The awe-inspiring conservative counter-offensive against woke nonsense

[Michael Hardner]

7 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

1. Nope. It's straight up. 
2. it's well established you're not discussing things honestly.  
3. Therefore the question is simple and honest - why? Why do it?
4. If you just enjoy the gamesmanship and think of this place as a bit like a checkersboard where the goal is to play a game and it's not ABOUT having a discussion then fine, i can respect that. But i think it's important to be honest about it.
5. The question of are you capable or even interested in doing so from a personal point of view is up to you to answer. 
6. But if you pull the "i have  no idea what spin means - you must believe i'm a fox news host" crap you can't also argue you're attempting to be serious

1. No.  By the definition, there's an assumption in there that skews the question.  
2. That's your opinion.  You don't have any evidence of lies, you just don't like how I post.  For example, me asking you what "woke" means to you throws you into a pillow-punching forum tantrum...
3. Answer why you load your questions and put assumptions on me.
4. This is projection.  I have already said that I don't see it that way, and I think you have indicated the opposite...

An here it is... earlier in this very thread I said to Perspektiv "Life isn't a contest 100% of the time." and he responded "Debating with you, is" which you added to by saying "Everyone feels that way with you Mike."  

So let's recap: Perspektiv states that debating with me is a contest 100% of the time.  You say that everyone feels that way.  And I say I don't see why it has to be.

So who's being forthright here and who's being dishonest ?

5. Yes, I'm willing and able to discuss.  Not interested in 'debating' with either you or Perspektiv.  Just trying to understand where you're coming from, hence I asked if you thought Flaherty was "woke".  i did not know beforehand what you would say.

6.  You parse my words too closely.  Just ask me if things are unclear, instead of accusing me of being dishonest.  I mean, you've already said you think I'm stupid haven't you ?  Wouldn't you normally help a stupid person take steps to understand ? 

[Moonlight Graham]

3 hours ago, Perspektiv said:

...and seemingly are petrified to stand for anything.

No harm in this, mind you, but to then debate using passive aggressive tactics, while avoiding the heat, is silly at best.

I love the heat. I bask in it. Pressure calms me down. Am also not afraid of putting myself out there. 

I make my bed, no issues lying in it. 

You come across like Ron McClean from coaches corner, who would contort himself so profusely to remain politically correct, while at times saying nothing.

@Michael Hardnerthis is what it often seems like to me as well.   Not to say you never have an opinion.  But you've hardly ever voiced any opinion that could possibly be regarded as political incorrect, and when prompted it can come out as doublespeak.

You're a very unique poster and one that's sometimes just difficult to guage.  I'm not going to try to guess as to why, maybe you just want to remain above the fray and stay objective and academic, I dunno.  I'm not saying it's wrong, just saying that it's unique and unusual on these boards and so can confuse and frustrate others.

[Michael Hardner]

24 minutes ago, Moonlight Graham said:

1. this is what it often seems like to me as well.   Not to say you never have an opinion.  But you've hardly ever voiced any opinion that could possibly be regarded as political incorrect, and when prompted it can come out as doublespeak.

2. You're a very unique poster and one that's sometimes just difficult to guage.  I'm not going to try to guess as to why, maybe you just want to remain above the fray and stay objective and academic, I dunno.  I'm not saying it's wrong, just saying that it's unique and unusual on these boards and so can confuse and frustrate others.

1. Do you think that I lie, and use passive aggressive tactics though ?  I have concurred that I can be reluctant to pose an opinion sometimes, and my views are centrist or even status quo.
2. I don't want to frustrate people but do you actually think that causes people to suspect my methods ?   Do you think it's justified ?  I am probably older than most and a lot more cynical/circumspect about politics than most also.  I don't see Trudeau vs Poilievre as being anything more than a minor mud fight between two mediocre Canadian politicians...

[CdnFox]

34 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. No.  By the definition, there's an assumption in there that skews the question.  

there's no assumption.  That has been demonstrably proven numerous times now. And you don't refute the specific examples you just try to change the subject. The question remains unskewwed - whether you behave like that is not at issue, the question is why and that's legit.

