全 177 件のコメント

[–]EastGuardian 368ポイント369ポイント  (53子コメント)

You know you've won the argument when your opponent in the debate resorts to personal attacks.

[–]JesusK 23ポイント24ポイント  (9子コメント)

Isnt that a falacy though? That you are right because someone else used a falacy against you?

[–]migshark [スコア非表示]  (2子コメント)

If it was a matter of being right, yes - but winning an argument isn't the same. You could argue with a 1 year old that the world is flat, and I should hope that you'd win.

[–]dotted [スコア非表示]  (2子コメント)

You dont have to be right to win an argument.

[–]JesusK [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

Doesn't that make the argument pointless, or even bad?

If you are not right and you win an argument thus changing someone's mind, that is negative.

If you win the argument and no one changes their mind (or learns from it at least), it's pointless no matter who was right.

[–]dotted [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Doesn't that make the argument pointless, or even bad?

Of course, but it also means the opponent lost a winnable debate. The fallacy in question does not care who is right or wrong, all it is saying is that as soon as the debate shifts from from the discussed topic to people the debate has been lost by whoever started the shift, as it is implied that they have no arguments left to counter for whatever was last said in the debate.

[–]MrHap 4ポイント5ポイント  (0子コメント)

Not necessarily right, but I'd say it's a clear sign the debate's going your way when your opponent has nothing left but personal attacks.

[–]OmarZing 54ポイント55ポイント  (7子コメント)

Thank you for correcting him :)

[–]GroundhogExpert 10ポイント11ポイント  (3子コメント)

There's nothing inherently wrong with personal attacks. The problem happens when those personal attacks are used as the basis for dismissing the claims asserted. This is ad hominem reasoning, when the source is cited as the cause to dismiss the claim. Otherwise, I could simply respond to someone's position with "you're a fucking asshole, and I don't care what you think." There's nothing wrong with that as a response. It's non-responsive, isn't compelling, and offers no substance, but it doesn't demonstrate that either side is more wrong or more right. It's just a bit childish, is all.

[–]EastGuardian 4ポイント5ポイント  (2子コメント)

There's nothing inherently wrong with personal attacks. The problem happens when those personal attacks are used as the basis for dismissing the claims asserted. This is ad hominem reasoning, when the source is cited as the cause to dismiss the claim.

Indeed. This is where I'm coming from with my statement.
That being said, going for personal attacks also tend to be a desperate tactic at best and a childish one at worst.

[–]GroundhogExpert 2ポイント3ポイント  (1子コメント)

That being said, going for personal attacks also tend to be a desperate tactic at best and a childish one at worst.

Sure, it's just not faulty logic, is all. Faulty logic requires that some bit of logic is employed, such as the implication or entailment between the personal attack and the opposition's claims. Without that, it's simply not bad reasoning as it's not reasoning at all. I'm only saying this to make it perfectly clear and understandable as I've run into a misconception about what "ad hominem" is at an alarming rate, not that I think you specifically needed to know this.

[–]EastGuardian 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

To be fair, I'm happy that I get to review my old Philosophy lessons about logical fallacies. Therefore, I'm not mad. Thanks for the clarification.

[–]Akesgeroth 7ポイント8ポイント  (1子コメント)

Yet winning the argument is pointless unless the people with power realize you won it.

[–]EastGuardian 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Going for the "winning hearts and minds" route? It is a fresh perspective since it reminds all of us that the people behind the screen are people, not abstractions.

[–]frankenmine/r/WerthamInAction - #ComicGate 8ポイント9ポイント  (24子コメント)

Identity politics isn't personal attacks, per se. We really need to formulate a set of logical fallacies unique to cultural Marxism.

[–]sixblackgeese 10ポイント11ポイント  (8子コメント)

It is always 100% wrong to evaluate an argument on any qualities of the presenter. Only the argument's merit counts.

[–]SergeantJezza -3ポイント-2ポイント  (5子コメント)

That's not strictly true. If a see a study by some radical feminist group, I will dismiss it without reading it because there's no point.

[–]Asaoirc 7ポイント8ポイント  (0子コメント)

Still technically wrong, but understandable.

