Jump to content
Brev

Worst affs on this topic so far?

Recommended Posts

Export controls is total garbage, imo. Have judged far too many backdoors/encryption affs, and I don't think they're very good either.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Export controls is total garbage, imo. Have judged far too many backdoors/encryption affs, and I don't think they're very good either.

Well you better get used to backdoors because you are going see a whole lot of teams run an aff that uses them.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know about worst, but I am already sick of all of the NSA Affs. 

what schools did you hit that ran that aff?? I'm tasked with writing an advantage counterplan to it, but going down the wikis list of schools is an ass

Edited by TopicalityDropper

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well you better get used to backdoors because you are going see a whole lot of teams run an aff that uses them.

For the most part, people I've been judging are reading a cyber advantage and either Internet of Things k2 warming and/or some a competitiveness advantage (either heg or econ impact). I don't understand why teams don't just advantage CP warming/heg+econ, and read an Internet of Things disad (IoT cause cyberterror - ev is fairly good on this, and it isn't hard to win u/q no cyberterror now for the turn) as a net benefit. NB to the CP is straight-turned cyberterror adv, which I doubt the aff has link defense to other than backdoors solves (protip: it doesn't).

 

Overall - this isn't unique to this year - it's just the amount of garbage advs not intrinsic to affs that make me wish people deployed advantage CPs more. 90% of the time, the specificity of the aff's internal link doesn't matter.

Edited by Stirner
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Moar terrible cases:

Bad:

Embassies: Plan is in an obvious xT double bind.  Welcome to losing the round in the 1NC.

 

Worse:

Abolish Prisons: Does not abolish the justice system... so, we try people, convict them, and... i don't even know.  But they still have to declare their criminal history on job applications, so they don't solve their primary criminalization -> otherization story in the slightest.  And... what do we do with criminals after we convict them anyway?  And what do we do with the really bad ones - serial killers, serial rapists, etc... this stuff isn't all racial bias.  Aff is incoherent as a matter of policy and theory.  (Also, probably the best feminism link on this topic that i've seen).

 

Despite that, I actually voted for this today.  Dear negatives: you can make analytical arguments, especially when your opponent's case is pants-on-head stupid.

 

"Winner":

LGBT policy: Dude, where's my policy?  I have some questions about the 'plan'.  Who? What? How?  Who's doing it, what the hell are they doing, and how does that solve?  Especially since there isn't a single piece of evidence in the 1AC about current federal surveillance of LGBT.  Literally no clue what this case is talking about.  (If that wasn't enough, the Russia Relations advantage is completely incoherent.  The correct answer to it is seriously a demotivational GIF of Putin with text to the effect of "No Two Fucks To Give".)

Edited by Squirrelloid
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Moar terrible cases:

Bad:

Embassies: Plan is in an obvious xT double bind.  Welcome to losing the round in the 1NC.

 

Worse:

Abolish Prisons: Does not abolish the justice system... so, we try people, convict them, and... i don't even know.  But they still have to declare their criminal history on job applications, so they don't solve their primary criminalization -> otherization story in the slightest.  And... what do we do with criminals after we convict them anyway?  And what do we do with the really bad ones - serial killers, serial rapists, etc... this stuff isn't all racial bias.  Aff is incoherent as a matter of policy and theory.  (Also, probably the best feminism link on this topic that i've seen).

 

Despite that, I actually voted for this today.  Dear negatives: you can make analytical arguments, especially when your opponent's case is pants-on-head stupid.

 

"Winner":

LGBT policy: Dude, where's my policy?  I have some questions about the 'plan'.  Who? What? How?  Who's doing it, what the hell are they doing, and how does that solve?  Especially since there isn't a single piece of evidence in the 1AC about current federal surveillance of LGBT.  Literally no clue what this case is talking about.  (If that wasn't enough, the Russia Relations advantage is completely incoherent.  The correct answer to it is seriously a demotivational GIF of Putin with text to the effect of "No Two Fucks To Give".)

umm whats bad bout prison abolition?

 but LGBT policy is funnyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy bad

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

umm whats bad bout prison abolition?

