Comment

Comment on Substack says it will not remove or demonetize Nazi content

Ad hominem. Nice. That said, I get it if you think Reason.com is a sketchy source to try to point to as an argument for anything. I restructured my message, so I’m simply stating my facts and opinions directly, so you can disagree directly if you like, instead of just jeering at the “Reason.com” part of it.

If the fact that I cited “Reason.com” as an aside is a problem, but it’s not a problem the person I was replying to was calmly stating something that was highly relevant to the argument that wasn’t actually true… you might be only concerned with whether something agrees with your biases, not whether it’s accurate. Does that not seem like a problem to you?

source

Sort:hotnew top

FlyingSquid@lemmy.world ⁨11⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
The Kochs are Nazis. That’s not an ad hominem, that’s just a fact.

David, along with his brother Chuck Koch continued their father’s rabid anti-communism and anti-semitism by founding and funding both the Reason Foundation and the Cato Institute. Both “think tanks” billed themselves as libertarian. Both published holocaust denial literature including the writings of school mates of the Koch brothers.

mockingbirdpaper.com/…/david-koch-industrialist-a…

They were even partly raised by a Nazi.

Here again, you get this strange recurrence of a kind of little touch of Nazi Germany, because … Charles and Frederick, the oldest sons, were put in the hands of a German nanny who was described by other family members as just a fervid Nazi. She was so devout a supporter of Hitler that finally, after five years working for the family, she left of her own volition in 1940 when Hitler entered France because she wanted to celebrate with the Fuehrer.

npr.org/…/hidden-history-of-koch-brothers-traces-…

And no, it doesn’t seem like a problem to me to call Nazis Nazis. Because they’re Nazis.

source
- mo_ztt@lemmy.world ⁨11⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  “Ad hominem” refers to ignoring the content of a message, and making your argument based on who is speaking. It doesn’t mean that your statement about the speaker isn’t factual, or that understanding more about who is speaking might not be relevant – it simply refers to the idea that you should at some point address the content of the message if you’re going to debate it.
  
  In this case, I said something, you ignored the content and instead focused on the fact that I’d linked to something, and criticized the source of the thing I’d linked to. Okay, fair enough, the Koch brothers are Nazis. I don’t like them either. If you want to respond to the content of my message, I’ve now reframed it so the stuff I’m saying is coming directly from me, so that “but Reason.com!” isn’t any longer a way to dismiss it because of who is speaking.
  
  source
  - FlyingSquid@lemmy.world ⁨11⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    
    “Ad hominem” refers to ignoring the content of a message, and making your argument based on who is speaking.
    
    I’m aware. And that is perfectly valid when the content of the message is defending monetizing Nazis is funded by Nazis.
    
    source
    mo_ztt@lemmy.world ⁨11⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    You missed what I’m saying. I’m not funded by Nazis. You took my message and ignored what I was saying in favor of criticizing Reason.com. Fair enough. I was inviting you to continue the conversation, if you have an argument against the content, now that I’ve removed anything that could be construed as “because Reason.com says so” and simply said what I think about it.
    
    source
    -> View More Comments