[-] Objection@lemmy.ml 1 points 29 minutes ago* (last edited 23 minutes ago)

The Republicans have been more successful in pursuing their policy agenda and moving discourse to the right in part because of their stubbornness and intransigence. Democrats are always the ones that move further and further right to meet the Republicans where they're at, and because the Republicans know they'll do it, they keep moving right themselves. So we reach a point where the party that passes as "left" in this country is actively trying to pass tighter restrictions on immigration, is championing our outrageous military spending and arming a genocide, and is bragging about increasing gas production while placing tariffs on EVs. The strategy of the Republican base of playing hardball and laying down strict red lines on things like abortion or gun control has proven more effective than the strategy of the Democratic base of "lesser-evilism."

Granted, part of it is that the stuff the Republicans want is generally not directly opposed to corporate interests, so their politicians can give in to their base without upsetting their donors. Democrats have to play a game of not disrupting the profits of their donors while trying to appease the base.

I agree that relief was needed, but PPP loans were basically handouts to people who were already well off. Should've just been another stimulus check.

[-] Objection@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 hour ago

Thank you for asking a question that's directly relevant and not just some bullshit "test of knowledge."

I'd like to remind you once again that my "vague talking point repeated all the time with no substance," was made by the White House.

As for "how, why, and when student loans can be discharged," those things are all determined by laws passed by Congress. Such as the law Biden voted for which made student loans ineligible for forgiveness through bankruptcy.

Apart from having been a member of Congress for decades and actively making the problem worse, you probably intend to roll out the talking point that the smol bean most powerful man on earth is part of the executive branch and thus has no control over legislation other than the veto. I recall this was one of your "test" questions from earlier. What this neglects is that the president is influential within the party and can and does frequently work with the legislature on bills. There's a reason why we call it "Obamacare," even though Obama didn't formally vote on it because he wasn't a member of Congress.

What did the democrats get in exchange for PPP loan forgiveness? Maybe they should've negotiated harder to include changes to how student loans work as part of that deal. But then, many Democrats as well as Republicans had PPP loans that got forgiven, so I suppose they got something out of the deal.

[-] Objection@lemmy.ml 1 points 6 hours ago* (last edited 6 hours ago)

I can't believe you actually did it 🤣 You really couldn't admit that both of our questions were unfair, huh?

PPP loans were loans given out in response to COVID that were intended to help prevent small businesses survive. In reality, they were handed out left and right with little oversight.

They were part of the CARES Act passed under the Trump administration.

They're not related to student loans except insofar as they're both government loans (though student loans are generally managed through third parties). The White House seemed to think it was a fair comparison, though.

There were several different pieces of legislation regarding student loans, so you'll have to be more specific about which effort you're talking about.

It's now 4 AM and while I may make questionable choices regarding my sleep schedule and internet arguments, I do need to get some sleep.

If you have any further questions, then be prepared to answer more of mine in exchange.

[-] Objection@lemmy.ml 0 points 7 hours ago

I didn't ask you to give me a list of logical fallacies, I asked you to explain the difference between peepee and poopoo. Why wouldn't you do that unless you just don't know the answer? Care to explain?

[-] Objection@lemmy.ml 0 points 8 hours ago* (last edited 8 hours ago)

You spent more time arguing why you should argue than simplify answering the question. Because of course, you don’t know what you’re talking about.

Same to you.

Remember what I said: diapers.

[-] Objection@lemmy.ml 1 points 8 hours ago* (last edited 8 hours ago)

If asking you to explain a simple fundamental thing for you is too overwhelming then too bad. I’m not arguing quantum physics with someone that can’t do arithmetic.

And I'm asking you to explain a much simpler, much more fundamental thing, and you can't. I strongly recommend investing in some diapers.

Im glad I didn’t waste any more time going down a rabbit hole only to learn later you are out of your depth.

Lol you filtered me out because I showed I wasn't going to put up with your bullshit, bad faith tactics. You won't submit to my test of knowledge so I won't submit to yours. I of course understand what the president's role is and isn't when it comes to legislation, just as you (presumably) know the answer to my question, but I'm not going to play your game for the exact same reasons you won't play mine. Because one side doesn't just get to dictate all the terms of debate.

