There are more of us than there are of them

[Truthy]

Ah, right. The mask slips.

You have no business inferring you're progressive when you unironically post solidly conservative catchphrases.

This is a faulty and super uncharitable inference. Progressives I know IRL say "virtue signal" all the time. Definitely a common thing in the US. Maybe it's not a thing in the UK.

 

[Hygro]

Ah, right. The mask slips.

You have no business inferring you're progressive when you unironically post solidly conservative catchphrases.

Assigning teams by their trappings rather than their actual acts and positions is SUPER TOXIC and you will lose.

I want 65 democratic senators, a full house, the presidency, the supreme court. I want them to provide free gender reassignment surgery along with the rest of our healthcare. I want to increase college enrollment to be nearly universal. I want science funded 10 times the level it is. I think the Federal Reserve should provide checking accounts and even loans. The minimum wage should be $20/hour. The highest marginal tax rate should be 80%, but eliminate income tax and payroll tax under $120,000. We should tax wealth. Want me to keep going? I think we should tax carbon and other greenhouse gasses aggressively. Abortion to the goddamn last day, I trust women. High speed rail, a industrial corp and automatic jobs program that takes everyone. We should have a universal basic income. Police need to live in the town they police, with only a few outsiders allowed. Juries should be actual peers. I support nearly open borders. Just get vaccinated and documented and have a really comfortable well funded period to help you find places to go if you don't know where ahead of time. And if you're undocumented, well you're brave soul and we want you to. Drugs should be legalized. But also, illegal drugs help some marginalized people work their way in, so we need to make sure we do everything multipronged. Representation in media matters. Merit includes more than test scores but overcoming hard to quantify adversity. Gender and women studies is awesome.

And unlike most you surrender-monkeys (there's another unironic one I appropriatedyankee-doodled from the opposition) I studied in college the answer to the one question that defies all of this "how are you going to pay for it". Hah. Where other liberals surrender I have the answer.

This is really easy.

My congressperson is Barbara Lee, she speaks for me.

I am the only person I know whose immediately family is a PERFECT posterchild victim for the concept of "reverse racism" and I don't believe in reverse racism.

History is everyone not just the victors and their narrative.

Shall I go on?

Nevermind your disturbing belief that guns will make people both fear and like you.

You're squeamish, and disturbed. But that's merely the truth. Conservatives believe guns keep them free. And guns are fun, no one who has used them disagrees that I have ever met. Have you used them? Can you provide a non-gut emotions argument against them fearing us (that's a good thing) and liking us (that's a good thing) via guns? How is bad? A gun at the range is not dangerous, less so than crossing the street. A gun truly locked away is not dangerous. I don't believe in guns for home defense so please don't keep them loaded under the pillow.

That's a dangerous ideology that I want no business with, and hopefully highlighting this will show others the same. For posterity:

Define how the logic of having leverage in politics is an ideology. Also explain how your knee-jerk reactions aren't the ideologically rooted position.

 

[Gorbles]

This is a faulty and super uncharitable inference. Progressives I know IRL say "virtue signal" all the time. Definitely a common thing in the US. Maybe it's not a thing in the UK.

As I noted in the prejudices thread, it's one of mine. I shouldn't be forced to engage with that, particularly when that isn't the only transgression.

Besides, I don't see you speaking out against their faulty and (repeatedly) uncharitable inferences. This is the problem here. I'm responding to someone who wants to use guns to inspire fear, and has repeatedly called people squeamish, weak, and so on. I tie that to a conservative catchphrase and make an assumption, and I get you speaking to their defense. Why?

Assigning teams by their trappings rather than their actual acts and positions is SUPER TOXIC and you will lose.

Get better trappings then. And maybe lose the fondness for guns. You might want some of the same things as me, but the costs you're willing to sacrifice (not personally, naturally) are too much for me.

 

[Hygro]

1. I'm someone who answered it, and I haven't seen you give a counterargument as to why people should put their personal safety at risk. You talk about privilege, but your position is from privilege. People like Cloud are telling you exactly how dangerous it can be - why doesn't that seem to count?

I addressed this but a) if you're blessed with charisma you can hang out with people who want to hurt you when you are only a concept in their mind. But for most of you goobers, okay, the transpeople shouldn't rush into the den of transphobes. But that doesn't mean there aren't plenty of other conservatives who aren't personally dangerous. Paranoia is not helping us. Plus, you're not Cloud! I'm not Cloud! @Owen Glyndwr who is one of the few people here legit left of me is also not Cloud and would do a really good job of this (but he probably doesn't care to... fiiiiiiine). @Lexicus is not Cloud, he can get out there. @MaryKB is not going to be the victim of transphobia, she can go where Cloud not might want to. But also, we don't have to reach them all, just enough.

