Right Wing Grifters

splinter65

20Cent wrote: »

I'd take the persons word for it and assume they know more about it than me.

You mean your quite happy to accept an opinion as long as that opinion fits your ideology.
If it doesn’t then they’re wrong.
Can you not see that in yourself at all?

CtevenSrowder

20Cent wrote: »

I'd take the persons word for it and assume they know more about it than me.

You may be best just extending this to things in general.

CtevenSrowder

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

You may be best just extending this to things in general.

Haha..BURN!!!..

MysticalRain

20Cent wrote: »

I'd take the persons word for it and assume they know more about it than me.

Same logic could be applied to anti-vaxers.

20Cent

splinter65 wrote: »

You mean your quite happy to accept an opinion as long as that opinion fits your ideology.
If it doesn’t then they’re wrong.
Can you not see that in yourself at all?

No if someone tells me they are male or female I'd believe them not tell them they are wrong.

Lefty Bicek

20Cent wrote: »

No if someone tells me they are male or female I'd believe them not tell them they are wrong.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NFwP2huyNzg

20Cent

20Cent wrote: »

No if someone tells me they are male or female I'd believe them not tell them they are wrong.

And if someone white said they were black, would you believe them too?

Or if an anorexic said they were too fat, would you agree with them?

Just wondering where your complete and unquestioning acceptance of other people's reality ends.

Is it when their reality isn't aligned with your own personal biases?

SaintLeibowitz

20Cent wrote: »

Sorry dude.
But the arrogance and ego required to tell another human being that they are wrong about their own identity and you know better than them is so astounding it takes galaxy size ignorance to pull off. Hopefully that's how they took it as well they are probably used to it.

It's called the Dunning-kruger effect.

Lefty Bicek

SaintLeibowitz wrote: »

It's called the Dunning-kruger effect.

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=111829727&postcount=583

SaintLeibowitz

SaintLeibowitz wrote: »

It's called the Dunning-kruger effect.

It's not actually.

It's called being able to have an adult conversation where you listen to people who disagree with you and put forth your own opinions in a mutually respectful manner.

SaintLeibowitz

[Deleted User] wrote: »

It's not actually.

It's called being able to have an adult conversation where you listen to people who disagree with you and put forth your own opinions in a mutually respectful manner.

Nope. Dunning-kruger effect in this case.

20Cent

[Deleted User] wrote: »

And if someone white said they were black, would you believe them too?

Or if an anorexic said they were too fat, would you agree with them?

Just wondering where your complete and unquestioning acceptance of other people's reality ends.

Is it when their reality isn't aligned with your own personal biases?

But what if.........
FFS boring.

A doctor with a PhD wouldn't diagnose someone or make claims about them after just meeting but a dumbass who has read a few grifter blogs thinks he's an expert will pontificate away.

The problem with stupid people is they are too stupid to even know how stupid they are.

Lefty Bicek

20Cent wrote: »

But what if.........
FFS boring.

A doctor with a PhD wouldn't diagnose someone or make claims about them after just meeting but a dumbass who has read a few grifter blogs thinks he's an expert will pontificate away.

The problem with stupid people is they are too stupid to even know how stupid they are.

DUNNING-KRUGER !

20Cent

20Cent wrote: »

The problem with stupid people is they are too stupid to even know how stupid they are.

This is the funniest post I've ever seen on boards..

C'mon.. admit it..

This whole thread is a wind-up..

20Cent

20Cent wrote: »

But what if.........
FFS boring.

A doctor with a PhD wouldn't diagnose someone or make claims about them after just meeting but a dumbass who has read a few grifter blogs thinks he's an expert will pontificate away.

The problem with stupid people is they are too stupid to even know how stupid they are.

Sorry 20cent, take away the what it's if you want, but please tell me when your unquestioning acceptance of other realities end? Does it only apply to gender?

Your lack of self awareness when referring to stupidity when you seem to hold the belief that you need a PhD to know there are definite differences between biological men and women... Amazing.

sabat

20Cent wrote: »

But what if.........
FFS boring.

A doctor with a PhD wouldn't diagnose someone or make claims about them after just meeting but a dumbass who has read a few grifter blogs thinks he's an expert will pontificate away.

The problem with stupid people is they are too stupid to even know how stupid they are.

PhD means doctor of philosophy.

sabat

sabat wrote: »

PhD means doctor of philosophy.

Hahahahaha

KyussB

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

You seem to be arguing against the deplatforming of cranks, reactionaries, frauds, and fascists, on the grounds that it will suppress critical/leftist/anti-corporate voices?

