Jump to content

hpslugga

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    3266
  • Joined

Everything posted by hpslugga

  1. You’ve known me long enough to know I’ve an allergy to bullshit. If I read that drivel, here’s what happens:
  2. They were lying in that they were pretending to know what herd immunity actually is, yes. I live in a wealthy area of Dallas, TX so I've heard this shit. When they said "herd immunity," and I asked them to explain, the overwhelming comparison was pox parties. Two words that Chris Rock would use to describe that: Ig Nant
  3. Yeah well speaking of Aaron Carter, he's actually a case study in the myriad logical disconnects it had to have taken for an electorate that size to come out for a Donald Trump. "Aaron Carter ultimately decided not to vote for Trump Musician Aaron Carter tweeted his support for Donald Trump's candidacy in February 2016, which sparked a contentious back and forth with his fans. The Hollywood Reporter detailed Carter's now-deleted jabs at fans who admonished him for supporting Trump. The rapper told People in April 2016 that the fans harassing him for his support of Trump don't understand politics, saying, "I'm too intelligent for you guys." He admitted, though, that he didn't support all of Trump's policies like those on immigration and LGBTQ+ issues. It seems Carter was amid a change of heart when he spoke with People because, later that month, The Hollywood Reporter highlighted the musician's 180° turn on the issue. In a since-deleted tweet, he wrote, "I have decided I will not be voting for Donald Trump. I've seen a lot and to ME. it's just something I can't take part in. Too many reasons." In October 2016, after the release of the infamous Access Hollywood tape in which Trump brags about grabbing women "by the p*ssy," the singer/songwriter reiterated his lack of support for Donald Trump's candidacy (via Billboard), by writing in another since-deleted tweet, "No. I'm not supporting Donald trump anymore." Yeah...this is the same Aaron Carter who, to this day, continues to defend Lou Pearlman. Poor guy could never identify a con-man, yet he prattles on about how he's "too intelligent" for the millions who did actually know better.
  4. I seriously think he just shops around positions and pretends to adopt them. He’s in favor of universal healthcare and UBI, but he’ll also have Tim Pool and nod in total agreement when he whines about how Twitter, Facebook, et al have some institutional bias against “conservatives.” He also supports legalizing marijuana and then expresses admiration for Alex Jones...or again, he used to admire Jones. Fucking silly man either way.
  5. Hey, he’s an admitted moon landing denier (or used to be, I can’t be sure). Anything is possible with people like that.
  6. I mean to me that seems to be the central question in this micro-controversy. Furthermore, when Rogan says "I'll go no," on what is he basing that choice? Ultimately it gets boiled down to the same aforementioned pseudo-scientific and pseudo-intellectual bullshit that people like Rogan live to defend. I'm about as anti-establishment as it gets, so I'm very sympathetic when dissenters make themselves heard. But where he's coming from isn't a position of dissent; it's a position of what's called "being a contrarian little asshole."
  7. Well what else could it be about? It's not like they have an actual intellectual compass. It's not like they have a moral compass. It's not like they literally promote an ideology. Their entire function is to parrot talking points proposed by an entity that is, as Thomas Mann and Norman Ornstein put it, "an insurgent outlier in American politics. It is ideologically extreme; scornful of compromise; unmoved by conventional understanding of facts, evidence and science; and dismissive of the legitimacy of its political opposition." There's no ideology behind that. There's no intellectual principle behind that. It's kinda like what Hitchens said about Ayn Rand's absurd notion of "objectivism:" There are some ideas that need no further reinforcement. But you can't run a 24-hour "news" station by having the first guy on and say "guys, remember: be a giant dick and piss off liberals," so they have to spend the next 23 hours, 59 minutes and 55 seconds of the day coming up with bizarre stories and explanations that show how supercoolawesome they think they fucking are.
  8. That would be asserting baseless speculation as if it was a matter of fact, and it would be done so on insufficient evidence. Again, that’s very different from “chocolate is better than vanilla.”
  9. “grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty.” And, if there are grounds sufficient to produce complete certainty, that would make it a fact, would it not?
  10. There’s no one source for that. It was common knowledge in the pre-post-modernist period, which is why “opinion” is its own word. Otherwise we’d just be using words like “belief” or “perception” or things of that sort completely interchangeably. It’s not hard to figure out. Here are two statements: ”I believe the Holocaust was a real event.” ”I believe blue is better than red.” Do you really not see how those are radically different? Yeah they both begin with the speaker’s preface of “I believe,” which is obviously reflective of belief (duh), but that’s where the comparison stops. But if you want an actual source, just read dictionary.com’s first definition of the word “opinion.” And I should preface that with the disclaimer that the dictionary is very vulnerable to defining words in a contemporary sense. In other words, some definitions are merely a reflection of the time they were established (ex: socialism). Nonetheless, they define opinion as “a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty.” That's more or less exactly what you’re quoting.
