Feminist makes the case for calling Newton's Laws "Newton's Rape Manual". These are the people teaching college students.

submitted by Chipit from stephenhicks.org

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]yellow_algebra_31 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (13 children)

We're currently in agreement that he made a citation, but we're currently in disagreement about what that citation addresses.

If it addresses me or my character, then it's an ad-hominem, no? And if it addresses an argument I made, then it's a counter-argument or refutation, no?

[–]magnora7 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (12 children)

I think his point is "feminist ideology is insane" and the quote does back up his point, so I think it's a fair counter-argument. But the worst part of his comment is definitely name-calling. I wish he could just make his point without flinging names around like a child. Seems to be a pattern with him.

[–]yellow_algebra_31 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (11 children)

I find myself in disagreement on these points:

  • I think his argument about feminist ideology being insane does not rise above the level of namecalling. Though he quotes her, he does not make any argument regarding his opinion of Susan Sontag's work quoted there, and I don't think 'insane' really qualifies as a claim about an attribute of her work so much as just name-calling.
  • I think in general (not just specific to this particular author and quote) the argument that "feminist ideology is insane" is not really an argument, but a form of name-calling. Actually arguing that someone is insane usually requires some sort of evaluation of a medical problem of the brain of that person, and is usually done in more specific and technical language than "insane". "Feminist ideology is insane" here may as well be "Feminist ideology is ass-hat-ish".
  • I think the argument "feminist ideology is insane" doesn't address any of my arguments, and thus does not qualify as a counter-argument.

I find myself in agreement on these points:

  • he quotes a feminist author (I don't know much about Susan Sontag but I think she's usually considered a feminist author)
  • at least part of his comment qualifies as name-calling

[–]magnora7 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

If I said "scientology is insane and here's a quote that shows it", then that's an argument, not just name-calling. But I get what you are saying.

[–]Aureus 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I agree. IMO it's valid to make a value judgement as part of an argument. If that was not allowed, it would be impossible to debate morality, or discuss whether something is "good" or "bad".

[–]magnora7 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Exactly. The idea "x is bad" is kind of the basis of morality, in a way. So it has to be allowed as a valid argument

[–]yellow_algebra_31 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Do you disagree with my assessment of chipit's comment in question and where it falls on the pyramid of debate?

[–]yellow_algebra_31 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

I find myself in disagreement.

I would consider "<ideology> is <insult>, just look at this <insult-like> quote!" to be a form of name-calling.

I would consider "<ideology> has <trait>, which is exemplified in <trait-exhibiting> quote" to be an argument.

I would consider "insane" (and other words like "crazy," "nuts," etc) to be more insults and stigmatizing words than to be actual arguments. Like the "ass-hat" from the pyramid of debate graphic. What is "insane" supposed to mean? Out of touch with reality? Well then you have to show how what they're saying is false. Aggressive? Uncomfortable? Abusive? Subversive? Anti-Western? Inconvenient? Incorrect? Not in alignment with my views? And typing this out I can understand why I've always felt unsatisfied when others have told me, "oh don't mind that crazy guy on the corner, he's nuts." It doesn't address the actual argument, and I'm left feeling like I don't understand why he's nuts, insane, crazy, whatever. The only additional information I've been given is that someone else thinks it's appropriate to dismiss what the person is saying, and I have no information about why.

A "trait" would be something more like "is hostile to men" or "is anti-Western". Or one could simply argue that a claim is inaccurate.

And regardless of this, "<ideology> is <bad thing>" does not address any of my arguments (as I described in my first reply), and it is explicitly used to stigmatize me as an ad-hominem (and again, ad hominem can use arguments and citations but they will be directed against the author rather than the author's arguments).

I still find myself in disagreement on these points.

[–]magnora7 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

I mean, sometimes an ideology can be a bad thing, that's a valid point for someone to make. But again I don't like the insulting way he went about doing that.

[–]yellow_algebra_31 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Of course an ideology can be a bad thing! But I don't think "<ideology> is <insult>" is anything other than name-calling. It doesn't add more information about what's bad about the ideology.

For example "communism is insane" vs "communist groups tend to kill a huge number of people in political purges when they take power, and many people under communist governments end up starving."

But again though, it's my assessment that this isn't really relevant to whether the comment was an ad-hominem against me. Whether or not it is an ad-hominem against feminism, making a negative assertion about feminism and using that to then make a negative assertion about me, and by extension my arguments, would be an ad-hominem.

It's like if someone were to say, "hey look at this commie writing, isn't it insane?!" and I were to say, "I think there's something to it. I can see that it's harmful in that it's goading people to hurt others, but I also think the point that switching to a life of factory work when people had previously been working on farms is a pretty drastic change and we haven't dealt with all of it. I think we should be able to talk about these things without goading people against factory employers." And the person were to reply and say, "you're insane, just like all commies are insane, look at this other thing that's totally insane." In this example the last reply would be name-calling and ad-hominem, and would not be an example of engaging with the actual arguments.

