The Atlas Asylum of absurd/ignorant posts IX

[John Dule]

Morrissey=talentless, whiny, emo freak who couldn't write a decent melody to save his life. "Please don't drop me home, cause it's not my home it's their home and I'm welcome no more..." wah wah wah, STFU.

The good post gallery is that way.

He's referring to Morrissey as "emo". Morrissey started with The Smiths in 1982. Emo did not exist until after 1985's Revolution Summer. Furthermore Revolution Summer was a movement in Washington DC and later spread up and down the East Coast initially but did not reach the UK until the 90s, there was no such thing as "emo" in the UK until about 1992ish, which was quite a bit after the Smiths had broken up and Morrisey's solo stuff had zero influence from it.

It's a really dumb and ignorant post.

He isn't referring to the genre of music. Hard to imagine, I know.

Then what is he referring to?

"Emo" was not even a word in 1982. If you said it people would probably assume you were referring to the comedian Emo Phillips.

First definition on the list.

I’m with BRTD on this one. If you’re referring to a musician as “emo”, you’re probably talking about his genre. Morrissey obviously has nothing to do with emo the genre.

Idk who Morrissey is, but if he's "obviously" not in the emo genre, then why would anyone have said that to begin with? When I hear the word "emo," I don't think of music. I think of a whiny, depressive person who cuts themselves and dyes their hair all manner of hideous colors.

Then you are thinking of something that has nothing to do with emo at all. Like see my 50 greatest emo songs of all time thread and tell me what those have to do with that.

I don't care about the music. This is an unrelated term.

[John Dule]

Morrissey=talentless, whiny, emo freak who couldn't write a decent melody to save his life. "Please don't drop me home, cause it's not my home it's their home and I'm welcome no more..." wah wah wah, STFU.

The good post gallery is that way.

He's referring to Morrissey as "emo". Morrissey started with The Smiths in 1982. Emo did not exist until after 1985's Revolution Summer. Furthermore Revolution Summer was a movement in Washington DC and later spread up and down the East Coast initially but did not reach the UK until the 90s, there was no such thing as "emo" in the UK until about 1992ish, which was quite a bit after the Smiths had broken up and Morrisey's solo stuff had zero influence from it.

It's a really dumb and ignorant post.

He isn't referring to the genre of music. Hard to imagine, I know.

Then what is he referring to?

"Emo" was not even a word in 1982. If you said it people would probably assume you were referring to the comedian Emo Phillips.

First definition on the list.

I’m with BRTD on this one. If you’re referring to a musician as “emo”, you’re probably talking about his genre. Morrissey obviously has nothing to do with emo the genre.

Idk who Morrissey is, but if he's "obviously" not in the emo genre, then why would anyone have said that to begin with? When I hear the word "emo," I don't think of music. I think of a whiny, depressive person who cuts themselves and dyes their hair all manner of hideous colors.

Then you are thinking of something that has nothing to do with emo at all. Like see my 50 greatest emo songs of all time thread and tell me what those have to do with that.

I don't care about the music. This is an unrelated term.

But whenever I say "emo" I am always referring to the musical style.

Ok, but that's not what he was referring to.

[John Dule]

Nothing like a multi page argument on the definition of emo between John Dule and BRTD.

I'm sorry this wasn't up to your intellectual standard of screeching about how everyone in the military is a wife-beating welfare queen.

[John Dule]

Nothing like a multi page argument on the definition of emo between John Dule and BRTD.

I'm sorry this wasn't up to your intellectual standard of screeching about how everyone in the military is a wife-beating welfare queen.

They're definitely welfare queens to whatever extent, but only some are wife beaters. Those select few graduate to join the ranks of our country's finest law enforcement departments.

Don't mince words. Tell us how you really feel.

