Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

inadril t1_jdx559o wrote

Reply to comment by budtoast in I see your “everything is Jewish” posts and I raise you the worst I’ve ever seen by sammyf0712

I can identify gaslighting and fallacies of “reasonableness” and “facts” that paint only one side as the problem. I can also identify deflection when one turns questions back instead of considering them.

What I can’t identify is whether you see your own logical progression here?

The holocaust was your example.

So, if I may use your latest example again, “The right” absolutely agrees with those values. Exactly as much as “the left” does. As a bad idea.

And they all get condemned as a whole. Because they don’t disavow individuals praising nazis “the right way”.

You’re claiming to speak for millions as a “former conservative”. But then you claim those millions support the nazis because an “individual” did. And further, you put forth an argument that is distillable as “one side is the problem”.

Am I to infer that “the other side is the solution”?

1

budtoast t1_jdx77bu wrote

I’m not debating you. I’m sharing my perspective because that’s what you talked about- listening to other’s perspectives. The N-zis and the Holocaust are two different things. I think you’re struggling to understand the point…

The point is: They don’t think it’s a bad idea. Some people on the left believe authoritarian things are a “good idea”, and some people on the right believe this as well. I can show you examples. The parties are kind of useless. So yeah- there is no “other side” solution from your perspective.

I’m for the concepts of social freedom and basic human rights. I’m against the push for control over people’s rights. Other parts of politics (regarding economics specifically) are varied and do not always align with one party in my opinion. Ultimately, my point is that your defense of this party is not one you want to be affiliated with if you are against this rice propaganda.

1

inadril t1_jdy1ff2 wrote

First, debating is exactly you’re doing. I responded to someone laying the original post squarely at the feet of one political party that encompasses nearly half the country. You apparently took issue with the response to a vulgarly dismissed observable counterpoint and have been throwing up straw men to virtue signal and guilt into supporting a one sided subjective opinion.

Second, “the nazis and the holocaust are separate things”? Objectively false and irrelevant.

Third, “they” absolutely do not “think it’s a good idea”. The great evil “they” accuse each other of being nazis. The point you’re struggling to make is refuted by the mainstreaming of accusations of nazism for policy disputes on all sides.

And lastly, I have neither defended nor associated with any party. Because I see what happens to parties. I see what people like you do to parties. Both in the present and through recorded history. Besides, those refusing to associate in an “us vs them” get treated as “them” by both anyway, so why bother? Case in point, disagreeing with you somehow means I’m defending your conservatives.

My entire point was and has been, that no singular party or group is the problem. Because the same things are said by and about every party.

Which was ignored to be “concerned” about “defending” a group that “supports nazi ideals”. Which means guilt and browbeat.

But you have made very good points to all the straw men. I’m sure their remnants are convinced of the error of their ways now.

1

budtoast t1_jdy50v9 wrote

That’s my entire point as well. But you’re the one here trying to deny the reality that conservatives do in fact say authoritarian things. I’m trying to say both parties are harmful. You’re essentially saying “it depends.” Also these packets openly associate themselves with conservative beliefs- all of the packets are sentiments that are shared with conservatives.

If you want to consider this a debate you can, but I am simply here to explain my perspective as you said we should do for one another. I didn’t create or knock down any strawmen. Ironically, we could say you’ve been creating strawmen as well if we really want to. You mention me talking about “they” and I’m talking about everyone. Anyone on all sides wants to push for this. There are authoritarians everywhere, regardless of party. YOU are applying beliefs to ME. Neither of us are affiliated with any party.

It takes a bag of rice like this to begin that decent. It is easier if the opinions of the person you’re targeting already mostly align with the opinions you’re pushing. These bags are anti-immigration, anti-abortion, anti-LGBT, etc. The left is not any of those things, but the right is. My end point is that it is easier to radicalize those who already hold similar beliefs. A pro life person will be more likely to pick up an “everything about abortion is jewish” packet compared to a pro choice person.