You don't invalidate a good idea by saying the idea could include a really bad application of it, unless you're against it from the outset and are just grasping for anything to resist change. I hope not! Success comes from not nitpicking.

2. No, you're putting the pressure on (say) me to go and convince other people (which I try to do, pretty much all the time, but nevermind) . . . and not putting the pressure on these other people that you're expecting me to convince. Why not?

Because you can change yourself and you can nudge the people in your circles and team. Yelling at conservatives who aren't here from civfanatics is empty, maybe cathartic. Talking to the people here is meaningful.

As for "Hygro asking for help", I'm kinda weirded out that their direct admittance of wanting to own guns to make people like and fear them just kinda completely skipped you by. You did read that part of their post, right?

It's a great idea.

 

[Truthy]

As I noted in the prejudices thread, it's one of mine. I shouldn't be forced to engage with that, particularly when that isn't the only transgression.

Besides, I don't see you speaking out against their faulty and (repeatedly) uncharitable inferences. This is the problem here. I'm responding to someone who wants to use guns to inspire fear, and has repeatedly called people squeamish, weak, and so on. I tie that to a conservative catchphrase and make an assumption, and I get you speaking to their defense. Why?

Make better assumptions. I'm not taking his gun idea very seriously. Guns are fun, but I'm not crazy about them and see that as a kinda odd hobby horse of his and that's his prerogative. Beyond that, I agree with his arguments in this thread and don't think they warrant accusations of crypto-conservatism.

 

[El_Machinae]

1. I'm someone who answered it, and I haven't seen you give a counterargument as to why people should put their personal safety at risk. You talk about privilege, but your position is from privilege. People like Cloud are telling you exactly how dangerous it can be - why doesn't that seem to count?

What makes you think the message is devoted to people who have legitimate safety concerns? Like, seriously?
Can't you read the posts, and quickly realize that's assumed? Or at least causally extended the assumption?

FerChrisSakes, I was the only person to like your first post clarifying your concern. I even literally said 'If it would harm you, then don't do it." implying that I understood the gist of your concern.

and not putting the pressure on these other people that you're expecting me to convince. Why not?

I'll not reply to this again, because I cannot figure out how to frame it. I'm having a conversation with you. I'm having a different conversation elsewhere. If I were forgoing conversations here in order to be there, you'd not know. Those conversations are elsewhere. I've literally fought the fights you're asking me to fight on CFC, but back when there were actual people willing to debate the issue. That fight isn't really here, not that anyone needs my backup.

As for "Hygro asking for help", I'm kinda weirded out that their direct admittance of wanting to own guns to make people like and fear them just kinda completely skipped you by. You did read that part of their post, right?

No, because it resonated. First off, I read it 'as an example' actively. Because the situation doesn't really apply to me, I just took the gist. Secondly, I do think that the liberal tendency to self-disarm is worrisome. I'm the same person who expressed concern that liberals were under-represented in law enforcement and the military, which means that the institutions are easier to co-opt.

Instead, you're questioning people for saying no

Yes. Because you're mischaracterizing the gist of the suggestion. So, we're stuck in this weird limbo of me not being able to tell if you understand or not.
Also, please reread all the questions I have forwarded in this thread. The major question I've asked is "what do you think Hygro is proposing?" This is technically 'questioning people who say no', I'll admit. But it's not really "confronting them for saying no".

 

[Hygro]

As I noted in the prejudices thread, it's one of mine. I shouldn't be forced to engage with that, particularly when that isn't the only transgression.

Besides, I don't see you speaking out against their faulty and (repeatedly) uncharitable inferences. This is the problem here. I'm responding to someone who wants to use guns to inspire fear, and has repeatedly called people squeamish, weak, and so on. I tie that to a conservative catchphrase and make an assumption, and I get you speaking to their defense. Why?

Because these things are true. Don't make me drink hemlock.

Get better trappings then. And maybe lose the fondness for guns. You might want some of the same things as me, but the costs you're willing to sacrifice (not personally, naturally) are too much for me.

What am I willing to sacrifice? Gun control as a wedge issue? Are you one of those people who think Machiavelli wrote a really evil or ironic text?

Ok I'm going to work I'll smell you all later.

