2018 PotWR Round 5: The General Election

[Sara]

I just want to know if there are concession speech to come.

 

[Andy Capp]

What?

So Chomsky has a definition right? Or are you samrter then Chomsky?

That definition, and the policies that support that definition are what we are discussing.

Now, let me break this down for you. You want me to define this, so that you can muddy the waters. You will cling onto certain parts of the definition in dispute, while never actually defending neo-liberal policies, only arguing over the definition.

Take that arguement up with Chomsky and Reich. They use this term constantly. They have a solid definition for it. I am using in it's common use. I don't have to give you a specific definition for common use, for us to move the debate along.

This is what I am talking about with the neo-liberal click, and their tropes. You aren't interested in defending or opposing neo-liberals, you just want to muddy the waters with defining it, and arguing about that definition.

Instead, I point you to Chomsky's definition, and tell you that if you have a problem with that definition, take it up with him, because I don't want to let you bog the actual debate down, which I think is your goal.

Btw, I take what I said before back, you are homer.

Dude, you might need some of Madmick's meds. Rewind a little bit here. This is what you said,
"I honestly don't like you guys, that I view as the neo-liberal click." And,
"So you think it is an attack to call someone a neo-liberal who constantly defends neo-liberal policy?

Tell me faulty, what neo-liberal policies do you so disagree with, that you think it is an attack, to be called what you are?"

So, I say again, what neo-Liberal policies are you talking about? I'm not going to ask you to give me evidence of Fawlty defending them since we all saw how my earlier very simple question went, so that I need to ask it again now. I'll just be satisfied to see if you can actually articulate what it is you're so upset about.

As I said, shit or get off the pot.

 

[meauneau]

Nope, I know the debate trope jack is using right now. If you haven't been posting here for 10 years, you probably don't have a clue what i am talking about right now.

You are over here coming to the aid of king debate trope.

You don't know, therefore I am right!

 

[Lord Commander Palis]

Couldn't have expected anything less than this from such a little and childish mind.

Geeze you are quite critical of yourself.

Dude, you might need some of Madmick's meds. Rewind a little bit here. This is what you said,
"I honestly don't like you guys, that I view as the neo-liberal click." And,
"So you think it is an attack to call someone a neo-liberal who constantly defends neo-liberal policy?

Tell me faulty, what neo-liberal policies do you so disagree with, that you think it is an attack, to be called what you are?"

So, I say again, what neo-Liberal policies are you talking about? I'm not going to ask you to give me evidence of Fawlty defending them since we all saw how my earlier very simple question went, so that I need to ask it again now. I'll just be satisfied to see if you can actually articulate what it is you're so upset about.

As I said, shit or get off the pot.

At least tag @Madmick if you're going to slander. I noticed that you progressives rarely tag people when you attack. Scared to catch hands eh?

 

[VivaRevolution]

Can you not see how dumb it is for you to ask me to define a term that you are using?

This is the conversation:

Viva: You're an X!
Me: What's an X?
Viva: I refuse to tell you.
Me: OK, we can't really discuss it then.
Viva: You have to tell me what it is.

Reality

Jack: define it

Viva: here is a article from Chomsky talking about neo-liberalism, that is what I mean.

Jack: no, use your words, so I can attack you, not chomsky's which I have no standing to attack.

Viva: no, fuck off, trope master. You are proving my point.

 

[VivaRevolution]

You don't know, therefore I am right!

Never heard of you.

 

[meauneau]

Geeze you are quite critical of yourself.

Is this the best childish thing you could think of? I overestimated the size of your mind.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Reality

Jack: define it

Viva: here is a article from Chomsky talking about neo-liberalism, that is what I mean.

Jack: no, use your words, so I can attack you, not chomsky's which I have no standing to attack.

Viva: no, fuck off, trope master. You are proving my point.

I didn't even see you quote an article where Chomsky defines "neoliberal." You can do that now if you want. But anyway if your idea of a discussion is refusing to explain your thinking and and concocting bizarre conspiracies about the motives of people wanting you to, you can see why people think you're a little special.

 

[meauneau]

Reality

Jack: define it

Viva: here is a article from Chomsky talking about neo-liberalism, that is what I mean (because I don't know what it is, but shhhhh don't tell anyone I am embarrassed).

Jack: no, use your words, so I don't misrepresent your position.

Viva: no, fuck off, trope master. You are proving my point.

Fixed

 

[meauneau]

Never heard of you.

Doesn't matter. Your argument was very stupid.

 

[spamking]

Does anyone outside of the war room ever say “neo” anything in real life? I’ve literally never heard it outside of this forum.

You mean that dude in the Matrix?

 

[VivaRevolution]

I didn't even see you quote an article where Chomsky defines "neoliberal." You can do that now if you want. But anyway if your idea of a discussion is refusing to explain your thinking and and concocting bizarre conspiracies about the motives of people wanting you to, you can see why people think you're a little special.

So, I provided an article from Chomsky where the entire article is about neo-liberalism to give as full of a definition as possible, from a source that should be acceptable to anyone from the left, and yet this is still on me, and my failings huh?

 

[VivaRevolution]

Doesn't matter. Your argument was very stupid.

It does. It means you are a nobody.

Who cares what a never heard of you thinks?

 

[Jack V Savage]

So, I provided an article from Chomsky where the entire article is about neo-liberalism to give as full of a definition as possible, from a source that should be acceptable to anyone from the left, and yet this is still on me, and my failings huh?

Where did you provide this article?

Do you think that anyone reading the exchange doesn't know that you have no idea what "neoliberal" means and are just using it to mean "someone I dislike"?

 

[Andy Capp]

Does anyone outside of the war room ever say “neo” anything in real life? I’ve literally never heard it outside of this forum.

Fuck man, if you keep this up I might start to like you.

 

[meauneau]

So, I provided an article from Chomsky where the entire article is about neo-liberalism to give as full of a definition as possible, from a source that should be acceptable to anyone from the left, and yet this is still on me, and my failings huh?

But what if his interpretation of the text differs from yours? Wouldn't this lead to misrepresentation of your position?

 

[Jack V Savage]

It does. It means you are a nobody.

Who cares what a never heard of you thinks?

You, on the other hand, are well-known for being someone who spouts off ignorantly about topics that he has no understanding of and is easily manipulated into supporting politicians who oppose his agenda.

 

[VivaRevolution]

Where did you provide this article?

Do you think that anyone reading the exchange doesn't know that you have no idea what "neoliberal" means and are just using it to mean "someone I dislike"?

Oh yeah Jack, because no one knows what neo-liberal means right?

Especially not you, who ducked when I gave you the chance to define it.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Oh yeah Jack, because no one knows what neo-liberal means right?

Especially not you, who ducked when I gave you the chance to define it.

I know a couple of the meanings. I'm asking you what it means when you say it.

 

[VivaRevolution]

But what if his interpretation of the text differs from yours? Wouldn't this lead to misrepresentation of your position?

How could you ever debate anything by this criteria?

Durrr, depends on what the definition of is, is....durrrrrrrr