Controversial General Political Discussion
- Thread starter AL sama
- Start date
- Tags #freepalestine are you having fun al? are you having van al? dei has never hurt anyone you jackass dei must go gaolang > your fav hi rej hi rejj hi rejjj is not paying tax sexist is van having fun al? life goal sister harem real madrid reloaded is innocent tax is the best thing ever happened to us trans rights = human rights trans women are not interested in any of you watch for haters weebs discussing politics lmao worst thread ever
But I’m not arguing with a historian so it is an invalid point to make.
also appeal to authority is a fallacy for a reason. Some academics have very distorted views, and it’s very popular for people to pick and choose which academic to believe. For example, I bet I can easily find an academic who believes in race realism and base my entire arguments around that historian while ignoring competing views
also appeal to authority is a fallacy for a reason. Some academics have very distorted views, and it’s very popular for people to pick and choose which academic to believe. For example, I bet I can easily find an academic who believes in race realism and base my entire arguments around that historian while ignoring competing views
thats why i mentioned "to an extent" and deliberately used to plural "historians and the likes".
confirmation bias is also an issue in this, probably more of an issue than appeal to authority, because its not like @Logiko tends to base his claims and arguments on only one authority figure from a particular field.
confirmation bias is also an issue in this, probably more of an issue than appeal to authority, because its not like @Logiko tends to base his claims and arguments on only one authority figure from a particular field.
Of course you can, you don't think this has ever been discussed in academia?
Okay so you are an actual moron. Do you know what hypotheticals and examples are? for fuck sake lmao
I guess a more direct one there are historians who believe Jesus as a historical person never existed, despite the evidence to the contrary. Again making my point that just to appeal to academia itself is flawed, hence why there is a fallacy already
Nah man, not my fault you have an iq of a thermostat
Okay so you are an actual moron. Do you know what hypotheticals and examples are? for fuck sake lmao
I guess a more direct one there are historians who believe Jesus as a historical person never existed, despite the evidence to the contrary. Again making my point that just to appeal to academia itself is flawed, hence why there is a fallacy already
Nah man, not my fault you have an iq of a thermostat
Assuming I'm not too out of the loop and butting in like an asshole, but what's the problem?
If someone is criticizing the customs of Nigeria for example, there are leftist out there that will throw a fuss because Nigerians are minorities in the U.S. and France. They act like Nigeria operates the same as the west and needs to be defended. They don't even know that most Nigerians are hard conservative Christians and that it is just their culture.
People aren't wrong for calling those type of leftists out and throwing a jab at them. Again assuming I'm following correctly.
If someone is criticizing the customs of Nigeria for example, there are leftist out there that will throw a fuss because Nigerians are minorities in the U.S. and France. They act like Nigeria operates the same as the west and needs to be defended. They don't even know that most Nigerians are hard conservative Christians and that it is just their culture.
People aren't wrong for calling those type of leftists out and throwing a jab at them. Again assuming I'm following correctly.
What I'm avoiding is going for the conversion thinking while placing myself at the center and negating the actual agency and experience of people.
This does not apply if people use strawmans or my willingness to be more empathic and interact better as a tool to attack me or leftist overall with reactionnary rethorics. This is not something I will let go.
If there is something I truly despise, is people weaponizing change to attack people.
Then open my eyes mate. If you want to talk about a subject that is important for you, don't wait for me, TALK ABOUT IT.
You guyz are the ones CONSTANTLY pushing me at the center of your discussions. While it was intended from me at the beginning, this has not been the case for at least a thousand pages. I never choose to speak about this subjects, you did. I'm only defending myself and leftist here because we are not perfect enough for you.
If you want to raise awareness about an ethical necessity that I don't already know, I will be the first to share your feeling and support you. But don't you dare try to use our "activism" as an excuze to stay silent or to attack leftists who are actively struggling everyday to raise awareness about the horrors of this world and you think are not doing enough.
This does not apply if people use strawmans or my willingness to be more empathic and interact better as a tool to attack me or leftist overall with reactionnary rethorics. This is not something I will let go.
If there is something I truly despise, is people weaponizing change to attack people.
Then open my eyes mate. If you want to talk about a subject that is important for you, don't wait for me, TALK ABOUT IT.
You guyz are the ones CONSTANTLY pushing me at the center of your discussions. While it was intended from me at the beginning, this has not been the case for at least a thousand pages. I never choose to speak about this subjects, you did. I'm only defending myself and leftist here because we are not perfect enough for you.
If you want to raise awareness about an ethical necessity that I don't already know, I will be the first to share your feeling and support you. But don't you dare try to use our "activism" as an excuze to stay silent or to attack leftists who are actively struggling everyday to raise awareness about the horrors of this world and you think are not doing enough.
When you began an argument with criticism of left is manipulation then it's you who are shutting down the debate.
Yes one can say sometimes criticism is over -exaggerated or politically motivated but one cannot deny that there is strong activism on Israel - Palestine conflict and less attention on Iran’s repression and killing of 30000 protestors, Sudan conflict, China’s Uyghur issue and so on.
