We are all Slave now.

[Pretty Little Flower]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

It is a fact that is undetermined and cannot be determined. Lying requires intent.

past tense lied
past participle lied
to deliberately say something that is not true

So if you say something about it, that statement would fall into the categories of argument or opinion.

Thank you! This explains so much of what you write here! You say things that are untrue, but cling to the fact there is some metaphysical doubt as to whether you are lying or just unable to discern the truth. The problem for you is, most of us have a pretty good idea which is which. For example, when you stated that nobody branded Hillary as shrill, I'm pretty darn sure you were just inexplicably clueless about this phenomenon. When you said that a Google search producing dozens of articles discussing how Hillary was branded as shrill did not have any bearing on the truth of your statement that Hillary was never branded as shrill, you were lying to us. Does this help?

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Telling about what? I'm not hiding anything. It's pretty fucking obvious if you're white in Trump's America, you have very little to fear. If you're not, you've got good reason to be scared. And I am highly suspect of the self-aggrandizing political statements I hear from loads of white people.

If you can't see it at this point in this conversation, it's very difficult to generate the energy to help you.

It has to do with empathy and how it's possible for even white people to avoid breaking out issues by racial categories and look at the treatment of fellow Americans as a whole and be disgusted by it. They can even express that disgust without trying to prove (or signal) to other people that they belong with other good people.

In your head, for example, Adder only tries to educate himself and understand issues that may not affect him directly, while trying to change his behavior in order to respect others, because he craves the acceptance of others like him. That's absolutely fucking ridiculous.

I will say this: I don't doubt that you're surrounded by a bunch of fucking phonies who you spend most of your time with who couldn't possibly care less about issues that don't affect them directly.

TM

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Adder

It's fascinating that you include the exposure of a long history of documented sexual assault and violence (and really, whom among us was not aware the world was that way) on this list.

Read Mobs, Messiahs, and Markets. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. You have a good idea, even an urgent idea, and then people glom onto it, it gains steam, it attracts "joiners," and the idea bloats into a thing beyond what is intended.

MeToo is a great idea the time for which was long coming. And then the joiners jumped in and suddenly people were discussing whether accusers should be believed without question. That's what happens with these things. If not run in a disciplined manner, they go sideways.

By the way, that first sentence here? That's a perfect example of virtue-signalling. You've repackaged what I said, where I was simply referring to multiple recent movements, and suggested I'm downplaying "sexual assault and violence," as if that was all MeToo encompassed (that it was not more significantly focused on less salacious sounding things like harassment and discrimination). You can score points with overheated characterizations like that on Facebook, or perhaps in comments on a Yahoo story, but you shouldn't try it here.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

It is a fact that is undetermined and cannot be determined. Lying requires intent.

past tense lied
past participle lied
to deliberately say something that is not true

So if you say something about it, that statement would fall into the categories of argument or opinion. Does that make it a question of fact, or one of opinion? Well, you can email that question to any number of 1L gunners. Seems quite immaterial to me.

(And I'm not even sure I called it a question of opinion. Maybe I did, but I think that's your term.)

Like I said, it's a question of fact, and one that is hard to determine. That doesn't make it a matter of opinion. If you are on a jury and you have to decide whether a defendant acted with a certain intent, you make a finding of fact as best as you can, even though you can't conclusively determine it. The fact that juries are instructed to reach a guilty verdict only if they have no reasonable doubt does not prevent juries from finding intent every day.

I'm sure you have no problem with things the media report all the time even though they do not know them for a certainty. The issue here is not one of epistemology. You have a gut reaction that the media owes the President deference.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

If you can't see it at this point in this conversation, it's very difficult to generate the energy to help you.

It has to do with empathy and how it's possible for even white people to avoid breaking out issues by racial categories and look at the treatment of fellow Americans as a whole and be disgusted by it. They can even express that disgust without trying to prove (or signal) to other people that they belong with other good people.

In your head, for example, Adder only tries to educate himself and understand issues that may not affect him directly, while trying to change his behavior in order to respect others, because he craves the acceptance of others like him. That's absolutely fucking ridiculous.

I will say this: I don't doubt that you're surrounded by a bunch of fucking phonies who you spend most of your time with who couldn't possibly care less about issues that don't affect them directly.

TM

I'm quite disgusted by the way our justice system uses the poor and minorities as cash machines and stores them in gulags. I've written quite extensively here about that. And I've said it to almost any person who challenges the notions of BLM (which is usually the conversation piece triggering a conversation about general reform and abuse). I also did something about it when I had the chance, and it made a difference.

I'm quite cynical about progressives. This is true. But I don't think they're all full of shit. I think they can be partly full of shit and partly not. They can be virtue signalling and earnest at once, in varying degrees.

