiko]

I can say my belief in nazism
is a science

You can try..

your modern 2023 leftist poltitical beliefs are not a science no matter hard you want them to be so much like the nazis before you, You can just keep pretending that your disillusioned view of reality would be the reality but it's not no matter how many like minded schizo's tell you that their imaginary friend only they see is real

And to clarify im not saying im a nazi just saying that all groups think are right
it makes no difference when your group suggests the same

Sure mate.. keep speaking about Nazi..

At which point were not even in the same reality anymore

My point exactly. Your political compass is broken

to think that yknow alot of the democratic politicians are actually on a different camp to you seems odd when they share the same beliefs generally

Let's take that to the extreme shall we. We both share the value that women should have the right of vote, right ?

Well here you go. We are far from each other on the political spetrum, still, we have both the same value on that specific subject. Which proves that no, you don't necessaraly have the same set of values when you are agreeing on a specific topic. That's why democrate are not leftist. They do share values of feminism, but there core value principle rely on the ideology of liberalism which uncompass individualistic value. Which are RIGHT WING values. (no judgments, that just the fact, as leftist values are the opposite)

like wouldt it make more sense to say they are just center left and your far left or vice versa ig, generally point being with the ideological beliefs being the same say for the communisms would it really be rational to say that are a entirely different group to you

Let me take you back to this little doodle that I made for , I don't know who..:

What I did here is a representation of the political spectrum. I'm sure we can both agree that there can only be two side, left and right (here bottom and top) so...

Here you have in dark blue the right wing, with the far right at the very bottom. And you get the Left wing at the top with the far left at the very top. In the very top you have communism and the very bottom you have fascism.

Well so. Each graph represent a person's beliefs each "points" are a specific subject (feminism/abortion/LGBTQ+ rights/economy etc.) as you can see, those data can vary for each person. In fact I haven't drawn it there but you could perfectly have a very leftist view while being at the center.. but its VERY UNLIKELY.

This is why you are the sum of your variable and values. And in that "median" there is no center. No.. Let me correct that, there is a center, but its IMPOSSIBLE TO HAVE EVERY VALUE AT THE CENTER. So you can't be centrist. The summary of your values will make you either a leftist, or rightist.

Of course I could say "you are a left centrist".. but it means nothing as centrist as no political value.

This is why I said that you may have progressive value, you still got a LOT more on the Right side (at the bottom here)

I literally watch more left wing content
then right content

Well this is good, it means that you are on the pass of deradicalizaion and luckley in a few years, you will be a leftist.

However, I try to watch equal numbers of both due to them being the only news source for poltitical news that aint corporate trash
plus it gives me both perspectives

Yeah.. I tried also the "I must read from both right wing and left wing media outlet"... Didn't work very well..

I suggest that you stop everything, follow an equal number of women and men scientist, some political leftist (I suggest for example some leftist youtubers) (and some of the center if you want), some sceptic... and you let that soup simmer down for one year or two in your feed.. TRust me, you will thanks me. The meal will be DELICIOUS.

Both sides will exclude information that looks bad for them for obvious self preservation reasons

Actually, there is one side that avoid informations for good reason, the others adds informations for bad reasons.

We been over this but there's no source for this belief system
Even googled it rn and nothing comes up on it

You need to understand that confusionnism is not a belief system. Its a militant concept that we all use in france (I'm just trying to popularize the word internationaly). It describe a real process : the process of confusing a discourse to appeal to a popular audience.

So technically yeah.. we made it up.. just like a lot of things in Europe lol

always found the nationalist argument kinda foolish coming leftists
you guys are the same that for years on end have made your rhetoric about apppealing to the black man,the gay man, the transgender woman and the white woman.

it's kinda ironic that enemy of a poltitical/racial sorta identify focus is the party of a identity focus based on your membership in a poltitical group called interactionists which just includes all the ''opressed'' groups that the left likes

Yeah.. I think you are confusing a big chunk of a lot of things here just to make a point about the left appealing to oppressed minorities..

