3 ms·
The way your positining the left and right suggests that you're immune to the article's technique. I'd suggest a portion of good faith if I thought it was going
by _blk 2y ago
The way your positining the left and right suggests that you're immune to the article's technique. I'd suggest a portion of good faith if I thought it was going to help but I'm at a loss here.
- jrflowers 2y agoThis is a good point because there is no example of violence around elections from the right in recent US history and even if there was it would be a failure of reasoning to acknowledge it.
- paulryanrogers 2y agoHaving trouble following the snark here. Why would it be a failure of reasoning to acknowledge violence, even in the mind of those on the far right? Are you suggesting they have a different definition of reason?
- jrflowers 2y agoI was simply restating in different words _blk’s casual implication that KerrAvon has a cognitive deficit because they mentioned the phenomenon of election-related violence from the right. If someone (for example) wants to look or feel smart in a discussion about logic, there’s a shortcut a person can take by casually calling others stupid for even mentioning anything upsetting regardless of whether or not the thing mentioned is real. It’s kind of funny when people invent a fallacy as if language that they find personally distasteful is categorically wrong (especially when the rebuttal is basically “Nuh-uh dummy!”)