The Atlas Asylum of absurd/ignorant posts IX

[Hindsight was 2020]

Good day peasants, what is thou doing thy thread?
*sees 3 page long arguments on finding men attractive*
.......By the Pope

[Hindsight was 2020]

A new absurd/ignorant post, both because BRTD's claim is wrong & because BRTD could easily look at reasons why both his claim & that of the original post are wrong by just clicking the link to the original post & seeing the reply thereafter:

[The selection of Kamala Harris as Joe Biden's running mate] was a bad pick.  Who exactly did Kamala Harris appeal to?  There was no perfect pick for Biden, and anyone else would have only helped at the margins, but I don’t really think Harris helped at all, and she may have lost Biden some votes among Latinos.

I don't see anything inaccurate in that post.

You can disagree with his assessment but I don’t see how what he said qualifies as absurd

[Hindsight was 2020]

Putting aside that the post is false, this comparison is so peak Atlas:

I obviously wouldn’t go that far, but the fact that we are even considering deifying someone like George Floyd is a disturbing sign.

What is disturbing is that conservatives have such hatred and animosity towards a dead person who didn't personally harm them.

“What is disturbing is that young Jews have such hatred and animosity towards a dead person who didn’t personally harm them.”

Don’t think I have to name said dead person for you to understand how stupid of a line this is.

Not to mention, conservatives don’t “hate” George Floyd, they just don’t think he should be honored.

Hitler wanted the Jews exterminated.

And George Floyd threatened to murder a pregnant woman and her child. So let’s not pretend either were particularly good people.

I recant the pregnant part, but the rest is true.

George Floyd never instigated a genocide, to my knowledge.

Here is a brief distillation of that exchange:

Argument: "Nobody should have animosity towards a dead person who didn't personally harm them."

Counterargument: "Does that mean that modern Jews shouldn't hate Hitler?"

There are only two possible responses to this counterargument: "Yes, that means Jews shouldn't hate Hitler," or "No, you're right, my reasoning wasn't very intelligent." The OP should pick one, because he is the one who painted himself into a corner with such a silly post. And please don't get mad at Reckoning for taking a bad argument to its logical conclusion. While the Hitler references are getting old, he is simply applying the same logic in another context. Saying "Buh-but it's Hitler so it's not the same!" isn't a counter to his point.

Where is Scroll even arguing that? They seem to just arguing that conservative hatred toward Floyd specifically is creepy while you can saying they claimed an absolutism on hating any dead person that the OP didn’t say or really imply

[Hindsight was 2020]

aha, your claim that “it’s deeply disturbing that conservatives have developed an intense hatred toward a random guy who got murdered by cops” failed to consider literally every possible scenario — what about Hitler?? It is, therefore, not a universally applicable maxim and has been destroyed by logic.

The correct response to this kind of “counterargument” is “that’s real stupid bro.”

Huh. It never occurred to me that some people might just not care about being hypocrites.

Well, let this be a learning experience. Most people are perfectly comfortable applying different standards of moral judgment to an unemployed truck driver and Adolf Hitler. Understanding and appreciating this fact will help you engage better with others.

If someone espouses a principle, they should be willing to apply that principle equally to any given situation. If they cannot do that, then that is indicative of poor critical thinking skills.

And I don't think people hold Hitler to "a different standard of moral judgement" than anyone else.

That completely ridiculous logic because not all situations are the same ie a truck driver with a trouble criminal past vs someone who committed genocide. That’s like arguing all crimes are equally morally reprehensible and a jaywalker is no morally different than a serial killer

[Hindsight was 2020]

There is no rule that commands people to apply a principle they espouse in the context of a particular situation to also apply to "any given situation." That is why we refer to those situations as "different." Recognizing that different situations can call for the application of different principles is a key feature of critical thinking.

There was nothing inherently "different" about the analogous situation that Reckoning presented. He took a set of logic that was applied to one individual and then applied it to another individual, and now you guys are angry that the logic didn't hold up under that other circumstance.

Regardless of how you feel about Reckoning (he and I have our disagreements, to be sure), he is objectively correct in this instance, and trying to obfuscate that by zeroing in on the indelicate language he used does not disprove his point.

There are always differences between different situations — that is why it is an analogy and not simply a restatement. Perhaps you conceptualize genocide as a fundamentally different offense than whatever he accused Floyd of doing, perhaps you apply different standards to political leaders than to private citizens, perhaps you draw some other distinction between the two cases. Whatever it may be, the logic that applies to one individual situation does not have to apply in all circumstances despite meaningful differences — you are the only one who seems to be unable to recognize that different situations can be different!

So if "he didn't do anything to you, and now he's dead" isn't a sufficient reason why someone shouldn't harbor ill will towards a person, then why even bring it up at all? There are innumerable deceased people who didn't harm us personally who we nevertheless feel animosity towards-- serial killers, sex criminals, Bernie Madoff, etc. Disliking dead people you've never met isn't some crazy feeling, and it's certainly not ipso facto proof that the """conservatives""" he was talking about were behaving irrationally. You're wasting your time trying to defend a comment that the original poster evidently put very little thought into.

Oh good grief all OP was getting at was how creepy it was that certain conservatives are hating a guy simply because the brutal way he was murdered by a cop sparked a political outrage and that this hatred has gotten so ridiculous that a memorial being wrecked in storm was being attributed to divine intervention. You’re the one who took this straight forward point and blew it up to a ridiculous point along with thereckoning 

[Hindsight was 2020]

I think it's always worthwhile to defend the right of people to make casual remarks without having to add a caveat for every possible scenario lest they be interrogated by Socrates over here

Huh, that's funny, because TheReckoning was making a rather casual retort to an obviously flawed comment before you guys ganged up on him. But I guess I should know better than to expect you to apply your principles equally in different situations.

