|
GunnerJ posted:I haven't read past the first page but I've got all kinds of mixed feelings about this thread, none of which relate to my undying devotion and fealty to God-Emperor Joe Steelman. You know how Jrod constantly refers back to tedious mises.org articles and tells us we need to go read things he's clearly only superficially familiar with himself, and which often say the exact opposite of what he claims they say? The OP does pretty much the same thing, only with nutty neo-Stalinist pseudo-historian Grover Furr instead.
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2016 00:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 14:35 |
|
|
Captain_Maclaine posted:You know how Jrod constantly refers back to tedious mises.org articles and tells us we need to go read things he's clearly only superficially familiar with himself, and which often say the exact opposite of what he claims they say? The OP does pretty much the same thing, only with nutty neo-Stalinist pseudo-historian Grover Furr instead. This is the thing: swampman started that thread to discuss a specific work of historical research which takes aim at the consensus view of Soviet history. This for many reasons will set off alarm bells and perhaps rightly so. But that work is the subject and so if he keeps referring to it, that's because that's what he showed up to discuss. The thing that bugs me is that plenty of people call Furr a crackpot but no one actually gives me any particular reason to think that is the case. I don't know who Grover Furr actually is, I haven't reviewed any of his work, I don't know if there even are critiques of it. I don't even have the level of knowledge of Soviet history needed to have an opinion of it. But it's intensely suspicious to me when someone makes a case against a consensus view and the response is to call him a crackpot and reiterate the consensus view. And then to claim that because that view is the consensus, the burden of proof is on the disputant to show that it's wrong, which is exactly what the book in question purports to do. swampman is pretty much in the right to quote the book in that case. No one really addresses the substance of these quotes (at least, not on the first page, dunno if I really want to read further). And someone's saying this is how history works... Well, maybe when I finish my dissertation defense they'll take me aside and tell me the real score, but that is not actually my impression of how history works. If he's a crackpot, it should be trivially easy to show why. Take the Confederate apologia discussed in this thread. It's not wrong because the authors are crackpots who advance an unorthodox view. That claim is backwards. They are crackpots because they advance a point of view that can easily be shown to be false, which is why it's unorthodox. That's the direction these arguments are supposed to go in. I wasn't comfortable with anyone writing these authors off as crackpots merely for making the claim that the Civil War was about "state's rights." Anyone can make that claim. What matters is whether they can back it up. So far no one who has, has. Now, on the other hand, sometimes it does make sense to rest on the historical consensus. If you want to appeal to a consensus view in the neo-Confederate case, it makes more sense because the current consensus is a revision of a prior "state's rights" interpretation which used to be dominant. Current supporters of that view simply are not bringing anything new to the table and are not dealing with the arguments of the now-consensus revision. In the case of Furr, he is attacking a consensus which did not arise on the basis of overthrowing with great effort a prior pro-Stalinist orthodoxy (as far as I know, shut me up if I'm wrong here). He is putting (it seems) great effort into overthrowing an orthodoxy that as far as I know has not faced any serious challenges. Maybe that speaks to the strength of the consensus, but if so, no one who was quick to write it off has shown what that strength is in contrast, they have merely asserted the consensus view that is being challenged. That is not something that impresses me. I am not here defending Furr's scholarship or the Soviet Union or anything. What I am saying is that the responses to it in that thread give me no specific reason to doubt it (any more than it itself gives me any reason to credit it). When someone takes aim at a major work by an established historian, it does not do to assert the consensus. Disputes between scholars at this level are how the consensus is made and defended or unmade.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2016 01:04
|
|
|
I ran a cursory search and found this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hRPTZF5zSLQ I don't know about you, but it seems like he's doing what you described goons in that thread as doing, GunnerJ. Though the person behind the camera is probably including the Vietnam war, which is a result of American imperialism, in his total, so I get why he was upset, but the pattern still holds. Stinky_Pete fucked around with this message at 01:34 on Apr 6, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2016 01:29
|
|
|
OK, but I'm only talking about how that thread's proceeding. As I said, I'm not defending Furr.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2016 01:32
|
|
|
