41

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: President Joe Biden

« on: March 17, 2022, 10:03:13 PM »

I feel like if your point was really valid you wouldn't have had to make up an obviously far more biased and ridiculous question to try to make it. Obviously there are no questions like the one you used as an "example" in the post of yours I initially quoted. I didn't assume anything; you clearly didn't read the poll; because if you had, and the examples you cite above that actually do appear in the poll really served as examples of your point, you wouldn't have felt it necessary to make one up.

You've misunderstood my point. I wasn't criticizing the poll for asking biased questions, but for presenting misinformation and right-wing talking points as objective fact. Asking if white kids should be taught to hate themselves isn't even a biased question, so I would hardly have used that as a faux-example of the poll asking biased questions. You've conflated two related but different points - one being that the poll launders misinformation by including it among its questions, and the other being that the poll asks biased, loaded questions to get the responses the pollsters want. I only criticized the latter point in my second post because it looked like you wanted me too.

I also don't recall the phrase "identity politics" actually showing up in the poll. I used it, to illustrate my point, independent of what the poll actually said.

It isn't in the poll, but it is in the article. I'm inclined to believe that was what put the term in your head to begin with.

If you think the party whose current leader once opined on a popular nationally syndicated radio show "If you're not voting for me, you ain't black!" doesn't engage in identity politics, you're delusional.

Irrelevant. I'm not talking about engaging in identity politics, but specifically using the term "identity politics." Because it's a snarl term. It carries a negative connotation, and almost every time it's used nowadays, it's by a conservative who's bashing progressives or progressive ideals. It's a major red flag, same as it would have been if they had used a term like "SJW."

But anyway, I was glad to see that you at least attempted to rationalize your ridiculous post, even if you did fail spectacularly at doing so.

You should probably stick to analyzing the capeshit movies rather than politics. You're obviously much more comfortable dealing with fiction than reality.

You don't need to get mad at me just because I recognized that these shitty pollsters were a bunch of right-wing concern trolls and you didn't. Work on your critical thinking skills - analyzing capeshit movies is good practice - and you'll reach my level soon enough.

42

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: President Joe Biden

« on: March 17, 2022, 07:01:43 PM »

You know, there is a link in the article to the poll itself. You can actually read it instead of guessing at what nefariously biased questions it asks. 

Interesting how you're assuming that I'm assuming. I did read the poll, and even if it were a perfectly sensible, objective poll, there still would be no reason for the authors to describe its findings using right-wing snarl terms like "identity politics" or casually present the misinformation their respondents expressed belief in as fact. But of course the poll is neither sensible nor objective. To look at just a couple of questions here:

Please indicate if you agree or disagree with the following statement.

Joe Biden and Democrats in Congress are out of touch with hardworking Americans. They have been so focused on catering to the far-left wing of the party that they’re ignoring Americans’ day to day concerns, such as addressing the rising prices for goods and gasoline and combatting violent crime.

This question is ludicrously loaded. Good, reputable polls don't just blatantly spell out a narrative using this kind of partisan language and somehow maintain their neutrality by simply including the option to disagree. The question also takes it for granted that "catering to the far-left wing of the party" is a negative - the respondent is only asked if it's what they think Biden is doing, not if they think that Biden doing it is good or bad.

Do you think President Biden and the Democratic Party should move more to the left and embrace more liberal policies, move more to the center and embrace more moderate policies, or do you think President Biden and the Democratic Party should stay where it is right now?

This question, meanwhile, indicates their expected answer to the previous question, because here they are taking it for granted that Biden and the Democrats are already on the left, a claim that, regardless of anyone's opinions of the merits of being on the left, is objectively just untrue. Biden is not a leftist, he is a centrist, and there's no indication that more left-leaning Democrats have any real influence over his agenda or the party's as a whole. The notion that the Democratic Party as a whole is trending far to the left is yet another right-wing lie that conservatives are repeating as much as possible to gaslight the rest of the country into thinking that Democrats should in the interests of fairness move further to the right. And no matter how many concessions Democrats make or compromises they offer, Republicans continue to drift further and further into extremism while their stooges in the media keep up the chorus of how Democrats are so unfairly devoted to the left. This poll/article is just another example of that. Don't fall for it.

