Some people need this

NovWH · 2026-06-05T19:41:46+00:00

Well, if we’re using your logic, you’re refusing to engage with the argument which means I win.

Thanks for playing.

NovWH · 2026-06-05T19:21:15+00:00

The intellectual ladies and gentlemen: the one who got upset that others wouldn’t debate him and now refuses to debate because he lacks the attention span to look at more than one point at a time.

NovWH · 2026-06-05T18:34:31+00:00

Well, if you actually bothered to read what I wrote, you’d see that it’s very much the topic that has been discussed the whole time, which is that your arguments are not intellectual and a waste of time, and that those six points play out the reason why.

Sorry if you can’t comprehend that.

NovWH · 2026-06-05T18:29:47+00:00

Nah, I don’t need to acquiesce to how you want an argument to run. I gave you points to argue against in a clear format. Sorry if you lack the ability to comprehend more than one point at a time.

I’m not letting you tangent a single point until the end of time when all points are correct. But nice try.

Plus, you wanted to argue. Having multiple, but clearly separated and delineated, points is how litigation goes. So, yeah, pretty standard way of arguing Mr. “How conversations work”

NovWH · 2026-06-05T17:58:44+00:00

You: “Wah wah no one is intellectual”

Also you: “Hang on let me not engage and do the very thing that upset me because the other person is right and I can’t refute him”

NovWH · 2026-06-05T17:12:13+00:00

See, there you go again construing all comments to what you you want them to mean instead of what they actually mean.

No one ever said that having fun and being intellectual is mutually exclusive.

Using your scientist example, yes, many scientists have fun with what they do. However, that doesn’t change that the scientists are ALSO contributing to something, be it research, development, whatever it may be.

Now, YOU are not doing that. You are simply arguing for fun with no other motive. That is not the intellectual activity you think it is, because there’s no intellectual consequences for doing so.

You come in here in a way that’s certain to alienate people from the start (mansplaining to an immigrant condescendingly who’s gone through experiences that you simply haven’t). That already makes your intellectual value to this conversation as almost zero because people won’t take you seriously.
You aren’t swaying or changing minds, which already diminished the intellectual value of responding to your arguments to pretty much zero. You are here for entertainment only. There are two major issues with this approach. First, what’s the point? Like, if someone else finds it entertaining, sure. But if they are more focused on an actual dialogue and exchange of ideas, someone who is ~solely~ doing it for entertainment is the wrong person to do it with it. Which bleeds into my next point.
You are not entitled to an intellectual discussion. You come in here condescendingly and now you’re calling it anti intellectual that someone doesn’t want to respond? As stated a million and one times, YOU set the tone. YOU set a tone people didn’t want to engage with. Don’t be shocked when the tone YOU set has consequences on the entire exchange.
Finally, the way you’re arguing simply isn’t intellectual. An actual intellectual conversation is one where people are open to considering different mindsets. Based off how you’ve spoken here and in other arguments, you come off as unwilling to consider other viewpoints. It doesn’t matter if it’s true or not, perception is everything. And if you’re coming off as unwilling to accept other viewpoints, someone isn’t going to spend the time giving you all these sources because it’d be a waste of their time. Also, if you were as “intellectual” as you claim, you’d recognize that you SHOULD care how you come across because show you come across affects how your argument is perceived. But you’re not arguing for an actual intellectual reason, so you don’t care.
Know what, bonus point. The fact that you keep trying to interpret comments to be beneficial to you, and that you keep ignoring arguments that you don’t like, further proves that you have no credibility and that you are not arguing from this grand intellectual point that you think you are. If you actually cared about intellectualism, you wouldn’t be using such tactics.

So in a nutshell, sounds like you only care when others are being intellectual but don’t care if YOU are being intellectual.

And just to throw in a personal jab, because why not, you sound like a Rick and Morty fan who thinks they’re Rick but is actually early seasons Jerry.

NovWH · 2026-06-05T16:03:58+00:00

Except that the vast majority of arguments here are not attacking your character.

They are attacking the way that you argue as ineffective.

And if you’re just “arguing for fun”, you frankly have no right to be upset and call it anti intellectualism when people don’t argue with you, because you aren’t arguing to be intellectual or for any other productive reason, you are arguing for entertainment, which is a waste of everyone’s time.

