Why people need to lead by example
-
Ok, so that pic in the OP was fake, but as I showed later in the thread, we have heard that kind of thing before from white liberals.
-
@raphjd said in Why people need to lead by example:
but as I showed later in the thread, we have heard that kind of thing before from white liberals.
“On Christmas Eve, I sent a satirical tweet about an imaginary concept, ‘white genocide’. For those who haven’t bothered to do their research, ‘white genocide’ is an idea invented by white supremacists and used to denounce everything from inter-racial relationships to multicultural policies.... It is a figment of the racist imagination, it should be mocked, and I’m glad to have mocked it. White supremacy is on the rise, and we must fight it by any means.”
- George Ciccariello-Maher
-
Yeah, he only claimed it was "satirical" after the backlash.
It's like that TikTok celeb who made comments about trans-people, then when there was a backlash, she claimed to be trans.
-
Well, first, we need to reiterate as frequently as we can that you've been caught now spreading fake, edited photographs and that needs to be a millstone hung around your neck from now on, and I encourage all of your frequent opponents on here to consistently and constantly throw it in your face.
Second, I'm amazed it never occurs to you how absurd your reliance upon this example to prove "how all liberals think." Even if we assume that this professor was not being satirical, what was the response? He was condemned by his liberal college and forced onto administrative leave.
"Drexel became aware today of Associate Professor George Ciccariello-Maher's inflammatory tweet, which was posted on his personal Twitter account on Dec[ember] 24, 2016. While the University recognizes the right of its faculty to freely express their thoughts and opinions in public debate, Professor Ciccariello-Maher's comments are utterly reprehensible, deeply disturbing, and do not in any way reflect the values of the University. The University is taking this situation very seriously. We contacted Ciccariello-Maher today to arrange a meeting to discuss this matter in detail."
In other words, you focused on what one dumbass said and universalized it onto all liberals while actively ignoring the response from liberals to that statement. It's almost like you're a biased asshat.
-
-
@raphjd said in Why people need to lead by example:
I never said anything about ALL liberals.
Then please delineate the specific, discrete, and distinct liberals that you were referring to. If you truly were not casting aspersions about all liberals, then you should easily tell me explicitly and in detail which specific liberals you were directing your comments.
If you can't do the above, then you were obviously making generalized statements about a category of peoples and the quoted language from you above is a pitiful defense.
Also, you posted a fake photograph.
-
-
@raphjd said in Why people need to lead by example:
A fake photo.
You lie.Your original post is a fake photograph that has been edited. Are you seriously denying it?
-
-
@hubrys said in Why people need to lead by example:
Then please delineate the specific, discrete, and distinct liberals that you were referring to. If you truly were not casting aspersions about all liberals, then you should easily tell me explicitly and in detail which specific liberals you were directing your comments.
If you can't do the above, then you were obviously making generalized statements about a category of peoples and the quoted language from you above is a pitiful defense.I'm still waiting, @raphjd
-
Keep waiting, because I owe you nothing.
-
It's an old, old tactic, something that I've seen referred to as "nutpicking." You find an example somewhere online, usually on Twitter or in some obscure forum post or comment, and then pretend that it applies to some vague and undefined set of "liberals" or whatever enemy of the day you're targeting.
In this case, you're targeting "white liberals" but, as noted above, you never do specify just which "white liberals" you are referring to. It certainly does not apply to anyone in this forum, nor does it apply to any Democratic politician nor to any liberal organization, pundit, leader, etc. And in this case, the example you found was not only fake, it was obviously fake.
The equivalent tactic from me would be to locate a comment on Breitbart or Gateway Pundit, or to find a blatantly racist thread on Parler, of which there are many, and pretend that it applies to some vague set of "conservatives" and that it somehow proves something.
It doesn't prove anything, of course, other than demonstrating a bankrupt argument and the poor logical and reasoning skills of the person making it.
-
I should add that this is always, without exception, an argument made in bad faith and it should never be taken seriously or treated as legitimate discourse. The premise on which such arguments are made is false. By engaging with the argument, you could be seen as implicitly accepting the premise.
Probably the best response is to ignore the argument completely since it is self-evidently false. Another good response, as we've seen here, is to challenge the premise. The person making the argument is left flailing, unable to respond (see above).
A similar tactic is often employed by right-wing media: the "people are saying" nonsense that they so often use. One of the many things I love about Jen Psaki is that she does not let them get away with this but responds by asking who, specifically, is saying such things. They either have no answer or they are forced to admit that "the people" they are referring to are Republican politicians and operatives (see Doocy, Steven for examples).
-
LOL, Jen Psaki? She's a liar if there ever was one.
The funny thing is, Hunter's laptop was a conspiracy theory and Russian disinformation, now suddenly the liberal media is finally admitting it's real.
It's the same with the Russian collusion BS. Democrats went on TV screeching that they had proof, but never once provided any, then in Shifty Schiff's secret hearing in the bunker, they said they never knew of any evidence of Russian collusion. I tried to get @bi4smooth to watch the Tucker video and read the links to the declassified testimony but he absolutely refused.
There have been many cases like this. You clowns call me a liar but refuse to even look at the links, even when they are official government links.
Of course, we all know that you guys refuse to look at the links because it would go against your narrative.
-
Q.E.D. I don't think anything more needs to be said.