 

Let's start with 'some people's imprisonment is unjust' =/=> 'all people's imprisonment is unjust'

 

Or there's the disconnect in abolishing prisons but otherwise not changing the justice system.  The result is incoherent at best.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know if this has already been said or not, but the Exports Aff is complete trash. I mean, thank god my team has created SOME sort of argument defending it, but we've only won with that aff because nobody ran any T violations on us.

Between you and me, Internet, Exports is NOT topical. At all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's start with 'some people's imprisonment is unjust' =/=> 'all people's imprisonment is unjust'

 

Or there's the disconnect in abolishing prisons but otherwise not changing the justice system.  The result is incoherent at best.

The whole idea of prisons is like YO YOU GOTTA BE A GUY OR A GIRL it assumes a CIS identity where yo abolishing the system might not do it but whats your stance on thought process 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The whole idea of prisons is like YO YOU GOTTA BE A GUY OR A GIRL it assumes a CIS identity where yo abolishing the system might not do it but whats your stance on thought process

 

Let's weigh impacts...a few prisoners are misgendered in the SQ, and the plan releases hundreds of thousands of rapists and murderers on the streets to rape and kill people. You have to be insane to vote Aff on that impact calculus.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So waittttt thats just the fear of the act of deviancy- but yet again the my personal stance why have a plan text

Because the consequences of your advocacy would kill people? Because your so called "fear of the act of deviancy" includes a rational expectation that you would increase gendercide about a hundred thousandfold? Because you replace a few transgendered criminals being misgendered with thousands of transgendered people being murdered consequence-free? When your advocacy results in a million women dying and being raped at the hands of their newly released batterers, will you exonerate yourself by saying "it was only a personal stance?"

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That exchange was almost incoherent - and it's not Edgehopper's fault.  What do you think you're advocating Jared?  I mean, 'fear of deviants', really?  Yes, I'm sure thieves, murderers and rapists are just misunderstood deviants.  Tell you what, we'll build this nice 'gated community' that is totally not a prison, release the prisoners inside that, and you can decide which side of the gate you'd like to be on.  

 

Personal stances are meaningless unless you're willing to accept the consequences for your choices and advocacies.  

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Honestly  two things : 

one its much more of a theortical question y'all seem to be skimming over-  the idealogical backing behind the prison to house away those who are not deemed to fit within society which disportionately ends up housing poor black and brown folk who can do things such as having a good lawyer  OR queer folk who just do not even fit the systems method of ordering people which ends up putting them in postions to always be subjected towards violence because of their lack of a cis-postionality . Where its not a question of the top level concern's y'all are taking on .

But secondly lol : we adress people for a mistake they have made in their lives, but why not let them have a chance to move on to be honest 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Honestly  two things : 

one its much more of a theortical question y'all seem to be skimming over-  the idealogical backing behind the prison to house away those who are not deemed to fit within society which disportionately ends up housing poor black and brown folk who can do things such as having a good lawyer  OR queer folk who just do not even fit the systems method of ordering people which ends up putting them in postions to always be subjected towards violence because of their lack of a cis-postionality . Where its not a question of the top level concern's y'all are taking on.

 

1. No.  The ideology behind prisons is 'some people are too dangerous to be returned to society'.

 

2. It is certainly the case that we imprison to many people.  Our ideas of what is 'too dangerous' have become dangerously tilted.  But this isn't a problem with prisons - it's a problem with the justice system which puts people in prisons.

 

3. Similarly, the undue impact on racial minorities is in the justice system, not the prison system.

 

4. Even ignoring actual bias (which certainly impacts some prosecutions), a lot of the problem is that we have too many laws.  Being a law-abiding citizen requires knowing what the law is.  Our legal code is simply too complex.  Wealth creates advantages because the better off are less likely to get caught or prosecuted for breaking the myriad laws we break every day.  Check out the book Three Felonies A Day.

 

5. There's also some stupidity involved on the part of 'normal citizens' who engage in criminal behavior.  I don't care if you're fighting the power, engaging in activities like drug use is not only against the law - everyone knows its against the law.  You have no one to blame but yourself if you get caught.  And the money you spend on those drugs channels profits to violent criminal gangs that routinely murder people and catch innocents in the crossfire.  As a Chicago resident, I hope I don't have to elaborate that last part.  If people didn't illegally buy and use drugs, gangs wouldn't be well-funded killing machines.  (This is wholly separate from whether drugs should be legal.  They aren't, and that means there are consequences.  Needlessly violating unjust laws is stupid, not some brave act sticking it to the man).

