• (Opinion) How Brett Kavanaugh could harm the legitimacy of the Supreme Court
    179 replies, posted
no just illegal (and no longer legal) immigrants. He already ordered the national guard to do exactly this (though they couldn't legally do it) on the southern border.
Hi there, I still have some questions for you! As long as we're moving around in the same Kavanaugh threads, I supposed it only makes sense I remind you of them here, just in case they got lost in the wash Have you conducted any independent research on Kavanugh? Looked into the allegations to any noteworthy extent? How many of the allegations are you aware of? Are you aware of how many individuals are willing to testify? How much of the allegations are you familiar with? What are your sources? Where are you currently getting your information? Is it possible that you might not be getting the full story? If no, why not? Is it possible that you are getting your news from biased sources that may not be giving you the whole truth? If no, why not? How many of your news sources are affiliated with Sinclair Broadcasting or Rupert Murdoch? How many of your news sources have significant or otherwise noteworthy connections to Republican organizations? The Heritage foundation, for example? Is there anything in particular that makes Kavanaugh worth defending? If yes, what is it? What are his qualifications? Do you honestly believe he belongs on the Supreme Court? Do you think he has conducted himself professionally and to the standards required of him by the Supreme Court? Does his obvious partisan bias give you any cause for concern? Have you got any input on the party that is so strongly defending him? EDIT: I feel I must clarify that this post is not meant to be some kind of massive zinger. Every single one of these questions is sincere
So many people in this thread think he's guilty huh? Can you point them out?
Even if Kavanaugh is 100% innocent he did the very thing that got the last justice impeached 200 years ago, blatant political bias.
Weren't most of the complaints about his conduct, in regards to him blaming a conspiracy on the Clintons and saying "what goes around comes around" during his job application for a position where you are supposed to be largely impartial?
Do you have any opinions that aren't shit?
Also I know it's petty but... Clearly the most "smart-intelligent" poster on the forum.
Didn't you just get done getting pummeled into the ground over this very misconception in another thread last night?! You must have a masochistic streak in you, because holy fuck do you like getting dogpiled for the same erroneous statements over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again. I have better things to do than join in on it this time, but I will repeat myself once: INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY DOES NOT APPLY IN THIS SITUATION SO STOP BRINGING IT UP.
The real sad part is how morons keep assuming that people are only against Kavanaugh for the sexual assault allegations and not his horrifically unbefitting conduct and perjury. It just keeps happening even when this is epxlained to them. Huh, almost as if they actually have no interest in connecting with reality.
I don't think it's a moron thing. I think it's a deliberate attempt at controlling the conversation, and avoiding having to defend Kavanaugh at all The sexual assault allegations are the easy argument to have. It's a lot harder to defend Kavanaugh's conduct, his perjury, and his judicial record, and having to defend him makes it look like you're losing. The sexual assault angle gives you an out, it's the hot topic of the month and there's a whole mess of prepackaged, emotional arguments about how this poor innocent man is having his name dragged through the mud and what ever happened to INNOCENT until PROVEN GUILTY And that's kind of a neat trick on its own, because it glosses over the part where the confirmation hearing was a confirmation hearing, but by loading it up with legal language, it subtly gets painted as though Kavanaugh was on trial and is under attack by a biased judicial system more focused on attacking his character than establishing guilt, which chains neatly into glossing over the part where the confirmation hearing is exactly that, it's a test of his character. It's a job interview I find a good way to defuse bad faith arguments like it are to just ignore them outright, and find some flimsy pretext to address your audience(Hi guys!) and fellow posters(Like Alice here!) directly, break down the rhetoric, and give them the valuable resources they need to recognize it in the future. Sort of like building herd immunity While I wouldn't necessarily recommend it, my personal favorite way is to just ask sincere and honest questions. Assume nothing, question everything. What did you mean by that? Are you aware of this? Could you clarify this sentence? I'm afraid I don't understand that. Perhaps you'd like to tell me more about this? Can you expand on this point? Could you share your source for that? It is my experience, that never fails to quiet things down. Just so long as they're questions you sincerely want answers for(Which I still do)
It's sad that you constantly act like there's an entire audience listening to your dumbass rants but there's nothing but dust and echoes.
Considering Jouska either missed the fact my post was directed at him and Reg and mistook it for agreeing with him or knew what I meant and agreed with it anyways, you're probably right. In which case they're literally Tudd 2.0 at this point.
But there is an audience, and it's all of us. Bad faith arguments aren't just for the benefit of the people who agree with them, it's a big performance for the entire audience. Even if they sway just one person, that's a win. That's how these tactics propagate and how these viewpoints get a foothold One of the big goals of bad faith arguments is to elicit responses exactly like this. It doesn't matter how upset you actually are, the tone that's most easily read in this post is that he's made you mad. He's upset your footing, he's got you off balance, you're losing your cool. To at least one person reading, he looks like he's the one winning That emotional content is one of the cornerstones of a bad faith argument
Look, Jouska's one of those mental midgets who can't actually address the arguments people *are* making, so he'll pretend instead that they're making an entirely different, ridiculous argument, and then try and make himself look intelligent by refuting that instead. In all the discussion regarding Kavanaugh so far, I haven't once seen him address the actual arguments - rather, he slinks away whenever he's confronted with his own intellectual dishonesty and continues to strawman. My advice is simply not to engage with him.
