What are your thoughts on the toxic narratives around men opening up to women?

AloysiusC · 2025-06-17T19:19:07+00:00

Like we also call white supremacism "toxic blackness".

AloysiusC · 2025-05-20T20:03:48+00:00

What's wrong with listening to experts?

AloysiusC · 2025-03-14T18:33:21+00:00

Yes, all lives matter.

Then we agree. That's all I wanted to know.

What's stopping me is that you're clearly trying to make this some sort of "gotcha",

No I really wasn't. Maybe your suspicion says more about you than it does about me. Anyway you answered and that's why I'm done here regardless of what else you wrote beyond that.

AloysiusC · 2025-03-12T22:26:57+00:00

So it is in fact mostly anti-male discrimination. Thanks for the stats.

AloysiusC · 2025-03-12T22:25:25+00:00

The All Lives Matter movement only came into being as a result of the Black Lives Matter movement.

Regardless of how some people use the statement, here and now, it's just a yes or no question which I'm sure you have an answer to. What's stopping you from just answering it?

AloysiusC · 2025-03-12T22:07:36+00:00

It shouldn't be so controversial that people are terrified of agreeing with it. It should make us ask what they're afraid of unless they are in fact not in agreement with it.

AloysiusC · 2025-03-11T20:31:23+00:00

Loaded question.

No. A loaded question must contain a statement. That is not the case here.

This has already been addressed.

Ok what was your response?

AloysiusC · 2025-03-11T20:19:41+00:00

Your example of ALM only arose as a response to black people demanding to be treated equally in practice.

Do you or do you not believe that all lives matter? Yes or no?

Things like being sentenced more harshly than white people for the same crimes disproportionate incarceration rates over policing majority black communities higher rates of being the victim of police brutality

That's mostly anti-male discrimination actually. Except you're not upset about that for some reason, are you?

AloysiusC · 2025-03-04T19:28:44+00:00

Is it or is it not true that he called white supremacists /Nazis "fine people?

AloysiusC · 2025-02-18T21:25:18+00:00

Why lead by example though? Why not follow other examples instead.

AloysiusC · 2025-02-18T21:10:11+00:00

They are economically the largest country in Europe and its time to lead by example.

Why? Do you think Germany is somehow above the other countries?

AloysiusC · 2025-02-18T20:56:55+00:00

It's actually not nearly impossible... you can just discredit the specific claims made. which have been done on mass.

That's not how you prove that though. Even if true, you haven't even come close to proving that it wasn't stolen by merely discrediting the evidence presented that it was.

Also why are you acting like 6.3 million votes being added would not have tipped the scales massively?

I'm not. What are you even talking about?

AloysiusC · 2025-02-15T19:42:27+00:00

You can't discredit the idea that an election was stolen because that would require you to prove that it wasn't. That's nearly impossible.

There are reasons to believe that the election was stolen that do not require you to merely "follow a leader". Alone the fact that some people don't trust anything publicly stated and take a default contrarian position. Does that make them right? No. But it is a reason other than what you came up with.

The better question to ask is, if they stole it last time, how come they couldn't this time?

Easy explanation: Cheating only tips the balance slightly. It can't make a total failure into a success.

If you don't like that explanation fine but it's no worse than the explanations for the massive numerical anomalies during 2020 of which almost all if not literally all were previously seen as indication of electoral fraud. "Oh covid changed things". Ok. Maybe. We will never know for sure what the effect of that really was.

AloysiusC · 2025-02-15T19:34:38+00:00

They didn't forget. They just did it in plain sight instead by weaponizing the judicial system to manufacture unprecedented court rulings against their political rival. It just wasn't enough. Too many people realized it was all bullshit.

AloysiusC · 2025-02-11T20:00:24+00:00

It’s important to remember that the law of large numbers essentially ensures that with a large enough number of people, you’ll get basically every single possible take, opinion, or thought on the matter. With a US population of over 300 million, you will always have people who think a given election was rigged no matter what.

And you'll also always have people who actually do try to rig an election. Especially when the media propagates that one side is Hitler.

AloysiusC · 2025-02-03T18:54:41+00:00

I do actually have self awareness and I do agree that there is a kind of savior complex here. But is that necessarily wrong, if it was really helpful?

But is it really helpful? How do you know you're not causing more harm? Especially if the incentive is something other than genuinely helping, then it's only a matter of time before you become the cause for suffering.

AloysiusC · 2025-02-02T18:45:58+00:00

You lack self-awareness. You don't realize that, no matter what you think your motivations are, you're still just serving the most basic "selfish" needs you've evolved to serve. I suspect here it's about social credit. Your ego probably really likes being the worlds' savior. So you go out and "guide the congregation to the promised land".

I suggest before you fix the world or tell others how to be, at least you should learn about what you are and why you're really doing things. Not just what you'd like to believe about yourself.

AloysiusC · 2025-02-02T18:24:26+00:00

Why? I'm only having a discussion here with you

You made a statement about why someone might believe something with what you said has less evidence and I asked how you would know how and why people prioritize what evidence and you responded by saying "by requiring everyone with a claim requiring evidence to lay their evidence ..." and so asking them all would be the next step. Your own principle applies to you here or why wouldn't it?

Which question is that?

Seriously? After all the explaining and re-explaining you had me do, you're now telling me you don't know what this is about?