That's still my assessment at this point.

[–]I-0x0-I 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

I lurked for a long time (almost 2 years) before i made an account. magnora7 dropped a line in r/conspiracy, another place i lurked. i havent been very active but i appreciate the content from u/chipit and u/endlessSunflowers. i dont think that u/chipit is harmful and its suspicious that a 24 hour old account is trying to get them banned through bending the pyramid of debate rules. I never went to college to learn these fancy debate terms like 'ad hominem' or understand what 'micro-aggressions' are. i have had to look these things up. i love liberty and believe in free speech for all and dig what u/magnora7 and u/derr have got going. i think just because someone is blunt or crass it doesnt diminish their viewpoint per se, as much as some idea totalitarian who demands a user be punished in long-winded college edumacted paragraphs. its almost more of an attack or obsession, does it elevate the discussion? (edited some spelling)

[–]yellow_algebra_31 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

"edumacated". I don't appreciate the insults, especially when they are attempting to stigmatize actual positive traits.

I'm not bending the pyramid of debate rules. The point of all the above discussion was to clearly state exactly where the comment in question stands on the pyramid of debate. Do you disagree with my assessment? I had thought it was clear enough without my spelling it out but m7 seems to consistently disagree, that's the only reason I kept replying and clarifying.

This is not a free speech site because the pyramid of debate and trying to make it "not voat" and "not reddit" makes it not a free speech site. Subs and users that were not advocating violence or doing anything illegal or posting pornography have been banned by the admins in the past. If you're looking for free speech there are other sites with free(er) speech content policies, notabug.io and freespeechextremist.com are some examples.

Reporting that a user is violating the stated rules of a website is not "obsessive" "demanding punishment" or any other negative whatever. The facts of the matter (as I've tried to clearly present) are that he knowingly dragged the discussion down, knowing what the rules of the site are. He's been here for a long time. It wasn't a confusion on his part, and it wasn't just "being crass", and it wasn't using a non-"college edumacated" style. And it wasn't even being insulting or aggressive -- there are specific rules, and he specifically, almost certainly knowingly, violated them. There is nothing wrong with merely stating that I believe a rule violation has occurred and notifying the admins and publicly stating my opinion on the matter. It's a common occurrence for people asking standards to be enforced to be attacked as "troublemakers" or "causing problems" or "snitches" or "bossy" or "totalitarian". Those are just attitudes that serve the interests of someone who's trying to avoid getting caught knowingly breaking the rules though. It's the same kind of attitude behind "abolish the police." No, the rules are there to help create a better atmosphere. Instead of shaming people who point out when the rules are being violated, the rules should be changed if they're not working.

The two users you mentioned liking have very different viewpoints. But like your comment here, they both attack the "elites". This is part of what makes me feel this site is hypocritical -- m7 will go on and on about how horrible voat is and he'll ban /s/coontown, but then he actively promotes this kind of low-key constant hate towards a whole group of people, and he won't even admit he's doing it or that it's wrong or that this group is even made of up of actual real people that deserve the same respect everyone deserves. I don't know what your deal is, but it kinda does sound like you're just here to hate on anyone who looks close enough to an "elite" to you to target. Respectfully, I'm not here to interact with people who are just interested in using me as some sort of hate target. Hope I'm wrong about you, or if I'm not, maybe look at how you're treating other people and whether it's something that really reflects your morals.

I suppose that was a bit long-winded. To shorten it: for all the insulting stuff in your comment: right back at you x2.

The only really relevant thing here is probably: Do you disagree with my assessment of where chipit's comment falls on the pyramid of debate? If so, where specifically is the disagreement?

[–]I-0x0-I 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

yes, i disagree. 'insane' does nothing to add, improve or clarify. an adjective, on its own does very little. chipit could have elaborated on why the user thinks such ideolgy could be insane. although i agree with 'm7' about being graded on the more elevated portion of content. the user does not clarify what 'insane' is. insane shouldn't even be an insult really if the majority of people are sane and the world we currently live in is a product of sane people than insanity would be a compliment, no? my major disagreement is with how many comments went back and forth. i think that just getting an aknowledgment from 'm7' would be enough to kind of let it go, maybe continue in direct messages or the like. i more or less agree with u/magnora7 about it all. how do we define 'elite'? is it the .001% of the earth that has enough wealth to influence nations, incite and fund both sides of wars/conflict, wage massive dis/misinformation campaigns? or is an elite a person of any class with an 'i'm better than you' attitude? maybe there is some crossover. i get along just fine with all humans who are open to argue or discuss in non-condecending tones and percieve us as the equals we are.