Message from @Leaf Supremacist
Discord ID: 488734808621580298
wel see what happens i predict that sweden will become even more leftist in the next elections
We can't vote away such deeply rooted corruption
I mean the entire system needs reform
reform isn't possible
literally ripped up by the roots reform. I have ideas for a more responsive system with some unchangable tenants in the constitution such as "Only natives have the right to vote, only natives can hold govormental position, natives are only people descended from the native stock of the country"
etc.
If those are unchangable you literally cant fuck up that country
Also in Hungary you can see how to actually move the system towads nationalism properly, Jobeck (Is that his name) played an excellent game by shifting a lot of people farther to the right even to the extreme, forcing Orban to also shift to the right and is holding him responsible
its damn interesting
Also
Styxxess chnell is banned in Poland lol
I think Poland might be seeing the first wave of nationalist censorship to some degree
>increase in vote of 5%
>THE CENTRE IS DEAD
boiz
who won the swedish elections ?
nobody
there’s no government yet so nobody’s won
unless you mean whoever got the most seats in which case the social democrats
I can't comprehend the pure evil of raping a little girl then desposing of her dead corpse by feeding her to customers
**kebab store owner**
In Poland we had a situation where a musim kebab store owner shanked a kid to death when he insulted them after paying for a soda
just took the knife and bipped him 20 some times
the local populace nearly burned them alive in the store
Also serious question here
well we aren’t in <#452955229227319306> for nothing!
In debates we often here of the burden of proof, however I find that this along with the use of claiming logical fallacies is a method by which to shirk an equally important part of the debate, the burden of rebuttal. BEcause when one position is asserted, or argued with logic and is consistent and presents some logical basis by which it can be eveluated it has some value, however when one denies this with whatever fallacy they find helpful in the moment, and then deamands sources or shirks the burden of rebuttal.
The logic is this
P1 "Makes claim X, uses supporting logic based on basic knolwedge or simply logic" (Argument has value)
P2: "I dont believe your claim, also thats a logical fallacy Y, provide sources or you are wrong"
P1: "I gave a logical example, I will explain why this is not a fallacy or expand my position, cna you disprove my position."
P2: "Burden of proof is on you bucko, thats a fallacy that I have any burden." (P2's statement, even if it is negative of the position of P1, has less value as it is not argued for, nor does it have evidence presented.
There is also I see an issue of people throwing out demands for citations and evidence when a theory is based or an argument is based off of the conclusion of knowledge that the person has prior to the discussion. And then presents this in their argument.
It all seems like very disingenious argumentation and I feel like we should acknowledge that there is a burden of rebuttal because if P1 is simply an assertion, and P2 that they dont believe that assertion and dismiss it, or say its stupid and wrong without any argument to the contrary, then both statements have equal value.
Sorry for the long post but its just been getting to me when debating leftists that they constantly use hitchens razor, which in itself is written incorectly because it essentially falsifies itself. or rather removes its own value. Then there is this extreme appeal to authority and basing and throwing their own opinion and thoughts in line of the authority. Its absurd and obnoxious as all fuck
Most of them just start shouting fallacy as soon as you put any argument forward anyway, tbh
The progressives and especially the communists view you as a fucking threat to society which should be shamed, unemployed and homeless just for having an opinion thats not mainstream and right wing.
They don't like debating. Not because they think they will lose but because they don't think normalization of right wing views should fall on them
Also I saw this argumentation style used in a video with JFG, frame games and liberal sanity project. He didnt use fallacies however he simply ran around squaking about citations and authority and not being able to question it. It seems like wo models, the above would be the leftist atheist model, and the second i just described the typical progressive.
It doesn't matter if you're an Neo-Reactionary, It doesn't matter if you're a paleocon, it doesn't matter matter if you work for ICE, it doesn't matter if you're simply against communism, in their eyes, you should be killed.
Anything left of them is a NaHzeE
@FearAndTrembling tbh, I think this graph explains why leftists don't like civil discourse
The percentages are for support of all speech
Haha
Doesn't surprise me