Forget fake news — alt-right memes could do more damage to democracy

[Spectral]

Yea, the discussion is on human social affairs, so the words should be interpreted in the context of human social affairs, not basic common language.

OK, the word has the same meaning there. You're just wrong about this. There's really no debate to be had, you're just choosing to redefine a word for your personal convenience. This is a huge obstacle to having any kind of real conversation.

[stabetha]

Wait, are you asking for evidence of racism and anti-semitism on Reddit and 4chan?

Really?

not at all, but making an accusation of racism simply because racist exist is pretty harsh. There are racist that post here so am I to assume you are a racist?

[Zoranon]

You should take a look at affirmative action as well, it's not only exclusive to US and it's not only exclusive to race ...
Ignorance is bliss, isn't it?

Yeah, you seem to be blissfully ignorant. You do not get to make your own definitions.

[HumbleDuck]

OK, the word has the same meaning there. You're just wrong about this. There's really no debate to be had, you're just choosing to redefine a word for your personal convenience. This is a huge obstacle to having any kind of real conversation.

The treatment needs to be unjust. You can find it in any source you like.
Take your time and read about the topic. That's if you want to participate in a discussion of course.

- - - Updated - - -

Yeah, you seem to be blissfully ignorant. You do not get to make your own definitions.

Are you implying affirmative action is exclusive to black people living in US? Really?

[Spectral]

The treatment needs to be unjust. You can find it in any source you like.
Take your time and read about the topic. That's if you want to participate in a discussion of course.

This is a really silly redefinition given the obvious subjectivity of what's "just".

[purebalance]

Thanks I needed a good belly laugh this morning.

I don't get it. You're the second person who said this. I'm going to need clarification tbh

Affiliation aside, if they try to impeach Trump there's so much that will go awry. If they succeed Pence is in charge or if he gets brought down, then Paul Ryan who are both equally worse in terms of views. If they try and fail because they did it too soon, I'm pretty sure they can't bring up the same charges twice similar to double jeopardy.

If this is because you're implying she was rational before, her outward stance would say otherwise, but she may have been in terms of trying to keep her votes to stay in office.

[HumbleDuck]

This is a really silly redefinition given the obvious subjectivity of what's "just".

If you want to call a sociological concept subjective, you should call math, physics, and literary everything in this world subjective. Which is true within itself, but also is fallacious.

[Spectral]

If you want to call a sociological concept subjective, you should call math, physics, and literary everything in this world subjective. Which is true within itself, but also is fallacious.

You're being really silly. Do you really believe calculus is just as subjective as the idea that affirmative action is justice?

[Dmitro]

In some ways, this is definitely true. Look at the polling data for gay marriage, for example. Twenty years ago, 27 percent of total Americans supported gay marriage; now 47 percent of Republicans support gay marriage. It's amazing how swiftly social issues flip from being relatively noncontroversial and the standard position of basically all politicians ("marriage is between a man and a woman") to something that it becomes common knowledge that only stupid bigots support.

On social spending, this is even more stark. Not in terms of polling, but actual policy. The "radical" right on healthcare, for example, is a group that favors a return to what was approximately the status quo 10 years ago.

we shall fight back the lefties.

[Seranthor]

time to remove the electoral college.

You know there is a way to do that... Get a constitutional amendment passed... problem you face is you need 2/3 of the House, 2/3 of the Senate and the majority vote in 38 states.... considering that the GOP have majority control of the US House, US Senate and has full control (both upper and lower houses and the governorship) of 30+ states, its unlikely that you'll find a way to do away with the electoral college any time soon.

[Hell-Nicø]

Given the fact that this article was cherry picked by a person on the (far?)right, to take your approach, I should say being consciously dishonest is always the solution on the right.

I'd take that over banning free speech any day of the week thank you very much.

And the simple fact that you don't even deny the fact that lefty are always trying to ban free speech prove how true it is.

[HumbleDuck]

I'd take that over banning free speech any day of the week thank you very much.

And the simple fact that you don't even deny the fact that lefty are always trying to ban free speech prove how true it is.

This was not a piece of opinion, it was the proof of the other poster's statement being wrong by Reductio ad absurdum.

- - - Updated - - -

You're being really silly. Do you really believe calculus is just as subjective as the idea that affirmative action is justice?

It sounds silly because it is the logical conclusion of your approach ( appeal to the extreme, ie calling derivatives of sociological theories subjective), and that was the whole point of this comment, your approach is silly.
I can take other approaches to proove that your definition of discrimination is irrelevant as well, like if we remove the unjust part, discrimination holds exactly the same value as human interaction.( ie in any interaction between a group of people all of them are subject to discrimination). There are other approaches to proove your statement wrong as well, but If you don't get it by know, explaining further would be a waste of time.