 

[Hygro]

It's vastly generalising a bunch of people, a lot of which Hygro is unlikely to know.

Who am I unlikely to know?

 

[TheMeInTeam]

You keep saying "coherent" but you're the only one using it. You don't define it, you just treat it as a truth that other people either live up to or don't.

(of an argument, theory, or policy) logical and consistent.
"they failed to develop a coherent economic strategy"

Coherency is mandatory, though not by itself sufficient, to have something be truthful/reasonable at macro scales. If you insist that pay be equal across jobs, it is non-sequitur nonsense to also insist that pay be different across jobs (and vice versa).

If you insist neither of these, the claim "obfuscation" is false, and there is a different issue at play than pay after all.

You keep arguing along very partisan lines, in topics in lockstep with other posters with very partisan views, and yet you don't seem to consider yourself partisan.

Not only is this irrelevant to what we're discussing, it's also false.

You keep raising points with no source, no citations, no evidence.

The assertion is that a particular group of people are being treated unfairly. This assertion requires evidence. Intentionally misrepresenting that evidence is not appreciated. If we could get reliable data that looks at exact same number of years worked + exact same position between men and women, *that* would be informative of the wage gap. That's what someone needs to show there is an unfair differential in pay rate. Not giving us figures that compare engineers and bakers as if it's meaningful data.

Basically "raising points without citations" is my line.

You retreat to calling it incoherent because it means you don't have to consider it further.

Other way around. When you tell me that particular position doesn't matter except that it matters, I don't have to consider it further *because* it's incoherent. Rather than a retreat, coherency is a front-line filter. A basic decency in argumentation and debate that any competent/defensible point will pass without issue.

Furthermore, you keep recommending "advice" that in the same breath you can't help but reveal you already have a counter for. It's not serious advice. It's not a subject you don't consider an open question - you already believe yourself to have the answer.

Ad hominem garbage. 0 respect for quoted posting style.

And yet you're incapable of realising the inherent bias in your degradation of desk jobs compared to engineering or physical labour. You call that enough to call a wage gap a fabrication, when you make no written effort to actually relate it to gender. Which makes sense, because you're rationalising along your preconceived biases.

Trash.

To finish, again, defending Trump from allegations purely because there isn't evidence that convinces you are the clincher. It's when we can go (unusually, for you) from debating from principle to actual bad faith. Your question was never "what rapists do the GOP support".

Trash.

That was never a question you were prepared to hear / read the answer to.

Could be someone different than I expected. Not likely, but could be. On the off chance that it is, it's not impossible that the claim is legit.

You literally had a line ready in defense of someone who literally talked about grabbing women, in a sexual manner, without their consent. That's not enough for you.

Saying that is also not enough to make someone an alleged rapist, let alone a *known* rapist. Claiming someone is a known rapist means claiming that there is substantial evidence that the person in question physically committed the act of rape against someone. Do you know something the rest of the country doesn't, whereby such is a reasonable statement? No? Then maybe libel is a bad look.

By asking for clarification, I could at least confirm that poster is referring to the person(s) I thought, as opposed to someone else who actually was caught/convicted/etc and somehow still had a political career. Because it'd be wrong of me to just assume that someone would post garbage libel without confirming it.

As for personal beliefs...I do think someone waiting to make a rape claim until divorce court starts and then recanting it is fishy. There are a wide variety of pretty scumbag claims against him otherwise with substantially more plausibility. None of these are even kind-of sort-of in the neighborhood of rape, so again calling someone a "known rapist" because he walked into dressing rooms...inaccurate at best. It's a scumbag action. I don't agree with it. It isn't rape.

Being polite is not the same thing as being nice. Someone can politely describe any matter of racist or inhumane acts. Their manner being polite has no bearing, or rather should have no bearing, on what they're actually saying.

Being polite also implies not spamming ad hominem. I'd rather skip the pretense if that's how it is. At least when Tim gets into these kinds of debates there's no pretense. I've been forced to update on matters like how Hungary detains people thanks to Lexicus, who I otherwise often disagree with. They didn't struggle with coherency in those cases, or in general.

There's plenty of actual evidence if you extend the barest of humanity to his multiple accusers. You can only claim there's not enough evidence if you simultaneously believe the worst of his accusers and the best of him (i.e. that they're all lying and he isn't about any of them).

What "actual evidence" supports rape? Is it the one from >20 years ago that never had a police report, or the one what was given during divorce proceedings then recanted? Or am I missing something that does support it?

