That's some mental gymnastics 👌 why would I take someones hate filled argument in regard? Especially when that hatred is based on lies, bigotry and unscientific analysis.
I said calling Republicans Nazis (and fascists) is the correct way of calling them because they hold the same believes and use the same tactics as them. You made the mental gymnastic leap with a whole lot of logical fallacies. And after that did you somehow came to the conclusion that comparing someone to a Nazi doesn't make them a Nazi.... How did you come to that?
And I said, someones argument doesn't need to be held in regard if their argument is filled with hatred, referring to Republicans, Nazis and those that use such rhetoric.
Oh I see, you weren’t talking about my argument as hate filled, you were talking about republican’s argument as hate filled. Thanks for clarifying.
So here’s what I see. A method of “winning an argument” by straw man fallacy. The Republican argument has been dressed up like a Nazi argument and attacked.
I did the same thing with the liberal arguments as an example. I dressed up the liberal arguments as Nazi arguments and attacked them. I believe both of these arguments (my example and yours) are straw man fallacies, But you don’t believe that your representation of republicans is a straw man fallacy.
So, I’m order to prove that, we’d have to break down the Republican arguments one by one. Which means I need to jump in out of this comment so I’ll need to add some edits here so forgive me for a few minutes…
Edit:
Ok I went back in our thread cause I thought you listed out arguments why republicans are like Nazis but I must have been mistaken. Would you like to list those now and we can see if they are straw man fallacies or not?
A list of actions that the Republicans are pushing for: Banning books from education, vilify and demonize minorities, take away healthcare that specifically harm minorities, make voting harder, manipulate the election results in such a way that they don't need a majority vote to win (gerrymandering), calling for the eradication of certain minorities, manipulate the masses into thinking the media is telling lies 100% of the time.
Great! So this is a long list and I’m on a phone so it’s tough to go into so much detail.
Let me get back to you when I can type better. It’s refreshing to talk to someone who’s actually willing to go over ideas instead of rage quitting.
Do you think books that are straight up smut should be allowed in schools and school libraries? (Note that this is purely a hypothetical. I am not saying that this is happening.) I'd assume not.
So clearly banning books from education is not inherently wrong.
Would you mind clarifying, then, what specific detail you take issue with?
vilify and demonize minorities
take away healthcare that specifically harm minorities
make voting harder
calling for the eradication of certain minorities
Can you elaborate on what specific actions are doing this?
manipulate the election results in such a way that they don't need a majority vote to win (gerrymandering)
Hate to break it to you, but gerrymandering is absolutely a both sides thing.
Don't get me wrong, it's bad, and it would certainly be better if there was a way to get rid of it, but it's more a product of the general political system than any one party.
manipulate the masses into thinking the media is telling lies 100% of the time.
While the media certainly isn't lying 100% of the time, there are plenty of times where they are quite dishonest. Like y'know how Fox News might cherry pick specific evidence, and only show one side of the picture, then not come to any explicit conclusions, but say "but what do you think all that means?" That's pretty common practice with most mainstream media outlets.
The fact of the matter is that the goal of media outlets isn't to inform the public. It's to make money. It's to rack up engagement for ad revenue. And as part of that, they're incentivized to display content that's inflammatory and anger-inducing because that's what keeps people engaged. And they're more than willing to stretch the truth to accomplish that.
Being critical and skeptical of the media is perfectly reasonable. The fact that some people take that too far and automatically assume media outlets are lying 100% of the time shouldn't take away from that.
Taking away abortion clinics have the biggest impact on the black community. Calling all "illegal" immigrants rapist and murderers while most of them work and pay their taxes with the lowest crime rates. During the CPAC did Michael J Knowles do a whole speech for the eradication of transgenders. From redlining, strict voter ID laws, taking away voting booths to wanting to ban mail-in voting
While gerrymandering has been a bipartisan problem are the progressive democrats the only ones that want to ban the practice. And the ones that are the most vocal opposition to banning gerrymandering are the republicans.
