Controversial General Political Discussion
- Thread starter AL sama
- Start date
- Tags #freepalestine are you having fun al? are you having van al? dei has never hurt anyone you jackass dei must go gaolang > your fav hi rej hi rejj hi rejjj 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 watch for haters weebs discussing politics lmao worst thread ever
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
[automerge]1737593683[/automerge]
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
[automerge]1737593683[/automerge]
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:
This comment would be relevant if it wasn't funny because of the context of what I've been saying and actually arguing in this thread:
Being the actual biases in scientific researches and the importance of placing ethics in both the vulgarization and the development of the scientific practice. ( literally defended the ideas that the practice of science was in itself fundamentally NOT objective FOR WEEKS in front of people here sometimes insulting my intelligence and thinking that we should not place politics in science "to keep it's results objectives and unbaised" which literally contradicts social studies on the importance of questionning our relationship to the scientific practice to make better and more inclusive researchs.
But go ahead.. tell me that I don't understand what I'm talking about
What you do not understand ( because let's be honest, you never cared to take a look at leftism activism), is that me doing the researches here, is only the TIP of the iceberg of my politicization.
In reality, the majority of my knowledge of social science comes from scientists themselves EXPLAINING their scientific studies and people with a lot more scientific and political knowledge than me peeling off the core principles of those studies in order to vulgarize them.
What the majority of you don't get (and yet it is something that I kept on repeating again and again). Is that I'm not the one with the real knowledge. I'm only the one repeating it.
This knowledge has been studied, then explained by scientists, then vulgarized by researchers and people with scientific background, then analyzed by political influencers and/or writers, THEN this knowledge was shared to people like me and I'm only repeating something that everybody in my political field already know, has observed and take for granted.
Do you feel like social studies started in 2010 or what ?
You are talking about me being completely lost on social studies but I know that if I start to talk about notions like capitals, anti-meritocracy or post-colonialism you guys will laugh and start to speak Klingon.
You really have a blind spot. But this is common with people coming from natural sciences thinking that they understand perfectly the political spectrum
Being the actual biases in scientific researches and the importance of placing ethics in both the vulgarization and the development of the scientific practice. ( literally defended the ideas that the practice of science was in itself fundamentally NOT objective FOR WEEKS in front of people here sometimes insulting my intelligence and thinking that we should not place politics in science "to keep it's results objectives and unbaised" which literally contradicts social studies on the importance of questionning our relationship to the scientific practice to make better and more inclusive researchs.
But go ahead.. tell me that I don't understand what I'm talking about
What you do not understand ( because let's be honest, you never cared to take a look at leftism activism), is that me doing the researches here, is only the TIP of the iceberg of my politicization.
In reality, the majority of my knowledge of social science comes from scientists themselves EXPLAINING their scientific studies and people with a lot more scientific and political knowledge than me peeling off the core principles of those studies in order to vulgarize them.
What the majority of you don't get (and yet it is something that I kept on repeating again and again). Is that I'm not the one with the real knowledge. I'm only the one repeating it.
This knowledge has been studied, then explained by scientists, then vulgarized by researchers and people with scientific background, then analyzed by political influencers and/or writers, THEN this knowledge was shared to people like me and I'm only repeating something that everybody in my political field already know, has observed and take for granted.
Do you feel like social studies started in 2010 or what ?
You are talking about me being completely lost on social studies but I know that if I start to talk about notions like capitals, anti-meritocracy or post-colonialism you guys will laugh and start to speak Klingon.
You really have a blind spot. But this is common with people coming from natural sciences thinking that they understand perfectly the political spectrum
This comment would be relevant if it wasn't funny because of the context of what I've been saying and actually arguing in this thread:
Being the actual biases in scientific researches and the importance of placing ethics in both the vulgarization and the development of the scientific practice. ( literally defended the ideas that the practice of science was in itself fundamentally NOT objective FOR WEEKS in front of people here sometimes insulting my intelligence and thinking that we should not place politics in science "to keep it's results objectives and unbaised" which literally contradicts social studies on the importance of questionning our relationship to the scientific practice to make better and more inclusive researchs.
But go ahead.. tell me that I don't understand what I'm talking about
What you do not understand ( because let's be honest, you never cared to take a look at leftism activism), is that me doing the researches here, is only the TIP of the iceberg of my politicization.
In reality, the majority of my knowledge of social science comes from scientists themselves EXPLAINING their scientific studies and people with a lot more scientific and political knowledge than me peeling off the core principles of those studies in order to vulgarize them.
