Anytime someone throws around terms like "cuck", "libtard", and "sjw" I can't bear to listen to them anymore. Or anytime someone resorts to personal attacks.
At what point do you stop taking other people's arguments seriously?
- Thread starter Kenbo Slice
- Start date
When someone claims to hold a certain view then immediately goes on to take positions that are completely at odds with those stated beliefs. Hard to take someone seriously when they try and make it look like they hold two contradictory beliefs that can't be reconciled, especially when those beliefs are what people are arguing over.
I've seen too many people claim they think everyone is equal, then turn around and openly hold white supremacist views, and claim it's all consistent. It wouldn't be so bad if such people hadn't taken over entire political movements though, what ever happened to progressives being JFK's "ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country" and into the "mememe" wing of politics?
I've seen too many people claim they think everyone is equal, then turn around and openly hold white supremacist views, and claim it's all consistent. It wouldn't be so bad if such people hadn't taken over entire political movements though, what ever happened to progressives being JFK's "ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country" and into the "mememe" wing of politics?
Whenever someone uses "Well, you know those X" or "Typical Xers"
Like how its snowing in 'Murica these days, and, Well, you know those Government Chem Trailers. Fake Snow that burns green!" or like my super racist Grandpa used to say "Typical Puerto Ricans, etc..."
Its an implied agreement argument, assuming we're both on the same side and that I'm arguing against my own beliefs. Like what Trump uses when he says "I've heard, you've heard..." or "I know it, you know it, ..." like "I've heard Muller rapes boys named John in the eye with a rusted scalpel. I've heard it, you've heard it, everyone has heard it."
It forces you to either say no, in which case you sound like a liar, or agree and agree.
Like how its snowing in 'Murica these days, and, Well, you know those Government Chem Trailers. Fake Snow that burns green!" or like my super racist Grandpa used to say "Typical Puerto Ricans, etc..."
Its an implied agreement argument, assuming we're both on the same side and that I'm arguing against my own beliefs. Like what Trump uses when he says "I've heard, you've heard..." or "I know it, you know it, ..." like "I've heard Muller rapes boys named John in the eye with a rusted scalpel. I've heard it, you've heard it, everyone has heard it."
It forces you to either say no, in which case you sound like a liar, or agree and agree.
I generally don't even bother with people who use "cuck", "SJW", or especially "libtard" unironically. And "libtard" is by far the worst. "Cuck" at least has something resembling comedic value, and "SJW" is at least an accusation that can be responded to because it's a kind of person that actually exists, but "libtard" is just a phonetically grating slur used exclusively by racist old people and cranky normies.
But beyond that, I have two rules that I consider prerequisites for me to take someone seriously.
The first is that they're showing a good faith effort to make as much of an effort as I am: if I'm citing sources then I expect that you will also cite sources, and furthermore that you will take the time to read and understand what I cite, and if I'm writing a detailed explanation then I expect a detailed response.
The second is that your rhetoric aligns with your intentions and actions. For instance, I have very little patience for lazy environmentalists, you know, the kinds who say "Well obviously overpopulation and suburban sprawl are huge issues, but I want to have a nice house where I can raise my two to three kids, overpopulation is really only a problem in poor countries, and plus we really need to keep the workforce going. Wait, what do you mean that's racist, I can't be racist, I have an NPR tote bag!" And to take a jab at the other side, if you're going to make a YouTube channel where you ramble about the inherent superiority of men, then you'd better not be some dumpy-ass weeb living as a NEET in Japan. [http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Black_Pigeon_Speaks]
But beyond that, I have two rules that I consider prerequisites for me to take someone seriously.
The first is that they're showing a good faith effort to make as much of an effort as I am: if I'm citing sources then I expect that you will also cite sources, and furthermore that you will take the time to read and understand what I cite, and if I'm writing a detailed explanation then I expect a detailed response.
The second is that your rhetoric aligns with your intentions and actions. For instance, I have very little patience for lazy environmentalists, you know, the kinds who say "Well obviously overpopulation and suburban sprawl are huge issues, but I want to have a nice house where I can raise my two to three kids, overpopulation is really only a problem in poor countries, and plus we really need to keep the workforce going. Wait, what do you mean that's racist, I can't be racist, I have an NPR tote bag!" And to take a jab at the other side, if you're going to make a YouTube channel where you ramble about the inherent superiority of men, then you'd better not be some dumpy-ass weeb living as a NEET in Japan. [http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Black_Pigeon_Speaks]
It can be "I'm not homophobic but..." or "I'm not sexist but..."Zontar said:
It always seems to be used by people who actually are those things but try to pretend they aren't.