We’ve been going on and on on this morality argument that I forgot to bring this up but no the Reckonings retort was stupid. There are many Jews internationally and locally who were personally affected by what Hitler did be it relatives they lost in the Holocaust or even victims today of the numerous antisemitic hate crimes that have been spiking recently and done by white supremacy groups directly inspired by Hitler. So no the comparison even fails at its most basic level.

[Hindsight was 2020]

Republicans do know how to win votes and turn out their base so you can't necessarily blame them. If anything I think Democrats should concede these issues to them and simply maintain a economically liberal message. If Democrats can get socially conservative, but economically liberal candidates elected then they could get things like a minimum increase passed. After all I think there are more socially conservative voters than LGBTQ voters in this country, so majority rules.

It speaks volumes that BRTD thinks this is awful but I think this is great.

It speaks volumes as to who is the elitist and who is not.

Not wanting to throw queer people, etc under the bus is not elitism.

Unfortunately, historically there has been a linking of supporting marginalized groups with elitism in this country by reactionaries. Back in the day pro-slavery arguments constantly went back to attacking the abolitionist crowd as rich and elitist Northerns looking down on the Southern way or life and this line of argument carried over into Jim Crow. Hell, anytime the issue of racial profiling by cops comes up at some point the anti-profiling crowd will get attack for living in gated communities. So as much supporting the rights of marginalized people isn’t elitist it definitely has been linked historically

[Hindsight was 2020]

In terms of WWII history, I am fairly revisionist, and while I still lean toward being more pro-Allies than pro-Axis I am fairly empathetic to the Axis point of view.

"Toss-up, tilt Allies"

Likely Allies, but the Axis wins if they are able to take the marginal seats of Stalingrad, Moscow, Baku, El Alamein, and Leningrad.

Stop ✋ 🛑 you’re nonsense you like riverwalk think it’s going to be an Axis wave 😂 😭. The Allies got the Stalingrad friefwall that will win the day because FDR is an inspiration to people with polio 😎

[Hindsight was 2020]

It is worthy of debate if utilizing the popular front this way is generally the right course of action, but I believe this is the first time Code Pink has gotten a HoR member to acknowledge them in a good while.

Code Pink was a bunch of America hating communists under Bush and they remain a bunch of America hating communists to this day. Code Red would be a better name.

Communists seem to be the only reliable figure who are anti-imperialist and don't resort to contrarianism as a method to decide foreign policy. No wonder we were able to sense the disaster that was the Iraq invasion and the GWOT-grift.

I am always impressed by the faux outrage when the Left™ tries to reach out to the other aisle but when Democrats do so it is good bipartisanship and healthy for democracy. Like the nonsense that Democrats are serving the communists or are by allying with them, the same applies here of the nonsensical horseshoe theory.

It’s crazy how nationalist republicans became the moderated voice of reason on this matter, pushing for negotiated peace talks instead of a military solution.

Is this that crazy? At least some nationalist conservatives (contra imperialists) in the United States have opposed involvement in pretty much every overseas conflict since the Spanish-American War but are usually drowned out or overtaken by events and propaganda.

I remember Trump, as much of an “anti-war” guy, still killed Iranian Qasem Soleimani. Many in generalized NPC republican base applauded it but I also remember the core intelectual base of Trumpism - the ones who really believed in the “America First” slogan - criticized Trump for the first time ever for contradicting his words and promises. So at least they should be given the benefit of doubt as people who really believe in the moral principles of what they defend instead of it just being partisan signaling.

I initially had negative views on the assassination on the presumption it would lead to larger scale conflict, but as with Trump generally, I was wrong about my initial impression.

The assassination along with the general hostility to Iran by the Trump admin was wrong and I have no doubt that Trump would have gone to war in the second consecutive term of his presidency. Outside of a few Neo-nazis stuck in the past with a more uncompromising view of Israel, most MAGA people back a war with Iran and Venezuela.

Historically the GOP and the Birchers generally had an uncompromising position with left-coded countries, outside of the compromise of Vietnam done in the name of electoral victory there never was an anti-war right. Neither is there a real anti-war Democratic Party outside of them being in opposition.

Code Pink have always been that particularly obnoxious breed of pacifist who love to always blame the person who hits second and never the original aggressor. Even if you're going to unconditionally renounce violence and say they're both bad, the one who started it is clearly worse and the source of the problem.

This is not an "America First" thing. There is a 0% chance of us ever putting boots on the ground and taking casualties and we're sending them unused military surplus so it's not even that expensive. People who cause a stink over this either love Putin or are just contrarian for the sake of it like Code Pink.

Euromaidan was a coup and currently Zelensky does whatever the man in charge of Ukraine's continued existence, Biden, wants. If Biden was serious about negotiations he'd try and reach out to Putin and try to work something out. He and the MIC does not, they want the whole pie and a weak Russia either under their control or too weak to supply China.

The current inflation issue and decline in living standards is now mostly from to this war instead of the pandemic. As the government gears itself to continue on a rampage to either remain on the top for the wealthy benefactors in charge and move towards WWIII, Code Pink are apart of the few who realize that most of the people they care about would be pushed to precarity from war.

RV, don't be fooled. Once Venezuela is over with they are coming for Brazil.

It really is amazing how hypocritical people like you are to keep calling your opposition “anti-imperialist” while constantly denying Ukraine it’s own agency

Ukraine doesn't have agency though. Its current dictator was installed by the US State Department.
The only countries on the world stage which have anything close to absolute sovereignty and agency are the US, China, Russia, perhaps India, and a few others to varying degrees. Everyone else has to bend to the pressures of greater powers -- many of them are de facto imperial provinces with no sovereignty at all, like Canada and Germany (which had an act of war committed against it by the US and never so much as raised a peep about it).