DC protest-01/06/2021

Discussion in 'Human Science' started by sculptor, Jan 6, 2021.

  1. pjdude1219 The biscuit has risen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,313
    no you don't. you repeat conspiracy theories.
    by weaker you mean a less democratic us which would be a bad bad thing for the world. also as proven to you you chosen peaceful states of russia and china are just as if not more aggressive than the us.
    which is why continue to push the same fucking conspiracy theories that caused this?
    your cotinued pushing of conspiracy theories says other wise.
    you don't even understand why or how the US got involved in everything

    no you don't you relentlessly attack the dems and push rightwing conspiracy theories. the only time you ever mention the republicans is your bad attempts to pretend you aren't doing what you are doing. the US isn't a violent murderous state. that would be the ones you support
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,003
    That dude seems to think that naming something a "conspiracy theory" is a strong argument. LOL. Conspiracies happen in reality too.
    The US is a violent murderous state, who has murdered millions in Iraq, Afghanistan (started by Reps presidents), Libya, Syria, Kosovo, Ukraine (started by Dems presidents). There is nothing comparable done by Russia or China.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    35,782
    If I've got something wrong about you, you are here to correct the record. At least, for now.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. origin Heading towards oblivion Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,169
    How about Russia in Afghanistan? How about Russia in Syria. What a clown...
     
  8. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,848
    They just got a late start this round. Their huge domestic terrorism campaigns slowed them down internationally.

    Besides, if you look at the comparative sizes of your examples you'll notice how much smaller the stuff you think you can ascribe to Dems is - Russia and China can both boast of recent atrocities on the scale of Kosovo, and Russia of course has immediate involvement in Syria and Ukraine.
    Both Russia and China have conquered and annexed territory, for example - a larger crime than Kosovo no matter who is blamed.
     
    Last edited: Jan 21, 2021
  9. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,848
    It isn't.
    Your source, for example, the major Western propaganda operation for the past forty years or more, is all but obsessed with the concept, and spreads it everywhere. Unfortunately (for you) they have no coherent idea what it is (as far as they care it's a focus group vetted propaganda term) - so you don't either.

    The most likely candidates would be the rightwing corporate authoritarian interests who profit from military endeavors as well as other global political ventures - but you ruled them out long ago, instead assigning them their propaganda status as victims. So who's left?
     
  10. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,003
    You have distributed several lies about me in http://www.sciforums.com/threads/the-trump-presidency.158659/page-267#post-3661574
    This suggests that I would have claimed somewhere that all those in the Capitol were antifa provocateurs or so. Of course, this is not so, and, of course, I have never even suggested such nonsense. Provocateurs are always a small minority. They are always hidden, pretend to be supporters of the other side which they really want to harm. Their aim is to motivate the supporters of the other side to do inadequate things, like in this case to storm the Capitol, which would predictably harm the interests of the other side. So, if provocateurs succeed, the situation would look like they wanted to have it - the Trump supporters storm the Capitol and destroy in this way the minor remaining chances of Trump, and they would remain undetected.

    Given that I have explained this to you in my answer, you have had all the information you need to recognize that the theory that there have been Antifa provocateurs is not even in contradiction with the facts that some, even most, of those inside the Capitol were Trump supporters. Moreover, I have not even claimed that this is a fact - all I have done is to discuss the theory that this was the result of Dem provocateurs acting, and to find this theory more plausible than other theories. Discussing theories of what happened is something very different from making claims about facts.

    Recognizing that supporters of some ideologies may appear unable to see even elementary errors in their logic if this would lead to a conflict with their ideological presuppositions, I give you the favor of doubt that you really may have been unable to understand that you have told something completely wrong about me. So, may be this was not an intentional lie from your side. But it was factually clearly and obviously wrong.

    This is the second lie. I have never threatened you.

    What I have done was to inform you that I may, under some circumstances, make the conversation with you public. This is something I feel morally obliged to inform people about in any private conversation if I plan, under some circumstances, to publish that conversation even without asking them for permission. So, I have informed you about the circumstances when I would publish that conversation (namely, if I will be banned here based on similar lies about me, without a possibility to defend myself here against those lies used to justify the ban).

    Informing you that my response, as well as all future conversations with you, may be published under some circumstances is in no way a threat. It is, instead, morally and possibly even legally obligatory information, which I'm obliged to give you if I want to have the right to publish my answer and the subsequent conversations without asking for your permission to publish. This is the complete analog of the obligation of the police to tell the people "all what you say can be used against you" before an interrogation. Can you say that you have been threatened by the police if they have told you this before an interrogation? I think not.