[–]Milith 5ポイント6ポイント  (0子コメント)

Then you're part of the problem.

[–]peacegnome 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

Well, you shouldn't dismiss it because it is a radical feminist group, you should dismiss it after reading the title and accepting that it is complete garbage. If the title is semi-believable, then move on to the abstract, and so on.

[–]Paw_In_My_Face 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

Yea I do not know how people can think they are sooo fucking right in dismissing any piece of radical feminism. I do not know exactly what constitutes radical feminism, but I read a bunch of works by Angela Davis, who is communist/feminist and was a Black Panther, and some of her arguments were brilliant.

Edit: With that said, I think lots of people would still dismiss it based on something having a title "Myth of the Black Rapist"

[–]Zanzure 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

It would cause me to be far more skeptical, but not dismiss it until I see a reason to.

[–]dotadodger -2ポイント-1ポイント  (1子コメント)

what if i'm arguing about my dick size?

[–]sixblackgeese [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

That's a reality small issue. Don't worry about it.

[–]BombastixderTeutone 4ポイント5ポイント  (7子コメント)

What the hell is cultural marxism?

[–]OmnivorousCat 3ポイント4ポイント  (6子コメント)

Something that no longer has a page on Wikipedia, thanks to the SJWs.

[–]BombastixderTeutone 1ポイント2ポイント  (5子コメント)

Yeah but what does it mean?

[–]ScyGlass [スコア非表示]  (3子コメント)

Unlike Marxism which primarily focuses on economic inequalities and economic classes, cultural Marxism see culture as a main cause for many different kinds of inequalities:

Race (Whites/non-Whites) Culture (Western/non-Western) Family (nuclear family/non-nuclear family) Religion (Christianity/atheism and religious minorities) Gender (men/women) Sexual orientation (heterosexual/LGBT)

Cultural Marxism places great emphasis on analyzing, controlling, and changing the popular culture, the popular discourse, the mass media, and the language itself. Seeing culture as often having more or less subconscious influences on people which create and sustain inequalities, cultural Marxists themselves often try to remove these inequalities by more or less subtle manipulation and censorship of culture.

[–]BombastixderTeutone [スコア非表示]  (2子コメント)

So minorities fighting for equal rights and against discrimination are the puppets of a global marxistic conspiracy?

[–]ScyGlass [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Not really. It's more that these people (Marxist Socialists) are altering and censoring the media to attempt to close perceived inequalities in race, sexual orientation, etc. fit their narrative. Essentially ignoring the problem and broadcasting what they want to hear, an echo chamber.

They don't want to be labeled as socialists, so ironically they've censored the idea of Cultural Marxism.

[–]OmnivorousCat [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Culture is apparently a cause of inequality, and so anything that causes the 'inequality' must be censored (according to SJWs).

[–]EastGuardian 19ポイント20ポイント  (6子コメント)

I'm talking about SJWs who regularly scream "check your privilege" at their enemies.

[–]scruggsdl 14ポイント15ポイント  (4子コメント)

Hate this so much. I honestly believe they've brought racism back 50 years, because I use to give a **** until they had the audacity to bitch so broadly.

[–]the_wrong_toaster 17ポイント18ポイント  (3子コメント)

It's ok, you're allowed to swear on the internet

[–]TwistedPerson 5ポイント6ポイント  (1子コメント)

Maybe he's preparing for a world where SJWs have their way. I mean,

(trigger warning: rape) maybe **** preparing for a ***** where **** have ***** ***.

[–]ronin1066 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Damn speech to text doesn't know that.

[–]CaesarCzech 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

well you check your check privilegie from Pantreon.

[–]prokiller 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

I disagree...stupid poopo head.

[–]micromoses 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

That works better. He could still be losing, if the argument is about whether he's white or male or old.

[–]Leeham721 [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

You're an idiot

Classic response. Push them for an answer and they refuse at all costs to engage what you actually said.

[–]redbreadredemption 10ポイント11ポイント  (0子コメント)

foxy grandpa priveleges

[–]YetAnotherCommenter 35ポイント36ポイント  (9子コメント)

I'm glad Dawkins is at least trying to take up Hitch's mantle in terms of enthusiastic un-PC.

