Problem is that not all critique is equal. Someone can just barf in “dems suck” into an online argument, and that won’t tell which side of the aisle they’re on…
in a discussion about why democrats suck, talking about, republicans are not relevant at all. if someone makes a valid argument it does not matter if they are a republican.
“the dnc only back establishment candidates and will actively hurt progressive candidates even to ensure a republican victory” has nothing to do with republicans, and you can assume that i would make the same complaint of the republicans
You really don’t. Its pretty clear by what the critique is, whether or not it comes from a leftist or a right wing nut. Its only difficult to tell the difference if you lack basic comprehension.
Yes, this screenshot is just another “If you don’t understand my unqualified opinion you’re just too stupid to figure it out” hot take by someone thinking they’re the smartest person in the room.
No, criticizing the dems doesn’t automatically mean criticism of anyone to the right of them.
Criticism is not evaluated by where it comes from, but by whether it’s true or false.
If you don’t put truth first, you don’t get to have a say in anything anyway.
Nope, I just don’t accept criticism (or anything else really) from people who can’t even form a coherent thought and are just regurgitating sound snippets from pundits…
Thats not what you just said though. You said the source of the argument makes it dismissable, now you are stating that it is the quality you care about. Disingenuous dumbass.
The issue is the amount of bad faith critique levelled by people on the right. Supporting one of their valid criticisms without mentioning that they are normally full of shit appears like a blanket endorsement even though they may bring up only a single good point it’ll be seen as complete support.
what kinda idiot lets themselves be concern trolled in 2026
like a good argument is valid regardless of source but republicans and their cognitive dissonance, double standards and general bad faith arguments means sitting through their bullshit in hopes of one is just silly
Who is talking about sitting thru some discussion with republicans in hopes of hearing a good argument? Youre just making shit up to argue against. Relate to what the other is actually stating, you imbecile.
Sure but that’s not the point. If someone gives good criticism, that criticism is good.
If you don’t believe that, you’re a tribalist.
The world gets better when everyone acknowledges and fixes their problems when they’re pointed out. It doesn’t matter at all whether it’s a good person or a bad person that points them out, what a gift it is for someone to show you your flaws.
Motivation and context matters because if you don’t pay attention to them you risk ending up an accessory to some asshole’s motte-and-bailey fallacy in progress.
You are now stating that the argument is not good, but in fact a fallacy. You are thus yourself, ironically, doing the fallacy you are talking about others doing. You have moved from the position of “dont engage with good arguments or criticism of they come from a republican” and are now pretending your position is “don’t engage with bad arguments from republicans.”
Then that would not be a good argument, which they therefore would not find reason to take seriously. Youre doing an actual motte-and-bailey yourself right now.
The “motte” part, by definition, is a good argument. It’s only when they spring the “bailey” on you that the ulterior motive behind getting you to agree to it becomes clear.
The motte is just a reasonable position. It is also not a trap that get sprung. It is a place one retreats to when pushed on ones actual position.
The motte: “dont engage with bad critique from republicans”
The Bailey: “Don’t engage with critique no matter the quality, if it comes from republicans”
Humans evaluate facts by the source. People trust their in-group. Someone is far more likely to listen to someone they trust and perceive as in-group than someone who’s out-group, regardless of the facts.
Sometimes this makes sense. If a guy in a nazi uniform told me the bar down the street is a great time, I’m probably not going to go there.
“This bar is not good” is an opinion, not a reasonable piece of critique or an argument. Presenting this analogy as if it is pertinent to the discussion is incredibly disingenuous and you know it.
Criticism is not evaluated by where it comes from, but by whether it’s true or false
My response rejects “criticism is not evaluated by where it comes from” (using a colloquial sense of criticism, like if a place is good or bad). People definitely evaluate based in part on the source.
I don’t know what everyone else is thinking, but to my mind people consider the source. You’re more likely to believe a reputable newspaper than a tabloid, I hope.
