U.S. President Joe Biden on Thursday called China a "ticking time bomb" because of its economic challenges and said the country was in trouble because of weak growth.
It’s not about an echo chamber. There are some instances that say the same few things without being reasonable. They’re just political slogans and myths with little bearing on reality. If they were reasonable, sure. It’d be fine. They will take things out of context and when you provide context that goes against it they find something else to attack and act like it never happened. It’s not useful and just makes it harder to see other things.
I’ve seen people from lemmygrad and hexbear provide sources, even western ones, over and over and be completely ignored by the person they’re talking to, often with a thought terminating cliche. You got this backwards.
There are users from all instances that do that. The fact some do it is not evidence of anything, one way or the other. However, I was arguing with someone from one of the two about Xi Jinping being from the political class, not the working class, and their “evidence” otherwise was that he lived in a cave when he was a child. They ignored the fact the reason he lived in a cave was because his father was a politician who lost political favor, and it wasn’t some random cave, it was a building constructed of a cave.
It’s all willful ignorance of fact if you can’t find fault with any government. If you support anything, you should be looking for how to criticize it, not how to tell other people that there aren’t issues. How else would you improve it. I don’t trust anyone who won’t admit any fault in the thing they’re defending, and especially anyone who chooses to tie their identity to that thing.
Just calling out the thought terminating cliche is, ironically, a thought terminating cliche as well. I didn’t only include that in my comment, you just (expectedly) ignored the rest. The fact you had nothing meaningful to say is enough. My comment was much more then pointing out your point of origin (as in instance). Your comment was nothing.
Just calling out the thought terminating cliche is, ironically, a thought terminating cliche as well.
Okay dummy in a completely flat world without any context you’re TECHNICALLY correct but in this world we’re talking about you calling people whose opinions and references challenge your worldview bots so stfu you lazy dishonest dipshit
It’s gratifying that you’re upset at getting (rightfully) bullied because that means it’s working and your behavior will eventually adjust. Either by shutting up or by engaging in good faith. Either way we win.
What the fuck kind of delusions are you having? This is not an argument. This is a thread about calling you out for your bullshit of defending people who claim everyone who disagrees with them is a bot and your own flavor of that, calling people “biased”. If anything you should have gotten more shit for the rest of the pontificating nonsense you wrapped around a strawman. Your dumb smug ass replied with the shit I posted mocking you over in my last comment. You deserve to be bullied until you can act like you’re a member of a proper community and this is the bullying you’re receiving. There is no hidden ball. Stop acting like a fucking child and I absolutely promise you that you’ll get treated differently. Don’t whine about fucking up and getting called on it. Fucking liberals. Unbelievable.
Ah so like with every other logical fallacy it’s impossible for liberals to be guilty of the fallacy fallacy but all of us tankies are always guilty of every fallacy at once (yes even the ones that contradict one another)
You are rubber and we are glue, for everything we say bounces off you and rebounds back to us
Where did I say I couldn’t commit a fallacy? It’s just in this case the “fallacy” I made wasn’t any part of the argument, just pointing out that he’s saying that the group he belongs to is better than others, which literally everyone will say so isn’t worth assuming it’s correct without evidence. There was plenty of other things in the comment that were ignored.
It’s always pointing to some part of a comment and attacking that with you guys. You never defend anything because being on offense makes you look authoritative and superior, without having to put in any of the legwork that requires.
The entire principle of reasonability lies on accepting that other interpretations of facts exist. Removing those who question the prevailing interpretation is harmful for democracy, harmful for journalism, and harmful for freedom of speech.
Sure, there are other interpretations. There’s also ignoring facts as they stand. That’s as harmful as anything else.
Sometimes it’s not useful to hear certain opinions. I don’t care about the opinion that thinks the covid vaccine makes you magnetic, which they subsequently can’t verify. It’s not useful and most likely harmful. It makes my experience worse while providing nothing. If I can choose to not have that opinion heard, I will. It is not helping me get a better understanding of the world and is only making my experience worse.
If it’s conducive to having a better understanding of reality probably.
The “covid vaccine makes you magnetic” opinion that I used in the example does not. Their beliefs are based in fairy tales and they don’t care to question it, or if they do they somehow convince themselves that when it doesn’t agree with they’re beliefs that they’re somehow still right.