GunnerJ posted:OK, but I'm only talking about how that thread's proceeding. As I said, I'm not defending Furr. Yeah I guess that's not an excuse for them to act in what looks like bad faith, but at a certain point I think it's fine to reject someone as a crackpot from the outset when they reach a certain low of credibility. I generally trust RationalWiki on these things, and in addition to pointing out he's a professor of Medieval English, it says, "[Furr] also accepts admissions of guilt (and fascist conspiracy) made during the Purge show trials as actual evidence, then asserts some massive fascist conspiracy to undermine the USSR without providing any historical documentation from Nazi Germany that would support his assertion." And I think we can all safely carry a high prior that grand scale events/crimes such as prison camps, mass deportation to Shitsville, Siberia, massacres, and being generally totalitarian, are just too hard to fake and cover up that you faked it while keeping everyone involved quiet. So it's not like their crackpot-calling is coming out of nowhere.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2016 01:44
|
|
|
I didn't think it was coming out of nowhere, but no one showed where it was coming from. Pretty much all I knew about him prior to that thread was that he disputes in some very controversial ways the consensus on Soviet history. And this is not so much an issue of me being unsatisfied by claims about a particular scholar as if I need people to satisfy my doubts for me. This is an issue of method and intellectual ethics. I didn't do any work looking into the strength of Furr's claims because I don't give a poo poo about them. Presumably people posting in a thread about his book do, but you have done more work in two posts here than the entire first page of that thread to undermine Furr's credibility. It's good that you did. I wish anyone in that thread did as much because my misgivings related to the way in which the thread's participants seemed willing to accept an official truth at the outset and dismiss anything that contradicts it for contradicting it without bothering to address the substance of any of the claims. That's not how history should work, that's not how any honest inquiry should work. eta: I'll say, in fairness, that I probably wouldn't be so charitable to unorthodox views on a lot of other historical subjects. That's mostly because I know those subjects well, though, and so claims about e.g. "state's rights" are mostly just tedious to me. It wouldn't be clear to anyone who doesn't know as much about them why I'd write some claims off with one-liners. So maybe everyone in there is really knowledgeable about Soviet history already, idk. I only have an outsider's perspective on that. eta2: The second page looks a lot better than the first so there's that. GunnerJ fucked around with this message at 02:16 on Apr 6, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2016 01:57
|
|
|
Stinky_Pete posted:I was not aware that John McAfee was running for the nomination. That is so goddamn fitting. As is the screeching tone that indicates a candidate's speaking time is up. It's almost like they tried to self-parody the negative externalities that can be expected from deregulated industries. Check my post history in this thread to see a run down of all 12 Libertarian candidates.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2016 01:58
|
|
|
GunnerJ posted:So maybe everyone in there is really knowledgeable about Soviet history already, idk. I only have an outsider's perspective on that. I can't speak for others, but I am a historian myself and have done more than a little work on Russian and Soviet history. I won't claim to personally know Timothy Snyder, who's work is what Furr is trying to take down in Blood Lies, but I am familiar with Snyder's scholarship and find it top notch, as do the Russian historians I do know well. Contrarily, Furr's methodology is a shambles of inferences, unsupported conjecture, and "just trust me, Stalin totally had nothing to do with [GIVEN ATROCITY]." To go with your analogy, Furr really is the Soviet equivalent of a Lost Causer arguing that Yankees started the war which was never about slavery (and the slaves were totally contented before outsiders got them all riled up). Like them, his argument has long since been given its hearing and found drastically wanting, and to pretend there's still some great debate about its merits is to grant it undeserved legitimacy. But anyway, I'm getting off topic and the reason why I brought this up in the first place is swampman is being more than a little Jrod-esque in his stunning refusal to accept any arguments that run counter to his accepted narrative, and is similarly quick to dismiss
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2016 02:22
|
|
|
Captain_Maclaine posted:I can't speak for others, but I am a historian myself and have done more than a little work on Russian and Soviet history. I won't claim to personally know Timothy Snyder, who's work is what Furr is trying to take down in Blood Lies, but I am familiar with Snyder's scholarship and find it top notch, as do the Russian historians I do know well. Contrarily, Furr's methodology is a shambles of inferences, unsupported conjecture, and "just trust me, Stalin totally had nothing to do with [GIVEN ATROCITY]." To go with your analogy, Furr really is the Soviet equivalent of a Lost Causer arguing that Yankees started the war which was never about slavery (and the slaves were totally contented before outsiders got them all riled up). Like them, his argument has long since been given its hearing and found drastically wanting, and to pretend there's still some great debate about its merits is to grant it undeserved legitimacy. OK. I'll take your word for it, and I can't say I'm very surprised to learn it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2016 02:28
