US Representative Shot

[Gallia-]

snip

Ah yes, your "posts" where you say things in the most snide way possible, appeal to secret knowledge or hidden beliefs without actually explaining your system, never reply more than maybe twenty words to a quote, and then expect me to put together the puzzle while never actually saying what you mean?

Here is my conclusion: You have no idea what your beliefs actually are. You might feel something, clearly, but you have no ability to actually express it in ways that are concise. Your inability to provide anything more cogent than "<snide remark>" and "I don't believe this" and "Another person said this". In fact, that last statement is actually the closest you've come to expressing where you actually draw the line on the left-right political spectrum, but it came from someone else so it doesn't really count as your own statement. You apparently can't fathom another interpretation having equal weight and value to your own.

I'm guess I can only say that I'm glad that modern Marxism has moved beyond things like "dialectic".

[Mavorpen]

Your inability to provide anything more cogent than "<snide remark>" and "I don't believe this" and "Another person said this". In fact, that last statement is actually the closest you've come to expressing where you actually draw the line on the left-right political spectrum, but it came from someone else so it doesn't really count as your own statement.

Thanks for at least confirming you don't read my posts, given that my definition did not come from someone else. I agreed with the individual's "definition" but only to an extent because he left out half of the equation, which I filled in. But I suppose if you're going to insist that any definition that I provide be a total vacuum with utterly no influence from any human being who ever existed, I'm sorry, but I can't fulfill that.

[Nulla Bellum]

There's clearly nothing to be learned in this discussion, so I think I'll just stop.

I'm confused, I've been educating you this entire thread, then you admit that you don't care about learning, then you suggest that you were here to learn. Pick one.

Indeed, you are confused. This is a thread about the left-wing nutbag that shot a Congressman. Perhaps "Mavorpen's School of Illucidity" is a good hobby thread for you to bifurcation fallacy your sweet little heart out within.

[Mavorpen]

I'm confused, I've been educating you this entire thread, then you admit that you don't care about learning, then you suggest that you were here to learn. Pick one.

Indeed, you are confused. This is a thread about the leftright-wing nutbag that shot a Congressman.

Perhaps "Mavorpen's School of Illucidity" is a good hobby thread for you to bifurcation fallacy your sweet little heart out within.

Making up words and misusing fallacies. I can see why you don't understand what left-wing means.

[Gallia-]

Your inability to provide anything more cogent than "<snide remark>" and "I don't believe this" and "Another person said this". In fact, that last statement is actually the closest you've come to expressing where you actually draw the line on the left-right political spectrum, but it came from someone else so it doesn't really count as your own statement.

Thanks for at least confirming you don't read my posts, given that my definition did not come from someone else. I agreed with the individual's "definition" but only to an extent because he left out half of the equation, which I filled in. But I suppose if you're going to insist that any definition that I provide be a total vacuum with utterly no influence from any human being who ever existed, I'm sorry, but I can't fulfill that.

Ah, OK. So you took your definition from someone else, "filled it in", and clearly that means you didn't actually wait until someone else had already "figured out" your puzzle box before "helpfully" providing the rest of the answer. Sorry, my mistake, you actually said "I don't believe he was a 'left-wing nutjob' because he doesn't seem to have held any revolutionary beliefs or believed in non-hierarchical self-rule; and he also didn't plant a Soviet flag in the baseball field," and totally not a cryptic:

Left-wing nutbag shoots at Republican congressmen playing softball.

Discuss.

Based on...?

Silly me indeed!

It's just interesting to me that you couldn't simply have provided an overview of your definition the first time someone mentioned "left-wing", instead of making the implicit assumption that everyone believes the same thing you do, though. It's as if you have a weak theory of mind or something, that you can't actually see any reason why someone might not hold the same definition of "left/right political spectrum", or even multiple definitions depending on context of discussion. Something like "the left/right political spectrum varies based on group preferences and no left/right spectrum is intrinsically more or less correct than another, and only by analysis of specific group preferences can the spectrum be discovered".

Perhaps you are stuck in a box, though. I suggest this because my box has your box inside it. It can accommodate your definition of left/right, but you cannot accommodate mine, or anyone else's, apparently.

[Sovaal]

Indeed, you are confused. This is a thread about the leftright-wing nutbag that shot a Congressman.

Perhaps "Mavorpen's School of Illucidity" is a good hobby thread for you to bifurcation fallacy your sweet little heart out within.

Making up words and misusing fallacies. I can see why you don't understand what left-wing means.

Do tell, what does the "true definition" of left wing mean?