1

inadril t1_je06ydw wrote

Right, my point is yours now. So what have you been arguing this whole time?

Don’t lie to yourself. This is a browbeating. Your whole purpose, by all appearances, is to destroy an opinion you are creating from whole cloth and assigning to me.

Your ability to gaslight, strawman, project, twist, and obfuscate to win whatever argument you think you’re having is astounding.

Quit trying to turn people into villains to be defeated for the sake of your own hubris.

The subjective perspective you’re peddling is “the conservatives are the problem”, as evidenced by your claims that “they all agree” with the evil that was the nazis. And the basis for your claim is one person speaking for himself and calling it “conservatism”.

My point, from the very beginning, has been every party has problems. Which you begrudgingly admitted before resuming the vitriolic conservative-are-nazis diatribe.

And then you turn and accuse me of defending your conservatives and “denying reality” because I won’t agree a single party is as bad as the nazis.

You want some reality?

“It’s the (political/ideological group)! They’re the problem! They support (any inhumanly evil historical character/event)!” Translated, copied, pasted. Can be found preceding every genocide and the majority of military aggression in recorded history.

It’s the argument being used to justify Russian aggression in Ukraine today.

Sound familiar?

1

budtoast t1_je07ofx wrote

I’m not turning you into a villain- this isn’t even about you. This entire reply is so ironic: you are telling me what I’M doing now. But what I’m really trying to do is point out a truth- that people on both sides openly talk about these things. And the easier ones to convince are republicans. Neither are good, but one is being targeted by extremists right now especially. Why do you think all these rice bag opinions align with conservative talking points?

Also your description of my words being demonization of conservatives only is ironic alongside all these accusations of fallacies- I’ve said time and time again both sides are authoritarian. Both sides can be more libertarian. I also never once generalized all conservatives or said that they WERE N-zis, but you’re claiming I did (“evidenced by your claims that ‘they all agreed’ with the evil that was the Nazis”). My point is that YOU should not be here trying to defend conservative opinion when these rice bags in the posts are preying on conservative ideology. If you disagree, explain why. You’re the one telling people to listen to conservatives and hear them out.

Essentially, I have always said don’t listen to the parties. You were first to suggest listening to conservatives

You keep repeating your point without addressing any of mine. I keep addressing your repeats and it is becoming tiring. I don’t want to be accused of another fallacy after this, no one cares because this is a reddit comment section and I never wanted to professionally debate you. I wanted to share my perspective like you suggested people should do (and you suggested people should listen.) But I suppose it’s only certain people and certain opinions?

Please reply to the bolded part of this message specifically if you’re going to reply.

1

inadril t1_je0pzj5 wrote

I’ve haven’t defended or advocated for anyone except myself. My one and only point has remained the same.

You started this whole thing with virtue signaling and insinuating I agreed with “the right”. This after I just said an argument could be made against every party and to “pay attention”.

You brought up the holocaust.

You associated it with “the right”.

You specifically brought up conservatives.

You claimed to have been one.

YOU explicitly associated “them” with Nazis.

YOU brought up accusations and affiliations.

YOU escalated every comment to force me onto a side.

YOU changed the goalposts.

The comments are all there. Read them.

I take issue with accusing one party of every evil and ail because every party has problems.

I repeat my argument ad nauseum because you only acknowledge it long enough to put words in my mouth and argue something else.

I will not address your “points” because they are irrelevant self serving arguments you make against yourself. They have nothing to do with me or my original point.

But feel free to continue denying reality to exhaustion.

1

budtoast t1_je1v1gk wrote

Nope, you assumed what I meant by “them.”

I did bring up the right. Because they exist and they are most relevant here

I brought up that BOTH parties are not to be listened to. Especially republicans in this circumstance. You claimed that I was specifically talking about only republicans.

