Obama refuses to mention the Alt Right

You can almost see it in his eyes. All the mainstream journalists are now aware.

They close the doors of the echo chamber and wonder why people want to leave?

You could use this as a voice-over to the footage of Trump supporters being attacked.
“Do not take for granted our systems of Government” vaguely threatening cut of support
“and our way of life.” Literally the entire rationale of the war on terror.
“If we are not serious about facts…” oh dear here he goes, classic Obama gaffe
Decentralized news terrifies them doesn’t it? Well, the Left have been doing citizen journalism for years. It was considered noble, wasn’t it? Except they didn’t film things and the right wing does… for legal protection.
“If we can’t discriminate” you said that’s evil tho…
“between serious arguments and propaganda” serious according to whom? If you ridicule a serious argument from a fallacy of personal incredulity, no wonder people laugh at you. Propaganda must be backed by those in power, it cannot be the People doing it. Appeal to authority much?
“taking absolutist views” fallacy, appeal to the moderate, a half-lie is still a lie
“and demonizing opponents” who was called a dictator who, impossibly, also lacked power and the ability to be taken seriously?
This is politics, not a milquetoast tea party. Christ and they wonder why they lost…

Let’s play CSI. I paused this at an interesting moment getting a coffee. Let’s see.

And zoom in…

obama-csi

That, friends, is a microexpression.
The classic r-type hollowness. Fury, rage, fear, disdain.

The weak man fallacy is postmodern moral relativism

In short, you can’t judge our worst because you don’t appreciate our best.

Yes, it’s the Marilyn quote writ spergy.

It’s a form of manipulation that snidely suggests: unless you cede ground (cheerleading for us, hang Burden of Proof), you must have no ground to cede (intones reciprocity may be given in exchange like a con artist). It assumes the target must qualify themselves and positions the speaker as Moral Authority, without the merest mention of biographical proof for that, highest of statuses (people often engaged in debates over morality rarely have a moral compass to speak of, they are simply virtue signalling in comparing how relatively bad they are to one another like a pissing match of STDs and bad decisions).

h/t http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/05/12/weak-men-are-superweapons/

I want to clarify a few things from this point without insulting SSC who is a brilliant writer I respect the intelligence of. This isn’t going to be precise because I think the fallacy is baseless.

The tumblr example is terrible, there’s a third variable causing the row, claiming the social status of doctor when its value is in its earning. Beth is claiming she is the moral equivalent of a Doctor because she can use Google. Alice is correct but worded her complaint poorly (doesn’t make her wrong).

The supposed weak man fallacy is actually based on stereotype, and these are empirically valid social constructs (the dark secret of liberal social psychology) connecting demographic to characteristic behaviour so arguing against them is like pissing in the rhetorical wind, the train is fine!

No literally, you can disprove the postmodern ‘stereotypes are mean lies’ people with maths. A lot of this is clever high-level social intelligence leveraged against the dumb and dishonest. It appears dumb to spergs until the person using these tactics wins, at which point the sperg assumes a fallacy must have been committed and the winner must be dialectic-ally, factually wrong because they can’t personally understand it (a common issue with the supposed rationalist community).

The fastest way to get someone to self-identify their moral issues is to openly criticize those issues and wait for them to argue against you, because it’s personal to them and you identified them without needing to address them by name, but by flaw, and they will argue against you whatever the content of your own argument, however blank and vacant and subjective e.g. I hate women who slut around, any woman objecting is identifying herself as a slut or I hate entitled men who think they’re everything while proving nothing, any man objecting is identifying as entitled, to hold such egoistic beliefs without pragmatic grounds i.e. narcissist.

I hate (group) who do (thing).

It’s very precise and an effective rhetorical shiv. It’s also self-contained logic. You can’t reason against it, if the assertion itself is true (stereotypical). Yes, in reality, they do.

Sometimes people trying to wield this take it too far and go into motivation (cheap Freud knockoffs without formal qualification, see Dr thing above for deserved societal disdain). Such secondary assertions can be argued against (reasons, motives) and rhetorically bring the whole house down despite how the original assertion is in fact statistically significant, but score 1 for the enemy, numbnuts. You overplayed your hand.

