What's new
Frozen In Carbonite

Welcome to FIC! Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

The Tangent, Derail, and Argument Thread

V4Guss

Well-known member
Author
I kinda dislike reading any threads and seeing the gaps in it. So ignoring people just because I don't like 'em clashes with that, which makes me annoyed.

I tried, but in the end I always unignore the person, because seeing a thread peppered with that box is confirmed to irritate me.
I have a similar mentality. I don't like seeing gaps in threads or missing information just because I don't like someone.

The only person I've put on ignore on SB/SV/QQ/FiC is Sarcobite and that's because all he does shit post and troll. It's best just to ignore him as I don't think he contributes anything of value to the site. That should say something of what I think about him considering there are certain other users who don't engage with arguments and will just shoot off snark, attack with ad hominems, or have attempted to shout others down for not agreeing with them.

Sarcobite is just here to troll and shitpost and the joke got old quickly for me to the point I got annoyed enough to put him on ignore.
 

Rodyle

Socialist Slut
Banned
Because he's helped out in the community greatly here? I don't see why having a naive view that Morphile is harmless means he shouldn't be mod. I mean I don't think Morphile is harmless, I don't like him at all.

I'm quite surprised you don't like him myself, LIA was one of Bernie Sanders' delegates in 2016.
I'm still curious as to why you think Adornable gaslighting on Morphile's behalf helps the community

And actually for that matter if you yourself do admit that Morphile isn't harmless, why not, I dunno, actually do something about him
 

Rodyle

Socialist Slut
Banned
Well then that's a lie. So is this what you do when the staff of a site don't ban somebody you don't like? Spread lies about them?
No this is what I do when you defend transphobia. Which is what you have done, in the past.

When you use your mod powers to threaten a trans person for calling out the open supporter of an anti-lgbt political party equating gender identity with his stupid duck gimmick, you are defending transphobia.
 

Alias

Moderator
Moderator
Author
No this is what I do when you defend transphobia. Which is what you have done, in the past.

When you use your mod powers to threaten a trans person for calling out the open supporter of an anti-lgbt political party equating gender identity with his stupid duck gimmick, you are defending transphobia.
The only interaction I remember between kitten and Rufus is her being a troll.
 

Morphile

Well-known member
Okay, you lot, the leftists of this site (Rodyle, Ravan, Chessia, Sneakykitten and so on), have stuck to the same way of arguing the entire time. On the rare occasions you do offer citations, they don't actually disprove my point, because you don't understand what my point is. You're calling me Fascist for preferring a non-fascistic authoritarian to Socialists. You're using utterly generic authoritarianism, which I have always argued for on the condition of extremely dire circumstances rather than something to aspire to, to say I advocate for a specific subset that my most directly supportive argument for has a clause explicitly negating the authoritarian element. The nationalist arguments I've made have all been contingent on the idea the nations are governed representatively and the atrocious track record of "cultural mosaics" throughout history. My opposition to Socialism is backed by logic that you have never refuted, resorting to "but you can never prove you're right!" about an explicit hypothetical alternate scenario, something inherently impossible to prove. You can only use precedent to form an educated guess, and that precedent is "Socialism has failed literally every time, usually largely from internal incompetence and tyranny rather than Capitalists breaking it from outside".

Capitalists didn't make the Soviets commit the Holodomor, they did that entirely on their own. Capitalists had nothing to do with Mao's Great Leap Forward beyond not directly subsidizing Communist China, all the failures of that are on the Chinese Communist Party. All the abuses of power that have happened under Socialism are the fault of Socialism, not Capitalism. If Socialism was a better system, then it wouldn't have famines. Guess what system of governance every massive famine in the last century has been under? Socialism. Specifically the "dictatorship of the proletariat" managing to screw up basic necessities out of what can only be pure incompetence because the places were self-sufficient, agriculturally, prior to the Socialists taking over. Furthermore, there's a few important differences between Socialist policy and Social policy. Social Democracy is explicitly about covering for the failures of market economies with government control over things that Capitalism is ill-suited to due to dysfunctional incentives. Unlike with Socialism, this is only an issue for some industries, ones where the cost of not paying up is essentially a matter of survival, rather than a crippling issue for the entire economy because the system doesn't actually have inherent incentive structures.

You're calling me alt-right, a neonazi, a fascist... When my argument regarding immigration control is explicitly contingent on representative governance. That argument explicitly does not apply to authoritarian states, and concerns only nationality, not race. I constantly bring up precedence and history, and you have never directly shown me wrong with contradictory data. You try, and fail out of your preconceptions making you misunderstand my arguments. You're trying to use economic stagnation to show Pinochet was bad for Chile, my argument was only ever that the Socialists would almost certainly have been worse in actual damage. Yes, Pinochet did atrocities, but he didn't cause mass starvation like Venezuela's dealing with. You try to use massive studies to get me to just back off and refuse to clarify how your claim is supported when I show you explicit disagreement towards the start. Your side has tried to use a 20% figure to prove something's a majority. Your side seemingly does not understand how to argue by using facts.
 

