How's the forum doing? Check-up.

[Speaker to Animals]

Dude, are you high? I don't really see the argument in your wall of text.

I don't have a problem with teaching people about marxism. That's not the same as constant indoctrination into it. You are seriously confused about who is unable to expose themselves to conflicting ideas..

[BjornP]

Dude, are you high? I don't really see the argument in your wall of text.

I don't have a problem with teaching people about marxism. That's not the same as constant indoctrination into it. You are seriously confused about who is unable to expose themselves to conflicting ideas..

Even worse than being lazy, is proudly advertising that you are. "Wall of text"? You're not a third-grader. As for what the argument was. It wasn't a counter-argument, as you seem to expect by your tone. It was me elaborating on how being left or right wing is not something a person can say he is in any absolute sense, and especially not if you hold some stereotypically Leftist ideas, but yourself and others identify yourself as Right-wing in most other respects. Everyone but blind party soldiers have some "leftist" positions and some "right-wing" positions. One does not need to change the name of the right-wing paradigm to acknowledge that. Just realize that you don't need to belong to either group as if they were a tribe that only accepted total, ideological purity. That's what's part of the cause of the intellectual devolution of the SJW class .

And I agree about your other point. And you cannot, in honesty, claim that I am "confused" since I have never said that SJW's did NOT have problems with being exposed to conflicting ideas. When I bother to come on this forum and when I bothered to come on the DCF that was always one of the things I always pointed out regarding SJW's. I simply, like yourself point out that:

It's not all the left either.

Demanding more rigorous academic standards for your social science and humanities professors would be a good idea. Most European (not British, obviously) universities don't have the hysterical SJW culture you do, so this is one area where it could pay to look for international standards for fields like sociology, history, or whichever other studies are most hit by these activist professors.

[C-Mag]

This is a debate forum. Everyone here does it for entertainment or they wouldn't be here. The quality of the debate often is quite good such that it is also informative, better than most forums. It's as much for the lurkers as the participants. A valid tactic of online debate is to rattle your opponent with Insult and foul language. The line between entertaining and being mean is a fine one that's hard to get right so that both your opponent AND the lurkers get it.

1. If a thread is no longer entertaining, stop posting in it.
2. Let someone else take over for a while.
3. If you're getting angry, you lost.
4. Every-so-often, Read the people you never read.
5. Let people know when they did good.
6. Occasionally take the other side.
7. Never take anything personally.
8. Mimic the best.
9. Mix up your arguments.
10. Change your mind.

p.s. I have another forum that only gets New Blood once in a Blue Moon but its still going. Don't worry about it, it's about you.
p.p.s. There is no Left & Right, those are only debating constructs, but there is ideology.

+1

I really liked Dan's One Rule at DCF. No making threads specifically about another member. And I also liked the voluntary 100 post break in period. I propose we bring those to Hashwerks.

[SuburbanFarmer]

This is a debate forum. Everyone here does it for entertainment or they wouldn't be here. The quality of the debate often is quite good such that it is also informative, better than most forums. It's as much for the lurkers as the participants. A valid tactic of online debate is to rattle your opponent with Insult and foul language. The line between entertaining and being mean is a fine one that's hard to get right so that both your opponent AND the lurkers get it.

1. If a thread is no longer entertaining, stop posting in it.
2. Let someone else take over for a while.
3. If you're getting angry, you lost.
4. Every-so-often, Read the people you never read.
5. Let people know when they did good.
6. Occasionally take the other side.
7. Never take anything personally.
8. Mimic the best.
9. Mix up your arguments.
10. Change your mind.

p.s. I have another forum that only gets New Blood once in a Blue Moon but its still going. Don't worry about it, it's about you.
p.p.s. There is no Left & Right, those are only debating constructs, but there is ideology.

+1

I really liked Dan's One Rule at DCF. No making threads specifically about another member. And I also liked the voluntary 100 post break in period. I propose we bring those to Hashwerks.

Seconded.

Also, still lol'ing over StA getting hit with a substantial argument and complaining that it's too hard to understand.

[StCapps]

I've been following you all for some time. I'm a lurker by nature, just don't feel the need to get involved in the fray, so to speak. Keep on keeping on. I joined to participate in the Trump thread, because you guys are hilarious in your defense of him, but I don't have access to that forum, so I can't join in the fun.

Jump in the fray, the water is warm, I tell you what.

[SuburbanFarmer]

I've been following you all for some time. I'm a lurker by nature, just don't feel the need to get involved in the fray, so to speak. Keep on keeping on. I joined to participate in the Trump thread, because you guys are hilarious in your defense of him, but I don't have access to that forum, so I can't join in the fun.

Welcome to the forums!

Maybe Hashie can get you access?