But he was President and people supported him in spite of a rape accusation

In this regard he is quite similar to Trump, and actually so is the timing of information coming out. There's unsubstantiated claims of bribery going on there, and claiming it didn't happen in an affidavit and then changing one's mind come impeachment time is...odd. We're again stuck with due process, but with an extra lair of knowing the claimant lied about what happened at least once (while denying any external motivation to lie!). Similarly to how I don't trust Trump or his rape accusers, I don't trust Clinton or his. None of them have given me any reason to trust them and all of them have given me pretty solid behavior patterns to distrust.

And you're asking people now about accountability of something that happened roughly twenty years ago. Presumably to catch people in some kind of justification of Clinton so you can use it as a gotcha.

Similar in age to rape allegations against Trump.

 

[Hygro]

You cannot ask me to tolerate people who think my existence is doing damage to society and not expect me to be skeptical at the very least.

Im not interested in letting my guard down and becoming the next transperson to be killed.

Cool, don't do that. Hang out with non transphobes who might disagree on some other politics but agree on things that you value in friendship like vibe. But I am asking Gorbles, who is not at risk. And he is telling me he doesn't like the plan of me asking him by way of making an example out of you. That's not cool. He has privilege in this, so he can "risk" himself without saying no one should do anything because Cloud shouldn't risk theirself.

I'm gonna have like 10 pages to get through when I get back. aye.

 

[Synobun]

This is a huuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuge twist on the meaning.

Again, if you think people aren't affected by their familiars, you are wrong.

If you think superior numbers in familiars isn't inherently powerful, you are wrong.

If you think including conservatives into your friend group, where the aforementioned pulling mechanisms happen, means support their politics, you are super crazy.

Rephrasing this as "supporting them" means you believe they are powerful, unmovable, default, and must be subverted. This is weakness, paranoia, and definitely surrenders the fight before you begin. You think they will change you before you change them? Good thing your more numerous members of your "side" will keep you from changing while you change them.

My best male friend for the past 13 years is a Trump supporter who goes to lunch with Roy Moore when he's in the neighbourhood. His views have not been changed by me being a guiding light towards progressive/humanistic beliefs. I don't think he's inherently a bad person. I do think he's a product of his isolation. My presence doesn't change that isolation. My advocacy doesn't change that isolation.

It is why I asked you why not instead have these people directly interact within the framework of the better belief. This is not because I fear that I'll love guns (I've fired weaponry, it was an amusing activity but I recognized it for what it is). It's not because I fear I'll become "one of them." It's because I know it is an ineffective means of effecting change. Me being a personal spokesman for "the good fight" while participating in a staunch conservative's belief system has a minuscule impact, requires significant emotional and mental bandwidth, and ultimately has me supporting their beliefs with the hope that they might come around to being less garbage, maybe, if I just hack at it for another few years.

It seems easier and more effective to have them work with/for LGBT people, or with/for minorities, or with/for whoever they have oppressive inclinations towards. At least when compared to a personal crusade to rescue a singular friend from throwing their lot in with people who consciously choose to operate from the basis of hate.

 

[Farm Boy]

Secondly, I do think that the liberal tendency to self-disarm is worrisome. I'm the same person who expressed concern that liberals were under-represented in law enforcement and the military, which means that the institutions are easier to co-opt.

Spoiler 0:54 - 1:40 :

Somebody else, somebody else. The draft did manage to cause enough mingling to accelerate some decent social changes, once it started hitting enough people that weren't draft-board'd inner city and farm kids to upset the college boys into incredulity. Would have been nicer without the incredible amount of horror.

 

[Berzerker]

So to recap:

1. You're completely ignoring the people that didn't, or don't, support either.
2. People having changed their minds over time are apparently also irrelevant.

This is basically "nobody can ever have supported anyone problematic ever in order to judge someone being problematic", which sounds pretty dumb. I hope I'm wrong.

Oh, and:

3. You're a cultural conservative, lol. I have no idea where you sit economically or on other axes, but pretending that you're some "other" group compared to "liberals" and "conservatives" is funny

1 Thats right, they're not being hypocritical
2 Changed their minds about what?

It took Trump for Clinton supporters to change their mind about rape accusations? They'd do well to let the people who didn't have to change their minds to cast stones.

3 Cultural conservative? I'm a pro-choice, freedom from religion, drug legalizing libertarian who supported gay marriage decades before Obama and the Clintons found enlightenment. I am anything but a cultural conservative, but you're welcome to provide evidence.

