3 ms·

> This is called the Genetic Fallacy I'm well aware of the Genetic Fallacy. The post I was responding to was falsely attributing the quote to other sources. "H

> This is called the Genetic Fallacy I'm well aware of the Genetic Fallacy. The post I was responding to was falsely attributing the quote to other sources. "Hey, somebody else said that" is relevant information. Discussion of fallacies is also largely worthless in ordinary conversation since we aren't actually making formal deductive arguments. It is completely reasonable for people to reason through other means than pure deductive logic. And further, my post did not stop there. > voltaire's rule of thumb It is not Voltaire's rule of thumb. We just discussed this.

Banana699 5y ago
>The post I was responding to was falsely attributing the quote to other sources. My point is that is irrelevant, it's the equivalent of correcting a misspelled comment in an open source repo and calling it a contribution, it is indeed, but a very minor one that makes little to no difference. You also didn't clarify that the quote doesn't belong to voltaire, you simply stated that the other quote paraphrasing it is from a Nazi. >"Hey, somebody else said that" is relevant information. Only if you don't want to discuss the thing that is being said itself by vaguely referencing the heretic who said it and implying that discredits the thing being said in and of itself. >Discussion of fallacies is also largely worthless in ordinary conversation since we aren't actually making formal deductive arguments It's the exact opposite in fact. Fallacies are literally called "Informal Fallacies", they are coined to give names to common sloppy reasoning tactics and rhetorical tricks in informal everyday conversations and arguments. They are worthless in formal deductive arguments because they are completely dependent on content and have no syntactical forms, unlike - say - deductive arguments like "If P Then Q, P, Therefore Q". Their usefulness is entirely in this kind of conversation where charged emotional words gets thrown left and right. >And further, my post did not stop there. Correct, it continues on to a naive misunderstanding of the quote. >It is not Voltaire's rule of thumb. I think you established that quite satisfactorily already, you can move on to other points.
- UncleMeat 5y ago
  Ok. Let's discuss the "merits" of this quote then if you insist. Which groups can you "not criticize" in the US? Or, at the very least, criticizing which groups will generate the most backlash? I have my own perspective on this list, but I'm very interested in hearing yours. And then I'm interested in hearing you describe how these groups in particular are "in power."
  - Banana699 5y ago
    >Which groups can you "not criticize" in the US? I can never answer this question from a personal experience because I don't live in the US and never have, but I can give a noisy estimate from my experience of the (quite US-dominated) internet and global media ecosystem. Here are groups you're not allowed to criticise on the internet without being held to much higher standards than most things : - Gays - Transgender people - 'Progressive' ideas in general, which includes the above two as special cases but also things like feminism and racial minorities. Those ideas are 'in power' in the sense that they are the semi-official ideologies of the public-facing institutional machinery of western countries: The EU and Euro-American news corporation will worry about the bigoted treatment of lgbt individuals even as an entire country of millions is threatened with an invasion, the UN has specialized bureaucratic organs for "Empowering Women" but not so for men, "Kill All Men" is a funny ironic joke you can make on twitter but "Kill All Women", or even the much milder "Good Morning I Hate Women", is a big bomb to blow anywhere, reddit admins - regardless of the subreddit - will routinely lock or delete any thread that even mentions that trans people are not the coolest thing since kittens were invented. I can go on and on.
    - UncleMeat 5y ago
      But the quote isn't about "ideas" being in power. It is about people. I think it is plain to see that gay people and transgender people are definitely not "in power" in the west in any special way. For somebody to believe this is to believe a wild conspiracy based in no facts whatsoever. And I think this is a pretty compelling argument for why the quote is horseshit. Unless there is some actual secret shadow government operated by women, gay people, and transgender people, the existence of "Kill All Men" as a joke on Twitter is a rather intense indictment against the merits of the quote. So in addition to being originally coined by a Nazi to argue that Jews secretly control the world, the quote is idiotic on its merits.

Banana699 5y ago

>The post I was responding to was falsely attributing the quote to other sources. My point is that is irrelevant, it's the equivalent of correcting a misspelled comment in an open source repo and calling it a contribution, it is indeed, but a very minor one that makes little to no difference. You also didn't clarify that the quote doesn't belong to voltaire, you simply stated that the other quote paraphrasing it is from a Nazi. >"Hey, somebody else said that" is relevant information. Only if you don't want to discuss the thing that is being said itself by vaguely referencing the heretic who said it and implying that discredits the thing being said in and of itself. >Discussion of fallacies is also largely worthless in ordinary conversation since we aren't actually making formal deductive arguments It's the exact opposite in fact. Fallacies are literally called "Informal Fallacies", they are coined to give names to common sloppy reasoning tactics and rhetorical tricks in informal everyday conversations and arguments. They are worthless in formal deductive arguments because they are completely dependent on content and have no syntactical forms, unlike - say - deductive arguments like "If P Then Q, P, Therefore Q". Their usefulness is entirely in this kind of conversation where charged emotional words gets thrown left and right. >And further, my post did not stop there. Correct, it continues on to a naive misunderstanding of the quote. >It is not Voltaire's rule of thumb. I think you established that quite satisfactorily already, you can move on to other points.

UncleMeat 5y ago
Ok. Let's discuss the "merits" of this quote then if you insist. Which groups can you "not criticize" in the US? Or, at the very least, criticizing which groups will generate the most backlash? I have my own perspective on this list, but I'm very interested in hearing yours. And then I'm interested in hearing you describe how these groups in particular are "in power."
- Banana699 5y ago
  >Which groups can you "not criticize" in the US? I can never answer this question from a personal experience because I don't live in the US and never have, but I can give a noisy estimate from my experience of the (quite US-dominated) internet and global media ecosystem. Here are groups you're not allowed to criticise on the internet without being held to much higher standards than most things : - Gays - Transgender people - 'Progressive' ideas in general, which includes the above two as special cases but also things like feminism and racial minorities. Those ideas are 'in power' in the sense that they are the semi-official ideologies of the public-facing institutional machinery of western countries: The EU and Euro-American news corporation will worry about the bigoted treatment of lgbt individuals even as an entire country of millions is threatened with an invasion, the UN has specialized bureaucratic organs for "Empowering Women" but not so for men, "Kill All Men" is a funny ironic joke you can make on twitter but "Kill All Women", or even the much milder "Good Morning I Hate Women", is a big bomb to blow anywhere, reddit admins - regardless of the subreddit - will routinely lock or delete any thread that even mentions that trans people are not the coolest thing since kittens were invented. I can go on and on.
  - UncleMeat 5y ago
    But the quote isn't about "ideas" being in power. It is about people. I think it is plain to see that gay people and transgender people are definitely not "in power" in the west in any special way. For somebody to believe this is to believe a wild conspiracy based in no facts whatsoever. And I think this is a pretty compelling argument for why the quote is horseshit. Unless there is some actual secret shadow government operated by women, gay people, and transgender people, the existence of "Kill All Men" as a joke on Twitter is a rather intense indictment against the merits of the quote. So in addition to being originally coined by a Nazi to argue that Jews secretly control the world, the quote is idiotic on its merits.