Daily reminder that if you can't distill your online argument to a short...

LET THE RETARDS SPEAK. NON RETARDS DON'T GET A SAY.

It's not "laziness," I have a finite amount of time and patience and spending that time and patience to absorb some circular viewpoint that keeps saying the same thing using different words is a waste of my time. I will never listen to you if you can't keep your responses brief.

> if you want to argue liberalism, let's do it
I can't attack a whole ideology at once, there are good parts and bad parts. I will say that any ideology that's based on disarmament and silence is going to get crowded by pseud authoritarians who care more about "owning the cuckservatives" than actual "progress"

It depends on just how uneloquent they are.

why are you in a board about reading books?

>I have a finite amount of time and patience
That sounds like laziness. There are absolutely well-constructed arguments that can't be encapsulated in a single paragraph without losing something. Was Kant in the wrong when the Critique of Pure Reason came in at 856 pages? Should he have just summed it up in a paragraph or two for lazy fucks like you?
>any ideology that's based on disarmament
I frankly don't care about gun control as much as other liberals. I think that both sides are being silly - it's just not that an important of an issue. I will say that the original justification for 2A was to give the people the power to fight a tyrannical government, and while that was absolutely possible in 1800, we might find it difficult today when faced down with tanks and jets. 2A was almost more of a psychological weapon than a practical one, i.e the government would have feared being too tyrannical against an armed populace, but what does the federal government today have to fear, even if everyone in the US had a machine gun? They have F-35s.
>and silence
What?

Perfectly fair.

Well for one I like to read books and will even read philosophy. I don't mind argumentative logic but I can tell you right now that when Wittgenstein or Hume does it it's different than when some 19 year old socialist does it. If I'm going to read a bunch of shit it's gotta be substantive and not pretending to be, it's literally the argumentative equivalent of three kids stacked up in a trench coat pretending to be big.

If you aren't smart enough to crush them in arguement you should reevaluate then lol.

brevity is important but nuance is more important

> That sounds like laziness. There are absolutely well-constructed arguments that can't be encapsulated in a single paragraph without losing something. Was Kant in the wrong when the Critique of Pure Reason came in at 856 pages? Should he have just summed it up in a paragraph or two for lazy fucks like you?

I can tell you that the bulk of his ideas could have been distilled down to a couple pages, yes. He preferred to expound upon it a little too much (that's OK) however expecting me or anyone to read and respond to 800+ pages of masturbatory language is quite a tall order. Again, it's not laziness I can do other things with my time and consume larger ideas than most put forth by these people.

And your gun control argument is wrong- with all of our jets and helicopters we lost Vietnam. Why even invade other countries with infantry when we go to war if we can just drone strike? Because we need boots on the ground to enforce any governance. a jet cannot check your papers, detain you or run riot control. An armed guard can. Claiming that we'd never be able to compete with the existing military is defeatism to the point of delusion.

Good subtext is nuance and brevity combined.

I get what you're saying. Kind of like how half of Descartes is him rambling about how reasonable he is and half of Nietzsche is his shit talking other philosophers rather than getting to the fucking point.

Oh, usually they just stop responding once I get a couple good points in.

> nuance
Nuance isn't important until you get to splitting hairs over lexical properties, broad ideological differences can and should be simplified and boiled down before you try to present them to other people.

Yeah, most philosophical argument is pages and pages of "setting the stage" where they shit talk other people and respond to criticism ahead of time. I prefer to consume my "philosophy" in forms of a plotline a la Infinite Jest or Thus Spake.

I agree OP.

Yea Forums has a large population of people who think they're so much more interesting than they are. If you can't present your thoughts in simple, clear language in a concise manner then you're a midwit.

No, your ideas are not so unique and special and important that they NEED 20 posts to explain.

No, you do not need to use uncommon or invented words to express your ideas. We get it, we're not idiots, there's no confusion.

No, I will not "Read BLANK". Present your argument, don't just post a book title or a 3 hours youtube video by a literal who.

Haha, you almost had me there but you are wrong.

You need to read Marx.

No I won't explain myself, Marx will do it for me.

At the very least you need to read these 10 books.

Sorry I haven't read them, but that's not important. This isn't about me it's about you.

By that standard philosophy books should not exist. But I think this particular brand of stupidity is what you get after years of exposure to american pop culture and its cult for ridiculing complexity in all forms. Television and movies assume the majority of people can't understand complex messages, therefore dumb them down as much as they can, to make you think truth is a simple and fairly accessible thing. In any imaginable context: truth is a complex thing. It requires levels of explanation that are unfathomably complex. And here in the west we grow up in a culture which pushes the idea that truth - or "the important truths" or "the true truths" are "simple". Most people may be using buzzwords online, and yes there are charlatans, but to group all things together and say that all points can be stated shortly and clearly is stupid.
As Pynchon said: If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don't have to worry about answers. He is right.
No wonders all evil guys are doctors.

