Right wing hypocrisy

As a socialist libertarian, I'm forever being told by right wingers to "get out of the country if you don't like it". For example, on LoA discord a self-proclaimed "24 year veteran" told me to get out of the US after criticising Trump (a US President tweeting conspiracy theories and lies), even though I live in the UK. LOL
Well, in Germany, a pro-immigration politician has been murdered by a far-right loon for telling people 'if you don't like it, leave the country'. They call us snowflakes, but they cannot handle an alternative viewpoint being offered. They say we don't respect freedom, but question their beliefs and see how much freedom they give you. They say the left are a threat to free speech, but see how quickly you get shut down if you start pointing out the problems with conservatism. They have a network of neoliberal news outlets (owned by billionaires) pumping out propaganda which is lapped up by the unthinking, unquestioning majority.

Discuss.

Comments

  • MistaneMistane Australia
    edited June 28
    Anyone that speaks in nebulous and polarising terms of " they" and "we/us", looking to have a serious discussion, has already veered off the rational path.

    Let's take the "we/us",

    Who defines what that means and who belongs there?
    Do agree with everyone that falls in in the left "we/us" category?
    What about the overlap. some people will agree with both "we/us" and "them"

    Don't hide behind those Generalizations, drop the vagueness, and daft labels like "socialist libertarian", it's a incredibly broad term and I seriously doubt under scrutiny you'd fully agree with the academic definition, cos no one does.

    Define your position as an individual, in specific terms of "I believe xxx" because of " xxxx"

    Here's one, I believe you can't hold a discussion without "Generalizing the shit out of the Other Side". Because I can read it in the way you compose your thoughts in the post.

    And seriously, go outside and have this discussion with a real human, and an open mind.
  • Mistane said:

    Anyone that speaks in nebulous and polarising terms of " they" and "we/us", looking to have a serious discussion, has already veered off the rational path.

    That's an idealistic claim. When a political leader speaks in terms of them and us, do you shout at them, insisting there's no such thing? Of, course not. There are two identifiable groups, whatever the range of ideas, one group identifies as one thing not the other. I self-identify as left - that has clear political implications.
    Mistane said:

    Let's take the "we/us",
    Who defines what that means and who belongs there?
    Do agree with everyone that falls in in the left "we/us" category?
    What about the overlap. some people will agree with both "we/us" and "them"

    We have had dictionaries for some time now - they contain definitions.
    No, not all people falling under a general classification will agree on everything, obviously.
    If there's an overlap, you can label yourself 'centre' or pick any other word.
    Mistane said:

    Don't hide behind those Generalizations, drop the vagueness, and daft labels like "socialist libertarian", it's a incredibly broad term and I seriously doubt under scrutiny you'd fully agree with the academic definition, cos no one does.

    Nobody is hiding, these classifications exist for a reason - if nobody classified anything, we wouldn't have science.
    You call socialist libertarian a daft label, but it is the label that most closely represents me, and is the quickest way to identify my political viewpoint for people who don't want to read an in-depth personal biography.
    Mistane said:

    Define your position as an individual, in specific terms of "I believe xxx" because of " xxxx"

    There is neither the space nor time for such self-indulgence. Should there be a discussion, I can elaborate on demand.
    Mistane said:

    Here's one, I believe you can't hold a discussion without "Generalizing the shit out of the Other Side". Because I can read it in the way you compose your thoughts in the post.

    I've already explained why generalisations are a starting point.
    I can discuss political detail to the smallest minutiae should you so desire. You have fixated on a generalisation and made exactly zero contribution to the actual topic (snowflake hypocrisy)
    I can also read stuff into what you've posted- such as that you identify as RW and are eager to deny that such behaviour is attributable to you individually (even though that disproves nothing).
    Mistane said:

    And seriously, go outside and have this discussion with a real human, and an open mind.

    You know precisely nothing about me, or my RL, yet feel that was a valid point to make - this is incredibly informative of your mindset. Maybe if I told you I regularly discuss politics with people who hold different views to me (amiably), you'd understand I'm not some kid holed up in a basement. I am in fact well into middle-age, well-adjusted, educated at a grammar school (free schools for intelligent kids in UK), and more importantly, an ex-conservative. My mind is as open as it should be, no more, no less.
  • MistaneMistane Australia
    Now I may not be as formally educated as you are. But I've noticed, and I'm sure you have too, that most people have a public and a private personna. And over the years I've also noticed the each personna carries a different vocabulary.

