592
Tapping the sign
(lemmy.nz)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 29 Sep 2026
592 points (88.3% liked)
Late Stage Capitalism
3803 readers
873 users here now
A place for for news, discussion, memes, and links criticizing capitalism and advancing viewpoints that challenge liberal capitalist ideology. That means any support for any liberal capitalist political party (like the Democrats) is strictly prohibited.
A zero-tolerance policy for bigotry of any kind. Failure to respect this will result in a ban.
RULES:
1 Understand the left starts at anti-capitalism.
2 No Trolling
3 No capitalist apologia, anti-socialism, anti-communism, or liberalism, liberalism is in direct conflict with the left. Support for capitalism or for the parties or ideologies that uphold it are not welcome or tolerated.
4 No imperialism, conservatism, reactionism or Zionism, lessor evil rhetoric. Dismissing 3rd party votes or 'wasted votes on 3rd party' is lessor evil rhetoric.
5 No bigotry, no racism, sexism, antisemitism, homophobia, transphobia, ableism, or any type of prejudice.
6 Be civil in comments and no accusations of being a bot, 'paid by Putin,' Tankie, etc. This includes instance shaming.
Introduction to Socialism (external links)
Marxism-Leninism Study Guide: Basic Course
Marxism-Leninism Study Guide: Advanced Course
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Criticism is not evaluated by where it comes from, but by whether it's true or false. If you don't put truth first, you don't get to have a say in anything anyway.
MAGA criticizes the Dems for being too far left. I criticize the Dems for being too far right.
We are not the same.
Fr
a complaint about the dems being too far left has nothing to do with republicans though
Based
The source does matter. I won't support a MAGAt just because they bash the Dems.
If Putin said the sky is blue, would you suddenly insist its black?
No but I'd sure check first.
Then that makes you just another tribalist
Nope, I just don't accept criticism (or anything else really) from people who can't even form a coherent thought and are just regurgitating sound snippets from pundits...
Thats not what you just said though. You said the source of the argument makes it dismissable, now you are stating that it is the quality you care about. Disingenuous dumbass.
The issue is the amount of bad faith critique levelled by people on the right. Supporting one of their valid criticisms without mentioning that they are normally full of shit appears like a blanket endorsement even though they may bring up only a single good point it’ll be seen as complete support.
Sure, but thats then an issue with how acknowledges criticism, not wether or not one does it at all.
Precisely my point.
Not at all your point. They made an actual good point, you just said some tribalist nonsense.
Ya sure but that isn't really what your comment was saying which was more along the lines of "ignore all criticism until you know where it came from".
Anyways, if the criticism is valid, you are just plugging your ears at that point.
That's... nowhere close to what I actually stated.
Tbh, yeah, I'm a bit off base.
what kinda idiot lets themselves be concern trolled in 2026
like a good argument is valid regardless of source but republicans and their cognitive dissonance, double standards and general bad faith arguments means sitting through their bullshit in hopes of one is just silly
Who is talking about sitting thru some discussion with republicans in hopes of hearing a good argument? Youre just making shit up to argue against. Relate to what the other is actually stating, you imbecile.
Sure but that's not the point. If someone gives good criticism, that criticism is good.
If you don't believe that, you're a tribalist.
The world gets better when everyone acknowledges and fixes their problems when they're pointed out. It doesn't matter at all whether it's a good person or a bad person that points them out, what a gift it is for someone to show you your flaws.
but no one should be expected to engage with repubs
they lost the privilege
Thats not what they're arguing. Jesus Christ you motherfuckers are thicker than bricks.
Motivation and context matters because if you don't pay attention to them you risk ending up an accessory to some asshole's motte-and-bailey fallacy in progress.
You are now stating that the argument is not good, but in fact a fallacy. You are thus yourself, ironically, doing the fallacy you are talking about others doing. You have moved from the position of "dont engage with good arguments or criticism of they come from a republican" and are now pretending your position is "don't engage with bad arguments from republicans."
But that would be obvious in the stupidity of the criticism
Not if the part you're responding to is the motte and you're ignoring the motivation and context!
Then that would not be a good argument, which they therefore would not find reason to take seriously. Youre doing an actual motte-and-bailey yourself right now.
The "motte" part, by definition, is a good argument. It's only when they spring the "bailey" on you that the ulterior motive behind getting you to agree to it becomes clear.
The motte is just a reasonable position. It is also not a trap that get sprung. It is a place one retreats to when pushed on ones actual position.
The motte: "dont engage with bad critique from republicans"
The Bailey: "Don't engage with critique no matter the quality, if it comes from republicans"
I didn't say "don't engage." I said "pay attention." Now who's making the fallacy?
Now you're just playing obtuse, because you, like the annoying rat you are, find it easy to retreat to a discussion of semantics.
"Dont pay attention to" and "dont engage with" is the same action in this case, which you are well aware of.
First of all, I said do pay attention, not "don't." Second, no, paying attention and choosing not to engage are not, in fact, equivalent. Why are you misrepresenting me?
First of all, no you didn't. Since we're doing semantic fuckery and playing obtuse you did actually say "don't pay attention"
Now I understand that it does not function as a direct rebuttal of your most recent statement, but it surprises me that you do - since you seem to struggle with the concept of words meaning things.
Like here, you clearly struggle with words having meaning, also odd to care so much about specific phrasing, and then fucking it up yourself. Why does that seem to happen a lot for you?
So what I said was that in this case they're the same action. Which they are. Which, if that's what you wanted to discuss, you just could've, instead of forcing this silly roundabout where all we get is more tired of you and more suspicious of your motivation.