[John Dule]

OK, I'm just gonna say it:

While I initially consented to the use of my name in the topic of this thread, that was now over 6 months ago. Shortly before then, I had (while highly intoxicated on the night of a holiday in which I got ESPECIALLY intoxicated even by my standards) made some extremely embarrassing, unwarranted, and unhinged posts attacking a fellow user (who I now like to think I'm on pretty good terms with), thus why I thought I was deserving of being named in the thread title. I could not possibly regret those posts more now. Hell, I couldn't even at the time. BUT I thought it would just be a temporary thing and the name would be replaced eventually, and that it was more than adequate punishment to be publicly humiliated in this way given that I had indeed made a massive fool of myself in front of everybody.

Yeah, as the person towards whom that rant was directed, I found it pretty funny and I don't hold any grudge at all. The thread should be renamed. We have users on this site who believe in Bigfoot and want to ban knives; the fact that this is still named for AB of all people is an insult to our collective intelligence.

[John Dule]

Zuckerman would be a Great candidate for his seat though, it's VT and let's face it Bernie and Leahy aren't retiring

You just quoted my post? I'm confused here.

[John Dule]

Abolishment of the nucleur family? That's insanem Now I can see why their support will drop continuosly.

I would agree with them.
If anything, kids from a young age should be sent to a large centralized childcare center where large groups of children are provided for and later educated.

This would reduce inequality of opportunity to near zero, and would allow us to teach every child important values that many are missing today.

How is this ridiculous?
It makes perfect sense, what is the logical reason against it?

Ideally yes, it would be nice to eliminate inequality from opportunity, and this would be the way to do it. However, you are ignoring the psychological impact this would have on everyone involved. Children need role models who aren't teachers or faceless bureaucrats, and parents would resist any effort to take their children away-- sometimes with deadly force.

[John Dule]

Ohio is becoming bluer and FL and TX becoming redder

Atlas colors, you turnip.

[John Dule]

Pretty much every post by OC belongs in this thread, especially the ones in which he talks about religion and human evolution.

His theological views are no less valid than any others.

[John Dule]

Pretty much every post by OC belongs in this thread, especially the ones in which he talks about religion and human evolution.

His theological views are no less valid than any others.

His views are valid, but he expresses them in an unintelligible way and doesn’t like being challenged on them.

That applies to half of the Christians on this site.

[John Dule]

He should have the right to refuse service to anyone.

See thread for context, also it might be time for a rename

The Boy Who Cried "Rename the Ignorant Post Thread"

[John Dule]

LA county swung right by 5 points likely due to their large Asian and Latinx population shifting right. White voters in California shifted more left from 2016 and it balanced out almost evenly.

> Latinx

I'm always a bit bemused by the way that a huge majority of even left wing posters on here are so freaked out by that term.

I'm torn between thinking this is more a sheer obstinate refusal to even try and understand the sorts of issues that are  significant outside of the English speaking world (which works the other way round too - see the "how would Belgium vote if it was a US state" type threads, where people try to calque US issues onto a context where they aren't especially relevant); or that it is simply down to the US being much more conservative on issues related to gender and LGBT equality. Nevertheless, it's remarkably different to how I see the issue being discussed by left wingers in French or German.

This isn't really true though. The US got same-sex marriage before a ton of European countries including yours that doesn't even have it yet (though that'll almost certainly change in the fall.)

Polls much higher support here than in the USA (~80% in favour here, which is about normal for W Europe), whereas there was a thread on here celebrating 70% support in the USA just a couple of weeks ago. Or, more to the point, it will be legal here by the end of the year, the reason is an extremely slow political process, and at least we'll have introduced it democratically. There are also some concrete areas where we are even ahead - eg anti discrimination and hate speech laws or conversion therapy being illegal; and of course, no bizarre hate campaigns against transpeople's right to use the toilet or access medical treatment.

Anti-hate speech laws place you decidedly behind us.

[John Dule]

Context.

However, Hitler genuinely cared about his nation and the well-being of its people, so that's something they don't have in common.

That's an objective fact.

[John Dule]

Context.

