you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]Tom_Bombadil 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (19 children)

I honestly don't care about the law.

Your hasbara is bunk. I doubt that a single person reading this thread will believe this statement.

There's (almost always) no benefit to lying, unless your goal isn't to make the world better.

I don't disagree with this. The question is: Better for whom?

Israeli politics isn't well known for transparency. Quite the opposite.

[–]wizzwizz4[S] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (18 children)

It's a US law. Doesn't affect me directly, and I don't really care enough to put in the effort to weigh up the pros and cons. But whether I care about the law isn't really what this is about either.

Look. Let's assume that I'm a shill, so everything I say has to be taken with a pinch of salt. Also take into account that I might be being paid by very smart people, who know that you know I'm a shill, to support things in order to encourage you to instinctively argue against them, and so convince more people of the stance you've been manipulated to support due to your status in this community. Also take into account that they'd be paying me to say this, too. Imagine that this entity is predicting you, then predicting you predicting them, then predicting you predicting them predicting you… and see how your model of their behaviour changes.

Now, if you can wrap your head around all that (it's pretty convoluted), consider: who benefits from these suggestions (under the line in the original post I made here) being followed? And who benefits from the association of those suggestions in people's minds with something they disagree with?

Now, how can you make this situation benefit your goals?

[–]Tom_Bombadil 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (17 children)

Let's assume that I'm a shill

Yes. We should.
I do.

[–]wizzwizz4[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

You're acting like a common troll. You didn't answer any of the questions posed in my comment, and I doubt you so much as thought about them. Even if I'm a shill, that doesn't make what I say wrong.

[–]Zombi 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (15 children)

So, if someone just so happens to have an opinion that is counter to yours, they're a shill? You just dismiss everything they say no matter what?

/u/wizzwizz4 and I seem to share a lot of the same stances, am I a shill too? Is everyone who doesn't believe the jews run everything a paid for shill? You realize that is an INSANE amount of money to pay merely to try and convince you to believe the "globalist narrative", right?

When people have your beliefs there is ZERO room for discourse. There is ZERO room for the pyramid of debate and it goes against everything this site stands for. You've ALREADY made up your mind and your position, no matter how much contrary (factual) evidence is provided, will never change.

You must understand how it's nearly impossible to have a debate with someone like you due to this, right? I'm not going to try to convince you of anything, but I do want to say that you're stunting your own growth as a person by being this way.

[–]wizzwizz4[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

Thanks for this. I was beginning to think I was going crazy; it's good to know I'm not the only one in the world outside my social circle with approximately this set of views.

To give /u/Tom_Bombadil credit, he is acting as a rational actor would if they had a ridiculously high certainty of everything they believe in (I'm talking tens of nines here). The amount of evidence required to get to such a point, however, is astronomical – if every single Jewish person in the world individually walked up to him and promised him that they were part of a conspiracy to take over the world, then it might be enough evidence to be that certain… but he clearly doesn't have that much evidence or we'd all be convinced by now.

The only solutions that I can think of are:

  • He determined this certainty before he became an approximately rational actor, and so should re-evaluate these beliefs in light of this incongruity.
  • He isn't an approximately rational actor.
  • This is one of his axioms; he's assigned a probability of 1 to it and literally infinite evidence is required to convince him otherwise.

I've probably missed something here; if I've made a faulty assumption or a faulty leap in thought please let me know.

[–]AschTheConjurer 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (6 children)

Oh, you're not crazy. Just scrolling down these comments and looking at Bombadil's comments - in context, no less - paints him as either a troll or a genuine anti-semite conspiracist. Poe's Law makes it impossible to tell which it is.

[–]wizzwizz4[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

Wow. This is a bit off-topic, but feeling the weight off my shoulders from reading these comments… I cannot imagine how hard actual, proper gaslighting is to bear, but I've a new-found respect for people who've dealt with that kind of abuse.

[–]AschTheConjurer 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (4 children)

At the risk of opening up a whole new can of bees - I think gaslighting is essentially the reason that SJW politics are so pervasive and are lent so much power nowadays, to the point its reached a sort of fascist censorship level:

The sheer volume of hate poured out wholesale against anything not far-left nowadays could drive anyone who hears it too much to start convincing themselves that the propaganda might be right.

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

It's divide and conquer.

[–]wizzwizz4[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Hate for far left (R U a Communist‽). Hate for far right (R U a Nazi‽). Incredulity when someone isn't either. I'm glad I can keep US politics at armchair's distance!

[–]AschTheConjurer 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Yeah we don't really have the luxury of doing that after Christchurch, the 'Muricans fucking kicked the door in and started overloading us with their "with us or against us" stuff

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

You must understand how it's nearly impossible to have a debate with someone like you due to this, right?

What exactly are you debating with me about? Are you debating another persons opinion for them?

Did you happen to listen to this podcast? Guns and Butter Podcast: The Global Campaign to Criminalize Criticism of Israel.

Are you disputing the speakers information?

[–]Zombi 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

I'm disputing that just because someone follows more mainstream beliefs doesn't automatically qualify them as a "shill". The word shill is used to discredit someone solely based on an ad hominem attack. No matter what anyone says it will not matter as long as they are a shill. Hence there's zero counterargument when you label someone as a shill. It's anti-intellectual.

If you're truly right in your stance then you shouldn't have to resort to name calling. Whether someone truly is a shill or not should have no bearing on what the points they're making. If their points aren't valid then it doesn't matter who they are or who's paying them, you should be able to rationally argue against them.

Imagine if I just said "Oh you're just a conspiracy theorist, I don't give credit to anything you say". I might joke a bit or laugh at you, but I sincerely try to level with you guys and I do try to hear you out. It's lazy to just discredit someone and name call because they believe something you don't.

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

Great.

Do you have any criticism for OPs message, because the bill passed, and is legit.
The post that was criticized was infact accurate. This post should be discredited for inaccuracy.

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

I'm not disputing that at all and you're missing my point. Notice how not once do I make any mention of the bill? I never even said my opinion on it. You have no clue if I agree with OP or not (if you were to go off of my 2 responses).

I could care less about the bill as it has no effect on my life. I'm making the point that just calling someone a shill doesn't automatically make their point any less valid and all it does is make the debate come to a grinding halt.

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

Notice how not once do I make any mention of the bill?

Yes, I noticed that.

I could care less about the bill as it has no effect on my life.

I keep hearing people say this.

I'm making the point that just calling someone a shill doesn't automatically make their point any less valid and all it does is make the debate come to a grinding halt.

I also noticed that this thread slid right off the page. That's interesting for a couple of reasons.

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

Ok, it's clear to me that you have no intention of actually addressing my argument. This is a prime example of why I said it's impossible to debate with someone like you.

[–]wizzwizz4[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I could care less about the bill as it has no effect on my life.

I keep hearing people say this.

Has it occurred to you that, just maybe, people aren't always fighting the battles you think are important?