transcript
A tumblr post by voidambassador.
It is an image made to look like a quote, it says: "Alienate your progressive voters by courting the center-right at all possible opportunities - Sun tzu, the art of war.
It has a reblog with a screenshot of a comment saying: “what policy she has that is center right [sic]? that makes no sense this has to be ragebait.”
It has another edited quote saying: "If you do not immediately agree with a post on the internet, it has no intellectual backing and is singularly intended to offend. - Sun Tzu, the art of war.
There is a final reblog. It shows a screenshot of the tumblr messages icon, showing that there is 72 new messages sent to the author of the post. This reblog is equipped with yet another edited quote saying “uh oh - Sun Tzu, the art of war”.
End of Transcription.
"don’t forget the russian bots.
if you disagree its all bots."
- sun tzu
If you don’t like genocide, you’re probably a russian bot
- Sun Tsu
I thought that the Russians liked genocide. They have been pursuing policies of russification for centuries
It’s from the perspective of a liberal that can’t imagine the idea of refusing to support genocide out of realpolitik
debate me
You’re wrong, you have no evidence. Burden of proof is on you.
I think NO
ad hominem
Strawman
wishful thinking
Fallacy fallacy, or, just because I called you a moronic dweeb doesn’t make you right.
Appeal to katana
Fellatio ad hominem fallacy!
CHAPTER XIX
That one should not avoid being despised and hatedMachiavelli, Niccolò . The Prince
“Your argument doesn’t completely make sense, can you explain more and give an example?”
“LOL I guess some people are just closed minded”
Sounds like Sun Tzu guy would be right at home on Lemmy
I don’t think they were really asking for an example.
Immidately jumping to the conclusion that something is rage bait is closed-minded.
I don’t think they were really asking for an example.
They literally did. They really asked for an example. It’s in the words that they used, which is the only relevant factor for determining whether or not they asked for an example.
I mean they weren’t shy about saying also that they were having trouble understanding the thought process to such an extent that they felt like it was ragebait. I mean maybe that’s not productive to do. But staking out your own point of view while also asking honest open questions about the other person’s point of view and asking for clarification and details is pretty much how productive conversation happens. Just coming out of the blue as “do you have an example?” and only that, can be mischaracterized in exactly the same way and met with the same 100% unproductive response (and often is), so why bother shying away from it, is my feeling.
To me it came off as rethorical.
The other person could easily have listed out a bunch of center-right policies in answer to the question. Whether or not the question was rhetorical is (in addition to being impossible to determine) kind of irrelevant to me. The fact that Sun Tzu guy specifically ignored an easy opportunity to take the conversation in the direction of facts and logic, and justifications or lack thereof, is the heart of the issue. Instead they went for the snarky dishonest comeback, which benefits no one and doesn’t help anyone learn anything or pick a side.
SunTzu - lists a bunch of center right policies
Person in Purple - Those aren’t center right! god you leftists take anything that isn’t stalinism as right wing!
Yes, but it’s conversation. The two people may or may not agree after any amount of conversation, maybe they won’t even agree on the reality of what policies she even enacted or talked about enacting, but they can talk about specific policies and realities. It moves people towards understanding, especially the people watching who can sort of identify patterns of who’s consistent and is willing to provide evidence for what they’re saying, and who’s just kind of gibbering and changing the subject and making attacks.
If both people are just doing the gibbering, or doing pure accusations (like you’re doing) about what the other person would have done with a reasonable response, then that never happens, and no one learns anything. To me, the most relevant part about the whole thing is that one person at least seems roughly open to the idea of talking about the underlying facts, and one person is just ignoring questions and making accusations with no pretense at all of being open to backing up what they’re saying.
Which is why I said the person who is explicitly rejecting the idea of even approaching that kind of factual or reasonable exchange would be right at home on Lemmy.
What I posted isn’t a conversation, it’s a waste of time for the person running a shit posting account where they post fake quotes in the name of SunTzu.
There’s a person on lemmy using the name. They’re a bit off their rocker tbh.
I think I know the person you mean lol
And yes, they’re nuts.
But still above par, considering the competition…
I saw someone using the name Genius, though I don’t recall the instance, and they were a certifiable dumbass.
lemmy.zip?