  11. Is this related the the George Carlin take on rights to opinion? ”So the next time some asshole says to you, “I have a right to my opinion, “you say, “Oh yeah? Well I have a right to my opinion, and my opinion is you have no right to your opinion.” Then shoot the fuck and walk away.”
  12. If you're gonna make me choose one thing, I'd suggest reviewing the Sokal affair https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_affair. It's a perfect example of how it can be exploited to just straight up fool people. Chomsky has also had some good commentary on it as well. I'd just YouTube "Chomsky on postmodernism" because there are no publications of his exclusively devoted to the topic, at least none of which I'm aware.
  13. It's an inevitable corollary with the definition of the very concept. If opinion is a belief that can't be proven true nor false, then a statement cannot be an opinion if either of those things somehow happen. If I prove Derek Chauvin murdered George Floyd, that means "George Floyd was murdered by Derek Chauvin" is a fact. If I cannot prove that navy blue is a better color than scarlet red, that means that statement is an opinion. And notice, there's a huge difference between not yet proving something and not ever being able to prove something. An opinion falls under the latter description. With the former, it's just an assertion and its truth/falsity will ultimately be revealed and it'll either be filed under "fact" or "myth"...or lie or falsehood or whatever word you like.
  14. Actually, hardly any of what you described as "opinion" actually qualifies as opinion. Opinion is a unique type of belief. It is unique in that it can never, under any circumstance, be proven true or false. "Navy blue is better than scarlet red." THAT is an opinion. You will never actually be able to say "the fact that OPINION was incorrect" because you'll never be able to prove it incorrect. We've lost sight of this, largely due to the ridiculous proliferation of post-modernist dogma. If you can prove that something is incorrect, then by definition, it cannot be opinion. So let's take the murder thing. That, in reality, is an assertion, but it takes more than raw emotion and confirmation bias to establish it as a fact. It is dishonest to assert baseless speculation as though it were a matter of fact. You have to consider all the elements that deem any killing as a "murder," juxtapose it with what happened, and see if it matches. Derek Chauvin, for example, did murder George Floyd. That's not an opinion. The state more than satisfied its burden of proof beyond all reasonable doubt, which if you ask me more than qualifies for an establishment of actual fact. The same applies to the police shooting here. Was it justified? Again, take 1) all the circumstances present and juxtapose it with 2) how the law defines a justified shooting by an officer of the law. If the two fit, he's not a murderer. If the two don't fit, he's a murderer. Shouldn't be that hard. What OnBoard did with the Georgia thing was neither fact nor opinion. He lied. Just straight up lied. Recall how this came about. He posted this: "Is this the Ga. law saying you can give a bottled water to someone in line, but it can't have political candidates name or political party on the label ?" There's no such Georgia law. It doesn't exist, but he asserted its existence as if it did. He asserted baseless speculation (i.e. something that's either not evidently true or evidently not true) as though it were a matter of fact when he knew full well it was not a matter of fact. Even if he actually believed it was true, as he stated in his immediate walkback later, he at least knew he couldn't prove it, as evident by his citing of a radio program as the source of such feeble nonsense. If he can't show it, he don't know it. But even with that confession, it's still dishonesty; not opinion. Radio programs don't work like a Norman Finkelstein book. Their statements aren't riddled with footnotes of citation, so it's not like they were literally citing anything when they said that. If anyone on that radio program actually did say that, they lied. One of the other effects of post-modernist dogma is that we go out of our way to, relatively speaking at least, let rubes off the hook while still indicting the real liars. That's stupid because it blurs the line between the liars and the rubes, and the truth is that line is paper thin at best. If you're dumb enough to believe improbable claims from questionable sources on insufficient evidence, that just makes you a fool. But you're only a fool if you keep that shit to yourself. When you start spreading around those improbable claims to others and pretending as if you know they're facts, you're telling lies. Even if you walk them back later, you still told lies (just like a murderer is still a murderer even if he deeply regrets doing it and shows deep, genuine remorse and contrition to everyone for having done it), and you have an obligation to fess up to it and suffer the consequences. That, ladies and gentlemen, is what we like to call "personal responsibility."
  15. Yeah he’s serving time on the inside for strenuously objecting to private healthcare and the military industrial complex. Good with a presser, tho. Just don’t go near him with any Limbaugh quotes or he’ll throw a book at your ass.
  16. See the thing is the first rule about the cabal is no one talks about the cabal. The second rule is no one talks about the cabal. The third rule is that you have to be invited and if any of us do it in public on a board like this one, we’d have to kill you.
  17. Lol “the cabal.” I have seen some truly dishonest shit on these boards before, but that one Bob Beamons all of them.
×
×
  • Create New...