Far Right Presidential Candidate Wins in Argentina

[Foxi4]

Agh. Feel free to delete this. Trying to comprehend some of these lines of thinking make me stupider than I already am.

I haven’t specified whether you can or cannot touch the spaghet, so we can discuss this during the next legal debacle.

 

[RetroGen]

Define harsh. It’s a traffic violation, to be sure. They shouldn’t disrupt the lives of ordinary citizens. With that being said, it was exceedingly funny, so I can exercise jury nullification. If it affected me I’d probably want everyone involved to be shot directly into the sun, but it didn’t affect me at all. You should ask the citizens of Ottawa since they’re the ones who were affected, people are judged by a jury of their peers, and I’m not their peer.

Was not the tiniest bit funny for the citizens of Ottawa who had to deal with blaring horns and disinformed hooligans blocking their roadways 24/7 for a month, fearing for their personal safety. But the Conservative Party supported it, so it's fine. I'm sure the people of Argentina are equally, if not more, amused. Rightwing liberty in action! It's hilarious! Almost meme-worthy... Schadenfreude seems to be celebrated on the right. I don't find it funny.

 

[tabzer]

Was not the tiniest bit funny for the citizens of Ottawa who had to deal with blaring horns and disinformed hooligans blocking their roadways 24/7 for a month, fearing for their personal safety. But the Conservative Party supported it, so it's fine. I'm sure the people of Argentina are equally, if not more, amused. Rightwing liberty in action! It's hilarious! Almost meme-worthy... Schadenfreude seems to be celebrated on the right. I don't find it funny.

Why would the people of Argentina be upset or satisfied with what happened in Ottawa? You are finagling some sort rationale to blame people who drive trucks in Canada with what is happening in Argentina. Can you come down a bit? There are too many questions invoked by your line of thought.

Edit: @Dark_Ansem, if you could explain why you like this sort of thing, it'd help in understanding your pov. From the outside, it looks like you favor any method to blame the right for everything. Is it "the end justifies the means"?

 

[Foxi4]

Was not the tiniest bit funny for the citizens of Ottawa who had to deal with blaring horns and disinformed hooligans blocking their roadways 24/7 for a month, fearing for their personal safety. But the Conservative Party supported it, so it's fine. I'm sure the people of Argentina are equally, if not more, amused. Rightwing liberty in action! It's hilarious! Almost meme-worthy... Schadenfreude seems to be celebrated on the right. I don't find it funny.

I mean, they elected the guy to do a specific job. As for truck drivers, can you be more specific when you’re calling them disinformed hooligans?

 

[sarkwalvein]

Was not the tiniest bit funny for the citizens of Ottawa who had to deal with blaring horns and disinformed hooligans blocking their roadways 24/7 for a month, fearing for their personal safety. But the Conservative Party supported it, so it's fine. I'm sure the people of Argentina are equally, if not more, amused. Rightwing liberty in action! It's hilarious! Almost meme-worthy... Schadenfreude seems to be celebrated on the right. I don't find it funny.

I really don't know how to parse whatever you are trying to imply.

People in Argentina generally don't give a fuck regarding what happens in Canada, not out of disrespect or anything, people in Argentina just have more urgent problems to attend to as to care for whatever goes on in Canada.

Regarding the problems that I believe Argentines are worried about, and the reason they could have to elect their given president, those problems are IMHO:

• Impending economic collapse in Argentina of a magnitude bigger than the 1989 crisis, if no measures are taken.
• Constant lies and complete loss of trust in the previous party in office.
• Soaring inflation and mismanagement during the last term.
• This coupled with demagogic speech and economic measures in the last months of the last term to try to amass votes before the election, that were too evident as just a very short term measure which consequences would further destroy the economy after the election.
• Soaring levels of criminality that went unpunished: theft, murder and specially narcotraffic / cartel related murdering.
• The law being applied to nobody, leaving people that follow the law as the losers. The promotion of the sadly famous "viveza criolla", that is the celebration of people that find ways to break the law to take advantage of others and avoid punishment.
• The existence of piqueteros, imagine a lobbyist (already a nauseating concept) but that instead of trying to buy the favor of legislators by "being nice to them" (lol, that's just light bribery), they block roads for money or for political favors to force legislators into some decision.
• The constant pushing of a narrative: "things are not so bad, it is the fault of others, it's all because of the last government that lasted 4 years, we do everything right"; the classic big lie, sustained by indoctrination in schools and universities and by the Campora youth.
• The social rift achieved by the confrontation promoted by the previous government.

 

[Dark_Ansem]

can you be more specific when you’re calling them disinformed hooligans?

Because of the nonsense they spouted and how they did so?

 

[tabzer]

Ah yes, the everything happens for no reason fallacy. You win a cookie. It's the same cookie that everyone gets by default, but yours stands above the rest for some reason.