When has the latter never not been the norm?

Sort of - some platorms, newspapers and all, have editors that direct the content, and that's ok so long as that's made clear - when you get to giant social media websites like FB/Twitter and all (closer to the 'town hall') - deplatforming is closer to breaching free speech and censorship that should be opposed - but those large platforms still have their own form of editors, who control what gets amplified/trended - and the latter is usually what people have a problem with, with extreme views being promoted.

Allow people their platforms, on ones where they've grown big enough (locally or globally) to become a sort of 'town hall' - you don't necessarily need to allow the amplification of their views, though - but you need to be transparent about your editorialising, or there's just as much of a threat of a chilling effect against free speech (e.g. I'm very against algorithmic blacklisting) - websites/platforms have to own the political-slant of their editorializing then, too.

The latter - censorship of critical/leftist/anti-corporate views - may have always been a norm, but now it's legitimized as collateral, under the banner of fighting 'fake news'. That's extremely dangerous.

20Cent

20Cent wrote: »

It's posts like the above that make me dislike the alt right grifters so much.

Which suggests that I'm an alt right grifter, right? :rolleyes: The left cannot tolerate any dissenting voices.

They make poor simple souls think that all the above are huge issues and the main goals of "the left" while giving free pass to the terror, crime and fascism occurring by their own governments.

Pure drivel. You paint the left as the pure knight in shining armor to save the unfortunates of the world, but dismiss the harm that is done through it's crusade. Your answer is typical of the left, as I didn't even remotely suggest that the above were the main goals of the left.

To be honest, the left these days reminds me so much of a religious group, like the RC during inquisition days. Hell bent on finding and judging the guilty, that you create the guilty to justify yourselves. Just as with the inquisition, no dissenting opinions are allowed, and you rule by creating an atmosphere of fear. A fear to prevent people from voicing opinions or expressing alternative thinking.

You repeatedly refer to fascism as being something of the right, but the left has wholeheartedly embraced many elements of it. I guess you'd prefer nationalist socialiam rather than fascism. :rolleyes:

20Cent

20Cent wrote: »

A doctor with a PhD wouldn't diagnose someone or make claims about them after just meeting

You don't seem to know any doctors with a PHD, then. Having a PHD gives someone license to believe themselves an expert in their field, and they will judge someone on a single meeting. Just as most people do.

I teach business management at university level, and I hang out with my colleagues, most of whom have PHDs of various fields. Having a PHD does nothing to stop someone from being an idiot.

Just as when I went for my degree in Psychology, I was in my mid 30s, experienced with the world, and I couldn't believe the nonsense that professors would throw out. I've got a variety of diplomas in NLP and other qualifications relating to psychology. TBH it made me realise just how shaky the whole industry is.

but a dumbass who has read a few grifter blogs thinks he's an expert will pontificate away.

The problem with stupid people is they are too stupid to even know how stupid they are.

The problem is that intolerance dismisses far too much of the genius that resides in common people. This drive to regulate intelligence ignores that many "common" people throughout the ages, were the source of some of our most startling discoveries, although dismissed by many as fools. Western civilisation rose to greatness because of those "stupid" people. Although I suppose that's why you oppose them, since the left is so embarrassed that western civilisation was (past tense in thanks to leftist principles) so damn successful on the world stage.

Realt Dearg Sec

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Which suggests that I'm an alt right grifter, right? :rolleyes: The left cannot tolerate any dissenting voices.



Pure drivel. You paint the left as the pure knight in shining armor to save the unfortunates of the world, but dismiss the harm that is done through it's crusade. Your answer is typical of the left, as I didn't even remotely suggest that the above were the main goals of the left.

To be honest, the left these days reminds me so much of a religious group, like the RC during inquisition days. Hell bent on finding and judging the guilty, that you create the guilty to justify yourselves. Just as with the inquisition, no dissenting opinions are allowed, and you rule by creating an atmosphere of fear. A fear to prevent people from voicing opinions or expressing alternative thinking.

You repeatedly refer to fascism as being something of the right, but the left has wholeheartedly embraced many elements of it. I guess you'd prefer nationalist socialiam rather than fascism. :rolleyes:

It doesn't sound like you can tolerate any dissenting opinions yourself there chief. Everyone who disagrees with you seems to be labeled as a Nazi, the Spanish Inquisition, etc. Is there any hope for a reasonable debate when that kind of name calling is how you engage with others?

