5 ms·

If you spend a lot of time railing on "SJWs", and comparatively little time advocating for an alternative path to a more egalitarian social order, I think you c

by hsod 9y ago

If you spend a lot of time railing on "SJWs", and comparatively little time advocating for an alternative path to a more egalitarian social order, I think you can be considered right wing. Supporting pot legalization doesn't erase that.

ryguytilidie 9y ago
"If you spend a lot of time railing on "SJWs", and comparatively little time advocating for an alternative path to a more egalitarian social order" I mean, if you want to debate, I'm happy to do so, but I'd prefer the debate be rooted in reality and not hyperbole.
- hsod 9y ago
  What hyperbole are you objecting to? On net, do you think Rogan's political commentary favors the status quo or a more equal society? Imagine you think fire trucks are an eyesore, so you start an advocacy campaign trying to ban them from the road. Someone might accuse you of not caring if people's houses burn down. You might reply that deep in your heart you are 100% against houses burning down and you're just weighing in on the way fires should be fought. And maybe you're being honest that in your heart of hearts you don't want houses to burn down. But that's only relevant to you. From everyone else's perspective, your politics are pro-houses-burning-down.
  - ryguytilidie 9y ago
    "What hyperbole are you objecting to?" Your entire first post. 1) He doesnt "spend a lot of time railing on SJWs". 2) He absolutely talks, with almost every single guest, about how to potentially change the world for the better. 3) I never indicated that I thought he wasn't right wing because of how he felt about legal pot, yet, you throw that in there anyway, i guess to belittle an argument I never made? Fun... So yeah, two sentences and every single point is either incorrect or not useful. That's not exactly how one starts a useful debate. Also wow that is an atrocious analogy.
    - hsod 9y ago
      > wow that is an atrocious analogy For a guy so concerned with the rules of debate, you sure do like to make strong claims without offering even a shred of argumentation.
      - deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
      - deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
      - ryguytilidie 9y ago
        So, just to see if I follow: You make really bad claim that has 3 parts and all 3 parts are either made up, exaggerated or irrelevant. I explain, part by part, how these things are made up, exaggerated and irrelevant, and at the end of my post, marvel at how poor your followup analogy is. Your takeaway? "Who gives a shit about that point by point argument he just made to me? I'm going to totally ignore that! The one interaction we've ever had, where he made point by point critiques of my argument, has shown me that he "sure does like to make strong claims without offering even a shred of argumentation.""...? I'm curious how a human brain is capable of producing that kind of logic? It is just simply a case that you're lashing out because you're embarrassed your initial point was made to look so bad? I'm not getting what's happening here.
        hsod 9y ago
        Your incredulity perplexes me. I offered a simple premise (that Rogan is vocally more anti-SJW than in favor of an alternative path to social justice) and a simple conclusion from that premise (that Rogan can fairly be considered right-wing). You seem to disagree with either the premise or the conclusion, but rather than making an argument to that effect you have made 3 (three!) meta-posts about it, all while waxing on about the virtues effective debate. Maybe you disagree with my premise, or maybe you disagree with my conclusion, but your posts so far amount to a whole lot of grandstanding and a vanishingly small amount of argumentation. Your insistence on talking about me and your meta-view of my argument rather than the argument itself reveals a lot more about you than it does about me. I still stand by the argument (both premise and conclusions) I made in my original post. I wish our conversation could have been about that, as I think it would have been much more interesting.

by hsod 9y ago

ryguytilidie 9y ago

"If you spend a lot of time railing on "SJWs", and comparatively little time advocating for an alternative path to a more egalitarian social order" I mean, if you want to debate, I'm happy to do so, but I'd prefer the debate be rooted in reality and not hyperbole.

hsod 9y ago
What hyperbole are you objecting to? On net, do you think Rogan's political commentary favors the status quo or a more equal society? Imagine you think fire trucks are an eyesore, so you start an advocacy campaign trying to ban them from the road. Someone might accuse you of not caring if people's houses burn down. You might reply that deep in your heart you are 100% against houses burning down and you're just weighing in on the way fires should be fought. And maybe you're being honest that in your heart of hearts you don't want houses to burn down. But that's only relevant to you. From everyone else's perspective, your politics are pro-houses-burning-down.
- ryguytilidie 9y ago
  "What hyperbole are you objecting to?" Your entire first post. 1) He doesnt "spend a lot of time railing on SJWs". 2) He absolutely talks, with almost every single guest, about how to potentially change the world for the better. 3) I never indicated that I thought he wasn't right wing because of how he felt about legal pot, yet, you throw that in there anyway, i guess to belittle an argument I never made? Fun... So yeah, two sentences and every single point is either incorrect or not useful. That's not exactly how one starts a useful debate. Also wow that is an atrocious analogy.
  - hsod 9y ago
    > wow that is an atrocious analogy For a guy so concerned with the rules of debate, you sure do like to make strong claims without offering even a shred of argumentation.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
    - ryguytilidie 9y ago
      So, just to see if I follow: You make really bad claim that has 3 parts and all 3 parts are either made up, exaggerated or irrelevant. I explain, part by part, how these things are made up, exaggerated and irrelevant, and at the end of my post, marvel at how poor your followup analogy is. Your takeaway? "Who gives a shit about that point by point argument he just made to me? I'm going to totally ignore that! The one interaction we've ever had, where he made point by point critiques of my argument, has shown me that he "sure does like to make strong claims without offering even a shred of argumentation.""...? I'm curious how a human brain is capable of producing that kind of logic? It is just simply a case that you're lashing out because you're embarrassed your initial point was made to look so bad? I'm not getting what's happening here.
      - hsod 9y ago
        Your incredulity perplexes me. I offered a simple premise (that Rogan is vocally more anti-SJW than in favor of an alternative path to social justice) and a simple conclusion from that premise (that Rogan can fairly be considered right-wing). You seem to disagree with either the premise or the conclusion, but rather than making an argument to that effect you have made 3 (three!) meta-posts about it, all while waxing on about the virtues effective debate. Maybe you disagree with my premise, or maybe you disagree with my conclusion, but your posts so far amount to a whole lot of grandstanding and a vanishingly small amount of argumentation. Your insistence on talking about me and your meta-view of my argument rather than the argument itself reveals a lot more about you than it does about me. I still stand by the argument (both premise and conclusions) I made in my original post. I wish our conversation could have been about that, as I think it would have been much more interesting.