How White Nationalism Was Reinvigorated
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
19-10-2017, 07:18 AM
How White Nationalism Was Reinvigorated
(18-10-2017 09:57 PM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  A counter attack requires me attacking, and I wasn't

You certainly were and continue to do so by doubling down on the attack.

(18-10-2017 09:57 PM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  Maybe I'm being a bit harsh but where I come from we require a liiiiiitle bit more to justifiably and rationally accuse someone of supporting child rape. You can take him to task for changing the subject but you don't need to accuse him of being for child rape to do it.

A little harsh? You are understating your posts. I suggest you reread my earlier reply to Biker and see what I really said to him instead of what you think I said. In fact, your “debate tactic” seems to be identical to his: ignore the subject and make me the topic. For one whose outrage centers around logic, maybe you can identify the logical fallacy you are using here. It’s pretty obvious.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Rachel's post
19-10-2017, 08:26 AM (This post was last modified: 19-10-2017 08:32 AM by BikerDude.)
RE: How White Nationalism Was Reinvigorated
(19-10-2017 12:50 AM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  
(18-10-2017 11:07 PM)epronovost Wrote:  @Whiskeydebates

If we are to debate bad logic, is it appropriate for me to point out the fact that you completly missed the fact that these sentences:

It’s then easy to conclude that you embrace not only white nationalism but all the values Milo Y espouses, including misogyny, pedophilia, and Nazism. If this doesn’t represent your position, you ought to write with more clarity of thought.

Is, in my opinion, what we could call a ''bait''.
No, I got that it's "bait". I don't have a problem with her trying to steer him back to whatever she feels the conversation should be about. My issue was exclusive with her leap in logic from "changing the subject" "to "therefore it's easy to conclude you are an advocate for child rape" which is completely disconnected from reason and logic.

Also, that's not an example of bad logic on my part either way, just fyi.

(18-10-2017 11:07 PM)epronovost Wrote:  What makes me think that it's a ''bait'' is the second sentence: '' If this doesn’t represent your position, you ought to write with more clarity of thought.''.
That doesn't in anyway justify her incendiary and unsupported leap in mutilated logic. It would not be acceptable in a conversation for a person to say " you support abortion....and it's easy to conclude from that that you support the Rowandin Genocide". A doesn't connect to B, the fact that it might be bait doesn't excuse that.

(18-10-2017 11:07 PM)epronovost Wrote:  The goal of the enormous accusation of you are in league with pedophile apologist, nazi sympathizer and sexists....
No, no no. She didn't accuse him of being in league with a child rape apologist she accused him of harbouring those specific values himself. Why? because he changed the fucking subject and she didn't like that. How is that reasonable or rational? Explain it to me, walk me through the steps.

(18-10-2017 11:07 PM)epronovost Wrote:  is to force Bikerdude back on topic of the reinvigorated White Nationalism (and other neo-reactionary ideologies)
Pardon my bluntness but in which of the fucking Nine Circles of Hell would accusing someone of being a pedophilic, woman hating, Nazi get them to go back on topic and help the debate? Seriously, you're straining credulity with your defence a bit. Who the hell responds to someone calling them a fucking Nazi and a child rapist for changing the goddamn topic and thinks "gee this person is reasonable maybe I should listen to them and do as they ask"?

(18-10-2017 11:07 PM)epronovost Wrote:  Thus, in my opinion, Rachel move wasn't an outright accusation of Bikerdude being in support of three bankrupt ideologies, but a classic debate tactic.
Well, you're wrong. Find me a single example from anyone on this forum who saw someone change the topic and responded by calling them a supporter of child rape and a Nazi as a means to get them back on topic. Then show me an example where it actually worked. I refuse to believe that that kind of shit is an acceptable debate tactic. The bait in the trap matters.

(18-10-2017 11:07 PM)epronovost Wrote:  While I would say the tactic was a bit crudely executed, its a logical one to use to achieve this objective.
You think accusing, or shit even just implying, a forum member values child rape and Nazism is a LOGICAL or even EFFECTIVE way to get someone back on topic and contributing to the conversation? If the goal is to get the person back on topic that is the least logical and most counter-productive way to go about it.

(18-10-2017 11:07 PM)epronovost Wrote:  You did an excellent job at disarming the bait though and should you have espouse Bikerdude side in that conversation, you would have put Rachel in an almost impossible position and made her lose a lot of trust from the audience who usually perceive ''baiting'' as a more dishonest tactic than ''deflecting''.
I wasn't trying to disarm anything, you can bait as much as you want. I've baited dozens of religious trolls over the years and will continue to do so. I don't care about that. I absolutely disagree that it is morally acceptable to accuse some of harbouring values that are anti-woman, fascistic, and pedophilic for no other stated reason than that they changed the subject. That is irrational and unreasonable.

(18-10-2017 11:07 PM)epronovost Wrote:  Plus, we can detect a healthy dose of well hidden ad hominem attacks in your post that don't make you look like an asshole, but that are almost sure to sting Rachel's pride a little bit, thus of making her lose track of her primary goal.
They weren't hidden at all I was fairly blunt. Yes if someone is going to make baseless, unsupported, and irrational accusations I'm gonna rap them on the knuckles a bit. If that person is then going to turn around and do the exact same thing they took umbrage with when I call them out on something.... yes I'm gonna to get a bit testy.