[–]cfl1 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

Paglia is much more interesting though.

[–]YetAnotherCommenter 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

I agree. I disagree more with Paglia than Dawkins but she's a fantastic orator. And her views, whilst more objectionable than Richard D's, are actually more interesting with much more philosophical meat.

Camille Paglia is basically, imo, "the right way to be wrong." Sure I disagree with quite a bit of her beliefs (I agree with some things she says though), but she's just fucking awesome in many ways.

[–]Konstrukt1 2ポイント3ポイント  (6子コメント)

It's also pleasant that, unlike Hitchens, he's not a contrarian, obstinate Trotskyite. I've always marveled at the irony of a Marxist criticizing others for having delusional, outdated and thoroughly debunked views that have caused unimaginable suffering for millions.

[–]YetAnotherCommenter 16ポイント17ポイント  (3子コメント)

To be fair, Trotskyism does differ from Leninism or Stalinism.

I'm a libertarian and therefore I'm as free-market-capitalist as it gets, but I have great respect for Hitch. Even if I disagree with him on quite a few issues. Sure, his Marxism was wrong, but he stated in his interview with Reason magazine (a libertarian publication) that whilst he was still a Marxist he was no longer a socialist. By that, he meant he agreed with much of Marxism's "meta" (i.e. theory of human nature, theory of history, theory about what's socially important) but he didn't believe socialism would work.

He also displayed incredible admiration and respect for the figures of the Anglo-American Enlightenment, including even the American Founders like Jefferson. He was hardly a mindless commie.

Plus he was frankly the most entertaining New Atheist orator. Dawkins is fucking boring to listen to. I respect Richard Dawkins but he can't hold a room with savage, delicious rhetoric like Hitch could. And Hitch's writing was just.... perfect. When reading God Is Not Great you could just taste the sheer venom in his words...

Dawkins cannot even hope to get to that level of absolute rhetorical orgasmicness.

[–]Ragamuffinn 3ポイント4ポイント  (1子コメント)

What's interesting about that is that Marx's philosophical views on history and human nature are probably the easiest to argue against.

[–]YetAnotherCommenter 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

I wouldn't disagree. But I'm trying to defend Hitch's intellectual integrity and respectworthiness here - not to argue he was right about his Trotskyism.

[–]Konstrukt1 [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

I would argue that Marxism's "meta" (as you said, theory of human nature, theory of history, theory about what's socially important, but also economic theory, etc.) is significantly more destructive than mere socialism, the reason being that practical socialism can, with certain qualifications and in limited application, be quite functional, whereas Marxist theory is more universally destructive to human ability and spirit (which is why I think that, had the more "pure" and "orthodox" Trotskyism prevailed over Stalinism in the early Soviet Union, the consequences would have been even more disatrous, at least in the short term).

And I agree that Hitchens is a brilliant crafter of words, though God Is Not Great might have benefited from more research and less rhetorics. For all its fire and bluster, it is riddled with inaccuracies, misunderstandings and plain false information. It's an opinion piece, and I suppose that's what he was going for, but too many people unfortunately seem to treat it as a scholarly work, which it most certainly is not.

In fact, this may be a common element in Hitchen's approach to topics as diverse as Marxism and religion: He knows what he'd like to say about the idea very well, before he knows the idea very well.

[–]MikeAppleTree [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

On the other hand Hitchens was a lot more entertaining.

[–]SigmaTheDJ 17ポイント18ポイント  (1子コメント)

The people who make the kinds of arguments that Dawkins is talking about are usually hypocrites and they're usually doing more harm than good. The claim that an argument is invalid or should be discounted based on the race, gender or age of the person making it is a form of genetic fallacy.

Here's a good rebuttal to this line of flawed thinking from Alan Moore: -

Since I can think of no obvious reason why this principle should only relate to the issue of race – and specifically to black people and white people – then I assume it must be extended to characters of different ethnicities, genders, sexualities, religions, political persuasions and, possibly most uncomfortably of all for many people considering these issues, social classes … If this restriction were universally adopted, we would have had no authors from middle-class backgrounds who were able to write about the situation of the lower classes, which would have effectively ruled out almost all authors since William Shakespeare.