 

6. And see also mandatory minimum sentencing.  Again, part of the justice system, not prisons.

 

Long story short, this is the dumbest of possible bandaid solutions.  It treats a symptom without addressing the disease, and does so in such a hamfisted way that it causes more harm than good.

 

Queer/

Prisons are never going to be some happy fun place of sunshine and rainbows.  And anyone who deserves to be in prison has that coming - that's entirely the point.  

 

There is no reasonable alternative to the male/female structure.  The only viable alternative to present is not separate at all, and that leads to very bad things.  (If you think prison rape is a problem now..).

 

Assigned gender separation has the advantage that it's at least possible to blend in.  Sexuality is not a scarlet letter you wear for all the world to see.  So if you look male, present as straight male for the duration of your prison stay.  Drawing attention to your sexuality is a choice, and the risks in prison outweigh the benefits.

 

And whatever "psychic violence" state-assignment inflicts on the queer prisoner pales in comparison to the actual violence of prison life.  This is the kind of thing that only someone who has never been to prison could complain about.

 

But secondly lol : we adress people for a mistake they have made in their lives, but why not let them have a chance to move on to be honest

1. Deterrence. If committing crime didn't carry a steep cost, more people would do it.

 

2. Some people are not reformable.  

 

3. Your euphemistic way of talking about it doesn't confuse serious listeners.  'A mistake they have made'... Murder is not a mistake.  Rape is not a mistake.  Their victims will never move on.  Choices carry consequences.  For the most terrible crimes, prison is rather lenient as a consequence.

 

(And yes, sometimes the justice system makes a mistake and imprisons the wrong person.  Justice reform goals need to include steps which work to minimize that risk, but there will always be a non-zero false positive rate.  That doesn't justify eliminating prisons.)

  • Upvote 3
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

1. No.  The ideology behind prisons is 'some people are too dangerous to be returned to society'

 

That's a broad, sweeping generalization of what punishment means in our society. If you really think that that's the actual, sole reason for prisons being used as a form of punishment, the rest of this debate is worthless. It's like you're trying to approach the topic from the least critical point-of-view possible.

 

 

 

 

2. It is certainly the case that we imprison to many people.  Our ideas of what is 'too dangerous' have become dangerously tilted.  But this isn't a problem with prisons - it's a problem with the justice system which puts people in prisons.

 

3. Similarly, the undue impact on racial minorities is in the justice system, not the prison system.

 

4. Even ignoring actual bias (which certainly impacts some prosecutions), a lot of the problem is that we have too many laws.  Being a law-abiding citizen requires knowing what the law is.  Our legal code is simply too complex.  Wealth creates advantages because the better off are less likely to get caught or prosecuted for breaking the myriad laws we break every day.  Check out the book Three Felonies A Day.

 

5. There's also some stupidity involved on the part of 'normal citizens' who engage in criminal behavior.  I don't care if you're fighting the power, engaging in activities like drug use is not only against the law - everyone knows its against the law.  You have no one to blame but yourself if you get caught.  And the money you spend on those drugs channels profits to violent criminal gangs that routinely murder people and catch innocents in the crossfire.  As a Chicago resident, I hope I don't have to elaborate that last part.  If people didn't illegally buy and use drugs, gangs wouldn't be well-funded killing machines.  (This is wholly separate from whether drugs should be legal.  They aren't, and that means there are consequences.  Needlessly violating unjust laws is stupid, not some brave act sticking it to the man).

 

6. And see also mandatory minimum sentencing.  Again, part of the justice system, not prisons.

 

I find the irony between point 5 and points 2, 3, 4, and 6 to be distressing and humerous. On one hand, it's not everyone's fault for being arrested/in prison, we're all just normal people who mess up sometimes! But on the other hand, there are BAD PEOPLE who know they're doing BAD THINGS and they deserve what's coming to them. You've in one move you attempted to remove the conceptual difference between criminals and regular people while at the same time normalizing the standard marginalizing rhetoric of punishment. Somehow you've managed to be both the white-washed democratic liberal and the cranky old conservative.

