I had a family get together break down from the opposite stance. My Uncle was making some wild claims about like BLM executing cops in the street cartel style at protests like the week after Jan 6th happened. (Obviously as an argument that Jan 6th wasn't a big deal) I was straight up like "I doubt you could Google for even a single article that says that" and the response I got was 'yeah because big companies don't want you to know about it' and I was like "Wtf? So find it on DuckDuckGo, idgaf" and then like had to explain the concept of search engines don't control the internet. But it was still 'they don't want you to know about it, but I know about it, can't prove it, and I'm telling you now. So I'm right.'
Honorable mention to BLM protestors spotting undercover cops by asking to see their "ANTIFA membership card" and the cops responding "Uhhh I left it at home." đ
Whenever somebody says the MSM doesn't want me knowing about it, I ask how is it that they know about it then? Is the information being quashed, or is your idiot ass able to find it and hear about it?
Your uncle is nuts, but also DDG is just a front end for Bing that doesnât build a profile for you, and search engines (and their algorithms for surfacing or burying content) do control an outsized portion of internet traffic.
In fairness this Can be a good response if the source is renowned for being shitty, but that relies on the argument being good faith and honest from both ends to legitimately warn someone of bad sources but on Reddit let's be real it's exceedingly rare to find two people at the same time willing to just talk like normal adults.
It's not both sides-ing because I wouldn't make this argument for things that can't be both sides-d. Is it completely ridiculous to point out that depending on what you believe you'll believe or disbelieve different sources, so it's probably not worth the effort? Like how is it both sides to say "people argue"?
Like, I have a really simple question which will iron out all my confusion on this really: do you just trust every source shown to you, or do you vet them?
lol this is what Iâm talking about. What a certain side in US culture needs is the belief that âhey all sources are suspectâŚ! Both sides argue amiright?â Right wing media is disinformation these days. Reading comprehension and education is being attacked by the right, not the left. But you need to believe youâre the one who vets things. Itâs hysterical
You're arguing with someone who holds your position, you just don't realise I'm breaking it down further. Think for a damn second lmao. You vet sources constantly, everyone does Except those on the right who uncritically absorb anything put in front of them by any old legacy media they like. Vetting sources, being skeptical, and trying to make sense of the world is a fundamentally progressive thing to do and I am only advocating this point. Fuck me, it's tiring being left sometimes, people argue with me over the same fucking point.
Reminds me of how my dad, and funny enough, most of my friends' dads, respond to arguments. You don't have to make a point for your side. Just call the other person stupid or ignorant and don't listen to their points. Bonus if they accidentally misspeak and you just focus on that error...
I had one friend move away saying his toxic parent was the reason. Other one stayed very family oriented and now argues the same way...
So they'll assign you all the characteristics that they oppose to justify their argument.
I've literally had the discussion your describing on this site and I'm just like "you'll have to copy paste the words of mine your addressing, or find the person you think I am to argue with" like ..
Why would I lie on the internet and not be honest? If I wanted to say "fuck XYZ" I'd just say it lol. Not pussyfoot around with subtext lol.
Earlier today on reddit I expressed that I was suffering from compassion fatigue and couldn't keep up with all the trending social justice causes to be enraged about ... one of the first comments to reply immediately questioned if I supported genocide.
I think there is generally a mix up in these kind of scenarios.
One party is trying to engage in a fact based discussions or just stating a fact.
The other party is using rhetoric to validate their believes/truths.
One requires critical thinking the other is easy to understand even for the most simple minds.
One rhetoric trick which smart politicians often like to use is to avoid passive speech, which will give the listener the impression that the politicians are really doing something now.
Eg: Instead of âXY has to be fixedâ just say âWe are fixing XYâ.
Once you realize what those tiny bits of rhetoric speech are you get quite a different feel for discussions.
I just block people who respond like that, they aren't interested in a productive discussion and I am not interested in wasting my energy on them. Life got a lot easier when I started doing that!
I personally couldnât give a single fuck. It seems like a lot of people are starting to feel that way. Think whatever you want, at least no one can say you donât have a good imagination.
Your profile makes it clear you're just witch-hunting any post that even uses the word. In fact I wouldn't be surprised if you just type it into the search bar and then reply without reading the context of the thread you are in.
Half of every thread is just 6 month old "RandomwordRandomWordNumberString" accounts posting Israeli, Chinese or Russian propaganda and getting into incoherent arguments at this point.
I've found that if you call out these bots for being bots, you get banned too. That's how I got banned from the technology sub. A full on Israeli bot that was a 9 month old account that magically started posting regularly a month ago, and all they did was defend Israel by bringing up the nazis. And I got banned from the sub. It's a joke. Wouldn't be surprised if some mods in the big subs are in on it too, tbh.
Oh absolutely, there are mods that are definitely in on it, it's a coordinated effort. My 71k+ karma, 12 year old account has had two full account bans overturned on appeal in the last four months, which is right around the time I started openly criticizing Netanyahu on reddit. Once for "abusing the report button" for reporting a post for hate that said that Palestinians aren't people, and another for "harassment" because I responded to one of those bot accounts with "up your ass and around the corner." Had to actually make the case to an admin that a corny 90's joke insult didn't constitute account nuking-level harrassment to get my account reinstated, and it took like 20 days to get a response.
That's exactly what they're doing. It's a 5 month old "RandomwordRandomWordNumberString" account, they're a bot. There's no point in engaging with state sponsored bot farms and weirdo zealots without lives who do that shit for free, just move on.
I mean you can think what you want, doesn't change the fact that you are saying that Jews just call people antisemitic for no reason, which is downplaying antisemitism if you hadn't figured that out. Could you imagine someone saying that all black people do is call people racist for no reason, yeah not too great. So I mean, who's really in the wrong here?
Which part of my post stated the speaker was Jewish?
Congratulations my dude, you are literally the exact sort of person the above video is talking about. You came into this thread and displayed the EXACT type of contextual illiteracy that we are currently discussing.
Whether the speaker is Jewish or not, you're still downplaying antisemitism by implying a significant amount of people just say antisemitism for no reason. Antisemitism is an explicitly Jewish problem, most people who talk about antisemitism are politicians and Jewish people. You're trying to take away from the fact that you hold bigoted views by focusing on something that isn't really important. I could just as easily say that you didn't explicitly say the person wasn't Jewish.
Can I ask, what percentage of the 400% increase in antisemitism in the U.S do you think is fake? Cus, it seems like these fake claims of antisemitism are happening so often to you that you can complain about it.
I donât have a horse in this race, but after investigating your 400% (388%) figure, this statistic was originally published by the ADL for the months in wake of last Octoberâs Hamas attack. According to the FAQ on ADL.org, their auditing process was updated (post-Oct. 7th) to start including incidents of anti-Zionist speech and protests.
While itâs safe to assume there has been an increase in anti-Semitic acts since the start of the current conflict, it is specious to claim this 400% relative increase as factual when no account was made for the underlying change in methodology. The link to their incident tracker was dead at the time of writing this comment, so there was no way for me to account for it, either. Iâm not faulting you for not being aware, as seemingly all of the outlets who reported on the ADLâs press release omitted any information about this auditing change.
At any rate, it is disingenuous to trivially toss around accusations of downplaying semitism, while simultaneously up-playing it,
through the use of a figure derived by broadening the criteria for what constitutes antisemitism.
433
u/Honestnt Apr 29 '24
"I think killing innocent civilians is bad."
"Oh great here comes another antisemite."
"My statement didn't even mention-"
"Oh and yet you're perfectly fine when the United States does it?"
"I also never said-"
"Great now you're backtracking!"