• Anarcho-Bolshevik@lemmygrad.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    35
    ·
    1 year ago

    Uuuuuuugh, “I don’t like this source” is easily one of my least favorite responses; the respondent may as well not even post since they’re ignoring the content anyway. Yes, the Wall Street Journal is puke, but nobody lies 100% of the time. That’s why you need to learn how to read critically.

    There has to be some sort of course that people can take to teach them how to properly scrutinize sources and distinguish between good reporting and rumourmongering, rather than trying to take shortcuts like that.

    And what’s up with all of the repetitive definitions and attempts to accuse you of being logically fallacious? It doesn’t make the replier look clever; it’s just extremely embarrassing.

    • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmygrad.mlOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      43
      ·
      1 year ago

      Liberals are basically a cult at this point, I honestly don’t think it’s possible to engage with them in a meaningful way. They’ve basically constructed a narrative regarding how the world works, and anything that doesn’t fit into that narrative gets discarded. Amusingly, libs are able to recognize this behavior in other cults like qanon, but are not able to apply the same analysis to themselves.

      I suspect it’s going to take a crisis that affect these people in a tangible material way for them to start questioning their beliefs and examining things in a critical fashion.

      And the types of replies in that thread are basically a learned behavior where libs just dismiss things they don’t want to hear and expect the rest of the libs to pile on to downvote.

    • PolandIsAStateOfMind@lemmygrad.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      30
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Yes, the Wall Street Journal is puke, but nobody lies 100% of the time. That’s why you need to learn how to read critically.

      The point we post explicitly liberal sources is to make liberals think even for just a second. Turns out, it’s still not enough.

      And what’s up with all of the repetitive definitions and attempts to accuse you of being logically fallacious?

      It’s an old trolling technique, but this guy apparently didn’t even understand how it’s done.

      • JucheBot1988@lemmygrad.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        23
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        I had a philosophy professor years ago who said that people who make catalogues of logical fallacies don’t really understand logic. The true logician simply examines the argument, notes that it doesn’t follow, and tells you why without using any jargon.

        Being on the internet has convinced me this guy was completely correct.

        • PolandIsAStateOfMind@lemmygrad.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          18
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          It’s not only an internet, reading philosphy in general i noticed it’s awfully filled with jargon. And it tend to use it in worst possible manner.

          • GarbageShootAlt@lemmygrad.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            8
            ·
            1 year ago

            Philosophy has a tendency to need to use very specialized language to avoid problems of ambiguity and to precisely identify concepts that have no reason to come up in the vast, vast majority of conversation among laypeople.

            • JucheBot1988@lemmygrad.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              8
              ·
              1 year ago

              I mean, yes and no. You go to Aristotle, for instance, and while his work is definitely not easy to understand – it being lecture notes and all – it’s surprising how little jargon he uses, with most of it being just common words used in a restricted sense, e.g., “matter” or “relation.”

              • GarbageShootAlt@lemmygrad.ml
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                9
                ·
                1 year ago

                Aristotle had the benefit of not having millennia of literature to be working in relation with, and himself is quite responsible for the promotion of metaphysics as a philosophical field, which is perhaps the most obscure branch of philosophy.

            • PolandIsAStateOfMind@lemmygrad.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              7
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              Yeah, but seriously what’s even the point of such wisdom, especially when it can led people into things like subjective idealism. Or maybe it’s because idealists needs to reach insane levels of abstraction to even explain their idiotic ideas.

              • JucheBot1988@lemmygrad.ml
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                8
                ·
                1 year ago

                Probably a certain amount of specialized terminology is neccesary, and the complete lack of it, as in (say) Nietzsche, doesn’t always signify a profound thinker. But I agree with you that most contemporary philosophers use jargon simply to obscure.

                • PolandIsAStateOfMind@lemmygrad.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  8
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  I mean, from what i see Nietzsche key to popularity was precisely the fact he’s understandable, because he mostly just rambled, but laymen at least can tell what he meant.

        • GarbageShootAlt@lemmygrad.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          13
          ·
          1 year ago

          Yeah, there was some point to it back in Aristotle’s day, but you can tell how much someone doesn’t know about logic from the degree to which they lean on pat lists of informal fallacies. Formal fallacies, as in those produced by incorrect inference in classical logic (or an argument that can be accurately reduced to classical logic), are infinite in a similar way to how “wrong answers to math equations” is an infinite category. “Informal fallacies” are a catalogue of rhetorical tricks and cognitive biases that it is good to be aware of but which don’t have very much to do with logic as a field.

          • JucheBot1988@lemmygrad.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            10
            ·
            1 year ago

            Exactly. If you know how logic works – how we human beings think – you will be able to easily indentify arguments which don’t work.