Jump to content

Michael Hardner

Senior Member
  • Posts

    43,154
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    98

Everything posted by Michael Hardner

  1. 1. Same as yours: to typify a group by showing an individual. 2. Right. Exactly. I hold these discussions to a higher standard. 3. Like "This is Trump nation." ? Like that ? 4. Insanity is the playground for the imaginative ? What ? 5. If you don't want them to resonate then ... you don't want people to get your message.
  2. Not at all. You just need to clarify sometimes, which is why I asked. Thank you.
  3. 1. 3. Is THIS an argument ? I would say not. 2. Because a picture closes the argument. There's nothing more to be said. It isn't anything that can help or further any kind of intelligent discussion. 4. And that means nothing either. You could stop a million Karens or Biden supporters or a million MAGA hat wearing Trump supporters. What does it mean ? It means that there are a million people who look like that, act like that. J 5. I'm a human being ? You can't expect me to be not-moody all the time any more than I can expect you to be horny. 6. That strikes me as crazy but I'm not saying don't be you. I'm saying that arguments should be universal if you want them to resonate to someone who lives outside your skull.
  4. 1. You closed with "Never forget..." and a picture. So your closing point is "look at a picture of this person". 2. I also got the point, but I stand by what I said: you can't point at a picture of a person and use that as an argument. That's propaganda methodology. Arguments are made from data, evidence... not taking a picture of a single damaged person and saying "see ?" 3. I define Chud as a class of people who are proudly ignorant. It's not a single person. A picture isn't a definition. Use words. We even used to have a rule here that said no pictures, in the golden era. 4. Then what are you doing ? For every image you post there's a counter-image of the opposing viewpoint that also serves no purpose. 5. Nope. The fact that you're using comedians as a parallel says it all. If you were trying to make people laugh, maybe you'd have a point. 6. It's not whether I like it or not. It's about your whole way of posting here... it's all about people you know personally, archetypes and stereotypes, and droning on about your experiences. If you want to pick out damaged people on the other side, then I'm going to pick on you... You are unable to make arguments unless you are part of the picture. 7. Well... maybe... you've got me there. I don't usually respond to this stuff negatively unless I'm in a bad mood. Like when I've been sick all weekend and I can't find anything truly interesting on here to comment on. Cheers anyway.
  5. 1. Ok. I read back and you kind of went back and forth. I'll stand corrected. It's the protests. 2. "Virtually none" ... were Nazis ... you say of the convoy folks. On the Israel protest: "These folks cheering don't believe in liberal democracy or basic human rights, they're Islamofascist Nazis. " " a lot of them chanting 'From the river..." "If Nazis marched down the streets of this country shouting and cheering genocidal antisemitic violence" "Most don't want peace and NEVER have" "I'm sure there's some actual peace-loving protestors in there somewhere. But anyone who chants "From the river to the sea..." is a genocidal ethnic-cleansing sh!tbag, and that's a lot of them. " Your stance on the two protests is markedly different, and you are relying on quantifying the nutjob contingent to justify that... but different ways. I posted a podcast that laid out that it's exactly the same problem with both sets of reporting: you can't quantify what is happening to scale. Justin Ling points out also that Counter protesters beat protesters and used racial insults but that it was under reported. My point to you: you don't have to pick a side. 3. Of course. 4. I have strong opinions about your comments because I care what you think. You're not part of a mass mob, you're a public commenter. There's no doubt we are roughly on the same side, but I stand by my point that you are slagging the protest - you are. From the comments in 2. And to me, it's a double-standard because all the same reasons people wrote off the Convoy are happening here also. But ok, maybe I am looking to closely at the rhetoric (again, comments in 2) and it's making me not understand what you're saying on the whole. I went back to look at your comments on the Convoy and while you were decidedly lighter on them but again, that's rhetoric.
  6. 1. I would expect University admin to be weak-kneed, at least as much as the City of Ottawa. I don't know if action is warranted here, though. The podcast I posted detailed how the scale of the protest is largely unreported. Maybe that changed. 2. The 'cosplay' accusation shows that the foundation of your criticism is based on a low opinion of students, not the events of the day. One can still protest Israel - a nation state that is susceptible to public opinion and presumably acts at a higher level of morality than terrorists. The idea that you have to protest against criminals at the same time in order to show a kind of both-sidesism is odd to me. 3. I don't know if Israel has gone too far in Gaza but it's possible. 4. I don't think Israel is winning, but ok. 5. Again, you don't have to have investments to protest.
  7. 1. You think that the "issue" here is Israel/Palestine but I am talking about the protests. 2. Ok. 3. Again, you are missing the scale. Fine you thought the Convoy was out of bounds but did you think they were Nazis ? 4. And here's the evidence. Because I don't pick a side on the protest, you label me as PC. That's a you problem. You may think you're objective, we all do, but you have to ask yourself how you react to different scenarios and step back a little more. My take is that you don't do that enough, which is where I get my opinion.
  8. 1. No he never parsed it down to that level of detail. I listened to the whole thing. 2. Did Obama propose this? 3. Failed programs mean that they fail to reach their objectives, which are to help country. 4. It's custom in politics to wish success for your opponent and be gracious upon the handover of power. This changed with Limbaugh's rabid style of populism. 5. No, I enjoy being wrong because it means I've learned something. Fabricating? Like Obama's plan to crash trains into each other or whatever? Listen... I'm on here to discuss and learn from other posters not to win. Zero-sum politics is the problem, and you are clearly an adherent of that style. Do you think liberalism should be bad? Socialism? You're perfect for the new age. If you don't think you have anything to learn from me, or think I'm 100% wrong, why would you ever discuss anything with me?
