What's new

Economic Liberalism Discussion

Morphile

Well-known member
Singapore is also a hyper capitalist hellhole that lords itself over the rest of SEA like Queen Motherfucking Victoria so let's slow our role on saying it appreciates tolerance and diversity.
Economic =/= Social. They can be ludicrously right-wing one-step-above-anarcho-capitalism and still be very much socially liberal. Hell, this sort of mismatch was the bloody standard in the US until the 60s, then the Civil Rights movement got the Dixiecrat constituency to focus on small government and low taxes because they'd come to want that, but considered shitting on niggers important enough to accept large government and higher taxes. When shitting on niggers stopped being available thanks to the Civil Rights movement winning legislatively, the constituency switched to Republicans for economic policy. And then about 20 years later the social policy finished switching and we got the hardcore religious nutters.
We have the Texas republican prty literally having a plank in their platform declaring that they will fight against children being taught critical thinking skills so as to avoid them questioning their parents’ religion.
...who are apparently terrifyingly insane where they actually have some power left.
 

Ravan

Well-known member
Economic =/= Social. They can be ludicrously right-wing one-step-above-anarcho-capitalism and still be very much socially liberal. Hell, this sort of mismatch was the bloody standard in the US until the 60s, then the Civil Rights movement got the Dixiecrat constituency to focus on small government and low taxes because they'd come to want that, but considered shitting on niggers important enough to accept large government and higher taxes. When shitting on niggers stopped being available thanks to the Civil Rights movement winning legislatively, the constituency switched to Republicans for economic policy. And then about 20 years later the social policy finished switching and we got the hardcore religious nutters.

...who are apparently terrifyingly insane where they actually have some power left.
Actually, if you go back and read the stuff that was written and said by the republican strategists at the time, “lower taxes and small government” is literally just code for “shitting on niggers”

Here, this is from Lee Atwater, advisor to Reagan and Bush, head of the RNC:

Atwater: As to the whole Southern strategy that Harry Dent and others put together in 1968, opposition to the Voting Rights Act would have been a central part of keeping the South. Now [Reagan] doesn't have to do that. All you have to do to keep the South is for Reagan to run in place on the issues he's campaigned on since 1964 [...] and that's fiscal conservatism, balancing the budget, cut taxes, you know, the whole cluster...

Questioner: But the fact is, isn't it, that Reagan does get to the Wallace voter and to the racist side of the Wallace voter by doing away with legal services, by cutting down on food stamps?

Atwater: Y'all don't quote me on this. You start out in 1954 by saying, "Nigger, nigger, nigger." By 1968 you can't say "nigger" — that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me — because obviously sitting around saying, "We want to cut this," is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than "Nigger, nigger."
 
Last edited:

Morphile

Well-known member
Actually, if you go back and read the stuff that was written and said by the republican strategists at the time, “lower taxes and small government” is literally just code for “shitting on niggers”
*Sigh*...

I understand this, you've shoved it in my face three times now. The point is that the Civil Rights Movement made racism itself as a platform unworkable, and we're now so far out that the economic policy has gone from shifting to secure a voting base that understood the consequences were targeted to having it be dogma independent of any racial goals for the constituency. The economic policy itself is the goal now, for most Republican voters, not the consequences. They're often willfully ignorant of those consequences, genuinely believing it to all be good policy. Trickle-down economics isn't excuses the constituency makes, they actually believe in it.
 

Ravan

Well-known member
*Sigh*...

I understand this, you've shoved it in my face three times now. The point is that the Civil Rights Movement made racism itself as a platform unworkable, and we're now so far out that the economic policy has gone from shifting to secure a voting base that understood the consequences were targeted to having it be dogma independent of any racial goals for the constituency. The economic policy itself is the goal now, for most Republican voters, not the consequences. They're often willfully ignorant of those consequences, genuinely believing it to all be good policy. Trickle-down economics isn't excuses the constituency makes, they actually believe in it.
Shouldn’t that mean that we should fight even harder against the party promoting it, since that just means that they have no idea why they want these policies beyond “grandpappy said this is who we vote for”?
 

