ThreePointTakedown

Walks like a duck… 1. Powerful, often exclusionary, populist nationalism centered on cult of a redemptive, “infallible” leader who never admits mistakes. Who said, 'don't believe your lying eyes'? Boasts about never apologizing for anything for any reason. Is running a campaign of revenge against their political enemies and has control of all the branches of government that are complicit in doing just that. 2. Political power derived from questioning reality, endorsing myth and rage, and promoting lies. Not even sure I need to expound on this, but this is the RNC strategy to a 'T'. 3. Fixation with perceived national decline, humiliation, or victimhood. Again, RNC for decades. Claim that something doesn't work. Defund it. Watch it collapse. Then brag that they were right the whole time. Case in point, what the right has been doing to public education for decades. 4. White Replacement “Theory” used to show that democratic ideals of freedom and equality are a threat. Oppose any initiatives or institutions that are racially, ethnically, or religiously harmonious. Which side is terrified of all but white immigrants? Not the left. 5. Disdain for human rights while seeking purity and cleansing for those they define as part of the nation. Which side is more religious? Scared of sex, any sex, especially non-hetero sex? Has attacked emerging cultural groups(LGBTQ+) at every opportunity as a threat to society? 6. Identification of “enemies”/scapegoats as a unifying cause. Imprison and/or murder opposition and minority group leaders. Or deport them without due process... 7. Supremacy of the military and embrace of paramilitarism in an uneasy, but effective collaboration with traditional elites. Fascists arm people and justify and glorify violence as “redemptive”. Department of War? Sending military into cities, who has done and threatens to do? 8. Rampant sexism. Duh. 9. Control of mass media and undermining “truth”. Who is currently threatening media companies with lawsuits and freezing mergers until voices are silenced? 10. Obsession with national security, crime and punishment, and fostering a sense of the nation under attack. Typical boogyman. 11. Religion and government are intertwined. Who held a bible upside down after gassing civilians? 12. Corporate power is protected, and labor power is suppressed. Which side wants less regulation and no minimum wage? 13. Disdain for intellectuals and the arts not aligned with the fascist narrative. Anti-education. Attacking Harvard, Columbia, and so many others to control their curricula to more align with their ideology. 14. Rampant cronyism and corruption. Loyalty to the leader is paramount and often more important than competence. Holy cow, this is 47's theme song! 15. Fraudulent elections and creation of a one-party state. Which side cannot admit when they lose? Not the left. 16. Often seeking to expand territory through armed conflict. Working through proxies to do just that, currently.

Thanks for doing that leg work. I misread something then apologized for it. Bully! I still hold that I don’t need to look for an apology until evidence is brought that I was factually wrong about a topic. Find that and I’ll gladly own up to it. But I’m not going back to look at all my posts.

I am conservative. You are not. Guilty as charged. What are your positions on popular issues? Are they based in fact and reality? Let's try something. Count up how many times you have admitted you were wrong and apologized on this forum. I will do the same. You go first please. No. You laid down this challenge. As a show of good faith, since you have shown little in our past, you should be the honorable one and go first. Further more, I have apologized for misunderstanding someone's intentions or how they phrased certain things or if I misread. In my earlier days of posting much more frequently then recent days/months, I often was a few posts behind when crafting my response and was missing some (cough cough) context that was injected while away. But rarely if ever have I been proven factually wrong(I don't engage in conversations that are either boring or that I agree with already). Its a point of pride that just about all those that I have disagreed with either; handwave away my responses(either because they are too dumb or lazy to read and understand them before asking any clarifying questions), say its AI(common crashout from the right), or just call me names(always the sign of a winning argument). If you have an example, I'd be happy, elated even, to see it. And would humbly apologize for whatever it was that rent me asunder from truth or fact. I am much more thorough in my arguments than, I feel, most people opposed to my ideas are used to considering. I can see how that could be intimidating but you all have the same resources that I do. I don't understand how you refuse to use them. But I think we all know why. You are emotionally attached to your opinions(THAT is something I agree that we all can do from time to time) but I have come to learn how to detach feelings from facts and data. Having a health combination of both isn't bad but being too emotional leads to bad data and being too data driven leads to a loss of humanity and empathy. I find the right is far too emotional and leads to a horrible combination that is the worst of both sides. No data, high emotions, no empathy, no humanity. And the use of debate tactics and not being forced to say what they really feel/think allows them just enough room to convince others that think just like them. No wonder the right is so anti-education and so pro-authoritarian, I'm sorry I meant religious. Having someone else to their thinking for them is the hallmark of the right. Thanks for allowing me a chance to rant. If you can prove me wrong, I'll be happy to apologize.