Your argument is one about an opinion, not a piece of critique. You are basically asking if the reader believes they would find a bar frequented by a man in an SS uniform enjoyable. This differs from the question: “If a man in an SS uniform were to point out that Kamala Harris is just as complicit in the palestinian genocide as Trump is, would you dismiss the argument outright, due to the dress of the man?”
While all critique rests upon opinion, not all opinion is critique.
And I’m saying people do exactly that. They read a tabloid that says anything and they go “yeah I don’t trust the enquirer” and either dismiss it, or find another source to confirm.
Surely you don’t trust the factual claims of a tabloid as much as a reputable paper, or an unkempt man screaming on the street corner as much as your history professor.
In that case you’re just willfully misinterpreting clear language. Speaking like that “X is not treated in Y way” is commonly understood to have an implicit “should” substituting “is”. If your grasp of the English language is at the level youre demonstrating here, then you would also know that common parlance. So an extra level of being disingenuous.
On top of that youre still doing the thing wrong. Youre not presenting criticism in your analogy, but an opinion.
Yeah any critique of Democrats get you called either a Russian shill, a bot or an undercover republican. Point out that Obama did fuck all about the Supreme Court or Clinton wrote the crime bill and that apparently means you love Trump.
And taking into account that Obama and a lot of other dems just chilled up with Trump and a lot of reps in the Island™, it’s to know that most dems aren’t good either. They both just want more power and all of your money.
Would depend on the content of the critique Id think, like, if your criticism of the dems is that theyre far too conservative, thats not the sort of thing that someone that considers conservatism a good thing would say. If you give some vague attack on their moral character or intelligence or such, that lines up more with how the right would also criticism them, and therefore invites more confusion.
Hence why I said that your criticism should make it obvious where you stand.
I’m not saying that you need to put “fuck the GOP too” next to every criticism. But if all you say is “fuck the Dems for ruining the country”, it’s not obvious where you stand.
“Fuck the Dems for being too conservative” on the other hand makes it obvious.
It’s easy to tell as the right’s criticism is they eat babies, they’re demon spawn, welfare queens, nothing true just emotionally applied rhetoric. Where as the left would say they’re barely better than Republicans in regards to wars and keeping them going in perpetuity, they could pass universal healthcare instead of what the ACA was but through either naivety or incompetence reached out to Republicans to help make a plan “both parties would be happy with” for the Republicans not to vote for it at all.
Eh, universal healthcare got side shuffled by the insurance company consultants and thus got us the ACA, a compromised deal if ever there was one. We really need universal healthcare, but the Herbalife grifters wouldn’t then have as much ways to peddle their MLM.
The primary difference is that Republicunts completely discount any thing that is left wing as impossible to achieve, often by using circular logic that boils down to a faulty appeal to authority (religion), with a light sprinkling of racism and white superiority rhetoric mixed in.
Leftists actually use verifiable data points and publically available economic figures mixed with objective reasoning to levy their critiques.
Reading comprehension includes understanding the implied context of the words, not just being able to pronounce them properly.
Maybe you do. Anyone with a brain realizes real criticism from fake and manufactured criticism.
If you are too dumb to realize it, or worried about those too dumb to realize it, write your own posts. No offense but you are wrong headed and I don’t care how many half wits endorsed your point here.
Good riddance. The last thing I want is to argue with some well minded individual that sincerely believes the dem establishment is the way out of our situation.
How many times do you have to be wrong before you admit a mistake. That’s rhetorical, I don’t care what you think now.
Thats not what an ad hominem is you fucking idiot. You fool, you buffoon. Learn what the concepts you speak of mean, you absolute dolt.
An ad hominem isn’t “when you get insulted.” An ad hominem is when the quality of your character is tied to the quality of your argument - Something plenty of people do here all the time.
And you’re even fucking it more up, because the person isn’t even insulting you, unless you count yourself to be someone without a brain! Fucking incredible moronic self-own.
“You suck” is not an ad hominem. “You suck and your argument sucks” is also not an ad hominem. “You suck and therefore your statement sucks” is an ad hominem.