 

Quote

2. That's your opinion.  You don't have any evidence of lies, you just don't like how I post.  For example, me asking you what "woke" means to you throws you into a pillow-punching forum tantrum...

I have presented much evidence that you're not being honest. Sorry kiddo - this ain't a court of law. the burden of proof is balance of probability, not 'beyond a reasonable doubt'.  It is impossible for a reasonable person to believe your story about 'spin'.

Quote

3. Answer why you load your questions and put assumptions on me.

I have - they're not loaded questions and they're not assumptions but rather observable facts.

Now - answer the question.

Quote

4. This is projection.  I have already said that I don't see it that way, and I think you have indicated the opposite...

The that wouldn't be projection - but to be clear i don't believe you. The evidence is pretty clear you are not telling the truth. Your behavior very clearly says that what i said is accurate.

 

Quote

So let's recap: Perspektiv states that debating with me is a contest 100% of the time.  You say that everyone feels that way.  And I say I don't see why it has to be.

So who's being forthright here and who's being dishonest ?

Perspectiv and I obviously.  Your behavior very strongly says you DO see it has to be that way. You work hard to MAKE it that way.  As i've pointed out a million times you rarely discuss the issue, you use cheap little debate tricks to dance around it.

Lets get real. When he said you 'spin' things you literally tried to claim you'd never heard that term before other than it's something fox news hosts do and you couldn't possibly see how the term might be applied to  a person like you, You then doubled down and suggested people were claiming YOU were a news host.

Sorry man. There's no walking that back. You can't say that and pretend to be having an up front conversation.

 

Quote

5. Yes, I'm willing and able to discuss.  Not interested in 'debating' with either you or Perspektiv.  Just trying to understand where you're coming from, hence I asked if you thought Flaherty was "woke".  i did not know beforehand what you would say.

Well then just straight up and ask. First you mention his name without saying why, then some cheezy little bit about how he's conservative and supported trans rights so is he woke as if that's the criteria somehow.

AND - information is a two way street.  when i pointed out you only gave that info to decide on and questioned you about it you ignored it.  That further demonstrates a level of dishonesty - you weren't interested in discussing anything you appear to have been hoping for some sort of 'gotcha' moment that didn't happen. Otherwise you'd explain why you thought that might be woke.

Honest discussion mike. It's not that hard to do but it does mean that if you ask you also answer.
 

Quote

6.  You parse my words too closely.  Just ask me if things are unclear, instead of accusing me of being dishonest.

I don't think it's unclear at all. 

[Michael Hardner]

6 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

1. there's no assumption.

2. ...suggested people were claiming YOU were a news host.

Sorry man. There's no walking that back. You can't say that and pretend to be having an up front conversation.

3.  Well then just straight up and ask.

4. First you mention his name without saying why...

5.  AND - information is a two way street.  when i pointed out you only gave that info to decide on and questioned you about it you ignored it. 

6. That further demonstrates a level of dishonesty - you weren't interested in discussing anything you appear to have been hoping for some sort of 'gotcha' moment that didn't happen.

7. Otherwise you'd explain why you thought that might be woke.

8. I don't think it's unclear at all. 

1. Example: "why not just focus on discussing the matters at hand rather than playing games most of the time?"  
Assumption is that I play games, but to prove that you would have to get me to admit that I am playing games.  There's no proof that I do this, and in fact I don't do it.
2. Now THAT is dishonest.  Black Kettle calls white pot black...
3. You mean, like my 3rd post on Page 5 ? "A conservative who voted for trans rights.  Is he woke?"  Those last three words are me asking.
4. 5. I assumed it was obvious.  When you said you didn't see my point or whatnot, I clarified.  Are you starting to see that maybe you're reading more into my intentions here than is really there ?
6.  Well... ok let me be frank here whether you believe me or not.

Now, I wasn't hoping for a gotcha moment... Actually, I guess I would have been glad to reach a point where you said "Say, I didn't know that" or something to reframe the conversation, or for you to say something like "He was a conservative" or... what you eventually DID say, which was that favouring trans rights isn't itself woke. 

