So, the problem with that then, is people kind of define something as"far" something when they’ve already labeled the as out of control / wrong / whatever. ie it’s self reinforcing as self evident to those saying it and those that agree with them. Makes it tough to have a reasonable discussion with that as a starting point (which, to be fair,.is sometimes the point - I’ll occasionally label something as RWNJ with people i know who aren’t going to agree, and more importantly, aren’t going to honestly discuss).
1 Like
I think people who talk about the ‘far-left’ talk about it like it’s mainstream without evidence, while Trump was quite far-right, without much debate. And because of the numbers who voted for him, that moniker is much more more difficult to debate as ‘not mainstream’.
All part of the equivalency game.
2 Likes
My reality is that if you can’t cite anything that he has said, then your opinion on his opinion is difficult to take seriously as well.
@Poundsand I fail to see a point in there. Far left, woke left, ultra progressive, Elitist, choose your terms and then tell me what your point is. Preferably with reference to the Eric Weinstein clip I thought we were discussing, thank you.
1 Like
I’m afraid you already lost the plot with your weirdness earlier about implying my anti-Semitism. Your call, you can do you.
1 Like
You know who would likely agree with you? Bret Weinstein, check out the clip you declined to watch because of his hair, skip to 5:55.
That’s a bit of a dodge, I specifically said I wouldn’t do that. The reason I brought it up is that it is common for the far left to make the argument about black hairstyles, or to knee-jerk a la @McNulty that their interlocutor is a racist bigot (he called me both, recently).
You disagree with the far left. Presumably because of their extreme positions. Specifying which positions, and whose, would be a solid start, otherwise it just becomes a lot of people talking past each other as you don’t ever define what you’re talking about. You starting with some commentary on your Weinstein clip (you talking Bret or Eric?), rather than dropping it with little to no comments would be a solid start.
1 Like
Nah, I declined to watch it because I don’t waste time on manufactured/exaggerated issues. I’m efficient like that.
1 Like
I’ve been doing this for about three weeks on multiple threads, haven’t I?
#toupeelogic
You’d be surprised where a little common sense gets you. McNulty showed with the prof’s connections to right-wing types that I’m pretty good at eyeballing fakeness.
Next stop for me, captain of the debate team! 
1 Like
There’s been fits and starts, with you at times refusing to do simple things (like clarifying Eric or Bret) which would make an actual discussion much simpler. 
2 Likes
If you think @McNulty has any credibility, my common sense tells me I have given you too much.
I started with this, right under the video which has the brother in question
So if you could pay attention that would make things simpler. I don’t always do exactly what you want because with you specifically the answer in consistently, ‘keep scrolling up you haven’t read enough yet to have an opinion worth replying to’
I’ll see myself out.
Sounds like the prof is part of that group, which is funded by Koch money, does it not? Is that stuff not true? Maybe you don’t like McNulty’s hair or something, I think it looks normal.
1 Like
5:55, let me know when you’ve seen it
Ok, so Bret it is. But you said Eric. See why I asked an honest, understandable question (given that Eric was also brought up) to make sure people are on the same page, and you ignoring it at first (and now being snarky about it) makes conversation more difficult than it needs to be? Then you follow-up with the ol’ I’m taking my ball and going home.
I won’t because I don’t spend time on Koch-backed propaganda. So watch it twice, once for me.
1 Like
The Koch Bros used to fund bunk climate science via fake think tanks in academia all the time. This isn’t new, there’s a long history of their interference in academics.
Climate deniers funded by Koch Bros in academia used to label climate scientists “religious” in the same way current corporatist ‘academics’ deride CRT. Same day, different issue.
1 Like
When you put it that way I have to stick around. Where were we again?
now i see what you mean, get a room you two!
All part of the same bag, pretend fake academics are real and worth taking as seriously as the rest, fake scientists, lawyers, newspeople, whatever.
Confuse, dilute, then spam.
1 Like
You referred to a post about Bret, but said Eric, I asked you to clarify which brother, and you threw a hissy fit. ;-D