Scandinavia and the World

Comments #9776419:

Play date 3 7, 6:31pm


"Actually, I speak some Norwegian. I have some friends over there, and they find my pronunciation hilarious."

Don't kid yourself - you don't have friends. But I do imagine people regularly laugh at you - but usually behind your back.

"You're aware that the whole 'tantrum' thing is not making you look any better, by the way?"

I wouldn't worry about how I look if I where you. I'm not the one who can't make friends because I'm a dick.
But I understand it's the projection talking. Everyone else has a problem - not you.

"Oh, and 'were', not 'where'. Wouldn't normally point it out, but the irony of you making a mistake whilst berating me for making a mistake is... hilarious. So thanks for that, too."

Haha! I'm not the one who started berating people for their spelling of a non-native language - YOU WHERE.
Then I gave you ONE sentence in Swedish, of which you translated ONE WORD - and promptly got that wrong - and to prove my point I pointed that out.
Now just imagine how many spelling mistakes you would be making, if you like me had to express yourself in a non-native language?

Which was my entire point - you're being a dick because you continue to use the advantage you have of having English as your native tongue in this conversation.

You don't HAVE to be a dick - you CHOSE to be a dick.

I don't - you can look through hundreds of my post here and you'll be hard pressed to find me ever ridiculing people for their spelling errors.
And the same goes for my comments in my native tongue - I don't do that, because I understand not everyone has the same advantage as I have.

But you, you CHOSE to be a dick. Which is a telling sign of why you're having problems making friends.

"And that is exactly my point - giving reasons why tyranny *will* happen is not the same as saying that tyranny *should* happen. Knowing that tyranny is the default which must be opposed reminds people to be on guard from it. "

Again with the semantic nonsense. You've never ever said anything about how tyranny must be opposed before. Everything you've written so far only normalizes tyranny and authoritarianism and that is why you're a useful idiot for those forces.
In your intellectual masturbation, it's more important to you to claim you're semantically correct in the use of words, then it is to support democracy.
That's why the forces of authoritarianism love idiots like you - your comments only aid them in their campaign against democracy, as you don't clearly take a stand for it and against them.

"True, false, and true. It's a mistake sandwich! A society in which people are free is an anomaly - which is precisely why it must be defended so strongly. Because it might never come back if it's lost. Voting is often a waste of time - anyone with a basic grounding in public choice theory can tell you that - but if you think voting is the only way to effect change, you're flat wrong. But I did not - nor would I - say that one should not resist tyranny."

Again - you've never ever before expressed any support for democracy - and in fact you're still not doing so, as you still refuse to use the term.

"A society in which people are free" - that's how all tyrannies have always defended their own tyranny, by claiming their citizens are in fact more free then in democracies.

Free from the "confusion" of open debate, "free" from the exploitation of market economy, "free" from social developments that threaten the old order and so on.

"See - our people in the Soviet Union are free from all those terrible things in the decadent democratic west!" - that was the Soviet propaganda, for example.
And you won't even use the name of democracy while you pretend to defend it now.

""If we decide that foreign aid is ineffective, and does not raise living standards, then we are condemning people in the poorer countries to a life of degrading poverty, squalor and disease."

The argument, of course, is fallacious because facts do not depend on 'should'. If aid doesn't work, it is better to know that now, so that we can find other ways of helping the poor. So too for voting. Facts must be determined in the absence of moral concerns, so that on the basis of these facts, one can decide what *should* be done. It is this that you seem to be incapable of."

Your argument is of course worthless, as you base it on a quote you don't source.
There is no proof anyone but you ever wrote that sentence, and if they did there is no way for any of us to see if you've taken the quote completely out of context.

But what we do know for a fact is that you've falsified quotes before - so why should anyone believe a word you're saying now?

"Facts must be determined in the absence of moral concerns, so that on the basis of these facts, one can decide what *should* be done. It is this that you seem to be incapable of."

And there you're right back to spouting authoritarian propaganda. Because one can of course NOT chose between tyranny and democracy without "moral concerns" - as that by definition would be immoral!
Democracy is of course the only morally acceptable choice and your argument that we should ignore morality is therefore an argument for authoritarianism and immorality.

Putin would be so proud of you right now!

"I must be being misled by all those 'actual statistics' from 'published sources' that support my position. Academia is, after all, a well known bastion of Republicanism. Online magazines with open political affiliations are fare more trustworthy.