    A threat is only a threat if it threatens some behavior which is either illegal or at least morally wrong. Else, it is not a threat, but neutral and adequate information about my possible reaction to a repetition of your behavior.

    Extrapolating your behavior in the past (namely, your nonsensical interpretation of my information as a "threat", and your repeating the lie of "knowingly telling lies" despite my explanations why this is not a lie) , I'm aware of the danger that you will misinterpret the explanations above or what follows as another "threat" and ban me forever. If this happens, you will probably delete this post too, so that nobody will be able to see my argumentation.

    That's why I have thought about the question if it is worth to publish this. Essentially I have found that as a "science forum" this forum has lost its value years ago. The only thing which has something to do with science here is some copy-pasting from pop science articles by paddoboy. I could read them anyway, to reply to them makes no sense, so no loss. I have used this forum anyway during the last years for political discussions only. But to continue to use it for political discussions, to see the reactions of otherwise educated Western people full of the typical Western propaganda if confronted with information from outside their bubble seems, given those recent developments, impossible anyway. It looks that to survive here as a poster of political claims I would have to hide what I really think, and this is nothing I plan to do - last but not least, I post here using my real name. So, I can risk a ban. In some sense, it looks like a good test. If you ban me for this posting, it would have been useless to remain here anyway: It would be clear that there would be a moderation here which is unable or unwilling to follow elementary argumentation, which distributes warnings and bans without any connection to reality, simply for disagreement with the party line.

    So, given that I have to expect that there is a danger of being permanently banned for this posting, and this posting being deleted here, I inform you that this posting has been saved and, in this case, I will probably publish it on my own website, together with the other information about why I was banned here.

    Does it make sense to try to repeat something similar elsewhere? To find a forum dominated by the more educated (judging by some interest in science) part of the Western sheeple and to see how they react to confrontation with information from outside their bubble? Plausibly it makes no longer any sense. The decrease in the quality of the answers, the increase of personal attacks and the decrease of responses to the content was something not only visible, but even quite obvious, over the years I participated here. So, I doubt I will even try to find something similar, it is mostly loss of time anyway. The decline of the ideas of the Aufklärung in the West is now almost finished, why would one like to look how it further degenerates into complete insanity (as if all this gender insanity would not be enough)?

    Whatever, just in case, I wish you nice dreams in your Western propaganda bubble and that the awakening from them will not be too harmful for you personally. Good bye.
     
  11. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,556
    John Sullivan
    as agent provocateur
    ?
     
  12. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    35,782
    Schmelzer:

    The protesters who invaded the US Capitol are well documented. They were Trump supporters, not "Antifa" or "Dem provocateurs". I can only assume your aim in continuing to post your "theory" is to try to further widen divisions in the United States and to undermine American democracy by telling lies.

    You have a long history of posts on this forum. Most of your posts here are on political topics. Over time, consistent themes become apparent. You have been trying to enhance and exacerbate political divisions among our US membership, in particular, for years now. You have supported many of Trump's actions, and those of his supporters, that have sought to undermine US democracy and, in particular, to weaken the trust of American citizens in their own democratic institutions. At the same time, you have consistently defended the actions of Putin's authoritarian regime in Russia, as well as its extra-territorial actions (especially its war activities in Syria).

    You are, of course, welcome as a private citizen to hold whatever political opinions you like, and to support whichever political regime(s) you want to support. However, nothing obliges the administrators of this forum to support your political aims by continuing to allow you to pursue a programme of attempting to undermine western democracies, the US being your most obvious target most of the time.

    This, however, is not why you have been banned from sciforums at this time.

    Neither this forum, nor myself personally, will bow to your threats.

    Let me be clear: You do not have my permission to publish anything I have written on this forum on your own website, or elsewhere on the internet. I am the owner of the copyright to the words I have chosen to publish on sciforums. Apart from the usual legal exemptions regarding the use of copyright material, you may be held legally liable for any breach of copyright restrictions on republishing copyrighted works.

    Clearly, your aim in threatening to republish my words in some other forum, or elsewhere on the internet, is to try to limit my capacity - or the capacity of our other moderators - to apply the same standards of moderation to your postings here as are applied to every other member of this forum. These are standards by which you agreed to abide when you signed up voluntarily as a member of sciforums, but which you now seek to control by making threats of reprisal against the moderation team.

