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=68850.137580]
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:
Begging the question is a rhetorical term, not a logical one in this sense, and is pretty dependent on content and context. If you've said something that might make it look like all X are Y, it's actually reasonable to say that not all X are Y.
That isn't to say all groups of order six are Abelian; some are simply dihedral.
This seems to tacitly suggest very little for example. Anyway, the thing about this rhetorical technique is that even when it is intentional and obvious, as when Trump does it, its factual content is still the same. The hateful nature of Trump's speeches comes from his actual comments about Mexican immigrants, rather than his rhetorically persuasive qualifiers. If a prison warden in an American town was asked about the immigrants he encountered in his work, ending his reply with "some are good people" would look perfectly fine. Similarly, the writer takes pains to say that while people may object out of nostalgia, they aren't necessarily nostalgic for the inequality, as the people he interviewed before
said they were. "Begging the question" is very much dependent on how easily the sensibilities of the reader are offended, and on the actual content.
ChairmanPoo may not like the phrasing, but the article presents facts that confirm his belief that TLJ haters are largely not bigots. Why does he object to it then? Because he's uncomfortable with the slight hints he percieves, and
the nature of the article as reporting on something that makes some people with whom he shares a belief ("TLJ sucks") look like bigots. When people can't handle that sort of slightly disagreeable experience, but simply fold it into their conviction (true or not) that the entire media is unfairly ranged against them, echo chambers are not far off. Disliking the media response to alt-right claims can be justified, but that sort of immediate attack on something true if upsetting is very concerning.
If you think when Chairman says, "the nature of the article and the disclaimer", he's not referring to the same article... well, that's not really using English the way most people do.
Author
Topic: Things that made you go "WTF?" today o_O (Read 14964698 times)