Fire and Fury

 Pages PREV 1 2 3
 

Catnip1024:

Saelune:
you would despise Trump

As I have repeatedly said, I do despise Trump. But a) he's not on these forums to talk to, and b) he's probably a lost cause.

Most of the time I wind up arguing with you lot is because you are using poor / weak arguments against him, or engaging in the same low-level shit-slinging that he likes. There's a time and a place to be the better person.

If you continually defend Trump and argue against criticisms of him, people will think you are a Trump supporter.

Thaluikhain:
If you continually defend Trump and argue against criticisms of him, people will think you are a Trump supporter.

I despise Jose Mourinho, but if people were suggesting that we place sanctions on Man Utd on the grounds that we personally don't feel he is mentally stable enough to be a manager, I'd probably defend him too.

I can't help what people think. And it shouldn't change their approach to a fair and rational discussion.

renegade7:

StatusNil:

As for his being a "dumb choice" for President, well, obviously that would be the case if there was a serious alternative who wasn't wholly a creature of the Corporate-SocJus complex.

Yeah, this is the woman who was calling black teenagers "Super predators" in the 90s and talking her husband into signing DOMA. I wouldn't exactly call her a paragon of progressive social justice.

But she said we should listen to black people occasionally and used the word 'privilege' a few times! Ugh!

Catnip1024:

Saelune:
you would despise Trump

As I have repeatedly said, I do despise Trump. But a) he's not on these forums to talk to, and b) he's probably a lost cause.

Most of the time I wind up arguing with you lot is because you are using poor / weak arguments against him, or engaging in the same low-level shit-slinging that he likes. There's a time and a place to be the better person.

Forget if he is a lost cause. I dont oppose him because I want to save Trump, I oppose him because of the people who suffer under him. Not even just the American people, as Trump is also bringing suffering to people the world over.

No one on this site thinks I am a Trump supporter. I may not be able to control everything about how people view me, but I am quite confident everyone knows me as anti-Trump. Its not as hard as you make it seem. I dont use weak arguments against him. He IS incompetent and mentally ill, hell he has been incompetent his whole life. He just had a single way of getting out that works wonders in our pro-corporate, capitialistic society. I mean, I dont know if the President can declare bankrupcy and bail on us, but if anyone will find out, it will be Trump.

Your arguments are the weak ones, not because the arguments themselves are weak, but because you weakly apply them unfairly to one side. The one side NOT in power, the one side NOT ruining this county, and much of the rest of the world.

You're a Trump supporter, because you support Trump. Everytime you defend him, defend his side, and condemn his opponents, you support him.

Catnip1024:

Thaluikhain:
If you continually defend Trump and argue against criticisms of him, people will think you are a Trump supporter.

I despise Jose Mourinho, but if people were suggesting that we place sanctions on Man Utd on the grounds that we personally don't feel he is mentally stable enough to be a manager, I'd probably defend him too.

I can't help what people think. And it shouldn't change their approach to a fair and rational discussion.

You may genuinely not consider yourself a Trump supporter at heart, and you probably believe you're doing more good by playing the devil's advocate than by making the easy and obvious criticisms of Trump, but....

There's a neat concept in law called apprehended or apparent bias. It's used for deciding when it's appropriate to ask a judge to recuse themselves from a case. Because it would be tremendously insulting to accuse a judge of being actually biased - it would amount to arguing that he is not capable of being a judge - lawyers developed the concept of apprehended bias. It boils down to this: if the judge's actions, statements, connections and relationships create an apprehension or appearance of bias, then that is sufficient to ask the judge to recuse themselves because the mere suspicion of prejudice is sufficient to undermine the integrity and authority of the court in the eyes of the public.

Basically, if a person appears biased - even if they're not actually biased - then they may as well be biased, because the appearance of being biased causes onlookers to conclude that the person is biased and that their reasoning and judgment are suspect. It doesn't matter what the judge believes in their head; the important thing is that everyone involved have confidence that the court is impartial. If no-one considers the judge to be truly impartial, his decisions and orders will not be respected, and the justice system will suffer.

Now, you're not a judge, and I freely admit that I don't think you, me or any of the other posters here need to meet a judicial standard in our Internet forum debates. But the concept itself is useful, because it demonstrates something important; your arguments have less weight if you appear to be biased. You are less likely to convince someone of something if that person has reason to believe that your reasoning is partisan.

So, what posters like Saelune and FalloutJack see is you coming into near every thread about Trump or Bannon or Breitbart or whichever malefactor has earned everyone's attention at the time and consistently playing devil's advocate. You're saying "Let's hold up here," or "Nothing has actually been proven," or "This source may not be trustworthy, guys." And you're (relatively) consistently doing it in defence of one side and/or prosecution of another. You might well have benign motivations, but even if you do, the act of regularly defending Trump and his ilk has the effect of...regularly defending Trump and his ilk.

I do think your motivations are benign; you recognise that arguments need to be tested and pushed against to make sure they're solid. But if you constantly advocate for the devil, don't be surprised - or insulted - when people assume that you actually like the guy.

bastardofmelbourne:

So, what posters like Saelune and FalloutJack see is you coming into near every thread about Trump or Bannon or Breitbart or whichever malefactor has earned everyone's attention at the time and consistently playing devil's advocate. You're saying "Let's hold up here," or "Nothing has actually been proven," or "This source may not be trustworthy, guys." And you're (relatively) consistently doing it in defence of one side and/or prosecution of another. You might well have benign motivations, but even if you do, the act of regularly defending Trump and his ilk has the effect of...regularly defending Trump and his ilk.

