3 ms·

If you are unsure of what he meant, try and explicitly advocate for "majority white, straight, Christian(ish)" people in the same way every other group gets to

If you are unsure of what he meant, try and explicitly advocate for "majority white, straight, Christian(ish)" people in the same way every other group gets to do in america and see how it goes. And if your knee jerk reaction is to say "well only a racist white nationalist would do that", you have proved my point, and you are using the same fallacious reasoning that leads to people thinking that all gay rights advocates are pedophiles or all criminal justice reform advocates are thugs.

yamazakiwi 4y ago
Advocating for those in power doesn't carry the same reasoning as advocating for those who are not in power so it is not the same type of fallacious reasoning you claim. Edit: I removed my second sentence since it appears to be confusing others of my tone and intention.
- goodSteveramos 4y ago
  >Advocating for those in power doesn't carry the same reasoning as advocating for those who are not in power Anybody could be in power at any given time. If your argument for why your group should be in power depends on who is currently in power then it isn’t valid because it stops being true as soon as you win. No idea what you are saying about stupid people. > my argument [“Advocating for those in power”] has nothing to do with who should be in power Saying what kinds of arguments are acceptable in support of the group in power has a lot to do with who should be in power.
  - yamazakiwi 4y ago
    My argument has nothing to do with who should be in power.
    - yamazakiwi 4y ago
      I'll say it again since you edited your previous message to reply to the message following it, I wasn't arguing about who should be in power, or placing my chips in any direction. I was plainly stating that people will have different reasons for supporting the class in power vs supporting outside of that class. Parent comment was stating that people who support the minority are using the same fallacious reasoning those who support the majority do and that is not true. In the event the power changes, the people who supported the previous majority class might be the same or use the same reasoning but that has nothing to do with how both groups reason separately. As an example, imagine it's The Great Depression, The Majority would say something like "Wow I really wish we had more food, I'm going to vote for this candidate who says that we'll get more food". In this instance the Majority is not tied to the ruling class, do you see how implying everyone is knee-jerk reacting is misleading?

yamazakiwi 4y ago

Advocating for those in power doesn't carry the same reasoning as advocating for those who are not in power so it is not the same type of fallacious reasoning you claim. Edit: I removed my second sentence since it appears to be confusing others of my tone and intention.

goodSteveramos 4y ago
>Advocating for those in power doesn't carry the same reasoning as advocating for those who are not in power Anybody could be in power at any given time. If your argument for why your group should be in power depends on who is currently in power then it isn’t valid because it stops being true as soon as you win. No idea what you are saying about stupid people. > my argument [“Advocating for those in power”] has nothing to do with who should be in power Saying what kinds of arguments are acceptable in support of the group in power has a lot to do with who should be in power.
- yamazakiwi 4y ago
  My argument has nothing to do with who should be in power.
  - yamazakiwi 4y ago
    I'll say it again since you edited your previous message to reply to the message following it, I wasn't arguing about who should be in power, or placing my chips in any direction. I was plainly stating that people will have different reasons for supporting the class in power vs supporting outside of that class. Parent comment was stating that people who support the minority are using the same fallacious reasoning those who support the majority do and that is not true. In the event the power changes, the people who supported the previous majority class might be the same or use the same reasoning but that has nothing to do with how both groups reason separately. As an example, imagine it's The Great Depression, The Majority would say something like "Wow I really wish we had more food, I'm going to vote for this candidate who says that we'll get more food". In this instance the Majority is not tied to the ruling class, do you see how implying everyone is knee-jerk reacting is misleading?