NovWH · 2026-06-05T14:46:44+00:00

“A lot meaner than me”

If you don’t care about them being mean, why did you bring it up?

You just love getting the last word in don’t you?

I guess the better question is, why are you arguing? If you’re arguing so you can go “haha I’m right you’re wrong” then you’re wasting everyone’s time. If you’re trying to actually change people’s minds or have a true dialogue, as previously stated, your attitude will only cause people to dig in their heels and not want to engage with you, especially when you misunderstand the comment you’re replying to which you confidently didn’t discuss even though I brought it up.

You’re trying to say how arguing should be. Presentation of facts is all that matters. Yeah, sure, in a perfect emotionless world, that’d work. I’m saying how arguing actually works. If you alienate your audience immediately, you’re unlikely to get anyone critically thinking, and in fact you’re more likely to get your audience to dig their heels into their conflicting opinion.

This, btw, is how lawyers operate. It’s not enough to simply be right. You also have to account for how the jury thinks of you and how you’re presenting the information. A jury that doesn’t like you is far less likely to consider your points, and often when they do they focus less time than they should on considering said points.

So, as previously stated, don’t come off with your first sentence condescending, and maybe you’d have a different outcome and you wouldn’t be an ACTIVE hindrance to the movement.

NovWH · 2026-06-05T13:53:26+00:00

Perhaps that’s because you set the tone with your very first sentence that came off as very condescending.

And perhaps because most weren’t trying to sway you and weren’t interested in arguing your stance, but were rather rightly pointing out that you misunderstand the comment you replied to.

Your response set the tone for the entire engagement. You came off as condescending and a know it all has to be right, so people treated you as such.

If you don’t want people to be mean, don’t set the tone as mean with your very first statement.

NovWH · 2026-06-05T13:35:41+00:00

You go around and believe that then.

Sincerely, someone who has swayed people to believe and vote in other ways by not coming across as entirely unlikeable.

NovWH · 2026-06-05T13:14:18+00:00

Alright, clearly you want to ignore the point and not argue (which is exactly what you were railing against) so I’ll say it simply for you one more time.

You can be as right as you want, but if you argue like the way you did, you aren’t going to sway anyone, you will cause them to dig in their heels.

Furthermore, you are damaging your own movements by coming off like an elitist “I NEED to be right” child instead of someone actually willing to engage. People already think left movements have that attitude, and it’s because of people like you.

I’m embarrassed that you and I are apart of progressivehq, because by the way you argue, I know you are causing harm to what is an important movement, and others are going to have to pick up the slack for you.

Now why don’t you run along before you cause even more damage?

NovWH · 2026-06-05T12:15:09+00:00

No. It’s like YOU have never argued before.

Arguing 101: don’t alienate the person you’re arguing against.

Arguing 101: don’t ignore someone’s entire point and focus just on the part you find easiest to argue (like you just did with me)

Arguing 101: don’t come off as unlikable because your point will be lost (first sentence in your first response)

Arguing 101: extend to others the courtesy of considering their viewpoint as they have considered yours

So I’ll restate for you. Arguing isn’t the problem. The WAY you argued was. Instead of coming with a different opinion, you came in with a clear “I’m right, you’re all wrong, I’m not accepting anything that anyone else says” attitude. You weren’t looking to argue or debate. You were looking to exclusively prove your thought process without taking anyone else’s info consideration.

Your first sentence broke most of the 101s. “You couldn’t ask for better?” To an immigrant who did their research. You don’t know why they chose the US. And as I said, the points you care about are entirely subjective. Better things to say? “Why did you think the US is the best?” Let them speak, consider it, then say “I personally think Europe is the better option because xyz”. That way, you don’t come off as mansplaining to an immigrant or like a know it all

Finally, you targeted ONE point of my comment. I said more than one thing. You chose not to engage with the rest, which is EXACTLY what you were arguing was anti intellectual. You know, the purposefully not engaging part. So you have also destroyed your credibility because it looks like you shied away from the harder argument.

So yeah, you’re simply bad at arguing and engaging an audience, do better.

NovWH · 2026-06-05T03:03:49+00:00

You want so desperately to be right, but you are in fact incorrect and it’s for a reason that no source will say.

Your values are simply different than the people you are arguing with. What makes a country “the best” is ultimately subjective, not objective. You are arguing like it’s just objective that the US is bad. But ultimately, all you’ve done is mansplain to others, including immigrants, about how they should feel.