43

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: President Joe Biden

« on: March 14, 2022, 03:44:37 AM »

https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/597987-new-polling-confirms-democrats-left-leaning-policies-are-out-of-touch

tldr: It will take a miracle for the Democrats to hold onto a majority in the midterms.

This article reads to me more like right-wing concern trolling designed to set a narrative than any serious effort to actually gather information. I mean, yes, Democrats are almost certainly going to lose their majority in the midterms, but it won't be because Democrats as a whole are too leftist (a claim that is objectively just ridiculous, and very suspect for a supposedly neutral pollster to take for granted), nor will it be because Democrats are too focused on "identity politics" (a snarl term used almost exclusively these days by conservatives, to uncritically use a term like that is also very suspect for a supposedly neutral pollster). It'll be because Republicans have used their own strong messaging and gamed a spineless media into accommodating them for fear of being accused of bias to create a playing field that overwhelmingly favors them. The pattern works like this: Right-wing media decide on a falsehood to sell to the public. It could be the idea that there's a war on Christmas, that Dr. Seuss has somehow been banned by liberals, that schools are teaching white kids to hate themselves, that LGBT teachers are somehow indoctrinating kids into the LGBT lifestyle, or any other of the numerous cultural boogeymen they've dreamed up over the years. Right-wing politicians pick up on the lie and begin repeating it themselves. The back-and-forth amplifies the controversy until the mainstream media takes notice, and because they know that they'll be attacked for "bias" if they accurately report that, no, of course schools aren't teaching white kids to hate themselves, they report it like "Some people say that schools are teaching white kids to hate themselves. Some people say they aren't. Who can say what's true? Both sides have a point, really." Then stupid polls like this one ask people "Do you agree or disagree with teaching white kids to hate themselves?" and when they get the obvious answer, they write stupid articles saying, "The public largely reject teaching white kids to hate themselves! This is bad news for Democrats!"

44

Arts & Entertainment / Re: Superhero Movies & Comics General

« on: March 13, 2022, 04:28:45 AM »

The movie is definitely far too long. There's no reason any capeshit movie should ever be three hours long, and I honestly suspect that a lot of this trend comes down to filmmakers who want people to think of the movie they've made as being suitably "epic." They're regularly cheered on by the worst kind of fanboys online, so I don't think it's ending any time soon. I certainly wouldn't have cut Catwoman from this movie, though. I guess you'll explain to us why you didn't like her, Rama.

I have more thoughts on the overall story, and seeing how the movie has been out for a week by now, I'm going to drop the spoiler tags. Here comes an official

spoiler waddling
I didn't care for the Riddler's ultimate plan of flooding Gotham and arranging a mass shooting. The thematic clash between him and Batman up to that point was a really strong one, with Batman's frantic struggle to distance himself from someone who ultimately was just another vigilante like himself, albeit with far harsher methods. The contrast between them essentially goes out the window when the Riddler decides he just wants to kill tons and tons of innocent people out of a rationale that's largely nonsensical. He's not a foil for Batman anymore, he's just another terrorist trying to spread as much chaos and destruction as he can. If that sounds familiar to you, it's because the central conflict in all three of Nolan's Batman movies lay with villains who were terrorists trying to spread as much chaos and destruction as they could. And undoubtedly due to the influence of Nolan's Batman movies (particularly TDK), we've seen plenty of villains in genre movies being reinterpreted as seemingly motivationless terrorists, like Lex Luthor in BvS, or even non-capeshit villains like Khan in Star Trek: Into Dumbness. I get the appeal for filmmakers. It's easy to write villains who just want to kill people and cause chaos in a general sense rather than ones who actually have specific goals and take specific actions to reach them. But it's been done, entirely played out, and we're really past due to be seeing something new.