 

[Gorbles]

@Berzerker

2. Changing their minds about Clinton's rape allegations. Which leads me into 3.

3. You keep making value judgements about liberals / Clinton supporters / whichever American conservative catchphrase for "left-ish" is popular at the moment. The politics you support don't help much here, especially when you use them in the same sentence to make a dig at the more liberal Presidents the US has had recently.

Where are you on immigration? Gun control? Trans rights? Feel free to PM me - this is absolutely a tangent, and I have no interest in making you prove yourself to the thread.

Make better assumptions. I'm not taking his gun idea very seriously. Guns are fun, but I'm not crazy about them and see that as a kinda odd hobby horse of his and that's his prerogative. Beyond that, I agree with his arguments in this thread and don't think they warrant accusations of crypto-conservatism.

I don't understand why I have to listen to your advice when you casually discard the worrying beliefs they're stating. Like, good for you, maybe don't judge me for my caution? I don't agree with people who use leftist theory to support using guns to rule people with fear. I do not consider them fit for any kind of purpose. In this case, we have the bonus recommendation of "befriend conservatives not to actually be friends with them, but to manipulate them to change their views".

Feel free to support that. For me, that raises all kinds of red flags, and it's weird how you give him enough leeway to discard anything that could be worrying, but apply stringent rules to how "good" my assumptions should be. Why are you giving him more leeway than you're giving me? Because you consider something I said harsh? You still haven't answered why all of his language is apparently a-okay, or at least worth looking past.

What makes you think the message is devoted to people who have legitimate safety concerns? Like, seriously?
Can't you read the posts, and quickly realize that's assumed? Or at least causally extended the assumption?

FerChrisSakes, I was the only person to like your first post clarifying your concern. I even literally said 'If it would harm you, then don't do it." implying that I understood the gist of your concern.

I'll not reply to this again, because I cannot figure out how to frame it. I'm having a conversation with you. I'm having a different conversation elsewhere. If I were forgoing conversations here in order to be there, you'd not know. Those conversations are elsewhere. I've literally fought the fights you're asking me to fight on CFC, but back when there were actual people willing to debate the issue. That fight isn't really here, not that anyone needs my backup.

No, because it resonated. First off, I read it 'as an example' actively. Because the situation doesn't really apply to me, I just took the gist. Secondly, I do think that the liberal tendency to self-disarm is worrisome. I'm the same person who expressed concern that liberals were under-represented in law enforcement and the military, which means that the institutions are easier to co-opt.

Yes. Because you're mischaracterizing the gist of the suggestion. So, we're stuck in this weird limbo of me not being able to tell if you understand or not.
Also, please reread all the questions I have forwarded in this thread. The major question I've asked is "what do you think Hygro is proposing?" This is technically 'questioning people who say no', I'll admit. But it's not really "confronting them for saying no".

1. As in, the people you're literally replying to here in this thread. I'm not here quibbling over you perhaps including me in an over-generalisation. I'm simply worried that you don't understand why people aren't always reacting well to Hygro's comments.

2. I'm not worried about what you do like or don't like. It's also not amazingly representative. I know what you said, what I'm saying is your actions don't match up. That's all. It's not some harsh damning critique, I'm just puzzled as to how you square "marginalised people shouldn't be put in these positions" with arguing with people in this thread (who are to various degrees marginalised, given the context).

3. There's a lot of "I read it this way" and "I'm not taking the really worrying ideas literally". Why? You're asking for what people think Hygro is proposing. Hygro is literally proposing using guns and numbers to intimiate people into liking you / me / them / us. They're also suggesting to fake befriend conservatives just to change their political views (like Synensa, I have conservative friends too, heck, I went to a grammar school. It's something I still evaluate a lot of the time). These are worrying suggestions, even as a joke. And they don't read as jokes!

It'd take a thread for us to cover political ideologies and police / armed offices, but I guess my tl;dr there is that being in such inherently makes you less progressive. Especially in America (where it'll vary state by state, but still). The power structures are the problem. Being a part of them isn't always going to be a winning strategy. Anyhow. I suck as tl;drs, as usual.

Do you understand where I'm coming from? It's really odd, because we have someone who is clearly and without shame explicitly clarifying their intentions, beliefs and at the same time throwing out insults to anyone they deem to weak or squeamish. And I'm getting more pushback for saying "hang on that's not right" . . . why? Why not throw your support behind myself, or Cloud, or whoever (sorry @Cloud_Strife, my brain defaults to you as an example at the mo)? If the policies and politics we support have that much overlap, why go for the person advocating might makes right and lying to people to earn fake friendships? That makes no sense to me.