>broad ideological differences can and should be simplified and boiled down before you try to present them to other people.

This is just assuming that complex thought does not exist or is incomprehensible.

>What I propose to do here is to specify how this book is to be read so as to be understood. – It aims to convey a single thought. But in spite of all my efforts, I could not find a shorter way of conveying the thought than the whole of this book.

It really doesn't, it assumes you can and should abstract away pointless details when they're irrelevant. If you think that means you can't do "complex thought" then I don't know what to tell you.

> truth is a complex thing. It requires levels of explanation that are unfathomably complex
That's how I know you're stupid.

Some philosophers actually get to the fucking point immediately like Locke or Schopenhauer, or Jung. Others fucking ramble for no reason.

>with all of our jets and helicopters we lost Vietnam
Because we were unwilling to invest in a more concerted, absolute campaign there due to domestic politics, and because that was 50 years ago. Imagine if, instead of sending in ground troops, we sent in drones.
There's also the argument that the Vietnamese people were much more willing to engage in warfare. Can you imagine the modern American populace unironically rising against its government in an armed conflict? Say they firebombed Seattle. How long do you think it would take other cities to put up a white flag to avoid the same fate?
>Because we need boots on the ground to enforce any governance.
The American population is much more Urban than 1960s Vietnam was. They could hide in forests - the US government would just send an army division into each US city and force municipal and state governments into compliance. Imagine what would *actually happen* if the military assaulted a San Fransisco armed to the brim with machine gun-carrying civilians. a) the city's population wouldn't be used ot warfare and would lay down their arms after much less fighting than the Vietnamese did, b) San Fransisco is in the mainland US, which creates a psychological barrier that didn't exist in Vietnam, half a world away, c) the military can just obliterate parts of the downtown with jets, which on its own would be enough to win, d) tanks, e) high-tech weaponry like active denial systems (i.e. microwave weapons) that you could target entire crowds with, and so on. It just isn't plausible that a crowd with AR-15s could defeat a determined modern military.
So what happens after the military successfully takes over the urban centers of the US? Does the rebellion retreat into the countryside and try to fight a guerilla war? Maybe, but it wouldn't matter, because the US would hold the urban centers, which are what actually matter. There's just no way it works.

Reeeeeeeeeeeeeee

>Does the rebellion retreat into the countryside and try to fight a guerilla war? Maybe, but it wouldn't matter, because the US would hold the urban centers, which are what actually matter.
Urban centers need to be supplied with lots of shit, and guess where do the supplies come from.

>Was Kant in the wrong when the Critique of Pure Reason came in at 856 pages? Should he have just summed it up in a paragraph or two for lazy fucks like you?
he could've summed it up as "what if things don't be like we think they be, but we can't think of them any other way because of they way our minds work?" and saved hundreds of dumb Yea Forumstards dozens of hours of reading.

>Because we were unwilling to invest in a more concerted, absolute campaign there due to domestic politics, and because that was 50 years ago. Imagine if, instead of sending in ground troops, we sent in drones.
>There's also the argument that the Vietnamese people were much more willing to engage in warfare. ?>Can you imagine the modern American populace unironically rising against its government in an armed conflict? Say they firebombed Seattle. How long do you think it would take other cities to put up a white flag to avoid the same fate?

You're assuming it would all be fought in cities. If we can accomplish all of it with only drones, why did we put troops in Afghanistan or Iraq? Do you think the government would just nuke it's own people without regard for casualty? You make a lot of assumptions and don't seem to know a lot about war.

> So what happens after the military successfully takes over the urban centers of the US? Does the rebellion retreat into the countryside and try to fight a guerilla war? Maybe, but it wouldn't matter, because the US would hold the urban centers, which are what actually matter. There's just no way it works.

Yes, any rebellion would be a guerilla operation. That's how rebellion works. Also, not all of the military would join in oppressing it's people. You're denying the psychological element of bombing your friends and family.

b-but how else would I get a big thick coffee table book to show everyone I read and am smart? I can't read an essay stack of papers on the train and feel like a big smart guy. Heh, I read philosophy I'm nuanced.

Yo dude there's no oughta be or oughta do in reality, since all of those statements are basically just feels, so feel free to accept any kind of moral or poltical ideology you think seems good to you.
You don't need to agree with anyone else, nor will anyone have to agree with you on anything.

Looks like another victory for communism.

Do you know the source of that line? It doesn’t really support that statement.

That's besides the point. The location of an argument or statement doesn't actually have much to do with that argument or statement.