Funny Events of the "Woke" world

[Silvanus]

People who want abortions or want abortion to be legal are prioritizing other things over the life of the child. That's the reality, I don't think you're going to deny that. The self-deception is the people who tell themselves that they protect all lives, but there's nothing really alive there, so it doesn't count. I don't think this changes anyone's position, I don't think those people forced to accept a fetus is a person would suddenly become pro-life, I think they're likely pro-choice in the first place because they prioritize other things over the life of the child and the rest is trying to have the cake and eat it too by rationalizing why their position should have no downsides.

I'm not really interested in more reductive and off-target descriptions of your opponents' positions. I was encouraging you to try engaging instead. If you're not interested in that, fine; I was initially just pointing out how you used to feign interest in understanding, but now seem to have given that canard up.

The actual parallel would be pro-life people imagining that every abortion actually makes the parents' lives worse, and if they were banned from having them then their lives would be filled with so much more joy. That's self-deception, that's rationalizing away the downsides of one's position. It's funny to me that your attempt at finding something "a bit like" is to lean into other baseless rationalizations used by the pro-choice.

I'm not talking about the rationalisations for one's own position. I'm talking about the reductive demonisations people dream up for their opponents. In which, the 'wilful murderer' you're imagining is the apt comparison for the 'control freak woman-hater' that the less reasonable pro-choicers imagine.

 

[Gergar12]

So the Supreme Court is hearing arguments on Trump v. America. Brett Kavanaugh argued two things, he argued that limiting the executive's power by prosecuting them in the future for past or current actions sets a bad precedent which isn't a bad argument ex post facto laws aren't great, but we are a nation of laws, and we don't have kings for presidents.

His second argument is a lot more interesting. Why did President Obama not get flak for killing an American citizen(He was Al Qaeda) in Yemen Trump got a whole bunch of Americans killed by egging on protesters/rioters/insurrectionists at the capitol.

Hasan the streamer/Hasanbi's argument is that Trump didn't act according to American interests, and Obama did. Which is a shitty argument. If I or anyone else were president does that mean I/the military/the intel agencies get to gun down people dodging taxes as ex-pats in other countries to deter more ex-pats who dodge taxes? No that would be overkill, and I or anyone else should get prosecuted for that even if it's for American interests. Also, that's way too fucking broad.

I argue a better precedent would be only killing US citizens specifically when not in a war (As the federal government) when they are clear and present danger to Americans from whoever the American citizen you are killing. That would enable Trump to get flak since there was no clear and present dangerous response for the insurrection to hold weight and his actions of killing the Antifa rioter with federal marshals, and President Obama's killing of the terrorist Al Qaeda member who happened to be a US citizen could be legal.

 

[tstorm823]

In which, the 'wilful murderer' you're imagining is the apt comparison for the 'control freak woman-hater' that the less reasonable pro-choicers imagine.

Except willful killer isn't a demonization if you think the goal is just, and "control freak woman-hater" isn't a reduction as much as a fabrication.

 

[Trunkage]

Oh it does, woke of often silly and hypocritical, also everyone they dislike is part of some grant elaborate network all linked to the same thing they dislike.
So in this case, perfectly fits the definition because everything is secretly evil Trump supporters in Sessler's warped mind.

See, this is why I asked you for your woke definition a few weeks ago

None of this was covered under your definition of woke

Pick a definition and stick to it

 

[Silvanus]

Except willful killer isn't a demonization if you think the goal is just, and "control freak woman-hater" isn't a reduction as much as a fabrication.

In your conception, yes. I was encouraging you to understand opponents. It's fine if you don't have any interest in doing so.

 

[Trunkage]

So the Supreme Court is hearing arguments on Trump v. America. Brett Kavanaugh argued two things, he argued that limiting the executive's power by prosecuting them in the future for past or current actions sets a bad precedent which isn't a bad argument ex post facto laws aren't great, but we are a nation of laws, and we don't have kings for presidents.

His second argument is a lot more interesting. Why did President Obama not get flak for killing an American citizen(He was Al Qaeda) in Yemen Trump got a whole bunch of Americans killed by egging on protesters/rioters/insurrectionists at the capitol.

Hasan the streamer/Hasanbi's argument is that Trump didn't act according to American interests, and Obama did. Which is a shitty argument. If I or anyone else were president does that mean I/the military/the intel agencies get to gun down people dodging taxes as ex-pats in other countries to deter more ex-pats who dodge taxes? No that would be overkill, and I or anyone else should get prosecuted for that even if it's for American interests. Also, that's way too fucking broad.

I argue a better precedent would be only killing US citizens specifically when not in a war (As the federal government) when they are clear and present danger to Americans from whoever the American citizen you are killing. That would enable Trump to get flak since there was no clear and present dangerous response for the insurrection to hold weight and his actions of killing the Antifa rioter with federal marshals, and President Obama's killing of the terrorist Al Qaeda member who happened to be a US citizen could be legal.

Kavanagh is being pretty consistent here. He said 20 years ago Clinton should not have been even investigated, let alone indicted

I, for one, would love Obama to go to jail for his crimes. It's about time the US takes responsibility for the destruction it causes

 

[Gergar12]

Oh noes.