Speaking of trends kicked off by TDK, I like that this movie kind of plays with the "getting caught was part of the plan!" villain twist that so many movies have done. The Riddler anticipated being caught, so his arrest was technically part of his plan, but it wasn't a means to an end, or something that was critical to the rest of his plan moving forward. There's an appreciable difference there that I found refreshing. I also enjoyed the twist of him being a fringe social media personality. The bit will probably be dated in a few years' time, but for what it is right now, it's a clever piece of satire. If only it had been used to set up something less tired and worn-out than a plan to kill as many people as possible. Maybe if the plan had been for his followers to storm a fancy ball or party for the new mayor, and kill the elite members of society who show up as guests? I think that might have worked better. And a final point about the Riddler - I really liked the fake-out about him possibly knowing who Batman is. It's very cleverly written, Pattinson really sells the tension and fear in his face while he confronts the Riddler, and looking back on it now, it would have been pretty stupid for the Riddler to have just "figured out" who Batman is offscreen. I feel like this happens in a lot of Batman adaptations. A villain just sort of figures out who Batman is offscreen and we're supposed to take that as proof of how smart they are. It's dumb.

45

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: President Joe Biden

« on: March 11, 2022, 04:58:48 PM »

https://apnews.com/article/fact-checking-412516218791

This is even more dishonest and ridiculous than I expected. It's literally just a video of Biden saying "end of quote,"

Why are you talking about something from November 24th?

Because that was the incident being discussed in this thread. If there's a more recent case of Biden getting lost while reading a teleprompter, I haven't seen it, and if Ronny Jackson was just making a general claim about Biden's mental state backed up by his own role as a doctor, then it bears repeating that Jackson's treatment of Trump proves that he can't be trusted to give an honest medical opinion.

46

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: President Joe Biden

« on: March 11, 2022, 04:32:02 AM »

https://apnews.com/article/fact-checking-412516218791

This is even more dishonest and ridiculous than I expected. It's literally just a video of Biden saying "end of quote," which conservatives assumed was something he wasn't supposed to say. That's it. That's literally it. There is literally nothing more to this situation than an out-of-context video and a kneejerk assumption from conservatives that because they didn't know what Biden was talking about, he must have been saying something nonsensical. Even if we didn't have the full video confirming that of course Biden was simply quoting someone, the alternative narrative that conservatives dreamed up doesn't make any sense. Why would a teleprompter say something like "end of quote" if the speaker wasn't supposed to say it? Teleprompters aren't scripts or screenplays. They don't contain lots of extraneous text that the speaker isn't supposed to say. That's simply not their function. No speechwriter would be cluttering up a teleprompter's transcript by clumsily labeling what is or isn't a quote within the transcript itself.

Biden has said plenty of goofy things in the past that might lead reasonable people to question his acuity. But this isn't one of them. This is just a really stupid and lazy smear attempt.

47

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: President Joe Biden

« on: March 10, 2022, 06:42:37 AM »

It is unfortunate that the US liberals voted a dementia patient into office for a time like this.

Just in case anyone has forgotten, Ronny Jackson is the doctor who notoriously claimed that Trump was at least two inches taller than all photographic evidence showed him to be, wasn't even obese, and was actually in great physical shape despite his lack of exercise, fast food-based diet, and general resemblance to Jabba the Hutt. He has no credibility as an actual doctor, and shouldn't be taken any more seriously on this subject than any other partisan hack.

48

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Putin pulling the strings of Republicans

« on: March 09, 2022, 05:21:53 AM »

To be fair I only hear this rhetoric from the QAnon branch of the Republican party.  Almost all Republican leadership strongly backs Ukraine.  I'm looking at the front page of Fox News and it is coming down way harder on Putin than it is on Biden.  And if Fox News is hammering anyone harder than Biden then that's really saying something.

It is possible that that'll change in the same way that "normal" Republicans adopted the positions of the insane Republicans.

All that needs to happen for Republicans to abandon Ukraine and support Putin will be Trump doing so. True to his erratic nature, he's already lurched between praising Putin and condemning the invasion, but if he "settles down" in support of Putin, Republicans will be quick to follow suit. It's also important to note here that Putin has successfully manipulated Trump into taking his side multiple times over the past several years, and I don't see why he'd have a harder time doing so in this situation. It's not like Trump gives a shit about Ukraine to begin with. I doubt he could even find it on a map.

