The U.S. is more dangerously divided than any other wealthy democracy. Is there a way back from the brink? (Yascha Mounk)

[TraderPatTX]

Well you got the whole squad laughing. Just not with you :^)

No, the reason you're having to defer to weak sarcasm is because there is no objectively definition for a chair. Is the ground a chair? It's "stationary", usually flat enough to support you, and so on. Tables? Desks? Bar stools? An upside down bucket?

The reason these are important questions to ask is that NO, and I mean *NONE AT ALL*, definition is objective in nature. We agree upon them. That's verbatim why the word "literally" has become a synonym for figuratively, why "irony" has become a synonym for insincere or in jest, and so on.

The fact of the matter is, you cannot define anything more objectively than I can. You do not have an objective definition for woman, recession, or vaccine. And you never will, because no one can. Words are made up. They only exist because we made them. We designed the squiggles that represent them in alphabets, and we designed the mouth sounds that represent them in languages, with agreement deciding their meaning.

The difference between you and I however is that you propose definitions that exclude themselves, because they do not actually properly exclude or isolate the unintended from the intended definition.

In conclusion, you are holding ontologically impossible positions and then using a forced smugness to hide the fact you do not believe anything.

Imagine thinking holding a position that defining words as they have been spoken for generations is impossible and a sign of smugness.

The smugness is thinking that you can change definitions of words to fit a narrative to protect a certain group of people from scrutiny.

 

[mituzora]

Imagine thinking holding a position that defining words as they have been spoken for generations is impossible and a sign of smugness.

The smugness is thinking that you can change definitions of words to fit a narrative to protect a certain group of people from scrutiny.

Imagine not thinking that definitions are fluid and subject to change. sorry that it disrupts your minuscule world view on things.
If you're really getting bent out of shape on a change of a definition, than that's kind of a problem. but I digress.

 

[mituzora]

So in other words, you look at a person and determine, without even asking what gender they are. Guess the rules don't apply to everyone.

The CDC literally changed the definition because these shots did not adhere to the classic definition.

This is why the left is often wrong. There are many times and many subject matters that you all have no clue, but you all pretend that you do. The last 10 recessions over the past few decades have always started when quarterly GDP contracted for two straight quarters. Literally everybody knows this. Now all of a sudden, when a Democrat is president, it's nuanced. And the leftist seals on here all clap in unison and pretend that all is well in the land.

Yes, actually I do initially, and I repeat INITIALLY use what has been given to my brain to make an initial judgement call. there's nothing wrong with that. it's when someone corrects you and then you get butthurt that they're wrong about their gender that's the problem. They correct you, you acknowledge, move on, it's not that hard of a concept.

the CDC is not the be-all-end-all to definitions.

All this arguing about minute definitions is pointless. it doesn't matter what my answers are, you're just going to find some stupid left-handed rebuttal about how I'm stupid and wrong and blah-de-blah because I'm a "leftist"

I forgot, I'm talking to a brick wall who thinks that anything that opposes them is leftist and stupid.

you want to bring up something else to argue about than stupid little minute definitions, then by all means, otherwise, I'm done with this annoying back and forth.

 

[TraderPatTX]

Imagine not thinking that definitions are fluid and subject to change. sorry that it disrupts your minuscule world view on things.
If you're really getting bent out of shape on a change of a definition, than that's kind of a problem. but I digress.

Fluid means that the definitions change over time and are agreed upon by everybody who speaks the language. These latest changes are done specifically to protect a narrative.

Imagine getting bent out of shape towards somebody who does not accept and actually questions the state-run narratives, but I digress.

 

[Xzi]

There are stories dating from 2000 all the way to the present about how rich people get audited less than poor people.

No shit, we've already been over the intentional underfunding of the IRS. The bill intends to remedy that, though only time will tell how effective it is.

I support a $100 an hour minimum wage.

Yet you support a party that has no problem allowing corporations to subsidize their wages with welfare. Republicans would sooner eliminate the minimum wage altogether than raise it a single cent.

 

[TraderPatTX]

Yes, actually I do initially, and I repeat INITIALLY use what has been given to my brain to make an initial judgement call. there's nothing wrong with that. it's when someone corrects you and then you get butthurt that they're wrong about their gender that's the problem. They correct you, you acknowledge, move on, it's not that hard of a concept.

the CDC is not the be-all-end-all to definitions.