[Mavorpen]

Ah, OK. So you took your definition from someone else,

No. Or, judging by what your criteria is, yes, I suppose. But in that case, everyone takes their definition from someone else, so if we're going by your criteria, I don't really see anything wrong with agreeing with someone's foundation for a definition and refining it.

"filled it in", and clearly that means you didn't actually wait until someone else had already "figured out" your puzzle box before "helpfully" provided the rest of the answer.

Yes, that's correct.

Sorry, my mistake, you actually said "I don't believe he was a 'left-wing nutjob' because he doesn't seem to have held any revolutionary beliefs or believed in non-hierarchical self-rule; and he also didn't plant a Soviet flag in the baseball field," and totally not a cryptic:

Based on...?

Silly me indeed!

So did you just suffer from short-term memory loss where everything I said after this didn't happen in your mind?

It's just interesting to me that you couldn't simply have provided an overview of your definition the first time someone mentioned "left-wing", instead of making the implicit assumption that everyone believes the same thing you do, though.

I made no such assumption. If I did, then I wouldn't have been here.

It's as if you have a weak theory of mind or something, that you can't actually see any reason why someone might not hold the same definition of "left/right political spectrum", or even multiple definitions depending on context of discussion.

More like I understand what words mean. You should try it sometime.

[Nulla Bellum]

Indeed, you are confused. This is a thread about the leftright-wing nutbag that shot a Congressman.

Perhaps "Mavorpen's School of Illucidity" is a good hobby thread for you to bifurcation fallacy your sweet little heart out within.

Making up words and misusing fallacies. I can see why you don't understand what left-wing means.

I'm pretty sure it never meant "derail a discussion with nonsense" but I'm just your humble student.

[Gallia-]

Ah, OK. So you took your definition from someone else,

No. Or, judging by what your criteria is, yes, I suppose. But in that case, everyone takes their definition from someone else, so if we're going by your criteria, I don't really see anything wrong with agreeing with someone's foundation for a definition and refining it.

Considering you didn't do this at the start, it seems extremely arbitrary. The fact that your posts before that were variously snide comments, vague insinuations of "denial of philosophical thought" and "reality warping", and deflections, it's seems rather obvious that you are more likely "making things up as you go" rather than working from any serious, in-depth knowledge.

"filled it in", and clearly that means you didn't actually wait until someone else had already "figured out" your puzzle box before "helpfully" provided the rest of the answer.

Yes, that's correct.

From where I'm standing, that's not the case, which is also true for two other people. How do you account for that? More importantly, how do you intend to correct this in the future? At least three people in this, myself included, would be similarly confused, so perhaps you should be considering your inability to elucidate on your beliefs as the root problem.

For one thing, I do not believe describing things as "nonsensical", "meaningless", or "arbitrary" is enlightening without actually describing them. I would say that your posts inevitably deflect from actual discussion when the topic comes up, based on what little I've seen of your posting.

Sorry, my mistake, you actually said "I don't believe he was a 'left-wing nutjob' because he doesn't seem to have held any revolutionary beliefs or believed in non-hierarchical self-rule; and he also didn't plant a Soviet flag in the baseball field," and totally not a cryptic:


Silly me indeed!

So did you just suffer from short-term memory loss where everything I said after this didn't happen in your mind?

"Everything I said". Interesting, because you never once said anything of substance until a couple of posts ago. Now you're back to non-substantive posting, which seems to be your median level of posting.

It's just interesting to me that you couldn't simply have provided an overview of your definition the first time someone mentioned "left-wing", instead of making the implicit assumption that everyone believes the same thing you do, though.

I made no such assumption. If I did, then I wouldn't have been here.

Oh, you certainly did. If you hadn't, you would have made some attempt to explain what you mean, operating on the assumption that the person you're talking to is more or less ignorant of the concepts you're using.

You made zero attempt until someone else found "half the equation". What I think you mean is "until I found a definition I liked that I could crib".

It's as if you have a weak theory of mind or something, that you can't actually see any reason why someone might not hold the same definition of "left/right political spectrum", or even multiple definitions depending on context of discussion.

More like I understand what words mean. You should try it sometime.

Left means, when facing Northwards, things that are located to the West of the person. Right means, when facing Northwards, things that are located to the East of the person. Both definitions use the sagittal plane as their plane of reference. When facing Southwards, Eastwards, Westwards, or any other way, switch the cardinal directions as required.

The only objective meaning of the words.

Making up words and misusing fallacies. I can see why you don't understand what left-wing means.

Do tell, what does the "true definition" of left wing mean?

