Happy to say I was wrong about Zohran Mamdani. Good! May he swiftly dismantle the NYPD and Wall Street in that order.
The flesh is weak but it’s all I got
149 followers 79 following 996 posts
view profile on Bluesky
Happy to say I was wrong about Zohran Mamdani. Good! May he swiftly dismantle the NYPD and Wall Street in that order.
The anti left vanguard of the Republican Party will not move the Overton window away from their parent organizations preferred set of policies. Why would you want them to go against something they’re designed to enable?
@dieworkwear.bsky.social menswear guy why did you whitewash MLK? Did u do it on purpose or do you genuinely have the same politics as a fifth grader who just watched “my friend Martin”?
Truth Nuke^
Zohran should have just answered that Israel question correctly. Again, he’s NOT going to win. He needs to be running a principled issues campaign or go away. Anyone thinking he has a shot at the mayorship shouldn’t be allowed to talk about it.
Gerry Connolly dying so soon makes his snubbing AOC even funnier. They all knew he wouldn’t survive the term and they still picked him over her.
Infamous or dishonored
“Won’t anyone think of the grunts who allowed us to develop the worst things ever invented?” Big time ‘employee at the Death Star’ energy here.
“#TelAviv#Haifa#Knesset”
@jessesingal.com thanks to hard work and honest reporting of gumshoe journalists like singal, a real change is taking place in this country! You’ve really advanced the project of sensible legislation and human rights Jesse, and here’s the proof! All of your hard work is paying off!
How does it feel to know that if you and everyone who thought like you were dead tomorrow the rest of humanity would be living in a utopia by the day after?
Please stop doing this “you’re hypocrites!” Thing to fascists. They don’t care. The actively revel in it. If you’re not advancing the cause of k*lling them then you’re not doing anything meaningful in opposition to them.
Through white Jesus all airplanes will land safely at the Miami airport.
Cenk Uygur is now advocating for a Trump created Palestine that’s just the West Bank and Gaza. That’s outright support for genocide and ethnic cleansing.
Also go ahead and screenshot the book title cause I’m blocking u soon. Sorry I lied about u being able to @ me in the future but it turns out you’re quite unpleasant and a bit repellant.
Nah I’ve done so over and over and you made attempts, again born of your confusion, to refute them. Those attempts were not properly undertaken. That’s all. Nothing more serious than that.
A specific book that would allow you some relief from your debilitating ignorance on this particular subject. You taking offense to that isn’t really something I care about sorry.
Still no reasoning whatsoever. Just aspersions that I pity you for making. You notice everyone else has just treated you with the kind of flippant disdain you earn yourself by being this much of pseudo intellectual? I actually bothered to try and better you. Which you don’t really deserve but eh.
Like I said man you’re not really capable of having this discussion so I’m just gonna go ahead and call it here. Maybe someday though u can @ me after you’ve better equipped yourself on these topics.
Yeah I mean u keep saying that and not providing me any reason to accept it so I’ll just move on. Like I said: introduction to formal logic with philosophical applications by Russell Marcus. Just go ahead and read up on some of this stuff so you don’t remain quite so ignorant and incapable. Okay?
Yeah I mean at this point you’re just literally asking me to give you the lecture I said you needed earlier and I’m not rly interested in that. I’ll go ahead and recommend you Russel Marcus’ introduction to formal logic with philosophical applications. It’s a very 101 textbook but thats where ur at.
Oh and by the way, just to continue to provide you with desperately needed education: premises never “automatically” lead to conclusions. The process by which that happens is called deduction. So what you wanted to say there is that the premises do not deduce to the conclusion. Just a lil tip.
Okay I mean this is just a purely bad faith comment. I’ll go ahead and ignore it and give you another chance or you can try and defend it and refine your language. But it’s in no way a fact. You’re just projecting your lack of justification onto me, hilariously, in response to justification. lol.
Just to provide an example: it’s logically possible that the earth does not exist. Now we can play in that theoretical, logically possible sandbox as much as you’d like. But what we’d be incorrect to do, is try to extrapolate policy positions on Israel given such a world. Do I need to explain why?
