You mean the 'Vaush talks over and interrupts everyone then complains if anyone gets a 1 in 5 minutes of airtime" show?

I have been unable to listen to debate lately, the lack of logic hurts my head sometimes.

Yep. What a spergmeister.

He is the very embodiment of Sargon's Law.

The projection was so real, he could point himself at a wall and show off PowerPoint presentations.

what is Sargon's Law?

I'd like to run debates on a chess clock to guarantee both parties get equal time.

now that would be a very good idea!

"When an ideologue makes a character attack against you, that character attack is usually true about themselves." —Sargon's Law

Oh, nice.

i'm surprised someone didn't claim that one sooner.

Agnosticism = I don't know if God exists.
Atheism = There is no God
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/465029567741034507/651277396439203860/20191202_222034.jpg

it seems to be the US democrats mode of operation.

Sargon's Law goes back to at least 2015.

I have (and yes this is autistic as fuck) used a chess clock to time online debates and the share of time used. 90% of the time the guy who is complaining they did not "get to finish their point" used more time than the person they were arguing against.

ha

Kek.

I hate when people do that "would you let me finish" *rants about being interruped few moments*

Gish galloping.

And gaslighting.

or stand around saying nothing for a rather long time.

That's the thing a chess clock is egalitarian. It does not care what you do with your time. It only cares that both parties have the same amount of time.

Vaush was that tiny dog that, when someone slams a door in the next county, starts barking and won't shut the fuck up for the next two weeks.

You can think on your opponent's clock. You can make a stupid move quickly to save time. You can choose where and when to spend your time. But nobody gets any more time than anyone else.

Indeed.

You guys watch the office ?

i don't

Damn

@SuperHeroDeluxe
>people have been tricked into thinking every distribution of wealth is socialist, nope
Redistribution of wealth is an essential part of the definition of socialism.

There are two fundamental ideas of socialism.
1) Redistribution of wealth
2) Collectivization of the means of production
Without either of those ideas, it can't possibly be socialist

"Redistribution of wealth" is a rather broad term and could mean any form of taxes.

Technically you could also collectivize property and that could perhaps be considered socialist as well (if it is done involuntarily), but since it is possible to surrender property *voluntarily* to the public, property going into public ownership is not neccessarily socialist, it can just be trade (capitalism) or a donation (neither capitalism nor socialism).

only if the taxes are used to provide goods to people

food stamps are redistribution

roads are not

No, redistribution of wealth is any form of redistribution, even when it happens upwards

depends on who you ask.

If the poor are taxed and all the spoils go to the rich, that's also socialist.

well yeah

that's what such systems always end up being

just look at any socialist nation <:transdank:462401354745249792>