Still doesn't change the facts of the matter, which are that everything I said is correct.

[-] Objection@lemmy.ml -1 points 8 hours ago

Where is Mokba? It's 2:30 AM here in Illinois.

I can't believe you don't even understand the difference between peepee and poopoo. They literally teach this stuff to preschoolers.

[-] Objection@lemmy.ml 1 points 8 hours ago* (last edited 8 hours ago)

I will, but first I need you to explain something to me to prove that you're qualified to have a conversation with me. Explain the difference between peepee and poopoo. Otherwise it will prove you don't know the difference, this conversation will be over, and I will declare victory.

[-] Objection@lemmy.ml 0 points 8 hours ago

Wow, I just want to say you're operating so clearly in good faith that I don't know which of your good faith behaviors to praise first.

As I already pointed out, you spewed out a bunch of low effort bullshit that would take much more effort to refute, which is again, a textbook example of a gish gallop. You then demanded to control the terms of the debate by subjecting me to some sort of test of knowledge which I obviously refused to engage in, since that's a ridiculous thing to do. Then, you took a word from the definition of gish gallop and completely removed it of context, and accused me of saying I was "overwhelmed" by your test of knowledge, which I never said. You then interpreted my refusal to engage with your terms as an admission of ignorance. So that's at least four points of bad faith, just right off the bat.

You don't get to randomly subject me to tests any more than I get to randomly subject you to tests. That's not how conversation or debate works. If you're afraid of engaging me on even terms and want to pull a bunch of bullshit, you do you, but it doesn't change the reality of the situation, which are the things I pointed out.

[-] Objection@lemmy.ml 0 points 8 hours ago

I understand how American policy is formed well enough to know that policy statements on the campaign trail rarely actually manifest into anything. But here's her statement from the campaign website, just for you:

spoiler

As Attorney General, Kamala Harris won tens of millions in settlements against Big Oil and held polluters accountable. As Vice President, she cast the tie-breaking vote to pass the Inflation Reduction Act, the largest investment in climate action in history. This historic work is lowering household energy costs, creating hundreds of thousands of high-quality clean energy jobs, and building a thriving clean energy economy, all while ensuring America’s energy security and independence with record energy production. As President, she will unite Americans to tackle the climate crisis as she builds on this historic work, advances environmental justice, protects public lands and public health, increases resilience to climate disasters, lowers household energy costs, creates millions of new jobs, and continues to hold polluters accountable to secure clean air and water for all. As the Vice President said at the international climate conference, COP28, she knows that meeting this global challenge will require global cooperation and she is committed to continuing and building upon the United States’ international climate leadership. She and Governor Walz will always fight for the freedom to breathe clean air, drink clean water, and live free from the pollution that fuels the climate crisis.

[-] Objection@lemmy.ml 0 points 8 hours ago* (last edited 8 hours ago)

Yes, congratulations, that is what the term means. And that's exactly what you're doing. You post a whole bunch of one line comments and expect anyone who challenges them to write up a whole effortpost on each. The amount of effort it takes to just spew a bunch of bullshit is much less than the amount of effort required to refute each point of bullshit.

[-] Objection@lemmy.ml -1 points 9 hours ago

I've rarely seen such a textbook example of a gish gallop.

-8
submitted 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) by Objection@lemmy.ml to c/usa@lemmy.ml

Before I begin, I have a confession: until recently (until today, in fact), I was a tankie. But this morning I just woke up and realized everything I believed and everything I'd been saying was wrong, and my critics were right about everything. And so, I have decided to completely and totally adopt their way of thinking.

The above image is an example to illustrate how my thinking has changed. You may be familiar with "Russell's Teapot," a thought experiment from Bertrand Russell where he imagines that someone says that there is a tiny, invisible teapot, floating out in space. He argues that while such a claim cannot strictly be disproved, it can be dismissed without evidence because there is no evidence to support it. The burden of proof is on the person making the claim. He goes on to explain that while he could not disprove the existence of God, he still considered himself an atheist, because he did not see sufficient evidence for the claim of God's existence to be credible.

