7 ms·

That Trump's and by extension Theil's actions have a very real set of consequences has NOTHING to do with democracy. The government is not taking action against

That Trump's and by extension Theil's actions have a very real set of consequences has NOTHING to do with democracy. The government is not taking action against them, we the people are. The very idea of democracy is that it's the expressed will of the people, filtered through mechanics to make it possible to administrate. In this case the will of a great number of people, including Marco according to the post, is remove support from people who choose to say these damaging things. It's not an incomplete understanding, it's that in their value system, the things being said can have no possible balance and anyone supporting them represents a clear danger to what they feel makes a democratic country great. That you would suggest a lack of understanding and try and use that to defend the very people moving to limit and harm democracy in the USA is condescending and harmful in my opinion. Of course everyone is feel to support who they wish but no one is free from dealing with the fall out from standing with the hateful and bigoted.

ThomPete 10y ago
And just by that you became what you claim to be against. I am not for Trump or for Hillary, i am for the right to have a discussion about bigger issues without being painted as a supporter of biggotry which only serves to detract from the issues this country has. But i guess that makes me the naive part here.
- tptacek 10y ago
  Nothing anywhere gave you the right to have a "discussion about bigger issues" without "being painted" as anything. You will find no legal foundation for that entitlement in the US Constitution, nor will you find a philosophical foundation for it anywhere in the theory of liberal democracy. You have a right to express your views, and I have a right to criticize them. Both rights are inalienable.
  - ThomPete 10y ago
    As long as you dont confuse my views of marcos post with my political views I have no problem with that.
  - sixstringtheory 10y ago
    I think OP's desire is to be able to have a debate about the topics without being met with Ad Hominem responses. Are the things Trump says and allegedly did reprehensible? Of course. But to bring them up in a conversation about the status quo in DC is still ad hominem, and to think that being right about his being a pig wins any debate about a possible evil power structure headed by Clinton is a straw man. Donald Trump scares me. So does the cavalier attitude of so many who seem to have tunnel vision when it comes to politics vs the two minute hatee du jour.
    - tptacek 10y ago
      No, that is not what "ad hominem" means. A pretty good resource on this can be found by Googling "ad hominem fallacy fallacy".
      - sixstringtheory 10y ago
        You're going to have to be more specific about how you interpreted my definition of ad hominem, and your sources that counter that idea. That search turned up some interesting ideas, but I have no idea which ones you espouse, and we'll never get anywhere on this unequal footing.
        tptacek 10y ago
        I think you're going to have to be more specific about which of my arguments have something to do with 'ThomPete's deficiencies as a person or his personal unsuitability to be making statements about Trump or Thiel or Altman. That's an uphill climb, because I don't know anything about 'ThomPete, so I doubt I've made any such arguments.
        sixstringtheory 10y ago
        Ah, I think this is where the confusion lies, I never meant to accuse you of ad hominem against ThomPete. Sorry if I caused confusion there. > And no I don't want to defend Trump or Theil but rather the fundamental principle that no matter what in a democracy everyone have the right to say and mean what they want without having to fear the repercussions I interpreted "repercussions" to mean ad hominem. Peter Theil has his reasons for supporting Trump. But I see the conversation shifting to his transitive guilt of bigotry/misogyny, as opposed to the political motivations for that support. I think this is ad hominem, as it's a focus on the moral scandal and not the political issues.
- jaegerpicker 10y ago
  That's a fallacy, taking a stand against bigotry in no way makes you a bigot. There is a huge difference in refusing to support a person or a business on moral grounds than trying to copt the government of a nation to enforce bigoted believes. Trump is clearly advocating just that, using the the government to enforce anti-muslim restrictions.
  - surfmike 10y ago
    There's a difference between standing against a bigot, and ostracizing anyone who may support him for their own reasons.
  - jshevek 10y ago
    I believe you've misused the word fallacy. Taking a stand against bigotry absolutely can make you a bigot. Different kinds of bigots engage in mutual opposition on a regular basis.
- splawn 10y ago
  >And just by that you became what you claim to be against. Are you claiming that pointing out bigotry is in it's self an act of bigotry? Im asking because that is how I read that, and I don't want to accidentally create straw-man argument because of a misunderstanding. Having said that here is my potential straw-man.... Wouldn't it follow that pointing that out is also an act of bigotry? Where is the cutoff point?

