5 ms·

The credibility of his own perspective on this matter is pretty fundamental to the basis of his perspective and his quote. I'm not taking to disparate events or

The credibility of his own perspective on this matter is pretty fundamental to the basis of his perspective and his quote. I'm not taking to disparate events or characteristics and using it to dismiss what he's saying, quite the opposite actually -- I'm saying he's dismissing others, poorly understands what is actually being discussed, and is "misquoting" what other people are actually stating. It's not a fallacy. I could have called it ignorance, but that'd require he demonstrate some unfamiliarity with the subject, which he clearly isn't all that unfamiliar with it. It is strange that his his "quote" is getting a free pass, despite it not having any backing to it what so ever. Have a good read: http://www.fallacyfiles.org/adhomine.html http://www.fallacyfiles.org/adhomine.html

Ygg2 9y ago
> The credibility of his own perspective on this matter is pretty fundamental to the basis of his perspective and his quote Why? OP claimed to see people on left-wing side use this tactic (and assuming he is telling the truth) how is his/her perspective shifted? The OP stated left wing tactics boils down to: "You're view doesn't count since your aren't black/trans/queer/female enough". Your message was almost, "Your view shouldn't count because of your perspective". Personally, I've seen the same argument be used (i.e. "Shut up cis/hetero/male/white/etc.") in various forms on various forums. It would not surprise me that it's used in Democratic circles, in some shape or form.
- kadenshep 9y ago
  >The OP stated left wing tactics boils down to: "You're view doesn't count since your aren't black/trans/queer/female enough". That's the thing. It isn't that. It has never been that. No one says that. No where in academia does it even approach that. He whimsically went back and forth between pretending to address philosophical tenets and then right in the very core part of his statement, just slapped in a mischaracterization of entire philosophical and anthropological field. He didn't even pretend to transition or weasel that in, he just did it full stop. This conversation is annoying to have because it always devolves into this meta-argument, because people's egos get involved. Try doing that with any other less "fuzzy" subject and people would immediately and rightly call you out on it. Which I did. > Your message was almost, "Your view shouldn't count because of your perspective". No, my message was specifically and has been repeatedly his "view" is a complete mischaracterization of both the philosophical and social anthropology view points this subject brushes upon. Which is totally and blindingly ironic given his "shut the fuck up" quote. This is where one might get told "to shut the fuck up", as you would in any other discussion on any other subject, when you want to waltz around and wave your own very personal view point around (without any solid basis) when serious subjects are attempting to be discussed. It's a double whammy in that case, because people might realize that you're fully unwilling to reason about your own and other's position in society. >Personally, I've seen the same argument be used (i.e. "Shut up cis/hetero/male/white/etc.") in various forms on various forums. It would not surprise me that it's used in Democratic circles, in some shape or form. If we're going to use anecdotes and SJW-boogeyman talking points, then don't pretend that you're addressing philosophical tenets. Just go ahead and do it. As I said in my original post.
  - Ygg2 9y ago
    > That's the thing. It isn't that. It has never been that. No where in academia does it even approach that. The OP didn't talk about academia, but the more prosaical use, hence the > "On the street and in _less academic_ varietals of intersectionalism" --------------- > If we're going to use anecdotes and SJW-boogeyman talking points, then don't pretend that you're addressing philosophical tenets. Just go ahead and do it. As I said in my original post. We are discussing tenets, but not as they exist in academia, but how they apply to general populace. I mean, you can talk Nihilism in media, without discussing nihilism in academia, even if Nihilism originated in academia.
    - kadenshep 9y ago
      >The OP didn't talk about academia, but the more prosaical use I didn't constrain it to academia. I was quite clear in the fact it doesn't really exist anywhere. It doesn't exist because it's a complete mischaracterization. It's extremely frustrating that people, when confronted with this subject, will nitpick and somehow fail at basic reading comprehensions just to attempt to make a point. And then you get the classic e-logicians that want to try to use logical fallacies, when they're clearly very inexperienced in doing so in any kind of rigorous setting, just to devolve the conversation into a meta argument. I mean, I understand the normal human tendency to blockade uncomfortable discussions, but it's so ludicrously obvious when this subject gets brought up. On a "hacker" forum, of all things too. >We are discussing tenets Where? Because all that was done in the original post that I replied to was just repeating a talking point used to anchor a narrative into the conversation. They didn't address anyone's actual stated opinions/perspectives/tenets on this subject. I pointed out specifically and very directly where they started to act like they were going to tackle the subject, and then just immediately shifted gears.
      - Ygg2 9y ago
        > I didn't constrain it to academia. > > That's the thing. It isn't that. It has never been that. No one says that. No where in academia does it even approach that? Are you claiming that using privilege to shut down discussion isn't used in academical or are you claiming it's neither used in academical nor casual setting. Because I claim, it very well used for that purpose in casual setting. "Check your privilege" isn't a meme for no reason. So, I do see how it isn't used in academia, but its definitely present on forums and other places.
belorn 9y ago
If we define any statement to be the perspective of the author, then no disagreement can ever be made which would not be ad hominem. At that point we can give up on discussing all together and return to the old ways of solving conflicts with violence. If you want to have a discussion you must separate statements from perspective. Otherwise we just end up arguing if the credibility of your perspective of nkoren is pretty fundamental to the basis of your perspective. If we then call that perspective to be ignorance on your part, we simply enter the realm of name calling and the quality of discussion enter that special place for which a lot of words are waisted and no agreements are ever found.
- kadenshep 9y ago
  >If we define any statement to be the perspective of the author, then no disagreement can ever be made which would not be ad hominem. His perspective has no basis, it's a narrative, and it was specifically constrained to the current subject matter. >If we then call that perspective to be ignorance on your part, we simply enter the realm of name calling Uh, what?
  - belorn 9y ago
    > His perspective has no basis, it's a narrative That is your perspective. It has no basis, and is just a narrative that you have made up. One has to go beyond Solipsism in order to have a meaningful discussion.
    - kadenshep 9y ago
      >That is your perspective. It's a fact.

