Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Dunamisdeos]

A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument which was not advanced by that opponent.

So yes, that's exactly what you did.

No, people accusing you of things are not projecting. "No you" is not a real refutation.

Reelya is probably referring to the """logic""" that has been repeated multiple times in this very thread that people who do not want to punch Nazis are automatically Nazi sympathizers and therefore deserve to be punched, which is absolutely an idea that is deserving of discussion. Let me know if I'm wrong, Reelya, your thoughts are always interesting to me.

And finally folks, here is, again, a link to a man who has been demonstrably more effective in removing the modern Neo-Nazi mindset from America than anyone who has ever punched a Nazi. He's not a mythical figure, he's a real dude who gets real results. Get on his level.

[Reelya]

Which is why I was targeting the meme, not the incident. The meme has much broader implications for how it effects politics than one guy who got punched. That one guy deserving a punch doesn't equate to spreading the "punch a nazi" meme to be a helpful concept.

If whenever there's an incident of a nazi who deserved to be punched justifies the existence of the "punch a nazi" concept, then you could justify e.g. the muslim ban based on a stream of single incidents where a muslim immigrant did something wrong.

[MorleyDev]

If whenever there's an incident of a nazi who deserved to be punched justifies the existence of the "punch a nazi" concept, then you could justify e.g. the muslim ban based on a stream of single incidents where a muslim immigrant did something wrong.

An actual Nazi is inherently a bad thing to be for modern society, whilst Muslim is not inherently a bad thing to be for a unified society. So this particular comparison falls flat as a result.

I'm not saying the "punch a nazi has problems with encouraging violence against people who may not be within the actual realm of the literal nazis, and there are better approaches to solve the underlying problems than just trying to punch it away" point doesn't have merits, but there is a false equivalence in this part I have to point out.

A closer comparison would be spreading a racially charged "Punch a jihadist" meme, and then claiming innocence when racist dicks take from it that they should go out and punch regular Muslims.

[Cheeetar]

A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument which was not advanced by that opponent.

So yes, that's exactly what you did.

Show me where I 'gave the impression of refuting an opponent's argument'.

[Arx]

To be honest, you're so far away from discussing this in good faith that it's not even worth trying to talk to you.

[Dunamisdeos]

And finally folks, here is, again, a link to a man who has been demonstrably more effective in removing the modern Neo-Nazi mindset from America than anyone who has ever punched a Nazi. He's not a mythical figure, he's a real dude who gets real results. Get on his level.

Except that it doesn't fall flat at all. The entire concept of punch Nazis into submission is inherently flawed, because it does not actually create less Nazis. It does not even discourage Nazism. This guy has 100% proven that it is infinitely more effective to talk to people about incorrect/flawed/dangerous beliefs than try and beat them into the dirt in the name of righteousness.

If we believe that Nazism is an inherently bad thing should we not be actually making a difference instead of, well, anything else?

A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument which was not advanced by that opponent.

So yes, that's exactly what you did.

Show me where I 'gave the impression of refuting an opponent's argument'.

we should sit down and have a nice talk with them about the pros and cons of killing minorities, and then proceed to do absolutely nothing else. Also, real reason there are so many Nazis? We won World War 2. If only we had lost it, we could have really stopped them.

Nobody actually said any of those things. You are implying that this is what they literally want or argued for, and you did not do it accidentally. So, yes, that is a strawman by definition of strawman.

Incidentally, I do often advocate for talking rather than violence, as I am doing above, because I like actual measurable positive results more than I like giving black eyes.

[Reelya]

A closer comparison would be spreading a racially charged "Punch a jihadist" meme, and then claiming innocence when racist dicks take from it that they should go out and punch regular Muslims.

yeah thanks, that's a much better analogy than what I wrote.

Another issue is that if nazis need a punch, then is there some scale of response for others on the other side? the idea of punching because you disagree with someone's political ideas sets the tone for your whole response to disagreement. e.g. hating black people is disgusting, but if the person merely expresses that idea is it punching time? What about MRAs, or people who just watched The Red Pill or Christina Hoff Sommers, who critiques feminism? How far on the Nazi-scale do they fall? Back-hand slap level maybe? It's clear to see that if people with ideas you extremely disagree with get a punch, then people you merely mildly disagree with get either you screaming over them or you completely ignoring them.

