• ElGosso [he/him]@hexbear.netEnglish
    2·
    1 year ago

    You missed the best line:

    However, please keep this in mind - that being a Nazi sympathizer does not automatically invalidate one’s opinions on other topics.

    "Um, ackshually, that’s an ad hominem smuglord "

  • ReadFanon [any, any]@hexbear.netEnglish
    1·
    1 year ago

    The internetbro logical fallacy revolution and its consequences has been a disaster for human discourse.

    This is not a formal debate so drop the pretense already.

    Also note that labelling a Nazi sympathiser as “a defender of fascism” is not an ad hominem, that’s a description. Just because you personally object to the label doesn’t mean that therefore it’s a logical fallacy.

    Also note that there’s no generally logical proposition in the statement of opinions. “I don’t like mint icecream” could very well be considered an ad hominem against mint icecream by these clowns because anything they disagree with which is a statement of opinion counts as a logical fallacy in their eyes.

    But if there’s a layperson’s discussion going on then the notion that the “debate” is focused on a particular topic and all responses must find themselves within the limits of that topic is, frankly, nonsense.

    Yes, introducing your dislike for mint icecream to a discussion about politics is irrelevant but there’s absolutely no need to use fancy logic terms like “red herring fallacy” when you can just say “that’s not relevant” instead.

    Likewise, throwing out a term like “ad hominem” is just a description and it’s as useful as saying “that’s an insult”. Except it’s way more pretentious and it provides the person who deploys that term with an inflated sense of purpose and logical correctness that saying “You insulted me” or “I disagree with your opinion” does not.

    Imagine if these people decided to lose the pretense and got called a nerd then just responded with “that’s an insult”. Like, yeah, bro - congrats on figuring that out all by yourself, I guess?

    The sooner that people lose “ad hominem” from their vocabulary, the better imo.
    (Although on the other hand it’s a wonderful red flag for indicating that you’re dealing with a pompous, self-aggrandising dickbag who wants to exert complete control over the discussion, so maybe that term actually does have a good use for general discussions after all…)

    • Hohsia [he/him]@hexbear.netEnglish
      1·
      1 year ago

      😔 a result of a declining and massively underfunded k-12 curriculum that doesn’t include critical thinking in the core.

      Seriously, bring back basic logic at the high school level wtf

  • VILenin [he/him]@hexbear.netEnglish
    1·
    1 year ago

    This tracks if you ignore the part where they completely ignore all the good faith responses from us and just regurgitate the same thought-terminating cliches over and over again until the end of time.

  • axont [she/her, comrade/them]@hexbear.netEnglish
    1·
    1 year ago

    I actually felt kind of bad for that person. They seem like an obsessive with an unhealthy internet habit. Like I thought we were terminally online? I’ve never once collected a screenshot album of grievances.

    Folks, do yourself a favor and go outside occasionally.

      • axont [she/her, comrade/them]@hexbear.netEnglish
        2·
        1 year ago

        Yeah, it’s a huge thread with an album of 50 something screenshots of Hexbears disagreeing with them or just posting emojis like very-intelligent

        It’s a massive post with like multiple paragraphs and chapter splits and references to UN charters, all complaints about Hexbear. Accusations we’re doing hate speech and genocide denial. I don’t wanna link because I’m nervous about getting accused of brigading, and I actually am worried about this person.

        Just touch grass every now and then, people

        • MultigrainCerealista [he/him, comrade/them]@hexbear.netEnglish
          0·
          1 year ago

          Yeah honestly that’s why I said maybe.

          It’s a bit chicken and egg to me, in terms of ableism.

          Do we call infertile men “impotent” because they lack power? The Latin root of potencia (I don’t know Latin but I know Spanish) suggests that’s the case.

          So a lib who lacks power, calming their sense of alienation by rage posting on Reddit… yes they are impotent.

          After going through that exercise I don’t think it is ableist but the other angel on the other shoulder says if I need to explore the concept that much then maybe it was ableist all along.

          I have an open mind and I am interested in further opinion on this.

          Is calling someone impotent, as in “powerless”, an ableist slur due to the fact impotent is also used as an insult for men who cannot get someone pregnant or occasionally for men who suffer erectile disfunction?

          The etymological argument coupled with the fact laughing at the erectile function of cis men is kind of “punching up” makes me feel like we are gucci.

          Thoughts?