US Politics VIII - Page 47 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 08-17-2018, 09:56 AM   #921
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 41,232
Local Time: 09:25 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Macfistowannabe View Post
Should we attack sources instead of claims?
Both
__________________

BVS is offline  
Old 08-17-2018, 09:58 AM   #922
Blue Crack Addict
 
LuckyNumber7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 18,443
Local Time: 10:25 AM
The way I see it is that if you’re citing a Facebook post of no credibility, it’s the same as quoting another poster.

It being in a link does not make it credible.
__________________

LuckyNumber7 is offline  
Old 08-17-2018, 11:19 AM   #923
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Macfistowannabe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Ohio
Posts: 4,197
Local Time: 10:25 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BVS View Post
Both
Then you grant the ad hominem a place in the equation.
Macfistowannabe is offline  
Old 08-17-2018, 11:24 AM   #924
Blue Crack Addict
 
LuckyNumber7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 18,443
Local Time: 10:25 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Macfistowannabe View Post
Then you grant the ad hominem a place in the equation.


It depends how you look at it. We live in *the* misinformation era. I don’t believe discrediting a source without considering its content is necessarily ad hominem. But one should at least preview the material to develop their own opinion (unless they wish to boycott it as a means of refusing to commit to clickbait and thereby funding the source).

I think it’s fair, for example, to refuse to click an infowars link regardless of the content. I think also it’s fair to assume that if one can’t link to source (ie linking Wikipedia or Facebook instead), their position is weakened.

Both of his last posts have been triple/quadruple+ embedded sources, which boil down to hearsay and manipulation.
LuckyNumber7 is offline  
Old 08-17-2018, 11:26 AM   #925
Blue Crack Addict
 
LuckyNumber7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 18,443
Local Time: 10:25 AM
But I do agree that in general you should listen to people and combat their argument before combating them.
LuckyNumber7 is offline  
Old 08-17-2018, 11:43 AM   #926
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 28,170
Local Time: 10:25 AM
Trump talked to veterans last year about Apocalypse Now, it was super awkward. I love the first line in this article-he only understands the world through the lens of popular culture. Nails it.

https://paleofuture.gizmodo.com/pres...now-1828411979
MrsSpringsteen is offline  
Old 08-17-2018, 12:47 PM   #927
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Macfistowannabe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Ohio
Posts: 4,197
Local Time: 10:25 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by LuckyNumber7 View Post
It depends how you look at it. We live in *the* misinformation era. I don’t believe discrediting a source without considering its content is necessarily ad hominem.
There's a lot of misinformation out there, to be sure. Though let's also not forget the Yellow Journalism Era.

Quote:
I think it’s fair, for example, to refuse to click an infowars link regardless of the content.
I'm with you on this much, though I would put Infowars into a different category - It's publically known for wild speculation. That's not to say it's incapable of taking a correct position, but it does read like a tabloid.

But what about the praises of capitalism in the content (of the Facebook link)?

Could you say, "Wait a minute, that wasn't capitalism, it was the Rah Rah Act of 1905, reversing a longstanding trend of poverty?"

I still think even a Facebook link could be countered, if one wants rigorous discourse.
Macfistowannabe is offline  
Old 08-17-2018, 01:00 PM   #928
Blue Crack Addict
 
LuckyNumber7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 18,443
Local Time: 10:25 AM
I have a petty answer to that Facebook link. I glanced over the content and realized I was reading an argument where both sides beat a dead horse repeatedly and I disagree with both. Except this one was coming from not an argumentative angle, but rather a glorifying angle. It’s like an advertisement. It’s not a review or an argument. It doesn’t tackle a full picture.

For the record I check in both at Fox News and CNN routinely. Just to see what’s up. Make no mistake - just because I believe CNN represents the sane side does not mean I condone or support them. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, Chris Cillizza is a pompous asshole and a laughable writer.
LuckyNumber7 is offline  
Old 08-17-2018, 01:34 PM   #929
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 41,232
Local Time: 09:25 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Macfistowannabe View Post

But what about the praises of capitalism in the content (of the Facebook link)?

Could you say, "Wait a minute, that wasn't capitalism, it was the Rah Rah Act of 1905, reversing a longstanding trend of poverty?"

I still think even a Facebook link could be countered, if one wants rigorous discourse.
1. When you see someone constantly paste fb links you start to realize this is where he gets his news.

2. It’s always best to try and find the source article and post it direct.

3. If there is no source article then this means it’s just some random fb poster with an opinion, which is fine just know it’s not going to carry much weight with anyone.

4. The post had some glaring factual mistakes and shouldn’t be used by anyone.
BVS is offline  
Old 08-17-2018, 02:00 PM   #930
Blue Crack Addict
 
DaveC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: nazi punks fuck off
Posts: 21,956
Local Time: 09:25 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Macfistowannabe View Post
Should we attack sources instead of claims?
would you still say this if they had instead posted a breitbart or stormfront link?
DaveC is offline  
Old 08-17-2018, 02:01 PM   #931
Blue Crack Addict
 
LuckyNumber7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 18,443
Local Time: 10:25 AM
Much like everything else, maybe it’s fair to say “sometimes we should and sometimes we shouldn’t.”
LuckyNumber7 is offline  
Old 08-17-2018, 03:38 PM   #932
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Macfistowannabe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Ohio
Posts: 4,197
Local Time: 10:25 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveC View Post
would you still say this if they had instead posted a breitbart or stormfront link?
In general, you should be entitled to a fair hearing and a refutation when there is disagreement, not simply dismissed.