Not All (group) is missing the point, unless *All* was similarly overplayed or implied by the original assertion, while achieving the opposition’s aim of outing that very group, so you can hold them socially accountable for their actions (more on this below). It’s like playing Spot the Vegan or the remarkably dull reply of “Well I identify as a feminist!” Yes, you blithering idiot, I was hoping you would. Game on.

This is crucial so, when losing, they can’t fall back on the “I was just playing Devil’s Advocate” card, a third person neutral objective perspective card. Personal is the opposite of those things.

As for belief systems, pointing out inconsistencies and reasoning from the most evil behaviour up is rather logical. Membership of ideological groups is a choice and all members support by the very fact of their identification support their group’s most insane ideas, what is often referred to as privilege is actually a refusal to question their own behaviour and decision-making skills, psychological immaturity from any adult, a refusal to overcome their ego, for example, MGTOW refuse to question male choices nor admit poor male decision-making exists, so now they’re gaining a reputation as hateful as feminists. Since no adult is blameless and it’s a victimhood mentality to blame authority figures for your own fuck-ups.

They are trying to excuse the bad eggs by pointing to the good eggs, while the whole point of the argument is that the good eggs are by their chosen membership in the group shielding the bad eggs from the criticism the argument is attempting to provide, perhaps to find a solution together and correct it for communal benefit. It’s also a failure to apply the same logical proposition broadly, so if you cannot make a specific type of decision in one area e.g. this is good wife material, it’s a symptom of a deeper error in decision making (quality assessment, personal preference) that will affect all other areas of life too, in deeper and more obscure ways.

Weak man isn’t even its own fallacy, it’s moving the goalposts (metaphorically fleeing) and putting words in the other person’s mouth by making premise assumptions (straw man), up to and including a conspiratorial evil plan e.g. against Jews, that must be reasoned as true from the opponent’s own argument to be accepted in debate. You don’t hang someone on the basis of the testimony of their enemy, but you can hang them on their own. If the person says evil things, it can be assumed they have evil intent e.g. Kill All Men. If they do not, or give another plausible explanation, they must be given benefit of the doubt, hence innocent until proven guilty.

Relating to the bad egg example;

Why would you shield someone personally if you thought what they were doing was wrong?

This mode of argument entices our hidden motives, evil ones, such as those anti-tradition and anti-civilization ones commonly held by SJWs.

Intellectual honesty values the dialectic correction to short-term rhetorical (political) victory. Lose the battle, win the
war.

The simplest rhetorical spurn I can give is;

(Commonly accepted Evil demo) weren’t all bad, they (did good thing).

example

The Nazis weren’t all bad, they saved countless lives with their medical research.

Technically true, yet missing the point of any ideological argument.

Or on a personal behaviour level;

Hitler was an atheist vegan who loved dogs.

Logical rudeness in debates

When your opponent isn’t using logic? Or reality? Or objectivity?

http://legacy.earlham.edu/~peters/writing/rudeness.htm

(Logical rudeness)…Unlike a petitio, it does not purport to justify a conclusion or belief; it purports to justify believers in disregarding criticism of their beliefs as if such criticism were inapplicable, irrelevant, or symptomatic of error. This is not self-justification in the manner of a petitio, in which assumed premises can validly imply the disputed conclusion.

Sum: If somebody isn’t playing by the rules of formal debate, they bring the whole thing down and might be excluded.

…”Philosophers have no equivalent of default except the presumption that the silent or rude theorist has no answer on the merits to offer, and (qua individual proponent) may be presumed ignorant or incorrect and dismissed. This presumption, however, is very legalistic, and in many cases will be false.”…