Yeah we do, that's kind of our thing..

dont really think alot of the guys, you would call far right have any real focus on nationalism
such as matt welsh or sharpiro or crowder

Those guys are far beyong nationalism, they are crypto fascist..

Tbh the whole far right term seems to just be a shaming term to be used on any person the left hates

Again.... again... again... with the "you call X, everyone that disagree with you". .Mate.. Make an effort.

if you can have a libertarian and like a white supremist

I wouldn't put them in the same box or rather on the same wavelenght.. Liebrtarian are just for total freedom while white nationalist are pure fascist so..... not the thing here.. They are indeed far right but its not my fault if you have a lot of type of bigoted people on the right wing dude..

where it kinda describes a group that you can solidly pin down the values and beliefs of

Ig even the same for conservative/Right winger
Where you say yea they agree on gun rights and anti immigration or whatever else as like their set of values

SOrry I didn't understand

there is no situation where you even explain how women having it rougher then men can even make sense
as a woman, you can have a man pay for what goods and desires you want where as a guy kinda have to man up and just do it yourself so you dont get help

That's just a example of it ofc
there's more like many more

Here we go again with the sexist biases..

you even agreed that men cant cry where women are allowed too to cry and have emotional support
like how you acknknowldge that and then come away thinking men are privileged assholes who have it way too easy

See.. That precisely what I described.

You see that there is a problem with patriarchy (men CAN'T cry when they want to) and you don't put 2 and 2 together, you blame it on women and not patriarchy.

Dude.. Listen VERY C.A.R.E.F.U.L.Y:

1. Patriarchy is the system of women being oppressed by the power of men.

2. Patriarchy act on both women AND men

3. Patriarchy doesn't mean that men are evil oppressors

4. Patriarchy is a systemic problem (its out of ones control)

5. Patriarchy TRAPS MEN TOO. (for example men are taught not to cry)

--

Is that UNDERSTOOD? Are you reassured ?

If no.. I don't know what to tell you, if yes.. we are moving on a bit.

if the left ie your side was correct on everything then id side with them cause ultimately my core values are truth and objectivity

No you would not. Just as it took me YEARS to become a leftist coming from a right wing conspirationnist background. It takes TIME to deradicalize oneself. (I say deradicalize as for me, the right is a form of radicalization of our mindset and biases - the left and the right are not equal in value for me)

im going to be real, I think leftism is a belief much like right wing politics
and if you choose to take those beliefs up as perceived fact to you then good on you ig but tbh it's like religion

No dude. There is so many things wrong with that sentence, but it would take me another thread so.. just no dude..

not to say liberals/leftists are the same as a belief in god

Yeah.. you lost me here..

And you dont have cognitives bias
you spend pages arguing about your leftist beliefs with me for months really

Dude.. I have a LOT of cognitive bias. The only difference with you it that I don't deny their existence. I work EVERYDAY on them:

Like I told you, I'm always connected to scientific sources, left wing field militantism, neutral (as possible) news outlets and especially women, a LOT of women.

And it changes EVERYTHING.

Just try this on twitter: create a new account and follow 100 individual:

- 10 hardscience scientists (cosmologist/biologist/astrophysician)
- 10 softscience scientists (Historian, Sociologist, anthropology etc..)
- 5 sceptics (try to be careful that they are not too right leaning)
- 5 Healthcare influencer (1 psychiatrist (not a psychanalyst)/one doctor and three invisibly disabled infuencer)
- 10 influencal centrist
- 10 influencal REAL leftist
- 5 hardscience youtubers
- 5 Soft science youtuber
- 5 Lgbtq+influencer
- 1 as neutral as possible news outlet (an national news agency for exemple)
- And have fun with the rest. (youtubers / Fun/Game influencer/cat videos etc.)

AND CAREFUL, you must ABSOLUTELY have a rule: You must have the SAME number of WOMEN & MEN (societies don't count)

Use this secondary account with your primary one and try to put some time on it. Trust me, after one year, you will sence a difference of point of view. Your vision of the left will shift drastically.

Come on .. try it, just to prove me wrong at least.

im too argumentive and skeptical

Well.. prove me wrong.