Ravan

Well-known member
Some of you guys need some Thomas Sowell, Socialism has been a complete failure whenever it's been tried.
Sowell's critics have argued that he draws causal inferences without rigorous methodology,[60] publishes work that lacks credible sources[61] or omits references entirely,[62] and makes contradictory comments about academia and intellectualism.[63]

Critics such as author and journalist Colin Campbell, Hampton University economist Bernadette Chachere, Harvard University sociologist William Julius Wilson, social scientist Richard Coughlin, Stanford law professor Richard Thompson Ford, and Pulitzer Prize winner Steven Pearlstein include in their remarks,

Sowell's works] have been published, to much praise ... and a lot of criticism, some of it bitter.[64]

To cite one article published in 1973, after controlling for age, region of residence, parents' income, father's occupation and education, place where raised, number of siblings, health, local labor, market conditions, geographic mobility, and seasonal employment, there still remained a 70% difference in the earnings of whites and nonwhites. Sowell's Markets and Minorities leaves [this] unexplained ... There is not one footnote to this chapter.[62]

A plausible alternative to Mr. Sowell's hypothesis on women's pay differentials and occupational segregation is that women are virtually excluded from many desirable positions and therefore crowd into obtainable occupations ... [However, his work] is a brutally frank, perceptive and important contribution to the national debate over the means to achieve equality and social justice for minorities and women.[65]

[Sowell's] absence of a coherent (much less, rigorous) comparative methodology renders the analysis less compelling than it might otherwise be ... the book's lack of methodological rigor will, I suspect, make it easy for readers holding opposing viewpoints to discount Sowell's conclusions.[66]

Too much of Intellectuals and Race reads with overly tendentious and snide attacks on caricatured liberal theories ... Sowell insists ... that differences in productive capabilities explain the differences in outcomes ... [He] downplays the toll that American racism has taken, not only on black fortunes but on American civic culture and politics.[67]

In the world according to Sowell, liberals ... deny billionaires the chance to create new jobs and new products if it means adding even a dollar to their incomes. Black leaders want to keep their people in poverty because otherwise they would have no purpose. The media and government officials systematically ignore and cover up racially motivated black-on-white violence (he knows about these incidents, according to the footnotes, from major news outlets).[61]
 

Morphile

Well-known member
Shouldn’t that mean that we should fight even harder against the party promoting it, since that just means that they have no idea why they want these policies beyond “grandpappy said this is who we vote for”?
When the alternative is currently, as far as vocal, politically-active people, supported primarily by people who think that hard borders shouldn't exist, that straight universal healthcare will ever work in anything like the current way US politics work, call for abolishing student loan debts and, generally, are far-left loons, no. They hardly promoted Hillary on policy at fucking all and consider doxxing and riots to be entirely valid tools. Meanwhile, the Republicans are actually managing to fix some rather sizable chunks of the economy, at least temporarily, and their plan, for the moment, is to try to drag jobs back from overseas, which is what landed the US in a lot of its current economic messes in the first place.

Furthermore, people who hold positions based on tradition are fairly often able to be swayed by positive results, while genuine ideological purity spiraling, like the lot the Democrats are busy surrendering to the Republicans by embracing, can't be stopped by anything less than utter failure. If contrary policies can be proven to be responsible for great successes and those policies can be proven to lead to failure, then they'll bend, unlike the psychotic dogma currently taking over the left. Simply put, the Republicans are getting less uncompromizingly insane(hard not to, given they've been at very nearly the absolute peak of it), are currently actually fixing the economy and are confronting what a larger amount of the population consider to be problems in the first place, while the Democrats are going downhill for all of these (see San Fransisco for an example. Or Antifa).