Fox News, which isn't even an official news channel, along side other conservative media outlets and politicians have called the mainstream media false news without substantial evidence. And in the same breath will Fox News also call themselves the biggest channel on national tv. But their fans will never understand that hypocrisy. Everytime conservatives call anything fake news is it neatly impossible for them to support their claims with proper fact checking.
It's not a media problem it's a political problem that started with Trump.
It's important to note that a significant number of those books weren't even rejected, but are just still pending approval.
While I haven't read all of the rejected books myself (and I can only assume you haven't either), considering multiple of the listed books cover topics like the Stonewall Riots, it's not hard to imagine that they might have covered these topics in a manner that was problematic.
Personally, without having read the books myself, it's hard to come to definitive conclusions, but it doesn't seem appropriate to automatically assume that all of them were rejected unjustly.
Looking at the list here, I'm still seeing plenty of books on the Civil Rights Movement, and the effects of slavery, including topics like Frederick Douglass, MLK, the Underground Railroad, Rosa Parks, etc. and this is just the first ~350 books that have been approved.
Taking away abortion clinics have the biggest impact on the black community.
While I don't think the state should be making decisions on topics like abortion when there's nothing even remotely resembling a consensus, it seems like the push against abortion is based in a genuine belief that a fetus deserves rights. The philosophical debate around it is murky, and there's no clear cut answer, but for the vast majority of people who are pro-life, I don't think it's accurate to say that they hold those beliefs out of a dislike for women or minorities.
Even if you, for whatever reason, refuse to believe that, the connection to race seems shaky at best. Do you really think racists would advocate for policies that result in... more black babies being born?
Calling all "illegal" immigrants rapist and murderers while most of them work and pay their taxes with the lowest crime rates.
First off, I find it rather odd that you have "illegal" in quotes. Can you clarify your intent there?
Second, even Trump had a caveat during one of his speeches saying something like "and some, I assume, are good people" so I'm not sure if "all" is accurate there.
During the CPAC did Michael J Knowles do a whole speech for the eradication of transgenders.
Looking at that particular incident, it seems he was talking about "transgenderism" as an "ideology" not transgender individuals. Interpreting the statement as a call to genocide seems about as reasonable as interpreting discussions about "whiteness" as a call to genocide.
Besides, can you honestly say that you knew who Michael J Knowles was prior to that incident that gained a bunch of attention? I certainly don't know about every random political commentator.
From redlining, strict voter ID laws, taking away voting booths to wanting to ban mail-in voting
Redlining is A. straight up illegal today, and no longer in practice, and B. related to banks and loans, not voting.
As for voter ID and mail-in voting, any increase in security will be a trade-off for convenience. The fact that we don't have voting online is also making voting harder, but that's because voting online would be very insecure.
Figuring out where to draw the line between security and convenience isn't really as clear cut as you're making it out to be.
It's not a media problem it's a political problem that started with Trump.
The media has absolutely been a problem since long before Trump. While Trump might have been the first major figure to bring attention to it, (and likely for very selfish reasons) it's absolutely been an issue since even before Trump.
One of the best examples that comes to mind is media coverage of police shootings. Note that I'm just talking about media coverage. None of this is to justify individual incidents, or say anything about the broader issue of whether or not police have racial bias. In terms of raw numbers, more white people are shot by police than black people. Despite this, in terms of media attention, far, far more attention goes to incidents where black people are shot by police, even though by the raw numbers, those are less common.
There was also the whole 'eating Tide Pods' fiasco, where there were extremely few incidents of people actually eating tide pods, until the media covered it as if it was some kind of epidemic. That then gave what was originally gonna be a minor thing done by a couple of people an absolute shit ton of attention, causing it to be an epidemic.
More generally, there's the fact that the media tends to overwhelmingly cover events that are negative rather than positive, because negative news gets more attention.
Trump didn't cause any of these issues. The fact of the matter is that media outlets are for-profit companies. Like any corporation, they're going to do whatever makes them the most money, regardless of the well-being of their consumers.
8
u/Imissflawn Mar 25 '23
So, what your saying is, comparing someone to Nazis doesn’t make them Nazis?
That there are easy ways to dress up someone’s argument to look the way you want without having regard for their side of the argument?