Like we know each other for that long and you still hold the same same kinda views on everything

Actually no. Since we met on those thread, I became even more radical. Not far leftist radical, but now that I have a fair understanding of sociology, well... yea.. I'm pissed nowadays.

Am i opressed if im to like femboys like just right now went to screw a femboy
would you now say im a opressed person as compared to five seconds ago despite my character not changing at all in that time frame

Wuat ?

like the only difference was the existence of me having sex, I didt tell anyone or anything
i just did it once and now passively exist as if it never occured would by intersectional logic would that make me opressed

Wuat ?? Wh .. why are you talking about having sex.. you lost me

it's saying
since far right is being further to the right on the poltitical spectrum

wouldt a popular right wing talking point like gun rights be by definition not a far right talking point

Well.. If we talk about the US, the right wing is on the democrate side, the right wing is all far right lol. They are kinda screwing themself in fact..

So it's bad to panic about mass shootings and use that as a excuse to ban guns?

If it blinds you to statistical truth and make you spread the guns even more.. yeah.

Idk anymore with you
Sometimes you say im a far right dude and right wing centrist now im a left wing one

I didt change all that much politically then to now so what's with the constant change in perception of my poltitical stance
like im to not get it

Sometimes you say im a far right dude and right wing centrist now im a left wing one

I don't remember calling you a far right what I usually say is that your DISCOURSE is far right, not you. For me you are a confusionnist. that could lean toward the left but is in fact attracted to right wing propaganda.

Trust me, do the twitter thing today. And you will thanks me in a month or two.

 

[Mathias]

Macron is the first to go from Centrist to Right
Let's see if he's a part of a trend of so called Centrists showing their true colors in europe

He was only loved by foreigners because they kept comparing Trump with him with the famous "look at this young liberal leader"...

He's not just simple a right-winger, he's voting laws with the far-right at the National Assembly. And he ain't the first European leader who went right very much right. Italy for instance chose that path too. Neo-liberals thought that they'd better rule with the far-right than with the M5S.

Neoliberals can no more whine about their beloved "horseshoe theory" when they're the ones who put the fascist in power.

 

[Toby D. Dog]

He was only loved by foreigners because they kept comparing Trump with him with the famous "look at this young liberal leader"...

He's not just simple a right-winger, he's voting laws with the far-right at the National Assembly. And he ain't the first European leader who went right very much right. Italy for instance chose that path too. Neo-liberals thought that they'd better rule with the far-right than with the M5S.

Neoliberals can no more whine about their beloved "horseshoe theory" when they're the ones who put the fascist in power.

I guess Pedro Sanchez is the best European head of state currently.

 

[Logiko]

Italy for instance chose that path too

They directly elected a fascist..
Faster

I guess Pedro Sanchez is the best European head of state currently.

Who is that ?

 

[Toby D. Dog]

Who is that ?

So you’re French and you don’t know who Pedro Sanchez is? Concerning.

 

[Mathias]

So you’re French and you don’t know who Pedro Sanchez is? Concerning.

I swear, he isn't even newly elected

 

[Logiko]

So you’re French and you don’t know who Pedro Sanchez is? Concerning.

I don't know about a LOT of things.

 

[Toby D. Dog]

I swear, he isn't even newly elected

I think he already started a second term.

Post automatically merged: Jul 6, 2023

I don't know about a LOT of things.

Bro, you at least need to know who’s the president of Spain. It’s a neighboring country ffs. I don’t ever want to hear it from people calling Americans dumb. At the very least not this American.

 

[Marine Piece]

I think he already started a second term.

Post automatically merged: Jul 6, 2023

Bro, you at least need to know who’s the president of Spain. It’s a neighboring country ffs. I don’t ever want to hear it from people calling Americans dumb. At the very least not this American.

Nah

 

[Logiko]

Bro, you at least need to know who’s the president of Spain. It’s a neighboring country ffs.

Yes Mommy

 

[Toby D. Dog]

Nah

Elaborate.

 

[Marine Piece]

Elaborate.

He is not in a second term

 

[Toby D. Dog]

He is not in a second term

He started in 2018 right? I guess terms just work different there.