KeresAcheron

Asocial Quasisocialist
You're calling me Fascist for preferring a non-fascistic authoritarian to Socialists.
Morphile, you claimed the only thing Hitler did wrong as the holocaust. I put the quote it in my sig. And that's extremely damning thing to say since that was hardly the only bad thing the nazi's did.

You're using utterly generic authoritarianism, which I have always argued for on the condition of extremely dire circumstances rather than something to aspire to, to say I advocate for a specific subset that my most directly supportive argument for has a clause explicitly negating the authoritarian element.
You've claimed no-one can agree on what fascism is, invited your opponents to define the word for you, have said that you believe nationalism is a more powerful force than economic self interest for motivating humans, and your argument that familial collective punishments works implies you imaging society as consisting of clans rather than atomic individuals. Your not a classical liberal, your beliefs are outside the mainstream and lack a clear label, and since you implied you were supporting Hitler against Britain and Frances as the holocaust wasn'ty involved then, labelling you a Fascists is kind of a natural thing for some to do.

The nationalist arguments I've made have all been contingent on the idea the nations are governed representatively and the atrocious track record of "cultural mosaics" throughout history.
Please actually explain your arguments then. Because this idea combined with your belief that nationalism is the strongest force imaginable for motivating humans, your anti-immigrant stance, hostility to foreign religions and the left seems like a memeplex that heavily overlaps with classical fascism. Because you sound really fascist.

My opposition to Socialism is backed by logic that you have never refuted, resorting to "but you can never prove you're right!" about an explicit hypothetical alternate scenario, something inherently impossible to prove. You can only use precedent to form an educated guess, and that precedent is "Socialism has failed literally every time, usually largely from internal incompetence and tyranny rather than Capitalists breaking it from outside".
My argument is that the precedents for Socialism of the types similar to what was elected into power in Chile indicate a virtually guaranteed economic failure state, especially during the Cold War in a country with some industrial needs being import-only. By precedent, Chile would have failed under the Socialists. Again, "less bad", not "good" or "not bad".
This speaks for itself.

Guess what system of governance every massive famine in the last century has been under? Socialism. Specifically the "dictatorship of the proletariat" managing to screw up basic necessities out of what can only be pure incompetence because the places were self-sufficient, agriculturally, prior to the Socialists taking over.
The Bengal Famine for one.

This is a really bad argument, since the idea that the only third world countries to have famines are communist ones should be blatantly false to anyone with a working grasp of history. And even if we take your last sentence as only applying to the USSR and China it's still an really bad argument. In the two countries you listed the famines were caused as a byproduct of rushed industrialisation, not incompetence, they were one off events as the industrialisation they bought made the countries developed enough to never happen again. And in this case of the USSR this happened because the USSR was trading it's only major economic product at the time (agricultural surplus) to get foreign money to investment in it's look term economic development.

Please stop making me defend Stalin and Mao.

Furthermore, there's a few important differences between Socialist policy and Social policy. Social Democracy is explicitly about covering for the failures of market economies with government control over things that Capitalism is ill-suited to due to dysfunctional incentives. Unlike with Socialism, this is only an issue for some industries, ones where the cost of not paying up is essentially a matter of survival, rather than a crippling issue for the entire economy because the system doesn't actually have inherent incentive structures.
I agree with almost all of this. But according to the right this isn't case. Obamacare after all is fundamentally the same thing as socialism to them. And according to libertarians and economic conservatives their is no real difference. And this leads to the fundamental problem with your methods, since anyone who favours any sort of economic regulation is subject to the same social attacks as actual anarchocommunists. Which quickly leads to radicalisation and has resulted in the view of communism among the USA in being at all time high.

As an aside, a major problem with your argument is that the Libertarians who supported Maduro are not going to be unbiased when making the call. And they're not going to agree with you on the rights of governments to regulate business. They're not the sort of people you want deciding when to overthrown governments.

You're calling me alt-right, a neonazi, a fascist... When my argument regarding immigration control is explicitly contingent on representative governance. That argument explicitly does not apply to authoritarian states, and concerns only nationality, not race.
Your "amoral pragmatism" sure sounded lot like them to me. If you have the same truth priors as them, and only argue with them over moral qualms you've said your willing to abandon. All the while viewing the nation and family as fundamental units of society, multiculturalism as bad, religion and authoritarianism as good. Your probably have as much in common with them as the "leftist your side" you against here has in common with each other.

More serious, whats your attitude on the United Fruit Company and the Banana republics they created? Because if a democratic elected government nationalising foreign resource extraction company is something that justifies a killing a third of a countries population, then what's the point of national sovereignty if megacorps can grind everyone under their heel?