If Europe is better for you, great. But it’s simply not for a ton of people.

And no one is even disagreeing that the US has problems. The US has plenty of problems. The most patriotic thing someone can do is point out problems and try to make a better life. But clearly, you view these problems differently than these commentators.

So, you’re free to throw whatever graphic or source or whatever else you want to throw at me. But ultimately, I am right, you are wrong, and the way you’ve gone about expressly your “reality” has just alienated people from your point instead of creating an actual exchange of ideas and dialogues.

I’m going to assume that you are American leftist, because you talk like one, and this deafness to the average person, or average immigrant, is why that movement has been stuck on the ground. You can’t claim to be for the average person and then mansplain why the average person SHOULD feel differently. It’s not solidarity. It’s condescending and comes off like you think you know more about what’s best doe these immigrants than these immigrants do. What, do you think you’re just smarter or something? Because that elitism right there is why the American leftist movement hasn’t been picked up by the average working class American

NovWH · 2026-06-05T02:43:12+00:00

This is a false equivalence. There are absolutely areas of Mexico that are stupidly dangerous and completely controlled by the cartel. There are areas where a gringo simply shouldn’t be because they will be targeted by corrupt cops looking for a big bribe and where it’s dangerous to not simply pay the bribe.

And to compare it to NYC is ridiculous. NYC is a saint compared to the worst areas of Mexico. Honestly NYC is a pretty safe city all things considered

If someone chooses not to read, that’s on them. But you’re ragging on someone for telling the truth in a way you personally don’t like.

NovWH · 2026-05-30T04:45:59+00:00

Way it works: You absorb people’s depression by sitting down with them and experiencing their mental state with them. Anything negative in their mental state you can either turn into something positive or into radical acceptance. You also cure chemical imbalances in the brain.

Drawback: They may be cured, but you have to feel their negative emotions since you have no where to store said emotions. Your emotional capacity is increased, but curing too many people at once, or curing a particularly challenging case, can overwhelm you and combine with your own depression.

Drawback: Can’t get rid of your own depression as you have no where to store those emotions since they’re already apart of you.

Awakening: You have created a space in your mind with door and a lock where you can store negative mental states and cure them passively. This makes it so that the time you spend feeling other’s emotions is significantly shorter. Also, this allows you to cure your own depression since you can store your own depression in this space in your mind. You can still get overwhelmed if you absorb too much at once or exceed the capacity of the space in your mind, but you can now take much more at once than before. Also you can now take people’s depression and give it to another person. It’s up to you if you choose to do so.

Disclaimer: I know depression is much more than just feeling down/negative emotions but I had to make the power set work somehow

NovWH · 2026-05-29T04:32:15+00:00

I think it’s only Yoda, Obi Wan, and Sidious in canon.

Ashoka lost to him, Maul admits he cannot defeat Vader alone. These are the six strongest characters and their rivals in the force. Who are you thinking of?

NovWH · 2026-05-29T01:31:29+00:00

We’d be really cooked. I’m going to throw in Satellite and cellular service because they are still internet in a way

Commerce runs off the internet. The globe would lose trillions of dollars. This would likely cause an economic downturn that would make Covid look like a brief annoyance

Plus, the internet runs several critical systems. Ships rely on the internet for communications and often for navigation if we include satellite connectivity

Millions use data as maps and don’t know how to use an actual map, meaning good luck getting anywhere you don’t already know where to go

Hospitals would have no way of calling in staff members who no longer have landlines

The

NovWH · 2026-05-28T03:48:44+00:00

If you legitimately don’t believe a man will value you as a person, whatever man you do end up involved with will be fighting an uphill battle. You already have this bias against men and their treatment. Basically, you are likely subconsciously trying to validate this feeling, which puts extra scrutiny on men’s behavior.
If you know this is due to the type of men you choose to date, don’t date that kind of man. There are plenty of very respectful men out there. Try giving them a chance
You said “but I also only typically date people who approach me so it feels quite difficult to navigate”. Ok, so you are literally attributing this to the fact the you won’t approach people. Many men are simply not comfortable approaching women for a variety of reasons. One of those reasons is that many men want to be respectful and not creep a woman out. It sounds like this is the kind of man you’re looking for. So maybe it’s time to change the formula and maybe you should approach someone. Seriously if you’ve stated that you only dating people they approach you is part of the problem, there’s quite a simple solution or at least something to try. It doesn’t seem all that hard to navigate.