Logically possible simply means non contradictory. It doesn’t change contextually. Surely based on that definition you see the folly in applying a framework like that to discussions about the real world we all live in yes?
Yeah it’s not true because the concept of degrees as I’ve invoked is in no way contradictory to the notion that there could be only one singular thing that is of a sufficient degree to produce a given result. In so far as that is true my premise holds true. If you’d like to refute that please do.
More so than simple logical or nomic possibility would be fantastic. Considering how utterly useless both concepts are to geopolitics. You do understand how useless and idiotic it would be to discuss pure logical possibility in terms of dissecting the implications of real world things yes?
Discussion*
We agreed on no such thing, and as a matter of fact. When I made the argument you didn’t even refute it. You just said that because I made some mention of “degree” it couldn’t be the only option. Which is of course also not true.
How many times have you been asked to explain that just because something is logically possible it’s somehow worthy of consideration in a discount about geopolitics? It’s imbecilic.
What do you mean looked into it? What’s the ‘it’ there? So what if whatever source you said didn’t mention the thing being discussed in specific? If anything that indicates you’ve looked into a source that’s not relevant to the discussion no? Since it makes no mention of the main contention?
You’ve not even really presented anyone with an argument to wit. I’m not sure what exactly I’m meant to refute on that basis, but if you have something then please present it and we can see what we’re dealing with here.
That’s not an argument you headass. Ur getting a little too lost in the weeds for this conversation to be any kind of productive at this point. Just be more careful with your rhetoric and a hell of a lot less confident in it. You’ll seem much more intelligent than you do now. Some free advice.
oh wow so youre just doubling down on the accusation that i said "you cant possibly know this" when ive already refuted that. and honestly ur tripling down by putting the crux of the thing i never said in all caps. super dishonest of you man.
Yeah I mean, that’s just a straightforwardly false statement so you’re wrong.
The only way you could disagree with that statement is honestly if you don’t see the actions being undertaken here as immoral. And given that they’re simply defined as such, you couldn’t disagree with that unless you have some proprietary notion of morality that sees murder and as at worst: amoral.
You’re asking for an argument that establishes the truth of the morality of something? I guess genocide is analytically immoral and the weapons we’re sending are used for that definitionally evil action, and therefore the moral choice is that cessation of that activity. There: analytical argument.
The conclusion is established by the notion that it’s the *only* option that could effect things to a *degree* that produces the change in question: a ceasefire. You can take umbrage with the truth of that claim but that isn’t what you did. Nothing about what you said is a real refutation.
I’ve already taken up the position you find most dubious simply for the sake of discussion. So I’m well aware of any relevant context, and have in fact posited my own justifications for arriving at the position in question. You haven’t engaged with that and that’s fine, but I think I get the convo.
Dude just engage with the words being said like what are you doing? No one mentioned anything about experts. You can be ill equipped for a particular conversation, even if it’s with another layperson. This lack of rigor is insane.
Who said anything about the deepness with which your detractors analyze their own views? It’s entirely irrelevant! A computer could be making these statements to you and they’d be just as valid. What’s your point?
This is what I mean though man. When did I ever say anything that could even be construed as “I don’t think it’s possible for people to know the difference between validity and soundness”? You’re soooo lazy with how you construct claims they end up being bogged down in things you didn’t mean to say.
Look I’m not really interested in the psychologizing okay? Think whatever you’d like about me and my state of mind, it’s not relevant.
lol. Dude I’m people and I know these things. I’m not saying it’s apocryphal. I’m saying it’s a rigorous and widely discussed area of academics, and if you aren’t engaging with this on that academic level then you’re doing a disservice to yourself. Also lol, pissco watcher.
Understanding*
This is the kind of half baked usage of these concepts that betray you don’t have a depth of under about them by the way. In case you’d like to appear to be a little more knowledgeable about these things in the future, avoid gotcha attempts like this.
Dude I mean, come on. Have a little humility when it comes to this stuff. Anyone who’s philosophically inclined understands very well that you do not have even the most cursory understandings of these concepts, at least as they’re discussed in philosophy. That’s not a huge dig, take it on the chin.