[Hell-Nicø]

This was not a piece of opinion, it was the proof of the other poster's statement being wrong by Reductio ad absurdum.

Look at that one, dismissing facts with a wave of the hand under the cover of "it's a fallacy" thus committing the "fallacy of fallacy" and doubling down by doing the same fallacy he was accusing others to dismiss them.

Nice job lil keyboard warrior, but maybe you should go level up against some 9yo on some kid friendly forum first.

[Spectral]

It sounds silly because it is the logical conclusion of your approach ( appeal to the extreme, ie calling derivatives of sociological theories subjective), and that was the whole point of this comment, your approach is silly.
I can take other approaches to proove that your definition of discrimination is irrelevant as well, like if we remove the unjust part, discrimination holds exactly the same value as human interaction.( ie in any interaction between a group of people all of them are subject to discrimination). There are other approaches to proove your statement wrong as well, but If you don't get it by know, explaining further would be a waste of time.

No, it sounds silly because you're stating a value system as being an objective truth. That's absurd.

There are no "proofs" to be had here. There are arguments (I don't find them compelling, but whatever) for your position, but the notion that this is "proven" is modernist nonsense.

[Hell-Nicø]

No, it sounds silly because you're stating a value system as being an objective truth. That's absurd.

There are no "proofs" to be had here. There are arguments (I don't find them compelling, but whatever) for your position, but the notion that this is "proven" is modernist nonsense.

Pretty much, and that's the problem with guys like him, they base their argument on false premise, like "MY system of value is the only right one", but that one has the added perk of trying to sound scientific to strengthen is mediocre argument.

Really funny tbh.

[HumbleDuck]

Look at that one, dismissing facts with a wave of the hand under the cover of "it's a fallacy" thus committing the "fallacy of fallacy" and doubling down by doing the same fallacy he was accusing others to dismiss them.

Nice job lil keyboard warrior, but maybe you should go level up against some 9yo on some kid friendly forum first.

Yea, only an expert keyboard warrior like you can call Reductio ad absurdum a fallacy.

- - - Updated - - -

No, it sounds silly because you're stating a value system as being an objective truth. That's absurd.

There are no "proofs" to be had here. There are arguments (I don't find them compelling, but whatever) for your position, but the notion that this is "proven" is modernist nonsense.

An argument can be proven to be false if it causes inconsistency within the logical structure it is being valued in. Unless you want to say consistency is subjective, which is again, true in itself, but fallacious.

- - - Updated - - -

Pretty much, and that's the problem with guys like him, they base their argument on false premise, like "MY system of value is the only right one", but that one has the added perk of trying to sound scientific to strengthen is mediocre argument.

Really funny tbh.

I argued within their own logical structures. That was what you missed in the first comment and that's what you missed here.
None of these two comments are my opinions, they are showing that absurd and inconsistent results can be reached if we take their approach.
It's like the most common method in logic...

[Spiffums]

I don't get it. You're the second person who said this. I'm going to need clarification tbh

Affiliation aside, if they try to impeach Trump there's so much that will go awry. If they succeed Pence is in charge or if he gets brought down, then Paul Ryan who are both equally worse in terms of views. If they try and fail because they did it too soon, I'm pretty sure they can't bring up the same charges twice similar to double jeopardy.

If this is because you're implying she was rational before, her outward stance would say otherwise, but she may have been in terms of trying to keep her votes to stay in office.

She is bat shit crazy. She lives in an Echo Chamber and is one of the outstanding reasons of why seats in both houses need term limits.

[Hell-Nicø]

Yea, only an expert keyboard warrior like you can call Reductio ad absurdum a fallacy.

Because ... it's a type of fallacy, you realize that, right?

It's like the most common method in logic...

Please. Don't talk about logic when you are so willing to bend backward to make stuff fit YOUR flawed logic, a logic that you present as being "THE" logic.

[Zython]

not at all, but making an accusation of racism simply because racist exist is pretty harsh. There are racist that post here so am I to assume you are a racist?

That kind of an oversimplification. I would classify it in two ways:

1. Sites that exist to be racist (Stormfront, /pol/, etc.)
2. Sites that don't exist to be racist, but nevertheless are teeming with racism (Reddit, rest of 4chan, MMO-Champion)

Sure, not everyone who posts in the 2nd site is racist, but that doesn't mean there isn't plenty of racism at those places.

[HumbleDuck]

Because ... it's a type of fallacy, you realize that, right?
Please. Don't talk about logic when you are so willing to bend backward to make stuff fit YOUR flawed logic, a logic that you present as being "THE" logic.

So reductio ad absurdum is a type of fallacy, ha?



Ok, I officially give up.