I very much specifically said I was not referring to a specific article. Its in a quote in your post, even
You referred to the article, and it's disclaimer, in the quote in my post. Unless you're confusing me with someone else, you've done that before.
No he didn't. This is getting toxic. Let me point out what was in the Tawa post immediately preceding ChairmanPoo's post. ChairmanPoo was responding to this specific post here, which mainly discusses one article I linked
http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=68850.137580Tawa opened his post with:
Reelya, you should actually read the articles you cite as proof that the media is out to get you. Both of the articles you linked very explicitly say "nazis hate the film", not "everyone who hates the film is a nazi".
That isn't to say that all objections to The Last Jedi — or The Force Awakens, which introduced the new cast — are rooted in far-right ideology or hatred. For some, the story simply didn't conform to what they had imagined; fans have had over 30 years to dream up what Luke Skywalker did after Return of the Jedi, and there were plenty of now-discarded novels, comics, and video games that offered more rousing heroics than his self-imposed exile on a forgotten island. Those dissatisfied on this count are sometimes rigid nostalgists, and that doesn't connote hatred, even if it is yearning for a past that was less equal.
Then, ChairmanPoo wrote in the next post:
The nature of the article and the disclaimer suggests that most haters are alt right. AKA with that sort of disclaimer they are begging the question
But, the point here is that the main bulk of Tawa's post was actually quoting from a previously-linked article which
doesn't include any of the disclaimers you're talking about. It's just much more likely that ChairmanPoo was referring to the article which had actually been quoted from, and not the little additional HuffPost link in the later part of the post, just to clarify that if there was any confusion.
The "disclaimer" ChairmanPoo was talking about was that quote that Tawa provided. Which reads:
That isn't to say that all objections to The Last Jedi — or The Force Awakens, which introduced the new cast — are rooted in far-right ideology or hatred. For some, the story simply didn't conform to what they had imagined;
Tawa claims this is ample evidence that the article
isn't trying to label TLJ haters as far-right. Structurally, that follows this logical form:
That isn't to say that all X are Y: Some (X) are simply Z
If that's a
logically sound form according to Tawa then it should be logically sound even if we change the topic:
That isn't to say that all Mexican immigrants are rapist drug-dealing pedophiles. some are simply decent people
Look, I'm not racist. Didn't you even read my "some are simply decent people" bit? And I clearly wrote "that
isn't to say all Mexican Immigrants are rapist drug-dealing pedophiles", along with that completely sincere disclaimer on the end that "some" aren't. How much clearer do I need to be that I'm not in fact implying that Mexican immigrants - in general - are rapist drug-dealing pedophiles? I put the caveats in, so I'm not racist, right bro? / sarcasm
Sure, it's not calling TLJ critics Nazis about as believably as Trump didn't call Mexicans drug-dealing, rapist, criminal thugs because he added "And some, I assume, are good people" at the end.
* note that ChairmanPoo refers to "begging the question". "begging the question" is when your logical structure assumes something is the default assumption, when you haven't in fact proven that it is the default assumption: it's form of circular reasoning. in this case, the article is assuming its own conclusion that "TLJ haters are Nazis" by including the explicit assumption that "not a Nazi" is a caveat to the normal expected rule that they are Nazis.
** But then, note that right at the end the Non-Nazi minority of TLJ dislikers get an
additional jab where he hand-waves away all not-actual-Nazi criticisms of TLJ as subconsciously "yearning for a past that was less equal". So, what he's saying here is that if you happened to dislike the movie for any reason which he can't dismiss off-hand as you being a literal Nazi, you're in fact merely a closet-Nazi-sympathizer, secretly or unwittingly yearning for the sexist, racist, homophobic "golden age". Way to take back the disclaimer. It's as if Trump ended his "Mexicans" speech with "And some, I assume, are good people,
except for the fact that they beat their wives", just to double-down on being a complete c**t.