He hints at a Orthodox Marxist belief in revolutionary statelessness (or whatever "non-hierarchical" means) versus reactionary statism as being the dividing line, I guess.

[Mavorpen]

No. Or, judging by what your criteria is, yes, I suppose. But in that case, everyone takes their definition from someone else, so if we're going by your criteria, I don't really see anything wrong with agreeing with someone's foundation for a definition and refining it.

Considering you didn't do this at the start, it seems extremely arbitrary. The fact that your posts before that were variously snide comments, vague insinuations of "denial of philosophical thought" and "reality warping", and deflections, it's seems rather obvious that you are more likely "making things up as you go" rather than working from any serious, in-depth knowledge.

It's fine if you think that. I'm assuming you agree with me though that your criteria for having my "own definition" is asinine?

"Everything I said". Interesting, because you never once said anything of substance until a couple of posts ago.

Sure I did.

Now you're back to non-substantive posting, which seems to be your median level of posting.

That's some interesting projection. I'm not sure how I can give substantive posting in response to your lack of substantive posting. At this point you're just giving me your silly opinions and conspiracy theories about the inner workings of my mind rather than something of value.

Oh, you certainly did.

I most certainly did not.

[Gallia-]

Considering you didn't do this at the start, it seems extremely arbitrary. The fact that your posts before that were variously snide comments, vague insinuations of "denial of philosophical thought" and "reality warping", and deflections, it's seems rather obvious that you are more likely "making things up as you go" rather than working from any serious, in-depth knowledge.

It's fine if you think that. I'm assuming you agree with me though that your criteria for having my "own definition" is asinine?

Yes, my criteria for having your "own definition" is "not wait until someone else posts words that I agree with and proceed to edit it slightly to fit my hastily discovered belief system" or something like that. It's more like "know enough about your own beliefs that, when jumping into a conversation, you can provide some opinionated footing for you to stand on".

Clearly asinine! That requires believing that opinions and sharing of ideas has any value at all.

"Everything I said". Interesting, because you never once said anything of substance until a couple of posts ago.

Sure I did.

Yeah, you did. You implied that you have an Orthodox Marxist perspective of the left/right political spectrum, which means you're stuck in a Marx shaped box. Do you need help finding your way to the 21st century?

Now you're back to non-substantive posting, which seems to be your median level of posting.

That's some interesting projection. I'm not sure how I can give substantive posting in response to your lack of substantive posting. At this point you're just giving me your silly opinions and conspiracy theories about the inner workings of my mind rather than something of value.

Interesting. It's almost as if "silly opinions and conspiracy theories" forms of the basis of politics. You've only once given one of your silly opinions. Then you pretend that your own silly opinions form some universal belief system. It's so cute, it's almost as if you don't know what politics is. You think it's about discovering some sort of universal system? Or you think that there is anything universal at all about politics? I disagree, I guess I'm wrong! Except that's just, like, your opinion, man.

Though, I find it amusing you're using terms that you don't know the definition of. After all, since when does "conspiracy theories" include "snarky observations about behaviour" and "repeated questioning of belief system"? I always assumed that "conspiracy theories" were something more akin to "dastardly schemes to commit mass wrong-doings and crimes to a group of people, often sparsely or not at all supported by evidence".

I guess questioning Mavorpen's beliefs and trying to figure out the riddle of his silly opinions is a dastardly wrong-doing?

Anyway this conversation is derailing into something else. We already figured out why you don't consider Hodgkinson a leftist. It's because he wasn't a libertarian or something. Oh wait, sorry, I mean it's because he wasn't a non-hierarchical revolutionary. It only took three pages of back and forth discussion for you to admit that, though.

Oh, you certainly did.

I most certainly did not.

Your political opinions are not some universal law. You have no more or less validity in declaring someone a leftist or a rightist than anyone else does, and you especially do not speak for the entire world or even a group of people beyond those who share similar beliefs to you. Stop acting like it.

[Mavorpen]

It's fine if you think that. I'm assuming you agree with me though that your criteria for having my "own definition" is asinine?

Yes, my criteria for having your "own definition" is "not wait until someone else posts words that I agree with and proceed to edit it slightly to fit my hastily discovered belief system" or something like that.

Great, so no one has their own definition. I can live with that.

Sure I did.

Yeah, you did. You implied that you have an Orthodox Marxist perspective of the left/right political spectrum, which means you're stuck in a Marx shaped box. Do you need help finding your way to the 21st century?

Nothing I said was Marxist.