Practice of Law =/= ” ” Science

It may seem that the imputation of a foible or fault to a critic simply qua critic is always optional, never necessary to preserve the consistency of the theory or the good faith of the proponent. But this is not true. First, there is the case of the brazen theory which includes as a tenet the forthright equation of disagreement and error. This tenet is not as rare, nor probably as naive, as one might at first suspect. It may be called (using legal jargon) the “exclusivity clause” of the theory. Any theory may have an exclusivity clause, and most theories may have them without contradicting their own content. The “clause” merely states that the set of tenets comprising the theory is the truth and the only truth on its precise subject. It does not imply completeness; but it does imply that propositions inconsistent with the theory are false. It may be tacit and understood, and indeed it does seem to follow from the mere claim of truth according to the principle of excluded middle (tacit in many theories) and most classical notions of truth. If a theory contains an exclusivity clause, even a tacit one, it impels the good faith proponent to equate disagreement and error. Critics may courteously be indulged in the realm of debate, and cajoled into seeing the light, if possible, but that would be supererogatory under the canons of logic and good faith. One premise of “civilized” debate —that any contender might be speaking the truth and debate is one way to tell who— is not shared by all the contenders. For this reason it is disturbing to note that almost any claim to truth may bear a tacit exclusivity clause.

If you are being purely logical and the other person comes up with a personal story, you can, in most instances, rightfully call them an idiot for using that as a parry to your point. It’s like bringing a spoon to a knife fight.

Even more disturbing is the case of philosophical systems. The paradigm of good philosophy for several western traditions —the complete, consistent system— is impelled to be rude….

If the system is supposed to be complete as well as true, then the good faith proponent must believe the critic in error, and therefore must apply the system’s explanation of error to her. Note that mere belief in the completeness and truth of the system suffices here to justify the conclusion that disagreement is error. The good faith proponent need not immediately act on this belief in the critic’s error, but neither can he escape concluding it, any more than he could willingly suspend judgment on the truth of his beliefs. Proponents of what are supposed to be true, complete, consistent systems must choose between apostasy and rudeness. [DS: rude people tell the truth] They must defend their beliefs either by appeal to premises and principles from outside the system, which they believe are false, or by appeal to premises and principles from withing the system, which is question-begging and liable to be very rude. [demonstration of depth of explanation] This may be called the dilemma of systematic self-defense. To ask such a believer to be logically polite “just for the sake of argument” is equivalent to asking him to give up some tenets of the faith he wishes to defend just to enter a realm of debate to defend it. This is why systems with pretensions to completeness have traditionally seemed rude, have traditionally authorized rude defenses in their proponents, or have gone undefended at fundamental levels….

…Logical rudeness may be considered a complex form of ad hominem argument. It tells critics and dissenters that they are defective human beings whose ignorance or error is well explained as frailty, fault, foible, or the absence of a boon. Moreover, this form of ad hominem is justified by the theory under attack. When our questions are answered by ad hominem assaults, we are angered. Our anger cannot be reduced to hurt feelings because we were not merely wounded in our dignity; we were put off in our inquiries for truth by a refusal to cooperate. A rude response can therefore trigger three levels of indignation: personal affront, thwarted cooperation, and crippled inquiry. The first is personal, the second social and political, and the third epistemic.

..Some form of rudeness seems inevitable. Either the equality principle will be violated by the rude theory that critics are unequally entitled to know the truth, [as if equally capable of understanding, psychometrics be damned] or the freedom principle will be violated by the rude theory that critics are making impermissible moves in a game. These two fundamental types of rudeness can be barred only by one another. To secure some courtesies, then, we must impose other rude principles. There is something Gödelian about this result. No system of logical etiquette can be both complete and consistent. For every such system there will be a permissible but rude theory. ….

…..The automatic inference of falsehood from rudeness or undebatability may be called the fallacy of petulance —in which we peevishly allow our hurt feelings to supersede our better judgement. The fallacy of petulance is to use the criteria of courtesy as criteria (or as a subset of the criteria) of truth. Sociability in debate may be important for many reasons, even for the fundamental epistemic reason of keeping debate a fruitful avenue of inquiry and for basic ethical duties to other inquirers; but its norms do not thereby become criteria of truth. ……

….The danger of legislating a style of thinking in order to secure a form of cooperation is real.  ….

Trigger warnings, anyone?

Science says: Intelligent people contribute more to the economy

No shit, study here.

It doesn't take a genius to notice

The Middle Class fallacy: extraordinary people come from ordinary circumstances.
OR
If only Jr. went to the right school, and studied the right degree, he’d be a genius!

Money doesn’t buy creativity or genius.