questionreality

So now you are reverting to whataboutism? Really? Why do you assume that only the right-wingers have a problem with his assassination? It doesn't matter whether you are on the left or the right - if you support assassination of a political candidate you for sure don't support democracy, or at the very least don't understand what it is and how it works. I knew you were biased, but didn't know that you could be this blinded. I can now see why this forum has such a strong echo chamber and groupthink. I really can't believe what I have just read.

It automatically makes me a Trump supporter if I am not okay with his assassination? You are more lost than I thought - holy shit

How do you not understand that political violence is an undemocratic act? How is having one guy with a gun take away the candidate from a ballot that half of Americans support okay? On one hand you bring January 6th up, and on the other hand you are fine with assassination of political opponents. You are no different from the those who thought it was fine to overthrow the government on that day. Not to mention that it would be extremely shortsighted - there is a very good chance there would be assassination attempts coming in the way of the candidate/president that you support. The fact that I even have to say these obvious things, and even people like @Leo Gura don't have an issue with it tells me this subforum is more fucked than I thought.

The fact that you (and many others here) don't see the problem with assassination of political opponents and think that Trump deserves to be killed, proves my point once again that I made about leftists and the leftist echo chamber that blinds many people on this sub-forum. You are no better than right-wingers in that regard, stop lying to yourself.

Dawkins defines "god" in dualistic sense - as he said he doesn't believe in the man who sits on the sky and forgives sins, listens to prayers, etc. He clearly rejects this concept and he is correct to do so. Yet he does say that there is something mysterious in the universe - so he is still open to the possibility of mysterious force, just not "god in conventional sense. Most people miss this, but how you define "god" when discussing this concept is very crucial.

Wow, if this is true, that would be actually playing 4-d chess. Very nice observation! Yea that's huge. No wonder Trump has now refused to do another debate with her.

@zurew I will not be taking your bait and play games with you. You telling me that I offer 0 substance, while you yourself have offered nothing of value in this thread and also in the Lex Friedman thread. In fact, in the Lex Friedman thread you have posted enough that clearly shows you are so stuck in your leftist echo chamber, and the concepts of "balance", "nuance" and "neutrality" are just too hard to understand. Enjoy debating right-wingers, I will not be wasting my time on you.

5. I see what you are saying. From my perspective, it's not an advantage if you turn it into a disadvantage, and if the mods are biased, they certainly are aware of it. 7. Very true. I have explored both approaches in my life and came to conclusion that since we are dealing with humans and most of our problems have something to do with humans, I value the practical, grounded approach more vs the abstracted one. If I was living alone in the cave and away from the civilization, it would be the other way around for certain.

Thanks for proving my point

1. Fair enough 2. Do you remember the 1st debate with Biden? What do you think would have happened if he wouldn't have been granted the extra time? We can make a a bet that he would do the same as in the 1st debate - he would go back to previous topic and would just skip some questions. The difference is that you are viewing the concept of "fair" from an abstract standpoint and I am viewing it from a practical. From a practical standpoint it does not give Trump an unfair advantage - hence the difference in our perspectives. 3. We must be seeing from completely different lenses then. I did not see how she caved to Trump, nor how she acted more harshly to Harris. 4. She may have been or she may not - we don't know this. But the fact remains is that she requested it only once and did not mind Trump getting the extra time. Given that her camp wanted the mics to be on in the 1st place, tells me that the probability is higher that she clearly wanted him to go on rants with the extra time and did not view it as unfair advantage. 5. Again, you are viewing it as "unfair" from an abstract standpoint, without taking into consideration who is actually debating. From a practical standpoint, we can argue that the extra time granted to Trump actually gave Harris an advantage. 6. I understand why you get the sense of this orientation due to my rigid style of writing a lot of the time. I would describe myself as rigid-fluid type - while writing I can be very rigid, while leaving in the background the fluidity and vice-versa. I also sometimes go back and add fluidity or rigidity later. I find that both have value - depending on who you are exchanging ideas with. 7. Interesting that you view it as being "mentally confined", while I view it as just being grounded in the "raw reality". Quite the opposite for me, I don't like to be stuck in the world of abstraction too much, hence our differences. 8.Fair enough

You are right, and this applies not just to US but to most of the countries. I was surprised to find that the majority of people on this forum are also stuck in echo chambers (predominantly left). If that's what you get on an "actualized" forum, in other places you would probably find 10x worse. Most people create an identity out of their political views, hence it's easier just to consume the information that confirms their own biases, rather than question them. Until the left and the right start calling out BS from their own sides, we will not get anywhere. For someone who doesn't identity with the left nor the right, it became very amusing to me to observe the zoo of the political landscape.

