Google "peer review process in science". Note the similarities between that and what I just described.
The study i showed that was described by the New Yorker was peer reviewed
The conversation here began when I pointed out that one of the best ways to see whether your conclusions are right is to test them by presenting them to people who disagree. You told me that was wrong. So if you know what peer review is and you value it, how am I wrong?
For example you say the Jan 6 people deserve that amount of time because of attacks on police
I have never taken a position on whether the J6 rioters deserve any specific amount of time, so this is yet another reimagination of what I said.
and I have citations to show less than one third of them are actually in jail for that (at the time we were discussing it)
I never argued over whether J6 rioters were or weren't in jail for their crimes, so how would any of this address anything I said?
You made a claim that the BLM riots are misrepresented by the right as some sort of riot by blacks
No, I didn't. Why are you so averse to reading the words I write?
I argued that the riots are misrepresented in the sense that they are portrayed as a direct product of left wing ideology and condoned by the political left when it was really little more than opportunism for people who just wanted to steal things and break shit.
The fact is that the majority of those who actually cared about this cause were deeply against the riots because they recognized the way they would be painted politically as a valid source of opposition to everything the protesters were standing for, which is exactly what happened. Black lives matter used to be a mostly non-controversial statement, now it's been turned by the political right into a "woke" phrase and interpreted as solidarity with people who belive in burning buildings down as justice. It's complete bullshit but that's how propaganda works.
I guess you don't like the ideal of that so you would rather ignore the actual fact that blacks are used by the left as cannon fodder.
I ignore this talking point because it's stupid and has nothing to do with anything I'm talking about. What value do you really think there is in talking about this?
I guess you would rather think you are not being pimped than escape the clutches of your pimp.
This is just another one of those "I'm not a serious person to argue with" confirmations.
To be fair you don't usually clearly state your opinions so there is nothing to rebut.
I think the greater problem is that you don't read. But even if you have a point here and I have work to do on my communication you don't help the situation either, all you do is come back with strawman after strawman never questioning why I would believe something so apparently ridiculous (in your view) and then without any meaningful opportunity for clarification move on to how I'm being pimped by my master. If you don't think my positions are being clearly stated why not ask more questions?
There is plenty wrong with this. Besides the part where you think you have a correct belief. None of my beliefs are correct for the record though
To believe something is by definition to think it's correct
In fact discussing the hypocrisy could get us somewhere but you aren't into discussing the specifics. You like keeping stuff general.
It depends on what we're talking about.
I am very much into discussing specifics when those specifics are relevant to the disagreement and when we are on the same page up until that point. If your position for example is that the J6 rioters should be pardoned because the BLM rioters got off easy (as much of MAGA has argued) there's no point in that. Specifics in cases like that are just distractions covering up a fundamental lack of any moral compass and lack of any commitment to logical consistency, so we need to start there.