Anytime a personal experience is then extrapolated to a world view I tune out, be it "oh it never happened to me so it's not that bad" or "oh it happened to me so therefore it happens everywhere". Very sun revolves around me kinda stupidity.
Arguing in real life is fine most of the time, people tend to be more polite. On the internet? I'll pass, thanks.
Depends on how much time and sanity there's left. Am not convinced this is the best environment for either
I find this thread to be interesting, because it obviously comes from a bias slant out of the gate.
All examples seem to point to the 'conservative, not racist but racist, right leaning, etc.' other person who is 'just wrong', but no examples of the other side of the ever-encroaching line.
libtard has cuckservative; sjw has nazi/altright/-ist; apparently snowflake has now been equally, although possibly erroneously appropriated by the left now as well.
No examples of supposedly race/gender/sex positive minded people turning around and slurring the same people they aim to side with because those people don't agree with them? How many people have their [insert group] card revoked and are re-identified as garbage by these people?
My two-cents to the idea of tuning someone out, is when I've taken their point from 5 different angles, quashed it from each perspective, and they still refuse to budge in the slightest, or simply deflect/goalpost it.
All examples seem to point to the 'conservative, not racist but racist, right leaning, etc.' other person who is 'just wrong', but no examples of the other side of the ever-encroaching line.
libtard has cuckservative; sjw has nazi/altright/-ist; apparently snowflake has now been equally, although possibly erroneously appropriated by the left now as well.
No examples of supposedly race/gender/sex positive minded people turning around and slurring the same people they aim to side with because those people don't agree with them? How many people have their [insert group] card revoked and are re-identified as garbage by these people?
My two-cents to the idea of tuning someone out, is when I've taken their point from 5 different angles, quashed it from each perspective, and they still refuse to budge in the slightest, or simply deflect/goalpost it.
Jeez man, all I said is what I didn't like about Ellie. I was willing to debate and receive counter arguements to prove me wrong my stance on Ellie being an SJW charcater.
Prove me wrong now.
Prove me wrong now.
The whole "my opinion over everyone else" come to my mind". It's not a discussion if you are not willing to open up to anyone else ideas or opinions!
An example of this was a thread made on here weeks ago when the guy made a bold and stupid comment about not "caring for the fans". Like right, what make your singular opinion far superior to the massive collective of the en masses opinions that has been made over the years??? In saying so however I never took that guy seriously over the year so there's that.
An example of this was a thread made on here weeks ago when the guy made a bold and stupid comment about not "caring for the fans". Like right, what make your singular opinion far superior to the massive collective of the en masses opinions that has been made over the years??? In saying so however I never took that guy seriously over the year so there's that.
At refusal to acknowledge simple rules of logic, playing persecution, personal attacks.
Real life example:
"I felt a hand touch my head. It was a ghost."
"How do you know it was a ghost?"
"You tell me what it was, then."
"You're making the claim, not me. I'm asking you how you knew it was a ghost and not something else."
"It was a ghost. You can't prove it wasn't. Stop mocking my beliefs."
Real life example:
"I felt a hand touch my head. It was a ghost."
"How do you know it was a ghost?"
"You tell me what it was, then."
"You're making the claim, not me. I'm asking you how you knew it was a ghost and not something else."
"It was a ghost. You can't prove it wasn't. Stop mocking my beliefs."
When it's clear that they're not listening to you and they just want to listen to their own voice or preach.
If they resort to name calling, threats or violence.
When they criticize you for saying/doing things that they themselves say/do.
If they don't look things up and just listen to what others tell them.
If I can expose that they don't know what they're talking about (for example, they'll start talking about something, then I'll say that I know that as well and start making stuff up in a way that would fool someone who has no clue, if they start agreeing with me, they're full of shit).
If they resort to name calling, threats or violence.
When they criticize you for saying/doing things that they themselves say/do.
If they don't look things up and just listen to what others tell them.
If I can expose that they don't know what they're talking about (for example, they'll start talking about something, then I'll say that I know that as well and start making stuff up in a way that would fool someone who has no clue, if they start agreeing with me, they're full of shit).
Pretty much this, anyone that uses lame internet slang is basically ignored. More than half the time, they don't even know what the terms mean.Kenbo Slice said:
Errant Signal's video on Wolfenstein 2 was a great analysis without using terms like sjw or commie.
Your stance was stupid, that's why. I think you were trying to say she's a sjw character because she was praised by others for being such, which makes no sense. Then, you said she feels like such a character, which is proof how?Samtemdo8 said:
The thing is I have much more to say about it, but I have to do it via PMing because I don't want to make a thread to get locked and get me in trouble because of what I am about to say.Phoenixmgs said: