This is a subverse designed to encourage adult discussion spanning the entirety of the political spectrum. All are welcome, from Libertarians to Authoritarians, Democrats to Republicans, An Caps to Anarchists, Socialists to Fascists to Communists, Green, Blue, Black, White, Purple with Yellow Polka dots, whatever color, persuasion, or affiliation, this is a place for you to post your thoughts, articles, and engage in discussion meant to foster understanding.
Politics is best when we try to avoid personal attacks, limits on discussion, censorship, trolling, shilling, racism, homophobia, antisemitism, or any other forms of bigotry and malfeasance.
Election 2020 Politics Sticky
Politics 2017 Christmas Theme sticky
Nov 2016 sticky on new CSS
This subverse belongs to the community of users. Users are invited to post meta-threads about v/politics and I will gladly sticky them. @flyawayhigh
Use the "Report Spam" link to report spam and someone will review the report. J-mods have the ability to remove duplicate noncommercial spam.
v/politics is for all politics.
v/uspolitics is for US politics only.
v/worldpolitics is for international or non-US politics.
v/politicalnews is dedicated to virtually censor-free politics and news
v/news is for news around the world.
v/usnews is for domestic news only.
view the rest of the comments →
[–] TestForScience 1 point 3 points 4 points (+4|-1) ago (edited ago)
He cussed at him while claiming sources weren’t valid without providing any info of his own to the contrary.
Overly-aggressive attitude towards information you don’t have the ability to dispute is what we make fun of constantly on here, “using your feelings as a source of facts.”
Atleast that’s why I downvoated him, then linked my post from a week ago specifically talking about the disgusting inbreeding among Muslims, which, is 51+% on average.
More than half of their babies come from first cousins
[–] Thereunto 2 points 1 point 3 points (+3|-2) ago
Why should scepticism require an explicit ability to dispute? I'm not saying I necessarily disagree with "X" "Y" or "Z" but I am justifying in doubting the face value of info given in a quick flashy articles through politically websites with plausible motive to manipulate opinions.
It is perfectly reasonable to set the height of your own bar for the standard of proof to substantiate conjecture in order to meet your personal satisfaction of the information.
Change my mind.
[–] Gorillion 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
LOL. Crowder is a faggot you faggot.
[–] TestForScience ago
I guess we'd have to ask him whether he was being sceptical or not. Sure seemed to me as though he was calling a specific source a lie, rather than attempting to convey any sort of scepticism to the validity of the claim.
You can't claim the height of a bar that doesn't exist - again, he didn't appear to be looking for any information at all, he just popped in to call his source/him a liar.
You're a big boy, you can make up your own mind.
I also think the claim is BS, but he clearly didn't even attempt to follow the source, else he'd know that the Geller Report's article was from an entirely different source, not something they made up themselves.
Which adds further credence to the notion that he didn't even attempt to dispute the claim, he just didn't like the source, so he went straight to an emotional approach, rather than anything resembling a request for 'proof to substantiate conjecture.'
As I look even deeper into this, he just comes out wrong on even more levels.