49

Arts & Entertainment / Re: Superhero Movies & Comics General

« on: March 05, 2022, 04:41:16 AM »

I've seen The Batman, more like The Badman, am I right? No, just kidding, it's actually really good! A few minor details that aren't really critical to the quality of the film to begin with - I'm delighted to report that we don't see the Waynes being murdered for the millionth time here. Their murders are mentioned at the beginning of the movie, and that's literally all the reminder anyone needed. Also, while I'm not 100% sure on this, I don't believe that Batman causes anyone's death either directly or indirectly in this movie, which would make this the first Batman movie since 1997's Batman and Robin to have him not be a killer, which itself was the first Batman movie since 1966's Batman to have him not be a killer. On the negative side, I'm sorry to say that the scene of Batman casually wading through a stream of concentrated gunfire entirely unfazed is not a dream, a hallucination, or an unreliable narrator's account of fighting him. It's presented entirely as-is, meaning that this Batman is essentially bulletproof. And it's not even consistent, because when Batman fights in hand-to-hand combat, he visibly reacts whenever he does take a hit. How in the world does a punch hurt this guy when a hundred bullets at once don't even make him twitch?

But like I said, none of those are really substantive strengths or weaknesses of the film. The soundtrack is nice and portentous without going into Hans Zimmer "BWAAAAA" territory. The action is fast-paced and appropriately brutal - this Batman has a rough, scrappy fighting style that I really like, and the one big Batmobile scene is a joy to watch. The movie looks fantastic; I'd go so far as to say that it's one of the best-looking capeshit movies ever. The cast is great, and Pattinson in particular shines in the lead role, making his gloomy emo version of Batman compelling where a lesser actor would have just made him thoroughly unlikable. The story is a bit different to what we've seen in previous Batman movies, as this time our hero is primarily trying to solve a mystery. The inspiration - the very, very obvious inspiration, to the degree that one might even call this movie an homage to it - is the film Se7en, and just like with Joker and its riffs on Taxi Driver and The King of Comedy, I'm not sure if leaning so heavily on this inspiration will really invite many positive comparisons. Is "it's like [insert classic here], but with capeshit!" really a good selling point? In any event, it's good to see Batman do something different every once in a while.

I do still wish that Reeves had decided to go in another direction than gritty realism. We had more than enough of that angle with three Nolan movies, and in general it feels like such a dull, "safe" route to go down with the franchise after Snyder's movies crashed and burned. "Oh shit, guys, our attempt at a Batman who lives in a world of magic and aliens didn't work out! Let's go back to what Nolan did; everyone loved those movies!" I say this knowing perfectly well that it wasn't a studio mandate to go with this take on Batman, but something that Reeves wanted and fought for. It was a genuine artistic decision, but it feels like a boring corporate decision, you know? I'd love to see a good filmmaker one day take on a Batman who isn't strictly realistic, one who lives in a world where he might one day have to fight the likes of Clayface or Poison Ivy, but it looks like that won't be happening any time soon. Speaking of tone, though, the movie isn't really as grimdark as the marketing and reviews have played it up as. It's about as dark as the Nolan movies, certainly nowhere near as miserable or cynical as the Snyder ones.

One more criticism, and it's a minor one - this movie really could have done without the extended Joker tease at the end. Personally, I'm a little burned out on the Joker in general, but I get that he's a big moneymaker, so they want to use him in the inevitable sequel, and so they tease him in the first movie. Okay, but don't show him! Have the Riddler be slipped a note from him or something. And if they insisted on showing him - don't show him for so long! Have him just appear for a second, or say just one line. But no, the scene he's in goes on for over a minute, and he has several lines. It's way too early to be doing this. Wait until the fucking movie he actually has a substantial role in comes out! Giving him an inflated cameo like this just reeks of desperation. Talk about shooting their load early.

So yeah, I liked the movie! Go see it!

50

Arts & Entertainment / Re: Superhero Movies & Comics General

« on: March 01, 2022, 04:59:39 AM »

https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/the_batman

I've made the mistake of reading too many reviews for movies too often in the past to fall into that trap now. But at least the consensus looks good. I guess I'll share my thoughts when I see the movie.