 

[Foxi4]

Because of the nonsense they spouted and how they did so?

I don’t think you quite understand what the word “specific” means. I also didn’t ask you, so I don’t know why you’re lining up.

 

[Dark_Ansem]

I don’t think you quite understand what the word “specific” means. I also didn’t ask you, so I don’t know why you’re lining up.

I don't recall you ever asking before butting in conversations that didn't involve you

Specific:
relating to one thing and not others; particular

What I wrote satisfies the requirement. Apologies if you disagree.

 

[Foxi4]

I don't recall you ever asking before butting in conversations that didn't involve you

Specific:
relating to one thing and not others; particular

What I wrote satisfies the requirement. Apologies if you disagree.

Wrong definition in this context. You do this a lot, which is why I often tell you I’m not interested in any discussions with you. They’re too laborious since you go out of your way to pretend that you don’t understand what’s being said (or you’re not pretending at all, which would be even worse, but I digress). Allow me to help, using the same dictionary you’re apparently using.



“These people are disinformed.”
“Can you be more specific? (What exactly makes them disinformed/What are they disinformed about)?”
“They say things that are disinformed.”

You haven’t actually specified anything, you simply agreed with him and said that you too think they’re disinformed using different phrasing. “They’re disinformed because they are” is not an adequate answer, or any answer at all, to be frank. You haven’t narrowed things down to a single belief or how that belief is disinformed. Good job. This is why you “butting in” has no value - you haven’t added any relevant information to the conversation, you just stated what you believe. On top of that, nobody even asked you. Nobody cares what you think, what you think isn’t evidence of anything. I asked @RetroGen because he’s the one who made the claim, so unless you’re somehow privy to what’s in his head, your input is not required.

Apology accepted.

 

[Dark_Ansem]

Wrong definition in this context

Blame yourself for not being specific enough.

You haven’t actually specified anything, you simply agreed with him and said that you too think they’re disinformed using different phrasing.

No, I said they're misinformed hooligans because they spouted misinformation and were hooligans doing it. On your own definition of hooliganism as well, since you cheered for protesters in Argentina going in jail. Freedom working like a traffic light for you.

You do this a lot, which is why I often tell you I’m not interested in any discussions with you

Calling out your inconsistencies and blatant dog-whistiling must be very frustrating for you, yes. Pity coherence and intellectual honesty are alien to you

 

[Foxi4]

Blame yourself for not being specific enough.

I’m very specific in what I’m asking. Your reading comprehension is poor.

No, I said they're misinformed hooligans because they spouted misinformation and were hooligans doing it. On your own definition of hooliganism as well, since you cheered for protesters in Argentina going in jail. Freedom working like a traffic light for you.

You did it again. You said they’re misinformed hooligans and they’re misinformed because what they’re saying is misinformed. You’re saying nothing. I even pointed it out to you and you still can’t muster a relevant response. I believe I told you this before, but conversations with you are like conversations with an extraterrestrial. This is not how a regular human communicates.

Calling out your inconsistencies and blatant dog-whistiling must be very frustrating for you, yes. Pity coherence and intellectual honesty are alien to you

Hole in one. You’re not here to contribute, you’re here to fawn and fanboy over everything I say or do. While this stalker-like behaviour is flattering, your obsession is not adding anything to the discussion. This is why having any exchange with you whatsoever is completely pointless, Stan. You’re here to get attention, from me, which is very bizarre. It’s not so much frustrating as it is a huge waste of time for everyone involved. Explaining basic English to you, while somewhat amusing, is ultimately distracting to other users who do understand human parlance. You’re running a “victory lap” around an altar of your own failure to communicate, and it’s everyone’s fault but your own. It would be a sorry sight if I didn’t expect it ahead of time.

I’ve said it once, I’ll say it again. I asked @RetroGen a question. You cannot answer it because you’re not in his head. Not only is there no reason for you to respond, there’s also no point. It is impossible for you to tell me what he thinks, you are not privy to his thoughts.

 

[tabzer]

What's "pity coherence"? (Is it the source of the edge?)

 

[Foxi4]

What's "pity coherence"?

It’s a short for “(it’s a) pity (that)”. It’s acceptable, but several grades above his level of reading/writing skill. I don’t even mean this as an insult, I am as earnest and polite as possible. He should be focusing on the basics, like how when someone asks one to “be specific”, they’re asking for additional detail. It’s not a vocabulary issue, it’s a logic and reading comprehension issue. I try to be understanding because I’m an ESL myself and I’m willing to accept the occasional crossed wires, but once it becomes habitual like this I have to question whether it’s a language barrier issue or simply bad faith. Since I tend to give people the benefit of the doubt, I choose not to have any serious conversations with him anymore instead of trying to find out which of the two it really is - I don’t need to know. It’s just easier and more expedient.

