you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]Chipit 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

That's whataboutism. You neither addressed nor refuted the argument.

That's exactly what we'd expect from an SJW. You don't believe in debate, facts, or logic. Those are tools of slavers and racists.

[–][deleted] 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

Have fun battling that strawman. I don't bother with arguements to those who clearly will not debate in good faith. Do you even know which fruitcakes came up with the term Social Justice Warrior? Yeak, that's right. People with an aversion to the truth. Take you BS out of here. You're blocked mofo.

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

OK SJW.

[–]Nub 3 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 3 fun -  (5 children)

That's whataboutism. You neither addressed nor refuted the argument.

It's not. He countered your point with something you didn't mention. Which is: how the Right debates.

It would be whataboutism is he said

says the guy who thinks X. OR but you post frequently in x fascist sub saying things like y.

Yelling whataboutism is just avoiding and silencing his opinion to your statement anyways. You did the exact same thing he did to the comment you replied to.

This is extremely ironic considering you just said in a comment before that the left are the ones who don't debate and instead just silence.

No one will debate, that's why we have this extreme polarisation going on right now. And you're not helping matters by lumping a large group of people together who don't agree on a lot of things and referring to them as "The Left". By that same metric can I assume you belong to "The Right"?

You replied with attacking "the left" for what you say is their inability to debate.

The left doesn't Silence. The left is tolerant of those with reason and value of human life. If you slander entire races or those who follow another religion then you are being ignorant. You can't just be tolerant of hate and ignorance.

If you want a true debate you need to be level headed and not slandering the opposition attacking everyone left of you.

You responded to his comment by labelling it whataboutism as if it doesn't make what he said true. Then turned it into a personal attack against his character.

You are acting like the definition of the type of person this website was created to exclude with the Pyramid of Debate...

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

The left doesn't Silence.

Sure they do. They invented cancellation. That's why we're on this website in the first place, the left has been silencing so frequently.

those who follow another religion then you are being ignorant.

I thought religious people are fucking morons who believe in an invisible sky wizard. Did that change?

If you want a true debate you need to be level headed and not slandering the opposition attacking everyone left of you.

How can we have a debate when debate, argument and reason are the tools of oppressors? They will never destroy the racist western white male culture. Do you know Critical Theory? Please read:

https://newdiscourses.com/2020/07/woke-wont-debate-you-heres-why/

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

Sure they do. They invented cancellation.

If you're talking about cancel culture. You can't just label everyone who gets offended by racism or hate speech leftist. But if you're going to stick with that, it's just like me saying rightwing has invented voter suppression of all voters(mostly minorities) outside their demographic.

I thought religious people are fucking morons who believe in an invisible sky wizard. Did that change?

I don't know what you're talking about. I never said that? I'm Athiest and advocate for freedom of religion.

How can we have a debate when debate, argument and reason are the tools of oppressors? They will never destroy the racist western white male culture. Do you know Critical Theory? Please read:

I have no idea what you're trying to say. You can't debate, because debate argument and reason are tools of oppressors? You're calling the left oppressors? They will never destroy the racist western white male culture? I don't get that, but you seem proud of it?

If you're still on the fence about who can't debate or whos doing the opressing, then why not just look at any form of political corruption on wiki and see all the times the republicans/conservatives have resorted to cheating to try and win. It's always Gerrymandering and Voter suppression by them.

If they could debate. It wouldn't consistently be left to the scummiest illegal actions being taken. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_suppression_in_the_United_States#2019-2020

Not just 2019-2020 btw. It goes back to the 1800s. It's always the republicans all throughout history cheating wherever possible.

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

I don't know what you're talking about.

Surely, surely you are aware of the immense hostility on the left to religious people. Why do the religious think an invisible sky wizard is an actual answer to anything at all? They used to burn people at the stake for failing to believe - and now you're defending them? Come now, let us not lie to each other.

I have no idea what you're trying to say. You can't debate, because debate argument and reason are tools of oppressors? You're calling the left oppressors? They will never destroy the racist western white male culture? I don't get that, but you seem proud of it?

Yes. This is Critical Theory. You are pretending not to know it, when it lies at the heart of today's leftism. It's powering the riots right now.

The deeper, more significant aspect of this problem is that by participating in something like conversation or debate about scholarly, ethical, or other disagreements, not only do the radical Critical Social Justice scholars have to tacitly endorse the existing system, they also have to be willing to agree to participate in a system in which they truly believe they cannot win. This isn’t the same as saying they know they’d lose the debate because they know their methods are weak. It’s saying that they believe their tools are extremely good but not welcome in the currently dominant system, which is a different belief based on different assumptions. Again, their game is not our game, and they don’t want to play our game at all; they want to disrupt and dismantle it.