So I got clarified by your answer.  Did you notice that I didn't go "gotcha" or chase you down for that opinion ?  I just accepted it.  Now, if you had said, somewhere or sometime, that any trans rights shouldn't ever happen or somesuch then I could and should ask you about that to find out how you differentiate such things... but it's not a 'gotcha' it's just a contradiction I want to understand.  If you don't even want to answer, that's your business but I might not let that go.  That's me... I expect posters to be able to explain themselves as much as it bothers some.

But... So what if you contradict yourself sometime ?  Not saying you do, but it's not a point in my favour or anything... Again it's not a contest.  Go search my posts for my many mistakes, changes of mind, mea culpas etc.  I'm not perfect and I don't expect others to be but I WILL ask.

7. I did (I admit, reluctantly) give my definition of woke, which is subjective - remember that.  I think the term is lame/overused enough that I would never use it.  It's so subjective as to be vague, and using it amounts to virtue signalling in some arenas.  But anyway, if I WERE to use it then I would say it's "extreme social progressivity" and as such agree with the way you're using it in this context of basic rights not being woke. 

What would be "woke" for me ?    I really hate to answer that but I know certain people personally who have made disparaging remarks about people who state they wouldn't date a trans person.  I think that's ridiculous.  One example.

8.  You think I'm a liar but you still post to me.  I don't understand your methods or motivation as much as you seem to say you understand mine.

[CdnFox]

47 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. Example: "why not just focus on discussing the matters at hand rather than playing games most of the time?"  
Assumption is that I play games, but to prove that you would have to get me to admit that I am playing games

No. All i have to do is show where you were playing games. Your admission is irrelevant.

and i've done that. Numerous times in this thread alone.  Your "never heard of spin before' nonsense. Your deliberate twisting of woke=dumb to dumb=woke, many other examples.

As 2  is precisely what you did.

3 - i've addressed that already. Several times now. 

4 5 - no you didn't.

6-7 -  that actually has more of a ring of truth to it for the most part and i appreciate that. There's nothing wrong with learning how people view a subject - but remember if that's a one way street its not a 'discussion' any more and you should always give as much as you get or your motives appear suspect.

I asked you direct questions about why you thought conservative and 'trans' were enough information for me to form an opinion and you just completely dodged replying.  That causes you to look dishonest.  Remember the old saying "it's not enough to be pure you must be seen to be pure".

As it is i remember the debates around that bill well. To e honest i don't think a damn thing has changed. Everyone = trans people deserve not to be discriminated against. The question is how far should we go to accomodate their situation.  Conservatives - not TOO far, left of center - pretty far.  woke - ALL THE WAY BABYYYYYY!!!!!

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

You think I'm a liar but you still post to me.  I don't understand your methods or motivation as much as you seem to say you understand mine.

Why wouldn't I . It's not like i'm trusting you with money or anything, it's just posts   And when you challenge a falsehood, either intentonal or otherwise, it can often lead to interesting results.  There are also people who are slighty 'sanity challenged' here and i will post to them as well.  And also people who are honest and sane and in between. I'm all about the diversity you know   LOL  there's even some who have these brief moments of lucidity where you can have good conversations before they go off the rails again.

And while i believe you're frequently dishonest i don't think you're maliciously so nor do i think it's as tribal as some are, so it's less offensive than some.

Like i said - i don't mind sparring at all, it can be fun and keeps the brain sharp.  But it is nice once in a while to just drop the crap and have a straight up discussion about things no bullshit no twisting no games and no spin (go look it up for god's sake) just an ernest attempt to explore an issue through conversation.

 

 

 

[Perspektiv]

3 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

I don't know what "spinning" is.

Twisting ones words. Putting words in a person's mouth. All of which, to meet a narrative.

Or, if you may, being deceptive.

3 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

So far "people" who react to me

You're like a toxic woman. Always having to get in the passive aggressive digs. 

3 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

If I post an opinion you don't agree with, it's not a lie.

Never said it was. You're spinning again. Disagreement isn't the issue here. 

3 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

I'm guessing you have trust issues. 

Thats the understatement of the year, but again has nothing to do with trust. I don't need to trust someone I debate with. I just need them debating honestly. Otherwise, the intellectual part of the debate, gets thrown out.

