***Official Political Discussion Thread***

[elpablo21]

Got some catching up to do

 

[osh kosh bosh]

going down with the ship I see.

don't say I didn't warn you.

 

[osh kosh bosh]

You said In the future you will be proven right, and I will act like I never said anything....




I asked for previous examples of me doing this, because previous behavior should inform about future behavior

And you really could not do it

So you were making the accusation about ME specifically, so I dunno why you want to act like you were not taking a shot at me.

fine I will concede, I was wrong of all the posters in here, you are by far the least likely to do that.
my frustration relates more to how most people in this thread and I misdirected it to you.

Do you want me to concede that ideological pressure played a part in the bad outcomes in Tavisstock, sure I have no problem admitting that given the new evidence. But my position now like it was back then, was talking about how things can do bad as far as treating trans youth in the absence of ideology. Not just outright dismissing the claimed ideology played a part. I said at the time neither I nor you know the ideological leanings. And you were ignoring other factors that undercut your argument, and still do, that there were structural problems other than ideological pressure with the clinic and trans activist wanted it closed

Yes this is what I wanted a concession on. as imo this was the primary disagreement.
obviously I agree there are other factors influencing this issue.
ideology is a factor and yes privatised health care in US is a factor.

 

[dacomeup]

if i was reactionary to progressivism, I would be reflexively opposed to progressivism.

What is this rule based on? It’s not true at all

 

[osh kosh bosh]

What is this rule based on? It’s not true at all

unless you have a private definition of reactionary it is true.

even the dictionary definition.
"the word reactionary describes points of view and policies meant to restore a past status quo ante"

or

"the reactionary stance opposes policies for the social transformation of society, whereas conservatives seek to preserve the socio-economic structure and order that exists in the present.[2] In popular usage, reactionary refers to a strong traditionalist conservative political perspective of a person opposed to social, political, and economic change.[3][4]"

neither of which describes me.

you just don't agree with me, which is fine,
but for some reason you feel the need to turn into some defect when my reasoning is defective or somehow fraudulent.

 

[1995]

yeah on this, I don't take that stance on every opinion.

just a small very select topics where I've read and done a lot of research on. and the evidence is clear.


people don't want to debate on the merits, because it's not particularly close.
its not like a close thing that can go either way. it's simply true. there is no settled scientific consensus on gender identity.

Which is why I said "on these topics"...not sure why you keep trying to point to other discussions where you behave differently

And you're still missing what I was trying to point out

You think people don't want to engage because your position is bulletproof...okay

What I'm saying is that there could possibly maaaaaybe be other reasons why people aren't eager for a back and forth with you

 

[gry60]

while bias has changed over time, it is still separate from what is a established fact rather than societal norm

The fact that men are generally stronger than women doesn't mean that the weakest man is stronger than the strongest woman. Statistically valid conclusions don't apply to every individual. Unfortunately, this is a misconception that is still used to advance certain ideas about how to structure society.

and there are some intersex people who are neither male nor female. they fit into neither category.

Not because of the absence of male/female markers, but because what they have cannot indicate a clear distinction between the male and female extremes. In other words, they sit somewhere in the middle.

If it ain't digital, it's analog...

 

[dacomeup]

unless you have a private definition of reactionary it is true.

But I don’t think you have a broad set of reactionary politics. I think that on certain progressive issues you are reflexively reactionary — and you’ve literally stated as much going back to how your co-worker triggered you.

 

[osh kosh bosh]

Which is why I said "on these topics"...not sure why you keep trying to point to other discussions where you behave differently

And you're still missing what I was trying to point out

You think people don't want to engage because your position is bulletproof...okay

What I'm saying is that there could possibly maaaaaybe be other reasons why people aren't eager for a back and forth with you

I don't know what you're getting out just be clear.


People are quite willing to have long back and forths with the dumbest NT conservatives and Purley bad faith operators like Ninjahood.


But they draw the line here.? I think the likeliest explanation is they don't have good arguments against.