What the majority of you don't get (and yet it is something that I kept on repeating again and again). Is that I'm not the one with the real knowledge. I'm only the one repeating it.
This knowledge has been studied, then explained by scientists, then vulgarized by researchers and people with scientific background, then analyzed by political influencers and/or writers, THEN this knowledge was shared to people like me and I'm only repeating something that everybody in my political field already know, has observed and take for granted.
Do you feel like social studies started in 2010 or what ?
You are talking about me being completely lost on social studies but I know that if I start to talk about notions like capitals, anti-meritocracy or post-colonialism you guys will laugh and start to speak Klingon.
You really have a blind spot. But this is common with people coming from natural sciences thinking that they understand perfectly the political spectrum
Being the actual biases in scientific researches and the importance of placing ethics in both the vulgarization and the development of the scientific practice. ( literally defended the ideas that the practice of science was in itself fundamentally NOT objective FOR WEEKS in front of people here sometimes insulting my intelligence and thinking that we should not place politics in science "to keep it's results objectives and unbaised" which literally contradicts social studies on the importance of questionning our relationship to the scientific practice to make better and more inclusive researchs.
But go ahead.. tell me that I don't understand what I'm talking about
What you do not understand ( because let's be honest, you never cared to take a look at leftism activism), is that me doing the researches here, is only the TIP of the iceberg of my politicization.
In reality, the majority of my knowledge of social science comes from scientists themselves EXPLAINING their scientific studies and people with a lot more scientific and political knowledge than me peeling off the core principles of those studies in order to vulgarize them.
What the majority of you don't get (and yet it is something that I kept on repeating again and again). Is that I'm not the one with the real knowledge. I'm only the one repeating it.
This knowledge has been studied, then explained by scientists, then vulgarized by researchers and people with scientific background, then analyzed by political influencers and/or writers, THEN this knowledge was shared to people like me and I'm only repeating something that everybody in my political field already know, has observed and take for granted.
Do you feel like social studies started in 2010 or what ?
You are talking about me being completely lost on social studies but I know that if I start to talk about notions like capitals, anti-meritocracy or post-colonialism you guys will laugh and start to speak Klingon.
You really have a blind spot. But this is common with people coming from natural sciences thinking that they understand perfectly the political spectrum
Someone close to rightist progressist liberalism that uses confusionnism to attack your leftists and rightists political opponents.
You are someone with a good knowledge of political history and economy overall (even better than me in many aspects) but you refuses to take a good look at the reality of the world and prefer the easy way by functionning in term of "human are like X or humans are like Y".
You know the system is rigged, you know capitalism is bad, but somehow along the way, you stopped dreaming or believing and you started to look at humanity with fatalism. You are now essentializing our behavior with a lot of cynicism thus preventing yourself from actually questionning your own biases that can be seen as you reproducing the marginalization of the system on those who try to fight it thus maintaining the status co. (like me questionning the current system that is the forum, and you laughing at that, not understanding the problem)
I won't lie, you are the most interesting person on this thread beside my leftist buddies here. Hence why I'm very frustrated by you constantly ignoring basic observations.
You seems to have big biases concerning social studies and the words of thoses who are directly affected by the different systems of oppressions I have been talking about. Maybe you saw some leftists go too far and scream too hard things they did not really understand (they do exist), but you are now confusing that vision of leftism (that is a vision heavily influenced by what the far right has been promoting in the last decade) with my methodology that is - granted - confrontationnal, but that is rooted HEAVILY, in factual datas, studies, scientific vulgarization, scientific and political theories and the voice of the concerned including me.
What i'm saying is not new, it's not my thoughts, it's things that areshared massively by what we call radical leftists (at least in France). I'm touching subjects that are deep in term of level of political understanding (I mean, I talked about penal abolitionnism and it is something even some radical leftists do not accept or understand), so yeah, I can understand how this can be challenging for most people and how it can create conflicts.
But you are confusing my method and my knowledge which makes you delegitimizing my knowledge based on my method.
You can hate the method. I wouldn't mind and this would actually be challenging for me. But not what I'm actually saying.
That's how I see you based on our interactions.
You are someone with a good knowledge of political history and economy overall (even better than me in many aspects) but you refuses to take a good look at the reality of the world and prefer the easy way by functionning in term of "human are like X or humans are like Y".