I did not change any goalposts and if I did, point out where. My point has always been the same. I’m apolitical, and anyone with eyes can see that the bags prey on conservative values. I encourage you to go back through the comments, because I did, and I’m noticing the sheer amount of times you just conviently ignored every point I make while I try to actually discuss your’s.

So who’s really debating here?

You didn’t address anything I said or highlighted, as expected. I did not put any words in your mouth, but you certainly have been doing that.

You’re still busy thinking about what YOU think I believe. You assumed so much about me from the beginning. Meanwhile I used if statements and openly said I am not sure what your political beliefs are, but that trying to get people to listen to republicans is a bad idea.

> “If you agree with those who disagree with me now, I’m nervous for your future. You’ve had ample time to listen to those on the left and change your perspective. If you’re not more center after that, I’m afraid you didn’t listen.”

When I said this, I’m not directly calling you a conservative, nor am I virtue signaling. I gave an example of harmful beliefs I had in the past and how I disavow them. If someone doesn’t disavow them in this day and age, I’m concerned for them. And I believe that if you truly want to listen to people like you say, you’d end up being more center than one way leaning. And my statement started with “If” which means, “IF you hold conservative beliefs…” (this is to point out that I never called you in particular a conservative)

Your comment was this in direct reference to specifically conservatives:

>”I see you don’t pay attention to those who don’t agree with you”

You are encouraging people to give republicans a chance, are you not? If you are not, tell me. I’ve said this entire time, I’m apolitical, I don’t think you should be trying to encourage people to listen to any one side, and if you are you’d be a hypocrite for leaning a specific way.

Here is where I think you’re trying to claim I’m a liar. You had this conversation before this:

>”Every republican accusation is a confession”

>”Same could be said of any political leaning”

>”No the fuck it can’t”

Then you say your part of listening to them, hearing them out, saying that this person is stupid for ignoring republican values. (“I see you don’t pay attention to people who don’t agree with you”) I chime in saying my piece, which is to break down the idea that we have to listen to the parties at all. And that in these circumstances, speaking up about “paying attention” to republicans on a post involving targeting republican opinions, I am worried for you. Especially if you’re someone who is apolitical and wanting to reject the parties altogether. That’s genuine worry because, again, as you seem to agree- the parties are echo chambers.

You decided to take what I said and assume virtue signaling and lying and making you look bad. You look fine. No one cares about how you look. No one is even looking at this thread

I’m trying to understand why you decided to go in circles and ignore the point this entire time. But I think it’s just because you can’t deny that these bags do, in fact, target conservatives. Don’t listen to them. Don’t give them a chance to “broaden your horizons.”

Anyone who calls themselves “conservative”, “republican”, “democrat”, “liberal” etc is obviously extremely party affiliated and therefore, their opinion is likely surrounded by echo chambers. I believe you’ve been trying to say that same thing but in a more esoteric way, as if I need to be enlightened by the position that the parties are nonsense. I know that.

This is from my first few replies to you:

>”You can be against the left. But if you think conservatives are against authoritarian ideals enough to try and defend them here, you’re just factually wrong (hence “if you’re not more center after that, you didn’t listen” from my first comment to you)”

I think my point was made fairly well during the beginning. Perhaps I should have said “defend listening to them here” but I’m afraid that’s a bit nit picky. You seemed to be defending the idea of hearing out republican opinions, saying “you don’t pay attention to anyone you disagree with.” I said “I don’t listen to party affiliated people, especially republicans because they are for authoritarian values” and now you’re trying to break down my debate style and tell me what I believe or something regarding the parties. If you disagree with this assessment, tell me how and why.

1

inadril t1_je2rsk5 wrote

Okay. I’m going to ignore everything I just read.

Your entire premise is flawed.

So let’s get to the heart of it, shall we?

“I see you don’t pay attention to those who disagree with you”.

“attention noun 1 the issue clearly needs further attention: OBSERVATION, attentiveness, intentness, notice, concentration, heed, heedfulness, mindfulness, regard, scrutiny; contemplation, consideration, deliberation, thought, thinking, studying, investigation, action.”

