• BrooklynMan
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        19
        ·
        1 year ago

        Published on Feb 15, 2023 12:47 PM EDT

        • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆OP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          21
          arrow-down
          11
          ·
          1 year ago

          Are you claiming support has gone up since then, please do link your sources.

            • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆OP
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              18
              arrow-down
              10
              ·
              1 year ago

              If you weren’t implying that the article isn’t representative of the current situation then do elaborate on what your comment actually meant using your own words.

              • BrooklynMan
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                4
                arrow-down
                14
                ·
                1 year ago

                i didn’t claim that. i quoted from an independant fact-checking source. take your disagreement to them.

                • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆OP
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  15
                  arrow-down
                  7
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Nothing you quoted from this “independent” source has anything to do with the content of the article. What you engaged in is known as ad hominem fallacy.

                  • BrooklynMan
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    4
                    arrow-down
                    13
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    if the source is biased, logically, so would be its contents.

                    but nobody is accusing you of thinking logically.

      • fomo_erotic
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        25
        ·
        1 year ago

        Just try and pay attention to whose work you are doing.

        • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆OP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          28
          arrow-down
          14
          ·
          1 year ago

          I’m pretty sure I’m not doing the work of the genocidal US empire as some people are here.

          • fomo_erotic
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            21
            ·
            1 year ago

            I’m not sure carrying water for the WSJ and “doing the work of the genocidal US empire” are separable. Maybe you should find better sources than the WSJ to support your pro-Russian imperialist stance. It would fit the narrative better.

            • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆OP
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              22
              arrow-down
              9
              ·
              1 year ago

              If you disagree with the specific points the article makes then feel free to articulate them.

              • fomo_erotic
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                5
                arrow-down
                16
                ·
                1 year ago

                No.

                I don’t carry water for the WSJ or other sources that engage in or promote American imperialism (or any other kind of imperialism for that matter).

                • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆OP
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  18
                  arrow-down
                  8
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  You used so many words to say that you don’t actually have any point to make.

          • BrooklynMan
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            8
            arrow-down
            27
            ·
            1 year ago

            no, just an imperial, genocidal, racist Russia instead. bravo.

            • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆OP
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              28
              arrow-down
              13
              ·
              1 year ago

              Not that this is a competition, but Russia isn’t even in the same league as US when it comes to genocide and racism. You lot murdered so many native people that the global climate cooled. Meanwhile, in more recent history your country murdered over 6 million people in your war on terror. Not to mention the horrors your shithole country has enacted upon Latin America. And then when people from there flee you put them in concentration camps.

              • BrooklynMan
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                4
                arrow-down
                25
                ·
                1 year ago

                Not that this is a competition

                makes it a competition

                Ad hominem

                Ad hominem (Latin for ‘to the person’), short for argumentum ad hominem, is a term that refers to several types of arguments, most of which are fallacious. Typically this term refers to a rhetorical strategy where the speaker attacks the character, motive, or some other attribute of the person making an argument rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself. This avoids genuine debate by creating a diversion to some irrelevant but often highly charged issue. The most common form of this fallacy is “A makes a claim x, B asserts that A holds a property that is unwelcome, and hence B concludes that argument x is wrong”.

                Straw man

                A straw man fallacy (sometimes written as strawman) is the informal fallacy of refuting an argument different from the one actually under discussion, while not recognizing or acknowledging the distinction.[1] One who engages in this fallacy is said to be “attacking a straw man”

                Moving the Goalposts

                Moving the goalposts is an informal fallacy in which evidence presented in response to a specific claim is dismissed and some other (often greater) evidence is demanded. That is, after an attempt has been made to score a goal, the goalposts are moved to exclude the attempt. The problem with changing the rules of the game is that the meaning of the result is changed, too.

                Whataboutism

                Whataboutism or whataboutery (as in “what about…?”) denotes in a pejorative sense a procedure in which a critical question or argument is not answered or discussed, but retorted with a critical counter-question which expresses a counter-accusation. From a logical and argumentative point of view it is considered a variant of the tu-quoque pattern (Latin ‘you too’, term for a counter-accusation), which is a subtype of the ad-hominem argument.[1][2][3][4]

                The communication intent is often to distract from the content of a topic (red herring). The goal may also be to question the justification for criticism and the legitimacy, integrity, and fairness of the critic, which can take on the character of discrediting the criticism, which may or may not be justified. Common accusations include double standards, and hypocrisy, but it can also be used to relativize criticism of one’s own viewpoints or behaviors. (A: “Long-term unemployment often means poverty in Germany.” B: “And what about the starving in Africa and Asia?”).[5] Related manipulation and propaganda techniques in the sense of rhetorical evasion of the topic are the change of topic and false balance (bothsidesism).

                Tu quoque

                Tu quoque (/tjuːˈkwoʊkwi, tuːˈkwoʊkweɪ/;[1] Latin Tū quoque, for “you also”) is a discussion technique that intends to discredit the opponent’s argument by attacking the opponent’s own personal behavior and actions as being inconsistent with their argument, therefore accusing hypocrisy. This specious reasoning is a special type of ad hominem attack. The Oxford English Dictionary cites John Cooke’s 1614 stage play The Cittie Gallant as the earliest use of the term in the English language.[1] “Whataboutism” is one particularly well-known modern instance of this technique.

                and what does this have to do with this article anyway?

                  • Whiskey Pickle
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    4
                    arrow-down
                    6
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    “i know your are but what am i?” is not an effective form of argument.

                • Black AOC@lemmygrad.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  16
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  That’s a whole lot of words for “Oh waaaaaaaaaaah, I’m getting called a hypocrite for bearing the water of hypocrites”; and uh-- how’d you put it, exactly? Facts don’t care about your feelings.

                  • BrooklynMan
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    4
                    arrow-down
                    13
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    “nut-uh!” is not an effective form or argument.

                • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆OP
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  19
                  arrow-down
                  7
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Thank you for providing us with a summary of logical fallacies you like to use. Would you like to comment on the content of the article now?

                  • Whiskey Pickle
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    4
                    arrow-down
                    6
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    “i know you are but what am i?” is not much of an argument.

                • Krause [he/him]@lemmygrad.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  9
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Linking Wikipedia articles of logical fallacies as an argument, this really is the one true Reddit replacement.