Their analysis would insist that their methods aren’t weak; it’s that the dominant system treats them unfairly. By being forced to participate in the dominant system, they therefore believe, they’re being cheated of the full force of their cause. To them, if we set the legitimization of the system part aside, to engage in scholarly conversation or debate is like a boxer stepping into an MMA match in which kicks, punches, throwing, and grappling are all on the table for the MMA fighter whereas gloved punches are the only thing the boxer is allowed to use, only far worse.

Debate and conversation, especially when they rely upon reason, rationality, science, evidence, epistemic adequacy, and other Enlightenment-based tools of persuasion are the very thing they think produced injustice in the world in the first place. Those are not their methods and they reject them. Their methods are, instead, storytelling and counter-storytelling, appealing to emotions and subjectively interpreted lived experience, and problematizing arguments morally, on their moral terms. Because they know the dominant liberal order values those things sense far less than rigor, evidence, and reasoned argument, they believe the whole conversation and debate game is intrinsically rigged against them in a way that not only leads to their certain loss but also that props up the existing system and then further delegitimizes the approaches they advance in their place. Critical Social Justice Theorists genuinely believe getting away from the “master’s tools” is necessary to break the hegemony of the dominant modes of thought. Debate is a no-win for them.

Therefore, you’ll find them resistant to engaging in debate because they fully believe that engaging in debate or other kinds of conversation forces them to do their work in a system that has been rigged so that they cannot possibly win, no matter how well they do. They literally believe, in some sense, that the system itself hates people like them and has always been rigged to keep them and their views out. Even the concepts of civil debate (instead of screaming, reeeee!) and methodological rigor (instead of appealing to subjective claims and emotions) are considered this way, as approaches that only have superiority within the dominant paradigm, which was in turn illegitimately installed through political processes designed to advance the interests of powerful white, Western men (especially rich ones) through the exclusion of all others. And, yes, they really think this way.

For adherents to Critical Social Justice Theory, then, there’s just no point to engaging in conversation or debate with people with whom they disagree. They reject the premise that such a thing is possible at all, because what is discussed or debated are, if changeable, in some sense matters of opinion. They don’t see the world this way at all, though. “Racism is not a matter of opinion” is, after all, one of their thought-stopping mantras. For them, disagreements across a stratifying axis of social power are a matter of being, experience, reality, and even life and death. These are not matters to be debated; they’re far too important for that.

then why not just look at any form of political corruption on wiki and see all the times the republicans/conservatives have resorted to cheating to try and win.

See? It is racist white males doing the oppressing. You are arguing against yourself - and losing.

Besides, you shouldn't look to Wikipedia for anything political. They actively censor, just like the rest of the left. Here's Larry Sanger, founder of Wikipedia: https://larrysanger.org/2020/05/wikipedia-is-badly-biased/

Examples have become embarrassingly easy to find. The Barack Obama article completely fails to mention many well-known scandals: Benghazi, the IRS scandal, the AP phone records scandal, and Fast and Furious, to say nothing of Solyndra or the Hillary Clinton email server scandal—or, of course, the developing “Obamagate” story in which Obama was personally involved in surveilling Donald Trump. A fair article about a major political figure certainly must include the bad with the good. The only scandals that I could find that were mentioned were a few that the left finds at least a little scandalous, such as Snowden’s revelations about NSA activities under Obama. In short, the article is almost a total whitewash. You might find this to be objectively correct; but you cannot claim that this is a neutral treatment, considering that the other major U.S. party would treat the subject very differently. On such a topic, neutrality in any sense worth the name essentially requires that readers not be able to detect the editors’ political alignment.

Meanwhile, as you can imagine, the idea that the Donald Trump article is neutral is a joke.

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

You're ranting excessively.

Surely, surely you are aware of the immense hostility on the left to religious people.

No, because that is incorrectly grouping up everyone left of trump on the political spectrum as the exact same.

Yes. This is Critical Theory. You are pretending not to know it, when it lies at the heart of today's leftism. It's powering the riots right now.

The deeper, more significant aspect of this problem is that by participating in something like conversation or debate about scholarly, ethical, or other disagreements, not only do the radical Critical Social Justice scholars have to tacitly endorse the existing system, they also have to be willing to agree to participate in a system in which they truly believe they cannot win. This isn’t the same as saying they know they’d lose the debate because they know their methods are weak. It’s saying that they believe their tools are extremely good but not welcome in the currently dominant system, which is a different belief based on different assumptions. Again, their game is not our game, and they don’t want to play our game at all; they want to disrupt and dismantle it.

Their analysis would insist that their methods aren’t weak; it’s that the dominant system treats them unfairly. By being forced to participate in the dominant system, they therefore believe, they’re being cheated of the full force of their cause. To them, if we set the legitimization of the system part aside, to engage in scholarly conversation or debate is like a boxer stepping into an MMA match in which kicks, punches, throwing, and grappling are all on the table for the MMA fighter whereas gloved punches are the only thing the boxer is allowed to use, only far worse.