Seriously, you think I'm wrong? Fine. I'm happy to be wrong. Give me a source that proves it - because the sources you've cited so far... don't. You think I'm cherrypicking? Show me the data I've missed."

"All those 'actual statistics' from 'published sources' that support my position" is in fact one survey done by Pew, that shows that the Republicans in that survey where better at correctly identifying things like "Which party is generally considered more supportive of oil drilling in the Arctic Wildlife Refuge?".

Against that you have any number of surveys that clearly shows that Republican are far more likely to believe DEMONSTRABLY FALSE things - which also happen to be staples of the propaganda they're feed through right-wing media.
I've already given you sources which you've refused to acknowledge, here are some more you can ignore, to prove how open to facts you are:

Now the truth is of course that no amount of sources from me will ever see you change your position, as you'll just cherrypick the proof you need to continue claiming your partisan beliefs. You've already proven as much by doing it with the first sources I posted.

"And Hitler ate sugar. Analysing and questioning whether the source of particular information has an agenda is also a basic part of critical thinking.

By the way, Fox News is *also* a mainstream media source."

It might be - if the source in any way decided over the information, but in the cases you protested that wasn't the case.

MSNBC didn't tell Republicans coming on their shows what to say, and you're only attacking the platform - not the message the guests actually expressed there.
I.E. your NOT actually "analysing and questioning" the source of the information - you're attacking the platform it was voiced on, because you - as a partisan right-winger - believes that if anything is said on MSNBC, that's enough to discredit that entire message.

But it's obviously not, and your claim of doing any analysis or questioning of the source is just blatant bullshit.

The same for the Guardian - I've posted articles from them describing scientific studies.
But you can't attack the actual finding of the study, so you simply pretend that the fact that the Guardian wrote an article about the study makes the study partisan.

Again - just complete bullshit from you, there isn't a shred of credibility to the "argument" you're making.

And Slate - that was an article not written by some journalist on Slate, it was a contribution by a professor of psychology.
Yet you try to claim his academic expertise is worthless, because it was published in a magazine you dislike for partisan reason.

And finally and obviously - no, Fox New is obviously not just another "mainstream media source" - it's a right-wing propaganda outlet.

And from this article, let me highlight this passage:

"In fairness, there are solid, straight-down-the-middle reporters at Fox such as Chris Wallace, Bret Baier, and Shepherd Smith, and a few, increasingly marginalized, commentators such as Charles Krauthammer, Ralph Peters, and Steve Hayes who are critical of Trump. But their work is drowned out by the screeching chorus of Trump toadies that dominates Fox's evening and morning schedule."

I agree - there are a few voices of reality still on Fox New, but note that of the mentioned above Charles Krauthammer has died since this article was written - and Ralph Peters has left the network in disgust and is now openly calling it a "destructive propaganda machine":

In short - this is the real face of Fox News, compared with something else you might call mainstream news outlet, since this kind of coverage is apparently just fine according to you:

"But no, both MSNBC and the Guardian are reasonably reliable, you can generally trust them not to actually be lying or anything. But that wasn't my point. My point was that they are both openly supportive of the Democratic party, and thus can often be expected to report things in a way that favours the Democratic party. Which means that whilst the facts may be true, they may be selected to form a particular narrative. You yourself being a supporter of the Democratic party, your use of these sources rather suggests that the media you consume is selected in order to confirm your own existing beliefs, rather than to challenge them."

Ah yes, like you've done before you actually backtrack when you get pushback.
Your first blatant lie didn't get past, so then you try to moderate your message to seem reasonable - but while you're still actually arguing the same false point.
You're still trying to impugn the message simply based on the platform it's from, in the desperate attempt to label all mainstream media as biased.
Which again is precisely what the Nazi's, Soviets and now Trump's right-wing propaganda machine is going.
The Nazi's called it "Lügenpresse", the propaganda claim that all newspaper critical of the Nazis where only printing lies. Donald Trump calls it "fake news". It's the EXACT SAME THING!

And because of right-wing propaganda 42% of Republicans now believe that accurate - but negative - stories qualify as "fake news":

Let that sink in to your claim of Republicans being "better informed". 42% of them actually believe true information is not true - if it is negative of their beloved leader.
These are NOT by any stretch of the imagination "well informed" voters - these are willfully delusional voters, and you're carrying water for the same right-wing propaganda here by pretending as if a non-right-wing platform automatically discredits all information on it.

Your fantasy about whom I support or what media I consume is entirely besides the point and just another attempt at diverting from you false claim.
The platform still doesn't automatically disqualify the message - however much you wish to push that right-wing propaganda claim.