That is your own projection and assumption in your world of abstraction. That is one way of seeing it - sometimes yes he took it aggressively because he was boiled up, and sometimes he said "excuse me" while doing so. Getting him boiled up and unhinged was part of the game plan (mentioning crowd sizes, rallies being boring, etc), which worked quite well and was the clear cause of him being this aggressive. Why do you call it harsh? She requested it only once and they decided to move on to the next topic. There is a good chance that if she requested the time at a different time, she would also be granted it. From my perspective if Harris wanted extra time and would have thought that Trump was gaining unfair advantage, she would have brought it up, I have no doubt about it. Harris looked in total control - she clearly didn't mind seeing him hang himself with that extra time. I may sound locked in, but it doesn't mean that am not open to other possibilities. I am always open to hearing new perspectives. I find it ironic that you say this, given that a lot of the time you seem to be lost in the world of abstraction, and unable to see that you are projecting a lot of the time. Your own projections from your abstract thinking sometimes they get in the way of seeing reality for what it is. Also for someone who claims or positions themselves to be "stage yellow", you seem to have a lot of bias when it comes to politics - which is also quite ironic.

Many of you may have forgotten, but In the 1st debate against Biden, Trump did not answer many questions as he was using the time to go back to the previous topics. Maybe that's why ABC gave him the extra time, to avoid the issue that happened during the 1st debate? If they wouldn't, he would clearly do the same here and it's very likely that they wanted to avoid that. Trump is quite impulsive and there is no way he would move on from a topic if he didn't finish saying what he wanted to say.

Read what I wrote above - not going to say the same thing over and over again to every person. I have clearly explained why ABC was biased against Trump, it's not hard to understand. I am going to quote LEO here: The problem is that you expect everyone to be a leftist. Because you are so caught up in your ideological bubble, you are not able to see your own bias, not to mention the bias of the ideology that you adhere to. If having a balanced take, and seeing through the bias of both sides is playing a "centrist game", then so be it. It sure is much better than playing whatever game that you are playing - projecting, virtue signaling and continuing to be blinded by your ideological blindfolds. Ironically you believe that you are different from the MAGA supporters, but you are not. You are just on the other side of the coin. How about that for a meta-take? I have never said that they are equal. But a lie is a lie. You either call the lies out or you don't. In a debate, it's the opponent's job to fact check, and if Kamala was better prepared - she could have actually called him out herself on it and would have scored a lot more with that. I certainly would expect for a presidential candidate to be prepared and to be able to fact check without the help of the moderators. Otherwise, these things should be discussed and agreed upon prior to debate "what constitutes an egregious ridiculous lies, etc" It doesn't take playing 4-d chess to see that Trump was hanging himself with that extra time. It was damn obvious to anyone with a brain. Trump's camp wanted the mics muted before the debate for that reason and Kamala's camp wanted them on - as they knew that extra time on the mic would work against him. They were not "bad" moderators, but they were a bit biased against Trump was my only claim. Kamala would have won the debate either way, but from the perspective of some people who are undecided or right leaning, the moderators looked like they were against him. I disagree that there were multiple forms of bias, how do you not understand this? Harris requested only ONCE for extra time, that's it. Trump requested it very frequently and ALSO got denied at least once. This does not mean that they were biased against Harris, just because of the one time that they denied her. The extra time given to Trump did not favor him - he looked very unhinged and that is also the reason why his camp wanted their mics to be muted.

She only asked ONCE and was denied. Trump asked many times, and was ALSO denied at least one time. Just because she was denied the only time that she asked does not mean that they were biased against her, LOL.