this post was submitted on 07 Nov 2023
-23 points (20.5% liked)

Conservative

389 readers
98 users here now

A place to discuss pro-conservative stuff

  1. Be excellent to each other. Civility, No Racism, No Bigotry, No Slurs, No calls to violences, No namecalling, All that good stuff, follow lemm.ee's rules, follow the rules of your instance, etc.

  2. We are a Pro-Conservative forum. Posts must have a clear pro-conservative, or anti left-wing bias. We are interested in promoting conservatism and discussing things that might get ignored elsewhere. All sources are acceptable, however reputable sources with a reputation for factual reporting are preferred.

  3. Dissent is allowed in the comments, but try to be constructive; if you do not agree, then provide a reason which is backed up by references or a reasonable alternative interpretation of the provided facts. That means the left wing is welcome to state their opinions, but please keep it in good faith.

A polite request, not a rule, if you feel the need to report a comment, please don't reply to it.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] jimbolauski -3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

So you've shifted from his manifesto not being littered with CRT ideology to the police will not confirm that the journal is authentic.

[–] PizzaMan 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

No, I still hold the position that the right wing is using CRT as a boogeyman, and an unconfirmed manifesto (that doesn't even having anything to do with CRT, let alone being littered with it) in no way supports your claim.

[–] jimbolauski -2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It's pretty obvious you can't or won't read his manifesto.

[–] PizzaMan 5 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Yeah, it's almost like I don't want to lend any credence to terrorists/terrorist orgs.

[–] jimbolauski -3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yet you can claim to know what's in it without reading it.

[–] PizzaMan 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

If your water stops working in your bathroom, but you still have water pressure in other parts of the house. Without looking in the pipes, is it wrong to say that there is a clog?

Even though you never looked?

I never claimed to know what's in Hale’s manifesto if there actually is one, and I don't need to because I know what leads to a metaphorical clog, and CRT ain't it.

[–] jimbolauski -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The only way to know if water stopped working in your bathroom is to observe it you have to look. Further bathrooms have shutoffs, it's far more likely the shutoff was enabled. Water pipes getting clogged in a specific area is very uncommon so it would be wrong to think your pipes are clogged. It looks like you know as much about plumbing as the manifesto.

[–] PizzaMan 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It's a metaphor. If you can't even try to understand what I'm saying then I don't know what to tell you.

[–] jimbolauski -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It's a terrible metaphor. Claiming knowledge about something without ever seeing it is impossible.

[–] PizzaMan 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Claiming knowledge about something without ever seeing it is impossible.

Humans can't see X rays. Yet we claim immense knowledge of them.

[–] jimbolauski -2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You need to work on your metaphors. We can observe xrays.

[–] PizzaMan 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

No we can't. X rays are beyond the range of human vision.

[–] jimbolauski -2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Observe != see. Read carefully

[–] PizzaMan 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

So we can know something with indirect observation? Congratulations for getting up to speed, now please apply what you've learned to my original metaphor.

[–] jimbolauski -3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Youu haven't observed the manifesto indirectly. You shitty metaphors still doesn't work.

[–] PizzaMan 2 points 1 year ago

Like I already said, I don't need to, to know CRT isn't the problem here.