this post was submitted on 13 Sep 2024
430 points (96.7% liked)

Videos

14278 readers
157 users here now

For sharing interesting videos from around the Web!

Rules

  1. Videos only
  2. Follow the global Mastodon.World rules and the Lemmy.World TOS while posting and commenting.
  3. Don't be a jerk
  4. No advertising
  5. No political videos, post those to [email protected] instead.
  6. Avoid clickbait titles. (Tip: Use dearrow)
  7. Link directly to the video source and not for example an embedded video in an article or tracked sharing link.
  8. Duplicate posts may be removed

Note: bans may apply to both [email protected] and [email protected]

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Stephen Miller, Trump advisor, absolutely loses his mind when journalist José María Del Pino asks him where he gets his information about Venezuela's supposed low crimes rates.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Nonsense. He's a racist. He has a very, very long history of racism.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 month ago (1 children)

(although, obviously he is but I can’t be bothered to dredge up all that BS)

I clearly agree with you. The point is that his argument "Kamala is abusing her mixed heritage to pander to those audiences" is the best way to interpret the argument to come to rational conclusions.

In my counter-argument I simply state the premises: The candidates job is to win (implied), both candidates are pandering to their heritage, and accusations of pandering are an unpersuasive form criticism as it is expected from rational voters. Therefore, I do not find his complaint that her pandering is unfair, abusive or even remotely persuasive to vote for him instead.

If you want to pile on a rhetorical argument that he is racist and shouldn't be voted for you'd be preaching to the choir, but as you can see accusing your arguer of being racist is both irrelevant and counter-productive to coming to the same conclusion in the end.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

No it isn't. The best way to interpret that argument to come to the rational conclusion is to interpret is AS RACIST.

Jesus Christ you are bending over backward to not make an obviously racist comment, which he has since repeated after being called out on the racism, is not racist. He literally did it at the debate. There is nothing irrelevant or counter-productive about saying what is true.

And if you agree that he is a racist, I have no idea why you are being so charitable to the extremely racist thing he keeps repeating.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

Because I prefer rational arguments as they are the best ones for elucidating Truth, not appeals to emotional ones. I'd rather know I was right for good reasons than just join the mob right or not. In this case anyone could have accused Kamala of 'being black' and I could refute it without needing to bring racism claims into it.

Interesting that you use the word 'charitable' as the Principle of Charity is literally what I'm talking about.

Edit: bring

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

Cool. The truth is he said something racist. He's been informed it was racist and he keeps repeating it.

Stop sealioning.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

sealioning

Seriously, you're a mod. Do better.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I am not a mod in this community and you are sealioning. You can argue away literally everything racist Trump has ever said with your "charity" approach. Because he can be this explicit and you still give him the benefit of the doubt. You can be just as charitable and say that the "immigrants are eating dogs" claim isn't racist. And I wouldn't be surprised if you do the same sort of sealioning on that one.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

No, I'm not entertaining your tried and true slippery slope of straw man accusations when you lose an argument. Be better, because this schtick is getting old and abusive. I've done nothing but politely explain my quite reasonable position and only answered your questions as best I can. Continuing on at this point would be sealioning as you've obviously tilted into direct attacks on me and to continue this to your embarrassment would only serve to further your agenda of getting a report enforced.

Have a good day Squid. Feel free to read up on that Principle of Charity link I previously supplied for a better understanding of rational argumentation.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Again, I'm not a moderator here and I also never flagged anything you said. Turn down the paranoia about 50 notches.

Also, you initially replied to me. I didn't tell you to. If you don't like my "schtick" and talk to me unsolicited anyway, that's not really my problem.