Jason Harvestdancer
Contributor
The harassment was calling her a Nazi. They were called for the harassment. But since there is no such thing as a syllogism, the call was made over the harassment and not over calling her a Nazi.
-
Features
Calling someone the "N" word
- Thread starter Jason Harvestdancer
- Start date
The harassment was calling her a Nazi. They were called for the harassment. But since there is no such thing as a syllogism, the call was made over the harassment and not over calling her a Nazi.
laughing dog
Contributor
WAB
Veteran Member
Bomb#20
Contributor
- Joined
- Sep 27, 2004
- Messages
- 8,237
- Location
- California
- Gender
- It's a free country.
- Basic Beliefs
- Rationalism
Well, pardon me for being confused, but you did write "I didn't say turnaround was or was not appropriate. I said it is inappropriate to call someone who is a not a Nazi a Nazi.", which sure as heck sounds like a claim that turnaround is not sufficient grounds for calling someone a Nazi. Feel free to deconfuse me, if you care enough to try to clarify your remarks.
True, but you didn't observe any hypocrisy on my part. You chose that particular attack, to all appearances, because you have a special fondness for accusing me of whatever my last accusation was. You wrote:
"Until you provide evidence that Don called someone a Nazi without just cause, your responses are examples of the rank hypocrisy you seem to detest."
after I'd written:
"Alternately, in case every non-Nazi you ever called a Nazi was him or herself guilty of incorrectly and inappropriately calling people Nazis, then feel free to quote him/her/them doing so."
How the heck is it hypocritical for me not to provide my evidence until after the fact? I offered Don the opportunity to provide his evidence after the fact.
Why is it unethical and intellectually dishonest to make a charge first and provide evidence afterwards? What difference does the order make?
That was a debunking, was it? Looked to me like a confession, guilty with an explanation.
"Obviously, Dein Kampf has a double meaning since it is also an allusion to Hitler's book Mean Kampf "My Struggle" written before he actually exterminated the Jews from Germany... though after I posted it I did think it was over the top."
If there's somewhere in there where he shows Derec really is a Nazi, feel free to point it out.
Calling someone a Nazi who has knowingly broken the customary rule against calling a non-Nazi a Nazi is not the same as taking an innocent and calling him a Nazi. Equating the two is incredibly stupid. That's what you were doing when you wrote
Ah, the stupid "two wrongs make a right" position.
I did not equate locking someone who has knowingly committed a crime in a cell or a cage against their will with taking an innocent and holding them against their will. I sarcastically pointed out that equating Nazi-calling the innocent with Nazi-calling the guilty is the same intellectual error as equating caging the innocent with caging the guilty. If you didn't understand that's what I was doing, then you are sarcasm-impaired. Work on that.
Bomb#20
Contributor
- Joined
- Sep 27, 2004
- Messages
- 8,237
- Location
- California
- Gender
- It's a free country.
- Basic Beliefs
- Rationalism
Well, to clarify, I wasn't picking on you because of past nastiness. I searched for Nazi accusations last month because I was fact-checking Mumble's claim about the circumstances under which people make them; your bad luck that he happened to say something implausible in the same week you opened up on Derec. So later when you implied that not being a Nazi should have been sufficient grounds for Jason not to call you one, naturally I remembered. I didn't go looking for generic examples of you being nasty; I just went looking for that specific incident.
Well, did you really negative rep him twelve times because he negative repped you once? If it's okay for you to unnecessarily escalate, why isn't it okay for him to?
Hey, I'm not here to adjudicate your and Jason's respective dissatisfaction with each other; I'm just calling out double standards when I run across them.
Don2 (Don1 Revised)
Contributor
No and again, not about me. The issue is the op. If you don't like my example, go withe the feminazi one which is probably better since it is decoupled from forum drama...or at least lately, the term feminazi isn't as trendy in the forum as it was once.
laughing dog
Contributor
That does explain your entire responses to me.
Yes, I did too observe it.
First, pointing out your hypocrisy is not "I' m rubber, you're glues...". Second, if you avoided predilection for hypocritical attacks on posters, you might avoid your hypersensitive denials of the obvious.
Of course it does to you. But you are wrong.Bomb #20 said:
Yes you did. In post 62 you wroteBomb #20 said:
.
Work paying attention to what you write – it may reduce these blatant errors of fact you make and might reduce the number of stupid comments.
Bomb#20
Contributor
- Joined
- Sep 27, 2004
- Messages
- 8,237
- Location
- California
- Gender
- It's a free country.
- Basic Beliefs
- Rationalism
That's a charge. You have not provided evidence for it. And you accused me of hypocrisy for doing just that. (And then I provided evidence. And now you won't.)
I have no such predilection; you have zero basis for thinking I do; you are simply libeling me yet again because you are who you are.
Proof-by-assertion. Your speciality.
You left out the context in which I said it. Let's bring back the context.