|
|
|
GunnerJ posted:I didn't think it was coming out of nowhere, but no one showed where it was coming from. Pretty much all I knew about him prior to that thread was that he disputes in some very controversial ways the consensus on Soviet history. And this is not so much an issue of me being unsatisfied by claims about a particular scholar as if I need people to satisfy my doubts for me. This is an issue of method and intellectual ethics. I didn't do any work looking into the strength of Furr's claims because I don't give a poo poo about them. Presumably people posting in a thread about his book do, but you have done more work in two posts here than the entire first page of that thread to undermine Furr's credibility. It's good that you did. I wish anyone in that thread did as much because my misgivings related to the way in which the thread's participants seemed willing to accept an official truth at the outset and dismiss anything that contradicts it for contradicting it without bothering to address the substance of any of the claims. That's not how history should work, that's not how any honest inquiry should work. To be fair, from what I can tell his source seems by all accounts to be the Soviet equivalent of a Holocaust denier. The man claims that Stalin never killed anyone or committed crimes, and pretends that things like the Ukrainian famine didn't happen. When you try and pretend that the deaths of four million people didn't happen I feel like it is a bit silly to require the burden of proof be on the other people.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2016 02:34
|
|
|
swampman can answer for his own tactics and responses, but placing the burden of proof on someone requires that you consider their case should they make one, and a case (in book form) is what that thread is about. Which is why I can't really fault the guy that much for extensively quoting it. But here's another example of what disconcerted me in that thread: Furr does not actually deny that the Ukrainian famine happened, he denies that Soviet policy played any significant role. This claim may be (almost certainly is) bullshit, but not because someone could exaggerate it to the point of denying that an event occurred. I'm not saying you are a liar, I think you gave your sincere impression based on what you've read, it's just an example reputation substituting for substance to the detriment of understanding. Honestly, the thing that's hardest for me to get past in the process of giving the benefit of the doubt is the fact that his book's title has underlines and italics. Technically, you can't judge a book by it's cover, but there's very few non-crazy reasons for that to happen. GunnerJ fucked around with this message at 02:55 on Apr 6, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2016 02:51
|
|
|
Swampman's only source is Furr, and Furr is pretty much frowned at by anyone else who is knowledgeable on the Stalin era.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2016 03:45
|
|
|
I'm still proud that I changed Jrod's AV
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2016 05:05
|
|
|
Hey GunnerJ wait til you get to the link to Furr's argument that the USSR never invaded Poland, because the Polish government fled to Romania, a neutral country, which immediately makes them no longer the government (and they magically can't resign from there because resigning is an official act and they can't act in an official capacity from Romania), therefore the Polish state disappeared instantly and the USSR was just moving into unowned terra nullius. Oh and the Polish Army with their uniforms and ranks and command structure magically stopped being an army once the Polish president crossed the border because there was no longer a state, so they were just an armed gang that had no rights under international law and it was okay to massacre them. It has an amazing similarity to the Libertarian "oh sorry, do you have a He goes on to claim that if the Polish government had surrendered to the Nazis instead of fleeing then the USSR never would have invaded it oh and also the invasion of Belgium and France, and the Holocaust would never have happened.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2016 06:22
|
|
|
Yeah, I get it now. I'm just going to discontinue this derail by saying that in hindsight, I came upon a situation involving someone I was much less familiar with than the people I was observing. "Grover Furr" is the most stand-out set of words in the title so it makes sense that the people who show up would be familiar with him and so in the position of dismissing someone they know pretty well to be full of poo poo. Absent that, people just kinda looked like they were wiffing at a superficially plausible case. Basically where I'm at now is here: Von Humboldt posted:Thanks to everyone who linked some of Furr's other articles. I was tempted to pick up a cheap used copy of this text from Amazon, but those articles have completely killed all interest. From "hrm, an alternative historical perspective" to "lol what a goddamn crank" over the course of a single click. Except I wasn't really tempted to do anything more than ask the Russian history specialist in my department what the deal with this dude is and see whether he laughs himself to death or sends me to the gulag (writing center tutoring (he cannot actually send me to work there but it's the closest analog I can think of)).