It is lazy, anti-intellectual, patronising, counter-productive, and it's a dangerous mindset to get into.

[–]Apophilius 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

It's a very easy mindset to get into when you want to win and aren't. You'll subdue to personal attacks.

Everyone does when they're losing. Personal attacks are what separates an argument from a zealous discussion.

[–]its_never_lupus 37ポイント38ポイント  (7子コメント)

Dawkins should be declared a saint. It would be worth it just to tease him.

[–]lollerkeet 17ポイント18ポイント  (2子コメント)

I prayed to him once and found a $50 three days later. Does that count as a miracle?

[–]pieuvre776 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

Patron saint of... uh... biology?

[–]JimBoNZ 52ポイント53ポイント  (48子コメント)

As an old white male, can I take ownership of a swear word (like the "n" word) that I can say everywhere and no-one else can say or else they can lose their job? I'd like that. I feel oppressed!

[–]vonmonologue 61ポイント62ポイント  (25子コメント)

I have yet to see someone use the word "Cis" in a context where it wasn't a pejorative insult.

Edit: as many people below have pointed out, my statement was based solely on exposure to SJW/Tumblr communities and I was ignorant of its use in the trans community as a whole.

I'm sorry for my ignorant comment and thank everyone who stepped in to educate me

[–]Devidose 36ポイント37ポイント  (20子コメント)

Speak to a chemist discussing isomer forms. Both cis and trans are taken from there.

[–]JQuiltyJohn Quilty, TechRaptor 24ポイント25ポイント  (11子コメント)

That and both are valid prefixes in Latin.

[–]HBlight 17ポイント18ポイント  (9子コメント)

"Die Cis Scum" almost sounds like a Latin phrase.

[–]GPuzzle1 23ポイント24ポイント  (7子コメント)

I was going for German Biology, actually.

"Ja, die cis scum ist wunderbar!"

[–]FreIus 3ポイント4ポイント  (5子コメント)

Scum doesn't really look like a German word, sadly.

[–]JQuiltyJohn Quilty, TechRaptor 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

Interī, cis excreta imperatorze! (probably not right, too lazy/tired/headache too look up exact declensions).

[–]Devidose 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Indeed, but given the widespread usage of such suffixes they can be sourced from more than just one point, namely the example people are giving of the Alps.

My personal geographical knowledge is very poor and such I've never heard the terms cisalpine or transalpine. However I have extensive experience in the natural sciences, including molecular chemistry, so that would be likely where I source it.

Likewise given isomer descriptions are in some ways simpler to visualise when describing cis/trans isomers it would likely be easier for someone to extend that concept towards where it is now.

[–]awwwwyehmutherfurk 7ポイント8ポイント  (3子コメント)

Id say they're actually taken from the Latin routes, probably more commonly used in things such as the "transalpine Gauls" or "cisalpine Gauls".

[–]Devidose 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Routes yes as an eventual origin, but more directly/immediately isomer classification functions as the etymological source for the suffixes in question here.

[–]walruz 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

I'm fairly sure the Romans calling the part of Gaul that was south of the alps "Gallia cisalpina" predates any knowledge of molecules.

[–]Devidose 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

And? Chemistry usage is a far more modern etymology source that may itself be sourced back to Latin/Roman nomenclature but doesn't mean it's the immediate source of the modern suffix usage.

[–]hey_aaapple [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

Afaik that is an outdated standard tho, and now they have a new one that solves the myriad of edge cases that used to exist

[–]Devidose [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Being outdated won't stop it's usage though, especially in scientists that have spent their life using the term. It's the same in binomial nomenclature and cladistics when discussing species if plants and animals. Despite ongoing changes and revisions you still get older terms used like ametabloic/hemimetabolic/holometabolic for example when discussing insects despite the terms being dated and not used as much now.

