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”
Now you’re just playing obtuse, because you, like the annoying rat you are, find it easy to retreat to a discussion of semantics.
“Dont pay attention to” and “dont engage with” is the same action in this case, which you are well aware of.
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.
You are once again making a false equivalency. You are now comparing “well-founded criticism” with “information.”
Why is it so hard for you to just talk about the thing at hand? You keep making abstractions where it isn’t some straightforward example of criticism, but instead some other thing. It is incredibly disingenuous.
Your statement also seems faulty. I do not trust information given by a professor due to their status as a professor. The reason I would trust a history professor is because they back up their statements with verifiable sources, not because they are a history professor.
The stories of Abu Ghraib were first published in an Australian tabloid. News media lies all the times.
So yes I would trust information found in tabloid media, if it were presented with verifiable data and corroborating sources, as I do with all sources. I would likewise treat information shared by any other in the same way, no matter the loudness of their voices - Though I assume you tried to allude to them talking weirdly, but that makes no sense, since we have already established we are talking about reasonable critique of the democrat party, not ramblings of some mentally unwell individual. So since it cannot be ramblings, then it can only refer to them being louder than normal. And I talk to italians all the time.
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.
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?
Now you’re just playing obtuse, because you, like the annoying rat you are, find it easy to retreat to a discussion of semantics.
“Dont pay attention to” and “dont engage with” is the same action in this case, which you are well aware of.
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.
You are once again making a false equivalency. You are now comparing “well-founded criticism” with “information.”
Why is it so hard for you to just talk about the thing at hand? You keep making abstractions where it isn’t some straightforward example of criticism, but instead some other thing. It is incredibly disingenuous.
Your statement also seems faulty. I do not trust information given by a professor due to their status as a professor. The reason I would trust a history professor is because they back up their statements with verifiable sources, not because they are a history professor.
The stories of Abu Ghraib were first published in an Australian tabloid. News media lies all the times.
So yes I would trust information found in tabloid media, if it were presented with verifiable data and corroborating sources, as I do with all sources. I would likewise treat information shared by any other in the same way, no matter the loudness of their voices - Though I assume you tried to allude to them talking weirdly, but that makes no sense, since we have already established we are talking about reasonable critique of the democrat party, not ramblings of some mentally unwell individual. So since it cannot be ramblings, then it can only refer to them being louder than normal. And I talk to italians all the time.
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.