rEvolutionist wrote:Seth wrote:rEvolutionist wrote:The problem is that you are attributing actions to people who sometimes are honestly unaware of them. 914 and I can't be engaging in Alinski's rules for radicals (or whatever the fuck it was called) if we have never read his stuff, let alone even heard of the bloke.
Sure you can be. Alinsky's techniques are merely codifications of commonly used rhetorical attack tactics, and I've cited them in full previously, and will be happy to do so again if you need me to. That you don't KNOW you're using those tactics is relevant in that by identifying when you are using them, you have the opportunity to decide if you intended to engage in such tactics, or if you're doing so inadvertently. Pointing out when you're engaging in a logical fallacy is the same sort of thing. It's only an insult if you get insulted at having your statements correctly identified. Noting that you're using Alinsky tactics is not a personal attack, it's an analysis of your argument, and therefore OUGHT to be within the FUA, although it's quite difficult for me to discern the boundaries of the FUA these days. The borders have become more than a little fuzzy and indistinct, IMHO.
I didn't say it was a "personal attack". As I mention further on, I think it is poor debating practice to refute someones argument by whacking a strawman (even though that strawman might share some similarities). It's like an appeal to authority fallacy, only the reverse. It's an appeal to a supposedly debunked ideology. Like the appeal to authority fallacy, it is intellectually lazy to use authority (or negative authority) to refute an argument. It's far more effective and intellectually honest to attack the argument itself.
I do attack the argument. I just don't attack it as you would prefer I do. Tough noogies.
That doesn't mean that I'm required to refrain from calling Marxism a filthy ideology.
That's fine, the problem is when you insinuate someone is following Marxist ideology, when they are doing nothing of the sort.
That, my friend, is called a "difference of opinion."
No it's not. It's being disingenuous.
Whatever.
To follow something one must see a trail.
Not necessarily.
If I'm not consciously following a Marxist trail, then it is dishonest of you to imply that I am (purposely following it).
I didn't say you were consciously following it, in fact I specifically said that you might be following it all unaware, and I'm doing you a service by illuminating the pathway you're stumbling along all unknowing.
You are free to point out how what I might say sounds a lot like marxism, but when you claim that someone is consciously following marxism, and then attack marxism instead of the person's argument, it only weakens your position, and annoys the shit out of everyone on the forum (hence why it has in your case been considered trolling before).
Red herring. I've never claimed that you were following anything consciously. I merely point out that you are treading the path set by Marx. That you don't realize that is part of the point of pointing out the path you're on.
If you present an argument that's founded in Marxist ideology or rhetoric, I don't happen to think it's wrong to point that out.
Neither do I. But that's not (just) what you do.
Quite right. So what?
You are free to disagree with the analysis of your statement, of course, and we may engage in a vigorous debate about the origin of your argument if you like.
Bullshit. You are not interested in the origins of anyone's arguments if that origin doesn't coincide with one of your pet ideological hates. You just keep bleating socializm, communizm, obama's a fasco-communizt. It's retarded.
That might have something to do with the fact that when someone is challenged with their alignment with collectivist notions, rather than debate the merits of collectivism, they get all flustered and angry and deflect the issue into whining and carping about being "called a Marxist." I've spent rather a lot of time describing precisely why collectivism and Marxism are inherently evil, and how and why such ideologies inevitably fail, with perfectly awful consequences for real people, and those posts have been soundly ignored in favor of petty whining and maundering about bruised egos and tender sensibilities. Absolutely NOBODY, either here or at RDF has had the courage to actually defend the root propositions of Marxism with any intellectual rigor, they just engage in, well, Alinsky tactics to deflect the criticism of the ideology and turn it on to the individual who is criticising the sacred cow of Marx.
If you want to discuss the merits of Marxism, be my guest. But don't blame me for correctly identifying the root of an espoused ideology.
But identifying the root of an ideological argument is never a personal attack,
I never said it (or indeed what I claim you actually do) is. What you do is more akin to trolling. You know it is, as you have been warned and sanctioned over this in the past.
Nor is it trolling. It's rigorous examination of an ideology and it's roots. It appears that such rigorous examination is simply intolerable for some people, so they resort to proclaiming their wounded egos and bruised sensibilities in a transparent attempt to turn a critical analysis into "inflammatory" rhetoric. That happens to be one of Saul Alinsky's tactics for deflecting criticism of socialism and Marxism. Go read the book.
The problem here is that this is a far-left, collectivist/Marxist/Progressive forum that simply does not tolerate dissent or criticism from anywhere to the right of William Ayers and Bernadine Dorn, and the application of the FUA is stacked against such critics from the get-go. This is not just my impression, it's been echoed by a good many former members here who have abandoned the forum precisely because of the intolerance for deviation from the leftist ideology that prevails here.
I put it to you that perhaps you should examine your ideology more carefully, so that you will know, and can argue and defend it's origin as you see it in a vigorous debate, as opposed to taking umbrage at having your particular sacred cow slaughtered.
"Slaughtered" eh? That's an interesting take. The forum history of both RDF and RatSkep show otherwise. Your arguments (if they can be called that) get beaten down again and again, and you resort to nothing but repeating hyperbolic nonsense over and over again. Can you not see the big joke?
Denial ain't just a river in Egypt.
That's just laughable. Do you call ranting about marxizm and socializm and communizm !!11!! an argument?
Sure, when combined with the detailed analysis and rebuttal of those ideologies that you choose to simply forget about.
You've never successfully attacked anything.
You're entitled to your opinion.
For fucks sake man, you think the republican/libertarian parties are the only non-socialist party in the world.
Pretty much, yeah.
According to you EVERY other country in the world is heading down the toilet,
Yup, observable fact. It's just that your definition of "toilet" and mine are somewhat different.
even though the US lags the rest of the western world in virtually all stats.
All the "stats" produced by leftists, perhaps.
Fuck me, have you even been outside the US?
Several times. And I'm always exceedingly glad to be home.
You can't have to be so ignorant of the rest of the world.
Our opinions differ about the rest of the world, is all.
The rest of the world is leaving the US far far behind.
Calling all Greeks, Calling all Greeks...please report for riot duty at 9 am.
Your country is the closest thing to a theocracy in the western hemisphere.
Nice of you to install that red herring by limiting your consideration to the western hemisphere. But you're still wrong. The US is not, and never has been, and never will be a "theocracy." Our Constitution completely forbids that.
Your country basically run by corporations.
Even it true, so what? I'd rather it be run by corporations than by avaricious bureaucrats and politicians. Corporations have one motive: profit. They are very predictable and controllable as a result, and they never shit where they eat and they never kill the goose that lays the golden egg.
Land of the free my arse. You are totally controlled by corporations and religion.
How much time have you spent here, exactly? Oh, and why is it that I can have a safe full of semi-automatic "assault weapons," pistols, rifles, shotguns and thousands of rounds of ammunition and you can't? I like to call that "liberty" and "slavery."
by 
Visit 
Where the fuck is my card ? 
Welcome back Seth. I missed you - there's been very few people really worth arguing with recently. 