"Note that at no point did I say that the message in those particular videos was biased. I am critiquing you, not your argument, since I have already made my reply to your arguments."

Again with the semantic bullshit argument. You haven't provided any rational critique of any argument I've posted - all you've done is claim that the sources aren't credible and ignored what they're saying, instead relying on your cherry picked sources.

"I read it regularly. But it also created a letter-writing campaign to support the Democrats in the 2004 election. The fact that they openly admit their agenda makes the Guardian in many ways more trustworthy than if they tried to hide it, but the agenda still exists."

As I don't believe a word you're saying that claims means nothing. You're a proven liar, so why should anyone trust you?
Also, even if that claim would be true - how does that automatically make any news printed by the Guardian biased?
You're still not arguing against the actual source for the information - you're only claiming anything published by the Guardian can't be trusted. Or in other words - you're saying it's all "fake news".

"I mean Slate, of course. I'm sorry. Vice is another Democrat-leaning e-zine, and I got them mixed up in my head... you should try Vice, you might like it."

Well as I noted before, the article in Slate I linked to wasn't written by a journalist, but a professor of psychology.
But I guess the mere fact that anything was published in Slate is proof enough to you it must be "fake news" then.
Because information negative to the Republicans and Trump must be "fake news".

Yeah - I understand completely where you're coming from. But unfortunately it's not an argument that convince anyone outside of your narrow partisan trench, mind you.

"Wow. You went full Godwin. Congrats! You lose! Argument over!"

Actually not.
Godwin's Law is nothing more then the claimed probability that Reductio ad Hitlerum will eventually occur in a discussion online.
And Reductio ad Hitlerum in turn doesn't prohibit one from making apt comparisons to Hitler or the Nazis.
And of course, the comparison I made:

"And I reiterate; attacking the free press - instead of being able to critique what the free press actually says - is a hallmark of extremists.
From the Nazi's and the far-right to the Soviet states to now Trump - and tiny little you."

is completely apt.

Because just as the Nazi's, the far-right, the Soviet states and Trump you attack free media not with a critique of what it actually reports - but simply because it reports things you don't want to hear.
To you the Guardian, MSNBC or Slate is what the Nazis called "Lügenpresse", or Trump calls "fake news" - always untrustworthy when they report unflattering news.

But it's very common these days, among those who seek to defend authoritarianism, to claim Godwin's Law (or more correctly Reductio as Hitlerum) as some sort of magical defense against all comparisons to Naziism (even if I in this case didn't only point to Naziism, but all manner of extremism).
But when the comparison is apt - as in this case - the only reason for that defense is of course to shield the relevant parties from justifiable criticism.

Or to put it even simpler, so you might understand: I'm in no way saying you or Trump are like Hitler or the Soviets in any other way here.
I'm simply pointing out that you all share the same propaganda technique of painting all unflattering media coverage as false, because you can't actually mount a coherent criticism of the actual content of the media in question.
Which in turn is a strong sign the media coverage in question is most likely true.
Because if you could counter it with any better argument then sticking your fingers in you ears and shouting "It's all LIES!" at the top of your lungs, you would obviously do so - as anything more then that would be a far more convincing argument.

But claiming bias in all unflattering media is all you have of course, as the facts aren't on your side.

"(Before I go, though, that stuff about how people respond to me... that is *really* detailed. Like this is something you've been through. Please tell me if there's anything I can do to help. Seriously, I know you might interpret this as mockery, but it's not. You may be a little abrasive, but I genuinely don't want you to be unhappy.)"

Yes, it is really detailed.
That's because I used to work in a psychiatric ward, so I've seen what people like you look like up close when they end up there.
Which many do as they become older and their ability to make meaningful connections to other humans becomes a crippling problem.

In their teens and 20's most of these people can employ coping mechanism that get them trough the day.
Like your projections here. It's everyone else's fault you can't make friends - not yours.

Some are able to carry on like that for their entire lives, as emotionally stunted and lonely, but outwardly still functioning members of society.

While others eventually crash and end up in a psychiatric ward.
Which really isn't the worst scenario, after all.
For many, crashing like that is the best thing that could happen to them, as it's a first step for them to realize their own problems and get professional help.

The ones who waste their lives away isolated and lonely because they can't make meaningful human connections and refuse to ever acknowledge their own behavior is the problem are the ones who are truly fucked.

America wearing England's shirt