(18-10-2017 11:07 PM)epronovost Wrote:  PS: If it wasn't clear enough, I love to use Schopenhauer technic to analyse debates.

I'd suggest a different system because while you were busy rushing to the defence of a person making unsupported accusations of paedophilia for no goddamn reason you don't seem to have said one word about the actual point I was making. If I sound pissed off epronvost it's because I am, as I do not enjoy spending my evening listening to someone try to justify accusations of paedophilia as a rerasonable tactic for getting a debate back on track. Seriously brother what the hell are you doing?

This is what happens when you break the echo chamber.
People find themselves so far out on the thin ice and having to justify their unsupported and unchallenged ideas that they react by trying to silence anyone who doesn't agree with them by calling them White Supremacist, Racist, Nationalist take your pick. Everybody who doesn't agree doesn't just disagree, in the mind of today's liberal they are evil. This is the same irrationality that the right uses toward the left. It's all lunacy. It's the angry face of victim culture and scapegoating.
We are asked to believe that the problem is that "Russia has infiltrated out government at the highest levels" and that's why Trump is president.
Not that Hillary was a piece of shit candidate who lost. Yeah I know tell me for the thousandth time how she won the popular vote as though that is a victory when running against someone who on a nearly daily basis stuck his foot in his mouth in such a manner that would have destroyed any candidate in history.
But that's really the fault of all of the racist misogynists who have come out of the woodwork?
The weight of denial makes all of these creatures very very angry.

It's nothing new.



[Image: anigif_enhanced-26851-1450298712-2.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-10-2017, 08:36 AM
RE: How White Nationalism Was Reinvigorated
(19-10-2017 07:18 AM)Rachel Wrote:  You certainly were and continue to do so by doubling down on the attack.
There is a very substantial difference between attacking someone and justifiably criticising their behaviour. I've laid out my criticism and supplied my reasons and basis for that critique and you have avoided the actual criticism almost entirely.

You can pretend it's a counter-attack till you are blue in the face though. Despite missing both those parts, but even if I was...so the fuck what? The criticism stands or falls on its own merits, and so far it stands unopposed.

(19-10-2017 07:18 AM)Rachel Wrote:  A little harsh? You are understating your posts.
I'm really not. That was about as light a slap on the wrists one can expect for accusing someone of harbour child rape as a value for no conceivable fucking reason. I consider this post in its entirety a light slap on the wrists given the obfuscation and evasiveness you have shown towards my criticism.

(19-10-2017 07:18 AM)Rachel Wrote:  I suggest you reread my earlier reply to Biker and see what I really said to him instead of what you think I said.
Ya lets do that, shall we? Here is part of your first response to him.

(18-10-2017 01:35 PM)Rachel Wrote:  
(18-10-2017 11:34 AM)BikerDude Wrote:  I think the left has alienated enough people by painting with a very broad brush.

I’m not surprised you can’t see the irony in that very broad statement.

It's about him, and not the topic under debate. You are criticising his behaviour, just like I criticised yours.

His response:

(18-10-2017 01:41 PM)BikerDude Wrote:  How did he win?
Is it because there are so many people who want the world to be fascist?
Or is it because people are sick of the same old story from the left every time?
Playing identity politics and pointing fingers at people for other people's plight.
Questions and nothing about you at all, he has yet to make the topic about you in anyway whatsoever.

Your response:

(18-10-2017 01:55 PM)Rachel Wrote:  It’s a typical tactic from those who are devoid of ideas to deflect. That’s the case with you. Not being able to respond coherently about the resurgence of white supremacy, you change to topic to an attack on the left.

It's about him and not the topic. Again. Oh, and it's that SINGLE response that you use as justification for claiming it's easy to conclude he values child rape. That's the entirety of your goddamn conversation with him and what did we learn by going over it?
1.) Your very first sentence directed at him was not about the topic but a backhanded personal "attack" and not about the topic at all.
2.) He never once tried to make it about you at all. Not even remotely. He responded to you taking shots at him by asking questions to which YOU again made it about him. He doesn't single you out, he doesn't mention you personally, but you do. I could make a case you're lying through your teeth but I won't cause I don't think that's what you are doing but you're certainly not accurately representing what went on in the slightest.
3.) You made it about him personally in each and every response to him, which makes your accusation towards him, and me, hypocritical in the extreme.
4.) What I think you said to him and what you actually said to him are demonstrably the same goddamn thing. What you really said to him in your earlier reply was the exact thing you are accusing him, falsely, of doing.


(19-10-2017 07:18 AM)Rachel Wrote:  In fact, your “debate tactic” seems to be identical to his: ignore the subject and make me the topic.
Except...... as we just went through above you're the one doing that and not him. Oh and I'm not debating you, I don't give a damn about the topic and thus not using any tactic, I'm lecturing you about your shitty behaviour which you have continued to expand upon.
It's irrational and immoral to accuse someone of harbouring values towards child rape WITHOUT EVIDENCE and for the simple "crime" of changing the subject to be about you.... an event which didn't even happen except when you did it to him.