In my previous (tankie) way of thinking, I would have agreed with this idea, that claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. But I now understand that this made me a Bad Person. Suppose that, as in the beautiful diagram I drew in MS Paint, the claim is not only that the teapot exists, but that inside of the teapot, there are a bunch of tiny invisible people who are geopolitical enemies of the United States and they are committing genocide against innocent people. Again, before, I would have said that that only makes the claim more implausible and would require extraordinary proof. Now, I realize how wrong I was, and I can only say that I deeply regret and apologize for my statements. The existence of the teapot can be proven incontrovertibly, by the following logic:

  1. If you claim that the teapot does not exist, you are denying that the genocide inside it is happening.

  2. If you deny the genocide is happening, you are a genocide denier and therefore a fascist.

  3. Fascism is wrong.

  4. Therefore, it is impossible to correctly deny the teapot's existence.

As a brief aside, I should mention that in addition to my political conversion, I have also experienced a drastic change in my religious beliefs, as it is now trivially easy to prove that God exists. According to the Torah, God flooded the world, wiping out virtually all of humanity, including countless ethnic groups. To deny the existence of God makes you a genocide denier and a fascist. However, it should be added that to worship God is genocide apologia, which is also fascist. The only non-fascist belief, which is necessarily correct, is that God exists and is evil. Moving on.

Before, I believed that it was ridiculous for the US to spend as much on the military as the next 9 countries combined. I wanted to slash the military budget to fund domestic spending, schools, hospitals, making sure bridges don't collapse, helping the poor, etc. I see now how wrong I was. The Genocide Teapot exists, somewhere out there in space, in fact, there could be countless numbers of them out there. Therefore, the real progressive thing to do is to further cut domestic spending and have everyone tighten our belts so that we can produce as many missiles as possible, to be fired out into space indiscriminately, in hopes of hitting a Genocide Teapot.

However, we must also consider the possibility that these teapots could be located here on Earth too. Teapots are a form of china, which is a very suspicious connection. Clearly, the US must be permitted to inspect every square inch of China in search of these invisible teapots, and refusal to comply should be considered an admission of guilt. But we should not, of course, limit ourselves to China. Perhaps there are Genocide Teapots in Russia, or Brazil, or Germany, or Canada, who knows? I do, because to deny that Genocide Teapots exist in all of those places is genocide denial, which is fascist and wrong.

In conclusion, we should bomb every country in the world simultaneously, including ourselves, and anyone who disagrees with me is a war-loving fascist.

Thank you.

35
submitted 2 months ago by Objection@lemmy.ml to c/worldnews@lemmy.ml
35
submitted 2 months ago by Objection@lemmy.ml to c/worldnews@lemmy.ml
22
submitted 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) by Objection@lemmy.ml to c/usa@lemmy.ml

President Trump kept America out of new wars and brought thousands of brave troops home from Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, and many other countries. Joe Biden has undermined our military readiness and surrendered our strength to the Taliban.

When Trump pulls troops out of Afghanistan, it's "bringing thousands of brave troops home," but when Biden does the same, it's, "surrendering our strength to the Taliban." He brags about "keeping America out of foreign wars" while at the same time bragging about assassinating "the world's number one terrorist," Iranian general Qasem Soleimani, which was an extreme act of provocation.

This is taken from the issues page of Trump's campaign website, and there are several more statements relating to foreign policy, frequently and boldly contradicting each other. It's a perfect example of the "If By Whiskey" tactic. So what's actually going on here? Well, to understand the reasons for this equivocation, we need to analyze the foreign policy positions of Americans.

Broadly speaking, people fall into one of four camps: Idealist Hawk (liberals), Idealist Dove (libertarians), Realist Hawk (nationalists), and Realist Dove (socialists).

Idealist Hawks believe that US foreign policy is driven by benevolence and spreading freedom, and the fact that it repeatedly fails to do so (Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam, etc) is explainable by a variety of excuses. Generally, they are more interested in current events and easily persuaded to support intervention based on seeing a bad thing happening, without a broader analysis or explanation of the situation or how things have played out historically.

Idealist Doves also believe that US foreign policy is driven by benevolence, but they see that as a bad thing. They are generally right libertarians or hold libertarian values, they see war as another example of wasteful government spending as it tries and fails to improve people's lives, which they generally don't see as a valid goal in the first place. Being idealists, they are still rather easily duped into supporting war and militarism, often, they will support a "night watchman state," with police and the military being the only legitimate functions.

