BrainInABox
@BrainInABox@lemmy.ml
- Comment on lemm.ee is shutting down at the end of this month 1 hour ago:
Does it make sense though? Does it make sense that a niche English language social media instance war caused to shutdowns by “Russians”?
- Comment on lemm.ee is shutting down at the end of this month 1 hour ago:
“I stubbed my toe, Damn You Russia!”
You: “this person is reasonable and correct”
- Comment on In North Korea, your phone secretly takes screenshots every 5 minutes for government surveillance 1 hour ago:
Are you still staking me around?
- Comment on United Nazis 2 hours ago:
You understand that that’s just pedantry though?
- Comment on United Nazis 2 hours ago:
Whataboutism
- Comment on lemm.ee is shutting down at the end of this month 3 hours ago:
Certain kinds of people blame Russia for all bad things in their life
- Comment on In North Korea, your phone secretly takes screenshots every 5 minutes for government surveillance 20 hours ago:
Anyone who still thinks that after the last year and a half of it operating as a pro-genocide propaganda outlet for Israel either hasn’t been paying attention, or are themselves pro-genocide.
- Comment on In North Korea, your phone secretly takes screenshots every 5 minutes for government surveillance 20 hours ago:
What do you mean “could”? It does
- Comment on In North Korea, your phone secretly takes screenshots every 5 minutes for government surveillance 20 hours ago:
Don’t worry, the western governments also do it
- Comment on In North Korea, your phone secretly takes screenshots every 5 minutes for government surveillance 20 hours ago:
It’s literally is, asshole
- Comment on In North Korea, your phone secretly takes screenshots every 5 minutes for government surveillance 20 hours ago:
Most crime in the West is driven by poverty, yes. So unless you’re saying that NK literally convicts people for the formal, on the books crime of “not wanting to starve”, then it’s the same principle.
But I assume you already know you’re wrong, based on the fact you’re bringing out the personal attacks
- Comment on In North Korea, your phone secretly takes screenshots every 5 minutes for government surveillance 21 hours ago:
I’d rather live in NK then in Gaza: the West loves to create hellholes, and the US has the most prisoners of any country on earth so calling it a ‘free society’ is pretty rich.
- Comment on In North Korea, your phone secretly takes screenshots every 5 minutes for government surveillance 21 hours ago:
but being put in prison because you don’t want to starve to death
That is the main reason people are in prison in the West, you’re just privileged.
- Comment on In North Korea, your phone secretly takes screenshots every 5 minutes for government surveillance 22 hours ago:
I agree, western capitalist exploitation is far worse, but privileged liberals in the imperial core aren’t the main victim, and they only care if their billionaire owned media tells them to.
- Comment on Don't Look Up 1 day ago:
Formal Logic of Your Attack:
Incorrect, that is not the formal logic form of my claim: strawman.
Strawman Claim: You claim I mis-represented your argument, but I quoted your exact words. There is no misquote or bending of meaning.
Factually incorrect, as you presented a logical form that was neither my exact words, nor an accurate form of my claim: lying.
Exact Quotation: You said, “Actually the atrocity propaganda of far right, pro-genocide propaganda outlets like the BBC is exactly what has been used to excuse the IDF’s atrocities.” That is indeed rejecting “C” (the claim that paragliders attacked civilians as reported) on the basis of “BBC = bad source.”
Incorrect. Strawman
Formal Logic of Your Rejection:
Not the formal logic form of my claim: Strawman
By saying “not the argument I made,” you ignore that you literally attacked the source (BBC) and drew a conclusion about the truth of its content. Claiming “strawman” here misrepresents what you literally wrote.
False: lying.
Exact Quote: I pointed out that you said, “there are so many logical fallacies in your comments…,” implying “if I committed fallacies, my conclusion is false.” That is precisely the Fallacy Fallacy.
Claims “exact quote”, then adds in things that weren’t said: lying.
You respond by calling me “hypocrite,” which is itself an Ad Hominem
Incorrect, not what an ad-hominem is.
