Originally Posted by segovius
Err...because they don't?
I'm a Leftist and I don't pretend to stand for nothing. Nor do any Leftists I know. So that seems nonsensical.
The rally cited, the website and movement attempting to be cultivated by them are not figments of my imagination. The links are there.
Re uninformed populaces: some are, some aren't. Some don't want to be. Some refuse to be.
Still..the tools are out there to inform yourself...you need a brain but other than that it's do-able.
As you note, the tools are there. So why then does one side of the political spectrum continually claim ignorance and misinformation is the reason their agenda isn't supported by the broad populace? They should stop insulting people and start trying to convince them on merits.
Which group? Which agenda? Whatyoutalkingaboutwillis?
Did you click any of the several links in the post?
Oh, I get it...it's the rally....right. That was funny actually...looks like it hit the mark too...
The mark it hit was standing for nothing as a measure of sanity and/or fear. Please feel free to elaboration on your contention.
Maybe people are just pissed off with wingers changing the definition of words to avoid dialogue?
That's how I read it.
There it is, the misinformation argument. Perhaps when people disagree, they haven't been fooled or mislead, perhaps they actually encounter all the same information, process it, and wait for it.....................come to a different conclusion.
Hard to believe I know, but it is more believable then people are pissed because these bad guys keep changing the definitions of words, so let's just avoid words.
Some people are ignorant. Or they behave in an ignorant manner more properly.
This is true. Like when the delegates at the last conference signed petitions to ban water, that is behaving in an ignorant manner. Too bad they are supposedly the informed ones.
I would class this ignorant behaviour as not debating the issues.
Person A produces an alleged fact.
Person B changes the definition of the words.
This is ignorance. Both should work to prove the truth...there will be a 'loser' for want of a better word but you move on to the next alleged fact. And maybe learn something.
What if person B cites the definition of the word and is proclaimed by person A to be ignorant since their conclusion is different, even while using official definitions?
Some people don't want to play like that though: they want to widen the goals, rewrite the rulebook, run the replay cam, buy the referee and control the scoreboard.
They also want to exert power by alleging those actions even when they aren't happening. False allegations are a form of violence and power too, are they not?
Perhaps the definitions aren't being changed. Perhaps one party has blinders on and only want to see limited information presented in a limited fashion in hopes of limiting the conclusions that can be drawn. Classic GIGO.
Heehehheh I get it now!!! Wow!!
Your stage one was "change the meaning of the words"
My stage one was starting a thread by Roubini noting that Dems were toast in 2010 due to Democratic lies and lack of economic growth.
Then they responded with not labelling!! So that tactic was out!!
They responded by being delusional and losing 63 House seats or having half of Europe face default and bond rating downgrades while watching their currency be destroyed.
Now we're at "they refuse to define things!!!!!"
Now that people have figured out who to point the finger at, they want a new identity but first, they want to engage in some nice double-talk/double-think whereby we say, how about no one has an identity anymore.
It is indeed classic. It's called how you can manage to keep advocating the wrong solution again even while being so wrong the first time. Sort of like communism and socialism everywhere it has been tried. Another example is something like changing Global Warming to Climate Change. They've definitely widened, the goal posts (cooling is warming, warming is warming, weather is warming except for when you use it, etc.)
Won't work...you'd have to use facts, reason and debate...ain't gonna happen.
Yes because the group that wants to stand for nothing and use no labels is the one actually tossing out all the labels, like you are ignorant, sexist, hateful, greedy, etc. The fact is they want apathy instead of engagement. The reason is because they've been found out, tossed from office and now want to be credible to bring back the same failed worldview again and debate, they don't want that because it is "hyper-partisan" which is of course another nice label they are using while opposing them.
Peaceful protest is burning, looting and harming others. Peace is attacking your own country as a "revolutionary". If you end up killing half the poor to help the remaining half, that is just the price to be paid. Just ask Mao, Stalin or any other egg breaker out there.