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2016 11:54
|
|
|
Ask him anyway, record it and report back.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2016 14:52
|
|
|
theshim posted:Ask him anyway, record it and report back. Yeah do that tia
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2016 14:54
|
|
|
GunnerJ posted:Except I wasn't really tempted to do anything more than ask the Russian history specialist in my department what the deal with this dude is and see whether he laughs himself to death or sends me to the gulag (writing center tutoring (he cannot actually send me to work there but it's the closest analog I can think of)). Please do this.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2016 15:15
|
|
|
paragon1 posted:Was anyone else shocked that the poster wasn't HorseLord? Don't worry, he showed up later. EDIT: That thread has actually attracted quite a few Stalin apologists. Kind of reminds me of how this thread used to be for libertarians. The most recent arrival is some kind of North Korea apologist. Alien Arcana fucked around with this message at 21:58 on Apr 6, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2016 21:54
|
|
|
theshim posted:Ask him anyway, record it and report back. Twerkteam Pizza posted:Yeah do that tia Goon Danton posted:Please do this. I saw him in the hallway and I thought about it, but I was like... why ruin a guy's good day? He seemed to be enjoying life so I decided against it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2016 22:55
|
|
|
GunnerJ posted:I saw him in the hallway and I thought about it, but I was like... why ruin a guy's good day? He seemed to be enjoying life so I decided against it. I would've approached him with a smile and said "Hey a friend of mine said I should ask you about someone named Furr, why's that?"
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2016 23:29
|
|
|
I was going to go with, "Hey, out of curiosity, have you heard of a certain Montclair State University Professor of Medieval English named" and see whether he realized who I meant before I said his name, and how soon.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2016 00:04
|
|
|
GunnerJ posted:I was going to go with, "Hey, out of curiosity, have you heard of a certain Montclair State University Professor of Medieval English named" and see whether he realized who I meant before I said his name, and how soon. Way better plan
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2016 01:04
|
|
|
GunnerJ posted:I saw him in the hallway and I thought about it, but I was like... why ruin a guy's good day? He seemed to be enjoying life so I decided against it. If he's really a specialist in Russian History, then he already knows that life is meant to be endured, not enjoyed.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2016 03:48
|
|
|
GunnerJ posted:I was going to go with, "Hey, out of curiosity, have you heard of a certain Montclair State University Professor of Medieval English named" and see whether he realized who I meant before I said his name, and how soon. instead of this you should shout "hey I heard about <whoever this schmuck is>, so do you accept his views or do you subscribe to the LAMESTREAM MEDIA's interpretation?"
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2016 08:47
|
|
|
GunnerJ posted:I saw him in the hallway and I thought about it, but I was like... why ruin a guy's good day? He seemed to be enjoying life so I decided against it. Sometimes a good rant can be cathartic though. I mean, there's a reason this thread exists long after Jrod stopped posting.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2016 09:51
|
|
|
Heh, funny how we're talking about the Soviet Union when we're covering that in my upper division Russian history class. Now, none of this should be news to anyone in this thread or anyone who has even a cursory understanding of communism, but as we're going over the lectures, it's absolutely stunning to me how many of the policies supported by the likes of Lenin and Stalin, would fit perfectly in line with right-wing ideology. Stalin hated the idea of unions, any sort of workers protection, and had zero problems with polluting the poo poo out of the country with no regulations whatsoever. Which side do you think is more likely to support such policies? It's absolutely laughable to hear conservatives fearmonger about liberals supposedly wanting to turn the U.S. into the U.S.S.R. because we support stuff like the EPA...