[–]Vathoska 7ポイント8ポイント  (0子コメント)

I've legitimately never seen it used as an insult outside of tumblr. Where do you guys get these ideas? It's just the opposite of "trans" and it's as insulting a word as "trans" is... Talk to any trans person that's not an insane tumblr person and you'll see, no wonder reddit has a warped view of transgender people.

[–]PokemasterTT 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

As transgender I use cis often not as an insult.

[–]Lauren_of_Lore 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

visit any non-tumblr transgender board or support group

[–]JimBoNZ 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

I'll try and get loud and sassy with it 8-)

[–]JackalKing 10ポイント11ポイント  (7子コメント)

Are...are you suggesting we "take back" shitlord?

[–]JimBoNZ 7ポイント8ポイント  (0子コメント)

It's just the attitude. Use SHITLORD in every sentence. If someone says it to you, give the mad wide eyed stare "WHAT DID YOU JUST SAY? DID YOU HEAR THAT? WHAT DID YOU CALL ME??!!!"

[–]SimonJ57 4ポイント5ポイント  (0子コメント)

FatpeopleHate have been using it for a while now, go for it.

[–]FuckAllRedditCEOs 5ポイント6ポイント  (2子コメント)

A year ago, I honestly thought no one used it seriously.

Also STEMlord.

[–]digitalpizza 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

Also STEMlord

Too euphoric

[–]slimthigh 4ポイント5ポイント  (0子コメント)

We already have. For a while now.

[–]Eburon [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Using a euphemism as the "n word" doesn't change anything about the fact your meant nigger. I don't use it because it's not part of my vocabulary, but it remains just a word. Intent is key.You can be squeaky-clean in your words and still be an asshole, can't you Mr. Cosby.

Writing f*ck and thinking you're more appropriate than writing fuck is just stupid, or even retarded. Words don't mean a damn thing it's what you're trying to communicate is what matters. And people battling use of words should really think about that.

Put energy in fighting real evil, not cosmetic.

I've seen words go full cycle in describing handicapped in native language. It's hard to describe in English, but it went from handicapped, to disabled, physically impaired, a few others back to handicapped as the accepted term to describe that group. And that moment I was, like fuck it, there is no point in doing it. Talk about people with respect, and nobody should care about the word you're using.

I can be racist, misogynistic, or offensive as fuck without using any "hot" words, and I can be the exact opposite.

[–]Ingenium21 [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

You're angry because you can't say the word "nigger". I guess old, white, guys really are that out of touch.

[–]kangarooninjadonuts [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Being a Southern white guy with an accent, I'm pretty much on bad terms with anyone who uses the term "redneck".

I'm also Cajun, and I don't care much for non Cajuns using the term Coonass, but I don't get offended by it. I know that the people who use it just think it's funny and don't have any malicious intent. But redneck is definitely meant as a thumb in the eye.

[–]johhny_topside -2ポイント-1ポイント  (2子コメント)

i recommend "cracker" or "whitey", those are used as racial slurs, my cracka'.

[–]TheSemasiologist 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

I was watching a Bruce Lee movie with my family. Bruce is about to beat the shit out of this white guy. White guy insults him. My Dad says "what did you say you silly round-eye" in an asian accent. My sides left earth. I was laughing so hard I nearly cried.

TL:DR 'round -eye' as a racist slur from asian person to caucasion person.

[–]davesmogh 0ポイント1ポイント  (2子コメント)

What's the "n" word? Go on, say it.

[–]digitalpizza 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

Nigger or to be politically correct Person of Niggerness (PON)

[–]ScyGlass [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

I thought it was PoC, which meant Picker of Cotton?

[–]Lots42 [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Don't forget 'He was rude to some people in the past!'.

Seriously, some whackadoodles think rudeness invalidates facts.

[–]inti-kab 11ポイント12ポイント  (0子コメント)

he forgot cis, straight, and stem major

[–]RadiographerCT 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Dick Dawkins does it again.

[–]Demosthenes01101 [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Love that guy. Love how unapologetically smart he is.

[–]theAmazingShitlord [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Some days ago Dawkins tweeted "Islam needs a feminist revolution". He was still criticized.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2015/07/27/there-was-nothing-wrong-with-richard-dawkins-tweet-that-islam-needs-a-feminist-revolution/

-We need less feminism!

