• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Liberal guilt at its finest

I never said anything about all the left or claimed that everyone on the left thinks like this. There is however a significant number of people on the left that do think like this not just 1 random moron.



Well there was that bit about "liberal guilt at it's finest" - the OP's title. Is it "liberal guilt"? Or is it a damned fool being a damned fool? That's the point.

Anecdotally, I can say that I have many liberal and conservative friends/family, old and new, and they really don't line up with the popular caricatures in any real way. (OK, other than my in-laws, who seem to have gone from centrist to utterly committed right-wingers over the last 20 years).

Neither posters on the left nor posters on the right are going to accept some general statement about liberal-this or conservative-that.
 
The important part is you mislabeling his position by using incorrect basic terms, demonstrating your total ignorance of the concept.

Boring.

Condescend at someone else.
 
Boring.

Condescend at someone else.

When you've studied the concept enough to know the basic terms maybe someone besides "white victims" will discuss this with you.
 
Well there was that bit about "liberal guilt at it's finest" - the OP's title. Is it "liberal guilt"? Or is it a damned fool being a damned fool? That's the point.

Anecdotally, I can say that I have many liberal and conservative friends/family, old and new, and they really don't line up with the popular caricatures in any real way. (OK, other than my in-laws, who seem to have gone from centrist to utterly committed right-wingers over the last 20 years).

Neither posters on the left nor posters on the right are going to accept some general statement about liberal-this or conservative-that.

Considering that liberal guilt is foolish, it could be both.
 
When you've studied the concept enough to know the basic terms maybe someone besides "white victims" will discuss this with you.

When you are turning away people on the same overall side as you are through use of smug self-superiority in posts, you are debating wrong.




All you've done is call me names for not agreeing with the WaPo piece. That's not an argument.
 
When you are turning away people on the same overall side as you are using smug self-superiority, you are debating wrong.

You're smug. You're calling scientific understanding a farce while misusing the most basic terms.
 
You're smug. You're calling scientific understanding a farce while misusing the most basic terms.


Well, personal insult aside, the bolded is a silly lie. The thread is only four pages long. Anyone can immediately see that I did not say "scientific understanding is a farce" or anything like it.
 
I'm the intellectual on this, not you. You're anti intellectual. You reject science and substitute racist rhetoric. Tell us about sociology being a scam.

Sociology isn't science bro, try again at not making a mistake that's so basic and t hen claim to be the intellectual one. Also, it's a funny claim coming from someone who doesn't know how dictionaries work.
 
Well, personal insult aside, the bolded is a silly lie. The thread is only four pages long. Anyone can immediately see that I did not say "scientific understanding is a farce" or anything like it.

You don't realize it but you did. See why there's no point? You don't have the slightest grasp of the concept or what it's based on. You just ignorantly side with the "white victims".

Are you gonna claim, like them, sociology is a scam? Because that's what the concept is based on - science.
 
"pants'd" >

No.

No way.

What.

I wanna get pantsed too! Why didn't I get pansted? Are you discriminating me based on my shorts? Huh? Huh brah? Let's fiteitout.jpegbroskillet

Lol...don't know what you're talking about but if you use a ridiculous version of racism then it will happen as well. Just give it time.
 
You don't realize it but you did. See why there's no point? You don't have the slightest grasp of the concept or what it's based on. You just ignorantly side with the "white victims"..

Side with "white victims"?

Ignorantly?





Ok, now I'm actually getting curious. What in the precise **** do you think you are talking about regarding me? Who are these "white victims" and how am I siding with them?
 
Last edited:
Are you gonna claim, like them, sociology is a scam? Because that's what the concept is based on - science.

I have to ask you: do you know about the differences between a "hard science" and a "soft science"?

There's a vast gulf between things like sociology, psychology, etc., and mathematics/physics. The former isn't necessarily bunk and I never said that*, but the latter is rather more solid than the former.






____________________

*Please do stop lying about what I am and what I think. That'd be nice. I'd appreciate it.
 
Sociology isn't science bro, try again at not making a mistake that's so basic and t hen claim to be the intellectual one. Also, it's a funny claim coming from someone who doesn't know how dictionaries work.

What?
"Definition of sociology
1 :the science of society, social institutions, and social relationships; specifically :the systematic study of the development, structure, interaction, and collective behavior of organized groups of human beings
2 :the scientific analysis of a social institution as a functioning whole and as it relates to the rest of society"
right from the dictionary.
 
Sociology isn't science bro, try again at not making a mistake that's so basic and t hen claim to be the intellectual one. Also, it's a funny claim coming from someone who doesn't know how dictionaries work.

Well, it's not a hard science but it's also not nothing either. It is quite useful to study group behavior, whether in humans or other animals. But that's beside the point....