Ladies and gentlemen, come one, come all! Come see the densest man in the world! By golly, you can explain the point, ten, one hundred, a thousand, a million times and he STILL won't get it!
And this is exactly why I try to run people like that out of threads as quickly as possible rather than wasting my time arguing with them when I realize that's what they're actually doing, personally. If they're just in it to argue in bad faith and try to convince people they're right even when they know they aren't then I'm not going to try and be above it all. They need to be shut down as quick as possible.
removing forum post standards was just the bestest idea ever i love everyone behind newpunch xoxo
As much as I understand your point, I still think we shouldn't outright haunt posters just for having "dumb" opinions, seeing these type of posts get wrecked by actual logic is more satisfying than just having this forum become a self-congratulatory hug-box. Only when they cross the line and use their opinions and views knowingly and willingly to just get a rise out of people for their own egotistical reasons, that is the point where there should be rightfully reprimanded. Having to make this little sacrifice for some form of open dialogue is worth it IMO.
How many times have people explained this to you. Even if ford's allegations are 100% wrong, he's lied in a senate hearing and doesn't have the temperament to be a judge according to his own words in 2015
please tell me where in Reg's post there was literally any substance worth discussing. I can understand why you want people around that will actually discuss things but blatant threadshitting? No thanks. Don't put them on a pedestal as if they're sacred.
Are you completely incapable of considering that we're not talking about legal punishment? If he was being charged with attempted rape, there should be more evidence. He's not being charged, people just want him to not be a Supreme Court judge, because the allegations are credible and his behavior is dubious. Someone explained this to you in the other thread, but the reason for the 'innocent until proven guilty' principle is that the legal system has huge consequences for you if you are convicted. Therefore the burden of proof must be really strong, to prevent wrongful convictions. In this case, we're only talking disqualifying someone from the Supreme Court, so the consequences are flipped, and so a reasonable suspicion should be enough to disqualify him. The sensitivity of any test should match our priorities. You wouldn't hold a fire alarm or a pregnancy test to the same standard of 'innocent until proven guilty'. For some things, you want high sensitivity because you'd rather deal with a loud noise that got triggered by mistake, than wake up surrounded by flames because the fire alarm didn't detect the smoke. Similarly, we should rather want to disqualify a judge from the Supreme Court by 'mistake' (i.e. if he's actually innocent, didn't lie, isn't biased, isn't unqualified), than accidentally appoint a corrupt judge to the Supreme Court because the bar was too low.
I'm not trying to put them on a pedastal, just on equal ground, he was of the view that this was somehow utterly ridiculous and people responded to the contrary. Facepunch once had a serious and dry pure debate subforum, I think it's gone for a reason.
There's your problem. It's the same problem that surrounded Tudd's continued presence: the idea that every opinion has the same value, even if one side is basically rampantly shitposting. It's getting very annoying to see people trying to call FP out as a lefty libcuck hivemind because people have the audacity to mock shitposters and laugh at them. The fact that people like Jouska are given any credibility reflects the big problem politics currently has: the right wing is flinging its shit and screaming like fucking monkeys but apparently we're supposed to treat them with respect, lest we hear that bullshit excuse of 'this is why trump won' for the 18 billionth time.
I remember from my old government classes that US justices can be impeached for "bad behavior." If he is elected and an FBI investigation determines he 100% did all those things he is accused of and he is still a rampant alcoholic and gambling addict, is that not grounds for impeachment?
The Senate Republicans would not believe any evidence they have of him, not sexual assault, not perjury. The constitution specifically says they serve during good behavior, the reason they serve for life.
Absolutely, yes. The Code of Conduct for Federal Judges more or less demands it - and they are held to lower standards than SCOTUS Judges. The Republicans will refuse to impeach, much as they have refused to impeach Trump along those exact same sorts of grounds despite them being absolutely valid grounds to impeach him for.
Not all views are equal. Not aggreeing with the extreme far right that's the modern GOP isn't being a hivemind. Facepunch has varied views and a lot of debates, the only people calling it a hivemind are far right posters who refuse to accept that youre not free from consequences for what you say.
The Overton window has been shattered at this point
Maybe you ought to be playing some Devil's Advocate, then What are Jouska's finer points? Where's he scratching the surface of something true? Where are people missing the point the most? What points do you think people hang on too much? Where do you think discussion could be improved? What makes you think it's just circlejerking? Are there specific examples? Specific posters? What points do you think are already well made? Why do you think they don't need to be made anymore? What perspectives do you think polidicks is lacking? Which do you think it has in excessive supply? Are there any particular subjects that you've noticed could use some additional nuance? Either in general or in recent, specific instances? Do you have anything to say about the tendency of posters like Jouska to drop in with unsubstantiated claims and bad faith arguments and then flee the threads whenever people start asking them simple questions about their position and try to engage them in earnest debate? Do you really think anyone in polidicks wants it to be an echo chamber? What gives you the impression that people aren't interested in debate? Have you considered making threads of your own, either for news or to take advantage of the new rules allowing political discussion threads? Do you have additional news sources that you consider underutilized but highly useful? Are there any specific resources you would recommend to cultivate broader perspectives and understanding? Do you have any ideas how polidicks would foster more open debate?
Which I addressed in the part you didn't quote There are opinions that are more wrong than others, I am not denying that, I am just against instant calling out to have mod action just for someone having posted a dumb opinion.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.