I will call it out, just like I would appreciate someone calling me out for dishonest tactics, as its the last thing I want to do in debate.

[Perspektiv]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

You think I'm a liar but you still post to me.

Calling someone out, is still "posting to you". Until one masters telepathy  that is.

Its all about perspective in life, sometimes.

I wouldn't be surprised if you worked for CSIS. 

[CdnFox]

1 minute ago, Perspektiv said:

 

Its all about perspective in life, sometimes.

LOL - i see what you did there....

[Michael Hardner]

7 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

1. All i have to do is show where you were playing games.  

2. -  that actually has more of a ring of truth to it for the most part and i appreciate that. There's nothing wrong with learning how people view a subject - but remember if that's a one way street its not a 'discussion' any more and you should always give as much as you get or your motives appear suspect.

3  Why wouldn't I.

4. And while i believe you're frequently dishonest i don't think you're maliciously so nor do i think it's as tribal as some are, so it's less offensive than some.

 

1. It's impossible for you to prove my intent.  And your random guesses are paranoid and terrible.
2. Hm.... ok I will think about that.
3. Because if I'm lying then it's a complete waste of your time... unless you are trying to trip ME up.
4. If I'm not maliciously dishonest then... I'm ... crazy ?
 

[Michael Hardner]

9 minutes ago, Perspektiv said:

1. Twisting ones words. Putting words in a person's mouth. All of which, to meet a narrative.

2. You're like a toxic woman. Always having to get in the passive aggressive digs. 

3. Never said it was. You're spinning again. Disagreement isn't the issue here. 

1.  Call me out then.
2. You keep comparing me to a "woman"... it's a weird thing to say IMO because you're insulting me and women at the same time right ?  Is that so ?
3.  Nope.  Not spinning.  I'm trying to figure out what you mean by calling me "spinning".  I said "I just post" and you just smugly said "deceptively" ... zero context.  So I'm SUGGESTING not saying that you are calling my opinions deceptions having zero else to go on.  And here you come back saying I'm "spinning".  Well back up your assertions like a grown-up.  I thought you hated passive agressivity.  Well you're doing that to a T.  Just say what you mean.

I had wanted to write a bunch of insults here about a man such as yourself labelling me a "woman" then engaging in catty comments but I will just leave it at this sentence.

This is going nowhere for now... chat later then...

 

[Perspektiv]

Just now, Michael Hardner said:

Call me out then.

I did o_O

4 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Well back up your assertions like a grown-up. 

Debate like a grown up. That's a start.

[CdnFox]

4 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. It's impossible for you to prove my intent.

Hardly. People's intent is derived from their actions all the time.

It seems like you wish it worked like you could do whatever you want and then when you get called on it you can simply blow it off with 'but but but but my intent ... ".   Nope.  Sorry. Every day here and in the real world people will be determining your intent by your actions. It's well recognized in law as well.

So if your actions aren't matching your intent you need to change your actions.

3 - not at all. You can learn quite a lot observing liars as well.

4  Two things can be true at the same time.  (Snicker!)   Joking aside i don't think that's a reasonable conclusion. You may have your own reasons that aren't particularly malicious. For example a desire to 'spar' with people mentally isn't particularly malicious or insane but may involve dishonest or at least deceitful tactics.  Poker is full of deceitful tactics and it's a game.

 

[Michael Hardner]

34 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

1. People's intent is derived from their actions all the time.

2. Every day here and in the real world people will be determining your intent by your actions. It's well recognized in law as well.

3. So if your actions aren't matching your intent you need to change your actions.

4.  Poker is full of deceitful tactics and it's a game.

 

1. Not proven.  And my intent is a lot more murky than, say, a cat chasing a mouse.  I don't even know what it is sometimes.  Including now.
2. I don't think you can conceive of "subjectivity".  For you to infer my intentions is fine, for you to THINK you know is fine.  But you are wrong, at least most of the time.  And you most certainly can't prove what is in someone's head.
3. Yes, this could be.  This is why I'm still curious of this conversation.  I seem to infuriate people who - to my subjective view - love to make broad and sweeping statements and don't like when I pick at them without explaining my own stance.  So a certain type of person, and I'm not disparaging you at least not here really hates my style of doing that.  I think you and Perspektiv would have assaulted Socrates.
4. Well I don't see the discussion forum as a game, exactly.  Not a contest anyway, as I have said.  I'm going to try to approach things a little differently, though, to see if I can get different results.

