3 ms·

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

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.
        tptacek 10y ago
        I'm a little lost. How is the bigotry and misogyny of someone with a very real chance to be elected President of the United States and Command in Chief of the world's largest military force not a political issue?
        ThomPete 10y ago
  - morg0e 10y ago
    Thom's first post explicitly states that if you disagree with him, you are less well informed than him; and that you are an autocrat who does not accept dissent. Thom's selfish and privileged expectation is that he can open with that attack, and that we'll all be polite and civil to him; even though he started the conversation by directly claiming that only dumb autocrats disagree with him. That's not how the world works though. Thom chose to be awful to a huge group of people; and he chose not to retract his shitty, awful words. he should expect people to treat him poorly. Further, he's a white man who decided to tell a diverse group of people (who has never met) that we don't understand sexism or racism as well as he does. This was insane. The level of arrogance required to do this is... almost unmeasurable. So a few things: 1) he shouldn't expect us to be polite. He was rude as FUCK in his opening, and he was also incredibly arrogant with his assertions about his understanding of american sexism and racism. 2) 'ad hominem' is not what you think it is. Don't use words you don't understand. 3) It's borderline insane for you to spend your life defending OP. ThomPete made REALLY bad decisions, and you have better things to do with your life than to defend a white male asshole who isn't actually being hurt at all. 4) The amount of "oh the poor rich white men who are suffering..." bullshit is off the charts. PG and Sama are suffering no harm at all, beyond a few words on Twitter. Their lives are completely intact. They're FUCKING FINE. 5) The people who will suffer in a DJT world are all powerless. They are people whose lives will not be completely intact. They are people who will be ruined. But you don't give a fuck aobut that because you're too busy vilifying people for being mean to an awful cunt like ThomPete.
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?

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.
        tptacek 10y ago
        I'm a little lost. How is the bigotry and misogyny of someone with a very real chance to be elected President of the United States and Command in Chief of the world's largest military force not a political issue?
        ThomPete 10y ago
- morg0e 10y ago
  Thom's first post explicitly states that if you disagree with him, you are less well informed than him; and that you are an autocrat who does not accept dissent. Thom's selfish and privileged expectation is that he can open with that attack, and that we'll all be polite and civil to him; even though he started the conversation by directly claiming that only dumb autocrats disagree with him. That's not how the world works though. Thom chose to be awful to a huge group of people; and he chose not to retract his shitty, awful words. he should expect people to treat him poorly. Further, he's a white man who decided to tell a diverse group of people (who has never met) that we don't understand sexism or racism as well as he does. This was insane. The level of arrogance required to do this is... almost unmeasurable. So a few things: 1) he shouldn't expect us to be polite. He was rude as FUCK in his opening, and he was also incredibly arrogant with his assertions about his understanding of american sexism and racism. 2) 'ad hominem' is not what you think it is. Don't use words you don't understand. 3) It's borderline insane for you to spend your life defending OP. ThomPete made REALLY bad decisions, and you have better things to do with your life than to defend a white male asshole who isn't actually being hurt at all. 4) The amount of "oh the poor rich white men who are suffering..." bullshit is off the charts. PG and Sama are suffering no harm at all, beyond a few words on Twitter. Their lives are completely intact. They're FUCKING FINE. 5) The people who will suffer in a DJT world are all powerless. They are people whose lives will not be completely intact. They are people who will be ruined. But you don't give a fuck aobut that because you're too busy vilifying people for being mean to an awful cunt like ThomPete.

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?