I just don't have the time to be lectured about how I should think by people whose motivations I suspect, even only in part. Like I said, I'm biased.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Like I said, it's a question of fact, and one that is hard to determine. That doesn't make it a matter of opinion. If you are on a jury and you have to decide whether a defendant acted with a certain intent, you make a finding of fact as best as you can, even though you can't conclusively determine it. The fact that juries are instructed to reach a guilty verdict only if they have no reasonable doubt does not prevent juries from finding intent every day.

I'm sure you have no problem with things the media report all the time even though they do not know them for a certainty. The issue here is not one of epistemology. You have a gut reaction that the media owes the President deference.

No. I have a gut reaction to shading. I might be paranoid, but I see shading in many stories, on many issues. Professionals know how to write without infecting a story with any slant. They choose not to do it.

I had this same reaction to the NYTimes carrying Bush's water on Iraq. There, the shading was to the positive, always emphasizing the veracity of the reasons to invade.

I hate pretexts.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I'm totally biased. I embrace it. I think virtue-signalling is rampant and embarrassing in our culture.

This is because you do not believe in empathy, which makes you deeply odd.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Srsly? You realize the meta group here is Trump critics. The only groups of Trump critics I would say have 0.00 signalers in them are those targeted by Trump.

I'm not really sure what your point was, but you said you can't imagine ANY Mexican faking Trump hatred, didn't you? 30% voted for Trump. Do you think any of them dog on Trump? Isn't that what you were talking about? I don't care about this at all, but these 100% certain statements, I just can't take them.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

By the way, that first sentence here? That's a perfect example of virtue-signalling. You've repackaged what I said, where I was simply referring to multiple recent movements, and suggested I'm downplaying "sexual assault and violence," as if that was all MeToo encompassed (that it was not more significantly focused on less salacious sounding things like harassment and discrimination).

Dude, I said ..."the exposure of a long history of documented sexual assault and violence (and really, whom among us was not aware the world was that way)"

Be less predictable. Have at least a tiny shred of self awareness when you're doing what you accuse others of doing.

Thank you for informing me of the relative salaciousness of harassment and discrimination with respect to assault. Next time I'll ask you ahead of time which items to include or not include in a quickly dashed off comment so as to only include the ones you deem less salacious. What an improvement to our discourse!

Let try again:

It's fascinating that you include the exposure of a long history of documented sexual harassment and discrimination (and really, whom among us was not aware the world was that way) on this list.

You're right! You're totally off the hook now!

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I'm quite disgusted by the way our justice system uses the poor and minorities as cash machines and stores them in gulags. I've written quite extensively here about that. And I've said it to almost any person who challenges the notions of BLM (which is usually the conversation piece triggering a conversation about general reform and abuse). I also did something about it when I had the chance, and it made a difference.

I'm quite cynical about progressives. This is true. But I don't think they're all full of shit. I think they can be partly full of shit and partly not. They can be virtue signalling and earnest at once, in varying degrees.

I just don't have the time to be lectured about how I should think by people whose motivations I suspect, even only in part. Like I said, I'm biased.

Wait, I haven't been around for a while. Is that intentional bias or unintentional bias?

[Pretty Little Flower]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Wait, I haven't been around for a while. Is that intentional bias or unintentional bias?

I think I can help. Bias never exists without intent. Without intent, there is no bias. But bias is sometimes unintentional. Does that help?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower

I think I can help. Bias never exists without intent. Without intent, there is no bias. But bias is sometimes unintentional. Does that help?

What I got out of today? If a news station says Trump is lying it has to be intentional bias because how can anyone tells what anyone else is thinking? Instead of engaging in arguing with the mob the proponent of the “who knows what he is thinking” posts shit I can’t understand to hammer home the point. Da Vinci like and whatnot.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Wait, I haven't been around for a while. Is that intentional bias or unintentional bias?

Intentional. If you spend adequate time around conservatives and progressives, they become a blur of similarly unrealistic but wildly divergent expectations.

My chief issue with both is they’re just dumb. They’re playing the game that’s set for them. Dipshits.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

What I got out of today? If a news station says Trump is lying it has to be intentional bias because how can anyone tells what anyone else is thinking? Instead of engaging in arguing with the mob the proponent of the “who knows what he is thinking” posts shit I can’t understand to hammer home the point. Da Vinci like and whatnot.

You’re a moderate like me. Just have a scotch and watch.

I get invested because I don’t litigate anymore, and I desire to get into deep issues. But afterward, I’m just depressed. People are dumb as dogshit, and tribal as all fuck.

I keep forgetting to just tend my own garden. I did my good deed for this life (seriously, I did, in re justice reform). I’m done.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Intentional. If you spend adequate time around conservatives and progressives, they become a blur of similarly unrealistic but wildly divergent expectations.

My chief issue with both is they’re just dumb. They’re playing the game that’s set for them. Dipshits.

This is like the pot calling the copper kettle black.