 

 

 

 

Queer/

Prisons are never going to be some happy fun place of sunshine and rainbows.  And anyone who deserves to be in prison has that coming - that's entirely the point.  

 

There is no reasonable alternative to the male/female structure.  The only viable alternative to present is not separate at all, and that leads to very bad things.  (If you think prison rape is a problem now..).

 

Assigned gender separation has the advantage that it's at least possible to blend in.  Sexuality is not a scarlet letter you wear for all the world to see.  So if you look male, present as straight male for the duration of your prison stay.  Drawing attention to your sexuality is a choice, and the risks in prison outweigh the benefits.

 

And whatever "psychic violence" state-assignment inflicts on the queer prisoner pales in comparison to the actual violence of prison life.  This is the kind of thing that only someone who has never been to prison could complain about.

 

 

I get that prisons are never going to be the best places ever, but you seem to extend that logic to claim that we basically shouldn't do shit for queer people. Being complicit with violence imposed on queered bodies just because "this is the kind of thing that only someone who has never been to prison could complain about" it absolute bullshit. I don't think the answer is making no sex distinctions for prisons, but to let queer people suffer much MUCH more horribly than the average inmate because "meh, prison always sucks" is a pretty disgusting thing to say. I don't know, but it seems like you think queer violence isn't a problem, or at least not a big one in prisons, which doesn't seem to be the case to me.

 

I don't know why you try to be the most the most deliberately obtuse person possible when it comes to anything outside of traditional policy analysis. You're clearly intelligent enough to get this stuff if you would just let go of your biases and stop getting mad when people try to question the things that you take as the absolute foundations for knowledge.

Edited by blueblue42
  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's a broad, sweeping generalization of what punishment means in our society. If you really think that that's the actual, sole reason for prisons being used as a form of punishment, the rest of this debate is worthless. It's like you're trying to approach the topic from the least critical point-of-view possible.

 

This is all in response to a plan that calls for the abolition of prisons, not mere reform.  If you don't think that prisons exist at least in part to protect society from people who are too dangerous to remain in society, then you're being delusional.  Are prisons being used for other, more nefarious purposes?  Yes.  But that doesn't mean the solution is to let all the murderers out to terrorize innocent people.

 

 

I find the irony between point 5 and points 2, 3, 4, and 6 to be distressing and humerous. On one hand, it's not everyone's fault for being arrested/in prison, we're all just normal people who mess up sometimes! But on the other hand, there are BAD PEOPLE who know they're doing BAD THINGS and they deserve what's coming to them. You've in one move you attempted to remove the conceptual difference between criminals and regular people while at the same time normalizing the standard marginalizing rhetoric of punishment. Somehow you've managed to be both the white-washed democratic liberal and the cranky old conservative.

 

 There's nothing contradictory here.  Classically, there's a difference between crimes that are malum in se, or inherently evil, and malum prohibitum, evil because they've been defined as such by the state.  The former--murderers, rapists, robbers--should be in prison.  The latter...maybe not, but in the case of drug-dealing gangs, there's a situation in which the state-defined crime of drug distribution generally leads to the inherently evil crimes of murder, robbery, etc.

 

I get that prisons are never going to be the best places ever, but you seem to extend that logic to claim that we basically shouldn't do shit for queer people. Being complicit with violence imposed on queered bodies just because "this is the kind of thing that only someone who has never been to prison could complain about" it absolute bullshit. I don't think the answer is making no sex distinctions for prisons, but to let queer people suffer much MUCH horrribly than the average inmate because "meh, prison always sucks" is a pretty disgusting thing to say. I don't know, but it seems like you think queer violence isn't a problem, or at least not a big one in prisons, which doesn't seem to be the case to me.

Again, the plan text is abolish prisons.  You're advocating a false dichotomy, that the choice is between abolition and doing nothing.  Ideally, you reform prisons (which is why the right strategy against this Aff is always going to include a prison reform CP).  But if you are limited to that false dichotomy, if the choice is "there's some structural 'violence' against queer bodies" or "criminals are free to kill and/or rape queer bodies without consequence," it should be an easy Neg vote.  The Aff is a "burn the neighborhood down to kill a mosquito" kind of solution, and that's why it's bad.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's a broad, sweeping generalization of what punishment means in our society. If you really think that that's the actual, sole reason for prisons being used as a form of punishment, the rest of this debate is worthless. It's like you're trying to approach the topic from the least critical point-of-view possible.