51

Arts & Entertainment / Re: Now Playing (the Video Game Version)

« on: February 28, 2022, 05:49:07 AM »

ELDEN RING WHUPPED MY ASS

From have achieved what I wasn't sure was even possible and successfully transplanted the Souls formula into an open world. My biggest worry when I started playing was that exploration would be technically possible, while 99.9% of players would be promptly killed by overpowered enemies the moment they strayed from the path the story prescribed, but no. You really are free to wander even in the early stages of the game, and that's really the smart option so you can both toughen yourself up and hunt for useful equipment and items for when you tackle the main story. A lot of games struggle with horseback riding and go overboard in trying to limit how useful it is the player, but this game notably does not. You're certainly not invincible on horseback, but your horse is fast, can jump high, has plenty of health and stamina to work with, and in general just feels really good to ride. I'll probably have a few criticisms once I've completed more of the game, but so far pretty much everything is terrific.

52

Arts & Entertainment / Re: Now Playing (the Video Game Version)

« on: February 24, 2022, 06:45:48 PM »

I am a dad of war. I have no patience for things like copy editing.

53

Arts & Entertainment / Re: Now Playing (the Video Game Version)

« on: February 24, 2022, 04:55:17 AM »

God of War

More like Dad of War. But this is actually really good. I think the key to this game's quality is just how well they integrate Atreus, the kid hanging out with you, into the gameplay. This stands out especially when you compare it to how most other games would handle the player always being accompanied by an allied NPC. Put simply, Atreus is never a problem. You don't need to worry about waiting for him to catch up if you're leaving the area, because he always appears right next to you, just offscreen so it isn't too jarring. You don't need to worry about babysitting or protecting him during combat, as he can usually dodge attacks just fine by himself, and while he can be incapacitated, it just takes a quick tap of a button to get him back on his feet. And most importantly of all, he's incredibly helpful in battle, especially once you level him up a bit and unlock the special arrows he can use. It really feels as though Santa Monica Studio went above and beyond in systematically removing every element of escort gameplay that tends to drag the experience down while retaining the parts that keep everything fast and fun, like video games are supposed to be.

The other gameplay elements are largely serviceable, if not spectacular. There's some fairly decent exploration and platforming, along with the occasional environmental puzzle. In stark contrast to the button-mashing combo-scoring of previous titles, combat is now a slower, more methodical hack-and-slash affair - nothing about it is particularly groundbreaking, but there's a nice and crunchy feel to it. Being able to switch between your weapons and your fists is a nice touch. I will say that the enemy variety isn't great, as about 90% of the enemies you fight are the same four or five basic monster types, and the minibosses in particular all feel like the same generic troll/ogre you fight right at the beginning of the game. The full bosses are great, but there are only a few of them. Don't let the padded bestiary fool you, either - enemies having slightly different names or categorization doesn't stop them from being pretty much the same old enemies. The puzzles are kind of lame, too, and particularly when it comes to the collectibles. You're almost always just hunting for hidden runes to smash to open a lock, or hitting a few chimes within a short timespan to open a lock.

Despite all the good things God of War has going for it, it would simply be an above-average hack-and-slash game if not for the story. The hokey B-movie dialogue and juvenile sex scenes of the previous games are replaced with a fairly simple story of Kratos and Atreus climbing a mountain to scatter the ashes of Atreus's late mother, while Kratos does his best all the while to teach his son wisdom and maturity, despite the fact that he barely knows him at all and is only too aware of the fact that his own violent nature and dark history make him a less than ideal role model. There are some things going on behind the scenes and some powerful enemies they eventually have to face, but for the most part, they remain focused on their task. This simplicity allows the game to put the focus on character rather than plot, and it's a genuine pleasure to watch Kratos and Atreus slowly grow to appreciate one another and help each other grow as people. There is one little detail at the end of the game I didn't like - the reveal of whom Atreus "really" is in the mythology. There are a couple of real-life mythological details that back it up, to be fair, but I still don't think it's a particularly good fit for him, and I suspect it was decided on more for audience recognition of the name than anything else. But that's a tiny quibble.

This game is great, basically. Can't wait to spend another few years waiting for its sequel to get a PC port.