All this arguing about minute definitions is pointless. it doesn't matter what my answers are, you're just going to find some stupid left-handed rebuttal about how I'm stupid and wrong and blah-de-blah because I'm a "leftist"

I forgot, I'm talking to a brick wall who thinks that anything that opposes them is leftist and stupid.

you want to bring up something else to argue about than stupid little minute definitions, then by all means, otherwise, I'm done with this annoying back and forth.

If corrections were all that were happening, it wouldn't be a big deal. People are getting fired for not using the "proper" pronouns. The people who need to move on, are the fascists who are perpetuating this fraud.

The CDC, NIAID and Anthony Fauci himself is the embodiment of science itself. To doubt this is heresy.

The topic is how divided we are as a country. Part of that division entails the left changing language to suit their fake narratives. If you are not happy with the topic, I suggest you waltz on over to a different thread. Nobody is keeping you here.

 

[City]

Because right and left in the US are generally divided in the middle. I said GENERALLY, so 50/50 but also 60/40 and the opposite. A normal democracy would have the winning party that would be like "we won and we're going to do this our way, but we're still going to listen to you". With the US, though, after Obama it seems that it shifted into "we will do whatever and fuck you", with very, very rare cases where both parties agreed on something, or that collaborated.

Your neighbor that voted the other party is still your neighbor. Just because his party lost doesn't mean that his opinion doesn't matter anymore, especially when, in the US case, the "neighbor" is close to half the population. Claiming that the other side is made of terrorists doesn't help anyone.

How can you be an american politician and have the balls to just ostracize half of your people just because they didn't vote for you?

 

[TraderPatTX]

No shit, we've already been over the intentional underfunding of the IRS. The bill intends to remedy that, though only time will tell how effective it is.


Yet you support a party that has no problem allowing corporations to subsidize their wages with welfare. Republicans would sooner eliminate the minimum wage altogether than raise it a single cent.

It'll be as effective as it is at lowering inflation, which is not at all.

Scandinavian countries that all you knuckleheads love to brag about don't have minimum wage and they are some of the happiest countries in the world.

 

[Xzi]

It'll be as effective as it is at lowering inflation, which is not at all.

Not enough, certainly. A 15% minimum corporate tax is a joke considering that the rate was 90% on corporations during the middle class' most prosperous years in America.

Scandinavian countries that all you knuckleheads love to brag about don't have minimum wage and they are some of the happiest countries in the world.

Be sure to let me know when Republicans are ready to provide all the social safety nets that Scandinavian countries do, then. Young people in America might even be able to afford to buy houses with that kind of government assistance.

 

[City]

Be sure to let me know when Republicans are ready to provide all the social safety nets that Scandinavian countries do, then. Young people in America might even be able to afford to buy houses with that kind of assistance.

Because Scandinavians pay a ton of taxes, something Americans aren't fond of doing, not to mention the terrible way they treat stuff that's made for the public, like public transport and parks. Places like Denmark, for example, have people who lose >80% of their income in taxes. Is it worth it? For the individual, maybe. But for everyone? Absolutely.

Then again, if you live in Denmark, chances are you can easily bike your way to work, whereas in the US you probably need more than an hour to reach your office by car. It's a complicated issue.

 

[Xzi]

Because Scandinavians pay a ton of taxes, something Americans aren't fond of doing

Yeah we prefer to go into debt for life over a single medical bill.

Places like Denmark, for example, have people who lose >80% of their income in taxes.

They'd have to already be rich, which means they want for absolutely nothing even when paying that much in taxes. As above, America had a 90% tax rate on the ultra wealthy in the past, and it paved the way for the strongest middle class we've ever had. The rich conned us (some of us) into believing that cutting their taxes would be good for everybody, and that obviously hasn't panned out. Never too late to correct that mistake, though.

 

[City]

Yeah we prefer to go into debt for life over a single medical bill.


They'd have to already be rich, which means they want for absolutely nothing even when paying that much in taxes. As above, America had a 90% tax rate on the ultra wealthy in the past, and it paved the way for the strongest middle class we've ever had.

Keep in mind that doctors everywhere (in first world countries at least) are getting more and more interested in the private sector, with some european countries already becoming private healthcare's bitch. Obviously not as much as the US is, but give it a few decades, they're getting there.

Also no, an average salary in Denmark is taxed at 86%.

My personal belief that would be as close to perfection as it can would be to give free healthcare to everyone as it already is in some countries (looooong queues), but if you didn't hurt yourself in a stupid way, like drunk driving or smoking, then you get more priority. Not saying that we should let a drunk driver bleed to death after an accident, just that, if there was an accident between a drunk driver and a pedestrian and they both need medical attention at the same level of urgency, the latter should always have the priority. The drunk driver will get his turn.