Every accusation is a confession

1, Conservatives turn to the middle not extremes. Conservatives back behavior that has been corroborated as successful, and beneficial to the majority. Hard disagree there. Please offer a few examples so we have an idea of what it is you are talking about? 2, Not everyone is correct 100% I'll take some mistakes as long as it just debate. If you are mostly correct, is the barometer, in live conversation without notations In live conversation, sure. With friends or acquaintances, I guess. If you don't have notes or enough information to cogently discuss a topic both for and against, you shouldn't pretend that you can. That is the definition of Dunning Kruger. Its doesn't or shouldn't diminish your sense of self worth that you can't honestly and accurately discuss a topic of relative importance. Understand and admit to yourself what you don't know and make a conscience decision to get better or learn more. But if you're on a web thread the whole 'no notes' thing is ponderous. We have ALL THE NOTES OF EVERYTHING EVER. Just figure out the best source, which the right tends to either not do, do badly, or pretend a source is reputable when its not. Hardly any policy or position the right holds is bore out by facts. Prove me wrong? 3. context is always important and to suggest it is a guilt process or deflecting is ridiculous. Examine what is said and meant not partial words picked out of an argument. Never said it wasn't important. What I said was that even after context is fully established and accepted and cannot be further dissected, the claim of 'its out of context' is a 'pull in case fire' card that many pundits on the right call on when they are trapped. Knowing full well that yelling at the top of their lungs is distraction enough to get the spot light off of them and not have to admit defeat or that their point has been thoroughly debunked. 4. I think a mostly conservative approach to goernment has been directing success for thousands of years. I don't disagree with you although I would push back on your use of the word 'success'. That we haven't destroyed ourselves yet is not a great metric for 'success' in my opinion. The pattern of oligarchs gain and wield soft power and begin to steer the ship of government towards what best suites them and their needs, goes back thousands of years, yes. Eventually their arrogance/hubris gets the best of them and they are overthrown, invaded, or beheaded. Rinse repeat. If you're happy with that pattern, bully for you. I'm not to jazzed about the idea, myself. Tell me if you see any similarities in the scenario I put forth above and our current situation? I'll give you a hint, if you say 'no' you're just not trying that hard.

Are you talking about CK or all conservatives? Yes. Or at least all the conservatives I have seen/heard in the last 15 years. So every member of congress. Pundits, plenty of rep governors and 2 rep PsOTUS. Let’s not forget the golden goose Joe Rogan who couldn't find an argument based in fact with both hands and a flashlight. CK was very intelligent. He leveraged data all the time; often correct and often wrong. I'll grant you that he is not known for admitting his mistakes and sources after the fact. 'Very' is subjective. Manipulative? Yes. Leveraged or cherry picked? Often right and often wrong, you ain't lyin. Didn't admit it, guess where that trait was acquired? Which federal employee brags about never apologizing or ever admits fault even though they are at the tippy top? If you're guess was 47, you would be right. The claim about context is important because its relevancy to honest arguments. You cast such a wide net here. I agree context is important, but I think you fail to understand my point. That bringing up 'context' is the last gasp of a failed argument. Usually done when context has been entirely exhausted and to further muddy the water so as to allow their failed argument to disappear into minutia. Its funny to watch conservatives argue. Much like a toddler trying to lie about something, you can see them visibly relax when the claim they just made is being called out. Their opponent is revving up to drop the hammer on the 'trust me bro' point that was just vomited. Interrupting part way through their tongue lashing to oppose a trivial point, the tension of the conservative is released when the opponent abandons the original train of thought to go down the rabbit hole of the trivial point. Never to return to the obvious bad or unfounded original argument. The claim about clinging to veracity of claims and not admitting their error is a human condition rather than conservative condition. There are so many instances of people being proven wrong with data and nothing comes beyond insults, strawmen, and silence. Don't you dare 'both sides' this. That's very disingenuous. Which side is more open to not knowing the answer? The left. Which side is more in favor of funding research, areas of all types, in the hopes of finding the answer to things? The left. Which side uses ALL THE DATA, not just convenient little bits, to prove points and make change? The left. The conservative side is not supported by facts in any area. If there is one, I would love to see it. But considering the conversations that I've been privy to on this board for the last few years. I have yet to see one. At least not one that doesn't devolve into name calling, gas lighting, or outright lying. It's kind of pathetic that you all haven't realized it yet. But some do. More and more people raised conservative and/or religious grow to realize their parents did the best they could but were quite wrong at just about every turn. Leave the house and learn the real truth about the world. Show me a consistent opposition to that point and I'll show you a system built to make young people fail and crawl back home in the hopes of propagating the same scared conservative system.

I win!

Keep lashing out like the toddler you are and the orange toddler you worship. It only proves my point that you are an ignorant POS with no opinions worthy of even considering.

You didn’t even read the whole thing you troglodyte. That’s how pathetic you are. Anything to stay in your echo chamber.

That’s how you are privileged. By being able to honestly say/think that about being woke and someone close to you doesn’t smack you in the head for being ignorant. Hope that suffices.