Let us suppose there are exceptions to most every rule. Stormfront is one of them. Though I think it would be commendable to challenge a Nazi type to a debate with reason and evidence as the arbiter. If all they did was viciously insult people that didn't share their heritage, a ban may well be in order. Of course, coming across someone who denies history can be pretty frustrating. The "Holohoax," I've heard it called. It's like running into "prove there's a god" or "prove this is a chair." I personally don't have the patience to put up with much of it.


On to Breitbart... During the days of Andrew Breitbart, that site had a more "Reagan conservative" orientation. Considering that view holds widespread relevance today, I think that material is worth reviewing, and if necessary, debunking.

As I understand it today, they've moved towards a Bannonite nationalist position. It can still face an honest critique.
Macfistowannabe is offline  
Old 08-17-2018, 03:40 PM   #933
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Macfistowannabe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Ohio
Posts: 4,197
Local Time: 10:25 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BVS View Post
.4. The post had some glaring factual mistakes and shouldn’t be used by anyone.
Can those "mistakes" be specified?
Macfistowannabe is offline  
Old 08-17-2018, 03:42 PM   #934
Blue Crack Distributor
 
corianderstem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Seattle
Posts: 64,498
Local Time: 07:25 AM
Trump's comments on Aretha Franklin's passing were such an insight into how his egotistical mind works.

"She's worked for me a few times."

No, she sang at a function/event of yours. You may have paid her a fee, but that's not the same thing by a loooooooooooooooong shot.
corianderstem is offline  
Old 08-17-2018, 04:11 PM   #935
Blue Crack Addict
 
Moonlit_Angel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In a dimension known as the Twilight Zone...do de doo doo, do de doo doo...
Posts: 20,716
Local Time: 08:25 AM
Last night on Colbert, they showed a clip of Aretha performing at the Kennedy Center Honors a few years back. The Obamas were there, and they were singing along, and Obama was wiping away the occasional tear, and they were just really getting into her performance in general and it was so cool to watch.

I wanted to go back to that time period so badly. For all kinds of reasons.
Moonlit_Angel is offline  
Old 08-17-2018, 04:24 PM   #936
Blue Crack Addict
 
DaveC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: nazi punks fuck off
Posts: 21,956
Local Time: 09:25 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Macfistowannabe View Post
Let us suppose there are exceptions to most every rule. Stormfront is one of them. Though I think it would be commendable to challenge a Nazi type to a debate with reason and evidence as the arbiter. If all they did was viciously insult people that didn't share their heritage, a ban may well be in order. Of course, coming across someone who denies history can be pretty frustrating. The "Holohoax," I've heard it called. It's like running into "prove there's a god" or "prove this is a chair." I personally don't have the patience to put up with much of it.
insults about a person's heritage are a possibly ban-worthy offense, but it's commendable to give a debate platform to someone who's political philosophy involves exterminating people based on their heritage.

that's an interesting position you've taken.
DaveC is offline  
Old 08-17-2018, 04:46 PM   #937
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Macfistowannabe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Ohio
Posts: 4,197
Local Time: 10:25 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveC View Post
insults about a person's heritage are a possibly ban-worthy offense, but it's commendable to give a debate platform to someone who's political philosophy involves exterminating people based on their heritage.

that's an interesting position you've taken.
You left out the conditions of the original statement. Those "if/thens" are pretty important, as this demonstrates. Without them, it doesn't reflect my position.
Macfistowannabe is offline  
Old 08-17-2018, 04:51 PM   #938
Blue Crack Addict
 
DaveC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: nazi punks fuck off
Posts: 21,956
Local Time: 09:25 AM
my bad, you're right. it should have said "it's commendable to give a debate platform to someone who's political philosophy involves exterminating people based on their heritage IF they don't just viciously insult people that didn't share their heritage".

that's totally different.
DaveC is offline  
Old 08-17-2018, 04:54 PM   #939
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Macfistowannabe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Ohio
Posts: 4,197
Local Time: 10:25 AM
So it's wrong to ask why they take that position?

Just punch or ignore them instead?

Shame on that pastor who confronted that neo-Nazi, right? Even though it led him to re-evaluate his worldview?
Macfistowannabe is offline  
Old 08-17-2018, 05:01 PM   #940
Blue Crack Addict
 
DaveC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: nazi punks fuck off
Posts: 21,956
Local Time: 09:25 AM
sure you can talk to any person in private about whatever you want. but suggesting that it's commendable for nazis to be given a platform to debate and present their evidence implies that they should be allowed to do so in public.

personally to me, when one adopts a political position that literally requires starting a race war and mass extermination of entire cultures of people, they forfeit the right to publicly debate in favour of that. there's no legitimate evidence that anyone can present in favour of "genocide is cool, let's do it again".
__________________

DaveC is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:25 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com
×