there’s a typical sneaky bullshitter strategy that sneaky bullshitters always use (i am using “bullshit” according to the wikipedia definition so it is civility, there’s no other way to communicate the idea). the strat is this: sneak an assumption in and treat it as a fact. then, start an argument about an unrelated thing. nobody argues about the assumption. kapow! the sneaky bullshitter has just sneakily pushed a bullshit idea and gotten away with it. can you find the assumption, internet posters?
Are you saying you don’t think Rashida Tlaib is one of the Democratic party’s own? Or that disinformation from the Russian government is real? Because I strongly disagree with the first one but strongly agree with the latter.
Side note: rhetorical questions are frequently very unhelpful for forthright communication.
Since this is down in the bad comments zone and my attempt at getting people to play “find the assumption” has failed I’m gonna just answer this (also I looked at your post history and you seem to be a real human).
“I can’t wait for Democrats to accuse one of their own of being a Russian asset.”
“Democrats to accuse one of their own of being a Russian asset.”
“Democrats”
“If you can solve the multiple choice question of which of the four candidates to vote for, you are a centrist/liberal (in the leftist sense)/duopoly/two-sides-of-the-same-coin-boi. No leftist/proper radical/cool tough guy who is very cool and tough like me would ever accuse Tlaib of being a Russian asset, so if you do, I am drawing myself as the Chad Leftist and you as the Soyjack Centrist”
It’s the kind of openly silly opinion that, if you say it openly, people laugh at you, so OP simply assumes it and attempt to change the subject before anyone notices, thus normalizing it. A person not pushing an agenda who writes like a normal person would probably say “I can’t wait for you dumbdumbs/Lemmy to accuse Tlaib of being a Russian asset” or more likely just not bring it up at all. People are gonna accuse me of being silly but there’s simply no reason to bring it up and phrase it that way unless that’s what you’re attempting.
Ok, if I’m interpreting you correctly, you’re saying it would be absurd to call Tlaib a Russian asset, but no one has actually done that, and OP’s preemptive accusation that Democratic party spokespeople and/or us dumbdumbs will say that is a concealed and unfounded accusation? Because that I think I agree with (at least the unfounded part, I don’t know if there was intent to conceal or if this was just a clumsy but good faith effort at expressing an opinion you and I disagree with).
On the other hand, if you’re calling a Palestinian American lawmaker a Russian asset (e.g. unAmerican, fifth columnist, etc., which is all xenophobic John Bircher crap I’ve got no patience for) I’ve got a really strong disagreement with you, but it seems like that is the opposite of what you’re saying.
"[…] No leftist/proper radical/cool tough guy who is very cool and tough like me would ever accuse Tlaib of being a Russian asset, so if you do, I am drawing myself as the Chad Leftist and you as the Soyjack Centrist” It’s the kind of openly silly opinion that, if you say it openly, people laugh at you, so OP simply assumes it
Are you saying that I’m (sneakily) assuming that’s it’s ridiculous to accuse Tlaib of being a Russian asset? (I’m not trying to paraphrase you, I’m just genuinely not exactly sure of what you’re saying.)
I do believe it would be ridiculous to accuse Tlaib of being a Russian asset. I am not being sneaky about that. I will openly say it. Here, listen to me say it:
No leftist/proper radical/cool tough guy who is very cool and tough like me would ever accuse Tlaib of being a Russian asset.
look no offense but I’m speaking to the people you’re attempting to influence (mods removed a slightly different phrasing of this for civility reasons, let’s see if removing a key phrase is good enough)
If you think I have snuck in an unwarranted assumption, you should say what you think that is. Surely it would be to the benefit of the people you are speaking to.
(Or are you just broadly casting aspersions that you can’t substantiate?)
Look I’m gonna engage with this for the benefit of people watching.
I’m not engaging in personal attacks as you’re attempting to imply. I don’t want to “own” you in a debate. I want the people reading this to look more critically at the opinion you’re trying to insert without directly saying, so that they’re better inoculated against this kind of stuff in the future. Just saying “you opinion bad me good” doesn’t do that! Of course if you wanted to have a truly gigantic brain and “own” me you could openly name the assumption you’re trying to push, and show it isn’t an assumption (which is your job to do as the person making the argument, by the way, unless you’re a “prove there’s no bigfoot anywhere” type individual)
there’s a typical sneaky bullshitter strategy that sneaky bullshitters always use (i am using “bullshit” according to the wikipedia definition so it is civility, there’s no other way to communicate the idea). the strat is this: sneak an assumption in and treat it as a fact. then, start an argument about an unrelated thing. nobody argues about the assumption. kapow! the sneaky bullshitter has just sneakily pushed a bullshit idea and gotten away with it. can you find the assumption, internet posters?