 

[tabzer]

Wouldn't "that" or a comma still be necessary if that's how he is intending it to be read? He seems to be very critical and attempting to sound technical, so I don't think he's trying to be lazy.

I read "pity coherence" and think it is a type of coherence with being able to find pity in everything. It might make sense of his character, and the general incompatibility between our points of view.

An alternative theory is that he is writing everything in some sort of shorthand convention that even we are not privy of, so his language sounds completely different than it is intended.

 

[sarkwalvein]

Wouldn't "that" or a comma still be necessary if that's how he is intending it to be read? He seems to be very critical and attempting to sound technical, so I don't think he's trying to be lazy.

I read "pity coherence" and think it is a type of coherence with being able to find pity in everything. It might make sense of his character, and the general incompatibility between our points of view.

An alternative theory is that he is writing everything in some sort of shorthand convention that even we are not privy of, so his language sounds completely different than it is intended.

Actually I interpreted that in yet another way at first. Based on context, I think it makes more sense to interpret it as "it's a pity that", but before reading Foxi4's interpretation I thought that Dark_Ansem meant that Foxi4 lacked "Pity, coherence and intellectual honesty", and sure I was scratching my head trying to find how pity was connected to the other two.

 

[Foxi4]

Wouldn't "that" or a comma still be necessary if that's how he is intending it to be read? He seems to be very critical and attempting to sound technical, so I don't think he's trying to be lazy.

I read "pity coherence" and think it is a type of coherence with being able to find pity in everything. It might make sense of his character, and the general incompatibility between our points of view.

An alternative theory is that he is writing everything in some sort of shorthand convention that even we are not privy of, so his language sounds completely different than it is intended.

Actually I interpreted that in yet another way at first. Based on context, I think it makes more sense to interpret it as "it's a pity that", but before reading Foxi4's interpretation I thought that Dark_Ansem meant that Foxi4 lacked "Pity, coherence and intellectual honesty", and sure I was scratching my head trying to find how pity was connected to the other two.

I don’t want to make this a thread about Dark_Ansem. I was merely saying that communicating with him is difficult, and the difficulty isn’t so much a matter of a difference of opinion, but rather language itself. People can’t have a conversation if they don’t know what they mean to say. I’d much rather have a fruitful conversation about Argentina than explore the intricacies of language structure.

EDIT: I like that, @sarkwalvein. I do lack pity.

 

[KingVamp]

America grew to prominence and power before Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid or even most regular state services people take for granted nowadays. The U.S. didn’t have an organised, publicly-funded full-time police force until the mid-19th century, up to that point the country mostly relied on civilian volunteers. There were no state-funded fire departments until around the time of the Civil War, they were ran privately and competed to get to fires first in order to get kickbacks from insurance companies. That’s not to say that this approach is necessarily better or even applicable in the modern age, but it kind of upends your thesis.

And where did that get us? Hindsight is 20/20, but if we went for more safe guards and the Nordic model, we wouldn't be in this mess we are currently in. Like paying double than other countries and yet still not covering everyone's healthcare, for example.

Also, as said before, I don't see any modern libertarianism that actually works for the people that it is supposed to help.

 

[Foxi4]

And where did that get us? Hindsight is 20/20, but if we went for more safe guards and the Nordic model, we wouldn't be in this mess we are currently in. Like paying double than other countries and yet still not covering everyone's healthcare, for example.

Also, as said before, I don't see any modern libertarianism that actually works for the people that it is supposed to help.

There’s a very good chance that if America followed European standards of governance in its formative years, it simply wouldn’t exist anymore. As for “where it got you”, the answer is “world’s No.1 superpower”. As far as America’s ruined healthcare is concerned, I believe the person you’d want to blame for that is FDR, since the current system is a direct consequence of his administration’s wage control policies. U.S. healthcare as it functions today is, for the most part, a result of the government interfering in the free market in the advent of WWII in an effort to curb labour shortages. In regards to modern libertarianism, it’s generally hard to sell politicians on the idea of making less money, having less influence and shrinking the size of government. The government is quick to grow, but very reluctant to shrink, so we don’t have good examples to go by.

 

[Xzi]

In regards to modern libertarianism, it’s generally hard to sell politicians on the idea of making less money, having less influence and shrinking the size of government. The government is quick to grow, but very reluctant to shrink, so we don’t have good examples to go by.

We don't have any modern examples to go by because it's obvious to everyone what happens when you repeal even the most basic of regulatory oversight and all social safety nets. American and Chinese corporations/sweatshops will swoop in to fill the void, demand everyone work long hours for near slave wages, and do little to nothing to improve living conditions. It'd be naive to claim that Milei and his inner circle don't have the means or intent to profit off of that, as well.