Yes, Pinochet did atrocities, but he didn't cause mass starvation like Venezuela's dealing with.
You do realise resource curses are a thing, right?. That affect negatively effect internal economic development, centralisation of power and ironically lead to greater property than their absence would have caused. Venuezalas a bad case study for contrasting capitalism and communism since their Oil was low quality and an energy market was steadily leaving them behind. The idiotic governments long list of bad decisions is ultimately responsible for the tragedy unfolding, but their economies structural problems precede socialism.

Also, much of their governments stupidity is a reaction against the USA policy of using assassins and deathsquads to kill anyone in favour of reform. This makes backing down and de-esclating impossible and makes dictatorships inevitable, since if losing an election gets you and your family torture-murdered by the CIA why not just become a dictator. It turns out the USA's cold war policy had unintended consequences, chief among the "blanket hostility towards Socialism present in every Capitalist economy during the Cold War", which made the "universal collapse into nigh-omnipresent poverty and/or dictatorship" among them inevitable. You seem to have gotten cause and effect backwards and now we have a Venezuela that refuses free food aid because the USA has proven they're willing to use this an excuse to overthrow governments.

And you just made me defend Maduro, vomits.

Your side seemingly does not understand how to argue by using facts.
This is called the out group homogeneity bias. It's also the reason your opponents are calling you a fascist, since your views are sufficient close to one they lose the ability to distinguish between them.
 

Lerticus

Senile Old Coot
How explodey. Toppings are supposed to stay inside at least until you try to take a bite.

Again, carrots are just begging for mockery. If, as you say, there was a desire to add some sweetness, things like caramelized onions, garlic confit, grilled pineapple, or adding molasses to create more of a sweet chili sauce would have all been better. All while keeping far more to what is the loose etiquette of hamburger making.
 

t-dugong

Beach bum, Esq.
How explodey. Toppings are supposed to stay inside at least until you try to take a bite.

Again, carrots are just begging for mockery. If, as you say, there was a desire to add some sweetness, things like caramelized onions, garlic confit, grilled pineapple, or adding molasses to create more of a sweet chili sauce would have all been better. All while keeping far more to what is the loose etiquette of hamburger making.
It's a fad thing. Of course, for all that we Malaysians claim to appreciate good food we kinda butcher Western cooking at times, quite gruesomely as you can see yourself.
 

TankTreads

Well-known member
Katsu Burger, guys. Breaded and deep-fried patties with tonkatsu sauce.


It's a Seattle thing. I went there with @Rufus Shinra, but I dunno, it was kinda saltier and less flavorful than usual, but it might've been because I was coming down with a cold.

My favorite is the "Godzilla Attack", which, according to their menu, contains: Grass-fed beef katsu, pepper jack cheese, 12 spices blend, jalapenos, spicy mayo, & tonkatsu sauce.

They also serve fries with nori. That is, seaweed flakes. Delicious.

For drinks, they've got Jones Soda and various flavors of Ramune, among other things.
 

BlindLine153

Well-known member
Katsu Burger, guys. Breaded and deep-fried patties with tonkatsu sauce.


It's a Seattle thing. I went there with @Rufus Shinra, but I dunno, it was kinda saltier and less flavorful than usual, but it might've been because I was coming down with a cold.

My favorite is the "Godzilla Attack", which, according to their menu, contains: Grass-fed beef katsu, pepper jack cheese, 12 spices blend, jalapenos, spicy mayo, & tonkatsu sauce.

They also serve fries with nori. That is, seaweed flakes. Delicious.

For drinks, they've got Jones Soda and various flavors of Ramune, among other things.
I want one of those Katsu burgers.

My sister worked at a place here in St Louis called Taste. They had a really good pork burger. Now she's working for a place called Yellowbelly. They have fish stuff. I had octopus tacos which where spicey and awesome as well as a Wagu skirt steak . That was incredibly tender.
 

Inspector Hammer

I ♥ VIOLENCE

KeresAcheron

Asocial Quasisocialist
I'm replying to this here to prevent a derail.

Meanwhile, if you gave a typical Occupy Democrats follower a copy of the Draka books and said "The Draka are if America was honest", they'd probably agree with you.
Because the entire meta-point of the Draka is the to be a dark mirror of America, so yes? The Draka reject moral ambiguity, realised they were evil according to contemporary moral standards, and thus rejected said morality in favour of neitzschian nationalist solipsism. Being honest and abandon the golden rule out of national self interest, declaring internationalism to be dead and the lives of foreigners to be nothing, and worshiping power and military, makes the drake an embodiment of the worst traits of the political right and merely take them on a train ride to their nightmarish conclusion...

And due to Drakan ideology, they are an evil reflection of any empire founded up national self-interest of the dominant ethnicity at the expense of it's conquered peoples. Most empires if they honest and could get away with acting like the drake would do so.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 1, Guests: 0)

Top