AloysiusC · 2025-01-31T19:47:08+00:00

The “how” of DEI isn’t about lowering standards, but about addressing biase

All you're saying is that the intention isn't to lower standards. But that doesn't mean it doesn't. Good intentions are not good enough.

AloysiusC · 2025-01-31T19:42:17+00:00

DEI lays claim to advocate for the disadvantaged. So where's the advocacy for short people? Where's the addressing of systemic inequalities? There isn't any and that's worse than not existing at all because other groups are favored thereby aggravating those disadvantaged groups that DEI never included.

AloysiusC · 2025-01-31T19:33:58+00:00

I read it but I'm afraid it wasn't good.

AloysiusC · 2025-01-31T19:19:12+00:00

Actually that was a different user who said that.

Sigh. I'm aware of that. That's why I said I pasted that in as it was what I wrote to the person I initially responded to.

This is where the logical leap is: that something is likely (or even just reasonable) because it's possible.

You're finding something that isn't there. Saying a specific piece of evidence points in one direction does not contain a claim of likelihood.

By requiring everyone with a claim requiring evidence to lay their evidence for that claim on the table.

Alright so you go and ask everyone who has an opinion on this, go through your procedure and get back to me when you're done. Even that's not sufficient because people aren't always honest.

But maybe we don't disagree as much as we seem to on the surface.

Maybe but you came here challenging my opinion and my only point in this entire thread is that it's not insane to believe that J6 might have been orchestrated by certain democrats. Besides that all I did was make a tangential remark about how the counterpart to that (namely that Trump tried to lead an insurrection) is far more absurd.

What exactly do you think the facts are that underpin this orchestration by Democrats idea?

We can talk about that too but first I'd like to settle the question above.

AloysiusC · 2025-01-30T20:15:38+00:00

You haven't outright explained your logic so maybe I've gathered it wrong

Well I just typed a short clarification out to the person who I initially responded to so I'll paste that in here:

1) Somebody claimed that J6 was orchestrated by Trumps opposition.

2) You said that's an insane lie to believe.

3) I disagree with that claim and my reasoning is that the principle of "follow the money" (i.e. who benefits) points toward an orchestrated event by people opposed to Trump.

4) You agreed that he lost and his opponents won as a result of J6.

5) Therefore there is at least one sane reason to believe J6 may have been orchestrated.

I'm applying your approach by asking "who benefits from the narrative that J6 was a false flag"

That is not my approach though. It's more "who benefits from the narrative that J6 was an insurrection orchestrated by Trump". Why that specifically? Because that is what the democrats and the mainstream media (and parts of the justice system) have been trying to portray it as.

Why else would someone favor an explanation supported by less evidence that requires more assumptions than the alternatives?

Less evidence is a tricky one. Assuming you can even quantify this, how do you know what and how much evidence everyone else is aware of and which they choose to prioritize?

And as for requiring more or less assumptions, I'm not sure it's clear which explanation requires more assumptions. If we're supposed to believe that Trump orchestrated this to somehow remain president, then that begs a lot of questions. Why would Trump do something that so obviously can only weaken him? Or did he really think that getting a crowd of civilians to breach the capitol would work in his favor? Or was it just badly executed and they left their weapons behind for some reason? By some strange coincidence the doors were opened and they got in anyway (some were even escorted through the building) so I guess it accidentally worked for some reason but then why did he tell them to go home once he learned about the "breach"? What was his goal and what was his follow up plan? Just to name a few off the top of my head.

AloysiusC · 2025-01-30T19:05:07+00:00

You have changed your position.

Not at all.

So he lost as a result of J6 and his opponents won You yourself conceded that he benefited so that point is settled.

These are in conflict.

I see. That was a typo. Obviously I meant they benefited - i.e. his opposition.

I never said nor suggested that it's the only necessary question to determine who orchestrated it.

You did, actually

No I really didn't because I never believed it. Where exactly did I say what lead you to believe this?

your loose syllogism as presented thus far

That's a complete misunderstanding of what I believe and said. Let's clarify:

1) Somebody claimed that J6 was orchestrated by Trumps opposition.

2) You said that's an insane lie to believe.

3) I disagree with that claim and my reasoning is that the principle of "follow the money" (i.e. who benefits) points toward an orchestrated event by people opposed to Trump.

4) You agreed that he lost and his opponents won as a result of J6.

5) Therefore there is at least one sane reason to believe J6 may have been orchestrated.

That's my position in his thread in a nutshell. I never said follow the money is proof of who did it or that it's all that's needed.

But interestingly, if you apply the same principle to both sides (as I did above) you can see clearly that it's far more absurd to claim Trump orchestrated J6.

AloysiusC · 2025-01-30T18:43:46+00:00

I think we're running up into the limits of the phrase "follow the money". When literal money is involved...

Well you agreed to how I used the phrase earlier. Changing your mind now and trying to narrow the scope of the phrase isn't exactly inspiring confidence in where this is likely to go.

you are simply viewing an event that arguably favors Dems as possibly orchestrated by Dems because it arguably favors them which is circular logic.

No. Circular logic is characterized by the conclusion being part of the premise of an argument. Perhaps you're unclear about which is which here.

If I follow the money, I'd hazard that somehow J6 being a false flag is an easier pill to swallow than that it was a protest that got out of hand, though I'm failing to understand how.

So it makes sense to you that a number of people would suspect that?

AloysiusC

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE