the limits of fascism

[tillingborn]

I think that is a sort of ad hominem, Immanuel, to cite your own feelings as adequate reason for dismissing an opponent.Own goal.

Boredom can be arbitrary, B, but it also happens when there is a factual lack of content and relevance, which are empirical.

Immanuel Can, you are the empirical content and relevance. Too bad if you find yourself boring, but what is interesting about you is that you are not obviously mental, unlike some of the other contributors. Nonetheless you can have facts laid out, very clearly and repeatedly, that you simply will not acknowledge. You can ignore the truth that is right under your nose because you don't like it, which was the subject of an earlier conversation. That's not unusual; I'm sure most people know someone who will never admit to being wrong, some will even vote for them. But in order to be right all the time, you have to have such a simple conception of the world and of people, that everything and everyone can be fitted into a small number of boxes. This inevitably leads to misunderstanding, misrepresentation and in extreme cases prejudice and hatred. What does make you a bit special is that when describing the political enemies of right wing extremists, it is usually safe to describe them as 'anyone to the left of Adolf Hitler'. You are so out there that even Hitler is a leftist. Fascinating.

[Immanuel Can]

Immanuel Can, you are...

Ad hominem rant. Not bothering.

[Advocate]

[quote="Immanuel Can" post_id=503008 time=1616074145 user_id=9431]
[quote=tillingborn post_id=502992 time=1616062128 user_id=7001]
Immanuel Can, you [i]are[/i]...
[/quote]
[i]Ad hominem[/i] rant. Not bothering.
[/quote]

If you had finished the sentence you'd see it wasn't an ad hominem attack at all. You're an idiot.

[Belinda]

Immanuel Can, you are...

Ad hominem rant. Not bothering.

If you had finished the sentence you'd see it wasn't an ad hominem attack at all. You're an idiot.

We are all of us biased towards our favourite belief so that we like incoming information that confirms it and dislike that which contradicts it. When we do philosophy we see competing points of view without finding them 'boring'.

If Immanuel were to admit that he is subject to confirmation bias that would be good for him. However I.C.'s religious-political theory would be greatly unpopular among philosophers and I think that is why I.C. does not concede he may be wrong.

The anti-intellectualism of right wing supporters is well known.

[tillingborn]

Immanuel Can, you are...

Ad hominem rant. Not bothering.

It would be ad hominem if I were to draw any conclusions about what you think based on your habit of ignoring facts that do not conform with your chosen narrative. I know you believe things for which the evidence is at best circumstantial; that is just the nature of all religious belief. I also know that you interpret facts you find troubling in ways that fit your narrative more comfortably; in most accounts, Adolf Hitler is not a leftist for example. I now also know that you will believe things which are demonstrably untrue. You are absolutely right that I don't know you from a shoebox, but it is the things you write I am challenging, rather than you. This for instance, simply isn't true:

...I summon to the testimony CNN, Bill Maher, and Andrew Cuomo, who all say they believe in "cancel culture"...and you won't.

Here again is the contribution that flatly refutes your accusation before you even made it:

If you look at the history of cancel culture; from the Catholic Index, the burning of witches, unions, music, books and films that have been banned, to suggest that whiney little left wing busy bodies have a monopoly on being censorious is to cancel reality.

We are only human, Immanuel Can and we make judgements. The difference is I base my judgements of you on what you actually write; you however, are content to make your judgements based on what you think I have written even when it is demonstrably not what I have written. As I said before, that is ad hominem paleas.

[Immanuel Can]

If Immanuel were to admit that he is subject to confirmation bias that would be good for him.

Heh.

It's not that, B. It's that I'm utterly uninterested in the process by which a skeptic attempts to shift questions of truth and factuality to a discussion of the character or motives of the speaker of a truth or fact. I recognize it for what it is: cheap escape tactics. I find it very boring to bother refuting something that is ultimately on the stunted intellectual level of "Yeah? You're only saying that because you're a man..." And that is the level upon which the claim, "You're only saying that because you're a Christian," or "You're only saying that because you're conservative" dwell. It's all childish.

Real discussion partners deal with the propositions made. They never speak about their interlocutor's character, motives, personality, gender, politics, ethnicity, race, background and so on; they deal with the data, the evidence, the logical sequences offered, and so on.

If I were to say, "B. only says that because she's a Lefty woman, what would you (rightly) think of such a rejoinder?" If you would (justly) have contempt for such a saying, should we ever use the same tactic on our opponents?

We might put it this way: even an inveterate liar is obliged to speak the truth at least half the time, so as to conceal her/his lies. So the value of his/her particular claims always rests on the claim itself, not on the identity of the speaker.

Philosophy is the debate of propositions, not an attempt to insult each other. At least, it is, in the adult world. Children, however, are routinely inclined to argue, "If you think that, it's because you're a____________."

[Advocate]

OK, so the topic is that government must prove it's legitimacy.

[Belinda]

If Immanuel were to admit that he is subject to confirmation bias that would be good for him.

Heh.

It's not that, B. It's that I'm utterly uninterested in the process by which a skeptic attempts to shift questions of truth and factuality to a discussion of the character or motives of the speaker of a truth or fact. I recognize it for what it is: cheap escape tactics. I find it very boring to bother refuting something that is ultimately on the stunted intellectual level of "Yeah? You're only saying that because you're a man..." And that is the level upon which the claim, "You're only saying that because you're a Christian," or "You're only saying that because you're conservative" dwell. It's all childish.