If (∃ Fallacy in Greg’s argument) then (Greg’s conclusion is false). That inference is invalid because identifying a fallacy in Premise ≠ the Conclusion must be false.
Not what I claimed: strawman.
You wrote, “That was factually untrue and instead of admitting that you were wrong and adjusting your world view…”
Those are are your words: LYING.
“my statement (P: paragliders attacked civilians)” is already false. You treat “¬P” as if it has been demonstrated, rather than proving it.
False: strawman.
That is an attempt to discredit me in advance by labeling me as “in a media bubble” for trusting BBC.
False: strawman
You define: Uses(BBC) ⇒ (I ∈ Fascist/Mediabubble).
False: strawman
Claiming “strawman” here ignores your own words.
False, you are not using my own words, you are using inaccurate formalizations of my claims that are strawmen: lying.
DAMN SON, You REALLY love strawmen. Seems to be all you have!
- Comment on Don't Look Up 1 day ago:
Quote: “If you read that article and say ‘yeah, this is highly credible and close to centre’, you are a fascist.” Formal Logic: (I say: Credible(BBC)) ⇒ (You say: I ∈ Fascist) Therefore: ¬Credible(BBC)
Wrong, that is not the argument I made: strawman fallacy.
“Actually the atrocity propaganda of far right, pro-genocide propaganda outlets like the BBC is exactly what has been used to excuse the IDF’s atrocities.” Formal Logic: (Source© = BBC ∧ Bad(Source)) ⇒ ¬C
Again, not the argument I made: strawman fallacy
“So you’ve Motte-and-Baillied your way from ‘gliders were used to attack small villages’ to ‘gliders were used in attacks on civilian targets’ to ‘a para-glider was referenced in this article’.”Formal Logic: Let P = “Paragliders attacked civilians” You challenge P → I clarify P’ = “Paragliders attacked civilian targets like Kfar Aza” Then you respond to P′′ = “Paragliders are mentioned in the article” Then argue: ¬Mentions(P′′) ⇒ ¬P
Third time: not the argument made, strawman fallacy.
“Blanket declaring that your opponent is wrong and not arguing in good faith because they apparently had ‘so many logical fallacies’…” Formal Logic: (∃ Fallacy in Argument A) ⇒ ¬Valid(A) Then wrongly inferred: ¬Valid(A) ⇒ ¬True(Conclusion A)
lol ok. So now you care about fallacy fallacy? hypocrite.
Quote (from your rebuttal): “Begging the question fallacy: the whole discussion is about if it’s true; you can’t just declare it to be true.” “That was factually untrue and instead of admitting that you were wrong…” Formal Logic: (You assume: ¬P) Then argue: ¬P [where P = “Paragliders attacked civilians”] You point out this fallacy in me - but then do the same thing by assuming the opposite is true without disproving it.
Not remotely the argument made, not even close: massive fucking strawman, again.
“Do you also go around ‘critically reading’ other openly fascist news sources?” “If you think the kind of fascist shit like the article you posted isn’t far-right, you are in a media bubble.” Formal Logic: Uses(BBC) ⇒ ∈Fascist ⇒ ¬Trustworthy(All Claims from Person)
For the fifth fucking time: not the argument: strawman
Seems like literally all you can do is strawman.
- Comment on Don't Look Up 1 day ago:
If you’re incapable of finding the reference to the paraglider in that article I question your critical thinking skills.
So you’ve Motte-and-Baillied your way from “gliders were used to attack small villages” to “gliders were used in attacks on civilian targets” to “a para-glider was referenced in this article”. Maybe you should work on your own critical thinking skills before pulling out this insults.
There are so many logical fallacies in your comments in this thread that I doubt you are arguing in good faith.
You know what is actually a bad faith logical fallacy? Blanket declaring that your opponent is wrong and not arguing in good faith because they apparently had “so many logical fallacies” in their comments (without actually bothering to identify any of them). Specifically Proof by Assertion, Fallacy Fallacy, and Ad-hominem. I know reddit liberals like yourself have been trained to employ the phrase “logical fallacy” like some kind of magical incantation that lets you declare yourself correct without having to actually address anyone who disagrees with you, but you actually do still have to substantiate the point.