    A political leader stumping in public, speaks in generalized terms precisely because it's a one way conversation, to push a crafted narrative that can be adopted and spread by those susceptible to catchphrases and cliches. Successful techniques used to publicly orate a strong message to garner votes are necessarily vague, closed minded, and combative. The general public does not respond well to uncertainty, flip-flopping, or weakness. (Yet those are the very traits of an open mind, and a willingness to understand.)

    While behind closed doors, within the protected inner coterie of that same politician, you'll often find a more hesitant, uncertain and open minded individual.

    It's very difficult to have a serious conversation with the public personna, if you truly want to understand the other side, it's best done in person and in private.

    And I get the underlying sense, despite your combative opening, you want to understand, not just rant or clash unproductively with political caricatures.
  • True, though anonymity allows a more personal public identity.
    I find combative openings usually expedite the expression of people's real feelings.
    Honestly, I was kind of curious if anyone would defend the murder. Nobody has, which is nice.

  • MistaneMistane Australia
    On emotionally charged topics, if you set out to anger and antagonise through combative debate, it's hardly surprising you're frustrated with the other side.

    Generalizations and caricature, especially anonymously, is often used to protect our personal opinions and identity from change. You'll alway be able to find individuals in any group that confirm whatever negative behaviour you're seeking. Once you head down that path it becomes a self fulfilling prophecy.

    You were curious if someone was willing to defend murder, and no one responded.

    Has that shifted your views in any significant direction? probably not, because we both know there are, sadly, people out there that will defend almost any position. Whether someone responded or not is unlikely to change anything in you.

    That particular generalized combative approach tends to seek out debates that strengthen existing negative biases on both sides. And I'm sure that's not your underlying intention.

    If we to delve deep enough on an individual level, I think you'd agree, we're all filled with an ever evolving set of moral contradictions and uncertainty. Your path from conservative to liberal must have had many periods of similar internal conflict. Some might describe those moments as hypocrisy, and others see it as beginning of personal growth.

    I, and I believe most people, find it's easier to grow and learn through open conversations, where we're both free to explore our own moral uncertainties and insecurities. Enjoy a glimpse of the world through someone else's worldview and learn about the journey that led them there.

    If this was an in person conversation, while I'm certain we'd differ politically, I'd be far more interested in the unique events and experiences that shaped your views, and what I could vicariously learn from those. The transition from conservative to liberal would be extremely fascinating to me.
  • I don't set out to anger or antagonise - I set out to elicit a real response from the private individual, not the public persona. Emotion is the biggest failing when it comes to debate - and is weaponised by politicians seeking to convince people that they're under threat from some quarter.
    I was wondering if any LoAers were extremists (after being told to leave [a] country in discord) who felt that immigrants are such an existential threat that anyone who campaigns for migrant rights should be killed - I often find such people in social media and have the opportunity to present some salient facts (such as economy boosts, cultural enrichment, plus hypocrisy of being descendants of immigrants) which usually get ignored.
    My conversion from conservative to lefty was fairly straighforward - I always just accepted things are the way they are. Then I got detention on day one of grammar school for not having a fountain pen - that made me question authority. All the teachers were inherently pro-establishment, and I marvelled at how out of touch they were. Then on to drugs, warehouse parties and seeing how the police treated youngsters who just wanted to have a good time - Thatcher banning raves and MPs lamenting drug use (while enjoying taxpayer-subsidised alcohol in Parliament and occasionally being forced to admit to drug use in younger years). In UK we had Mary Whitehouse trying to ban everything she didn't consider family friendly (everything I liked). We had a horrific crush at a football match that the police and RW press conspired to blame on the fans. I just saw so many lies and untruths being showered on the ignorant daily, that I couldn't count myself among their number.
    THEN I started actively monitoring politics and right now, I'm aghast at the effects sites like InfoWars & PrisonPlanet have on susceptible minds - kids livestreaming mass shootings on a complicit facebook.
    As an empathetic being who firmly believes in fair play, it was never whether I'd become a lefty, but when.
  • MistaneMistane Australia
    edited July 5
    It sounds like you're strongly for fairness and free speech, which I can certainly agree with. And mostly against censorship, with possibly some exceptions (InfoWars, PrisonPlanet etc) to protect susceptible minds.

