but you knew that.
but you knew that.
Bump into this one all the time.
really mansplaining refers to debate practices done incorrectly or in bad faith
it’s all about the pretentious people appealing to their own authority
in lieu of proof/s
they lack honour but go on to disrespect their opponent while refusing to let them leave
trans. intellectually dishonest bullies
aka It can’t be antisocial if I use big words! Stop crying! Stop hitting yourself!
they assume an authority above the other speaker without anything to back it up
it’s just extremely more typical for the male to bitch with rationalizations to feel intellectual
it’s a logical fallacy to wield the terms and ideas of logic incorrectly
their own emotional high rests on their opponents’ ignorance of correct form
like kicking sand in their eyes in a fight
they need to cheat because they’re scum
no parties involved can commonly articulate this because neither of them fully know the rules
in short, in response to one stupid person/group, you get the REAL triggered group
they pretend to be offended by lies, but it’s really personal -like, REALLY personal
the opposite of gentlemanly (correct form) making them instant losers
going “achtually” when nobody invited them, they don’t know what they’re talking about (man card is not a valid qualification on STEM topics) and sperging out
in a woman it’s called being a gossip, being a bitch, whining, being nosy or nagging
they try to pass all those off as proof of masculinity and veracity (fooling no one, causing temper tantrum)
it’s entirely fully 100% bitchy men pretending to be smart
starting on the idiots they perceive as slightly lower in the chain
throwing a tantrum when you point it out
not men, but boys, too easily triggered to be masculine
when arrogant men and women bump noggins, but project their faults as an innately sexual thing
buy hey, I just believe in Burden of Proof
Most things are not obvious. Otherwise, a debate would be redundant.
My personal favourites are;
you’re too dumb to explain it to (or, Occam’s razor, you can’t do it cos you’re poorly informed and therefore wrong) but also I don’t even understand you and that’s your fault (incredulity)
If I repeat myself maybe it’ll make it sound like I have a valid point.
If you call me out on any of my bullshit, somehow ad hominem.
Autistic shrieking as they gesture at both wikipedia and the common dictionary of non-technical terms.
If you make my beliefs look stupid, I will get so defensive I can only call it a strawman but cannot explain why.
There is a false belief that we must possess the same faults as the Left to win. That we must harbour the rapist, the pedophile, the deviant and the criminal if they are effective at parroting what we like. That we must harbour evil and its potent force of degeneracy because the shit is flecked with gold. Thankfully, the majority of us see through this falsehood. For example, if there were plenty of evidence that a certain PUA were a rapist by the legal definition, we would be foolish to hold such a person up as a moral authority at a time when we need good leaders more than any.
Spiritual leaders must be pure. We already have hypocrites in power.
There is no such thing as an atheist that understands faith. If they understood it, they’d have it.
There is no such thing as a bad person with the right to lecture the good. There is nothing to learn from these people who willingly made many mistakes and continue to expect respect for evil deeds.
Know them by their fruit. They were a toxic influence then and it was easier to resist. Once a cheat, always a cheat. Once a liar, how can you trust them? Once a criminal, how can they speak of law with respect?
The Nazi stuff, while funny for rhetoric, is ultimately self-defeating. It makes people switch off. We’re tired of hearing about it. The fact the supposed Alt Right is defending ardent socialists makes me gag.
It worked on a rhetorical level to speak like them. To disempower their linguistic tricks by overuse.
The point is idiots didn’t get the joke in mockery, so we see genuine emotional appeals as fact like “If I can’t judge feminists, they can’t judge me by calling me mean names like misogynist, they’re the real sexist, they’re misandrists! Now I can ignore everything they ever say!”
No wonder the feminists mock them for this, they deserve to be! They’re doing the same BS.
It’s like the shit test myth, it’s a way for them to feel desirable even when in the midst of rejection.
In this case, it’s a way to feel reasonable when reason is literally on their side already.
Playing victim is a big one. Nobody is ever going to believe the normal white man is a victim. They’re too loaded in the historical stakes, they have various privileges handed to them like average IQ score. This makes the losers of the group especially humiliated, so they attempt to ‘flip the script’, while also feeling innately superior as part of their group, which doesn’t work. Contradiction Central. You can’t use SJW tactics seriously unless you are an SJW. Even they aren’t really serious, they never agree on anything.