Now, an ad hominem does not need to make the correlation between character and argument overt. It is enough that the argument is dismissed on the basis of the person making it, though not every case where this happens will be an ad hominem.
More examples:
“Youre a Russian propagandist and I dont listen to Russian propaganda!” <- Adhummer
“Youre a bot, so I dont have to engage” <- add hummus
“Typical statement from .ml users, youre all saying silly stuff” <- alt host
Calling you brainless is just calling you brainless. It is only when the argument is dismissed directly or indirectly through this personal demeaning that it is a logical fallacy. And it doesn’t even have to be an insult! But you’re too fucking stupid to see that, you just throw words around that you have picked up thru cultural osmosis without ever learning them. Idiot.
Because they don’t want to waste time in an echo chamber repeating what everyone already knows. Republicans suck. Everyone agrees on this; there isn’t a point to beating that dead horse.
The far right criticises the Dems as much as the left.
You 100% have to make it clear where the critique comes from.
We criticize them for vastly different things though… The right says they’re communists and we say they’re not communist enough (or at all, really).
Problem is that not all critique is equal. Someone can just barf in “dems suck” into an online argument, and that won’t tell which side of the aisle they’re on…
in a discussion about why democrats suck, talking about, republicans are not relevant at all. if someone makes a valid argument it does not matter if they are a republican.
“the dnc only back establishment candidates and will actively hurt progressive candidates even to ensure a republican victory” has nothing to do with republicans, and you can assume that i would make the same complaint of the republicans
Thats not a critique though, thats an opinion.
You really don’t. Its pretty clear by what the critique is, whether or not it comes from a leftist or a right wing nut. Its only difficult to tell the difference if you lack basic comprehension.
Yes, this screenshot is just another “If you don’t understand my unqualified opinion you’re just too stupid to figure it out” hot take by someone thinking they’re the smartest person in the room.
No, criticizing the dems doesn’t automatically mean criticism of anyone to the right of them.
it’s not relevant
Criticism is not evaluated by where it comes from, but by whether it’s true or false. If you don’t put truth first, you don’t get to have a say in anything anyway.
MAGA criticizes the Dems for being too far left. I criticize the Dems for being too far right.
We are not the same.
Fr
a complaint about the dems being too far left has nothing to do with republicans though
Based
The source does matter. I won’t support a MAGAt just because they bash the Dems.
If Putin said the sky is blue, would you suddenly insist its black?
No but I’d sure check first.
Then that makes you just another tribalist
Nope, I just don’t accept criticism (or anything else really) from people who can’t even form a coherent thought and are just regurgitating sound snippets from pundits…
Thats not what you just said though. You said the source of the argument makes it dismissable, now you are stating that it is the quality you care about. Disingenuous dumbass.
The issue is the amount of bad faith critique levelled by people on the right. Supporting one of their valid criticisms without mentioning that they are normally full of shit appears like a blanket endorsement even though they may bring up only a single good point it’ll be seen as complete support.
Sure, but thats then an issue with how acknowledges criticism, not wether or not one does it at all.
Precisely my point.
Not at all your point. They made an actual good point, you just said some tribalist nonsense.
Ya sure but that isn’t really what your comment was saying which was more along the lines of “ignore all criticism until you know where it came from”.
Anyways, if the criticism is valid, you are just plugging your ears at that point.
That’s… nowhere close to what I actually stated.
Tbh, yeah, I’m a bit off base.
what kinda idiot lets themselves be concern trolled in 2026
like a good argument is valid regardless of source but republicans and their cognitive dissonance, double standards and general bad faith arguments means sitting through their bullshit in hopes of one is just silly
Who is talking about sitting thru some discussion with republicans in hopes of hearing a good argument? Youre just making shit up to argue against. Relate to what the other is actually stating, you imbecile.
Sure but that’s not the point. If someone gives good criticism, that criticism is good.
If you don’t believe that, you’re a tribalist.