Ygg2 9y ago

> The credibility of his own perspective on this matter is pretty fundamental to the basis of his perspective and his quote Why? OP claimed to see people on left-wing side use this tactic (and assuming he is telling the truth) how is his/her perspective shifted? The OP stated left wing tactics boils down to: "You're view doesn't count since your aren't black/trans/queer/female enough". Your message was almost, "Your view shouldn't count because of your perspective". Personally, I've seen the same argument be used (i.e. "Shut up cis/hetero/male/white/etc.") in various forms on various forums. It would not surprise me that it's used in Democratic circles, in some shape or form.

kadenshep 9y ago
>The OP stated left wing tactics boils down to: "You're view doesn't count since your aren't black/trans/queer/female enough". That's the thing. It isn't that. It has never been that. No one says that. No where in academia does it even approach that. He whimsically went back and forth between pretending to address philosophical tenets and then right in the very core part of his statement, just slapped in a mischaracterization of entire philosophical and anthropological field. He didn't even pretend to transition or weasel that in, he just did it full stop. This conversation is annoying to have because it always devolves into this meta-argument, because people's egos get involved. Try doing that with any other less "fuzzy" subject and people would immediately and rightly call you out on it. Which I did. > Your message was almost, "Your view shouldn't count because of your perspective". No, my message was specifically and has been repeatedly his "view" is a complete mischaracterization of both the philosophical and social anthropology view points this subject brushes upon. Which is totally and blindingly ironic given his "shut the fuck up" quote. This is where one might get told "to shut the fuck up", as you would in any other discussion on any other subject, when you want to waltz around and wave your own very personal view point around (without any solid basis) when serious subjects are attempting to be discussed. It's a double whammy in that case, because people might realize that you're fully unwilling to reason about your own and other's position in society. >Personally, I've seen the same argument be used (i.e. "Shut up cis/hetero/male/white/etc.") in various forms on various forums. It would not surprise me that it's used in Democratic circles, in some shape or form. If we're going to use anecdotes and SJW-boogeyman talking points, then don't pretend that you're addressing philosophical tenets. Just go ahead and do it. As I said in my original post.
- Ygg2 9y ago
  > That's the thing. It isn't that. It has never been that. No where in academia does it even approach that. The OP didn't talk about academia, but the more prosaical use, hence the > "On the street and in _less academic_ varietals of intersectionalism" --------------- > If we're going to use anecdotes and SJW-boogeyman talking points, then don't pretend that you're addressing philosophical tenets. Just go ahead and do it. As I said in my original post. We are discussing tenets, but not as they exist in academia, but how they apply to general populace. I mean, you can talk Nihilism in media, without discussing nihilism in academia, even if Nihilism originated in academia.
  - kadenshep 9y ago
    >The OP didn't talk about academia, but the more prosaical use I didn't constrain it to academia. I was quite clear in the fact it doesn't really exist anywhere. It doesn't exist because it's a complete mischaracterization. It's extremely frustrating that people, when confronted with this subject, will nitpick and somehow fail at basic reading comprehensions just to attempt to make a point. And then you get the classic e-logicians that want to try to use logical fallacies, when they're clearly very inexperienced in doing so in any kind of rigorous setting, just to devolve the conversation into a meta argument. I mean, I understand the normal human tendency to blockade uncomfortable discussions, but it's so ludicrously obvious when this subject gets brought up. On a "hacker" forum, of all things too. >We are discussing tenets Where? Because all that was done in the original post that I replied to was just repeating a talking point used to anchor a narrative into the conversation. They didn't address anyone's actual stated opinions/perspectives/tenets on this subject. I pointed out specifically and very directly where they started to act like they were going to tackle the subject, and then just immediately shifted gears.
    - Ygg2 9y ago
      > I didn't constrain it to academia. > > That's the thing. It isn't that. It has never been that. No one says that. No where in academia does it even approach that? Are you claiming that using privilege to shut down discussion isn't used in academical or are you claiming it's neither used in academical nor casual setting. Because I claim, it very well used for that purpose in casual setting. "Check your privilege" isn't a meme for no reason. So, I do see how it isn't used in academia, but its definitely present on forums and other places.

belorn 9y ago

If we define any statement to be the perspective of the author, then no disagreement can ever be made which would not be ad hominem. At that point we can give up on discussing all together and return to the old ways of solving conflicts with violence. If you want to have a discussion you must separate statements from perspective. Otherwise we just end up arguing if the credibility of your perspective of nkoren is pretty fundamental to the basis of your perspective. If we then call that perspective to be ignorance on your part, we simply enter the realm of name calling and the quality of discussion enter that special place for which a lot of words are waisted and no agreements are ever found.

kadenshep 9y ago
>If we define any statement to be the perspective of the author, then no disagreement can ever be made which would not be ad hominem. His perspective has no basis, it's a narrative, and it was specifically constrained to the current subject matter. >If we then call that perspective to be ignorance on your part, we simply enter the realm of name calling Uh, what?
- belorn 9y ago
  > His perspective has no basis, it's a narrative That is your perspective. It has no basis, and is just a narrative that you have made up. One has to go beyond Solipsism in order to have a meaningful discussion.
  - kadenshep 9y ago
    >That is your perspective. It's a fact.