This come across as inconsistent or bias and this is not purely “manufactured”...it comes from observable patterns.
Selective activism is real. It’s understandable that people can’t focus on everything or not everything generate an equal interests but when someone consistently have a pattern of prioritizing certain conflicts while ignoring others and then instead of owning it up they get defensive then it genuinely raises questions about bias.
Denying it or being reactionary towards those who calls it out is form of deflection and I am not interested in engaging at that level.
Yes one can say sometimes criticism is over -exaggerated or politically motivated but one cannot deny that there is strong activism on Israel - Palestine conflict and less attention on Iran’s repression and killing of 30000 protestors, Sudan conflict, China’s Uyghur issue and so on.
This come across as inconsistent or bias and this is not purely “manufactured”...it comes from observable patterns.
Selective activism is real. It’s understandable that people can’t focus on everything or not everything generate an equal interests but when someone consistently have a pattern of prioritizing certain conflicts while ignoring others and then instead of owning it up they get defensive then it genuinely raises questions about bias.
Denying it or being reactionary towards those who calls it out is form of deflection and I am not interested in engaging at that level.
Again, I need you to understand that the Israel Palestine conflict is not just another random conflict. It's the centerpoint of imperialist agenda, more than anywhere else.
It's not just a genocide, not just an appartheid, not just war crimes, not just colonialism, not just white supremacy, it's the point where the ENTIRE world can see clearly the racist double standard of the west and call it out.
This is why it's such an important matter. it goes beyond the entire situation that is already horrible. It's an open windows for the populations to attack directly the institution and systems that are reponsible for all the other matter.
The problem here, is that this "observation" is actually not a legitimate one. It's a common reactionnary practice and has to be treated as such. You could of course talk liberal who only talk about the subjects in front of them, but no, you focus on radicals who are actually involved in raising awareness for all types of issues or choosing to speak about specific ones by strategy.
Again. If you need to raise awareness about a subject. Raise the awareness. And understand that if you attack other activist who talk about other important subject just because you don't feel that they are perfect enough.. it won't get you anything but a big reaction.
It's not just a genocide, not just an appartheid, not just war crimes, not just colonialism, not just white supremacy, it's the point where the ENTIRE world can see clearly the racist double standard of the west and call it out.
This is why it's such an important matter. it goes beyond the entire situation that is already horrible. It's an open windows for the populations to attack directly the institution and systems that are reponsible for all the other matter.
The problem here, is that this "observation" is actually not a legitimate one. It's a common reactionnary practice and has to be treated as such. You could of course talk liberal who only talk about the subjects in front of them, but no, you focus on radicals who are actually involved in raising awareness for all types of issues or choosing to speak about specific ones by strategy.
Again. If you need to raise awareness about a subject. Raise the awareness. And understand that if you attack other activist who talk about other important subject just because you don't feel that they are perfect enough.. it won't get you anything but a big reaction.
I don't actually care.
My initial post was an observation of a pattern from the left. It doesn't necessarily meant for anyone but you took it personally and felt the need to write a long reactionary post says enough to me about your stance and biasedness because what you did was deflection.
And, as usual you will continue to respond in bad faith and then blame on others for not understanding or lacking understanding.
My initial post was an observation of a pattern from the left. It doesn't necessarily meant for anyone but you took it personally and felt the need to write a long reactionary post says enough to me about your stance and biasedness because what you did was deflection.
And, as usual you will continue to respond in bad faith and then blame on others for not understanding or lacking understanding.
Why so heated tho ?
Still waiting for the list of historian names who defend racism. But you chose to switch the subject to the existence of Jesus because you understood that you were wrong. And also got cornered to using insults.
I never said historians always 100% agree btw. But random middle-eastern bro is still not an argument.
Just apologize to me and carry on for bringing up a not very adequate example (historians and racism).
Non existence of Jesus is a very fringe minority and that's why consensus matter because academicians are humans.
Anyway, your point is that academicians aren't always right. My point is that only their fellow academicians can discuss scholar topics between each other.
I still fail to see how your random middle-eastern equates to an academician.
Logiko isn't an academician but at least he drops some links and sources that people usually refuse to read often because it's sociology.
Roo vs a thermostat ?
Still waiting for the list of historian names who defend racism. But you chose to switch the subject to the existence of Jesus because you understood that you were wrong. And also got cornered to using insults.
I never said historians always 100% agree btw. But random middle-eastern bro is still not an argument.
Just apologize to me and carry on for bringing up a not very adequate example (historians and racism).
Non existence of Jesus is a very fringe minority and that's why consensus matter because academicians are humans.
Anyway, your point is that academicians aren't always right. My point is that only their fellow academicians can discuss scholar topics between each other.
I still fail to see how your random middle-eastern equates to an academician.
Logiko isn't an academician but at least he drops some links and sources that people usually refuse to read often because it's sociology.
Roo vs a thermostat ?