Lefty Bicek

Realt Dearg Sec wrote: »

It doesn't sound like you can tolerate any dissenting opinions yourself there chief. Everyone who disagrees with you seems to be labeled as a Nazi, the Spanish Inquisition, etc. Is there any hope for a reasonable debate when that kind of name calling is how you engage with others?

You know what ?

There have been plenty opportunities in twenty pages of this thread for you to make that observation.

Selective admonition isn't much of a basis for reasonable debate either.

Realt Dearg Sec

Realt Dearg Sec wrote: »

It doesn't sound like you can tolerate any dissenting opinions yourself there chief. Everyone who disagrees with you seems to be labeled as a Nazi, the Spanish Inquisition, etc. Is there any hope for a reasonable debate when that kind of name calling is how you engage with others?

Except, of course, that I'm trying to engage in a discussion with that poster. they've repeatedly called anyone who disagrees with them a right wing grifter or simply assigned them some vague position on the right. they've also declared them to be uninformed and stupid for simply having views.

"The problem with stupid people is they are too stupid to even know how stupid they are."

That came from him/her/it. Not me.

I have no actual problem with the left existing and expressing their views. Just as I don't have a similar problem with the right either. The problem is when the extremes are incorporated into public policy which is what we're seeing with leftist crusades. I'd say the same for the left or the right, it's just that we've been seeing the leftist views being used far more over the last two decades, with very questionable results. Alas, any such observation isn't tolerated.

I originally responded to the list of what the "left" is doing. Rather than respond to the counter list, he dismissed my points as being representative of right wing grifters. Hence the comparison with nationalist socialism, or the Inquisition. Shutting down dissenting voices, by creating an environment of fear. I'm going by his actual posting style rather than labeling him anything.

Just as you're jumping the gun with assumptions. I referred to the inquisition and nationalist socialism in relation to the left's behavior in shutting down discussions, but you've decided that means I'm calling him names. That's the point. Extremes are encouraged far too much these days.

"I guess you'd prefer nationalist socialiam rather than fascism"

That's not calling him anything.

Edited: Realised the objection came from someone else.

CtevenSrowder

20Cent wrote: »

No if someone tells me they are male or female I'd believe them not tell them they are wrong.

What if they are wrong?

osarusan

Lefty Bicek wrote: »

You know what ?

There have been plenty opportunities in twenty pages of this thread for you to make that observation.

Selective admonition isn't much of a basis for reasonable debate either.

This thread, and boards in general, is full of people ignoring the bullsh!t from their own 'side' while highlighting the same from the opposite 'side'.


What it really means is that people don't actually care about bullsh!t arguments in principle, but only when it can be highlighted for their advantage.

20Cent

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Sorry 20cent, take away the what it's if you want, but please tell me when your unquestioning acceptance of other realities end? Does it only apply to gender?

Your lack of self awareness when referring to stupidity when you seem to hold the belief that you need a PhD to know there are definite differences between biological men and women... Amazing.

If you went to your local GP and told them you think you have body dysphoria they would send you to a specialist. They certainly wouldn't announce you are wrong. It's the uneducated dumbass who would claim to know better than the person themselves on one meeting.

20Cent

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

What if they are wrong?

Why do you think people come out as trans then? Just to irritate right wing people?

CtevenSrowder

20Cent wrote: »

Why do you think people come out as trans then? Just to irritate right wing people?

A trans person doesn't change their sex. You cannot change from male to female. Look up the definitions of the word if you want to understand why.

They are words based in biological fact. Actually here, I'll give you the definitions:

Male: of or denoting the sex that produces gametes, especially spermatozoa, with which a female may be fertilized or inseminated to produce offspring.

Female: of or denoting the sex that can bear offspring or produce eggs, distinguished biologically by the production of gametes (ova) which can be fertilized by male gametes.

You cannot change sex, it's debatable whether you can really change gender, as opposed to the mere outward appearence of your body.

20Cent

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

A trans person doesn't change their sex. You cannot change from male to female. Look up the definitions of the word if you want to understand why.

They are words based in biological fact. Actually here, I'll give you the definitions:

Male: of or denoting the sex that produces gametes, especially spermatozoa, with which a female may be fertilized or inseminated to produce offspring.

Female: of or denoting the sex that can bear offspring or produce eggs, distinguished biologically by the production of gametes (ova) which can be fertilized by male gametes.

You cannot change sex, it's debatable whether you can really change gender, as opposed to the mere outward appearence of your body.

Science would disagree.