You are right, we are here, in this thread. That means the people in this thread, their opinions, beliefs and stated goals matter. What Hygro is saying about how they want to do things matters.

 

[Gorbles]

Also late but absolutely chuckling at the state of @TheMeInTeam here. Allow me to reply as eloquently as you did:

Your post is trash. Thanks!

I'm discussing things with too many people (some of whom actually are trying to engage with the topic) to bother with your reductionist nonsense. You've defined "coherence" as "logic", which to you is the same thing. You're still the one deciding what it means, which means there's no discussion to be had. If you want to get past the hilariously ironic complaints about ad hominem whilst dismissing parts of my posts as "trash" (repeatedly), feel free to PM me.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

3 Cultural conservative? I'm a pro-choice, freedom from religion, drug legalizing libertarian

Notably, these are my stances also (though I demand some non-arbitrary reasoning for a cutoff point regarding abortions), and it bothers me that these same stances tend to align with gun control and social justice policing of speech. The mere concept of "us vs them" in this context is offputting, because I really do dislike very important facets of typical partisan platforms no matter who I might otherwise chose. What I want is to destroy 1st past the post winner take all voting completely, and as a consequence the destruction of the republican and democratic parties outright. But that appears to be a pipe dream, so do what I can to enjoy the present setup as much as possible.

Also late but absolutely chuckling at the state of @TheMeInTeam here. Allow me to reply as eloquently as you did:

Your post is trash. Thanks!

Hey man, if you insist on coming at me with ad hominem garbage where you discuss the poster and not the contents of the post, you're going to get respect in kind. I'm not one of those that keeps an angelic pretense here. Not even in my Civ 4 days.

Most posters here don't resort to ad hominem or outright ignoring points, and unsurprisingly they're harder to debate too.

 

[Synobun]

"I support progressive policies but only ever speak in defense of oppressive policies. Why do progressives feel opposed to me?"

 

[El_Machinae]

Gorbles, thanks for your replies. It will take some time for me to figure out why you are misunderstanding the gist. But consider, your natural reading of his posts lead you to conclude but he was some type of conservative. So, you will need to work on your Type Two errors, cuz we know we are contributing to the misunderstanding overall. Also can be phrasing errors on my part, obviously.

 

[Gorbles]

@El_Machinae

Like I said to Truthy, I freely admitted my bias towards people who happily use conservative rhetoric. I have valid reasons for it, and if you're interested in a trip along the past several years of online political discussions and leftist (online) social circles, do PM me on that.

Also, seriously, cannot understand why the ruling people with fear thing isn't being taken at face value. I just . . . can't.

Hey man, if you insist on coming at me with ad hominem garbage where you discuss the poster and not the contents of the post, you're going to get respect in kind. I'm not one of those that keeps an angelic pretense here. Not even in my Civ 4 days.

Most posters here don't resort to ad hominem or outright ignoring points, and unsurprisingly they're harder to debate too.

Your fallacy is the fallacy fallacy, congratulations!

If you can't see past whatever it is you're being offended by, and you don't want to take up my offer of a PM to hash out any bad faith between us (because you're just as guilty in my eyes, which makes handling it in a thread messy - hence the offer of a PM), then it's going to be amusing the next time we have one of those free speech discussions. You know, the ones where you don't think people should be able to invoke some kind of guilt or shame to stop the other from talking (which is what you're doing by repeating the phrases trash, ad hominem, garbage, etc). This is the problem with you having exhausted my good faith, you see. You don't act logically, or consistently. Your rulings on subjects are likewise biased (as we all are, but you uh just don't seem to want to admit it). Much like how Manfred never criticises people who invoke fallacies against me, neither do you. You reserve the invocation of fallacies for people that run along different ideological lines to you - like myself.

I did wait several threads, after all, and several debates (where I hoped for a more positive conclusion to all of them, each time), before making this assumption. As I said, it's on you to reach out to discuss it being something else. I don't want to waste your time, and I don't want you wasting mine!

 

[Ironsided]

"I support progressive policies but only ever speak in defense of oppressive policies. Why do progressives feel opposed to me?"

Progressive policies are clearly oppressive to right-wing libertarians. Right-wing libertarians are oppressive to the good name of classic libertarians and should rename their opressive freedumb movement to something else, maybe perhistoritarians?