    With this action, in threatening reprisals if I do not bow to your demands, you have made your continued membership on this forum untenable. This is why I have decided to permanently terminate your membership at sciforums with immediate effect. I note that you were clearly warned about making threats, but instead of apologising or retreating from that stance, you have instead decided to double down and repeat your threat.

    Goodbye.
     
  13. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    35,782
    Moderator note: Schmelzer has been permanently banned from sciforums for trying to hold the moderation team to ransom by making threats of reprisals if he is moderated in a way he finds unsatisfactory.
     
    origin likes this.
  14. origin Heading towards oblivion Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,169
    Finally!
     
  15. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,502
    He's gone? I blocked him years ago. I highly recommend that feature for people like him.
     
  16. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,848

    -> "sculptor likes this" <-


    I don't - and part of the reason I don't is in bold.

    It's almost impossible to get someone like sculptor to post something like Schmelzer's. He has learned to deal in cryptic innuendo and Fox-questions only. And dealing with these closet cases is like nailing jello to a tree - they go only so far before their sense of self-preservation has them drop and cover. Guys like Schmelzer smoke them out (they post from the same media feed, use the same bullshit innuendo tactic, and like the lead bully on a playground create a comfort zone for the wannabes who can't quite risk sacrificing their intellectual integrity or personal self-respect).

    Sculptor, for example, not being stupid, would probably fact-check anything Tucker Carlson said about race before endorsing it - and discover that what Clarke wrote was a sendup and a pointed one (the quotes from a reasonably effective one page satirical skewering of the entire argument in the book "The Bell Curve") - so that endorsing Carlson's take would make him look like one of those people who read an Onion article and mistake it for straight news.

    Read it yourself: https://www.thecrimson.com/article/1994/10/28/blacks-seek-an-end-to-abuse/. A bit sophomoric, a bit clumsy, sure (reads like a bad edit, in the transition) - but then someone due to graduate in '97 probably was a sophomore in the fall of '94. Sophomores are allowed to be sophomoric, presumably?

    Schmelzer has no such qualms about playing the fool in public, because as a propagandist for authoritarians he doesn't get his strokes from being right or having insight but from driving the discussion toward insult and confusion (insult and confusion favors power). Plus he covered ass a bit by posting to a German language source - worse come to worst he could always claim to not care about the topic, or be dealing in what some "outside observer" in Germany thinks .

    Sculptor is not a propagandist, and has no such refuges. So that little give-away there, that little "like" for a genuinely foul little post by a genuinely foul little guy who can act the bully right up front, is the only leverage point we're going to see for days, weeks on end.
     
    Last edited: Feb 2, 2021
    sculptor likes this.
  17. pjdude1219 The biscuit has risen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,313
    are we entirely sure he wasn't a product of the russian troll farms?
     
  18. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,556
    WE?
     
  19. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,556
    Gee Ice
    thanx
    OK
    You could have been a tad more honest by posting the smelter's post in it;s entirety
    http://www.sciforums.com/threads/dc-protest-01-06-2021.163922/page-2#post-3661119
    but
    well
    that didn't happen

    Meanwhile, your post has rekindled my interest in Tucker
    especially the old stuff with Rachel, who he helped start her career at msnbc
    (the brass didn't think she was sexy enough, but Tucker insisted that they let her on his show)
    here are a few links





    Take the links..............good stuff.............................................(opine)
    OK
    Say what you will about the smelter, but I found him and his counterpoints entertaining and informative.
    Say what you will about Tucker but I found him to be a gentle man. And, Rachel said of him: Tucker and I never agreed on a single thing, but he was always kind.

    .....................
    ps
    I think that her words are a good place to end this post.
    "He was always kind."
     
  20. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,556
    but wait, there's more
    try this one


    thanks again ice for reawakening my interest
     
  21. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,288
    I have believed for some time that is exactly what he was - though it is naturally impossible to prove.

    But he's gone. Hooray!
     
  22. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,556
    conspiracy theory?
     
  23. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,288
    Nope. It is well-established fact there is a St Petersburg troll farm, used to stir up trouble on western social media.

    And our friend did seem to fit the bill. So he could have been one of them, though one can't prove it.

    That's not a conspiracy theory.
     

Share This Page