-BOOOOOOOOOOO!

-We need MORE feminism!

-BOOOOOOOOOOO!

[–]DollarSignEyes 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

Watch the Steven Colbert interview, Colbert gets under his skin bad lol

[–]silver_nuke13 7ポイント8ポイント  (9子コメント)

This is an extension of godwin's law

"The more an argument goes, the bigger the chances that someone will call the other side literally as bad as a nazi, moment in which, they lose the argument"

It can be applied to many more adjectives: psychopath/sociopath (everyone on the internet has a psychology grad these days it see), pedo/rapist, troll (a lot of people use this umbrella term to shut someone up when they come with unusual arguments), GGer, mansplainer etc.

Basically all the buzzwords and even more.

[–]TheEmoSpeeds666 6ポイント7ポイント  (0子コメント)

What about SJW?

Does that count?

[–]cfl1 12ポイント13ポイント  (6子コメント)

C'mon, Godwin's Law simply states that the likelihood of a Nazi analogy approaches one. The bit about losing the argument was gloss.

[–]silver_nuke13 -3ポイント-2ポイント  (5子コメント)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rh_TZwqVP_o

It seems like you know only half of the law

Instead of a nazi you could put anything else, and it would still apply. People value the nazi comparison more because it's impact on culture.

[–]cfl1 3ポイント4ポイント  (4子コメント)

Dude, I argued with Mike Godwin on USENET. I remember the original formulation.

[–]Immorttalis 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

Appeal to authority? :^)

[–]cfl1 4ポイント5ポイント  (0子コメント)

You mean the citation of a PBS video? ;)

[–]silver_nuke13 -2ポイント-1ポイント  (1子コメント)

Want a medal, scrub? You think that the law cannot be adapted or evolved just because "you argued with the dude?"

[–]horbob 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

May as well just call him a nazi.

[–]Kloranthy 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

nothing pisses me off more than when someone calls a person a sociopath for doing something shitty.

[–]DoubleDot 0ポイント1ポイント  (4子コメント)

That's absolutely rich coming from Mr. Ad Hominem himself.

One of many examples of his immaturity and arrogance.

It's about time I unsubscribed from this sub. Once it was about ethics in journalism, now it has become an extension of many other subs including /r/atheism and the like. It's a place where people come together to circlejerk nonsense "celebrity" tweets.

[–]theone89944k and /r/Gawker GET [スコア非表示]  (3子コメント)

Once it was about ethics in journalism

Seriously, where have you been these past few days? We have had several ethics posts plastered on the front page; a few days ago, we had about half a dozen all on the front page.

https://www.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/search?q=flair:%27Ethics%27&restrict_sr=on&sort=new&t=all#et

[–]DoubleDot [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

My comment is obviously a hyperbole meant to convey a frustrated message.

If I didn't think that this sub also had some good and important things I wouldn't have been subscribed to it for so long.

However, for quite a few months now I've slowly noticed a new crowd of people being active in this sub. A crowd that clearly shares interests in other circlejerky ignorant hate subs.

Not to mention that the vast majority of the comments in any post, no matter what it's about, are passive-aggressively sarcastic cliche comments in the form of "Oh but I thought that GG was about... hur dur hur durr /s".

/r/atheism was a normal and decent sub once as well until the sarcasm, passive-aggressiveness and circlejerk took over. It's starting to happen here as well and quite frankly I'm done with it.

[–]theone89944k and /r/Gawker GET [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

I don't understand how this is new. We've always, since day 1 mocked the anti-Gamer Gate perception of us with sarcastic comments, because of how ridiculous it is.

Whenever an ethical violation occurs, we immediately make sure it is noticed and it reaches the front page; lately, it's been happening more often. So, I don't understand what your problem is - there are Atheists in Gamer-Gate but there's nothing to suggest that this sub mirrors /r/atheism.

Which comments on this thread do you exactly take issue with? Because I think you are either over-reacting or simply dislike that this thread got upvoted.