You know the system is rigged, you know capitalism is bad, but somehow along the way, you stopped dreaming or believing and you started to look at humanity with fatalism. You are now essentializing our behavior with a lot of cynicism thus preventing yourself from actually questionning your own biases that can be seen as you reproducing the marginalization of the system on those who try to fight it thus maintaining the status co. (like me questionning the current system that is the forum, and you laughing at that, not understanding the problem)
I won't lie, you are the most interesting person on this thread beside my leftist buddies here. Hence why I'm very frustrated by you constantly ignoring basic observations.
You seems to have big biases concerning social studies and the words of thoses who are directly affected by the different systems of oppressions I have been talking about. Maybe you saw some leftists go too far and scream too hard things they did not really understand (they do exist), but you are now confusing that vision of leftism (that is a vision heavily influenced by what the far right has been promoting in the last decade) with my methodology that is - granted - confrontationnal, but that is rooted HEAVILY, in factual datas, studies, scientific vulgarization, scientific and political theories and the voice of the concerned including me.
What i'm saying is not new, it's not my thoughts, it's things that areshared massively by what we call radical leftists (at least in France). I'm touching subjects that are deep in term of level of political understanding (I mean, I talked about penal abolitionnism and it is something even some radical leftists do not accept or understand), so yeah, I can understand how this can be challenging for most people and how it can create conflicts.
But you are confusing my method and my knowledge which makes you delegitimizing my knowledge based on my method.
You can hate the method. I wouldn't mind and this would actually be challenging for me. But not what I'm actually saying.
That's how I see you based on our interactions.
Birthright citizenship has been a staple in the Americas as a whole. Only country who doesn't have it is Colombia for a strange reason. Doesn't change the fact that it is at the very core of our history. Ignoring such a simple fact truly shows how little this new government understands about their grandparents or great-grandparents who came here with nothing, yet this country welcomed them and gave them a second chance.
Inaccurate by definiton but ok. What is right wing? What is progressism? And what is liberalism? What kind of liberal are you saying I am since there are like 5? And official definitions would be nice.
If saying there has never been a utopia in recorded human history is denying reality then ok....
You assume I gave up or had hope in the first place? Telling things how it is means giving up now?
Whaddaya mean "our"? You're still using yourself to represent a collective.
And this is a weeb forum focusing on escapism. Majority don't give a shit about real world politics and want a break from the real world, yet you want to force politics on them. You have better luck trying to force a guy to wok on his vacation.
Why thank you.
You assume again why?
Still assuming.
It is your opinion influenced by others. No matter how you try to hide behind unoffical sources, it doesn't mask your opinions. Your still have to believe them to push them, even if they contradict universal language and definitions.
No I'm talking you using terms wrong by definition, acting as if unofficial sources override universal facts and definitions. Also only caring about sources that validates your political agenda, which is confirmation bias. This same method was happily used to push racial inequality.
If saying there has never been a utopia in recorded human history is denying reality then ok....
You assume I gave up or had hope in the first place? Telling things how it is means giving up now?
Whaddaya mean "our"? You're still using yourself to represent a collective.
And this is a weeb forum focusing on escapism. Majority don't give a shit about real world politics and want a break from the real world, yet you want to force politics on them. You have better luck trying to force a guy to wok on his vacation.
Why thank you.
You assume again why?
Still assuming.
It is your opinion influenced by others. No matter how you try to hide behind unoffical sources, it doesn't mask your opinions. Your still have to believe them to push them, even if they contradict universal language and definitions.
No I'm talking you using terms wrong by definition, acting as if unofficial sources override universal facts and definitions. Also only caring about sources that validates your political agenda, which is confirmation bias. This same method was happily used to push racial inequality.
Also with english personally I can choose to speak a certainnway or put words a certain way because I think it would be better even if it's not gramatically correct,
[automerge]1737617448[/automerge]
Uncle Van I would like to say three things
First, that monkey is incredible
Second, my first profile picture was a monkey too
Third, please Ravager, Zenos and Uncle Van, can I ask you to a watch a video that's around 40 minutes?
[automerge]1737617448[/automerge]
Uncle Van I would like to say three things
First, that monkey is incredible
Second, my first profile picture was a monkey too
Third, please Ravager, Zenos and Uncle Van, can I ask you to a watch a video that's around 40 minutes?
Last edited:
Feel free to point out any flaws anytime, improvement is always welcome. By the way I wouldn't say that Logiko and I are at the same level, that seems like a fallacy on your part.
I don't cuck myself to any billionaire, it's just your flawed perception making you think that agreeing with them on some topic means that I'd literally let them fuck me in the ass.
I don't cuck myself to any billionaire, it's just your flawed perception making you think that agreeing with them on some topic means that I'd literally let them fuck me in the ass.