”pay attention an assortment of motivational tools is necessary to keep them in class and paying attention: LISTEN, be attentive, attend, concentrate on, concentrate on hearing, give ear to, lend an ear to; hang on someone's words.”

disagree verb 1 no one was willing to disagree with him: FAIL TO AGREE, be in dispute/contention, be at variance/odds, not see eye to eye, differ from, dissent from, diverge from; contradict, gainsay, challenge, oppose; argue, debate, quarrel, bicker, wrangle, squabble, spar, dispute, take issue, row, altercate, clash, be at loggerheads, cross swords, lock horns; informal fall out, have words, scrap; archaic disaccord. ANTONYMS agree”

Nowhere did I reference a specific party, save “you” and “those who disagree”.

To whom, then, could “attention” and “disagree” possibly be referring when the two participants disagreed?

As to the rest of the comment, “Enjoy your bliss” is a direct reference to “Ignorance is bliss”.

“ignorance noun 1 his ignorance of economics: INCOMPREHENSION, unawareness, unconsciousness, inexperience, innocence; unfamiliarity with, lack of enlightenment about, lack of knowledge about, lack of information about; informal cluelessness; literary nescience. ANTONYMS knowledge, education

2 their attitudes are based on ignorance and fear: LACK OF KNOWLEDGE, lack of education; unenlightenment, benightedness; lack of intelligence, unintelligence, stupidity, foolishness, idiocy, denseness, brainlessness, mindlessness, slow-wittedness; informal thickness, dimness, dumbness, dopiness, doziness. ANTONYMS knowledge, education”

Personally, I prefer the short definition given by a friend from Australia. “It’s an insult meaning ‘unknowledgeable and too lazy or unwilling to study or learn anything’”. Unfortunately it doesn’t apply here.

Oh, I picked a special one too. Taylor made for you.

“Debate noun I would welcome a debate on the reforms I there is renewed debate about NATO's defense role: DISCUSSION, exchange of views, discourse, parley; argument, dispute, wrangle, altercation, war of words; arguing, argumentation, wrangling, sparring, disputation, dissension, disagreement, controversy, contention, conflict, disharmony; negotiations, talks; dialogue, comment, interest; informal confabrap session; rare velitation, contestation.

verb 1 the board debated his proposal: DISCUSS, confer about, talk over, talk through, talk about, exchange views on, exchange views about, thrash out, argue, argue about, argue the pros and cons of, dispute, wrangle over, bandy words concerning, contend over, contest, controvert, moot; informal kick around, bat around; archaic altercate.”

Shall I define every word of both original replies or are you done misrepresent them?

1

budtoast t1_je2sr9g wrote

Whatever you say. You refuse to tackle any actual points. This is a waste of time.

1

inadril t1_je2tj0e wrote

No, I refuse continue to address your ever increasing pile of irrelevant points based on misrepresentation of what I said.

Because I’d be writing a book on your previous comment alone.

1

budtoast t1_je2tpos wrote

I addressed what you said. You just spent forever defining words. Move on.

This was a waste of time and you made it that. I wanted to be productive here and say my piece and that’s all, which I’ve successfully done I guess. So goodbye. Wish I had actual responses from you.

1

inadril t1_je2w0wi wrote

You addressed your own misrepresentation of what I said.

It was going to be a waste of time from the beginning and I indulged you because I didn’t understand how you could possibly conclude anything other than the plain, simple english originally put forth.

Defining words was apparently necessary.

1

budtoast t1_je2w5rz wrote

No, it really wasn’t. You didn’t address the actual arguments because you don’t have one. Bye.

Make one or stop replying

1

inadril t1_je2zeu1 wrote

It really was.

And then you argued with yourself so much there wasn’t really much for me to do. I will admit it was impressive how many straw men you could defeat simultaneously.

I’ll take that last to mean you want that book.

1