ThomPete 10y ago

And just by that you became what you claim to be against. I am not for Trump or for Hillary, i am for the right to have a discussion about bigger issues without being painted as a supporter of biggotry which only serves to detract from the issues this country has. But i guess that makes me the naive part here.

tptacek 10y ago
Nothing anywhere gave you the right to have a "discussion about bigger issues" without "being painted" as anything. You will find no legal foundation for that entitlement in the US Constitution, nor will you find a philosophical foundation for it anywhere in the theory of liberal democracy. You have a right to express your views, and I have a right to criticize them. Both rights are inalienable.
- ThomPete 10y ago
  As long as you dont confuse my views of marcos post with my political views I have no problem with that.
- sixstringtheory 10y ago
  I think OP's desire is to be able to have a debate about the topics without being met with Ad Hominem responses. Are the things Trump says and allegedly did reprehensible? Of course. But to bring them up in a conversation about the status quo in DC is still ad hominem, and to think that being right about his being a pig wins any debate about a possible evil power structure headed by Clinton is a straw man. Donald Trump scares me. So does the cavalier attitude of so many who seem to have tunnel vision when it comes to politics vs the two minute hatee du jour.
  - tptacek 10y ago
    No, that is not what "ad hominem" means. A pretty good resource on this can be found by Googling "ad hominem fallacy fallacy".
    - sixstringtheory 10y ago
      You're going to have to be more specific about how you interpreted my definition of ad hominem, and your sources that counter that idea. That search turned up some interesting ideas, but I have no idea which ones you espouse, and we'll never get anywhere on this unequal footing.
      - tptacek 10y ago
        I think you're going to have to be more specific about which of my arguments have something to do with 'ThomPete's deficiencies as a person or his personal unsuitability to be making statements about Trump or Thiel or Altman. That's an uphill climb, because I don't know anything about 'ThomPete, so I doubt I've made any such arguments.
        sixstringtheory 10y ago
        Ah, I think this is where the confusion lies, I never meant to accuse you of ad hominem against ThomPete. Sorry if I caused confusion there. > And no I don't want to defend Trump or Theil but rather the fundamental principle that no matter what in a democracy everyone have the right to say and mean what they want without having to fear the repercussions I interpreted "repercussions" to mean ad hominem. Peter Theil has his reasons for supporting Trump. But I see the conversation shifting to his transitive guilt of bigotry/misogyny, as opposed to the political motivations for that support. I think this is ad hominem, as it's a focus on the moral scandal and not the political issues.
jaegerpicker 10y ago
That's a fallacy, taking a stand against bigotry in no way makes you a bigot. There is a huge difference in refusing to support a person or a business on moral grounds than trying to copt the government of a nation to enforce bigoted believes. Trump is clearly advocating just that, using the the government to enforce anti-muslim restrictions.
- surfmike 10y ago
  There's a difference between standing against a bigot, and ostracizing anyone who may support him for their own reasons.
- jshevek 10y ago
  I believe you've misused the word fallacy. Taking a stand against bigotry absolutely can make you a bigot. Different kinds of bigots engage in mutual opposition on a regular basis.
splawn 10y ago
>And just by that you became what you claim to be against. Are you claiming that pointing out bigotry is in it's self an act of bigotry? Im asking because that is how I read that, and I don't want to accidentally create straw-man argument because of a misunderstanding. Having said that here is my potential straw-man.... Wouldn't it follow that pointing that out is also an act of bigotry? Where is the cutoff point?