For example, saying social science is BS then using all their studies and terms e.g. social frame, social script, evolutionary psychology stuff, it’s embarrassing to be associated with these people, it’s like a logical feminist looking at one next to her at a rally doused in her own period blood with regret.
They mistake the arguments for powerful in themselves. They support victim culture. If only SJWs accepted those premises, it wouldn’t matter IRL.
They accept the evil premises e.g. we are all biologically equal, when the Burden of Proof is otherwise on them, and then try to make special appeals to exceptions.
It doesn’t work.
Let them feel the full weight of the Burden. And if you MGTOW, actually GO.
As for faith, societies are built on spiritual belief in the future. It’s the only way they can survive. Narcissists don’t like God as a Father Figure because he’s bigger than you, you can abandon him and he makes rules that interrupt your hedonism. I saw the funniest article from a supposed redpill site claiming the Alt Right was bad because it wanted to ‘police’ men. Imposing positive expectations that lead to a good world are a burden on a selfish hedonistic failure. They won’t even accept good rules, as their complaints about the evil postmodernism are from bad faith, they want personal Special Snowflake exemption as much as Sandra Fluke wants exemption from the expense of her own baby-killing.
Ask them one simple question: Was the Sexual Revolution a good thing?
If they say yes, they side with Cultural Marxism from hedonism. The societal impact has been ruinous to anyone with a clear conscience to sift the evidence. CM would never have taken hold without that, ahem, carrot. It pacifies men and keeps women distracted from settling down too by wasting their time on ‘bad boys’ that 50s movies told them to like. Prior to the 50s, the idea of women preferring the Bad Boy would’ve been stupid.
These losers in the manosphere explain away their failure to attract women as a defect in the women themselves. Plenty of men are happily married, it’s you dudes.
A town of Patriarchs they claim they desire would beat them to death for negging their daughters. They want to be treated like indulged brats just like the people they hate so much, and that’s why they hate them, the narcissism of small differences. A Patriarch for President would tighten drug law, curb binge drinking, reduce sex tourism and tighten rape law.
However, we must practically show people the way first and reverse the political damage that actively inhibits spiritual good. Once the path is clear, faith will naturally creep back in, once financial interests are abolished. Otherwise, people only hear the propaganda. Two-prongs is the best approach because the practical reality differs from theory, where spirit is always a higher concern, quite literally.
Good comments on a linked post.
“Thus the great harm of the manosphere is the way that it warps one’s worldview. The ultimate effect of being a regular consumer of the manosphere is that’s one’s view regarding sexuality, and men, and women, becomes satanic and joyless.”
A cheap squirt of endorphins, I’ve seen it described.
Casual sex for cheap people.
“The Left has sought to prohibit – and even legally proscribe – white / Christian / European national pride (and hatred of their opponents) precisely because the Left wants whites / Christians / European nations to stop resisting, lie down, and die.”
They fear the power of family. You can’t have a family without unity and you can’t have unity unless you oppose the forces driving them apart.
There is a difference between pride and not being ashamed to live and do good (righteous pride). They are actively shaming the good.
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).
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
The simplest rhetorical spurn I can give is;
(Commonly accepted Evil demo) weren’t all bad, they (did good thing).
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.
When your opponent isn’t using logic? Or reality? Or objectivity?
(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?
Copied from: http://firstworldfeminism.tumblr.com/post/105590767098/rose-reasoning
As you can see from this beautiful picture;
A rose is a wave where the curve loops away from the origin of the graph, before passing back through and continuing with the same process until the shape is eventually closed off by meeting up with the starting point, where it would be tracing over the existing shape if continued.
The many segments of the rose will typically meet and overlap at the same point, resembling the petals of a flower.
Rose reasoning is an expansion of circular reasoning, that the argument will always be on an infinite loop as the defendant won’t properly justify their stance, thus the argument cannot rationally conclude.
No matter how many arguments you make, they respond with the same illogical point and you return to square one. Each argument is represented by the curve of a petal, with the point of origin of the rose being their response.