The world gets better when everyone acknowledges and fixes their problems when they’re pointed out. It doesn’t matter at all whether it’s a good person or a bad person that points them out, what a gift it is for someone to show you your flaws.
but no one should be expected to engage with repubs
they lost the privilege
Thats not what they’re arguing. Jesus Christ you motherfuckers are thicker than bricks.
Motivation and context matters because if you don’t pay attention to them you risk ending up an accessory to some asshole’s motte-and-bailey fallacy in progress.
You are now stating that the argument is not good, but in fact a fallacy. You are thus yourself, ironically, doing the fallacy you are talking about others doing. You have moved from the position of “dont engage with good arguments or criticism of they come from a republican” and are now pretending your position is “don’t engage with bad arguments from republicans.”
But that would be obvious in the stupidity of the criticism
Not if the part you’re responding to is the motte and you’re ignoring the motivation and context!
Then that would not be a good argument, which they therefore would not find reason to take seriously. Youre doing an actual motte-and-bailey yourself right now.
The “motte” part, by definition, is a good argument. It’s only when they spring the “bailey” on you that the ulterior motive behind getting you to agree to it becomes clear.
The motte is just a reasonable position. It is also not a trap that get sprung. It is a place one retreats to when pushed on ones actual position.
The motte: “dont engage with bad critique from republicans”
The Bailey: “Don’t engage with critique no matter the quality, if it comes from republicans”
I didn’t say “don’t engage.” I said “pay attention.” Now who’s making the fallacy?
Humans evaluate facts by the source. People trust their in-group. Someone is far more likely to listen to someone they trust and perceive as in-group than someone who’s out-group, regardless of the facts.
Sometimes this makes sense. If a guy in a nazi uniform told me the bar down the street is a great time, I’m probably not going to go there.
“This bar is not good” is an opinion, not a reasonable piece of critique or an argument. Presenting this analogy as if it is pertinent to the discussion is incredibly disingenuous and you know it.
Lol. No. The parent quote was
My response rejects “criticism is not evaluated by where it comes from” (using a colloquial sense of criticism, like if a place is good or bad). People definitely evaluate based in part on the source.
You’re making a huge equivocation fallacy here.
I don’t know what everyone else is thinking, but to my mind people consider the source. You’re more likely to believe a reputable newspaper than a tabloid, I hope.
Your argument is one about an opinion, not a piece of critique. You are basically asking if the reader believes they would find a bar frequented by a man in an SS uniform enjoyable. This differs from the question: “If a man in an SS uniform were to point out that Kamala Harris is just as complicit in the palestinian genocide as Trump is, would you dismiss the argument outright, due to the dress of the man?”
While all critique rests upon opinion, not all opinion is critique.
And I’m saying people do exactly that. They read a tabloid that says anything and they go “yeah I don’t trust the enquirer” and either dismiss it, or find another source to confirm.
Surely you don’t trust the factual claims of a tabloid as much as a reputable paper, or an unkempt man screaming on the street corner as much as your history professor.
In that case you’re just willfully misinterpreting clear language. Speaking like that “X is not treated in Y way” is commonly understood to have an implicit “should” substituting “is”. If your grasp of the English language is at the level youre demonstrating here, then you would also know that common parlance. So an extra level of being disingenuous.
On top of that youre still doing the thing wrong. Youre not presenting criticism in your analogy, but an opinion.
Doesn’t matter, you get accused of being undercover MAGA anyway. Been there, done that.
Yeah any critique of Democrats get you called either a Russian shill, a bot or an undercover republican. Point out that Obama did fuck all about the Supreme Court or Clinton wrote the crime bill and that apparently means you love Trump.
And taking into account that Obama and a lot of other dems just chilled up with Trump and a lot of reps in the Island™, it’s to know that most dems aren’t good either. They both just want more power and all of your money.
Would depend on the content of the critique Id think, like, if your criticism of the dems is that theyre far too conservative, thats not the sort of thing that someone that considers conservatism a good thing would say. If you give some vague attack on their moral character or intelligence or such, that lines up more with how the right would also criticism them, and therefore invites more confusion.