Citation, so we can get the citations it uses? Because that's clearly CTRL+C'd from somewhere, given the bracketed numbers, which are generally used for citations. The last bit, with black leaders wanting to keep their people in poverty, is a very simple and straightforward example of perverse incentives. Victomhood has become too profitable, with it being nearly trivial to get tens of thousands for making it to broadcast news, and so victims refuse to stop it, regardless of how long it's been or how much they've gotten. We're at the point where there's a two-to-one bias towards women on tenure tracks in universities and they're the majority of students, yet there's still a large number of calls for more of both. "Non-profit" anti-discrimination organizations in the developed world spend far more on extreme edge cases than anything even close to what's been found to be useful, and on the political-axis-orthogonal end of things, you have prisons routinely shutting down projects found to reduce recidivism rates and shut out things done to improve post-incarceration lifestyles, because anti-discrimination organizations require discrimination, and thus may invent it when they can't find enough, while prisons work to ensure repeat offenses so as to maintain funding.

The entire point of Capitalism and other meritocratic systems is to have as many incentives as possible be productive, turning flaws into drivers of progress. A greedy person in an ideal Capitalist system has to maximize productivity to get the most wealth possible. A power-hungry person in a functional meritocratic bureaucracy has to be the best at their job to rise to the top. With Capitalism, regulations to remove certain actions from being permitted are needed to avert a number of perverse incentives, such as Apple's increasingly draconian and expensive repair policy being driven by the fact that they are allowed to have a monopoly on parts.
 

Ravan

Well-known member
When the alternative is currently, as far as vocal, politically-active people, supported primarily by people who think that hard borders shouldn't exist, that straight universal healthcare will ever work in anything like the current way US politics work, call for abolishing student loan debts and, generally, are far-left loons, no. They hardly promoted Hillary on policy at fucking all and consider doxxing and riots to be entirely valid tools. Meanwhile, the Republicans are actually managing to fix some rather sizable chunks of the economy, at least temporarily, and their plan, for the moment, is to try to drag jobs back from overseas, which is what landed the US in a lot of its current economic messes in the first place.

Furthermore, people who hold positions based on tradition are fairly often able to be swayed by positive results, while genuine ideological purity spiraling, like the lot the Democrats are busy surrendering to the Republicans by embracing, can't be stopped by anything less than utter failure. If contrary policies can be proven to be responsible for great successes and those policies can be proven to lead to failure, then they'll bend, unlike the psychotic dogma currently taking over the left. Simply put, the Republicans are getting less uncompromizingly insane(hard not to, given they've been at very nearly the absolute peak of it), are currently actually fixing the economy and are confronting what a larger amount of the population consider to be problems in the first place, while the Democrats are going downhill for all of these (see San Fransisco for an example. Or Antifa).




Citation, so we can get the citations it uses? Because that's clearly CTRL+C'd from somewhere, given the bracketed numbers, which are generally used for citations. The last bit, with black leaders wanting to keep their people in poverty, is a very simple and straightforward example of perverse incentives. Victomhood has become too profitable, with it being nearly trivial to get tens of thousands for making it to broadcast news, and so victims refuse to stop it, regardless of how long it's been or how much they've gotten. We're at the point where there's a two-to-one bias towards women on tenure tracks in universities and they're the majority of students, yet there's still a large number of calls for more of both. "Non-profit" anti-discrimination organizations in the developed world spend far more on extreme edge cases than anything even close to what's been found to be useful, and on the political-axis-orthogonal end of things, you have prisons routinely shutting down projects found to reduce recidivism rates and shut out things done to improve post-incarceration lifestyles, because anti-discrimination organizations require discrimination, and thus may invent it when they can't find enough, while prisons work to ensure repeat offenses so as to maintain funding.

The entire point of Capitalism and other meritocratic systems is to have as many incentives as possible be productive, turning flaws into drivers of progress. A greedy person in an ideal Capitalist system has to maximize productivity to get the most wealth possible. A power-hungry person in a functional meritocratic bureaucracy has to be the best at their job to rise to the top. With Capitalism, regulations to remove certain actions from being permitted are needed to avert a number of perverse incentives, such as Apple's increasingly draconian and expensive repair policy being driven by the fact that they are allowed to have a monopoly on parts.
So, no citations.