However, Hitler genuinely cared about his nation and the well-being of its people, so that's something they don't have in common.

That's an objective fact.

Only if you only consider white (not Jew or Roma) non disabled Christians of the correct political persuasion to be people, and even then, he was willing to sacrifice them by the truckload to achieve his goals globally.

It isn't contradictory to say that Hitler loved and cared about Germany but also that he horribly abused and murdered millions of its citizens in cold blood.

[John Dule]

Context.

However, Hitler genuinely cared about his nation and the well-being of its people, so that's something they don't have in common.

That's an objective fact.

Only if you only consider white (not Jew or Roma) non disabled Christians of the correct political persuasion to be people, and even then, he was willing to sacrifice them by the truckload to achieve his goals globally.

It isn't contradictory to say that Hitler loved and cared about Germany but also that he horribly abused and murdered millions of its citizens in cold blood.

Well I guess it's just semantics then because I don't see how you can love and care about a country while at the same time committing horrendous actions in its name and against your own people. And why that distinction would matter when comparing him to Trump, whose tenure was more defined by being a dumbass and by being very pliable to the banking industry and defense contractors than by whether he genuinely cared about America.

Then I guess you just don't have any interest in understanding what motivates dictators. Many dictators do genuinely care about their country, albeit only their own warped conception of what the country should look like. To pretend otherwise is to ignore a key element of their psychology.

I don't know why people are so offended at the idea that Hitler cared about his country. It's obvious from any cursory look at his early life that that was the case.

[John Dule]

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.

[John Dule]

He compared conservatives' animosity toward George Floyd to the hatred Jews have towards Hitler. If you don't see how ridiculous this is, I cannot help you.

No. He did not draw any kind of equivalence between the two. He simply took a piece of poor logic and applied it to a more extreme example so as to illustrate that it was flawed. Atlas users need to learn how analogy can be used to criticize reasoning as opposed to literally just drawing comparisons. This isn't the first time this method of argument has been willfully misunderstood by people who want to assume the worst of their ideological opponents.

[John Dule]

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.

[John Dule]

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.

[John Dule]

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.

Maybe you don't. Most sane people do.

What are you even talking about? Can't you hold everyone to the same moral standard and then conclude from there that Hitler is a bad person? Why would you need to assess him any differently from how you'd assess anyone else?

[John Dule]

The point is that Repubs' attacks on Floyd are pathetic because living a perfectly moral life should not be a requirement to not be brutalized by a police officer.

Now, that is a fair argument, but that's not what was said. The argument presented was that "One should not feel animosity towards someone who is dead and who never personally did them any harm." It is solely this line of reasoning that Reckoning was criticizing-- but rather than engage with this criticism, you (and others) piled on top of him without taking a moment to carefully read what he was saying. You read it as "George Floyd = Adolf Hitler," smelled blood, and didn't think before you typed.

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.

The frequent comparison of "thing I dislike" or "person I dislike" to Hitler has minimized what he and actual Nazis did/are doing.

Again: He did not "compare" George Floyd to Hitler. He took a bad line of reasoning that was being applied to George Floyd and then applied it to Hitler (a notoriously evil person) in order to prove that the reasoning was flawed. As I said above, his wording was indelicate, but that does not excuse this pileup of people who misrepresented his post.

[John Dule]

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

Yeah, that would be completely ridiculous logic-- so it's a good thing I never said anything of the sort, and you're just making this up.

The point that I (and Alcibiades) are making is that moral principles can be applied across any variety of contexts. If you hold Hitler to the same moral standards as any regular person, then so long as those principles state that murder is wrong, you will inevitably conclude that Hitler was a terrible human being. Why would you need to use one type of morality to judge a mass murderer and another to judge an ordinary person? The whole point of having principles is to apply them universally (at least, until they conflict with other principles). 

[John Dule]

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.

[John Dule]

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.

[John Dule]

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.

Sure. That is a critique of his argument that actually addresses the substance of what he was saying (good job on being the first to do this).