3 ms·

So the topic you wish to discuss is "rhetoric used to ignore bigotry". Feel free to demonstrate where this exists in the comment you replied to. I can just as

by Chris2048 5y ago

So the topic you wish to discuss is "rhetoric used to ignore bigotry". Feel free to demonstrate where this exists in the comment you replied to. I can just as easily decide the more relevant topic is "rhetoric used to ignore ethnic nationalism", which your post could be. EDIT: I'd also note the comment you replied to says: > Israel plays the anti-semitism card much too loosely to be taken seriously your own comment elsewhere (on Noam Chomsky): > Noted genocide denier (repeatedly) with zero credibility on anything. Why is dismissive labelling ok in one case, and not another?

yyyk 5y ago
>Why is dismissive labelling ok in one case, and not another? Because the only source given for the quote was Chomsky himself*. In that case, the question of Chomsky's credibility is directly relevant. * It's possible Chomsky had an actual source etc., but if so, it was not provided in the original comment.
- Chris2048 5y ago
  The issue isn't if Chomsky's credibility is relevant, but on the credibility swipe itself: If Chomsky can be dismissed on all topics (zero credibility on anything) for alleged genocide denial, why isn't that "rhetoric that ignores X" for whatever X Chomsky might discuss?
  - yyyk 5y ago
    I was dismissing Chomsky's testimony on anything, not anything he might say. If he said '2+2=4' that would be true (if also trivial). I regret not being 100% clear in a forum comment.
    - Chris2048 5y ago
      It was testimony aka credibility that I'm talking about.