Now, once again please cite democrats who actually matter saying we should eliminate borders.

Then cite reasons why universal health care won’t work that go beyond “republicans are fucking stupid”

Then explain why putting all the folks with degrees in debt for the rest of their lives is actually good for the economy, with cites from actual respected economists.

We can deal with the rest of your gish gallop once you’ve actually shown some support for these.
 
Now, once again please cite democrats who actually matter saying we should eliminate borders.
Pretty sure that's largely relegated to extremely vocal twitter/reddit leftists. Even Occasio Cortez is explicitly not advocating for that.
Then explain why putting all the folks with degrees in debt for the rest of their lives is actually good for the economy, with cites from actual respected economists.
It's more that its an expensive but temporary fix that doesn't solve the underlying issue of student loans being necessary in the first place. Actually addressing the issue in the long term would likely require building more colleges and/or promoting alternate forms of education (i.e. online learning, trade schools, etc.)
 

Aaron Fox

SB's Minor Junker Descendant and Hunter of Nazis
It's more that its an expensive but temporary fix that doesn't solve the underlying issue of student loans being necessary in the first place. Actually addressing the issue in the long term would likely require building more colleges and/or promoting alternate forms of education (i.e. online learning, trade schools, etc.)
Actually, just nationalize universities and education would be a better start.
 

Morphile

Well-known member
So, no citations.
If you'll actually offer them yourself, at least when you are actually quoting things, sure, I can see about digging for some studies about the breakdown of supporters and vocal political viewpoints.

Now, once again please cite democrats who actually matter saying we should eliminate borders.
My statement was about supporters. "Vocal, politically active people" is what I referred to. Activists, by another name. And a quick Google search gives me three different articles immediately on how the Democrats are becoming open border, with the last mentioning how the Democrat supporter base is rapidly destroying middle ground and utterly dehumanizing the opposition, while focusing on how that support base is very much open-border.

It's quite hard to have honest debate with people who make snap decisions and constantly misconstrue your words into utterly different points. And make use of hilariously contradictory graphs (20% is still quite a minority!) Rodyle called me a right-wing cat's paw, but I see your lot being far less critical of any details. You, yourself, have defended your own lack of citations with the presumption of commonly-held fact and that contrary views are lies, also presuming I actually get information from right-wing mainstream sources instead of assimilating whatever comes my way, and your own previous posts have had you dismissing the validity of, among other things, any meritocratic system without communal childcare, completely misunderstanding what meritocracy actually means. In the same thread, Rufus went on to have a knee-jerk reaction of multiple page lengths of graphs to disprove me on something I'd accepted wrong three posts later.

Then cite reasons why universal health care won’t work that go beyond “republicans are fucking stupid”
The fact of the matter is that they completely ignore any difficulties of implementation within a two-party system. They make the demand, but offer no framework beyond sometimes pointing at Europe... Which, itself, varies and in some cases is only marginally better than the US in overall healthcare costs. They speak in absolutes, that it automatically fixes major problems, but only occasionally bother to talk about how the government would fund it. I wound up citing such a thing in the post I accepted the problems with universal healthcare were primarily political (actually, this is the post where I cite such a funding solution, but I wanted to snipe at more sectarian lunacy). Then Rodyle made a mindbogglingly egregious strawman of my views by saying "make sure only white people are allowed to be old" when my associated point was that the rich old people were a demographic timebomb causing the funding to get considerably more complicated in the long run, meaning that they're part of the problem.