Here's what not passing FISA could entail. A progressive internationalist judge could state no you are oppressing XYZ nation we deny all warrants to XYZ nation just like progressive judges do to juveniles who committed serious crimes who are released without bail and any consequences. Or a sane judge could delay the warrant. Oh, there's a terrorist who escaped after committing an attack on Philly, oh there's a foreign national escaping after sending the plans for critical dual-use technology, oh there's a special forces operative in another country who just escaped after scouting an air force base in Montana or South Carolina. All because they talked to an American or the judge is a self-hating idiot possibly.

Progressives are insane, and out of touch on this issue, China doesn't ask for warrants, and Russia and North Korea don't ask for warrants. And this would give them a time-sensitive advantage hypothetically in the future.

 

[Gergar12]

Kavanagh is being pretty consistent here. He said 20 years ago Clinton should not have been even investigated, let alone indicted

I, for one, would love Obama to go to jail for his crimes. It's about time the US takes responsibility for the destruction it causes

Killing a US citizen who joined al Qaeda in Yemen isn't a crime. Also, the US/Obama didn't have kinetic missiles aka sword missiles back then.

 

[tstorm823]

In your conception, yes. I was encouraging you to understand opponents. It's fine if you don't have any interest in doing so.

Tell me those things aren't valid in your own conception.

 

[Trunkage]

Killing a US citizen who joined al Qaeda in Yemen isn't a crime. Also, the US/Obama didn't have kinetic missiles aka sword missiles back then.

Obama killed about 800 civilians with drone strikes

I'm also one to promote putting people in jail rather than executing them. I know, its a hot take

 

[crimson5pheonix]

Oh noes.

Here's what not passing FISA could entail. A progressive internationalist judge could state no you are oppressing XYZ nation we deny all warrants to XYZ nation just like progressive judges do to juveniles who committed serious crimes who are released without bail and any consequences. Or a sane judge could delay the warrant. Oh, there's a terrorist who escaped after committing an attack on Philly, oh there's a foreign national escaping after sending the plans for critical dual-use technology, oh there's a special forces operative in another country who just escaped after scouting an air force base in Montana or South Carolina. All because they talked to an American or the judge is a self-hating idiot possibly.

Progressives are insane, and out of touch on this issue, China doesn't ask for warrants, and Russia and North Korea don't ask for warrants. And this would give them a time-sensitive advantage hypothetically in the future.

Uh huh, that's definitely what FISA is used for, for sure.

Pro-Israel Groups Pushed for Warrantless Spying on Protesters

Today on TAP: The worst fears of reformers of warrantless spying could be realized.

prospect.org

 

[Gergar12]

Uh huh, that's definitely what FISA is used for, for sure.

Pro-Israel Groups Pushed for Warrantless Spying on Protesters

Today on TAP: The worst fears of reformers of warrantless spying could be realized.

prospect.org

Edge case.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

Edge case.

Default case. Actual foreign terrorism isn't all that common. FISA became a thing because of 9/11, which was unprecedented and hasn't repeated. And there's been no serious claims of large scale foreign terrorism caught since then either. FISA is purely an excuse to spy on Americans by just calling them unAmerican. If, for example, they protest the government.

EDIT: Imprecise language, FISA of course predates 9/11 by decades. However the loosening of restrictions on it were a response to 9/11

 

[Gergar12]

Default case. Actual foreign terrorism isn't all that common. FISA became a thing because of 9/11, which was unprecedented and hasn't repeated. And there's been no serious claims of large scale foreign terrorism caught since then either. FISA is purely an excuse to spy on Americans by just calling them unAmerican. If, for example, they protest the government.

INTEL - To Catch a Terrorist

Born in Iraq in the 1950s, Hajji Iman grew up to be a scholar and cleric. He was also a terrorist—a leader of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISI...

www.intelligence.gov

.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

INTEL - To Catch a Terrorist

Born in Iraq in the 1950s, Hajji Iman grew up to be a scholar and cleric. He was also a terrorist—a leader of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISI...

www.intelligence.gov

.

Ah yes, the government agency that benefits from it will of course tell the unvarnished truth.

Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Court Orders 1979-2022

epic.org

It's a scheme to spy on Americans. We can see that several orgs pushed for it on it's most recent extension specifically to spy on Americans.

 

[Casual Shinji]

It's about time the US takes responsibility for the destruction it causes

I'm sure humanity will live to see that day.

 

[Silvanus]

Tell me those things aren't valid in your own conception.

Those things aren't valid in my conception.

 

[tstorm823]

Those things aren't valid in my conception.

See what I mean about not being honest?

 

[Silvanus]

See what I mean about not being honest?

See what I mean about failing to understand/engage with your opponents' actual positions?

You can insist your opponents must be lying if you want, but that reflects nothing but your sheer unwillingness to understand. Much like if I assumed all pro-lifers just loved controlling women's bodies, and that any other perspective or moral rationale was just pure dishonesty on their part.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

There's a long string of statements you've made based on half-baked amateur reckoning, and that you've later tried to pass off as objective fact. Diabetes, electoral law, masks, take your pick. I know what I was referring to.



Don't give a shit.

I know you don't give a shit about basic rules if they conflict with your worldview, that's the point.