HITMAN III

A tiny, tiny game in comparison to the two previous titles in this series. The levels are all significantly smaller, the number of unique challenges you can complete in each level have been dramatically reduced, only a small handful of scripted "mission stories" to help you infiltrate a location or get close to a target are available, when the previous games would usually offer seven or eight per level, and so on. It's just smaller in every possible way, and the fact that this game comes bundled with the previous two - something that I really appreciate, to be clear - only makes the comparative lack of content all the more noticeable. Almost all of my time spent with this game has just been playing the content from the two previous games. What a shame.

54

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: February 24, 2022, 02:07:24 AM »

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/23/nyregion/trump-ny-fraud-investigation.html

The prosecutors, Carey R. Dunne and Mark F. Pomerantz, submitted their resignations because the new Manhattan district attorney, Alvin Bragg, indicated to them that he had doubts about moving forward with a case against Mr. Trump, the people said.

It's very frustrating how vaguely that's worded. Doubts as to whether the case is strong enough, or doubts about pushing a case against Trump for more personal reasons? Trump has spread so much corruption in his wake that we can't rule the latter out. In any case, he's managed to skate out of serious trouble for approximately the millionth time now.

55

Arts & Entertainment / Re: Superhero Movies & Comics General

« on: February 19, 2022, 05:35:06 AM »

And in perhaps the most predictable news imaginable, there's this (article contains spoilers), because Snyder fans were emboldened by the release of the Snyder cut and now they will never, ever shut up. Imagine being this fanatically loyal to a grim, cynical, and soulless vision of capeshit dreamed up by a director as dumb as he is pretentious.

56

Arts & Entertainment / Re: Superhero Movies & Comics General

« on: February 18, 2022, 06:48:02 AM »

Peacemaker is a delight from start to finish. Nobody but John Cena could have captured this character's perfect blend of overblown machismo and heart the way he does, Gunn tells an engaging story with both humor and sincerity, the glam rock/hair metal soundtrack is just the right level of kitsch to work (They even play Steel Panther at one point!), and while I'm sure this element of the show will be controversial in certain geek circles, I loved how explicitly political it turned out to be. It never quite preaches or scolds, but the show makes a point of consistently pushing back on characters who make bigoted remarks or embody toxic behaviors, relentlessly skewers racists while showing them to be as pathetic as are they reprehensible, and openly embraces a progressive, wholesome vision of the future. We can undoubtedly thank the alt-right political commentators who tried to end Gunn's career back in 2018 for convincing him to make this show as political as he did, just as we can thank those same people for Gunn being able to work for DC at all. Good job, guys!

The show does have flaws. The CGI as a whole is pretty bad. A few effects look decent, but most of it looks very unconvincing, and unfortunately, the effect we see the most is Peacemaker's pet eagle. I love the eagle as a character, and his bond with Peacemaker is really nice, but he looks fake as hell every second he's on screen. A more serious issue is the fact that Gunn wrote every episode by himself, and by the end of the show, his writing style begins to drag. He's a great writer, but eight episodes of him and only him is simply too much. I've talked about this before, and I stand by it - there is no TV show in the world that benefits from having only one writer who writes every episode alone. Television simply is not a form of storytelling suited to auteurs. After hours and hours spent with one writer, you start to notice their repetitions. You start to notice their storytelling tics. You start to notice little flaws in their writing that might have been fixed if a fresh perspective had been allowed a pass at the script, or even a co-writer to push back on poor ideas and convince the main writer to do better. I'm convinced that premium channels and streaming services encourage the shows they order to be written by one person because it lets them market the supposed prestige of auteur theory to the media. "Look at this TV show! The pure, uncompromised artistic vision of one ambitious dreamer! This isn't a generic corporate product; it's a very personal statement and work of art!"

As far as Gunn goes, there's this one very distinctive joke format that he likes to use. Some characters are having a discussion, someone uses a certain phrase, aphorism, or joke, another character suddenly calls attention to what they just said, and then for the next thirty or forty seconds the original topic is essentially forgotten as the characters argue about the logic of the phrase that was just used, its hidden implications, or its literal meaning. Gunn can use this format once or twice in a two-hour movie and it's all good. But in this show, he uses it at least once an episode, and sometimes more. By the end of the season, I was rolling my eyes whenever I could see the setup rearing its head once again. I imagine it's even more annoying if you binge the show. And that's exactly the kind of thing that could have been avoided if Gunn had let other people write or even co-write a few of these episodes. There are other little tics and repetitions that would have been softened too, but that's easily the biggest thing that jumped out at me about his writing every episode.

