Open Side Menu Go to the Top
Register
The SJW thread The SJW thread

02-10-2017 , 10:11 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by LordJvK
I'd love to write something more profound here, but the bottom line comes down to this:

"Buckle up snowflake"

Now, me, I don't really tell jokes of that nature, and I generally don't go around saying things that will likely offend people.

BUT

There'll always be people who do, and if that's the price to pay for a more liberal society, then that's the price to pay.

Alternative:

Suppress them, make them angry, they literally will elect Trump.

Those are the alternatives.

You can't have both. Only one. The situation of both can't arise, because there'll always be people who want to tell the jokes. Proof: 2017. That's 30 years of PC policing that has utterly failed to stop people wanting to tell the jokes.

So buckle up and deal with it.

There's a line, obviously, but in short: just deal with it.
More bull****. Don't complain about offensive jokes or we get Trump is the epitome of false dichotomy. Yes, people are too easily offended but that doesn't mean what they are complaining about isn't offensive. Besides, I thought your complaint wasn't with SJWs calling out racist, bigoted, misogynistic speech but with them "shouting down" free speech. It gets us right back to free speech isn't consequence free speech. So tell your jokes but don't be surprised if you get fired for telling a pollock joke or using the holocaust as a set up.
02-10-2017 , 10:13 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by LordJvK
The message is entirely true.
Too bad it is being wasted in a misquote which totally robs of it of any power you think it had. From no on whenever you say that all people are going to think is "that's that misquote of Churchill's isn't it" and think you're arguments are stupid.
02-10-2017 , 10:15 AM
Only if they are morons who attach more power to authority than to the arguments themselves. It doesn't matter who said it.
02-10-2017 , 10:16 AM
LOL, whatever. You know how people ignore brieitbart links because it's not a news organization? That "quote" is meaningless because it's not a quote.
02-10-2017 , 10:21 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by LordJvK
Only if they are morons who attach more power to authority than to the arguments themselves. It doesn't matter who said it.
Like the moron who posted an image attributing it to Churchill?

And you don't know the difference between an argument and a claim.

I get that you think it's okay to lie about your credentials because your arguments aren't reliant on your credentials but why offer them then?

And before Chez thinks I am making this about the poster this poster has claimed he has had 5 peer reviewed books and engages in peer review but actual sources of quotes aren't important. So it's relevant.
02-10-2017 , 10:27 AM
dereds, you need to leave me alone. My credentials are my credentials.

So the person posting the picture should fact check.

The person saying "Churchill didn't say that" is correct to point that out.

The person trying to use the fact that Churchill didn't say that or that the person posting the picture didn't fact check is still not really dealing with the argument being made.

Which, very simply, is that SJWs are the new fascists.
02-10-2017 , 10:29 AM
My point is "it doesn't matter who said the thing if the thing true".

The thing is true.
02-10-2017 , 10:31 AM
You're lying about your stated credentials.

The quote attributed to Churchill is not an argument it's a claim, arguments are things you present to support or deny a claim.
02-10-2017 , 10:32 AM
I'm not lying about my credentials at all. You need to get off that track.
02-10-2017 , 10:33 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dereds
Like the moron who posted an image attributing it to Churchill?

And you don't know the difference between an argument and a claim.

I get that you think it's okay to lie about your credentials because your arguments aren't reliant on your credentials but why offer them then?

And before Chez thinks I am making this about the poster this poster has claimed he has had 5 peer reviewed books and engages in peer review but actual sources of quotes aren't important. So it's relevant.
You clearly are making it about the poster. Even your justification of doing so is about the poster.

But the leeway rules applies as it's new and part of the discussion. Just get it back on track quickly or move on.
02-10-2017 , 10:35 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by chezlaw
You clearly are making it about the poster. Even your justification of doing so is about the poster.

But the leeway rules applies as it's new and part of the discussion. Just get it back on track quickly or move on.
Okay. I'm done pointing out that LordJvK lies about his academic record which is inconsistent with his view that the source of an argument is less important than the strength of the argument. Which is actually correct in fairness.
02-10-2017 , 10:36 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by LordJvK
My point is "it doesn't matter who said the thing if the thing true".

The thing is true.
What was the quote, something about the next fascists will be SJWs or something along those lines?

First, it's an opinion so the only power the statement has is who is actually saying it, so again, attributing it to someone who should know a thing or two about fascists is lying and robs the quote of any power.

Second, you have an irrational hard on for SJWs so you saying its true is like a racists saying black people do worse on standardized tests. It's suspect.
02-10-2017 , 11:10 AM
Again, the message only has any impact because it's phrased as a prediction. Except it's not a chilling prediction of the future come to pass, it's written in the present about someone the anonymous author happens not to like.
02-10-2017 , 11:11 AM
"One day, the anti-SJW crowd will entirely consist of idiots" - William Shakespeare

OMG! HOW DID HE KNOW?
02-10-2017 , 11:13 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by chezlaw
You clearly are making it about the poster. Even your justification of doing so is about the poster.

But the leeway rules applies as it's new and part of the discussion. Just get it back on track quickly or move on.
I mean, if a poster is flagrantly lying, that is relevant to the discussion.
02-10-2017 , 11:15 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by LordJvK
My point is "it doesn't matter who said the thing if the thing true".

The thing is true.
But if random poster x makes a bald assertion - which this is - it carries much less weight than when ascribing it to Churchill doesn't it? The member making the post is relying on the reader's personal regard for Churchill being the central measure by which they will evaluate the quote.

02-10-2017 , 11:24 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by LordJvK
My point is "it doesn't matter who said the thing if the thing true".

The thing is true.
The quote is just an assertion. Theres an implied argument that because it's attributed to Churchill, the assertion should contain some wisdom. When it's a fake quote, that argument goes away.
02-10-2017 , 11:34 AM
'anyone who plays poker may bluff, so those poker players must all be bluffing'
02-10-2017 , 11:38 AM
What you've done there is just state a fallacious argument as if it is the same as that statement. It isn't the same as that statement.
02-10-2017 , 11:41 AM
In the immortal words of John Donne "That LordJvK is a proper tosspot".
02-10-2017 , 11:53 AM
You don't need to demonstrate false attitribution to anyone.

I was simply saying that whether or not Churchill said what he said, the line is still true.
02-10-2017 , 11:57 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by The REAL Trolly
I mean, if a poster is flagrantly lying, that is relevant to the discussion.
Opinions about whether posters are lying are generally not acceptable. It's the sort of thing the bad posters thread is for.

No further discussion of this in the content threads please.
02-10-2017 , 12:02 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by LordJvK
You don't need to demonstrate false attitribution to anyone.

I was simply saying that whether or not Churchill said what he said, the line is still true.
Why is it so hard to acknowledge that the line was falsely attributed? Seems like a spot where an intellectually honest person would just admit an honest mistake and move on.
02-10-2017 , 12:02 PM
The line IS falsely attributed.
02-10-2017 , 12:22 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by spanktehbadwookie
'anyone who plays poker may bluff, so those poker players must all be bluffing'
Quote:
Originally Posted by LordJvK
What you've done there is just state a fallacious argument as if it is the same as that statement. It isn't the same as that statement.
'Any one who likes being a fascist may pretend to be anti-fascist, so those SJWs must be fascists that are bluffing.'

      
m