The Psychology of Progressive Hostility

originally posted by: introvert

A logical fallacy exists with or without me agreeing or disagreeing with it.

That is true, and in this case there wasn't one. You just say that about anything you disagree with as if everything that can't be proven 100% factual is a logical fallacy. Sometimes it's just someone's opinion. Just put "anyone who disagrees with me made a logical fallacy" as your sig bud. It would save everyone time.

Funny, considering that in another post you said this:
Damn. If that isn't proof of your own hypocrisy, I don't know what is.

If you don't get the difference between saying "it looks like" and someone authoritatively stating something as fact, you really should lay off the usage of logical fallacy. It's getting embarrassing.

I did not say it was. I was providing a counter to your source. The truth lies somewhere in the middle. If you were truly interested in letting people make up their own mid, you would have presented an argument for both sides. But you did not so to make such a claim is dishonest.

This would make sense if people were exposed to my thread in a vacuum and would never see contrary information. Obviously that's not the real world. And, as I explained to kayluv, this was mainly focused toward people who already have left-leaning thinking. How exactly is reading my thread limiting them to one side? They already know the other side and have chosen they prefer it.

Does that somehow justify your use of a crap source and hypocrisy?

Wait, are we or are we not pretending you linked to that biased left-wing piece from The Outlet simply to provide balance to my right-wing source? Were you or weren't you trying to post it to definitely show that my source couldn't be trusted? I mean, if you acknowledge your source is biased then it doesn't show that at all. If you admitted your source saying my source is bogus is itself bogus and you only provided it for balance, I guess we can go there. But you can't have it both ways. You talked yourself into a pretzel again. Maybe that should be your sig.

I think you have proven that people on the Right, and people such as yourself, have the same tendency to lash-out at people instead of engaging specifics.

By your own actions, you prove that your source is disingenuous and the same could be found on the other side of the equation.

That's ironic considering you didn't engage on any of the specifics of what I posted with your initial reply. More fighting hypocrisy with hypocrisy? Brilliant. Welcome to my level.

Nothing I do can affect the validity of my source in any way. Did you really just say my actions prove my source is disingenuous? That's just... wow. A year of Trump really has rotted your brain. You used to be pretty good at sounding smart. And you appear to have admitted your source claiming my source is bunk is bunk itself, so... yeah.

originally posted by: snarfbot
what exactly from the article is logically false?

its not as though it was a scientific journal like what was shared by kayla, which was demonstrably false regardless of the rigors of the scientific method.

its just a blog basically, with some anecdotal information, the reader encouraged to take from it what they will.

She didn't actually share a scientific journal, she shared a blog on a psychology-focused website that grossly misrepresented a study to make conservatives sound like scared little bunny rabbits. It's the same kind of nonsense as when anti-gun people have to pretend that pro-gun people only own a gun to make up for their small dick or something childish like that, or that they're not man enough to fight off a home invasion in the middle of the night with their bare hands. It's pathetic, high school level crap. Make something up about the other side to make them seem smaller and pitiful to make yourself feel better.

a reply to: face23785

right, thats an actual logical fallacy a strawman, where they build this ridiculous position the strawman, "look at this ridiculous thing i created and are attributing to you!" defeat it handedly, and then state how dumb their opponents are, in this case conservatives.

my bad i didnt actually read her link, i just read the post where you broke it down for us.

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: face23785

Doesn’t change the fact that you posted an article that was derogatory to the left. It was not a neutral article. You didn’t include anything derogatory to the right for balance.

There is nothing personal in stating those facts. There is nothing personal in stating what you did. Just because I pointed out that the facts don’t align with what you are claiming your goal is, that doesn’t make it personal.

EVERYTHING in this world and beyond is derogatory to the left.

The whole premise of leftism is to think they are on the path to heaven and freedom by being negative and destroying.

This world cannot ever get better with todays liberals...not one thing has become more clear or kinder with the agendas they have been brainwashed to employ.

And they know this...deep down which is why they are so confused and lashing out at true freedom..indeed they are imprisoned with a total lack of coherence and no idea how to get out.

We will bring them along whether or not they understand or they will simply die off.

The mental gymnastics achieved to torture themselves and others with obviously false methods to world betterment is telling...they are the lapdogs of the establishment..the minions knowingly or not of the deepest darkest energies in the Universe...and they cannot win...they only revel in making sure we ALL lose.

a reply to: face23785

That is true, and in this case there wasn't one.

Yes, there is. Can you spot the most obvious one?

You just say that about anything you disagree with as if everything that can't be proven 100% factual is a logical fallacy. Sometimes it's just someone's opinion. Just put "anyone who disagrees with me made a logical fallacy" as your sig bud. It would save everyone time.

Regardless of your opinion, which is all that is, the fallacy still exists.

If you don't get the difference between saying "it looks like" and someone authoritatively stating something as fact, you really should lay off the usage of logical fallacy. It's getting embarrassing.

What you describe is not necessarily a logical fallacy. I'm beginning to wonder if you know what a logical fallacy is.

This would make sense if people were exposed to my thread in a vacuum and would never see contrary information. Obviously that's not the real world. And, as I explained to kayluv, this was mainly focused toward people who already have left-leaning thinking. How exactly is reading my thread limiting them to one side? They already know the other side and have chosen they prefer it.

Either way, you prove that you were not interested in providing the issue in complete context so that a reader could make an informed decision. You admit it was directed at certain people.

Again, you openly state your hypocrisy.

Wait, are we or are we not pretending you linked to that biased left-wing piece from The Outlet simply to provide balance to my right-wing source?

You can play pretend all you want. I'd rather not. I provided the source to show that is another side to the story.