[Speaker to Animals]

Dude, are you high? I don't really see the argument in your wall of text.

I don't have a problem with teaching people about marxism. That's not the same as constant indoctrination into it. You are seriously confused about who is unable to expose themselves to conflicting ideas..

Even worse than being lazy, is proudly advertising that you are. "Wall of text"? You're not a third-grader. As for what the argument was. It wasn't a counter-argument, as you seem to expect by your tone. It was me elaborating on how being left or right wing is not something a person can say he is in any absolute sense, and especially not if you hold some stereotypically Leftist ideas, but yourself and others identify yourself as Right-wing in most other respects. Everyone but blind party soldiers have some "leftist" positions and some "right-wing" positions. One does not need to change the name of the right-wing paradigm to acknowledge that. Just realize that you don't need to belong to either group as if they were a tribe that only accepted total, ideological purity. That's what's part of the cause of the intellectual devolution of the SJW class .

And I agree about your other point. And you cannot, in honesty, claim that I am "confused" since I have never said that SJW's did NOT have problems with being exposed to conflicting ideas. When I bother to come on this forum and when I bothered to come on the DCF that was always one of the things I always pointed out regarding SJW's. I simply, like yourself point out that:

It's not all the left either.

Demanding more rigorous academic standards for your social science and humanities professors would be a good idea. Most European (not British, obviously) universities don't have the hysterical SJW culture you do, so this is one area where it could pay to look for international standards for fields like sociology, history, or whichever other studies are most hit by these activist professors.

It was rambling. An argument is not synonymous with word count.

What I said about the right-left paradigm is that it is not even a legitimate or accurate depiction of our world. There exists no such thing as a right-left paradigm. To say that would be like saying Fife, with his libertarianism, is but one lost job and custody dispute away from becoming a white nationalists like Nukedog. There exists no continuous spectrum in politics. There exist different ideologies, competing values and interests, and conflicting identity groups.

Usually, the politics themselves are nothing more than the ostensible reasons for the conflict where the conflict itself is cultural and, in some cases, racial.

As far as your universities not being run by the marxists.. I know for a fact that's untrue. Many of my professors in graduate school and in the doctoral program were essentially intellectual refugees from what had happened over there. You are looking at the vacuum left behind, and the temporary peace in the aftermath of an academic purge, and confusing that with prosperity.

Greater minds fled the stifling environment of political correctness in Europe for a place that offers them freedom of speech. Unfortunately, the marxism has taken over our universities as well.

Canada is even worse than us. It's not exclusive to the United States. If anything, we are among the least affected.

[Speaker to Animals]

Even Chomsky once called you guys out on it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TuB5Y2yhCT0#t=358

[SuburbanFarmer]

Dude, are you high? I don't really see the argument in your wall of text.

I don't have a problem with teaching people about marxism. That's not the same as constant indoctrination into it. You are seriously confused about who is unable to expose themselves to conflicting ideas..

Even worse than being lazy, is proudly advertising that you are. "Wall of text"? You're not a third-grader. As for what the argument was. It wasn't a counter-argument, as you seem to expect by your tone. It was me elaborating on how being left or right wing is not something a person can say he is in any absolute sense, and especially not if you hold some stereotypically Leftist ideas, but yourself and others identify yourself as Right-wing in most other respects. Everyone but blind party soldiers have some "leftist" positions and some "right-wing" positions. One does not need to change the name of the right-wing paradigm to acknowledge that. Just realize that you don't need to belong to either group as if they were a tribe that only accepted total, ideological purity. That's what's part of the cause of the intellectual devolution of the SJW class .

And I agree about your other point. And you cannot, in honesty, claim that I am "confused" since I have never said that SJW's did NOT have problems with being exposed to conflicting ideas. When I bother to come on this forum and when I bothered to come on the DCF that was always one of the things I always pointed out regarding SJW's. I simply, like yourself point out that:

It's not all the left either.

Demanding more rigorous academic standards for your social science and humanities professors would be a good idea. Most European (not British, obviously) universities don't have the hysterical SJW culture you do, so this is one area where it could pay to look for international standards for fields like sociology, history, or whichever other studies are most hit by these activist professors.

It was rambling. An argument is not synonymous with word count.

What I said about the right-left paradigm is that it is not even a legitimate or accurate depiction of our world. There exists no such thing as a right-left paradigm. To say that would be like saying Fife, with his libertarianism, is but one lost job and custody dispute away from becoming a white nationalists like Nukedog. There exists no continuous spectrum in politics. There exist different ideologies, competing values and interests, and conflicting identity groups.

So... I'm not a single step away from full-on Communist, even though I believe in economic fairness and reject religion? That's a relief!

[Martin Hash]

In the Hash dictionary, "Marxism," from those according to their ability, to those according to their need, is the Equalist ideology.