    I often struggle with the question of censorship, and where the line is drawn and what can be applied fairly without political subjectivity.

    What do you believe should be done about sites that may be spreading misinformation, and more importantly how does it square with your libertarian ideals?
  • edited July 6
    Free speech has limits (I suspect all freedoms do) - I'd rather every human could discern the truth for themselves than censor, but I don't see human intelligence (monkey brains) ever being reliable. We have (in UK) a precedent for limiting free speech - if libel or slander (to protect people from lies about them), or if incitement to violence. There are also rules governing press misinformation (though very lax) so when a lie is front page (Daily Mail), a retraction will be included weeks later on page 27. Anyone who says anyone should be able to say anything is an extremist.
    The trouble is, data strongly suggests once a lie is told, people willing to believe it will not be dissuaded by a retraction. This is further complicated by the tactic of actually using a factually accurate, though entirely misleading, statistic or premise upon which is built an extrapolated nightmare scenario (white genocide). At the extreme end, we have misattributed videos (find a video of violence and just say the attacker is muslim).
    I am of the opinion that a fact must never be censored, no matter how uncomfortable it makes one feel, but the stated ramifications of that fact must be realistic. We have a pretty decent justice system (other than the fact only the rich can afford it now), that can do a good job of discerning fact from fiction - anyone who behaves like a journalist should be held to reporting standards (which should be strengthened) and if they show a pattern of misleading people, the site (or social media account) owner can be held responsible. There have been a number of fact-checking organisations created over the last few years that do this, but they have no regulatory powers.

  • MistaneMistane Australia
    edited July 8
    It would appear you're much stronger on censoring than I realised. It sounds like you believe people should be insulated from contradictory and inflammatory information.

    Should the individual, including the more suggestible members of society, not be allowed to expose themselves to conflicting information and decide for themselves?

    Should lying publicly be regulated in some form?

    Wouldn't that be leaning towards authoritarianism?
  • edited July 9
    I have no problem with people being exposed to contradictory information - with context. Otherwise we end up with flat earthers and antivaxxers...

    Inflamatory is by definition likely to inflame - sounds suspiciously like hate speech. The world can do without more hate. If there are facts to share, stating them without demonisation is perfectly possible.

    All humans are suggestible to different degress - I'm not sure that is what I would base a system on. Believing in fairies harms nobody. It's the people who get violently radicalised that are the target.

    I strongly believe a public figure deliberately lying about a sensitive topic (one that could foster extremism) should be disciplined, be they journalist, politician, blogger or *mumbled expletives* "influencer". One person lying to another, outside, in the course of daily life cannot be regulated.

    Is being subject to laws you never had any influence over, authoritarianist? Society imposes behavioural standards on the population (if they are unjust, it is up to them to force change). If the decisions on what is regulated speech is left to a justice system free from political interference (and taking context into consideration), I believe it would work.
  • MistaneMistane Australia
    OG Brum said:


    Is being subject to laws you never had any influence over, authoritarianist?

    Yes, that is exactly what authoritarianism is.
    OG Brum said:


    If the decisions on what is regulated speech is left to a justice system free from political interference (and taking context into consideration), I believe it would work.

    Again, deferring decisions on regulated speech to an authoritative body (in this case the Justice System), is by definition, authoritarianism.

    Which is why I'm a little surprised by your stance.
  • edited July 10
    Erm...
    Authoritarian: "favouring or enforcing strict obedience to authority at the expense of personal freedom"
    So... no. Not authoritarianism since, while expected to obey laws, those who find themselves in court also find an impartial judge with the powers to decide how serious the infraction was and how severe the punishment should be, if any.
    The only way to consider society innately authoritarian is to believe that all social constructs are evil.
  • MistaneMistane Australia
    edited July 10
    OG Brum said:

    Erm...
    Authoritarian: "favouring or enforcing strict obedience to authority at the expense of personal freedom"

    Yes, precisely that. That is the basis of practically every modern legal system.

    Now that does not mean every government that has a legal system is automatically an authoritarian regime.

    Rather the current legal system is a subsection of the government, founded on authoritarian principles, wherein, we as individuals give up some personal freedom in exchange for order and safety.

    e.g
    Freedom lost: I can't run naked down to the shops past the local primary school.
    Order and safety gained: but at least my kids will be protected from naked perverts.

