Chicago Hate Crime

[drunkenshoe]

Thank you, Nonsensei. I think although we used to cut each others throats before, we jumped to another dimension of communication together doesn't matter what we agree on or not. We can yell at each other and communicate at the same time and carry on a conversation together.

What is going on here is completely different. It's about groups and clubs supporting each other, it is a traditional 'Shoe is baaaad' event. It's forum politics.

[Nonsensei]

Yes. "Common sense." You know what's also common sense?

Lowering taxes causes job growth.
Life and the universe are too complicated to arise naturally.
The free market will always optimally distribute goods fairly.
From every worker according to their capabilities; to each worker according to their needs.
The earth is flat.
The sun goes around the earth.
Vital force.
It snows, therefore global warming is bullshit.
Contrails are laden with chemicals.
Organic foods are healtheir for you than conventional foods.
Statistics is easy.
Mexicans are stealing our jobs.
Fire can't collapse steel buildings.
Firewalkers must be using magic to walk on hot coals.
Diseases are caused by bad smells.
The pyramids could not have been built by the Egyptians.
Out of place objects are proof of the Atlantis civilization.

God.

All of the above have been touted as "common sense." However, we know all of these really don't hold up under close scrutiny. Common sense is nice and all, but it's by no means a reliable way of deciding truth. Testing and verification needs to be done on all claims, and the more untested a claim the more it needs to be tested.

Hey wow cool. That sounds like a really effective argument. I'm sure you're about to explain in detail how any of that has any relationship to what she says.

Most of shoe's claims are like the above. They sound compelling only if you don't examine them closely; once you do, they fall apart pretty quickly.

Oh. Naked assertion using unrelated examples. I guess I shouldn't be surprised.

I've known this for several years now, and whenever I have confronted shoe on what I think are errors in her reasoning the conversation invariably turns to accusations on her part that I'm a repulsive individual and stupid besides. I don't put up with that, so of course I return in kind. Last year I made one last attempt to see if I could have a constructive discussion with shoe and tried my best to keep it civil, never insulting her, yet the same pattern played out. She's now on my ignore list because, quite frankly, I'm not going to repeat that experience ever again.

Yeah. Thats what happens when someone who isn't invested in a controversial topic argues on the opposite side of someone who is invested and effected by it. The reality is that the people on these forums have never actually been directly effected by many if not all of the social topics we discuss that invariably generate accusations of someone being an "SJW". Its very easy for you to sit there atop your ivory tower and pretend you can discuss these topics that don't directly effect you calmly and logically and actually come up with the correct position. Once you have established that thought trap, anyone who displays anger or passion about the topic and also disagrees with you instantly becomes some sort of toxic troll.

It makes sense right? You arrived at your position using what you consider to be cool logic and an unbiased mind. Anyone who disagrees with you and gets angry must be irrational or trolling.

Ever consider the possibility that your conclusions are not infallible because you are not directly effected by the issue, and that your ability to calmly discuss some of these things stems from the fact that you are not forced to give a fuck?

For a lot of these issues, she has been forced to give a fuck. Discussing them calmly is just ridiculous. Its like calmly discussing the nuke next door thats 3 seconds from detonation. You're basically sitting there from 5000 miles away laying out your cold and rational evaluation of the casualties when it goes off and expecting someone in the blast zone to be just as calm as you.

Do you get what I'm trying to say here?

Nearly 50/50? I don't think it has ever been that high. It's always been kind of a sausagefest in this place. Back in 2012, I could count the regular female posters on one hand. Maybe two. There have been plenty more posters that are male, even back in 2012.

Hey technically correct is the best kind of correct right? The reality is that the female presence on this board has dwindled to practically nothing. AFAIK DS is the most prolific female poster left.

[Baruch]

Thread hijack much?  So the Pharaoh or the Proletariat .. which is responsible for the Chicago incident?

[Dreamer]

Thanks, Obama

[Hakurei Reimu]

Hey wow cool. That sounds like a really effective argument. I'm sure you're about to explain in detail how any of that has any relationship to what she says.

The point, you nimrod, is that calling something "common sense" doesn't actually make it sensible. Common sense is based upon a very biased set of data. You are not the whole world. You have no assurance that your "common sense" actually is coincident with reality. Each and every one of the assertions I stated were thought of as "common sense," yet they did not hold up under scrutiny. Thus, I do not take anyone at their word when they call something "common sense."