Then explain why putting all the folks with degrees in debt for the rest of their lives is actually good for the economy, with cites from actual respected economists.
The point, as Geomax stated, is that it does absolutely nothing about anything long-term. It's an utterly immediate solution to a long-term problem caused in large part by student loans existing in the first place allowing college tuitions to get vastly larger than they would otherwise, with attendance numbers inflated beyond what the economy can actually handle, given the tuition fees. The fact that so many of them end up with debt that takes most of their careers to pay means that either the tuition costs are too high or they shouldn't actually be in those colleges, and they push for little that'll fix that outside bluntly socializing the universities, turning them into just an extension of existing public education. Despite US public schools continually declining, and them also offering few solutions to that beyond "throw more money at it".
 

Ravan

Well-known member
If you'll actually offer them yourself, at least when you are actually quoting things, sure, I can see about digging for some studies about the breakdown of supporters and vocal political viewpoints.


My statement was about supporters. "Vocal, politically active people" is what I referred to. Activists, by another name. And a quick Google search gives me three different articles immediately on how the Democrats are becoming open border, with the last mentioning how the Democrat supporter base is rapidly destroying middle ground and utterly dehumanizing the opposition, while focusing on how that support base is very much open-border.

It's quite hard to have honest debate with people who make snap decisions and constantly misconstrue your words into utterly different points. And make use of hilariously contradictory graphs (20% is still quite a minority!) Rodyle called me a right-wing cat's paw, but I see your lot being far less critical of any details. You, yourself, have defended your own lack of citations with the presumption of commonly-held fact and that contrary views are lies, also presuming I actually get information from right-wing mainstream sources instead of assimilating whatever comes my way, and your own previous posts have had you dismissing the validity of, among other things, any meritocratic system without communal childcare, completely misunderstanding what meritocracy actually means. In the same thread, Rufus went on to have a knee-jerk reaction of multiple page lengths of graphs to disprove me on something I'd accepted wrong three posts later.


The fact of the matter is that they completely ignore any difficulties of implementation within a two-party system. They make the demand, but offer no framework beyond sometimes pointing at Europe... Which, itself, varies and in some cases is only marginally better than the US in overall healthcare costs. They speak in absolutes, that it automatically fixes major problems, but only occasionally bother to talk about how the government would fund it. I wound up citing such a thing in the post I accepted the problems with universal healthcare were primarily political (actually, this is the post where I cite such a funding solution, but I wanted to snipe at more sectarian lunacy). Then Rodyle made a mindbogglingly egregious strawman of my views by saying "make sure only white people are allowed to be old" when my associated point was that the rich old people were a demographic timebomb causing the funding to get considerably more complicated in the long run, meaning that they're part of the problem.


The point, as Geomax stated, is that it does absolutely nothing about anything long-term. It's an utterly immediate solution to a long-term problem caused in large part by student loans existing in the first place allowing college tuitions to get vastly larger than they would otherwise, with attendance numbers inflated beyond what the economy can actually handle, given the tuition fees. The fact that so many of them end up with debt that takes most of their careers to pay means that either the tuition costs are too high or they shouldn't actually be in those colleges, and they push for little that'll fix that outside bluntly socializing the universities, turning them into just an extension of existing public education. Despite US public schools continually declining, and them also offering few solutions to that beyond "throw more money at it".
So are you going to actually address any of the points I made or provide anything resembling proof? Or are you going to throw a tantrum?
 

Morphile

Well-known member
So are you going to actually address any of the points I made or provide anything resembling proof? Or are you going to throw a tantrum?
...You clearly haven't bothered checking any of the links, have you? Second paragraph, second sentence:
And a quick Google search gives me three different articles immediately on how the Democrats are becoming open border, with the last mentioning how the Democrat supporter base is rapidly destroying middle ground and utterly dehumanizing the opposition, while focusing on how that support base is very much open-border.
Each word of "three different articles" is a different article. All of them are about how the Democrats are becoming increasingly open border.
 