Now why do I think you are arguing for ignoring people? Because of your arguments and your responses to everyone who has pushed you on your nonsensical "motte and bailey" line, which you gave in response to a user stating:
Someone else writes
which you respond to with
So at this point I have my suspicions, but I'm mainly just annoyed at you talking about context, yet you cannot even engage with just the actual text itself, let alone context. And then we start interacting. From that point on it becomes clear to me, from the context of your other responses as well as the direct text of your responses, that you think anytime a republican argues, then that is an argument or critique that cannot be handled in good faith, since it is part of (your faulty idea of) some motte-and-bailey or other. If one subscribes to this line of reasoning then one cannot engage with any critique from a republican, no matter the quality, which can be boiled down to "don't engage with" or "don't pay attention to" or "ignore" or any variation of this action.
Now before you fuck up and start pulling another fallacy out of your ass: This isn't what a strawman is either.
What I said was "if you don't pay attention to them you risk...", which is obviously saying that not paying attention is a bad thing.
You're a fucking liar and a clown arguing in bad faith.
Oh wow! I wish I had addressed that!
Oh neat! I did! I wonder what the rest of the comment is about?
And it goes on? Wow!
Great bit to talk about "bad faith" and then try and pull the move you just tried to pull.
Humans evaluate facts by the source. People trust their in-group. Someone is far more likely to listen to someone they trust and perceive as in-group than someone who's out-group, regardless of the facts.
Sometimes this makes sense. If a guy in a nazi uniform told me the bar down the street is a great time, I'm probably not going to go there.
"This bar is not good" is an opinion, not a reasonable piece of critique or an argument. Presenting this analogy as if it is pertinent to the discussion is incredibly disingenuous and you know it.
Lol. No. The parent quote was
My response rejects "criticism is not evaluated by where it comes from" (using a colloquial sense of criticism, like if a place is good or bad). People definitely evaluate based in part on the source.
You're making a huge equivocation fallacy here.
I don't know what everyone else is thinking, but to my mind people consider the source. You're more likely to believe a reputable newspaper than a tabloid, I hope.
Your argument is one about an opinion, not a piece of critique. You are basically asking if the reader believes they would find a bar frequented by a man in an SS uniform enjoyable. This differs from the question: "If a man in an SS uniform were to point out that Kamala Harris is just as complicit in the palestinian genocide as Trump is, would you dismiss the argument outright, due to the dress of the man?"
While all critique rests upon opinion, not all opinion is critique.
And I'm saying people do exactly that. They read a tabloid that says anything and they go "yeah I don't trust the enquirer" and either dismiss it, or find another source to confirm.
Surely you don't trust the factual claims of a tabloid as much as a reputable paper, or an unkempt man screaming on the street corner as much as your history professor.
Believing a piece of information just because of the source is deemed as reputable or respectable is an fallacy of appeal to authority, not critical thinking.
Yeah, it may look not credible, but you should everytime judge an argument due to its own merit, not because of its source, because what's respectable or reputable is often a power or a social decision, and as such it's almost never rational. In the early XX century even if a women had a good argument, she was dismissed just because she were a women. That's what you're defending too, because it's exactly the same principle: women were looked as if they never were reputable and respectable. But that can never happen to the logical coherence and consistence and the correspondence with reality of an argument.
Even a broken clock can give the correct hour twice a day, and even the most prefect clock will at least once desynchronize.
Friend. The argument isn't "you should judge something by its reputation". The argument is people do that. It is a heuristic or whatever you call that kind of shortcuts.
It is impossible to assess the validity of every source and detail. We rely on trust and reputation and other signals. It's faster, cheaper, and good enough for most things. When your friend you and trust says "I've got some free candy in the van" you probably respond differently than when a blood soaked stranger does.
I'm not saying we should rely on this entirely. I'm simply saying that's a fact of life. People save effort by not critically evaluating everything from first principles when they can just go "my friend recommended it, this Taco place is probably good". It could be a horrible taco place! But it's faster to go by something like in-group recommendations than a full research project.
I feel like I'm repeating myself into the void. Surely you don't all launch extensive research projects for every piece of information and decision that you come across.
This whole damned thread started from someone saying
And that's just not how humans act all of the time! Sometimes, often, they don't think through everything. They don't research. They look at the source and go "nah".
You can argue that's bad, and sure it often is. But that doesn't change the fact that that's how people behave.
You are once again making a false equivalency. You are now comparing "well-founded criticism" with "information."
Why is it so hard for you to just talk about the thing at hand? You keep making abstractions where it isn't some straightforward example of criticism, but instead some other thing. It is incredibly disingenuous.
Your statement also seems faulty. I do not trust information given by a professor due to their status as a professor. The reason I would trust a history professor is because they back up their statements with verifiable sources, not because they are a history professor.
The stories of Abu Ghraib were first published in an Australian tabloid. News media lies all the times.
So yes I would trust information found in tabloid media, if it were presented with verifiable data and corroborating sources, as I do with all sources. I would likewise treat information shared by any other in the same way, no matter the loudness of their voices - Though I assume you tried to allude to them talking weirdly, but that makes no sense, since we have already established we are talking about reasonable critique of the democrat party, not ramblings of some mentally unwell individual. So since it cannot be ramblings, then it can only refer to them being louder than normal. And I talk to italians all the time.
You keep ignoring my point to extrude a lot of words.
People assess what people say in part based on the reputation of the speaker. That's it.
In that case you're just willfully misinterpreting clear language. Speaking like that "X is not treated in Y way" is commonly understood to have an implicit "should" substituting "is". If your grasp of the English language is at the level youre demonstrating here, then you would also know that common parlance. So an extra level of being disingenuous.
On top of that youre still doing the thing wrong. Youre not presenting criticism in your analogy, but an opinion.