Let's distinguish ideology from practice, shall we? The least critical point-of-view possible would seem to be the view I'm responding to:

 

the idealogical backing behind the prison to house away those who are not deemed to fit within society...

This is obviously not the ideological basis of prisons. They were never intended just to house criminals, even if that's how they sometimes end up being used today. That's a betrayal of the ideology of prisons.

 

Prison was a last resort for people who were too dangerous to be released - generally because they needed 'moral reform'. (Historical usage, not mine). That 'moral reform' took the form of hard work - with the idea being that training the habits of a strong work ethic would produce a productive member of society rather than just regurgitate a future criminal.  (This is not necessarily an endorsement of method - we should determine what works best to turn criminals into productive members of society because its the goal that is important).

 

Along with that, we used to levy more fines and not prison sentences for lesser offenses. The over-sentencing of criminals to prison has created the crisis the prison system is currently in.

 

(We also admittedly used to kill people who were too dangerous to ever be released to society, and we've justifiably made executions a lot harder to carry out. But that means we now have prisoners we reasonably need to detain for their natural lifespans.)

 

So prison ideology is an extension of criminal justice ideology.  Crime demands punishment, and serious crimes demand serious punishment.  And many serious criminals are a danger to others such that they need to be separated from society - that's where prison ideology steps in.  But not all criminals who are dangerous to others deserve incarceration for life.  That demands attempt at behavioral reform so they are no longer a danger to others.  

 

The two obvious things to do are (1) reform the justice system so we send fewer people to prison, (2) reform prisons so they can better assist prisoners in reforming and exiting as productive citizens.  Neither of those involve abolishing prisons.

 

That's not an uncritical view, that's a reasoned and nuanced understanding of the purpose and necessity of prisons. It's certainly more critical than 'lol, prisons are just housing for criminals'.  And just because prisons can be and have been put to nefarious purposes doesn't mean those nefarious purposes were their intention.

 

I find the irony between point 5 and points 2, 3, 4, and 6 to be distressing and humerous. On one hand, it's not everyone's fault for being arrested/in prison, we're all just normal people who mess up sometimes! But on the other hand, there are BAD PEOPLE who know they're doing BAD THINGS and they deserve what's coming to them. You've in one move you attempted to remove the conceptual difference between criminals and regular people while at the same time normalizing the standard marginalizing rhetoric of punishment. Somehow you've managed to be both the white-washed democratic liberal and the cranky old conservative.

 

There's no irony between 5 and the other points.  You're confusing 'some x are y' logic for 'all x are y' logic. We're not all just normal people who mess up sometimes.  Some people are imprisoned for offenses they shouldn't be.  Some are prosecuted because our legal system is too complex and they break laws they cannot reasonably know about or understand.  Some are prosecuted more out of racial bias than any real criminal behavior.  And Some criminals receive harsher sentencing than their crime deserves because of legal mandates.

 

But some people choose to knowingly violate the law.  (See: Drug Use).  It doesn't matter that the law is unjust - they know what the law says in this case.  And the violation is needless.  They could just as easily not use drugs without compromising their self worth as a person or their legal rights.  This is sheer stupidity.  It's like trespassing in the face of a 'Trespassers will be shot' sign just to stroll across a private meadow when you know the owner has a gun and has shot trespassers before: you're knowingly risking severe consequences for miniscule gain.  Even if the law is unjust (and I'm not contesting it is in the case of drug use), only a fool would risk it.  And there are bad consequences involved in the drug use case for others - because money spent on drugs funds real criminals.

 

So I'm not even saying here that there are bad people who do bad things.  I'm saying there are stupid people who do morally ambiguous things that they know are illegal and carry harsh sentences.  They have no one to blame but themselves for the consequences they call down on their heads.  The unjust laws don't help - they contribute to putting people in prison who don't belong there - but it also requires the complicity of stupid people who needlessly violate those laws.  If you know something is illegal, and you do it anyway, you should have a damn good reason for doing so.

