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 -  (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.

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

my major disagreement is with how many comments went back and forth.

Well I didn't agree with his assessment. So when he replied, I replied stating my disagreement. In increasingly painstaking detail because I thought I fully explained first time, and nothing he said seemed to fully address my points or convince me. That's how it went back and forth like that for a long time. I'm not really sure what else I should have done given what my opinion of the situation was. I could have expressed frustration but I didn't think that was productive so I didn't do it. I don't think "don't post and stick by your opinion because I dislike it" is really fair to ask of someone.

Maybe it would be appropriate to message the person who's responsible for maintaining the quality of the site about this, rather than a random user, if you think it should be handled differently?

I'm also a bit confused about your assessment of where chipit's comment falls on the pyramid of debate. (Apologies if I'm just not understanding your conclusion about whether "insane" is name-calling or about the comment overall). I said a lot of stuff about it, but I really felt like I was repeating myself a lot. And sometimes following unnecessary side-tracks. These are the levels of the pyramid of debate, from SaidIt's terms and content policy page. And this is chipit's comment, for convenient reference. You don't have to agree with me, nobody does. I just think I accurately described where on the pyramid it falls and nobody has made a convincing case to me otherwise.

You don't have to reply but if you want to it seems best to focus on evaluating the comment's position on the pyramid.