hpslugga

Is this related the the George Carlin take on rights to opinion? ”So the next time some asshole says to you, “I have a right to my opinion, “you say, “Oh yeah? Well I have a right to my opinion, and my opinion is you have no right to your opinion.” Then shoot the fuck and walk away.”

If you're gonna make me choose one thing, I'd suggest reviewing the Sokal affair https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_affair. It's a perfect example of how it can be exploited to just straight up fool people. Chomsky has also had some good commentary on it as well. I'd just YouTube "Chomsky on postmodernism" because there are no publications of his exclusively devoted to the topic, at least none of which I'm aware.

It's an inevitable corollary with the definition of the very concept. If opinion is a belief that can't be proven true nor false, then a statement cannot be an opinion if either of those things somehow happen. If I prove Derek Chauvin murdered George Floyd, that means "George Floyd was murdered by Derek Chauvin" is a fact. If I cannot prove that navy blue is a better color than scarlet red, that means that statement is an opinion. And notice, there's a huge difference between not yet proving something and not ever being able to prove something. An opinion falls under the latter description. With the former, it's just an assertion and its truth/falsity will ultimately be revealed and it'll either be filed under "fact" or "myth"...or lie or falsehood or whatever word you like.

Manufacturing Consent

Actually, hardly any of what you described as "opinion" actually qualifies as opinion. Opinion is a unique type of belief. It is unique in that it can never, under any circumstance, be proven true or false. "Navy blue is better than scarlet red." THAT is an opinion. You will never actually be able to say "the fact that OPINION was incorrect" because you'll never be able to prove it incorrect. We've lost sight of this, largely due to the ridiculous proliferation of post-modernist dogma. If you can prove that something is incorrect, then by definition, it cannot be opinion. So let's take the murder thing. That, in reality, is an assertion, but it takes more than raw emotion and confirmation bias to establish it as a fact. It is dishonest to assert baseless speculation as though it were a matter of fact. You have to consider all the elements that deem any killing as a "murder," juxtapose it with what happened, and see if it matches. Derek Chauvin, for example, did murder George Floyd. That's not an opinion. The state more than satisfied its burden of proof beyond all reasonable doubt, which if you ask me more than qualifies for an establishment of actual fact. The same applies to the police shooting here. Was it justified? Again, take 1) all the circumstances present and juxtapose it with 2) how the law defines a justified shooting by an officer of the law. If the two fit, he's not a murderer. If the two don't fit, he's a murderer. Shouldn't be that hard. What OnBoard did with the Georgia thing was neither fact nor opinion. He lied. Just straight up lied. Recall how this came about. He posted this: "Is this the Ga. law saying you can give a bottled water to someone in line, but it can't have political candidates name or political party on the label ?" There's no such Georgia law. It doesn't exist, but he asserted its existence as if it did. He asserted baseless speculation (i.e. something that's either not evidently true or evidently not true) as though it were a matter of fact when he knew full well it was not a matter of fact. Even if he actually believed it was true, as he stated in his immediate walkback later, he at least knew he couldn't prove it, as evident by his citing of a radio program as the source of such feeble nonsense. If he can't show it, he don't know it. But even with that confession, it's still dishonesty; not opinion. Radio programs don't work like a Norman Finkelstein book. Their statements aren't riddled with footnotes of citation, so it's not like they were literally citing anything when they said that. If anyone on that radio program actually did say that, they lied. One of the other effects of post-modernist dogma is that we go out of our way to, relatively speaking at least, let rubes off the hook while still indicting the real liars. That's stupid because it blurs the line between the liars and the rubes, and the truth is that line is paper thin at best. If you're dumb enough to believe improbable claims from questionable sources on insufficient evidence, that just makes you a fool. But you're only a fool if you keep that shit to yourself. When you start spreading around those improbable claims to others and pretending as if you know they're facts, you're telling lies. Even if you walk them back later, you still told lies (just like a murderer is still a murderer even if he deeply regrets doing it and shows deep, genuine remorse and contrition to everyone for having done it), and you have an obligation to fess up to it and suffer the consequences. That, ladies and gentlemen, is what we like to call "personal responsibility."

Mommy, the big kids won’t play nice with me!!!

Yeah he’s serving time on the inside for strenuously objecting to private healthcare and the military industrial complex. Good with a presser, tho. Just don’t go near him with any Limbaugh quotes or he’ll throw a book at your ass.

I know a guy

See the thing is the first rule about the cabal is no one talks about the cabal. The second rule is no one talks about the cabal. The third rule is that you have to be invited and if any of us do it in public on a board like this one, we’d have to kill you.

Lol “the cabal.” I have seen some truly dishonest shit on these boards before, but that one Bob Beamons all of them.

Goddamn, all of motherfucking this.

So what was the radio program?

Was thinking the exact same thing

You know full well that will never happen.