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2016 11:55
|
|
|
Mises roundup! I'm skipping the bits where they warn that the Federal Reserve is going to literally eat your children (pretty much an article every day or two), and the bits where they re-post some Rothbard article on how fractional reserve banking is the devil or whatever (pretty much an article every day or two). In which a mises.org contributor attacks the entire field of economics as pseudoscience for "slipping in preposterous assumptions" into their models. I do not have a sufficiently large  for this.In which a mises.org contributor
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2016 13:19
|
|
|
Goon Danton posted:In which a mises.org contributor attacks the entire field of economics as pseudoscience 
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2016 14:09
|
|
|
Oh, there's no denying that economics is a tire fire from a scientific point of view. It's just hilarious to hear that complaint from a group whose solution is "more tires." edit: just because I loving love this quote: Ludwig von Mises, founder of Austrian Economics posted:Praxeology is a theoretical and systematic, not a historical, science. Its scope is human action as such, irrespective of all environmental, accidental, and individual circumstances of the concrete acts. Its cognition is purely formal and general without reference to the material content and the particular features of the actual case. It aims at knowledge valid for all instances in which the conditions exactly correspond to those implied in its assumptions and inferences. Its statements and propositions are not derived from experience. They are, like those of logic and mathematics, a priori. They are not subject to verification or falsification on the ground of experience and facts. They are both logically and temporally antecedent to any comprehension of historical facts. Goon Danton fucked around with this message at 15:06 on Apr 7, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2016 14:35
|
|
|
Alien Arcana posted:The most recent arrival is some kind of North Korea apologist. The Grover Furr issue and GunnerJ's comments on it got me thinking about North Korean scholarship. Of course many people thought they were evil simply because they were a Communist regime. The revisionist review posits that the DPRK is a nation striving for Korean independence, and are a rational actor staving off U.S. imperialism. Another wave of scholarship came along saying that no, the regime is monstrous and run by monstrous people, and the ideology of the DPRK was never meaningfully Communist beyond their alliance with the Soviet Union. (I hate to play No True Leftist, but there is a lot of evidence supporting it in this case.) Goon Danton posted:Oh, there's no denying that economics is a tire fire from a scientific point of view. It's just hilarious to hear that complaint from a group whose solution is "more tires."
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2016 14:55
|
|
|
Halloween Jack posted:...and the ideology of the DPRK was never meaningfully Communist beyond their alliance with the Soviet Union. (I hate to play No True Leftist, but there is a lot of evidence supporting it in this case.) I've been thinking for a while that "No True Scotsman" is too often misused as a fallacy. Taken as far as many people do, to the point where anyone feels nervous about claiming that anything isn't really what it claims to be, leads to never being able to define what a term means beyond whatever anyone uses it to refer to. That isn't even the point of the fallacy, though. The original example is something like claiming that Scotsmen don't put jam on toast, and when presented with an example of a Scotsman doing just that, it's waved off because he couldn't really be a Scotsman, because "no true Scotsman" would. The point here is that claims about how one eats toast aren't really plausibly within the basic definition of what it means to be Scottish. Saying "All Scotsmen are either citizens of Scotland or close descendants of Scots" is a claim much harder to find meaningful counter-examples where one couldn't appeal to some basic understanding of what national identity means. At that point the argument would have to be over what it means to have a nationality, not playing a logical fallacy like some Magic: The Gathering counterspell card.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2016 15:04
|
|
|
Halloween Jack posted:The Grover Furr issue and GunnerJ's comments on it got me thinking about North Korean scholarship. Of course many people thought they were evil simply because they were a Communist regime. The revisionist review posits that the DPRK is a nation striving for Korean independence, and are a rational actor staving off U.S. imperialism. Another wave of scholarship came along saying that no, the regime is monstrous and run by monstrous people, and the ideology of the DPRK was never meaningfully Communist beyond their alliance with the Soviet Union. (I hate to play No True Leftist, but there is a lot of evidence supporting it in this case.) I think it's fair to call the DPRK out for being what it is and isn't. It isn't socialist or communist, but will be used as an albatross to hang around the collective left's necks. North Korea is some weird combination half way between of cult-of-personality and theocratic government. I mean, the founder and "Great Leader" Kim Il-Sung is basically taught to the populace as being a literal god. Either way, it's a hell hole that was propped up by Stalin as an ally of convenience against the West; an ally China was all too happy to continue to support for that same reason; it's the proverbial thorn in our side.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2016 15:14
|
|
|