That's some interesting projection. I'm not sure how I can give substantive posting in response to your lack of substantive posting. At this point you're just giving me your silly opinions and conspiracy theories about the inner workings of my mind rather than something of value.

Interesting. It's almost as if "silly opinions and conspiracy theories" forms of the basis of politics.

That's nice. I didn't say that they don't, but alright.

Your political opinions are not some universal law.

I haven't given a political opinion.

So given you're just spewing vague conspiracy theories about my mind, I suggest the threadjack just come to an end.

EDIT: Or, alternatively you could post your response in the leftist megathread and I'll respond when I wake up.

[Nulla Bellum]

... I suggest the threadjack just come to an end.

Sweet!

So, this left-wing nutbag shoots up a Republican baseball practice, and injures a Congressman...

[Pimps Inc]

Republicans take that L in the baseball game and Scalise still in critical condition though "has improved in last 24 hours".

[Mavorpen]

... I suggest the threadjack just come to an end.

Sweet!

So, this leftright-wing nutbag shoots up a Republican baseball practice, and injures a Congressman...

Which has a morbidly hilarious side to it considering a twitter comment Rand Paul made about a year ago.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Republicans take that L in the baseball game and Scalise still in critical condition though "has improved in last 24 hours".

What if this was all just a left wing plot to make sure the Dem team would win?

We need some YouTube conspiracy videos on this ASAP.

[Mavorpen]

Republicans take that L in the baseball game and Scalise still in critical condition though "has improved in last 24 hours".

I thought that was a joke but then I checked and they did lose. The line between reality and a morbid television drama continues to blur.

[Mavorpen]

Republicans take that L in the baseball game and Scalise still in critical condition though "has improved in last 24 hours".

What if this was all just a left wing plot to make sure the Dem team would win?

We need some YouTube conspiracy videos on this ASAP.

Currently sending a DM to Paul Joseph Watson on Twitter.

[Pimps Inc]

What if this was all just a left wing plot to make sure the Dem team would win?

We need some YouTube conspiracy videos on this ASAP.

Currently sending a DM to Paul Joseph Watson on Twitter.

You can do that?

[Neo Balka]

Sweet!

So, this leftright-wing nutbag shoots up a Republican baseball practice, and injures a Congressman...

Which has a morbidly hilarious side to it considering a twitter comment Rand Paul made about a year ago.

You do know that the retard supported sanders....right?

[Major-Tom]

Which has a morbidly hilarious side to it considering a twitter comment Rand Paul made about a year ago.

You do know that the retard supported sanders....right?

the point is he was a terrorist. clearly not too there mentally, and he had strong political convictions. we can cherrypick to make 'our side' look more innocent, but the fact is, the polarized environment of politics certainly contributed to what he did.

[Neo Balka]

You do know that the retard supported sanders....right?

the point is he was a terrorist. clearly not too there mentally, and he had strong political convictions. we can cherrypick to make 'our side' look more innocent, but the fact is, the polarized environment of politics certainly contributed to what he did.

Mavs insistence on making him a right winger seems to indicate in their warped fucking mind, leftists cant be terrorists.

[Major-Tom]

the point is he was a terrorist. clearly not too there mentally, and he had strong political convictions. we can cherrypick to make 'our side' look more innocent, but the fact is, the polarized environment of politics certainly contributed to what he did.

Mavs insistence on making him a right winger seems to indicate in their warped fucking mind, leftists cant be terrorists.

Yeah - Mav shouldn't insist he was right wing to fit his own ideology. He also supported Sanders, no? I mean - all sides can do terrible things, I think that's something we have to recognize. I support Mr. Sanders, and I recognize, that yes, sometimes people on our side can do bad shit.

[Neo Balka]

Mavs insistence on making him a right winger seems to indicate in their warped fucking mind, leftists cant be terrorists.

Yeah - Mav shouldn't insist he was right wing to fit his own ideology. He also supported Sanders, no? I mean - all sides can do terrible things, I think that's something we have to recognize. I support Mr. Sanders, and I recognize, that yes, sometimes people on our side can do bad shit.

you'd be the first to do so.

[Sovaal]

Mavs insistence on making him a right winger seems to indicate in their warped fucking mind, leftists cant be terrorists.

Yeah - Mav shouldn't insist he was right wing to fit his own ideology. He also supported Sanders, no? I mean - all sides can do terrible things, I think that's something we have to recognize. I support Mr. Sanders, and I recognize, that yes, sometimes people on our side can do bad shit.

With how decisive American politics is nowadays it seems that the view that the opposition is the only side capable of doing wrong is only to become more and more common.