(19-10-2017 07:18 AM)Rachel Wrote:  For one whose outrage centers around logic, maybe you can identify the logical fallacy you are using here. It’s pretty obvious.
There isn't one, though you are welcome to try and make a case from one...right after you get around to justifying how you got from A to B which was my ACTUAL criticism and this is now the third time I've had to ask for your justification.

It is held that valour is the chiefest virtue and most dignifies the haver.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes WhiskeyDebates's post
19-10-2017, 09:10 AM (This post was last modified: 19-10-2017 09:18 AM by BikerDude.)
RE: How White Nationalism Was Reinvigorated
[Image: 4550165_orig.jpg]
I'm finishing my Coffee.




[Image: anigif_enhanced-26851-1450298712-2.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-10-2017, 09:15 AM
How White Nationalism Was Reinvigorated
(19-10-2017 08:36 AM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  There isn't one, though you are welcome to try and make a case from one...right after you get around to justifying how you got from A to B which was my ACTUAL criticism and this is now the third time I've had to ask for your justification.

Your actual criticism (!) deserves no response, as it is based on a deliberate misunderstanding of my actual words.

I considered explaining my earlier post to Biker, but it would do no good as you have made your mind up that I’m a horrible person.

I need not justify my actions or my words to you. You have no dog in this fight. If Biker wants to take me to task, that’s his right and I’ll engage him on that basis. But I won’t continue this back and forth with you. I said what I said and you choose to take my passage out of context in order to place a position on me which I never took. That’s why I urged you to reread my post in order to gain context. Like many True Believers I’ve encountered over the years, you read not for illumination but for refutation.

I won’t respond to any further attempts at lecturing from you. Given your emotional outbursts to me, you have abandoned the moral high ground.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-10-2017, 09:21 AM (This post was last modified: 19-10-2017 09:37 AM by BikerDude.)
RE: How White Nationalism Was Reinvigorated
(19-10-2017 09:15 AM)Rachel Wrote:  
(19-10-2017 08:36 AM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  There isn't one, though you are welcome to try and make a case from one...right after you get around to justifying how you got from A to B which was my ACTUAL criticism and this is now the third time I've had to ask for your justification.

Your actual criticism (!) deserves no response, as it is based on a deliberate misunderstanding of my actual words.

I considered explaining my earlier post to Biker, but it would do no good as you have made your mind up that I’m a horrible person.

I need not justify my actions or my words to you. You have no dog in this fight. If Biker wants to take me to task, that’s his right and I’ll engage him on that basis. But I won’t continue this back and forth with you. I said what I said and you choose to take my passage out of context in order to place a position on me which I never took. That’s why I urged you to reread my post in order to gain context. Like many True Believers I’ve encountered over the years, you read not for illumination but for refutation.

I won’t respond to any further attempts at lecturing from you. Given your emotional outbursts to me, you have abandoned the moral high ground.

No you will engage in name calling and ad hominem attacks as an expression of your bankruptcy of genuine dialog.
I believe that is the point that Whiskey is making.

[Image: image.jpg]

[Image: anigif_enhanced-26851-1450298712-2.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-10-2017, 09:40 AM
RE: How White Nationalism Was Reinvigorated
Bikerdude comes in here and takes a giant shit on what he perceives as liberal complaints, and any attempt to clean it up just leaves more smears everywhere.
Drinking Beverage

Jesus Christ...
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Emma's post
19-10-2017, 09:45 AM
How White Nationalism Was Reinvigorated
(19-10-2017 09:21 AM)BikerDude Wrote:  No you will engage in name calling and ad hominem attacks as an expression of your bankruptcy of genuine dialog.
I believe that is the point that Whiskey is making.

[Image: image.jpg]

Wrong. I can engage you in a dialog but not when you refuse to adhere to the topic at hand. Changing the subject as you habitually do sends a message.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-10-2017, 10:14 AM
RE: How White Nationalism Was Reinvigorated
(19-10-2017 09:40 AM)Emma Wrote:  Bikerdude comes in here and takes a giant shit on what he perceives as liberal complaints, and any attempt to clean it up just leaves more smears everywhere.
Drinking Beverage

Jesus Christ...

Thank you.
But I'd suggest that my credentials of savior are minimal.

[Image: anigif_enhanced-26851-1450298712-2.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-10-2017, 10:15 AM
RE: How White Nationalism Was Reinvigorated
(19-10-2017 09:45 AM)Rachel Wrote:  
(19-10-2017 09:21 AM)BikerDude Wrote:  No you will engage in name calling and ad hominem attacks as an expression of your bankruptcy of genuine dialog.
I believe that is the point that Whiskey is making.

[Image: image.jpg]

Wrong. I can engage you in a dialog but not when you refuse to adhere to the topic at hand. Changing the subject as you habitually do sends a message.

Well I don't feel that I really did change the subject.
Sorry if I violated one or more of your many rules about what people are allowed and not allowed to say.

[Image: anigif_enhanced-26851-1450298712-2.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: