I stated what my point was: if you want to read naked bad faith DNC talking points you should go to the source. The argument is that he is just rehashing those things.
If you want to know some ways in which he is wrong, I pointed out negative things from other articles, like his bad faith apologetics for the Biden-Harris genocide. That does not make this article incorrect, but then again I didn’t say anything about this article aside from implying it’s unoriginality.
Okay, so for ad hominem, in media, the author is always relevant.
First, most are politically and media illiterate and cannot parse or criticize the article. Most just read a headline and draw a conclusion. Most of those who do start reading the article only read the first third or so. Knowing that someone is a dishonest hack is an important fact if you’re not critically engaging with media.
Second, when it comes to media you are often asked to trust the veracity of an author’s claims based on their record or the record of the outlet, as some to all of their claims will be based on personal experience or otherwise unsourced. There is an implicit “reverse” ad hominem at work here, an unstated argument from authority, that we all accept to some degree or another, particularly if we are not taking the time to critically go through it with a fine-toothed comb or if we do not have any subject matter expertise. So of course knowing that the author is a dishonest or incompetent shill is important and is not itself a fallacious use of ad hominem.
Finally, if you want my takeaways from this article, yes it is also wrong. It poses white evangelicals as an existential threat and then tells you the only thing you do is vote harder for Dems in November. He either does not truly believe this, as you need to do far more than that against an existential threat, or he does believe this and is demanding you do very little about it, so he apparently doesn’t really want to. At best, he is politically illuterare and you should ignore his advice, but as we both know, he is just a hack. The claim is self-defeating and incoherent. This is the thesis of the article and it is inherently flawed. The unstated elephant in the room, something he does not even mention because he is a partisan hack, is the ongoing genocide in Palestine and now Lebanon carried out by the people ge is telling you to vote for. This presents a different moral compulsion: that every person supporting genocide should be opposed and must lose. Of course he knows this, you all know this, it is why he avoided the topic and why you skipped over my mention if it.
I recommend that you engage critically with media and that if you want garbage partisan slop to get it from the horse’s mouth. Then you will more correctly understand its meaning.
No, your second point doesn’t make your case. Biden isn’t running now, or did you forget? Not to mention, it doesn’t change anything about what the author has to say about the political goals of evangelicals and how Trump would deliver for them, which is the topic of the article.
I hear Putin calling. You better check and see what he wants.
No, your second point doesn’t make your case. Biden isn’t running now, or did you forget?
My second to last paragraph doesn’t mention Biden at all. I think you are confused. Please take some extra time to read what I said. I am happy to answer questions if you have any.
I hear Putin calling. You better check and see what he wants.
Biden is the one deciding US policy, and the responsibility for our foreign policy failures rest with him. There are two viable candidates running to replace him. One candidate promises a less conciliatory approach with Netanyahu, the other promises to help escalate the atrocities.
Which do you think will get you closer to your stated goals?
When you start engaging in good faith, you will get good faith in return.
Biden is the one deciding US policy, and the responsibility for our foreign policy failures rest with him. There are two viable candidates running to replace him. One candidate promises a less conciliatory approach with Netanyahu, the other promises to help escalate the atrocities.
This does not address anything I said in the paragraph in question. Like I said, you seem to be very confused. Feel free to ask questions and I can help you identify the paragraph or simply copy paste it for your convenience.
Which do you think will get you closer to your stated goals?
What are my stated goals?
When you start engaging in good faith, you will get good faith in return.
Please avoid reflexive labeling, it is dishonest when it does not apply - such as in this case.
If you won’t take the time to read and reply to what I say, you can always just not reply at all. Nothing compels you to make things up.
…I’m not seeing anything explaining how the author is wrong. Ad hominem is not an argument.
I stated what my point was: if you want to read naked bad faith DNC talking points you should go to the source. The argument is that he is just rehashing those things.
If you want to know some ways in which he is wrong, I pointed out negative things from other articles, like his bad faith apologetics for the Biden-Harris genocide. That does not make this article incorrect, but then again I didn’t say anything about this article aside from implying it’s unoriginality.
Okay, so for ad hominem, in media, the author is always relevant.
First, most are politically and media illiterate and cannot parse or criticize the article. Most just read a headline and draw a conclusion. Most of those who do start reading the article only read the first third or so. Knowing that someone is a dishonest hack is an important fact if you’re not critically engaging with media.
Second, when it comes to media you are often asked to trust the veracity of an author’s claims based on their record or the record of the outlet, as some to all of their claims will be based on personal experience or otherwise unsourced. There is an implicit “reverse” ad hominem at work here, an unstated argument from authority, that we all accept to some degree or another, particularly if we are not taking the time to critically go through it with a fine-toothed comb or if we do not have any subject matter expertise. So of course knowing that the author is a dishonest or incompetent shill is important and is not itself a fallacious use of ad hominem.
Finally, if you want my takeaways from this article, yes it is also wrong. It poses white evangelicals as an existential threat and then tells you the only thing you do is vote harder for Dems in November. He either does not truly believe this, as you need to do far more than that against an existential threat, or he does believe this and is demanding you do very little about it, so he apparently doesn’t really want to. At best, he is politically illuterare and you should ignore his advice, but as we both know, he is just a hack. The claim is self-defeating and incoherent. This is the thesis of the article and it is inherently flawed. The unstated elephant in the room, something he does not even mention because he is a partisan hack, is the ongoing genocide in Palestine and now Lebanon carried out by the people ge is telling you to vote for. This presents a different moral compulsion: that every person supporting genocide should be opposed and must lose. Of course he knows this, you all know this, it is why he avoided the topic and why you skipped over my mention if it.
I recommend that you engage critically with media and that if you want garbage partisan slop to get it from the horse’s mouth. Then you will more correctly understand its meaning.
You still haven’t explained how the author is wrong here. All you’ve told me is why you think the author is icky.
My point stands.
My second to last paragraph is explicitly about how the author is wrong here.
Please engage in good faith by reading what I say before announcing judgments.
No, your second point doesn’t make your case. Biden isn’t running now, or did you forget? Not to mention, it doesn’t change anything about what the author has to say about the political goals of evangelicals and how Trump would deliver for them, which is the topic of the article.
I hear Putin calling. You better check and see what he wants.
My second to last paragraph doesn’t mention Biden at all. I think you are confused. Please take some extra time to read what I said. I am happy to answer questions if you have any.
Please engage in good faith.
Biden is the one deciding US policy, and the responsibility for our foreign policy failures rest with him. There are two viable candidates running to replace him. One candidate promises a less conciliatory approach with Netanyahu, the other promises to help escalate the atrocities.
Which do you think will get you closer to your stated goals?
When you start engaging in good faith, you will get good faith in return.
This does not address anything I said in the paragraph in question. Like I said, you seem to be very confused. Feel free to ask questions and I can help you identify the paragraph or simply copy paste it for your convenience.
What are my stated goals?
Please avoid reflexive labeling, it is dishonest when it does not apply - such as in this case.
If you won’t take the time to read and reply to what I say, you can always just not reply at all. Nothing compels you to make things up.
Pure fucking sophistry
https://www.politico.com/news/2024/10/08/harris-biden-the-view-00182883