    (Governments can have many subsystems that comprise of varied and often opposing ideologies. e.g in the UK broadly speaking, Law=authoritarian, healthcare/NHS=socialist, commerce=capitalist)

    While you, or I, might pragmatically recognize that an authoritarian approach as a basis for a legal system seems to work fairly well. It is also in direct opposition to the commonly held tenets of socialist libertarianism. Which usually ranges from some form of purely democratic justice, e.g jurors without a judge, to more permissive and anarchistic models of justice.

    And I'm not trying to box you into any particular ideology, I'm just trying to get a sense of what your views are on different aspects of society. And I get the feeling rather than a singular overarching doctrine, you might hold an eclectic blend of ideologies, each applicable to different section of society.
  • Fair point, but I still wouldn't call Western law "authoritarian" (that term should be reserved for places that are "strict" - *cough* China) - though it definitely has the potential.
    Part of the reason I identify as 'socialist libertarian' is because it includes two apparently incompatible doctrines - as do most, if not all, of my beliefs.
    I have considered democratic justice btw, and my starting point would be the reconsideration / revocation of most laws (Parliament shows voters how much use it is by rushing through poorly designed / worded / implemented laws susceptible to function creep). Then move onto democratisation. One should always bear in mind that the law is part of the reason individuals have documented rights.
  • edited December 6
    OG Brum said:

    As a socialist libertarian, I'm forever being told by right wingers to "get out of the country if you don't like it". For example, on LoA discord a self-proclaimed "24 year veteran" told me to get out of the US after criticising Trump (a US President tweeting conspiracy theories and lies), even though I live in the UK. LOL
    Well, in Germany, a pro-immigration politician has been murdered by a far-right loon for telling people 'if you don't like it, leave the country'. They call us snowflakes, but they cannot handle an alternative viewpoint being offered. They say we don't respect freedom, but question their beliefs and see how much freedom they give you. They say the left are a threat to free speech, but see how quickly you get shut down if you start pointing out the problems with conservatism. They have a network of neoliberal news outlets (owned by billionaires) pumping out propaganda which is lapped up by the unthinking, unquestioning majority.

    Discuss.

    Googled: Nazi ~ a member of the National Socialist German Workers' Party.

    Nazis were, and are left wing...
  • The war between the States ended in 1865 with the North victorious and the Confederate South defeated. Slavery in the South was now illegal, the former slaves had the vote and groups of white Republicans started collecting batches of them and escorting them to the polls. The situation was resented and small white terrorist groups formed at various places to keep the blacks down and white supremacy intact. Far the best known would be the Ku Klux Klan.

    The Klan began in Tennessee, in the small town of Pulaski, near Memphis. It was founded by Confederate army veterans at a drinking club there and the strange but memorable name was a combination of ‘clan’ and the Greek word kuklos, meaning ‘circle’ or, in this case, social club. Dressed up in scary costumes with hoods and masks, members rode about at night threatening and frightening blacks. They demanded that blacks either vote Democrat or not vote at all. They met defiance with beatings, whippings and sometimes murder. They burned blacks’ houses down and drove black farmers off their land and they extended their hostilities to southern whites who opposed them and the so-called ‘carpetbaggers’, white infiltrators from the North. 

    The Klan loved weird titles, Grand Dragon and such, and a former Confederate cavalry general, Nathan Bedford Forrest, is said to have been for a time the Klan’s leader as Grand Imperial Wizard. In 1868 he said that the Klan had well over 500,000 members in the southern states, but that he was not involved.

    The original Klan faded away in the 1870s after the federal government had taken action and many members had been arrested and punished, but it had helped to make the South a Democrat political stronghold. It was refounded in 1915, inspired by the film The Birth of a Nation by the pioneering Hollywood director D.W. Griffith, which shone an admiring light on the original Klan. It has existed with very slowly declining influence ever since.

    Source: https://www.historytoday.com/archive/ku-klux-klan-founded

    Also, left wing....

    Shall we talk about Jim Crow laws?
  • edited December 7
    Kraxis said:

    Nazis were, and are left wing...