Oh. Naked assertion using unrelated examples. I guess I shouldn't be surprised.

Yeah, keep telling yourself that they're unrelated. You used "common sense" as the only grounding for shoe's assertions. It is a poor support indeed.

Yeah. Thats what happens when someone who isn't invested in a controversial topic argues on the opposite side of someone who is invested and effected by it. The reality is that the people on these forums have never actually been directly effected by many if not all of the social topics we discuss that invariably generate accusations of someone being an "SJW". Its very easy for you to sit there atop your ivory tower and pretend you can discuss these topics that don't directly effect you calmly and logically and actually come up with the correct position. Once you have established that thought trap, anyone who displays anger or passion about the topic and also disagrees with you instantly becomes some sort of toxic troll.

No, that's the excuse you use to dismiss my point. The reason why I have her on ignore is because there's no useful discussion between her and me. She keeps trying to lecture me... no, prosthelytize to me on her particular gospel, and then gets mad at me when I answer that I'm skeptical.

I've dared to fact-check her on particular points. Like on the psychological background on Marc Lépine and Elliot Rodger, which shows them not to be anywhere near what would be called a picture of mental health, and so their attitudes could not be considered "typical" in any way. Or on our last confrontation where her arguments directly intersected with fields that I have studied, either as an undergraduate or as a graduate student (linguistics and logic), and found her arguments to be wanting.

Being "infested and effected[sic]" by some controversial topic does not give you carte blance to steamroller over people who do not have such investment. If anything, you need people not invested in your controversial topic to keep you from derailing, precisely because they are disinterested in the topic so that they can inform you when you have gotten things factually wrong, so you can correct yourself and keep your views married with reality. Once you depart from reality, you are not helping anyone, even yourself.

As the saying goes, you are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts.

It makes sense right? You arrived at your position using what you consider to be cool logic and an unbiased mind. Anyone who disagrees with you and gets angry must be irrational or trolling.

Anyone whose fact-check does not clear is not to be taken entirely seriously.

Ever consider the possibility that your conclusions are not infallible because you are not directly effected by the issue, and that your ability to calmly discuss some of these things stems from the fact that you are not forced to give a fuck?

Yes. I am, in fact, open to the possibility. However, when a person advancing a position gets their facts wrong when checked, it's only natural to start to be suspicious of the positions veracity, even if the other party is invested and affected by it.

For a lot of these issues, she has been forced to give a fuck. Discussing them calmly is just ridiculous. Its like calmly discussing the nuke next door thats 3 seconds from detonation.

No. No, it's not. If there were really such an imminent threat to your life, you would not be on the internet at all, discussing calmly or histerically. You would be running the fuck away, for all the good it'll do you. Believe it or not, there is time to calmly discuss these things because it's not going to be resolved in a day or a week or even a year even if you begin now. There's time to find a right solution, and a right solution requires above all being informed of the facts of the matter.

Do you get what I'm trying to say here?

Yes, I'm getting your bad analogy, but it's still bad.

Hey technically correct is the best kind of correct right? The reality is that the female presence on this board has dwindled to practically nothing. AFAIK DS is the most prolific female poster left.

I'm not changing my posting behavior on account of anyone short of a moderator telling me I'm out of line, and neither you nor drunkie is on that list. One of the reasons I come here is because I get to be my skeptical, atheist self, with no pretense or false civility. If you make a claim I find contentious, I'm going to call upon you to back it up. Drunkie is very poor at backing up her claims. She'd better thank her stars she's here and not on stardestroyer.net; she would have been booted long ago back there, because being able to back up your claims is part of the stated rules.

[drunkenshoe]

Who are you really angry with, Hakurei? What are you really angry at? Whatever, whoever it is, it is clearly not me. Noone can harbour this much of bitternes or vicious anger for someone he has ignored for a long time, just because she 'couldn't back up' her opinions on an argument related to linguistics over a year ago. Esp. in a forum people throw around every bullshit they come upon just for kicks and giggles, every fucking material they like to masturbate about. Or may be you have the observation skill of a cow, who knows.


Go back to that post again sometime, step back and take a look at it. And then try to think a little what are you really talking about up there.