What Dawkins is describing is exactly the same shit that has been leveled at Gamer-Gate, and eventually led to #NotYourShield. They are the same people who vehemently oppose Gamer-Gate.

[–]NotEtreo 1ポイント2ポイント  (5子コメント)

Even my religious friends struggle to deny that they love the Dawk. He's great.

[–]MillennialDan 0ポイント1ポイント  (4子コメント)

Eh. I've always thought of him as being rather nutty, but he's got the right idea about some things.

[–]saltlets 8ポイント9ポイント  (3子コメント)

What's nutty about him?

[–]Thrgd456 5ポイント6ポイント  (0子コメント)

His teeth taste like almonds.

[–]pieuvre776 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

He did catch flak a while back for his views on pedophilia.

[–]EastGuardian 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

I remember that. It's one reason why I disagree with him quite strongly. That, and how he tried to refute the Summa Theologica with a strawman and still got #rekt hard. Regardless of one's viewpoint on philosophy/religion/science/anything else, one does not simply hope to refute something by misrepresenting it.

[–]jeffwingersballs 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

We would have also accepted cis-scum, shit lord or neck beard.

[–]ApostleofDiaz [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Yep. It is quite literally the use of the ad hominem fallacy.

[–]Ginkgopsida [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

I like how Dawkins is pissing at every tree.

[–]Zenci [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Who has exactly won? Neither side has moved an inch?

[–]Wulfgar_RIP 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

skeptsplaining is so oppressive

[–]Shaelyr [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

IF you're talking about religion. Let's be real - sometimes being white and old IS something to consider if you're telling people of colour they are wrong about their own experiences of oppression or if you're a man and are telling a woman she is wrong about her experiences, etc. Like me, as a white person, if a person of colour says to me, "You don't get it because you're white", that's my cue to do some thinking. Not to get pissy and declare myself "winner".

[–]drunkdrew [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Why do I fucking cringe hard whenever someone uses the term "people of colour", especially when they then call themselves white.

[–]gvsteve -1ポイント0ポイント  (6子コメント)

Who is making this argument?

[–]rickhora [スコア非表示]  (5子コメント)

Where have you been the last 3 years?

[–][削除されました]  (4子コメント)

[deleted]

    [–]theone89944k and /r/Gawker GET [スコア非表示]  (3子コメント)

    [–]gvsteve [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

    Edit:I misunderstood what Dawkins was saying. My bad. People make this argument all the time.

    [–]Chicomoztoc [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

    You can't reduce that article's arguments to "he's a white male and that's why he's wrong". It's not the case at all.

    [–]theone89944k and /r/Gawker GET [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

    You're right, the article also misrepresents what he's saying, blatantly lies and makes a strawman of his position, while ironically saying Dawkins is privileged, despite the fact that the author is a white middle class woman.

    It's the same nonsense from people who think criticism of Islam is racist.

    [–]Fig1024 -3ポイント-2ポイント  (1子コメント)

    The "you are old" is actually a strength, as older people are more likely to be wiser and smarter. Being young is generally associated with inexperience

    [–]Guy_who_makes_GIFs 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

    Yeah, but being older also means you're more likely to have lost the plot, so its also used to say 'you're out of touch, you've no idea what you're talking about'.

    [–]mnemosyne-0000#BotYourShield / https://i.imgur.com/6X3KtgD.jpg 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

    Archive links for this post:


    I am Mnemosyne, goddess of memory. I remember so you don't have to.

    [–]grizzly_teddy [スコア非表示]  (2子コメント)

    You know you have won the argument when the only counter argument is that you are a while or male or old.

    Do you mean the counter argument of liberals?

    [–]theone89944k and /r/Gawker GET [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

    You know that Dawkins is left-wing right?

    [–]James_Locke [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

    Hilarious from a guy who makes a living by personally insulting others.

    [–]iDontShift -5ポイント-4ポイント  (1子コメント)

    nope, the real winners don't even get to play.

    david r. hawkins is far more interesting than this guy, had thousands of research subjects over 40 some years proving that truth can be had simply by asking questions the right way and using muscle testing.

    but it is too powerful to be believed, didn't matter that it works, i can't figure out why we aren't using it...