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
1181 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
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.