Ravan

Well-known member
...You clearly haven't bothered checking any of the links, have you? Second paragraph, second sentence:

Each word of "three different articles" is a different article. All of them are about how the Democrats are becoming increasingly open border.
Stop trying to use rightwing rags as sources about “what leftists/democrats think”. Use reputable sources only. If I look it up and it has “conservative” in the first sentence of the wikipedia article on it, it isn’t a valid source on the democratic party’s positions.

Use CNN, ABC, NBC, BBC, CBC, Al Jazeera, NPR, WaPo, NYT, C-Span. Use studies from respected universities, or scholarly journals. Use literally anything that is a respected institution, but no tabloids or blogs.


The Examiner has been described and is widely regarded as conservative.[2][3][4] When Anschutz first started the Examiner in its daily newspaper format, he envisioned creating a competitor to The Washington Post with a conservative editorial line. According to Politico, "When it came to the editorial page, Anschutz's instructions were explicit—he 'wanted nothing but conservative columns and conservative op-ed writers,' said one former employee." The Examiner's writers have included Michael Barone, Tim Cavanaugh, David Freddoso, Tara Palmeri, Rudy Takala, and Byron York.[8]

Edit: fuck, I’ll even take WSJ (non-editorial page) or Christian Science Monitor.
 
Last edited:

Morphile

Well-known member
Use CNN, ABC, NBC, BBC, CBC, Al Jazeera, NPR, WaPo, NYT, C-Span. Use studies from respected universities, or scholarly journals. Use literally anything that is a respected institution, but no tabloids or blogs.
Then we have a sectarian issue. Because your side instantly discounts any support of anything you consider right-wing, but every single one of those news networks has had shit flung at them for blatant political bias and a major chunk of the arguments against the progressive left is their continued destruction of academic integrity. I am under no obligation to utilize left-wing sources. Given that my point is specifically a counterclaim of their typical positions, it's generally impossible. Expecting me to use sources biased in the direction contrary to the opinion I'm expressing is, bluntly, arbitrary gatekeeping. It's on you to prove the information wrong, you can't use the source as a heuristic. You have, almost without fail, demanded me use more direct citations, or more "appropriate" citations, or, when I haven't used them, to use citations in the first place, but you've not made any habit of offering a counterclaim.

The position of the anti-progressives includes those sources being untrustworthy for criticism of the left. Which is what I'm doing. The only thing you have done, here, is demand me to give better proof because you think the sources I used are invalid. Go ahead, disprove those sources. If they're so immediately wrong, and you actually know how to do research, it should be easy.
 

Heresy

Well-known member
Then we have a sectarian issue. Because your side instantly discounts any support of anything you consider right-wing, but every single one of those news networks has had shit flung at them for blatant political bias and a major chunk of the arguments against the progressive left is their continued destruction of academic integrity. I am under no obligation to utilize left-wing sources. Given that my point is specifically a counterclaim of their typical positions, it's generally impossible. Expecting me to use sources biased in the direction contrary to the opinion I'm expressing is, bluntly, arbitrary gatekeeping. It's on you to prove the information wrong, you can't use the source as a heuristic. You have, almost without fail, demanded me use more direct citations, or more "appropriate" citations, or, when I haven't used them, to use citations in the first place, but you've not made any habit of offering a counterclaim.

The position of the anti-progressives includes those sources being untrustworthy for criticism of the left. Which is what I'm doing. The only thing you have done, here, is demand me to give better proof because you think the sources I used are invalid. Go ahead, disprove those sources. If they're so immediately wrong, and you actually know how to do research, it should be easy.
“Everything that I don’t like is propaganda.”
-Morphile.
 

Ravan

Well-known member
Then we have a sectarian issue. Because your side instantly discounts any support of anything you consider right-wing, but every single one of those news networks has had shit flung at them for blatant political bias and a major chunk of the arguments against the progressive left is their continued destruction of academic integrity. I am under no obligation to utilize left-wing sources. Given that my point is specifically a counterclaim of their typical positions, it's generally impossible. Expecting me to use sources biased in the direction contrary to the opinion I'm expressing is, bluntly, arbitrary gatekeeping. It's on you to prove the information wrong, you can't use the source as a heuristic. You have, almost without fail, demanded me use more direct citations, or more "appropriate" citations, or, when I haven't used them, to use citations in the first place, but you've not made any habit of offering a counterclaim.