If you actually think that I’m not arguing in good faith, you would simply stop replying, and maybe report me. The fact that you are not doing that suggests that you don’t actually believe that and are using the accusation vexatiously.
That was factually untrue and instead of admitting that you were wrong and adjusting your world view slightly you instead choose to double down.
Begging the question fallacy: the whole discussion is about if it’s true; you can’t just declare it to be true. So right back at you again, chief: instead of admitting that you were wrong and adjusting your world view slightly you instead choose to double down.
What news agencies do you trust?
As someone who has repeatedly talked about “reading critically” you should probably no that it’s not a matter of blanket trusting any whole agency, you should read closely enough to: 1. Determine the articles biases, and 2. Determine where the claims of of fact are actually coming from. You should definitely be hesitant to trust an article from a source that has a history of fierce pro-genocide support, is getting all of the claims of fact directly from IDF stormtroopers, and engages in some of the most obscenely blatant editorializing in what is ostensibly supposed to be a news article that I have ever seen.
- Comment on Don't Look Up 1 day ago:
I use independent media ratings to determine the leaning of news agencies.
“Independent”? Independent of who? How does that make them reliable? If they’re rating that Der-Sturmer tier genocide propaganda as “realiable and in the middle” then you should find a different ''independent media ratings".
If you think BBC News is “far right” then you are in a media bubble.
Right back at you, chief. If you think the kind of fascist shit like the article you posted isn’t far-right, you are in a media bubble.
Critically read articles
I do, which is how I can conclude that BBC is far right.
especially from perspectives that don’t align with your views. It will help you understand the world.
Right back at you, chief.
paragliders were used to attack civilian targets during the October 7th attacks.
Even your fascist article doesn’t make that claim.
- Comment on Don't Look Up 1 day ago:
And you said that “paragliders attacked small villages” which even even your pro-genocide suck-job excuse of an article doesn’t actually reach the point of claiming.
I choose to provide a link from the BBC as it is rated as high credible and close to centre.
If you read that article and say “yeah, this is highly credible and close to centre”, you are a fascist.
Because I am capable of critically reading an article without blindly internalizing it’s contents.
Clearly not, given you claimed it as “high credible and close to centre.” Do you also go around ‘critically reading’ other openly fascist news sources?
This fact does not excuse any of the IDF’s atrocities.
Actually the atrocity propaganda of far right, pro-genocide propaganda outlets like the BBC is exactly what has been used to excuse the IDF’s atrocities.
- Comment on Don't Look Up 2 days ago:
Jesus, how can you read that fascist slop without vomitting:
The residents of the Israeli border communities expected periodic rocket attacks after Hamas seized control of Gaza in 2007. They accepted the danger as the price of country life in a tight knit community which still had traces of the pioneer spirit of early Zionist communities.
The article is full of horrific stuff like this.
- Comment on Don't Look Up 2 days ago:
The paragliders were used to attack Israeli military bases.
- Comment on ABC pulls interview with Palestine advocate from website and iview 5 days ago:
You sure are a smug little hypocrite
- Comment on ABC pulls interview with Palestine advocate from website and iview 5 days ago:
Is rape, torture, and murder needed for resistance?
See? You’ve demonstrated my point. There’s zero conclusive evidence that any rape or torture took place on October 7th, but you believe there is anyway.
No, and it undermines the causes of those who conduct themselves that way in resistance.
You would say that about any violent resistance.
Your fighting an poor, distasteful and losing argument trying to put Oct 7th down to framing, and propaganda.
And you’re a fool if you don’t believe that any militant resistance from Hamas would be framed this way. Can you think of a single time it wasn’t?
This is foolish to believe Australia’s actions demonstrate any ideals like what Israel is doing. They may be too soft, like many countries, but they are decidedly in the opposite direction of these genocidal actions.