I do think your motivations are benign; you recognise that arguments need to be tested and pushed against to make sure they're solid. But if you constantly advocate for the devil, don't be surprised - or insulted - when people assume that you actually like the guy.

So, now that you've defended Saelunes antic's, why do you think people should be shot in the Streets for being "racist"?

Fischgopf:
So, now that you've defended Saelunes antic's, why do you think people should be shot in the Streets for being "racist"?

You'll have to forgive me, because I don't understand what it is you're getting at here.

I don't mean to sound flippant, it's just that this is a complete non sequitur from my perspective.

bastardofmelbourne:

Fischgopf:
So, now that you've defended Saelunes antic's, why do you think people should be shot in the Streets for being "racist"?

You'll have to forgive me, because I don't understand what it is you're getting at here.

I don't mean to sound flippant, it's just that this is a complete non sequitur from my perspective.

Simple, I am applying the reasoning of your post to you. Saelune has written some pretty heinous shit including that Racists, which she defines so broadly as to mean practically anyone that doesn't agree with her, should be shot in the Streets on sight. You are defending Saelune. By the logic within your post it is now at the very least understandible if not justified that I assume anything Saelune does or thinks, you are in support of because you defended her behavior.

So, why do you think people should be shot in the Streets for being "racist"?

Fischgopf:
Simple, I am applying the reasoning of your post to you.

No, you aren't.

The reasoning of the post is that one person consistently behaves a certain way; a pattern of behaviour. This is not equivalent to a single instance.

Agema:

Fischgopf:
Simple, I am applying the reasoning of your post to you.

No, you aren't.

The reasoning of the post is that one person consistently behaves a certain way; a pattern of behaviour. This is not equivalent to a single instance.

And Catnip doesn't always play Devils advocate, so I guess bastardofmelbourne is wrong too. Not to mention that this isn't the only instance. Nor the only person to do so.

Edit: And the entire point is that it's a stupid argument that only serves to justify shitty behavior.

Addendum_Forthcoming:

Can I ask what exactly you think social justice is?

Sure. "Social Justice" is a slippery weasel term that appears benign to the casual observer, compounded as it is of two concepts generally felt to be positive. Surely no one could possibly be for "antisocial injustice", right? But of course the fluffy feel-good branding conceals the systematic project to establish radical inequality as the basic principle of social organization, contrary to the very foundations of the Liberal dispensation. The current thinking being that the inequality ought to be implemented according to the same categories "progressive" precursors the literal freaking Nazis employed in their corresponding Grand Project.

What sadly escapes most people is that the insertion of "social" actually serves to qualify the good of "justice", rather than add to it. And in practice that amounts to collectivizing guilt and the need for punishment in a remarkably atavistic rejection of the principle of individual moral agency.

Hope that clears things up a bit.

Fischgopf:
Edit: And the entire point is that it's a stupid argument that only serves to justify shitty behavior.

Or maybe people just don't want to deal with assholes. Personally I find devil's advocate to be an obnoxious rhetorical gimmick that invites contrarianism more than it does thoughtful, principled skepticism. I used to do it all the time, and then one day looked back and realized it was bullshit and I was just being contrary. Then I noticed the same happening with pretty much everybody who feels the need to regularly play the game.

I mean, if someone wants to be contrarian, it's not like I can stop them. But I am free to not take them seriously.

bastardofmelbourne:

Fischgopf:
So, now that you've defended Saelunes antic's, why do you think people should be shot in the Streets for being "racist"?

You'll have to forgive me, because I don't understand what it is you're getting at here.

I don't mean to sound flippant, it's just that this is a complete non sequitur from my perspective.

I believe they are taking issue with my stance that the KKK and Nazis are terrorists and should be treated as such. But who knows, people like twisting my words so hard all the time, for all I know, they are twisting one of the many times I said I love Morrowind.

Fischgopf:
Simple, I am applying the reasoning of your post to you.

I do not believe you are. This is probably my fault.

The point I was making was that if the purpose of your argument is to convince others of your point, then you must pay attention to the way your argument appears to others in order to achieve that goal. That means paying attention to form, clarity, and credibility. Those things are basically irrelevant to the logical strength of your argument, but if you disregard basic grammar, or write long-winded, impenetrable blocks of text, or behave in a way that appears biased, then no-one will take your argument seriously and no-one will be convinced by it.

The reason I brought up the analogy of apprehended bias in law is because it illustrated how the credibility of one's argument is related to the effectiveness of your argument. If you consistently behave in a way that appears biased to onlookers, then your credibility is undermined and your argument is ineffective.

Simply put: when Catnip wants to really convince Saelune of something important, he won't be able to, because Saelune will assume that Catnip is biased because Catnip has spent most of his posting history playing devil's advocate.

That was my point, and I am honestly a little baffled at how you arrived at me wanting to shoot racists in the street.

Saelune:
I believe they are taking issue with my stance that the KKK and Nazis are terrorists and should be treated as such. But who knows, people like twisting my words so hard all the time, for all I know, they are twisting one of the many times I said I love Morrowind.

Well, I've never seen you advocate the summary execution of racists before, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on that one.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here