Don't get me wrong - this show is still great, and I couldn't be happier about it getting another season. I just would really like to see at least one more writer come aboard and balance out some of Gunn's ideas next time.

57

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: President Joe Biden

« on: February 17, 2022, 04:14:40 AM »

You're right, Pete, I should have read your most recent posts, and then I would have understood what you were getting at earlier. I didn't interpret Tom's initial post the same way you did. Rather than see it as something along the lines of "Hey, here's an excellent argument indicating that The Hill has a liberal bias. I found it on Conservapedia, so here's the link," I saw it as "Check out this article making a comprehensive case for The Hill having a liberal bias. Here's just one example of what they have to say!" I can't prove that was what he meant, but it does seem like that was the case from how he responded to us - not by directing our attention towards the specific argument, but by defending Conservapedia and arguing that its conservative stance doesn't make it wrong or unreliable. Rama seemed to also have interpreted the post this way, which would explain why he chose to debunk every argument the article provided, not just the one Tom screenshotted, as well as why your back-and-forth with him went on as long as it did - he was talking about the article as a whole, while you were talking about one specific claim.

I fully agree with you that criticizing the original source of an argument when the merits of the argument are what's being discussed isn't very productive. But if the source itself essentially is the argument, and is just linked in its entirety to argue a certain position, then I think it's entirely fair to point and laugh when the source is a meme on the level of Conservapedia. Not the most productive thing to say, but still something that's entirely relevant. If you don't agree with me on that, then I think we'll just have to agree to disagree, because I can't see myself changing my opinion.

58

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: President Joe Biden

« on: February 16, 2022, 05:06:45 AM »

At this point, I'm less interested in the argument itself and more in responding to the circlejerk from you and Rama about how obviously I was dumb and off-base to simply mock a Conservapedia article being linked to in an Internet discussion, and that even if one were to dispute Tom's point, that of course shouldn't be interpreted as support for the stupid thing I said! I'm not going to let the notion that mockingly expressing disbelief that someone is linking a Conservapedia article in an Internet discussion is a dumb thing to say stand unchallenged, because I know that it's not. You could say that it's an incomplete response, or one that isn't particularly productive, because it doesn't explain why each of the article's specific arguments fail to hold up. But that doesn't mean that it's dumb or wrong. Conservapedia is a bullshit website, and so I called bullshit when it was cited. No logical fallacy, no breakdown in reasoning, just an entirely justified ad hominem attack.

59

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: President Joe Biden

« on: February 13, 2022, 04:29:29 PM »

I don't have to read a specific article from them to know that the article is almost certainly going to be crap.

OK. Well, two of us have read it and we agree that this specific claim was factually correct, if possibly misused. If you're gonna take the "well I don't HAVE TO read it" route, then I'll just assume you have no meaningful response and move on.

If there's a good argument to be made that The Hill is in fact politically liberal, then you and/or Tom would have been better off posting that argument rather than just a link to Conservapedia. Like I said, it's simply disingenuous to pretend that website's reputation means nothing and shouldn't be taken into account. I can't stop you from pompously declaring victory and "moving on," but you're the one who's arguing that a link to Conservapedia should apparently be taken seriously, and no pithy remarks from you are going to change how silly that is.

60

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: February 13, 2022, 04:21:54 AM »

Again, the Department of Justice weren't the ones who took the documents from Trump, the National Archives were. They have confirmed this. There is no ambiguity about that fact, and Trump isn't disputing it, so I don't see why you are. And I'm not jumping to conclusions. Like I said, it's entirely possible that despite his long history of laziness as to his duties and his responsibilities, carelessness about protecting sensitive information, and general indifference to the law, Trump really was doing things the right way this time. But I highly doubt it, and anyone who's still willing to give Trump the benefit of the doubt by now is in too deep to be reasoned with.