US Capitol Breached

[Sarin]

Actually, it's not an ad homenim because I'm not actually making an argument refuting yours. For it to be one, I would have to say that your points are invalid because of your actions I described.I never said you were wrong, did I?

I never said anything you wrote was wrong, after all. Ironically, you're dismissing my post because of certain assumptions you made about me. "I see as a threat". That is an ad hominem, actually. And that's causing you to miss the main point of my post, because you are focused on my motivations and not my post.

You don't even know what ad hominem is. I suggest you consult nearest dictionary.

I'm dismissing you because your posts were only ad hominems, thus making your motivations clear.

 

[Farm Boy]

Totally agree. That said, I only see a significant counter-push to this problem in only one of the major parties. There's a corrupt "center" and there's a wing-nut leftwing to the (D), but there's a solid and significant portion of the base that would undo the economic damage if they could get any bipartisan support.

Sure.

 

[El_Machinae]

thank you for that feedback, it's useful.

And echo chambers like this are normalizing hostility against those who dare to disagree with the side they feel closer to, thus pushing the moderates to take sides.

It's definitely hard to stop a dog-pile in an online forum. Very often, there are a pile of jerks who will say any mean thing in order to 'suppress' the dissenting voice, and feel like driving a poster away helps win the culture war. Rarely forums have an outcome where people recognize that one of the 'reasonable' posters will step-wise try to get the conversation into some type of useful outcome. The siloization of discussion has definitely become a problem. I have friends where I cannot even figure out where they're getting their news from!

I often use the phrase "police your own". It's the only thing that works, since correcting someone who views you as an ally will always be more useful than trying to 'correct' someone who views you as a political opponent. Counter-protestors weren't able to get the swastikas un-invited to the Charlottesville rally, because the White Pride people don't care about counter-protestors. And I guess too few white men are willing to stomp someone carrying a swastika as part of an internal immune defense of the 'core' that they insist doesn't involve swastikas.

 

[Farm Boy]

Anytime.

So let's say I'm taking your advice. And my typical cohort is constrained from simply stomping people with swastikas by the virtue of law, and obligation, regardless of the genitals and the melanin(heresy, I know. What could possibly be more important). And that identity also means that certain people are going to find my voice useless by default. So then, we're in the situation that I have to virtue signal to keep up appearances with the only people that might not be deadbraining. Eh?

 

[Archon_Wing]

You don't even know what ad hominem is. I suggest you consult nearest dictionary.

I think you should too.

The Latin phase argumentum ad hominem stands for "argument against the person"

I didn't make an argument against you. Again, I never said anything you said was false.

It was a critique of your debate methods, and that is bringing up stuff like echo chamber and other implications of oppression doesn't really make things more persuasive. Why? Because nobody cares. Even if it were an echo chamber, how does that make anything you said more true. Or less? Or what anyone else said?

You on the other hand, have already accused me of seeing you as a threat, even though I have no idea who you are beyond this thread, and probably wouldn't really remember you in about half an hour. I mean, I can flat out say, "who cares who is right?" If you win, or if I win, it's just a silly little internet contest.

tl;dr Victim complex doesn't help. That's all.

 

[Seon]

You don't even know what ad hominem is. I suggest you consult nearest dictionary.

I'm dismissing you because your posts were only ad hominems, thus making your motivations clear.

Nah, Archon Wing is right. Ad Hominem has to involve dismissing your argument because of your personal quality or your past behavior. Critiquing specific methodology of discourse is not ad hominem.


And El_Machinae, pretty much the only reason why we are in this situation right now is because the right wing will not police or even criticize their own without external pressure, and have developed a strange persecution complex over even the most reasonable criticism of their behavior.

 

[IglooDame]

Also, not for nothing, but this was all predictable once Trump started whining about "millions of illegal votes" a lifetime ago.

And even before the 2016 election, when he wouldn't commit to accepting the election results, and arguably even before that. Guess who said this:
“I wake up every day and laugh at the latest thing Donald tweeted. Because he’s losing it. We need a commander in chief. No the a Twitter in chief. My girls are five and seven. I have to tell you they are better behaved than a presidential candidate who responds by insulting everyone. His reaction so everything is throw a fit.”

Hint, the person quoted above is reacting to the following Trump tweet sent on February 3rd of 2016:
"Based on the fraud committed by Senator Ted Cruz during the Iowa Caucus, either a new election should take place or Cruz results nullified."

 

[stinkubus]

LOL we aren't changing hearts and minds on forums. This is entertainment, not evangelism.

 

[Sarin]

Nah, Archon Wing is right. Ad Hominem has to involve dismissing your argument because of your personal quality or your past behavior. Critiquing specific methodology of discourse is not ad hominem.

Ad hominem (Latin for 'to the person'), short for argumentum ad hominem, is a term that refers to several types of arguments, most of which are fallacious. Typically this term refers to a rhetorical strategy where the speaker attacks the character, motive, or some other attribute of the person making an argument rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.

Doesn't have to involve the argument at all.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Trump hasn't changed over the years.

 

[aelf]

Anytime.

So let's say I'm taking your advice. And my typical cohort is constrained from simply stomping people with swastikas by the virtue of law, and obligation, regardless of the genitals and the melanin(heresy, I know. What could possibly be more important). And that identity also means that certain people are going to find my voice useless by default. So then, we're in the situation that I have to virtue signal to keep up appearances with the only people that might not be deadbraining. Eh?

Just a step short of complaining about 'white genocide' there.

 

[Farm Boy]

Other than it doesn't exist, sure. Anything else you want to fecalate out?

Ohhh double bonus points for meta-ing the exchange with El. +1.