It’s called “presupposing a frame”, and Innuendo Studios did a really good piece about it here.
I’m familiar with what that is. I just don’t think I’m doing that.
I didn’t say you are, nor was I responding to you. I was giving them the term they were trying to define.
Are you saying you don’t think Rashida Tlaib is one of the Democratic party’s own? Or that disinformation from the Russian government is real? Because I strongly disagree with the first one but strongly agree with the latter.
Side note: rhetorical questions are frequently very unhelpful for forthright communication.
Since this is down in the bad comments zone and my attempt at getting people to play “find the assumption” has failed I’m gonna just answer this (also I looked at your post history and you seem to be a real human). “I can’t wait for Democrats to accuse one of their own of being a Russian asset.” “Democrats to accuse one of their own of being a Russian asset.” “Democrats” “If you can solve the multiple choice question of which of the four candidates to vote for, you are a centrist/liberal (in the leftist sense)/duopoly/two-sides-of-the-same-coin-boi. No leftist/proper radical/cool tough guy who is very cool and tough like me would ever accuse Tlaib of being a Russian asset, so if you do, I am drawing myself as the Chad Leftist and you as the Soyjack Centrist” It’s the kind of openly silly opinion that, if you say it openly, people laugh at you, so OP simply assumes it and attempt to change the subject before anyone notices, thus normalizing it. A person not pushing an agenda who writes like a normal person would probably say “I can’t wait for you dumbdumbs/Lemmy to accuse Tlaib of being a Russian asset” or more likely just not bring it up at all. People are gonna accuse me of being silly but there’s simply no reason to bring it up and phrase it that way unless that’s what you’re attempting.
Ok, if I’m interpreting you correctly, you’re saying it would be absurd to call Tlaib a Russian asset, but no one has actually done that, and OP’s preemptive accusation that Democratic party spokespeople and/or us dumbdumbs will say that is a concealed and unfounded accusation? Because that I think I agree with (at least the unfounded part, I don’t know if there was intent to conceal or if this was just a clumsy but good faith effort at expressing an opinion you and I disagree with).
On the other hand, if you’re calling a Palestinian American lawmaker a Russian asset (e.g. unAmerican, fifth columnist, etc., which is all xenophobic John Bircher crap I’ve got no patience for) I’ve got a really strong disagreement with you, but it seems like that is the opposite of what you’re saying.
Are you saying that I’m (sneakily) assuming that’s it’s ridiculous to accuse Tlaib of being a Russian asset? (I’m not trying to paraphrase you, I’m just genuinely not exactly sure of what you’re saying.)
I do believe it would be ridiculous to accuse Tlaib of being a Russian asset. I am not being sneaky about that. I will openly say it. Here, listen to me say it:
No leftist/proper radical/cool tough guy who is very cool and tough like me would ever accuse Tlaib of being a Russian asset.
Are you calling me sneaky?
look no offense but I’m speaking to the people you’re attempting to influence (mods removed a slightly different phrasing of this for civility reasons, let’s see if removing a key phrase is good enough)
If you think I have snuck in an unwarranted assumption, you should say what you think that is. Surely it would be to the benefit of the people you are speaking to.
(Or are you just broadly casting aspersions that you can’t substantiate?)
Look I’m gonna engage with this for the benefit of people watching. I’m not engaging in personal attacks as you’re attempting to imply. I don’t want to “own” you in a debate. I want the people reading this to look more critically at the opinion you’re trying to insert without directly saying, so that they’re better inoculated against this kind of stuff in the future. Just saying “you opinion bad me good” doesn’t do that! Of course if you wanted to have a truly gigantic brain and “own” me you could openly name the assumption you’re trying to push, and show it isn’t an assumption (which is your job to do as the person making the argument, by the way, unless you’re a “prove there’s no bigfoot anywhere” type individual)
What opinion am I trying to insert?
I literally have no idea what assumption you’re talking about, and I’m starting to suspect you don’t either.
I’m not continuing until you reply to the top comment in your post.
Which comment? Perhaps you could link to it.
Removed by mod