US Politics - 2020 Presidential Election - GOP v Dem cage fight (ENTER AT YOUR PERIL)

[CGVT]

Internet tough guy^^^^

[chemiclord]

You are hereby called out chemo: One example of my "hypocrisy."

Be careful and think it through...If you're projecting I'll call it out so fast that your buddies won't have time to "like" your post.

I've already done it. TWICE. Just proves that you aren't actually reading for comprehension as you repeat your same tired bullshit.

Which would also explain why every time you've been challenged you just continue spouting on with the same talking points you borrowed from a Cliffs Notes handbook on Chomsky.

[froot loops]

I get in a ton of arguments with chemiclord, now do I have to go back and like his posts? If that's the case I am seceding from Oakland County.

[unknown lions fan]

I've already done it. TWICE. Just proves that you aren't actually reading for comprehension as you repeat your same tired bullshit.

Which would also explain why every time you've been challenged you just continue spouting on with the same talking points you borrowed from a Cliffs Notes handbook on Chomsky.

You've squealed HYpOcRiSY in just about every goddamned post you've made. I'm giving you the opportunity to pick one and point out the hypocrisy.

[unknown lions fan]

...talking points you borrowed from a Cliffs Notes handbook on Chomsky.

Chomsky? Really...

I've had a suspicion for some time that the only exposure you've had to "anarchists" are from the "radical" wing of your commie clique, from where, reddit?

You've continually projected my statements onto their ideology, and then attacked that. I've met my share of those radical "left anarchists." They're an entertaining lot.

[unknown lions fan]

If you'd like to leave that Chomsky association as the example of your projection, I'll address it further and we'll leave it at that. Or would you like to embarrass yourself by submitting another example?

[chemiclord]

If you'd like to leave that Chomsky association as the example of your projection, I'll address it further and we'll leave it at that. Or would you like to embarrass yourself by submitting another example?

Maybe when you actually address the two open examples without resorting to deflection.

You talk about respecting the Scientific Method, unlike "sciencism," yet all you've done is absorb on faith your chosen experts to follow. It's EXACTLY what you sneer at others doing. That you try to couch it in verbose bullshit to make it sound like you've done more than anyone else on any given topic merely shows that you KNOW you're bullshitting. You're just hoping no one will be able to pick apart your language to call it out... ya know, like I did.

Now you're deflecting to try and obscure that I see right through you. It's not working.

[unknown lions fan]

You talk about respecting the Scientific Method, unlike "sciencism," yet all you've done is absorb on faith your chosen experts to follow. It's EXACTLY what you sneer at others doing. That you try to couch it in verbose bullshit to make it sound like you've done more than anyone else on any given topic merely shows that you KNOW you're bullshitting. You're just hoping no one will be able to pick apart your language to call it out... ya know, like I did.

So, I posted an image representing the dangers of mixing ideology and science, and you attacked that because you allege that the scientific method is so much more in-depth than that. Any scientist would he happy to confirm that it was, in fact, a completely reasonable representation of the scientific method. It's not as complex as you'd like it to be.

I posted it as a pretext because I knew the inevitable attacks on The Great Barrington Declaration would be coming.

I introduced the GBT to find out if anyone had heard of it, and if so, did you dismiss it out of hand, and if so, did you do that because it wasn't compatible with your ideology...

chemo chimes in and goes check...check...check...

• Hadn't heard of it.
• Gets on his google machine to build up a refutation of something he'd never heard of.
• Attacks it, using all of the methods of "sciencism" [sic] I had earlier referenced.

That should have been embarrassment enough, being called out on all of that. But now he's doubling down...

He's screaming HyPocRiTe!! for introducing a document endorsed by tens of thousands public health experts to show that there is, in fact, disagreement among the experts out there. When asked, I expressed how the GBT served to influence how I proceed in this uncertainty. All the while stating that everyone is free to choose their own individual course of action, but that they should not advocate the use of violence against others for making their own choices in light of such uncertainty, even among the experts.

When the bolded sentence is, in fact, exactly what chemo does. He then projects that on me and screams HyPocRiTe!

[unknown lions fan]

For the record: There is no such thing as Objective Science. Even at the microscopic level, the perspective of the observer cannot be parsed out from the events observed.

As I stated, everyone has to consider the evidence, weigh it, and make a decision to act. Their perspective is most certainly going to influence their choice for action.

Scientism is the ultimately the utilization of science to force your ideas on others.

[TheLondonLion]

No offence unknown but this thread was to talk about politics - actual politics.

Not pie in the sky hypothetical fantasy land bullshit.

Please stop stinking the thread out with it.

[chemiclord]

For the record: There is no such thing as Objective Science. Even at the microscopic level, the perspective of the observer cannot be parsed out from the events observed.

As I stated, everyone has to consider the evidence, weigh it, and make a decision to act. Their perspective is most certainly going to influence their choice for action.

Scientism is the ultimately the utilization of science to force your ideas on others.

And what you don't seem to grasp is that the people you're arguing with aren't uninformed idiots. Yes, there's a lot of them out there, so I can get an initial dismissal.

But the sort of people commenting here? They are people who have looked at the evidence at hand, and have simply reached a different conclusion than you. Maybe it's because of a different perspective. Maybe it's because they find your claims lacking. Maybe they are legitimately curious about how you've come to the conclusions you have. And you don't even respond with any depth to those contrary statements, either in this thread or the Coronavirus one. You just brush them aside and repeat your talking points... just like you mock others for doing.

You're NOT more informed. You DON'T have any particularly unique insight we haven't heard before. YOU'RE NOT SPECIAL, so it would behoove you to stop prattling on like you're hot shit that has it all figured out.

Because frankly, you don't. You actually have MASSIVE gaps in your knowledge and understanding that you clearly don't even see. But ya know what? That's not even unique either. In fact, that's just like everybody else.

[unknown lions fan]

Disagree, fine chemo. As I said, just stop using the term hypocrite when you have no idea how to apply it without projecting.

[chemiclord]

Disagree, fine chemo. As I said, just stop using the term hypocrite when you have no idea how to apply it without projecting.

That's what I mean. You claim I'm "projecting." That's just a deflection. YOU ARE DOING EXACTLY WHAT YOU SCORN OTHERS FOR DOING. It really doesn't matter the mental gymnastics you use to justify why it's okay that you do it, but not others. That is the textbook definition of hypocrisy.

Until you stop doing that, I will continue to call you a hypocrite.

[Marko69]

Take it to the mental gymnastics thread, guys.

[chemiclord]

There are really one of two ways you can resolve this.

1) Drop the pretense. Accept you don't use the "Scientific Method" any more than anyone else here. You have your experts you adhere to, others have theirs. You have your sources of authority (and I mean that in the academic sense... don't confuse it with people trying to rule over you) you listen to, others have theirs. You haven't done your homework in any particularly unique way. Accept it, drop the bullshit, and actually try to advance the merits of what you propose accepting the people you're talking to are at least reasonably your equal.

or...

2) Actually DEMONSTRATE that you've put more thought into these issues. Show your work. Let's actually see the evidence that you're claiming proves your point. Cite some shit that actually has teeth. And no, unsourced opinion declarations aren't good enough. Anybody here can link a press release. You say you've got all this information you draw from that has led you to your "unique" (it's not, by the way, but I'll humor you here) position. Let's see it.

Basically... you're the one staking the position you're exceptional. The burden of proof is on you to prove it.