So instead of answering like you said you would. You didn’t. What a coward! But also typical of the side you represent. When challenged even a little bit and it wasn’t even a real challenge I simply asked for clarification and you TACOed! You can set your watch by it. My guess is that to be honest in why you tried to make the point that 'trans mass shooters are the fastest growing group of mass shooters' would make you sound like more of a transphobe than you already make yourself out to be. That you can't back up the point, because you know I'll ask where you came by the facts that back up that opinion. And you have none or at least none that couldn't be disproven with a simple search. Trans mass shooters could be the largest in America right now and that would not be surprising. Because their numbers have nowhere to go but up. Just like every distinct group, other than white people, since forever. If you start with zero and skyrocket to 1 you instantly become the fastest growing group of anything. But likely as not you didn't even consider that. Which is why you are so easy to trick. Because you don't think for yourself. You wait for daddy to vomit up your talking points so you don't have to burden yourself with thinking. They say the brain takes up 5% of the body mass but consumes as much as 20% of calories taken in. You saw those numbers and said, 'I can go much lower than that, hold my beer'. BTW, your tag line about being woke. You know that being 'awake' means you are simply alert or aware of racial prejudices and social injustices? They can be tough to see when you purposefully shield your eyes from them. Especially the ones you carry, yourself. You should think about that and try to be less of a jerk or at least get better or any facts.

All answered. Your turn. unless you found a reason not to.

We all have. By allowing g the system to perpetuate. That includes you.

Unless the goalposts happen to move between now and then. Remember, you were not specific.

Going back to respond to them all. Have your response ready

Rhetorical question. I do t know you.

I’ll happily answer them if you repost them to this thread. I can’t remember where it was we last discussed a topic. in the mean time it seems like you feel I have ill intent with my questions. I hope you take this as an honest effort to satisfy your request.

Thought stopper That's what I think the 'too many' comment was meant for. That's what CK was great at and many others on the right. They don't have the burden of facts so they figure out how to shut down a conversation and without being proven wrong, they can dance around as the winner. 'Too many' assumes there any. If CK didn't know how many there were and they didn't, then the answer should've been 'I don't know'. But that phrase is demonized on that side. Not having the conviction of a solid answer is looked upon as weakness. Watch any conservative that tries to make an outrageous point. Once confronted by the facts that they are wrong can they ever admit it? Never. Because they are looked down upon for admitting to anything that could be considered weak. Forcing them to move the goal posts. Obfuscate. Or claim, 'out of context'. You can set your watch by it. It's not coincidental that many of them grew up in faith. The one thing that faith cannot survive once exposed is doubt. Be it right or wrong, the opinion must be absolute regardless. Clinging to the veracity of the claim as true with all their hope and strength. It's not happenstance that these same people are drawn to strong men with strong opinions that twist and bend but never admit their error. Because they were raised to believe that these people are the holders of truth and cannot be questioned.

Not trying to assume your intentions but what is your reason for bringing up the point(perhaps not a fact just yet) but the point that 'trans mass shooters are the fastest growing group of mass shooters'? If it was just to make the point, firstly where is your information coming from that makes that claim true and secondly, if it is true what point are you trying to make by announcing that fact?

Pivot To a hammer everything looks like a threat to your world view. Hospitals? Really?! How stupid could you be to say something like this? How bias could you be to not immediately disavow this comment and pivot to ‘but crime somewhere else unrelated..’(might as well ask about her emails)? It must be exhausting having to continually bend yourself into pretzels to defend the indefensible.

Hasn’t needed to. Courts have slapped him so he doesn’t have to admit he was going to (TA)CO. Confirming that he did in fact TACO is pretty telling.

TACO It’ll never happen. Way too much downside. It’l strengthen enemies and force allies into supporting a tyrant. Which usually isn’t a good look. Especially considering the questionable health and that courts have slapped the admin’s bottom on this topic. Cowards are gonna coward!

The rhetoric you a currently use to talk about this group and the disinformation you are spreading about 'fathers' is actively convincing others to take up the same banner. That banner prevents compassion and sympathy for people that need help. Your place of privilege gives you the opportunity to demonize a group you feel as 'less than' you and undeserving of support. THAT is what you are doing to keep them in a hole that we all agree, they are in. Explain that away?

If you are making a counter point, please back it up with information or evidence? If not its just a feeling(emotion) and those are not valid in a debate. When I say 'we' I mean all of us in society. Both past and present. You've done it by knowing that there is a problem and not helping which is understandable because there are WAY TOO many problems for you to address personally OR seeing the problem and demonizing the people involved, making it seem as if they are unworthy of help/support OR not knowing about the problem(again that's not as bad because of the total tonnage of problems in this country) OR purposefully avoiding learning anything about problems to ensure your plausible deniability. I've done all these things. And as much as I would like to help I can only do so much. But having conversations with people that call them 'gang kids' is infuriating. Because it doesn't help and could actively convince others(who might be inclined to help) to not help. If you don't want them to be helped, ok. But at least be honest as to why? Because they are kids and kids deserve our compassion regardless of their situation in life.

https://www.cbsnews.com/miami/news/study-black-dads-more-involved-in-childrenss-lives-than-other-groups/ https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhsr/nhsr071.pdf Here is an article and data to show that inner city black and Latino fathers are more involved with their kids than we all thought or are told.