 

[osh kosh bosh]

The fact that men are generally stronger than women doesn't mean that the weakest man is stronger than the strongest woman. Statistically valid conclusions don't apply to every individual. Unfortunately, this is a misconception that is still used to advance certain ideas about how to structure society.


Not because of the absence of male/female markers, but because what they have cannot indicate a clear distinction between the male and female extremes. In other words, they sit somewhere in the middle.

If it ain't digital, it's analog..

There is no middle there are no "extremes" there is not "extreme" system of small gamate production or extreme system large gamate production. There are just two discrete catagories.


Again does a person with one leg sit in the middle of a.spectrue of homo sapien? No.

Does a hairy man sit on a spectrum between ape and human.


Having something that's doesn't fit into a catagorie doesn't mean the catagory doesn't exist. Or instantly make it a spectrum.

There is not 3rd sex. You can be either male or female. Or both (in the case of hermaphrodites) or neither. That's it.

 

[osh kosh bosh]

But I don’t think you have a broad set of reactionary politics. I think that on certain progressive issues you are reflexively reactionary — and you’ve literally stated as much going back to how your co-worker triggered you.

1. Yes when people say untrue things that I disagree with I find that annoying and I disagree with them.

What you are describing is a disagreement. Not reactionaryism.

Are you a reactionary against consertives? Or do you simply disagree?

2. That story is exaggerated for comedic effects, there are lots of progressives saying dumb this that I disagree with. And 90% of the time they say smart things I agree with.

Basically what you are saying is you must have 100% ideolgical agreement with progressives other wise you are a reactionary.

It obviously doesn't make any sense.

Just say you disagree it's fine.

 

[dacomeup]

Basically what you are saying is you must have 100% ideolgical agreement with progressives other wise you are a reactionary.

That’s not what I’m saying though. But given the definition I’m willing to concede that it doesn’t fully encapsulate your general stance on “progressive issues”. But exaggerated or not, the progressive stance did set you off in the example given. again, these were your words

 

[osh kosh bosh]

That’s not what I’m saying though. But given the definition I’m willing to concede that it doesn’t fully encapsulate your general stance

Deray McKesson is an activist who does and engages in a lot of activist language that I think is a little annoying and a bit silly.

But yet I think his 8 can't wait camping was a brilliant approach to police reform and I think he's doing great work on this front. I've said that multiple times in multiple threads.

If I was a reactionary surly he would be a perfect target.

Yet somehow I don't do that. I can seperate the things I find annoying vs the facts of the matter as it relates to police violence.


It's mostly other people who want to flatten my opiniona into this cartoon reactionary

"omg he wants to just give all police more money indiscriminately!!!"

Which is not true and has never been true.

 

[dacomeup]

It's mostly other people who want to flatten my opiniona into this cartoon reactionary

"omg he wants to just give all police more money indiscriminately!!!"

I think this is an attempt to gloss over a lot of the nuance of the convos that have happened over time in this thread. You became the butt of jokes because you have consistently pushed more police funding, when we already live in the most overfunded policd state in the world, which has proven to not be effective, and you have a certain smugness about this stance being THE correct stance, despite observable reality, lived experience and data to the contrary.

Boiling it down to you just want all police to get more money indiscriminately is exactly what you don’t like people to do to you, so it’s just funny to see you do the same here.

 

[osh kosh bosh]

I think this is an attempt to gloss over a lot of the nuance of the convos that have happened over time in this thread. You became the butt of jokes because you have consistently pushed more police funding, when we already live in the most overfunded policd state in the world, which has proven to not be effective, and you have a certain smugness about this stance being THE correct stance, despite observable reality, lived experience and data to the contrary.

Boiling it down to you just want all police to get more money indiscriminately is exactly what you don’t like people to do to you, so it’s just funny to see you do the same here.

No. That's literally what people keep saying over and over again in multiple threads even sports and I keep having to correct them.

Nobody brings up this broader nuance, it's stated as fact and anyone who is not read into this thread just takes it as fact.


So let's not pretend like it's me flattening the nuance.