  9. Then you win. But at least you're engaging with them and not saying they should be deported or "stamped out" as some on here do.
  10. 1. I don't what ? You're saying I'm lying about myself here ? Did you see that part where I said you shouldn't talk to me if you think I'm a liar ? 2. I didn't say I wasn't concerned. I do not take it personally the way you do. I acknowledge that I have a dislike for Trump and I work to try to rise above that in my analysis. I have also said good things about him here as I really dislike binary takes. 3. I have also said there's potential for him to do well, have expressed hope that he does well, etc. Do you think Trudeau or Singh have potential to do well ? Do you hope they succeed ? 4. Obama was a non-factor in so many ways. I would say he listened to the experts on the economy and it eventually went well for him, and I would say his foreign policy was inconsistent and weak. He had the least experience of any president I can think of back to... He was a one-term Senator but let's see Bush - State Governor Clinton - State Governor Bush Sr - VP and head of CIA Reagan - State Governor Carter - State Governor Ford - Not elected but I think he was a Senator Nixon - Senator, VP Johnson - Senator, VP JFK - Senator Eisenhower - Military Leader in European Theatre, WW2 Truman - Senator, VP Roosevelt - State Governor Hoover ... ? Ok I went back 100 years just out of interest and Hoover is the one guy who is less qualified than Obama
  11. So... debate them... if you can. Instead of complaining about them.
  12. 1. I guess it is context. But he simultaneously states that Obama's approach is flawed yet acknowledging the possibility of success by "wishing" failure. Ok. 2. But... they might improve lives. It's at least possible. 3. No - I mean success by political opponents sometimes means better lives for all. Patriotism is not wanting your party to succeed but for the country to. This is elementary. 4. That is exactly what failure means, the program fails to achieve goals which are ostensibly to improve things. 5. But if they succeed, my god... that could mean you were wrong? Is there anywhere else for this conversation to go ? I don't see it.
  13. So you want to deport people whose views you don't agree with? I hope you haven't stood up for free speech elsewhere in this forum?
  14. 1. 2. Because success implies improvement of lives for our nation? 3. Exactly as you say, it was seen as a left-wing thing to oppose anti-patriotism. Your views support my point. You would be happy for things to go downhill if it hurts your political opponents. That's not a patriotic viewpoint at all.
  15. I love how you fast forward Beyond asking me if I want a foreign leader to be elected or not. I really am not invested in this the way you are, and if you don't believe that you shouldn't talk to me. As for who's going to set things right, of course I would want both of them to succeed at that. That. Why wouldn't I? It's strange to vote for your country or Ally to fail. Rush Limbaugh said publicly that he wanted Obama to fail. He was barely called out on that, certainly not by his fans. These are the people that call themselves patriots by the way.
  16. https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly9mZWVkcy5hY2FzdC5jb20vcHVibGljL3Nob3dzLzYzMGNlYWUzM2ZlMzc0MDAxMjI4MjhjNg/episode/NjYzMzE1YmY5ZGFhNDgwMDEyMzcxNWZj?ep=14 The first part of this podcast is a great takedown on media coverage, and then the host and guest do a fantastic job of showing how reasonable people can disagree on the issues, and do a positive exploration of how it can be discussed better.
  17. Because Europe and Canada were so overjoyed with the last president?
  18. And this also points to the lack of leadership in our public sphere. If we had true conservative liberal and left thinkers framing The discussion then we wouldn't waste so much bandwidth flinging mud.
  19. I agree with you 100% as long as you agree that the epistemic crisis crosses political boundaries. In other words, there is more unprincipled analysis than principled analysis across the board. How many people criticize protests based on the makeup of the attendees, including our current prime minister? If you have to break down the people making the argument, in order to analyze the validity of the argument, you legitimize ad hominem.
  20. You're wrong about me, and I have not seen anything that backs up your claims about the protests at scale. I already explained why you are biased, because you're using the same methods that anti convoy people used to discredit that movement. I'm taking about picking sides for the demonstration. You have a desperate need to classify politics in a binary way. I can't find anything to base a discussion with you on for this.
  21. I think so. But Charlottesville was a White Supremacist Rally and these are Anti Israel protests. The Ottawa rally was an anti Trudeau rally. All different things.
  22. 1. The university protests are about Divestment. Again, you are finding a reason to take a side, a knee jerk reaction and rush to judge. 2. I am, because I'm not trying to label one side correct and the other one wrong as you do again and again. These situations are complicated and you're indulging yourself to broadly weigh in with one side. 3. Based on what ? People were posting tons of pictures of Convoy protesters with Swastikas etc. but I knew it wasn't indicative of the protest as a whole. That's because I'm objective and you're not. This discussion won't go anywhere, though. I have said my piece.
  23. I agree with this part. The protest here is in sympathy with them for the most part, as far as I can see. We can pick out outliers, individuals who are behaving poorly, and that's arguable ... but it doesn't condemn the whole movement any more than Pat King did for the convoy.
  24. You are myopic when it comes to your own biases. The tribe I'm speaking about is students and you take a dislike to them. There are few qualitative differences between this and the ottawa protest and yet you favour one over the other based on outliers. "a lot of them" "some of them" these are weasel words you can pick out to cheer for the side that resembles your tribe the most. You despise my objectivity, that's your issue.
  25. Well both sides isn't automatically a bad thing. Maybe if there's Nazis on one side it's a bad thing.
×
×
  • Create New...