The position of the anti-progressives includes those sources being untrustworthy for criticism of the left. Which is what I'm doing. The only thing you have done, here, is demand me to give better proof because you think the sources I used are invalid. Go ahead, disprove those sources. If they're so immediately wrong, and you actually know how to do research, it should be easy.
There’s an entire thread on SB debunking that ridiculously badly run “study”.
...You clearly haven't bothered checking any of the links, have you? Second paragraph, second sentence:

Each word of "three different articles" is a different article. All of them are about how the Democrats are becoming increasingly open border.
Your linked article has 36% of democrats and 13% of republicans being in favor of “basically open borders” with no explanation of what that means or how the question was phrased. Note, that it has a massive majority of both parties against that. The only person it lists by name as being in favor of it is Keith Ellison. He’s also the only one I find saying it anywhere, at peast in terms of national name Dems. But he’s not in any position to do so, being in a losing race for state attorney general rather than in any position of real power.
 

Morphile

Well-known member
“Everything that I don’t like is propaganda.”
-Morphile.
No, I'm saying that they're untrustworthy for criticizing the left, because they're biased in that direction. Why would a Second Ammendment supporter use sources that routinely call for firearm bans? Quite simply, those sources disagree with a number of my opinions, and as such demanding me use them to back such opinions is nonsense. I can find a lot of places that consider Fox News valid and the list Ravan gave invalid, it's part of debate to actually fact-check sources and give cited counterclaims. Ravan's been demanding me do all the legwork of research, even though they're making claims I've repeatedly disagreed with, and demand me use sources that are vocally contrary to my claims to back those same claims.

I've stated in the past that all the news networks are actually fairly reliable for facts, but rapidly become useless when politics enter the picture because they constantly push narratives. I'm not saying they're propaganda, I'm saying they're biased. And bias can come from lying, but that's almost never the case in media, even Fox. It's from spin, it's from not reporting contrary incidents (for example, none of them said a word about the demographics of the YouTube shooter, who turned out to be a black woman), it's using incidents as soapboxes, it's taking your arguments into reporting to make them under the guise of stating facts. And this is abundant in the mainstream sources.

There’s an entire thread on SB debunking that ridiculously badly run “study”.
They got that utter nonsense published into fairly prestigious in the fields journals. The point isn't to be a rigorous study, it's to show that the standards of these journals are utter garbage by getting garbage in them and receiving praise for said garbage. Furthermore, the thread I found isn't debunking the study in question. It has rather few arguing against it, in fact, and most are missing the point of it being just to show that utter nonsense gets in. They designed the papers to be fairly nonsensical in easily-rejected-for-genuine-reason ways, in fact. They were making fake papers fitting the expected bias of reviewers with methodological errors and received few, if any, rejections for methodological errors.
 

Ravan

Well-known member
No, I'm saying that they're untrustworthy for criticizing the left, because they're biased in that direction. Why would a Second Ammendment supporter use sources that routinely call for firearm bans? Quite simply, those sources disagree with a number of my opinions, and as such demanding me use them to back such opinions is nonsense. I can find a lot of places that consider Fox News valid and the list Ravan gave invalid, it's part of debate to actually fact-check sources and give cited counterclaims. Ravan's been demanding me do all the legwork of research, even though they're making claims I've repeatedly disagreed with, and demand me use sources that are vocally contrary to my claims to back those same claims.

I've stated in the past that all the news networks are actually fairly reliable for facts, but rapidly become useless when politics enter the picture because they constantly push narratives. I'm not saying they're propaganda, I'm saying they're biased. And bias can come from lying, but that's almost never the case in media, even Fox. It's from spin, it's from not reporting contrary incidents (for example, none of them said a word about the demographics of the YouTube shooter, who turned out to be a black woman), it's using incidents as soapboxes, it's taking your arguments into reporting to make them under the guise of stating facts. And this is abundant in the mainstream sources.