He doesn't seem to understand that a somewhat-closed system can function to disadvantage members of a certain group without making every single other member of that group complicit.
 
I have to ask you: do you know about the differences between a "hard science" and a "soft science"?

I think so. I've an MSc and PhDc including classes on sociology and anthropology.

Sociology isn't science bro,

That's who you're siding with. They must reject sociology because that's the only way to "disprove" the concept.
 
He doesn't seem to understand that a somewhat-closed system can function to disadvantage members of a certain group without making every single other member of that group complicit.

The concept does not claim that. Your ignorance of the concept and adoption of the "white victim" narrative is showing, again.
 
Last edited:
To eco. You said:

You don't realize it but you did. See why there's no point? You don't have the slightest grasp of the concept or what it's based on. You just ignorantly side with the "white victims".

Are you gonna claim, like them, sociology is a scam? Because that's what the concept is based on - science.

I have to ask you: do you know about the differences between a "hard science" and a "soft science"?

There's a vast gulf between things like sociology, psychology, etc., and mathematics/physics. The former isn't necessarily bunk and I never said that*, but the latter is rather more solid than the former.

____________________

*Please do stop lying about what I am and what I think. That'd be nice. I'd appreciate it.

Your response was a citation to degrees, not an argument.

I think so. I've an MSc and PhDc, including classes on sociology and anthropology.


And this is the internet, where I could have ten post-graduate degrees. Talk about an irrelevant appeal to authority! Why don't you respond to what I'm saying instead of throwing insults?





And then I responded to the bizarre characterization of what I said.

Side with "white victims"?


Ignorantly?

Ok, now I'm actually getting curious. What in the precise **** do you think you are talking about regarding me? Who are these "white victims" and how am I siding with them?

So who are these "white victims" with whom I'm supposedly siding, how am I siding with them, and how do your claimed degrees explain why you seem to be acting as if a specific subset of sociology papers should be treated as objectively valid as a hard science paper?

How do these papers make me incorrect in asserting that if Group A runs institutions that disadvantage Group B, that does not necessarily make everyone in Group A complicit; here: a racist?

You haven't said much other than to insult people who disagree with you. That is bad. The most that can be read from your posts non-insult-wise is that you think every white person who doesn't agree with the article in the OP is a racist or ignorant or stupid. I could call you names too, but that wouldn't convince you that you're wrong now would it?

So how am I wrong in saying I'm not a racist as the author of the WaPo bit claims to be or complicit in this supposed "racism"? Could you actually explain yourself? If you're so blatantly correct in your beliefs, you should have no problem cutting me down to size in seconds. With argument, not insults.







Oh, wait, there was an intervening response to the bit about your "white victims" nonsense:

The concept does not claim that. Your ignorance of the concept and adoption of the "white victim" narrative is showing, again.

An insult again?

See the above comments. You are behaving this way towards someone who actually IS concerned about racism and who regularly argues with other DP members about ongoing racism. You are showing me that I should simply scroll past your posts.

What's more important? Putting me in my place or making a point you have yet to articulate?
 
Last edited:
And this is the internet, where I could have ten post-graduate degrees. Talk about an irrelevant appeal to authority!

I've met members in person. I've given members my real name, my MSc thesis and some PhD work is published. There's no need to call me a liar.

Your question was do I understand the difference between hard and soft science. Does one need invent grad school to prove that? Absurd.
 
Last edited:
You're the anti intellectual. Case closed.

Lol...rock on with your "arts" degree. How many times do you have to be proven wrong? I'm guessing infinite.
 
Your response was a citation to degrees, not an argument.

And this is the internet, where I could have ten post-graduate degrees. Talk about an irrelevant appeal to authority! Why don't you respond to what I'm saying instead of throwing insults?

I've met members in person. I've given members my real name. There's no need to call me a liar.




Then it's a good thing I didn't call you a "liar" but instead noted that you made an anonymous appeal to authority rather than an actual argument, isn't it?

I haven't seen one single argument regarding why the article in the OP is correct from you. I've only seen insults and appeals to authority.



Your choice.

:shrug:
 
What?
"Definition of sociology
1 :the science of society, social institutions, and social relationships; specifically :the systematic study of the development, structure, interaction, and collective behavior of organized groups of human beings
2 :the scientific analysis of a social institution as a functioning whole and as it relates to the rest of society"
right from the dictionary.

It's not a science. Sorry. I'll ask you a question, though...do you get a BA or a BS in sociology?
 
Lol...rock on with your "arts" degree. How many times do you have to be proven wrong? I'm guessing infinite.

MSc (Master of Science). PhD interdisciplinary ecology. Not "arts".

Claiming sociology is not science is patented anti intellectualism.
 
Back
Top Bottom