Ok, so you were lying when you said: “I judge my country by my and my countrymens actions now and passed.” You are still judging others by actions and yourself by intention. Hypocrisy.
And no, Australia is not ‘to soft’, that is some fascist shit.
Your responding to something thats not written.
No, I responded to what you wrote, you literally refereed to your own personal views. If that isn’t what you meant then that’s on you for miscommunication, don’t blame me for responding to what you said.
but a comment on your inability to sort your own ideologogy
No, it definitely wasn’t. You are lying now.
a prejudice you harbour for Australia, from the ongoing crimes Israel is committing.
Oh ok, I didn’t no it was “prejudice” to recognize that Australia supported colonial genocide then, and is supporting it in Israel now.
Being a raging firebrand on the internet might be emotionally satisfying in the moment
So might being a smug nationalist pretending to be super rational and above it all. I was 14 once too.
but in the end the realities of this world reassert themselves
Yes, and the reality is that Australia supported colonial genocide then, and is supporting it in Israel now. And those realities will reassert themselves no matter how much you smugly proclaim otherwise.
and we then have to deal with the destruction and creation of what is left.
And you’re going to deal with that by attacking the people fighting against Israel and defending the people supporting it.
Its easier if theres less rebuilding when the inevitable time comes. Don’t forget that.
Uh-uh. Did you practice that vacuous little speech in the mirror?
- Comment on ABC pulls interview with Palestine advocate from website and iview 5 days ago:
Oct 7th wasn’t a framing issue. Crimes need to be recognised for what they are. Ameliorating factors, such as reasonable resistance don’t go to the medieval activities of that day.
So the answer to my question is: no, you don’t realize that any militant resistance Hamas engages in will be framed as “medieval barbarism”.
I judge my country by my and my countrymens actions now and passed. I humbly acquiesced to that past, re-read it.
Then you have to recognize that Australian ideals are entirely in line with what Israel is doing. Australia’s actions, both then and now, show that.
You have a skewed view of the world if you somehow thought that position in conjunction with my criticisms of Israel, and their refusal to even acknowledge the crimes they’re committing is somehow hypocritical.
I thought we were talking about Australia’s values? Why are you talking about your own personal ones now?
- Comment on ABC pulls interview with Palestine advocate from website and iview 5 days ago:
What are you hoping to achieve rattling off these long since debunked hasbara talking points for the upteenth time? Nobody here believes them, or you for that matter; we can all tell you’re genocidal fascist who’s making a token effort to pretend otherwise.
- Comment on ABC pulls interview with Palestine advocate from website and iview 5 days ago:
but that was shameful, and completely undermines their cause
You realise that there is no form of militant resistance that Hamas could engage in that would not be framed like this? Because Israel and Israel friendly media do the framing.
We haven’t lived up to the ideals we aspire to in the past
Hypocrisy is when you judge yourself by your intentions, and others by their actions.
- Comment on ABC pulls interview with Palestine advocate from website and iview 5 days ago:
Israel to roll over and allow continuous repeats of Oct 7
Why not? You expect Palestine to roll over and allow Israel to keep bombing it, blockading it, building illegal settlements, murdering and kidnapping it’s people, and doing everything it can get away with to ethnically cleanse it.
- Comment on ABC pulls interview with Palestine advocate from website and iview 5 days ago:
Holocaust denier
- Comment on ABC pulls interview with Palestine advocate from website and iview 5 days ago:
Furiously? I am not the one making ad hominem attacks. I am not putting words in your mouth.
I bring up uncomfortable facts.
No, you deny the uncomfortable facts while bringing up convenient lies.
I’m not interested in being civil to a genocide denier.
There are Left leaning Israeli parties
Yeah, and they’re also pro-genocide.
Neither of us has a solution.
Your solution seems to be insisting that nothing else is possible except letting the genocide continue, while you endlessly try to divert to blaming Hamas and excusing Israel’s exponentially worse crimes
- Comment on ABC pulls interview with Palestine advocate from website and iview 5 days ago:
So calling for Palestinians to be free = calling for genocide, because of unrelated countries.