Were you or weren't you trying to post it to definitely show that my source couldn't be trusted?

I did not have to post anything for people to know your source cannot be trusted. A little bit of research would find that. Sadly, most of you do not seem to do that.

I mean, if you acknowledge your source is biased then it doesn't show that at all. If you admitted your source saying my source is bogus is itself bogus and you only provided it for balance, I guess we can go there. But you can't have it both ways. You talked yourself into a pretzel again. Maybe that should be your sig.

I've talked myself in to a pretzel?

Read what you just posted and tell me how that makes much sense. I really have no clue what you are trying to say.

That's ironic considering you didn't engage on any of the specifics of what I posted with your initial reply. More fighting hypocrisy with hypocrisy? Brilliant. Welcome to my level.

I was specific in my first post, specifically mentioning hostility and emotions, as it was framed by the source and how it can apply to both sides. I also did not lash-out at people. such as you did.

Nothing I do can affect the validity of my source in any way. Did you really just say my actions prove my source is disingenuous?

No. Your actions prove your own hypocrisy and how you actually embody that which your source talks about. I shouldn't have to explain this to you.

That's just... wow. A year of Trump really has rotted your brain.

What does Trump have to do with this? Are you really out of ideas on how to come back with an intelligent response?

You used to be pretty good at sounding smart.

I don't care. Are you trying to invoke some sort of emotional response, or are your arguments just this bad?

And you appear to have admitted your source claiming my source is bunk is bunk itself, so... yeah.

I did. Sadly, it appears you have missed the most basic premise behind what I said.

Not surprised in the least.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: face23785

Yes, there is. Can you spot the most obvious one?

No. Tell me. This is where you just pretend I'm too dumb to see it because you don't have one to point out.

What you describe is not necessarily a logical fallacy. I'm beginning to wonder if you know what a logical fallacy is.

We don't have to wonder. You could tell us all where the logical fallacy was in my OP.

Either way, you prove that you were not interested in providing the issue in complete context so that a reader could make an informed decision. You admit it was directed at certain people.

Again, you openly state your hypocrisy.

What hypocrisy? Be specific.

You can play pretend all you want. I'd rather not. I provided the source to show that is another side to the story.

So you didn't answer any of my questions there, again avoiding any specificity. We seem to be developing a pattern here.

I did not have to post anything for people to know your source cannot be trusted. A little bit of research would find that. Sadly, most of you do not seem to do that.

Are you aware that this is a logical fallacy? It's called a genetic fallacy. You've yet to present any refutation to anything specific in my OP. Basically your contention is the source is a right-wing website and it's not kind to your ideology, so it's false.

I've talked myself in to a pretzel?

Read what you just posted and tell me how that makes much sense. I really have no clue what you are trying to say.

Yes you did. If you can't follow a long but totally coherent sentence, that's not my fault. I'll bold the linked parts to help you understand. "If you admitted your source saying my source is bogus is itself bogus and you only provided it for balance, I guess we can go there." I merely inserted a description of what your source was trying to say. It's not that complicated. I know you're not that dumb, so what was the point of pretending you didn't get this?

I was specific in my first post, specifically mentioning hostility and emotions, as it was framed by the source and how it can apply to both sides. I also did not lash-out at people. such as you did.

That makes it specific? Sorry, it doesn't. You disagree, there's a logical fallacy somewhere, it's hostile and emotional. That's all general criticism. What parts did you find particularly hostile and emotional? Perhaps you could describe that in addition to the logical fallacy. Unless you've just been talking out of your ass this whole time. The only thing you've said that wasn't generalized was that it doesn't present both sides. That's valid. I never claimed it presented both sides, and I've acknowledged that similar behavior to that described in the article can be seen on the right, so not sure what the point is of you observing that. The point of an OP is not to present all possible facets of an issue. What the hell would we talk about then? I presented something to start conversation, and the ensuing conversation has included some of the other side. None from you so far besides a biased link claiming the site I linked to is biased. That really advanced things.

No. Your actions prove your own hypocrisy and how you actually embody that which your source talks about. I shouldn't have to explain this to you.

And I'm sure you can specifically cite this hypocrisy. Glad we agree my actions don't make my source disingenuous, that was just ridiculous of you to say.

What does Trump have to do with this? Are you really out of ideas on how to come back with an intelligent response?

Oh nothing. Forget I brought him up, you're already having trouble reading sentences. And no.

I don't care. Are you trying to invoke some sort of emotional response, or are your arguments just this bad?

No, was just an observation. I mean logical fallacy.

I did. Sadly, it appears you have missed the most basic premise behind what I said.

Not surprised in the least.

I didn't. You're trying to change it now, but again you've backed yourself into a corner. Pretending you just provided a left-wing source to counter my right-wing source is an absurd path to take, since the source you provided didn't discuss the same issue as mine did. It didn't provide balance or try to present the other side. It merely tried to discredit my source, and since it was itself a biased source, it failed miserably. (Did you follow that sentence? I put some extra commas to help.) It reminds me of that scene in My Cousin Vinny when Joe Pesci slept through the prosecutor's opening statement, so he just told the jury "Everything that guy just said is bull#." for his opening statement. If you were really trying to present the other side, which you weren't, you did a pitiful job. It's okay though since all you were trying to do was present the logical fallacy that people shouldn't listen to me because you don't like my source. If you stick with honesty from the beginning you won't tangle yourself up in these embarrassing positions.

I've got things to do. If you're lucky I'll come back and respond to more of your non-specific waffling tomorrow. It's likely to dodge most of my challenges to be specific and contain little to nothing new, a commendable feat considering how long these are getting. I may just let you have the last word. I know how important that is to you.