Realist Hawks are nationalists who believe that states pursue their own material interests and are right to do so. They are incapable of distinguishing between the state's interest and their own. Some few are rich enough to actually receive benefits from US foreign policy, but most just root for America in the same way that they might root for a football team.

Realist Doves, which I am a part of, do not believe that US foreign policy is not grounded in benevolence and does not benefit the people it claims to be helping, but also (generally) that it doesn't benefit the majority of people at home. We see it as being driven by and for class interests, and are opposed to the class it benefits.

Trump's foreign policy equivocation, and his "America First" slogan allows him to appeal to both the Idealist Doves (libertarians) and the Realist Hawks (nationalists). He can't consistently take any line on any specific thing. If by Afghanistan, you mean a disastrous nation-building exercise, wasteful government spending, and endangering our troops for the sake of helping foreigners, then of course Trump opposes it. But if by Afghanistan, you mean exerting American strength, intimidating Russia and China, and weakening terrorists to keep America safe, then of course Trump supports it.

In reality, to the extent that Trump has coherent beliefs at all, he is a Realist Hawk, a nationalist, and his record reflects that. But part of the reason he was able to get anywhere was because he was able to triangulate and equivocate well enough to dupe anti-war libertarians.

Unfortunately, in American politics, the conflict is generally between Idealist Hawks and everyone else. This is part of what allows the nationalists and libertarians to put aside their differences (the other part being that libertarians are easily duped). Realist Doves are not represented anywhere, the Idealist Interventionists consider us Russian bots along with everyone else who disagrees with them on foreign policy (regardless of how or why), the Idealist Doves are extremely unreliable, and the Realist Hawks may see the world in a similar way but have diametrically opposed priorities.

tl;dr: Trump's halfhearted antiwar posturing is an obvious ruse that only an idiot would fall for, but painting everyone skeptical of US foreign policy with the same brush helps him to sell it and to paint over ideological rifts that could otherwise be potentially exploited.

6
submitted 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) by Objection@lemmy.ml to c/shitposting@lemmy.ml

What is Soulism? Soulism, also known as anarcho-antirealism, is a school of anarchist thought which views reality and natural laws as unjust hierarchies.

Some people might laugh at the idea and say it's not a serious ideology, but this is no laughing matter. If these people are successful, then consensus reality would be destroyed and we would return to what the world was like before the Enlightenment. What did that world look like? Well, you had:

  • Ultra-powerful wizards hoarding knowledge in high towers, reshaping reality to their whims, with no regard for the common people

  • Bloodthirsty, aristocratic vampires operating openly, and on a much larger scale than they do today

  • Viscous, rage-driven werewolves terrorizing the populace, massacring entire villages with reckless abandon

  • Fey beings abducting children and replacing them with their own

  • Demons and angels waging massive wars against each other with humans caught in the crossfire

Fortunately, out of this age of chaos and insecurity emerged a group of scientists dedicated to protecting and advancing humanity by establishing a consensus reality and putting a stop to these out-of-control reality deviants.

Before, if you got sick or injured, you'd have to travel across the land through dangerous enchanted forests seeking a skilled faith healer or magical healing potion. But with consensus reality, easily accessible and consistent medical practices were instilled with the same magical healing properties. Once, if you wanted to transmute grain into bread, you had to convince a wizard to come out of their tower and do it, and they were just as likely to turn you into a newt for disturbing their studies. But thanks to consensus reality, anyone could build their own magical tower (a "mill") and harness the mana present in elemental air to animate their own "millstones" to do it! These things were only made possible by consensus reality.

Now, I'm not saying that this approach doesn't have it's drawbacks and failures, and I'm not going to say that the reality defenders have never done anything wrong. But these "Soulists" want to destroy everything that's been accomplished and bring us back to the times when these supernatural reality deviants were more powerful than reason or humanity, and constantly preyed upon us.

So do not fall for their propaganda, and if you see something, says something. Anyone altering reality through belief and willpower, or any other reality deviants such as vampires or werewolves, should be reported immediately to the Technocratic Union for your safety, the safety of those around you, and, indeed, the safety of reality itself.

Thank you for your cooperation.

view more: next ›

Objection

joined 4 months ago