 

[dacomeup]

No. That's literally what people keep saying over and over again in multiple threads even sports and I keep having to correct them.

Nobody brings up this broader nuance, it's stated as fact and anyone who is not read into this thread just takes it as fact.


So let's not pretend like it's me flattening the nuance.

you’re legit trying to flatten the nuance right now .

 

[osh kosh bosh]

I think this is an attempt to gloss over a lot of the nuance of the convos that have happened over time in this thread. You became the butt of jokes because you have consistently pushed more police funding, when we already live in the most overfunded policd state in the world, which has proven to not be effective, and you have a certain smugness about this stance being THE correct stance, despite observable reality, lived experience and data to the contrary.

This is my problem right here this is not true. It's just plainly not true. You can call me a jerk for pointing it out but it's not true.

It is simply not true that america spends wildly more police compared to peer countries.

It's middle.of the pack

We can have a conversation about police funding without misrepresenting the facts at hand.

We can come to different conclusions about what to do. But let's not make stuff up.

 

[osh kosh bosh]

you’re legit trying to flatten the nuance right now .

No I'm describing what is happening. When someone in a thread about video games says. Don't listen to him he wants to just give police more money.

You can call it a joke but it's purposely removing the nuance. I'm describing what is happening.

Obviously the actual argument is more nuanced but this nuance is ignored when people constantly repeat lies about what I said.

 

[dacomeup]

This is my problem right here this is not true. It's just plainly not true. You can call me a jerk for pointing it out but it's not true.

It is simply not true that america spends wildly more police compared to peer countries.

It's middle.of the pack

We can have a conversation about police funding without misrepresenting the facts at hand.

We can come to different conclusions about what to do. But let's not make stuff up.

Can concede that. But in context of the issues concerning policing in the US that correction doesn’t do anything to make the issues around police violence/brutality here look any better, IMO.

 

[osh kosh bosh]

Can concede that. But in context of the issues concerning policing in the US that correction doesn’t do anything to make the issues around police violence/brutality here look any better, IMO.

The point I've always made about defund the police is the budget is a red herring. Better police costs more money. reform costs money.
reducing police would cost you more money. just to get the police union to go along with it.

the specific budget is a red herring

and online activist were sending around just plainly untrue things to get people to support it.
so I corrected it..

if im a reactionary, im a reactionary against untrue things.

we can disagree about what reforms are best, but we shouldn't lie to people that reducing the budget = reform.

 

[dacomeup]

The point I've always made about defund the police is the budget is a red herring. Better police costs more money. reform costs money.
reducing police would cost you more money. just to get the police union to go along with it.

The point that has been hammered home countless times here is that the money should be spent elsewhere, social services/programs, mental health, etc., and diverted from police departments. Especially when violent crime pales in comparison to what it did in the tough on crime era. Pointing out that it would cost to get the police union to go with it doesn’t really have the effect that you want here, IMO. It illuminates how the current system of policing does not function in a way that’s beneficial for the populace.

I really can’t speak to whatever online social activists have upset you

 

[osh kosh bosh]

The point that has been hammered home countless times here is that the money should be spent elsewhere, social services/programs, mental health, etc., and diverted from police departments. Especially when violent crime pales in comparison to what it did in the tough on crime era. Pointing out that it would cost to get the police union to go with it doesn’t really have the effect that you want here, IMO. It illuminates how the current system of policing does not function in a way that’s beneficial for the populace.

I really can’t speak to whatever online social activists have upset you

EDIT:

You know what man, I'm not gunna relitigate this with you

You started this by calling me smugly opposed to data and reality and

then paired with a totally fake made up statistic.


I think you should take the L. On this

But again if I can't convince I guess I can't.

 

[Nike Jordan]

 

[TooOlfForThisIsh]

finally getting to watch other people argue for once.

That didn’t last long…

 

[dragicon]

I dunno what y'all bother engaging with osh kosh bosh on this subject.

He mainly wants to rant about progressives, that's it.

I saw this post… then I saw 100 posts of osh kosh bosh and RustyShackleford going back and forth