No fair-minded person with normal levels of reading comprehension would regard that as me equating locking someone who has knowingly committed a crime in a cell or a cage against their will with taking an innocent and holding them against their will. What I was obviously equating was (a) the practice of equating Nazi-calling the innocent with Nazi-calling the guilty, with (b) the practice of equating locking someone who has knowingly committed a crime in a cell or a cage against their will with taking an innocent and holding them against their will.
Why did I phrase it the way I did? Because that's how sarcasm works. Normal people normally recognize sarcasm when they encounter it and normally understand how to extract the intended meaning from it. I was accusing you of making a mistake in post #61. And you immediately accused me of making that exact same mistake in post #62. There are two possible explanations for why you made that follow-up accusation. (1) You are severely sarcasm-impaired. (2) You just really, really like accusing me of whatever I last accused you of.
laughing dog
Contributor
The fact I observed it but did not comment on it, does not mean I did not observe it.
I did not accuse you of hypocrisy for doing just that. Please stop making false damaging claims against me with reckless regard for the truth. It is unethical.
We have gone through this many times. I have a basis for making that observation.
Please stop making false damaging claims against me with reckless regard for the truth. It is unethical. And, in your case, it is hypocritical.
From your history, it is the only type of explanation you appear to be able to understand.
I understand that you did not really think of the implications of your alleged sarcastic remark because your responses are replete with such examples. But whether you thought of it or not, that was an underlying condition for your sarcastic remark to be relevant. So, your final conclusion is unsurprisingly wrong.
Don2 (Don1 Revised)
Contributor
Written to laughing dog:
But that's the very thing you are claiming is "appropriate" or just. You have said that if Person A calls people Nazi, then it is appropriate for Person B to call them a Nazi. You presented no analysis of justifications or gradations of middle grounds. To your argument, writing "Dein Kampf" to someone who is in the midst of commenting on their personal struggle through their own racist xenophobia is equivalent to someone spamming the writer "you are a fascist, racist, Nazi" 35 times out of anger and an attempt to control their writing merely because at some point in time they wrote such thing as "Dein Kampf." By your own argument if you call someone a hypocrite, anyone else can call you one, not that laughing dog is calling you a hypocrite, but instead mentioning that there is a hypocritical argument presented by you. In any case, you are clinging to exceptions around your own rule. Not that I want this discussion to continue or anything...
But that's the very thing you are claiming is "appropriate" or just. You have said that if Person A calls people Nazi, then it is appropriate for Person B to call them a Nazi. You presented no analysis of justifications or gradations of middle grounds. To your argument, writing "Dein Kampf" to someone who is in the midst of commenting on their personal struggle through their own racist xenophobia is equivalent to someone spamming the writer "you are a fascist, racist, Nazi" 35 times out of anger and an attempt to control their writing merely because at some point in time they wrote such thing as "Dein Kampf." By your own argument if you call someone a hypocrite, anyone else can call you one, not that laughing dog is calling you a hypocrite, but instead mentioning that there is a hypocritical argument presented by you. In any case, you are clinging to exceptions around your own rule. Not that I want this discussion to continue or anything...
Jason Harvestdancer
Contributor
Someone is still triggered that he got treated the way he treats others.
Don2 (Don1 Revised)
Contributor
No that didn't happen but moreover, please address the argument, not the poster. Thank you.
Jason Harvestdancer
Contributor
The argument was that the poster was triggered that he got treated the way he treats others. That's what I responded to.
Toni
Contributor
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2011
- Messages
- 19,894
- Basic Beliefs
- Peace on Earth, goodwill towards all
Neo-Nazis in the US are pretty serious about themselves. Just like the Klan. No, the neo-Nazis in the US and elsewhere don't have the same prominence or power but they have a very similar world view.
Here's the thing: Calling someone a name because of their political beliefs or your perception of their political beliefs is vastly different than calling someone a pejorative based on some inborn or physical characteristic such as gender, race, sexual orientation or because of a condition of birth such as nationality, etc. One or two posters on this forum come to mind who are extremely fond of calling me a feminazi. I think it's ignorant and is definitely intended as an insult (so what?) but not the same thing as using a racial slur.
Don2 (Don1 Revised)
Contributor
I am not triggered. Not a Nazi either.
Jason Harvestdancer
Contributor
Lie down with dogs, get up with fleas. If you aren't, it is an understandable mistake.
Don2 (Don1 Revised)
Contributor
Who are these alleged dogs?
Bomb#20
Contributor
- Joined
- Sep 27, 2004
- Messages
- 8,237
- Location
- California
- Gender
- It's a free country.
- Basic Beliefs
- Rationalism
Why did you write that? Were you deliberately trying to get third parties who didn't read the earlier posts in the thread believe a falsehood about me? Or do you just have really poor reading comprehension?
Godless Raven
Member
I'm a little late to the discussion and sincerely tried my best to catch up.
Can someone clarify, is SimpleDon the Nazi or Don2?
Can someone clarify, is SimpleDon the Nazi or Don2?
laughing dog
Contributor
Neither.