[CdnFox]

12 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. Not proven.  And my intent is a lot more murky than, say, a cat chasing a mouse.  I don't even know what it is sometimes.  Including now.

It's more than adequately proven. That's the way it is.

You have a bit of a credibility issue going on.  If your actions don't meet your words people are going to have a tough time accepting what you say.

And you don't get much of a say in that - unfortunately that's just the way the world works.

 

Quote

2. I don't think you can conceive of "subjectivity".  For you to infer my intentions is fine, for you to THINK you know is fine.  But you are wrong, at least most of the time.  And you most certainly can't prove what is in someone's head.

We do it all the time.  If someone's statements do not match their actions we can determine they're not being honest.

 

Quote

3. Yes, this could be.  This is why I'm still curious of this conversation.  I seem to infuriate people who - to my subjective view - love to make broad and sweeping statements and don't like when I pick at them without explaining my own stance. 

You infuriate people by playing debating tricks instead of actually discussing things.

Quote

So a certain type of person, and I'm not disparaging you at least not here really hates my style of doing that.  I think you and Perspektiv would have assaulted Socrates.

LOL - you're more of a gregor mcgregor than a socraties i think  

You don't pick crap apart. You simply deflect and make questionable statements which you then refuse to back up. Like i said - it's the dishonest tricks that annoy people.

 

Quote

4. Well I don't see the discussion forum as a game, exactly.  Not a contest anyway, as I have said.  I'm going to try to approach things a little differently, though, to see if I can get different results.

You behave as if you do so either change your behavior to match your claim or change your claim to match your statements. Otherwise you just look dishonest as hell.

[Michael Hardner]

12 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

1. It's more than adequately proven.  
2. You infuriate people by...

1. There's no evidence, no smoking gun.  We have your assertion which is just an opinion by definition.  It's quite arrogant to think you can state certainty over what someone is thinking.  If you want to give me advice on being a better poster, maybe take some yourself.
2. Should I try to NOT do that ?  How about you stop telling people what they're thinking because that's infuriating too.

And... this "  If someone's statements do not match their actions we can determine they're not being honest." is a very odd response to an assertion that you don't understand subjectivity.  What makes you able to 'prove' my intentions, but I can't do so ?  Can I just say it's certain that you're trolling me ?

It's very weird that you refuse to accept my point of view on my own thoughts... and yet I'm pretty sure I can't do the same.  Ah well...

Edited March 5 by Michael Hardner

[CdnFox]

4 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. There's no evidence, no smoking gun. 

there absolutely is.  You absoutely did the things i said you did. THey're right there in black and white.

If you walked up to a person and stabbed them, then stabbed them again and again till they died, and looked at me and said "i had no intention of causing them harm",  i'd be looking at you with the same look i have now   

You did what you did and it's hardly the first time and others see it as well.  Sorry - the smoking gun is there, your actions are there, the fact you don't like it doesn't change that.  The facts don't care about your feelings.

[Michael Hardner]

26 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

1. You absoutely did the things i said you did. THey're right there in black and white.

2. If you walked up to a person and stabbed them, then stabbed them again and again till they died, and looked at me and said "i had no intention of causing them harm",  i'd be looking at you with the same look i have now   

 

1. Black and white words don't prove intention, motives, or people's thinking.
2. Great analogy, Kreskin. 
 

I guess that's where we are.  You are either so superlatively arrogant that you think you read minds, or you don't understand the concepts of subjectivity and universality.  I won't ever crack this egg, so looks like we're going to keep infuriating each other... 

Parting thoughts ?

[CdnFox]

28 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. Black and white words don't prove intention, motives, or people's thinking.

Did you want me to get you some crayons?  

Look - some time between when you were a child and when you grew up and assumed the responsibilities of an adult you should have learned that you and your motivations will be judged based on what you do/say. It is like that for everyone and that is why responsible adults are very careful to make sure their words and actions match what they think and intend.