 

[Xzi]

Also no, an average salary in Denmark is taxed at 86%.

Well, if that takes care of all the necessities I'd be more than happy to pay it. Most people in the US can barely afford just rent, food and gas with 100% of their income right now.

 

[LainaGabranth]

Imagine thinking holding a position that defining words as they have been spoken for generations is impossible and a sign of smugness.

The smugness is thinking that you can change definitions of words to fit a narrative to protect a certain group of people from scrutiny.

He says, literally speaking modern English, a bastardized version of the original language

 

[mituzora]

The topic is how divided we are as a country. Part of that division entails the left changing language to suit their fake narratives. If you are not happy with the topic, I suggest you waltz on over to a different thread. Nobody is keeping you here.

Definitions and a country divided are two different things. At least the "leftists" aren't getting bent out of shape for some nuanced changes in a definition.

 

[LainaGabranth]

Definitions and a country divided are two different things. At least the "leftists" aren't getting bent out of shape for some nuanced changes in a definition.

Do you think whenever Trader sees multiple definitions to a word, or any etymology class he just starts screeching uncontrollably

 

[appleburger]

 

[LainaGabranth]

Holy fuck I got hit with some nostalgia right there. But it's also a good point, the book was literally about etymology. You'd think a guy who harps constantly about "state's rights" and individual liberties would be able to understand that we, society as a whole, decide the definitions to words.

Definitions don't even have to point to "objective" things either, be they biological or physical or whatever. For example, I can say "That's cool," and someone will instantly understand that I am giving a statement of approval to whatever thing or action I am calling "cool," despite no one actually truly being able to define what "cool" is. Why was a word for temperature given meaning to define something that also means something positive socially as well?

It's almost as if.

No words are objectively defined.

 

[mituzora]

Because right and left in the US are generally divided in the middle. I said GENERALLY, so 50/50 but also 60/40 and the opposite. A normal democracy would have the winning party that would be like "we won and we're going to do this our way, but we're still going to listen to you". With the US, though, after Obama it seems that it shifted into "we will do whatever and fuck you", with very, very rare cases where both parties agreed on something, or that collaborated.

Your neighbor that voted the other party is still your neighbor. Just because his party lost doesn't mean that his opinion doesn't matter anymore, especially when, in the US case, the "neighbor" is close to half the population. Claiming that the other side is made of terrorists doesn't help anyone.

How can you be an american politician and have the balls to just ostracize half of your people just because they didn't vote for you?

Oh I agree 100 percent on this. despite my "leftist" views, I will gladly talk to my right-winged friends and coworkers, because they're still human and they on average have at least a valid reasoning of why they follow their politics the way they do. I also have healthy debates with people about politics all the time, On the internet though, it seems like the extremism is turned up to 10 on both sides.

I don't intend to come off as an extremist by any means, I'm left leaning, but I'm closer to the center than I put off. people in these political threads just tend to bring out the worst of my leftist views.

Pat for example asking me to define a woman, I gave an answer that normally wouldn't flow in the "SJW" state of mind.

I think the problem has to do with social media and the internet as a whole bringing out the absolute worst in people, and that includes their "die on their hill" political stance. in a normal setting, I interact with right-leaning people without a problem, despite having largely different opinions on the way the world works.

 

[LainaGabranth]

Oh I agree 100 percent on this. despite my "leftist" views, I will gladly talk to my right-winged friends and coworkers, because they're still human and they on average have at least a valid reasoning of why they follow their politics the way they do. I also have healthy debates with people about politics all the time, On the internet though, it seems like the extremism is turned up to 10 on both sides.

I don't intend to come off as an extremist by any means, I'm left leaning, but I'm closer to the center than I put off. people in these political threads just tend to bring out the worst of my leftist views.

Pat for example asking me to define a woman, I gave an answer that normally wouldn't flow in the "SJW" state of mind.

I think the problem has to do with social media and the internet as a whole bringing out the absolute worst in people, and that includes their "die on their hill" political stance. in a normal setting, I interact with right-leaning people without a problem, despite having largely different opinions on the way the world works.

The really fucked up part is that Trader still took issue with your definition for woman despite this. It's never enough for the right, you basically have to agree on everything, as much as they do, or you aren't good enough lmfao

I'm the furthest left in this thread and I still think your definition was actually quite correct.