They got that utter nonsense published into fairly prestigious in the fields journals. The point isn't to be a rigorous study, it's to show that the standards of these journals are utter garbage by getting garbage in them and receiving praise for said garbage. Furthermore, the thread I found isn't debunking the study in question. It has rather few arguing against it, in fact, and most are missing the point of it being just to show that utter nonsense gets in. They designed the papers to be fairly nonsensical in easily-rejected-for-genuine-reason ways, in fact. They were making fake papers fitting the expected bias of reviewers with methodological errors and received few, if any, rejections for methodological errors.
It noted that most of the places that published them were not exactly high end, and that at least one of the major ones caught it before it got published.

But let’s let some other folks explain:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.sl...evance-studies-hoax-not-academic-scandal.html

Edit: not that it’s even relevant because that’s just you trying to change the subject again. Even that just anounts to rightwingers LYING.
 
Last edited:
The Most Pro-Immigration House of Representatives in Over a Century
In this election, journalists following the immigration beat will focus on the outcomes of individual races. Dave Brat, the Virginia nativist whose defeat of House Majority Leader Eric Cantor in 2014 doomed hopes of immigration reform, lost in a previously safe GOP seat. Democrats blew out Corey Stewart in Virginia and Lou Barletta in Pennsylvania, the most anti-immigrant Senate candidates. Kris Kobach, the author of state anti-immigrant laws across the country, cost Republicans the governorship in Kansas.

But the two most important outcomes of this election are in the big picture. First, nativists have officially squandered their last, best chance to restrict legal immigration. There may never be another moment like the one in 2017 and 2018, where the House, Senate, and White House were all controlled by Republicans with nativist agendas. They held multiple votes in the House and Senate on various measures to make legal immigration cuts, and all their efforts went down in flames.

The second outcome is even more important: the House of Representatives is now the most pro-immigrant that it has been since the 19th century. Current House Democrats would not only pass the broadest legalization in the history of the United States—they also would greatly expand legal immigration. No elected House Democrat is opposed to legalization, even if they would want it paired with some enforcement measures.
According to the Cato Institute, the 2018 midterm results may have created the most pro-immigration House of Representatives in over a century.
 
What does that have to do with economic liberalism

Like sure some Liberals are pro-immigration
But it's socialists and anarchist who are all about that border abolishment
 
Last edited:

Ravan

Well-known member
What does that have to do with economic liberalism

Like sure some Liberals are pro-immigration
But it's socialists and anarchist who are all about that border abolishment
Oddly enough, real “classical liberals” as opposed to the racist conservatives currently using that term are also in favor of increased immigration due to the economic benefits it brings.
 

ScreenXSurfer

Ain't no bitch who can do it like me
Oddly enough, real “classical liberals” as opposed to the racist conservatives currently using that term are also in favor of increased immigration due to the economic benefits it brings.
Classical liberals don't care about immigration and economic benefits, they're mostly concerned with rights. What you bring up sounds like libertarian stuff.


Midterm update.
We might see a Democrat Senator in Arizona.
Sinema took a slim 6000 vote lead over McSally. I expect the recount but this is neat. Between her and Flake, Trump may have two Arizona senators against him.
 
Last edited:
What does that have to do with economic liberalism

Like sure some Liberals are pro-immigration
But it's socialists and anarchist who are all about that border abolishment
There are libertarians, liberals, and generally globalists that are very pro-immigrant to the point of advocating for open borders. Many see that allowing immigrants to come in would bring in talent, improve meeting labor demands, and encourage cooperation between different groups. That is why you see think tanks like the Cato Institute and the Reason Foundation calling for deregulation on America's immigration system.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 2, Guests: 0)

Top