    Ladies and gentlemen, I present: a glaring example of stupid.
    The Nazis were right wing. No question. Ask any legitimate historian. They rounded up socialists and communists for torture, slavery, concentration camps & death. People think having "socialist" in the name proves something - well, as in the case of the "Democratic" Republic of North Korea, you could not be more wrong. I lament the education system that has allowed you to believe such an extraordinary untruth.
    Kraxis said:

    The Klan
    Also, left wing...

    Maybe how it started, but definitely not the case any more.

  • @OG Brum

    2 problems with your reply here.

    1. I presented 100% irrefutable historical evidence, with citations to back up my argument.

    What did you present? Your opinion...

    Provide historical facts, not opinions please.

    2. You resorted to ad hominem on the opening line.

    Any good debater knows that once your opponents argument breaks down, and name calling/attacking begins. The debate is over, and you win.

    Tip for the future. Don't call names, and learn how to research actual historical, truthful evidence, and facts.

    Opinions are subjective thought, not objective truth...
  • edited December 10
    2 problems with your 2 problems.
    1. You presented, apparently as 100% irrefutable proof;"Googled: Nazi ~ a member of the National Socialist German Workers' Party."
    LMAO! Here's a historical fact for you.
    2. I called what you wrote "stupid", not who wrote it. I have since made the connection, though.

    [Short reply due to original being eaten by forum]
  • OG Brum said:

    2 problems with your 2 problems.
    1. You presented, apparently as 100% irrefutable proof;"Googled: Nazi ~ a member of the National Socialist German Workers' Party."
    LMAO! Here's a historical fact for you.
    2. I called what you wrote "stupid", not who wrote it. I have since made the connection, though.

    [Short reply due to original being eaten by forum]

    1. Who is fact checking your website?

    These so called "fact" checking websites are garbage. Similar to "snopes" they will politicize their "historical facts" , and then begin talking about stupid stuff like Trump. It's obviously biased.

    Again, give me historical facts like this...

    Left, In politics, the portion of the political spectrum associated in general with egalitarianism and popular or state control of the major institutions of political and economic life. The term dates from the 1790s, when in the French revolutionary parliament the socialist representatives sat to the presiding officer’s left. Leftists tend to be hostile to the interests of traditional elites, including the wealthy and members of the aristocracy, and to favour the interests of the working class (see proletariat). They tend to regard social welfare as the most important goal of government. Socialism is the standard leftist ideology in most countries of the world; communism is a more radical leftist ideology.

    Source: https://www.britannica.com/topic/left

    100% description of Nazis history!

    Also, a perfect description of the slave owning, Jim crow, anti civil rights, democrats of America.
  • Correlation complete. Thank you for removing any lingering doubt my asessment was incorrect.
    I'd like to think you're trolling, but I have met a lot of total morans so, from your own linked website:
    Encyclopedia Britannica
    It's funny you mention Snopes as they are #1 result claiming Nazis were lefties.
  • CerynCeryn Japan
    edited December 11
    @Kraxis

    You probably aren't interested in facts but historically the Republican Party and Democratic Party switched ideologies starting around the time of FDR and the New Deal gradually until around the Civil rights act (1964) and Voting rights act (1965). Prior to this time the majority of Northern states were Republican and Democrats had a clear hold on the South.

    https://www.history.com/news/how-the-party-of-lincoln-won-over-the-once-democratic-south

    Republicans (The Party of Abraham Lincoln) were very clearly the "Left" party and dominated the North from the time of the parties inception. They argued very specifically for the expansion of the Federal powers unlike now where they would be considered the party of States rights.

    https://www.livescience.com/34241-democratic-republican-parties-switch-platforms.html

    It doesn't take much to educate yourself in this regard. The voting totals for the control of the country during the 1950s looked like this with Democrats concentrated in the South:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:82_us_house_membership.png

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1950_United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections

    Since we established that the North was controlled by Republicans during the 50s lets look at the time of the civil rights act. Even though this vote took place in 1964 you can pretty clearly see that it is bipartisan and mostly a division between North and South. You can also see that Democrats have started to gain a foothold in the North.

    Southern Democrats: 7–87 (7–93%)
    Southern Republicans: 0–10 (0–100%)
    Northern Democrats: 145–9 (94–6%)
    Northern Republicans: 138–24 (85–15%)

    One year later the Voters Rights Act granted African American suffrage. During this time you can clearly see that a Democratic majority after Lyndon B. Johnson (D) beat Barry Goldwater (R) in the election of 1964. It's not only that suddenly a ton more Democrats won elections either a significant amount of Northern Republicans switched to the Democratic Party.