You literally did say that though. You said if you’re making an argument that isn’t in premise, premise, conclusion form(otherwise known as a syllogism) then your argument is not logical. That’s a blanket statement you made and it says exactly what I said it does.
Conclusion: the only option for forcing a ceasefire would be an arms embargo/cessation of material support.
I’ll try here: the argument goes like this: (1)we provide the Israeli state with material they need in order to operate the way they do. (2)Taking away this support would disallow them from operating in that way. (3) no other diplomatic action would impede genocide to nearly the same degree 1/2
I mean I’d be happy to take up the burden of that claim so long as you don’t bog the conversation down with pedantic appeals to logical possibilities.
Ok then I guess. So given that agreement, what’s your argument for the more contentious claim?
There’s no argument though. You’re simply being informed of your view is highly controversial. Rather than engaging with that and trying to lend credence to yourself you’re just, giving up. How do you converse with ppl who don’t hold to your every view on everything?
Wow man. So after carefully and patiently having these things explained to you, you don’t even bother to take the hands being given and look into these things you’re talking out of your ass on? This is why I keep asking how you expect serious people to treat you when you behave this way.
No, u just repeated something from someone who you *think* knows more than you about this. Did u even bother looking it up to confirm I was correct before parroting me?
Dude come on u just read me say that.
Syllogisms are not the only form an argument can take. The “logic” I’m sure you’re referring to as a layperson also isn’t even the only logic. U really do not have even the most tenuous grasp of these concepts.
Like you’re over here pronouncing to us the all encompassing virtue of syllogistic reasoning and then just…. aren’t using it? Like what is a serious person meant to do here other than lecture you about your very basic misunderstandings?
No one is saying it’s the only way. The claim being made is that it’s obvious that would be the quickest, most impactful measure towards a ceasefire that can be taken. Why insist on receiving arguments if you refuse to engage with them?
Not to be that guy but that’s validity. Soundness is about whether the premises r true or not.
I’ve yet to parent such an argument and still I think I’m right at the core of the substance here. Ppl are taking exception with your perspective because it seems steeped in pro democratic neoliberal misunderstandings and naivety.
… do you think that because something is possible in a *logical* sense that that means it’s necessarily worth consideration as a possibility in the *practical* or *political* senses? How am I meant to respond to that exactly?
Flippancy* not flappy
Youre asking me to detail private diplomatic meetings rather than pointing to testimony of the accused that amounts to admission of guilt as well as myriad other evidences like the complete flappy with which the Israelis tested each and every one of Biden’s supposed “red lines”? Why would u do that?
You do understand that those acts being taken in the first place by your preferred side is also controversial no? Or is that something you’re trying to ask every skeptic to simply grant you?
You’re saying that you should hold no burden of proof for your affirmative claim because people who are skeptical about it somehow hold a burden for a negative claim they haven’t made? There’s such a thing called logic: it’s the study of proper argumentation. You’d benefit greatly from studying it.
Also, this is a complete non sequitur, you get that right?
About their own dispositions toward genocide? What reason should I have not to? Given the evidence.
So you demand syllogisms and specifics from people to refute something you acknowledge is merely a claim? Why should anyone engage with that?
Bibi and Israelis thought Trump better than Kamala? I can see saying this a few weeks before the election. Maybe the day after even. But like come the fuck on man. Now that the Israeli government has outright and in no uncertain terms admitted Biden did zero to stop them this position falls apart.
Democrats really are just 9/11 era republicans at this point.
No I don’t think I will be. I can however make things easier for you on a personal level.
Also thanks so much for bracing me for the epic impact of your weight words you intellectual wunderkind you. I was not at all prepared for the rigorous analysis of: refusing to read and make a trivial statement. Just mind blowing stuff there man.
Wow. If only I was criticizing everyone who gets Botox, you might almost have a point.
“Fascist women” means “all women” to you jack? That’s a lot more misogynistic than the delusional version of my posts that you’re trying to invent lol.
That probably has a lot more to do with the level of content you put out there than the people who stumble upon it no? You’re just constantly pumping out half baked lib ideas that end up running defense for fascists you’ll probably get a good bit of pushback no?