I'm sorry that was not made clear to you.

Your intent is clear for all to see. And you are judged on that. If your actions are sending a different message than your intent then change your actions. It's that simple, and i shoudln't have to be explaining this to an adult.

Quote

2. Great analogy, Kreskin. 

And yet you can't even raise an argument against it.  See why people think you're not honest?

 

Quote

I guess that's where we are.  You are either so superlatively arrogant that you think you read minds, or you don't understand the concepts of subjectivity and universality.  I won't ever crack this egg, so looks like we're going to keep infuriating each other... 

I'm not infuriated. Your behavior is more or less what i expected getting into the conversation and it's been pretty civil i think. 

I think if you're infuriated it's because you got called out for something and you can't 'trick' your way out of or around it.

There's no arrogance. There's no lack of concepts. Your actions and words speak for you as a person and they are loud and clear.  I get that this causes you distress but that is something for you to resolve  - your action where i noted are dishonest and if you do not want to be percieved as being dishonest then you need to change those kinds of actions.

 

Quote

Parting thoughts ?

Awww -don't run away mad

It's pretty simple. You do not like having your bad behaviour rubbed in your face (by two people this time). And fair enough.  But the solution is not to blame the people holding up the mirror, the solution is to change your behaviour.

I'm sure you're old enough to know honest behaviour and discussion from cheap tricks - try to stick with the honest stufff and maybe we can have some good talks now and then.

[Michael Hardner]

39 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

 try to stick with the honest stufff...

I am honest. You can't spell and you can't read minds. You don't understand subjectivity, or really anything very well.  When I cornered you about a syllogism you kind of did a pirouette and danced away. You call me dishonest and constantly lie about me.

It's not that much fun posting to you actually. I think I might come up with a new approach. Scratch that, old approach. I'll bet you can guess what it is right?

[Perspektiv]

25 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Scratch that, old approach. I'll bet you can guess what it is right?

Dishonesty?

[Moonbox]

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

It's pretty simple. You do not like having your bad behaviour rubbed in your face (by two people this time). And fair enough.  But the solution is not to blame the people holding up the mirror, the solution is to change your behaviour.

It's funny watching you say stuff like this, because nobody on this forum is less capable of introspection or self-awareness than you.  🤡

[I am Groot]

5 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

 did (I admit, reluctantly) give my definition of woke, which is subjective - remember that.  I think the term is lame/overused enough that I would never use it.  It's so subjective as to be vague, and using it amounts to virtue signalling in some arenas.  But anyway, if I WERE to use it then I would say it's "extreme social progressivity" and as such agree with the way you're using it in this context of basic rights not being woke. 

People use the term 'woke' because everyone pretty much knows what you mean. Nobody is going to use 'extreme social progressives' to describe people who pull down statues or ban books or demand trigger warnings and safe spaces or want to learn criminal law but demand the teachers never use the word 'rape', or insist gender is fluid and a man can become a woman overnight just because he feels like he's a woman.

It's not that your term is necessarily inaccurate (not totally as I think the majority of progressives at the very least support such things), but that it's too, I don't know, clinical. It also lacks the contempt with which the right has imbued the word 'work'. 

[I am Groot]

I really don't understand this interest of people doing a long, multiple-page back and forth "You said this, no I didn't, you said that and I said the other thing. No, you said this and this and meant that."

Why the hell do you even care? Surely you don't enjoy it or think you can win any sort of applause from weary-eyed bystanders?

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

I am honest.

There is nothing honest about your behavior.  It's not honest to pretend you've never heard the term 'spin' when referencing information or an argument.  It's not honest to reverse a person's position and pretend thats what he said. I've pointed out many other examples. You regularly practice most of the more common left wing debate tricks, and theyr'e not honest debate.

And its not honest to claim otherwise.  And it's right there, there's no mistaking it or dodging it. The only people who would think that wasn't dishonest is other dishonest people.

Anyway - give it some thought and if you decide to be a little more honest in your debate in the future i'm happy to discuss issues with you, and if you're not i'm happy to point it out to you and as an example to others. So either way i'm happy

55 minutes ago, Perspektiv said:

Dishonesty?

Hammer meet nail