Saryn

You got it buddy! Being politically active and engaged with your community is how this works.

I'm sure it does.

No amount of rationalization or intellectualization is going to change the basic facts of the matter.

I don't have an alt account on lemmy or anywhere else for that matter. I actually work for a living. And it's related to sociology, which is how I know you are talking out of your a**.

You are delusional and hardcoping. Get out more. You don't need to be "right" as much as you think you do. In fact, no amount of being "right" will ever come close to the benefits of being wrong. As long as you realize them.

Best of luck, friend.

He destroyed you and you're in toxic denial.

Or rather, he didn't destroy you - he just refuted and debunked your claims with well reasoned arguments and knowledge.

Thing is: anyone with some experience in sociology (and a modicum of critical faculties) will immediately doubt the notion that 40% of cops (or most any other group of people for that matter) abuse their partners. That's just not how humans work. We know because we've studied ourselves literally millions of times.

You'll get over it. But much more important than that - hopefully realize that intellectual honesty is exactly what we need in times such as ours.

Pity for you and your poor soul

Some people obviously care. You obviously do.

Not my face, the other brown people's face!

You obviously didn't read or understand a thing I wrote. If you did, you wouldn't have simply doubledowned on the same fallacies and false assumptions.

But let's be real - this isn't about assessing what's true and what's not. Its about individual psychology and our desperate need for self-affirmation to build confidence. It's part of the reason why you'll just keep repeating the same thing over and over and over, regardless of evidence, regardless of substance, regardless of logic, ultimately abondoning any notion of intellectual honesty.

Once you adopt that whole mentality, you cannot be reasoned with on the rational level, which is why some compare it to a mild psychiatric disorder. And looking around what's been happening with communities around the world vis-a-vis the media they consume, it's easy to understand why. This usually occurs after about 5 to 10 years of consuming a certain type of content. I honestly hope you're not at that point. I always like giving people the benefit of the doubt. In this case, I basically kinda assume you're relatively young. Which is good, if that's the case.

Best of luck to you on your journey. Don't stop resisting the ego. Never stop resisting the ego. The most important fight is the one inside our head.

Edit: You're next message is going to completely ignore (and thus reject) any of what I said and probably contain quite a bit of ad hominem and doubling down.

There is nothing to be baffled by. You're just misrepresenting the argument.

It baffles me how you don't see the hypocrisy of both complaining about the US not joining WWII until they were directly attacked and also complaining about American hegemony today.

It's only baffling if you assume ab initio that the only possible kind of intervention is the imperialist, hegemonic one, and that that is the only way of describing the country's (or any other Allied country for that matter) entry into WW2. More generally, its only baffling if you assume that involvement naturally equates to "hegemony", and the behavior that implies, in the long-term. This viewpoint totally negates the normative side of the exercise of power which is why it has been all but abondoned by contemporary IR scholars, political scientists, sociologists, etc.

In short, you misrepresent (deliberately or otherwise) your opponent's argument by assuming that all exercise of power is "hegemonic", an assertion that is not grounded in reality. At this point, you should also be able to see the moral issues with some of what you said and the overall image you presented of the human condition. Classical geopolitical thinking is simply not valid and tends to reproduce highly unstable and dangerous systems by ignorant human who reify it into reality.

Can you articulate why, with what they knew in 1939, the US should have declared war

Sure (and you too should be able to - its real simple). It starts with an f and ends with a ascism. Though I'll give you that policy analysts at the USDOS at the time didn't see it in those terms. I'm also willing to bet they knew a lot more than you think you know but do let me know if you think I'm wrong.

That articulate enough for you?

Thank you - well explained.

It's also interesting to think of the stocks that the various oligarchs and politicians control or own as a backdoor for institutional capture. You want Trump on your side and his administration making decisions that benefit you and your companies? Easy - just buy some of his BS stock and use it as leverage. You won't even have to push it - he'll do what you want because that's how his underdeveloped brain perceives existence - as a series of quid pro quo agreements.

Of course, it's not just stocks. He's created so many other avenues to bribe him. It's bonkers.

Can confirm - switching my approach to changing my conditioning rather than directly trying to change my behaviors through sheer will, I've actually managed to make some progress for the first time in what feels like years. Take it slow, step by step - you don't have to change everything about your environemnt all at once - it might even be counterproductive. And in a few months you start to notice an accumulation of changes in your behavior.

I also kinda feel this corraborates my suspicion that conciousness is not as conciouss as we like to give it (ourselves, really) credit.

Brought to you by a president who f****d a pornstar and paid her off by falsifying business records.

Clown world for a clown species.