It’s not about an echo chamber. There are some instances that say the same few things without being reasonable. They’re just political slogans and myths with little bearing on reality. If they were reasonable, sure. It’d be fine. They will take things out of context and when you provide context that goes against it they find something else to attack and act like it never happened. It’s not useful and just makes it harder to see other things.
I’ve seen people from lemmygrad and hexbear provide sources, even western ones, over and over and be completely ignored by the person they’re talking to, often with a thought terminating cliche. You got this backwards.
And I’m sure you’re not biased at all…
There are users from all instances that do that. The fact some do it is not evidence of anything, one way or the other. However, I was arguing with someone from one of the two about Xi Jinping being from the political class, not the working class, and their “evidence” otherwise was that he lived in a cave when he was a child. They ignored the fact the reason he lived in a cave was because his father was a politician who lost political favor, and it wasn’t some random cave, it was a building constructed of a cave.
It’s all willful ignorance of fact if you can’t find fault with any government. If you support anything, you should be looking for how to criticize it, not how to tell other people that there aren’t issues. How else would you improve it. I don’t trust anyone who won’t admit any fault in the thing they’re defending, and especially anyone who chooses to tie their identity to that thing.
Leading off with a thought terminating cliche when confronted by your ideological cohorts’ dependence on thought terminating cliches is quite a flex
Just calling out the thought terminating cliche is, ironically, a thought terminating cliche as well. I didn’t only include that in my comment, you just (expectedly) ignored the rest. The fact you had nothing meaningful to say is enough. My comment was much more then pointing out your point of origin (as in instance). Your comment was nothing.
Okay dummy in a completely flat world without any context you’re TECHNICALLY correct but in this world we’re talking about you calling people whose opinions and references challenge your worldview bots so stfu you lazy dishonest dipshit
It’s gratifying that you’re upset at getting (rightfully) bullied because that means it’s working and your behavior will eventually adjust. Either by shutting up or by engaging in good faith. Either way we win.
Can’t argue with anything I said so you just insult. Expected, once again, but disappointing.
Engage in what in good faith? You haven’t made any arguments. You only say “fallacy!” and act superior, without earning it.
What the fuck kind of delusions are you having? This is not an argument. This is a thread about calling you out for your bullshit of defending people who claim everyone who disagrees with them is a bot and your own flavor of that, calling people “biased”. If anything you should have gotten more shit for the rest of the pontificating nonsense you wrapped around a strawman. Your dumb smug ass replied with the shit I posted mocking you over in my last comment. You deserve to be bullied until you can act like you’re a member of a proper community and this is the bullying you’re receiving. There is no hidden ball. Stop acting like a fucking child and I absolutely promise you that you’ll get treated differently. Don’t whine about fucking up and getting called on it. Fucking liberals. Unbelievable.
Ah so like with every other logical fallacy it’s impossible for liberals to be guilty of the fallacy fallacy but all of us tankies are always guilty of every fallacy at once (yes even the ones that contradict one another)
You are rubber and we are glue, for everything we say bounces off you and rebounds back to us
What flawless playground logic you employ
Where did I say I couldn’t commit a fallacy? It’s just in this case the “fallacy” I made wasn’t any part of the argument, just pointing out that he’s saying that the group he belongs to is better than others, which literally everyone will say so isn’t worth assuming it’s correct without evidence. There was plenty of other things in the comment that were ignored.
It’s always pointing to some part of a comment and attacking that with you guys. You never defend anything because being on offense makes you look authoritative and superior, without having to put in any of the legwork that requires.
The entire principle of reasonability lies on accepting that other interpretations of facts exist. Removing those who question the prevailing interpretation is harmful for democracy, harmful for journalism, and harmful for freedom of speech.
Sure, there are other interpretations. There’s also ignoring facts as they stand. That’s as harmful as anything else.
Sometimes it’s not useful to hear certain opinions. I don’t care about the opinion that thinks the covid vaccine makes you magnetic, which they subsequently can’t verify. It’s not useful and most likely harmful. It makes my experience worse while providing nothing. If I can choose to not have that opinion heard, I will. It is not helping me get a better understanding of the world and is only making my experience worse.
How do you define the usefulness of opinions?
If it’s conducive to having a better understanding of reality probably.
The “covid vaccine makes you magnetic” opinion that I used in the example does not. Their beliefs are based in fairy tales and they don’t care to question it, or if they do they somehow convince themselves that when it doesn’t agree with they’re beliefs that they’re somehow still right.