You're projecting as I have nothing to be defensive about. And why should I? This wasn't about anything I've done or said over the years; this is about you and your commitment to obsessive whataboutism. I'm not the first person to call it out, even if we limit that to just this thread. You knew better than to say something like that. I wasn't even referring to QAnon. You just assumed that. But see, that's the point. When it comes to batshit nuttery, GOP voters aren't short on material. I was actually referring to birtherism, which is at least sympathized with (if not wholly embraced) by 72% of registered GOP voters. 41% of participants in a 2016 poll indicated that they "disagreed" with the statement "Barack Obama was born in the United States" while an additional 31% "had doubts." In other words, even despite being presented concrete, irrefutable evidence to prove the fact of the statement fully 5 years before the poll was taken, 72% of GOP voters will not say that they agree with it. And that's just the most egregious example. Again, we also have Jade Helm 15, the stolen election of 2020, QAnon, Pizzagate, Seth Rich, Vince Foster, COVID is a hoax being perpetrated by the Chinese, etc. That laundry list is considerably longer than whatever dreams Democratic voters are having. You spend far less time and effort pointing that out than you do with your silly little "both sides!!!" comments.

And you really don't see how people can detect the utter tone deafness on your part when you seem to equate, for example, 20 quotes that, according to you, were posted more than 16 months ago by fewer than 20 people with a belief that either was adopted by or sympathized with by 72% of Republican voters?

First, I would ask how many is “many?” I can’t speak for anyone other than myself but I didn’t give a shit about the dossier one way or the other. Do I think Donald Trump should have been impeached? Yes. Do I think he should have been impeached for the reasons he was actually impeached (the first time around)? Let’s put it this way: if you ranked his crimes alphabetically and if you really believed every single word in that dossier, there still aren’t enough letters in the alphabet to include it. Second, how many, of this “many,” still cling to it? Is it nearly as big as the QAnon idiots who still believe in a batshit fairy tale that never earned a microsecond’s worth of attention? If you could provide evidence to “yes” answers to both, you’d merit consideration. Until then, you’re still coming off as someone desperately seeking a false equivalence in this stupid game of whataboutism.

I admire Anastasis' commitment when he feverishly tries to equate these two parties. It's a passion worth replicating in a more noble venture. But what he's actually doing here is like jerking off with his hand tightly wrapped in barbed wire and then he ends up blaming the barbed wire and the lighting of the room equally for not producing a climax. No, one factor was much more responsible than the other. Just because two things contribute does not inherently render them equal contributions.

Could not have said that shit better. Well actually I could have if Bill Maher didn't beat me to it two years ago: The problem is that they genuinely believe that feelings and emotions are an adequate substitute for legit evidence. As to them being censored, that's a bad joke. They have 3 cable "news" networks, a litany of radio stations/shows, and a roster of characters that they readily confuse for intellectuals. The fact that they keep self-owning to the point where even some of their own people stop listening to them (COVID is real, Ted) does not mean they weren't given a platform and/or opportunity to put their shit on blast, much less does it mean they don't exist. As many here have asked, what views, exactly, are being censored? If the right wingers cannot offer a sensible answer to that question without some quip that they find to be clever or some stupid insult like "go fuck yourself," they have no right whatsoever to act offended when they're easily dismissed. And if they still are offended and they want to let us know that they're offended, my response to that is this: I'm offended that they're offended.

This is precisely what I was referring to. That’s exactly what you’re doing, yet here you are projecting your own faults onto those willing to call you on your own bullshit.

You thought you did well. That's adorable.

Always been about the cancel culture Always been the snowflakes Always been the communists Always been the fascists Always been the racists Always been the dogmatic ones that try to force their beliefs down people's throats Always been the ones opposed to civil rights When you resist those things, in their tiny minds, you're the one that's guilty of those things precisely because you resisted them. When you resist their calls to cancel things like Dungeons and Dragons, the Teletubbies, a great chunk of the music industry, etc, that's you being all about cancel culture. When you resist their whines and bitches about QAnon, Jade Helm 15, Pizzagate, the fake COVID-19 scamdemic, etc, that's you being a snowflake When you oppose corporate welfare, that's you being a communist When you oppose bills like these https://kfor.com/news/oklahoma-legislature/oklahoma-bill-seeking-to-protect-drivers-who-run-over-protesters-heads-to-governors-desk/, that's you being a fascist When you say things like "whether white people want to admit it or not, they've enjoyed a degree of privilege in America that no other race has," that's you being a racist. When you oppose the suggestion, as so many states have, that history classes in public schools need to teach that God's holy finger wrote the Constitution before he handed it off to Jesus and Moses to deliver to the Constitutional Convention, you're being dogmatic in your zeal to force your beliefs down other people's throats When you call a woman a Karen, that's you being sexist When you oppose compulsory prayer in school, you're opposed to civil liberties. And they don't see that same evil in themselves when they do the exact same. Quite the opposite, actually. So when they wanted to cancel D&D etc, that's them being moral crusaders When they promote QAnon, Pizzagate, et al, that's them fighting for all of our freedoms by speaking truth to power When they support corporate welfare, that's them being capitalists When they support bills like the aforementioned, that's them championing freedom of speech When they deny the existence of white privilege, that's them being tolerant When they support the Moses/Jesus things, that's them being scholars that are faithful to accurate history When they oppose calling certain women Karens, that's them being feminists When they support compulsory prayer in school, that's them supporting religious freedom It's a shocking level of self-delusion that goes far beyond anything that I've seen in my lifetime.

You're being too kind. It's literally impossible to defend their positions. Asking a GQP to argue in good faith is like dreaming of the perfect woman.