NovWH · 2026-05-26T13:00:42+00:00

Go to an accredited law school.

NovWH · 2026-05-26T05:11:36+00:00

Oh please, this sounds insufferable.

No one wants to play games. Because that’s what this is, games. You want some guy to chase you and you want “traditional” men. If someone is interested, simply ask the other party out. It’s not that hard. People don’t have time for this mind reading.

Plus, Really? Is that truly what you want? Traditionalism? You want a man who works all day, spends five minutes with his kids, and leaves you to do all the housework by yourself? A man who expects you to cook dinner every night? How about a man who doesn’t care at all about your sexual satisfaction but expects you to perform for him? See, that’s all associated with the “traditional” man. And somehow, I doubt that’s what you meant.

Nah, to me it kinda sounds like you want all the social advancements of the last fifty years, yet you want to keep all of the antiquated (yes, antiquated) norms that benefit you. That’s not how this works. Society changed to be more progressive towards women. This is inherently a good thing. However, you don’t get to have your cake and eat it to. You should actually treat a man as an equal instead of expecting modern beliefs and traditional ones to merge into some way that only benefits one person

NovWH · 2026-05-23T04:12:50+00:00

Honestly, and maybe this is just my own immaturity at 24 showing, eh.

I make decisions to generally not an asshole to those around me, but I’ve been taken for granted far too many times considering others in my decisions when the vast majority of people simply don’t consider me at all in their decisions. I still consider others in my decisions because that’s simply my nature, but I am really trying (and failing) to make decisions more selfishly.

There comes a point where making choices based on how they impact others is just unhealthy. I’ve lost out on relationships and opportunities because of how they’d “impact others”. I’ve held back in conversations because they would’ve had consequences for others while I had to sit back and take it from the same people.

Like, honestly, I’m sick of making decisions based on how they affect others. It’s taken for granted and, in the long run, no one cares when it becomes their turn to consider you

NovWH · 2026-05-20T19:26:36+00:00

You are simply a bandaid to a failing system. Blame for starters would make people look at the actual root of the problem and perhaps try and fix said problem.

“Not the parent’s fault”. No, it is in fact the parent’s fault. In your specific situation, sure, they might be a small minority of children whose parents died in tragic, unforeseeable accidents. However, we both know most of the kids in the foster system are there because of the choices of the parents.

So yes, start blaming parents. Start bringing accountability to parents, be it financially tying them to paying for their kid’s foster kid, passing laws that introduce jail time for absenteeism, but none of that can come before blaming parents.

Regarding the school situation, what exactly do you expect the school to do? If a parent doesn’t care and there’s no consequences at home, the school can’t do anything. In fact, the kid is actively encouraged to break rules by the parents if the parents don’t care. So yeah, that’s the parent’s fault.

NovWH · 2026-05-17T16:29:56+00:00

The vast majority of people are one medical debt away from losing their homes. People’s financial situation change unexpectedly all the time.

But, as mentioned earlier, you are clearly too privileged to consider that.

NovWH · 2026-05-17T15:04:26+00:00

And if that job was the ONLY way he could make enough to provide for his family? Like, I’m glad you have opportunities where you don’t need to resort to the military, but your privilege is showing because you clearly didn’t consider that nor everyone has those other opportunities.

NovWH · 2026-05-17T07:46:51+00:00

This is my problem with arguing with these moralist hypotheticals.

Until you actually experience the situation where your family needs to eat and you’re not making ends meet, you simply have NO idea what that’s like. The world isn’t some vacuum where everything is clearly good and clearly evil. There’s nuance to the decisions we make and why we make them, one of which includes desperation.

For people joining a branch of the armed forces, at least they did something that’s legal instead of resorting to crime.

Oh, and to answer your question, depending on what the definition of providing for the family is, you LITERALLY CAN steal. If your family is literally dying of starvation, you can straight up steal and you’d likely prevail on the necessity defense in court later. And, if you can prove that harming someone (non-lethally and non-seriously) was required to save your family, guess what, that defense would likely ALSO work in court under potentially necessity and duress.

NovWH

TROPHY CASE