Real discussion partners deal with the propositions made. They never speak about their interlocutor's character, motives, personality, gender, politics, ethnicity, race, background and so on; they deal with the data, the evidence, the logical sequences offered, and so on.

If I were to say, "B. only says that because she's a Lefty woman, what would you (rightly) think of such a rejoinder?" If you would (justly) have contempt for such a saying, should we ever use the same tactic on our opponents?

We might put it this way: even an inveterate liar is obliged to speak the truth at least half the time, so as to conceal her/his lies. So the value of his/her particular claims always rests on the claim itself, not on the identity of the speaker.

Philosophy is the debate of propositions, not an attempt to insult each other. At least, it is, in the adult world. Children, however, are routinely inclined to argue, "If you think that, it's because you're a____________."

Do you think it is an insult to ask you if you have bias towards anti-intellectualism?

[Immanuel Can]

Do you think it is an insult to ask you if you have bias towards anti-intellectualism?

I actually think it's very funny. If you knew me at all, you'd know just how funny it is. But no, I don't find it insulting...just, maybe, a bit overconfident as a diagnosis.

On the other hand, what would you say if somebody accused the Left of having an absurd bias toward mere posturing and pseudo-intellectualism, ungrounded in real-world achievement? Would you take that at face value, and say, "Sure"?

[Advocate]

[quote="Immanuel Can" post_id=503170 time=1616172146 user_id=9431]
[quote=Belinda post_id=503165 time=1616170818 user_id=12709]
Do you think it is an insult to ask you if you have bias towards anti-intellectualism?
[/quote]
I actually think it's very funny. If you knew me at all, you'd know just how funny it is. But no, I don't find it insulting...just, maybe, a bit overconfident as a diagnosis.

On the other hand, what would you say if somebody accused the Left of having an absurd bias toward mere [i]posturing [/i]and [i]pseudo[/i]-intellectualism, ungrounded in real-world achievement? Would you take that at face value, and say, "Sure"?
[/quote]

To say anything of The Left with that degree of specificity is to wrongly acknowledge the rightness of identity politics. There is no The Left.

[Immanuel Can]

To say anything of The Left with that degree of specificity is to wrongly acknowledge the rightness of identity politics. There is no The Left.

I'm just asking B. if she would accept somebody using the same tactics that the question she asked me would entail, or whether she'd find them...unwarranted.

[tillingborn]

Philosophy is the debate of propositions, not an attempt to insult each other. At least, it is, in the adult world. Children, however, are routinely inclined to argue, "If you think that, it's because you're a____________."

I'm glad to say we can at least agree on that, but you playing the victim is pathetic. Here again is just the latest example of you attributing beliefs to another human being that they do not hold:

...I summon to the testimony CNN, Bill Maher, and Andrew Cuomo, who all say they believe in "cancel culture"...and you won't.

I know for a fact that the person in question does not believe what you insist they believe for two reasons: 1 I am that person. 2 It contradicts what I wrote prior to you making the false attribution. My guess is that you have filled in your own template thus: "If you think that, it's because you're a leftist." You have had ample opportunity to explain your behaviour, but instead you complain that it is me who is falsely attributing beliefs to you. The facts are plain and according to your own beliefs, you ignore them at your peril. After all, "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour" and pride is the worst of the deadly sins.

[Skepdick]

Philosophy is the debate of propositions, not an attempt to insult each other. At least, it is, in the adult world. Children, however, are routinely inclined to argue, "If you think that, it's because you're a____________."

I'm glad to say we can at least agree on that, but you playing the victim is pathetic. Here again is just the latest example of you attributing beliefs to another human being that they do not hold:

...I summon to the testimony CNN, Bill Maher, and Andrew Cuomo, who all say they believe in "cancel culture"...and you won't.

I know for a fact that the person in question does not believe what you insist they believe for two reasons: 1 I am that person. 2 It contradicts what I wrote prior to you making the false attribution. My guess is that you have filled in your own template thus: "If you think that, it's because you're a leftist." You have had ample opportunity to explain your behaviour, but instead you complain that it is me who is falsely attributing beliefs to you. The facts are plain and according to your own beliefs, you ignore them at your peril. After all, "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour" and pride is the worst of the deadly sins.

Hypocrisy is the greatest of instruments in the game of persuasion.

[Belinda]

Do you think it is an insult to ask you if you have bias towards anti-intellectualism?

I actually think it's very funny. If you knew me at all, you'd know just how funny it is. But no, I don't find it insulting...just, maybe, a bit overconfident as a diagnosis.

On the other hand, what would you say if somebody accused the Left of having an absurd bias toward mere posturing and pseudo-intellectualism, ungrounded in real-world achievement? Would you take that at face value, and say, "Sure"?

But there is actual evidence and historical theory that backs the anti-intellectualism of right wing populism ; anti-intellectualism is a large part of right wing populism.

Anyone of any political shade can posture and many do. Pseudo- intellectualism is not the converse of anti-intellectualism , and the former may be a sign of a weak ego whatever the political allegiance.

[tillingborn]

Hypocrisy is the greatest of instruments in the game of persuasion.

Ah, Immanuel Can's White Knight. Not intending to accuse you of the very thing I am drawing attention to, I am guessing that it is me you are calling a hypocrite. That being so, if you can show an example of me continuing to ascribe beliefs to IC he denies he holds I shall eat humble pie and apologise. On the other hand, perhaps it is the hypocrisy of IC you are referring to, in which case we are again broadly in agreement, but I don't think hypocrisy is the greatest rhetorical tool.