Regardless of the question of who counts as the true ideological successors of Marx or whatever, I think North Korea fails the "egalitarianism and opposition to social hierarchy" test of leftism pretty loving hard.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2016 15:29
|
|
|
GunnerJ posted:I've been thinking for a while that "No True Scotsman" is too often misused as a fallacy. Taken as far as many people do, to the point where anyone feels nervous about claiming that anything isn't really what it claims to be, leads to never being able to define what a term means beyond whatever anyone uses it to refer to. That isn't even the point of the fallacy, though. The original example is something like claiming that Scotsmen don't put jam on toast, and when presented with an example of a Scotsman doing just that, it's waved off because he couldn't really be a Scotsman, because "no true Scotsman" would. The point here is that claims about how one eats toast aren't really plausibly within the basic definition of what it means to be Scottish. Saying "All Scotsmen are either citizens of Scotland or close descendants of Scots" is a claim much harder to find meaningful counter-examples where one couldn't appeal to some basic understanding of what national identity means. At that point the argument would have to be over what it means to have a nationality, not playing a logical fallacy like some Magic: The Gathering counterspell card. Fallacies in general are grossly misunderstood. (Hell, arguments in general are grossly misunderstood. See the continual confusion between a slippery slope and a reductio ad absurdum.) The fallacy in a no true Scotsman is the introduction of a qualifier after the fact. If you open with "No true Scotsman puts sugar in his porridge" then that's not a no true Scotsman. It's just dumb as hell. Similarly, if you were to somehow end up at "no true Scostman is a dog", then you wouldn't be committing a no true Scotsman because, although not explicitly stated at any prior point in the argument, "is a human being" is an implicit part of the definition of "Scotsman". I'd bring up arguments from authority as another example but double-checking I'm apparently mistaken on the argument from authority being strictly limited to the formal fallacy, which is almost never committed anyways. And wouldn't necessarily even be a fallacy in the situations it would most likely come up in.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2016 15:46
|
|
|
GunnerJ posted:I've been thinking for a while that "No True Scotsman" is too often misused as a fallacy. Taken as far as many people do, to the point where anyone feels nervous about claiming that anything isn't really what it claims to be, leads to never being able to define what a term means beyond whatever anyone uses it to refer to. That isn't even the point of the fallacy, though. The original example is something like claiming that Scotsmen don't put jam on toast, and when presented with an example of a Scotsman doing just that, it's waved off because he couldn't really be a Scotsman, because "no true Scotsman" would. The point here is that claims about how one eats toast aren't really plausibly within the basic definition of what it means to be Scottish. Saying "All Scotsmen are either citizens of Scotland or close descendants of Scots" is a claim much harder to find meaningful counter-examples where one couldn't appeal to some basic understanding of what national identity means. At that point the argument would have to be over what it means to have a nationality, not playing a logical fallacy like some Magic: The Gathering counterspell card. The even wonderful Fallacy fallacy, where one points out an argument the somewhat resembles a logical fallacy then uses that to dismiss everything your opponent says. See also people dismissing a point by point refutation of their argument because someone called them a bad name in the middle of it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2016 15:48
|
|
|
Vorpal Cat posted:The even wonderful Fallacy fallacy, where one points out an argument the somewhat resembles a logical fallacy then uses that to dismiss everything your opponent says. See also people dismissing a point by point refutation of their argument because someone called them a bad name in the middle of it. Did You Know: The act of insulting someone gains added layers of significance and malignancy when identified in Latin, and doing so earns you legitimacy?
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2016 15:55
|
|
|
Goon Danton posted:Regardless of the question of who counts as the true ideological successors of Marx or whatever, I think North Korea fails the "egalitarianism and opposition to social hierarchy" test of leftism pretty loving hard. Yeah I talked to a worker and one of the rights he said he likes having is the right to not be sent to a labor camp forever where you have to eat rats to survive
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2016 15:58
|
|
|
Vorpal Cat posted:The even wonderful Fallacy fallacy, where one points out an argument the somewhat resembles a logical fallacy then uses that to dismiss everything your opponent says. See also people dismissing a point by point refutation of their argument because someone called them a bad name in the middle of it. Which is a case of people not understanding the difference between an Ad Hominem attack and the actual Ad Hominem Fallacy. "Your argument is wrong because [x], and also a dog-fucker" is not a fallacy, while "Your argument is wrong because you're a dog-fucker" is.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2016 15:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 14:35 |
|
|
Goon Danton posted:In which a mises.org contributor THE THINGS I DO FOR COMICS pray for dickeye fake edit this will not actually be hard to track down and report back on, i will do that before i read the rest of this
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2016 16:03
|
|