 

(I'm going to exclude medical marijauna use for the purposes of this discussion - those users may be needfully violating an unjust law, but that does not create a need for non-medical users - and we rarely if ever send medical marijauna users to prison).  

 

I will not, however, disagree that "there are BAD PEOPLE who know they're doing BAD THINGS", but those people belong in prison, aren't contributing to the population of improperly imprisoned people, and thus weren't the subject of any of those points.  Acknowledging that reality isn't "normalizing the standard marginalizing rhetoric of punishment", whatever that means, it's recognizing, for example, that women aren't making it up when they say men rape them.  And recognizing that these kinds of offenses both deserve punishment and are committed by criminals who are dangerous to others.  Reality check - some crime is real and serious enough to warrant extreme measures.  The US "intentional murder rate" in 2012 was 3.8 per 100,000 people (legal fact check: murder requires a finding of intent).  The homicide rate in Chicago was 15.1 per 100,000 in 2014 in a population of ~2.7 million (over 400 total last year).  Those are real dead bodies produced by real criminals.  Yes Virginia, there really are bad people.  And even with the current prison regime, 71.3 percent of violent criminals will re-offend within 5 years (http://www.nij.gov/topics/corrections/recidivism/pages/welcome.aspx) - while there is much to say about reforming prisons, abolishing them won't make bad people go away.

 

Finally, I'm amused you find the need to apply political labels to me.  Here, I'll supply one for you: I'm a classic liberal.  That probably means I'm totally outside your frame of reference on political beliefs.

 

I get that prisons are never going to be the best places ever, but you seem to extend that logic to claim that we basically shouldn't do shit for queer people. Being complicit with violence imposed on queered bodies just because "this is the kind of thing that only someone who has never been to prison could complain about" it absolute bullshit. I don't think the answer is making no sex distinctions for prisons, but to let queer people suffer much MUCH more horribly than the average inmate because "meh, prison always sucks" is a pretty disgusting thing to say. I don't know, but it seems like you think queer violence isn't a problem, or at least not a big one in prisons, which doesn't seem to be the case to me.

1. Not queer people, queer criminals.  I also wonder how large of a group this actually is.

 

2. Whatever additional 'psychic violence' this creates is miniscule compared to the real violence in prisons.  It's a matter of scale.  You're pointing at a speck that no one could possibly notice next to the metric ton next to it.  The terms "functionally indistinguishable", "measurement error", and "tiny effect size" come to mind - quite frankly, if there is any additional impact of being mis-gendered by the system, the impact is impossible to measure because its so small.  It's like being upset you got the wrong vintage (year) of your favorite vinyard's wine for dinner when you forgot to make the main course.  

 

3. No seriously, it's not 'much much' more horrible.  It's barely more horrible.  They likely don't even have time to think about it.  And I don't think your assessment of how horrible it is can be taken seriously.  You've probably never been to a prison.  You've certainly never been incarcerated in one.  You probably haven't even been locked in a jail for 15 minutes.  Whatever authors you've read on the subject have likely never been incarcerated. You have absolutely no context, and you're making elephants out of gnats.

 

4. I still have yet to see any realistic proposal about how you could possibly accomodate queer criminals in a reasonable fashion.  Fashionable politics is meaningless - it's where the rubber meets the road that matters.  Metaphorically, you need to shut up and drive.

 

I don't know why you try to be the most the most deliberately obtuse person possible when it comes to anything outside of traditional policy analysis. You're clearly intelligent enough to get this stuff if you would just let go of your biases and stop getting mad when people try to question the things that you take as the absolute foundations for knowledge.

Um, I'm not a traditional policy analyst.  You may have noticed the Autodefensa case I wrote for Latin America (file dumped in the trade forum), or the Beast of Blasphemy case i shared on Oceans (also file dumped).

 

It's not obtuseness, it's principle.  When people say things which flagrantly ignore reality, epistemological and pedagogical concerns compel me to return the discussion to this Earth and not whatever fantasy land they seem to be inhabiting.  It's called sanity checking.  I'm not the one being obtuse - the willingness of fashionable politics to discard very real harms leads to very real consequences and serial policy failure.  Stop securitizing far left fantasies.

Edited by Squirrelloid
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×