Hence why I said that your criticism should make it obvious where you stand.
I’m not saying that you need to put “fuck the GOP too” next to every criticism. But if all you say is “fuck the Dems for ruining the country”, it’s not obvious where you stand.
“Fuck the Dems for being too conservative” on the other hand makes it obvious.
Both sides criticize them for being elitist and corrupt.
How do you distinguish between left and right, when the right have been brainwashed into thinking their side is the one “draining the swamp”?
It’s easy to tell as the right’s criticism is they eat babies, they’re demon spawn, welfare queens, nothing true just emotionally applied rhetoric. Where as the left would say they’re barely better than Republicans in regards to wars and keeping them going in perpetuity, they could pass universal healthcare instead of what the ACA was but through either naivety or incompetence reached out to Republicans to help make a plan “both parties would be happy with” for the Republicans not to vote for it at all.
Eh, universal healthcare got side shuffled by the insurance company consultants and thus got us the ACA, a compromised deal if ever there was one. We really need universal healthcare, but the Herbalife grifters wouldn’t then have as much ways to peddle their MLM.
Well, that and that they eat babies (just like the republicans.)
I wouldn’t say that REpublicans eat them, but they sure will rape them.
Bill clinton: Famous republican
Might as well have been with how much he worked with them.
Thats just what dems do
The primary difference is that Republicunts completely discount any thing that is left wing as impossible to achieve, often by using circular logic that boils down to a faulty appeal to authority (religion), with a light sprinkling of racism and white superiority rhetoric mixed in.
Leftists actually use verifiable data points and publically available economic figures mixed with objective reasoning to levy their critiques.
Reading comprehension includes understanding the implied context of the words, not just being able to pronounce them properly.
Maybe you do. Anyone with a brain realizes real criticism from fake and manufactured criticism.
If you are too dumb to realize it, or worried about those too dumb to realize it, write your own posts. No offense but you are wrong headed and I don’t care how many half wits endorsed your point here.
Yeeeah, you won’t be winning any arguments with an immediate ad hominem. Off to the blocklist fuck ye
Good riddance. The last thing I want is to argue with some well minded individual that sincerely believes the dem establishment is the way out of our situation.
How many times do you have to be wrong before you admit a mistake. That’s rhetorical, I don’t care what you think now.
Thats not what an ad hominem is you fucking idiot. You fool, you buffoon. Learn what the concepts you speak of mean, you absolute dolt.
An ad hominem isn’t “when you get insulted.” An ad hominem is when the quality of your character is tied to the quality of your argument - Something plenty of people do here all the time.
And you’re even fucking it more up, because the person isn’t even insulting you, unless you count yourself to be someone without a brain! Fucking incredible moronic self-own.
“You suck” is not an ad hominem. “You suck and your argument sucks” is also not an ad hominem. “You suck and therefore your statement sucks” is an ad hominem.
Now, an ad hominem does not need to make the correlation between character and argument overt. It is enough that the argument is dismissed on the basis of the person making it, though not every case where this happens will be an ad hominem.
More examples:
“Youre a Russian propagandist and I dont listen to Russian propaganda!” <- Adhummer
“Youre a bot, so I dont have to engage” <- add hummus
“Typical statement from .ml users, youre all saying silly stuff” <- alt host
Calling you brainless is just calling you brainless. It is only when the argument is dismissed directly or indirectly through this personal demeaning that it is a logical fallacy. And it doesn’t even have to be an insult! But you’re too fucking stupid to see that, you just throw words around that you have picked up thru cultural osmosis without ever learning them. Idiot.
The other thing is that some people seem to only drag dems and anyone main stream calls “progressive.”
Why would I waste my time chumming it up with genocidal blue dogs about how much the GOP sucks? We both know that.
Because they don’t want to waste time in an echo chamber repeating what everyone already knows. Republicans suck. Everyone agrees on this; there isn’t a point to beating that dead horse.