Jack, I’m not really sure how to tell you that that isn’t a response to anything being said. You’re just being a reactionary lib who’s running defense for Nazi aesthetics. Is that really what you wanna be? What you wanna be doing? I’d surely hope not.
I think that’s going to be the last thing I do here actually. But you do you. Being a reactionary liberal is most likely the best you’re capable of and so long as you’re trying I can’t blame you that much for it.
You know what’s funny. If you look through all of my posts you’ll never find one that says the thing youre saying I said. I’ve never “based an argument on someone’s face”. You know why? Because that’s perhaps the least intelligent thing I’ve ever heard. So please, criticize the actual words said eh?
That’s a funny thing to say. Where have I indicated anything that could even be construed that way? It seems you just got upset after barely reading some words you barely understand and are now lashing out. Is that what you’re doing or do you have some kind of actual criticism of what I said?
Yeah man and the swastika wasn’t a Nazi symbol until it was. Things change, and aesthetics get co-opted. One of the many tragedies that fascism enables. Again, sorry you’re just learning this for the first time coming from me.
I am fairly sure yeah. Still not too smooth to recognize the difference between the words “fascists” and “everyone” so I think I’m not quite as far gone as you.
See what I mean? Where would we be without this kind of laser focused analysis?
When you find someone who does that you let me know okay? I’ve been criticism them this entire thread so I’ll get right on them.
So true. Another absolutely eloquent refutation.
Another super solid reply. Again, straight to the substance. You ppl are all basically PHD level I swear.
Thank you god lol. Have a fun time being like this forever.
You guys love to see a thing about fascists, in this case literal Nazi Germans, and apply it to *everyone*. Why do you think it is that you equate the words “fascists” and “everyone”?
So nothing then? Not a thing of substance or any kind of actual critique of the points I’ve made? Just accusations that are born of your reactionary mind and misunderstandings right?
Oh did I say you gave your opinion on it? I must have had some kind of stroke that only affected my memory of that event. I have yet to say a thing about you individually. It’s really fun to see what you people will insert into posts that make you upset lol. Just hallucinating statements no one made
To be clear, I already know you think that, it’s no clear you actually understand what I’m saying. And you have yet to actually give anyone a reason to agree with you about it being wrong. So what about that is interesting to me?
Boohoo. Replying is what we do when we’re on this site if we’re not posting or reading. And I’m not mad. I just find it odd that so many people are running defense for fascists and their aesthetic preferences, all while using the women they victimize to do so. That to me seems like liberal behavior.
I can say it about the women that I’ve been talking about. Which by the way, despite your flaccid attempts at painting it this way, are not “all women who have had cosmetic work done” because of course that would be a childish, almost unfathomably unintelligent thing to say and think. Get it now?
So you really are incapable of seeing the choices they’re making as born from, and in promotion of, their fascist ideology. That’s the trend I’m seeing. I guess you think every Nazi who donned the swastika armband was making an equally unimpeachable choice about their fashion sense? Very strange.
Woah now. Not about to be labeled a lib by someone coming in here to weep about me making fun of ugly Nazis and their explicitly choosing to be ugly. That’s genuinely the most confused reply I’ve gotten so far lol.
You are saying all women are the target of some kind of sexist attack that I’ve made.(that you have yet to provide). I’m saying that’s clearly not the case and you could never find a post of mine that indicates that it is. I’m also saying Nazis, even if they’re women, deserve criticism. Wild I know.
Personally, and this is just me, I’m fine with criticism of Nazism. I know I know. That’s a tad extreme. But if I see someone, even a woman, rocking a swastika armband I might feel compelled to criticize that aesthetic choice.
Been saying all buddy. That’s kind of what misogyny means after all is it not? A general hatred towards *women* as a category. I’m pretty sure that would apply to ALL women. You not reading or comprehending what I’ve been saying consistently isn’t sophistry on my part. It’s inability on yours!
So true jack. Here’s a few women who are just wearing some fancy coats. Nothing to criticize there. It’s just a fancy coat after all, how could it have anything to do with fascism?! I guess I was just being silly.
Agree to disagree!