Debate and conversation, especially when they rely upon reason, rationality, science, evidence, epistemic adequacy, and other Enlightenment-based tools of persuasion are the very thing they think produced injustice in the world in the first place. Those are not their methods and they reject them. Their methods are, instead, storytelling and counter-storytelling, appealing to emotions and subjectively interpreted lived experience, and problematizing arguments morally, on their moral terms. Because they know the dominant liberal order values those things sense far less than rigor, evidence, and reasoned argument, they believe the whole conversation and debate game is intrinsically rigged against them in a way that not only leads to their certain loss but also that props up the existing system and then further delegitimizes the approaches they advance in their place. Critical Social Justice Theorists genuinely believe getting away from the “master’s tools” is necessary to break the hegemony of the dominant modes of thought. Debate is a no-win for them.

Therefore, you’ll find them resistant to engaging in debate because they fully believe that engaging in debate or other kinds of conversation forces them to do their work in a system that has been rigged so that they cannot possibly win, no matter how well they do. They literally believe, in some sense, that the system itself hates people like them and has always been rigged to keep them and their views out. Even the concepts of civil debate (instead of screaming, reeeee!) and methodological rigor (instead of appealing to subjective claims and emotions) are considered this way, as approaches that only have superiority within the dominant paradigm, which was in turn illegitimately installed through political processes designed to advance the interests of powerful white, Western men (especially rich ones) through the exclusion of all others. And, yes, they really think this way.

For adherents to Critical Social Justice Theory, then, there’s just no point to engaging in conversation or debate with people with whom they disagree. They reject the premise that such a thing is possible at all, because what is discussed or debated are, if changeable, in some sense matters of opinion. They don’t see the world this way at all, though. “Racism is not a matter of opinion” is, after all, one of their thought-stopping mantras. For them, disagreements across a stratifying axis of social power are a matter of being, experience, reality, and even life and death. These are not matters to be debated; they’re far too important for that.

Trying to read through your sources is like reading the scribblings of a far-gone sciziophrenic patient. They cite only their own articles or PDFs labelled as papers that are not from any scholar and aren't peer-reviewed.

You didn't answer my question, you feigned ignorance and pretended I was being hostile. Please simplify your case about not debating without relying on that 1 source or pretending its some written law or rambling excessively.

See? It is racist white males doing the oppressing. You are arguing against yourself - and losing.

What the fuck? That is mental gymnastics. We aren't talking about white males, Are you using an AI text generator to respond to me? You're trying to flip the rightwingers cheating as me arguing against myself?

Examples have become embarrassingly easy to find. The Barack Obama article completely fails to mention many well-known scandals: Benghazi, the IRS scandal, the AP phone records scandal, and Fast and Furious, to say nothing of Solyndra or the Hillary Clinton email server scandal—or, of course, the developing “Obamagate” story in which Obama was personally involved in surveilling Donald Trump. A fair article about a major political figure certainly must include the bad with the good. The only scandals that I could find that were mentioned were a few that the left finds at least a little scandalous, such as Snowden’s revelations about NSA activities under Obama. In short, the article is almost a total whitewash. You might find this to be objectively correct; but you cannot claim that this is a neutral treatment, considering that the other major U.S. party would treat the subject very differently. On such a topic, neutrality in any sense worth the name essentially requires that readers not be able to detect the editors’ political alignment.

That is because Wikipedia doesn't host moronic and debunked conspiracy theories as fact.

Despite persistent accusations against President Obama, Hillary Clinton, and Susan Rice, ten investigations—six by Republican-controlled congressional committees—did not find that they or any other high-ranking Obama administration officials had acted improperly.

You're citing Breitbart for your news. The largely extremely biased rightwing source often funded by the right-wing group Tea Party Patriots. Heard of the paradise papers?

Breitbart itself is largely funded by up to $60 million that, thanks to the Mercers’ use of an offshore investment vehicle in Bermuda, is not taxed in the U.S.

Bonus. Steve Bannon ran Breitbart prior to the Trump campaign and you're trying to cite it as an unbiased source.

If we are going to talk about conspiracy theories as if they were an absolutely undeniable fact then we can just say the one where Trump and Epstein with child sex-workers were real and his admission to groping women, maybe also his years of tax-fraud and evasions?

Why are you so keen on rambling about uncited unsourced irrelevant data? You have this sort of disdain toward anything cited or peer-reviewed as if it was immediately some conspiracy inside job.

Meanwhile, as you can imagine, the idea that the Donald Trump article is neutral is a joke.

No, sounds about right, but doesn't actually have all of the terrible atrocities he's committed listed.

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

So Larry Sanger, founder of Wikipedia, is a nut and his point is invalid. Good to know.

Trying to read through your sources is like reading the scribblings of a far-gone sciziophrenic patient.

I thought it was pretty clear. It's an explanation of Critical Theory. If you don't know it...you should. It's like a conservative who's never heard of John Locke, or a libertarian who's never heard of Ayn Rand.