    The final vote total for the Voter's Rights Act was a 333-85 vote. Democrats 221-61, Republicans 112-24

    Compare the Map from the earlier election. You will see that over the course of 10 years the party in control of the North / South ideological divide changed greatly. Just contrast the Electoral map to the one provided earlier.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1964_United_States_presidential_election

    Finally a quote from the above article. Summing up the progression of the switch.

    Goldwater won his home state and swept the states of the Deep South, most of which had not voted for a Republican presidential candidate since the end of Reconstruction in 1877. Johnson's landslide victory coincided with the defeat of many conservative Republican Congressmen. The subsequent 89th Congress would pass major legislation such as the Social Security Amendments of 1965 and the Voting Rights Act. Goldwater's unsuccessful bid significantly influenced the modern conservative movement. The long-term realignment of conservatives to the Republican Party continued, culminating in the 1980 presidential victory of Ronald Reagan.
  • CerynCeryn Japan
    edited December 11
    Kraxis said:

    OG Brum said:


    Again, give me historical facts like this...

    Left, In politics, the portion of the political spectrum associated in general with egalitarianism and popular or state control of the major institutions of political and economic life. The term dates from the 1790s, when in the French revolutionary parliament the socialist representatives sat to the presiding officer’s left. Leftists tend to be hostile to the interests of traditional elites, including the wealthy and members of the aristocracy, and to favour the interests of the working class (see proletariat). They tend to regard social welfare as the most important goal of government. Socialism is the standard leftist ideology in most countries of the world; communism is a more radical leftist ideology.

    Source: https://www.britannica.com/topic/left

    100% description of Nazis history!

    Also, a perfect description of the slave owning, Jim crow, anti civil rights, democrats of America.

    How nice of you to quote how britannica describes leftism but not bother to quote the fact that they also consider the Nazi's to be a facist right leaning regime. They even arrested and threw members of the German Socialist / Communist parties into concentration camps.

    https://www.britannica.com/story/were-the-nazis-socialists
  • @Ceryn

    You probably aren't interested with facts, but historically, your wrong.

    1. Your party switch "facts" are a complete myth. Here's my question to debunk that.

    Answer this, what members changed party? I want names. If it's true, then you should be able to generate a list very easily by copy/paste.

    The answer is very easy, I'll test your sources. Heres a hint, REMEMBER the number 3.

    Second question, if the party switched. Then why did the "Racist" SOUTH become more Republican and less "Racist" over time, and not stay with the racist democrats?

    If the republicans swapped ideologies, then you would see an increase in racist activities amongst republicans.

    How can this be if the party switched? Less than .01% of the population is part of the KKK, or any white nationalist group for that matter.

    2. Where on earth did you get the nonsense claiming that Lincoln, and the Republican party were lefties?

    You don't get to superimpose the heroics of the Republican party in place of the atrocities of the democrats.

    Wikipedia? LOL, Did you edit that yourself?

    Here's two questions...

    Who formed the Republican party, and for what two reasons?

    Who formed the Democrat party, and for what reason?

    3. Who granted black people the right to vote?

    REPUBLICANS

    Source: https://www.crf-usa.org/black-history-month/african-americans-and-the-15th-amendment

    Not DEMOCRATS. So please, take that nonsense elsewhere.
  • edited December 11
    OG Brum said:

    Correlation complete. Thank you for removing any lingering doubt my asessment was incorrect.
    I'd like to think you're trolling, but I have met a lot of total morans so, from your own linked website:
    Encyclopedia Britannica
    It's funny you mention Snopes as they are #1 result claiming Nazis were lefties.

    You just proved my point...

    That's why I don't use those "fact checking" websites like you do.

    They are wrong, often.

    Did you think this one through? LOL
  • Is your point that you were you droppped on your head as a baby? Or that you have a complete inability to read?
    That link disproves your claim. LOL
  • OG Brum said:

    Is your point that you were you droppped on your head as a baby? Or that you have a complete inability to read?
    That link disproves your claim. LOL

    Google Dunning-Kruger effect. You might learn something about yourself.
  • Know it. Know me. Know you.
Sign In or Register to comment.