textgel

20 ms·

151.
by textgel 6y ago
I haven't said anything about defending these crowds at all, you're welcome to point out where I defended them; I've pointed out the likely frustrations of op about two facedness and lack of nuance in the press. I can perfect
152.
by textgel 6y ago
> People with racist or otherwise regressive views know that these views will (rightly) get them criticised by the majority, and so they won't couch them in those terms precisely, but it's often very clear when you take context
153.
by textgel 6y ago
> There's nothing illogical about describing as racist a group of people who make Nazi salutes, who attack black people, who spray racist graffiti. However that's not what you were doing; you were stating the point that being w
154.
by textgel 6y ago
You claimed these new shaming tactics lead to less violence as I have quoted above. Shaming tactics are the diametric opposite of debate, it is fundamentally zero sum; you support them, you oppose the other and you equated their growth with
155.
by textgel 6y ago
> But I think the shift to use of shame for society regulation is a positive development > If there's significantly less violence, it's a win. Don't try and back away from your claims once you've made them. And tak
156.
by textgel 6y ago
The claim that cancel cultures appearance is single handedly responsible for a drop in violence that was entirely the fault of a more permissive attitude towards open debate seems quite a stretch to put it as politely as possible.
157.
by textgel 6y ago
Well I must admit I haven't had as much practice at them as you have.
158.
by textgel 6y ago
Appeal to authority (points for variety at least) is a logical fallacy that I literally pointed out earlier.
159.
by textgel 6y ago
And at last you've taken my advice > Using a kafkatrap against an opponent you can't beat in debate when they have just pointed out the tactic is probably ill advised; perhaps try something else; Ad hominem or motte and bailey
160.
by textgel 6y ago
Well yes if you purely limit yourself to a single college of liberal arts list of definitions then you won't, however search engines are your friend https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies And desperately
161.
by textgel 6y ago
Yes those are dictionary's for definitions of words not a repository of debate tactics; if you'd checked you'd also notice that there's no entry for "motte and bailey falacy", "Appeal to Ignorance" or
162.
by textgel 6y ago
Well lets see... oh that's odd, that meaningless term appears to have a real meaning https://debate.fandom.com/wiki/Kafka_Trap . Now why would you be willing to lie about that? Seems it's a perfectly accepte
163.
by textgel 6y ago
Using a kafkatrap against an opponent you can't beat in debate when they have just pointed out the tactic is probably ill advised; perhaps try something else; Ad hominem or motte and bailey for example.
164.
by textgel 6y ago
I don't know if you'd be willing to say or not but roughly how many of the clocks do you/have you sold? And does the website/online promotion bring you customers or is it more of a word of mouth/knowing the right p
165.
by textgel 6y ago
Claiming an evidently violent group is beyond reproach would raise questions about the morality of the claimant.
166.
by textgel 6y ago
Nicely demonstrating ops point; if someone points out the behaviour of accusing all who disagree with you of being nazis it's unwise to immediately accuse said person of sharing views with Nazi like groups .
167.
by textgel 6y ago
This is something that really strikes me as interesting. When one side of the debate is clearly completely operating in bad faith what do you do? I think by now anyone who's joined these debates is familiar with the tactics seen. - Th
168.
by textgel 6y ago
Perhaps your difficulties with comprehension regarding the comment are more orthogonal than you might have led yourself to believe?
169.
by textgel 6y ago
Ironically applicable to those demanding this due to their claims of being oppressed.
170.
by textgel 6y ago
I've got to ask; given that a core point of contributing to HN is "Assume good faith." How does that marry up with this cathy-newman esque tactic universally seen when any discussions around this sort of topic crops up?
171.
by textgel 6y ago
Respectfully; it does. Not 100%, but for the most part it does. The moment you have to lie to make your point you concede that your argument never had a grounding in reality. Even if putting that aside, the utility of bringing to light und
172.
by textgel 6y ago
This isn't climate scientists vs deniers this is major news organisations on both sides; both of which are guilty of presenting total bullshit as facts. Allowing them to be viewed side-by-side permits users to to get a better image of
173.
by textgel 6y ago
Seems like a perfectly good idea to me; I doubt one website permitting comparison is going to suddenly instigate a dialogue extremism arms-race (more than normal). In fact if anything it's bringing us closer to the original idea of de