 

[Archon_Wing]

Doesn't have to involve the argument at all.

How convenient of you to stop the quote there.

This avoids genuine debate by creating a diversion to some irrelevant but often highly charged issue.

You know, like:

But that doesn't stop this echo chamber. Does this make you feel big? Part of something?

Oh and continuing:

The most common form of this fallacy is "A makes a claim x, B asserts that A holds a property that is unwelcome, and hence B concludes that argument x is wrong".

It's kinda obvious when someone is just googling stuff. It's okay. Nice try though.

 

[El_Machinae]

And El_Machinae, pretty much the only reason why we are in this situation right now is because the right wing will not police or even criticize their own without external pressure, and have developed a strange persecution complex over even the most reasonable criticism of their behavior.

Absolutely.
They voted in Trump because they wanted someone who was willing to engage in the behavior that he did, because they wanted the outcome.

It's going to be classical game theory. You need to react around what you know your opponent will do. When someone coddles chants of "lock them up", you have to react as if there's going to be an illegitimate

And my typical cohort is constrained from simply stomping people with swastikas by the virtue of law, and obligation

My expressed concern was that that the swastikas felt welcome. There was nothing the counter-protestors could say about that. The message just wouldn't be heard.
Excision of the swastikas didn't need to be handled illegally, it just has turned out that it's a remaining option because the swastikas are made to feel welcome.

 

[Farm Boy]

There was nothing the counter-protestors could say about that. The message just wouldn't be heard.

That is where we are, yes. Yuppers.

 

[Angst]

You know what strawman is? Misrepresentation of one's argument, which is what this was.

But that doesn't stop this echo chamber. Does this make you feel big? Part of something? That's how it works. You're not argumenting here, just dogpiling.

You ideally learn what a strawman is in first year of Danish high school, as that's the level of rhetorics and logic it is. I don't know when you learn about it elsewhere. What I do know is that people use it liberally as they have nothing else to default to, and usually forget what it actually means after they've picked up the concept. Something else that is pretty basic is that weaponizing rhetorical fallacies as an argument in itself is usually not really a point. Especially the level you engage here (whataboutism and a basic idea of what rhetorical fallacies exist) isn't actually useful to go anywhere. The idea that you're trying to mock me here is honestly just kind of amusing. Appealing to logical fallacies in this way is remniscent of plenty of echo chambers I'm aware of; it's the way to argue in some circles and detach from what's actually being discussed. For example, when I noted that storming a parliament is supposed to be met with government force, you pointed out CHAZ (???). Something I haven't even talked about as though it's relevant to anything. It's part of your logic here, grouping me as part of an echo chamber and attempting whataboutism about something someone other than me thinks, all while saying something is a strawman without actually constituting why and what you think. This lack of explanation is why your posts are, in effect, bad faith nonsense. And you try to mock me with it.

Also, dogpiling, I'm not sure. You might consider that you're making it very easy when you're so consistently wrong. If you say something unhinged in a public forum with several engaged users, you're going to see replies. Maybe that's not the time to throw your hands up and go "Help! Help! I'm being oppressed!"

EDIT: Ahaha, and then you just went "ad hominem" to another post! Dude, take an actual rhetorics class. And substantiate your stuff. Defaulting to whataboutism and high school logical fallacies is what you do when you're trying to publicly display "power", not to learn or enlighten.

 

[Sarin]

The most common form of this fallacy is "A makes a claim x, B asserts that A holds a property that is unwelcome, and hence B concludes that argument x is wrong".

It's kinda obvious when someone is just googling stuff. It's okay. Nice try though.

It's kinda obvious when someone can't read and understand. Or does not want to. You're trying to get into semantics with fallacious arguments. Most common doesn't invalidate the ad hominems that don't involve arguments at all.

 

[aelf]

Other than it doesn't exist, sure. Anything else you want to fecalate out?

Ohhh double bonus points for meta-ing the exchange with El. +1.

Complaining about reverse discrimination is in the same territory as 'white genocide' - just because you're not in that muck doesn't mean you aren't close.

 

[thecrazyscot]

You ideally learn what a strawman is in first year of Danish high school, as that's the level of rhetorics and logic it is. I don't know when you learn about it elsewhere. What I do know is that people use it liberally as they have nothing else to default to, and usually forget what it actually means after they've picked up the concept. Something else that is pretty basic is that weaponizing rhetorical fallacies as an argument in itself is usually not really a point. Especially the level you engage here (whataboutism and a basic idea of what rhetorical fallacies exist) isn't actually useful to go anywhere. The idea that you're trying to mock me here is honestly just kind of amusing. Appealing to logical fallacies in this way is remniscent of plenty of echo chambers I'm aware of; it's the way to argue in some circles and detach from what's actually being discussed. For example, when I noted that storming a parliament is supposed to be met with government force, you pointed out CHAZ (???). Something I haven't even talked about as though it's relevant to anything. It's part of your logic here, grouping me as part of an echo chamber and attempting whataboutism about something someone else thinks, all while saying something is a strawman without actually constituting why and what you think. This lack of explanation is why your posts are, in effect, bad faith nonsense. And you try to mock me with it.

Also, dogpiling, I'm not sure. You might consider that you're making it very easy when you're so consistently wrong. If you say something unhinged in a public forum with several engaged users, you're going to see replies. Maybe that's not the time to throw your hands up and go "Help! Help! I'm being oppressed!"

It's been a while since I was in school, but I'm pretty sure the US public education curriculum does not include Logic. Would be happy to be corrected.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Articles of impeachment have been introduced, the vote is Wednesday. The resolution asking Pence to invoke the 25th was introduced but did not pass by unanimous consent. They vote on that tomorrow.