5 ms·

> without addressing the substance of her arguments The point of grifters is to overwhelm with insubstantial arguments. Do your fun game to her Twitter feed. S

> without addressing the substance of her arguments The point of grifters is to overwhelm with insubstantial arguments. Do your fun game to her Twitter feed. See how long you can keep it up. Better yet: see if you can put a dent in her or her follower's belief system by totally pwning her with rigorous logic. Double standard: you picked apart my post and didn't acknowledge a thing about the tweet I quoted. Do you disagree that it shares the traits of most right wing grifters engaging in culture war rage baiting? Someone else put it well: racism is illogical and dependent on cognitive fallacy to be maintained. Easily dismissed if you address the "substance" of a racist's arguments. So why then is there still racism? Are the racists right? No, obviously not, so must be something else. > Would you conflate BLM with the Republican Party? This is a quiet part? I don't understand what you mean by this. I mean it's very interesting to me that a conservative would imply BLM is a leftist movement, in a country where the right wing is conflated with a form of psuedo-anarchy in the form of American libertarians, whose most famous hero is a man who ironically stood up to a different BLM and led an armed standoff with the federal government.

hotdogscout 3y ago
>racism is illogical and dependent on cognitive fallacy to be maintained. Can you explain why it's illogical and what fallacy it's maintained on? I don't think I can logically claim torturing babies is wrong without some arbitrary axioms but you must have some killer logic I don't. >Double standard: you picked apart my post and didn't acknowledge a thing about the tweet I quoted. I did though (?). She said something that almost nobody denies, that BLM is associated more with the left, and you went on about what that entails but I see nothing untrue about what she said about that correlation. I think you confuse logic with morality.
- komali2 3y ago
  What are you, Spock? Outside of computer science logic has been used by philosophers for thousands of years to justify certain ethics. What, it doesn't count if you can't do a formal logic diagram? Absurd. Yes, racism is illogical, because it's based on unsubstantiated ideas (e.g. some race is bad at swimming) for which there's insufficient evidence, a given prejudice doesn't provide useful information because there's race wouldn't be a stronger correlator than other factors for a given prejudice (e.g. ability to swim). It requires confirmation bias and cherry picking to maintain. But leave that to the side, I'm happy to say "racism bad" is an axiom of human ethics, just like "slavery bad." I'm happy to simply eject the people that disagree from our society without the need to spend an ounce of energy proving them wrong or arguing with them. I fear the loss of nothing valuable in this circumstance. Is that dogmatic? Does it matter? Will you defend the racists and the slavers?

hotdogscout 3y ago

>racism is illogical and dependent on cognitive fallacy to be maintained. Can you explain why it's illogical and what fallacy it's maintained on? I don't think I can logically claim torturing babies is wrong without some arbitrary axioms but you must have some killer logic I don't. >Double standard: you picked apart my post and didn't acknowledge a thing about the tweet I quoted. I did though (?). She said something that almost nobody denies, that BLM is associated more with the left, and you went on about what that entails but I see nothing untrue about what she said about that correlation. I think you confuse logic with morality.

komali2 3y ago
What are you, Spock? Outside of computer science logic has been used by philosophers for thousands of years to justify certain ethics. What, it doesn't count if you can't do a formal logic diagram? Absurd. Yes, racism is illogical, because it's based on unsubstantiated ideas (e.g. some race is bad at swimming) for which there's insufficient evidence, a given prejudice doesn't provide useful information because there's race wouldn't be a stronger correlator than other factors for a given prejudice (e.g. ability to swim). It requires confirmation bias and cherry picking to maintain. But leave that to the side, I'm happy to say "racism bad" is an axiom of human ethics, just like "slavery bad." I'm happy to simply eject the people that disagree from our society without the need to spend an ounce of energy proving them wrong or arguing with them. I fear the loss of nothing valuable in this circumstance. Is that dogmatic? Does it matter? Will you defend the racists and the slavers?