And Daryl Davis is awesome. Anyone who makes the "yeah right talk to racists and see where that gets you" as an appeal to ridicule should really look into the evidence. Fringe groups and cults are usually paranoid and conspiracy minded. External hostility only strengthens the core group beliefs. Breaking down the barriers in fact works better. You see the same thing in counter-terrorism, where befreinding suspects gets more results than frightening them. When people have points in common they find it very difficult to maintain their original us vs them belief system.

[Cheeetar]

A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument which was not advanced by that opponent.

So yes, that's exactly what you did.

Show me where I 'gave the impression of refuting an opponent's argument'.

we should sit down and have a nice talk with them about the pros and cons of killing minorities, and then proceed to do absolutely nothing else. Also, real reason there are so many Nazis? We won World War 2. If only we had lost it, we could have really stopped them.

Nobody actually said any of those things. You are implying that this is what they literally want or argued for, and you did not do it accidentally. So, yes, that is a strawman by definition of strawman.

No it's not. Where am I giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument?

[Draignean]

The problem is, you're either saying that as a method of refuting the argument via attempting to point out its absurdity, or you're saying it for no reason other than trollish lulz.

Honestly, they're giving you the benefit of the doubt here.

[Egan_BW]

Is Ameripol thread. Does anyone here post for reasons other than trollish lolz?

[MorleyDev]

It's clear to see that if people with ideas you extremely disagree with get a punch, then people you merely mildly disagree with get either you screaming over them or you completely ignoring them.

"Punch a Nazi in self-defence" doesn't have the same ring. I mean, I think anybody can understand punching someone who is trying to assault you or someone near you, or throwing bananas and shouting racial slurs at you or someone near you.  Heck, openly and honestly talking about murdering you/carrying out violence against you or someone you know is probably an acceptable enough self-defence for a punching, emotively if not always legally.

The UK law talks about intent with self-defence law and that idea seems to be appropriate here. In the UK, you aren't allowed to carry a knife 'for self-defence' because that means carrying a *weapon that you pre-meditatively intend to use to harm someone* and it is that which is illegal. We can apply a similar idea to "Punch a Nazi" and say it's a bad idea in modern discourse to set out to pre-meditatively punch someone, but the appropriateness in heat-of-the-moment can be judged on a situation-by-situation basis.

[Reelya]

https://twitter.com/NicoleFroio/status/897940458067828736

"We should start punching them when they're MRAs tbh"

This is an example of what I mean by the extension of punch-a-nazi concept being inevitable. Now it's punch MRAs too, because "close enough". you might say that MRAs are also loathsome, but they're clearly not Nazis. MRA covers a fair range of belief systems. So if it's ok to punch them too, thenn of course you can justify punching other people with disagreable ideas for other reasons (e.g. pesky academics and pundits).

[MorleyDev]

Fringe groups and cults are usually paranoid and conspiracy minded. External hostility only strengthens the core group beliefs. Breaking down the barriers in fact works better.

So, for example, threatening to destroy someone totally at a United Nations meeting? Aww yeah, bringing it back to Trump and North Korea. "Punch a Nazi" makes you as bad as Trump! There, think I've settled that one.

[Egan_BW]

Disagreeing with someone's beliefs or opinions is not in itself proper justification for punching them. And it doesn't matter what exactly they believe or just how much you disagree, not punching people for that is just common decency. If you have any better reason to punch someone, by all means carry on with the nazi-punching. Though the law might be more particular there than I am. By no means should someone not be punished for illegally hurting someone else, just because the victim of said violence holds properly reprehensible beliefs.

[Reelya]

Fringe groups and cults are usually paranoid and conspiracy minded. External hostility only strengthens the core group beliefs. Breaking down the barriers in fact works better.

So, for example, threatening to destroy someone totally at a United Nations meeting? Aww yeah, bringing it back to Trump and North Korea. "Punch a Nazi" makes you as bad as Trump! There, think I've settled that one.

that's a strawman, because as you well know nothing makes you as bad as trump.

But yeah, you are right on all counts there. Threatening North Korea only strengthens the regime's hold on power. You have the war effect and the kudos of getting the most powerful man on Earth going off in a hissy fit. It's probably what Kim Jong Un has been trying to achieve.

Obama did a deal with Iran and notice that Iranian posturing has almost completely vanished since the deal was brokered. Trump wants to try the tired old saber-rattling against North Korea, when it's pretty clearly proven that that failed in Iran, and dialogue worked.