News Teens in Make America Great Again hats taunted a Native American elder at the Lincoln Memorial

Page 7 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Nov 8, 2012
20,828
4,777
146
Here is what the alt-right got out of the event. We have two completely different narratives going on.

Go to 6:40 in the video, and listen to the Black Israelite preacher say verbatim.


Here is another clip (3:55) where the Black Israelite preacher says:


At 1:35 in the attached video, an indigenous protester can be clearly heard saying:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Si4EUuW-GjQ

So this is what the alt-right is talking about and they are characterizing the kids as the victims and the other side as racists and homophobes based on the clips above.

Do I think the alt-right really cares about gay rights? No. Does the alt-right care about hatred against whites? Ah hell yes. The bottom line is that the alt-right is using this event to shape a narrative.

By the mainstream media ignoring these things that were said by leftist protesters, they are re-enforcing the idea that the media is attempting to shape its own narrative and that they are fake news.

Oh snap. Shit just got real.

lol... You gotta come to the defense of the MAGA hat folks on that one - they were clearly defending LGBTBBQ+-/

Hell - everyone in this thread is STILL ignoring your post as if it doesn't exist.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,422
14,336
136
Exactly what I did . I guess be dishonest though Vic
Your claim is that in order to 'not hold steady with a partisan opinion' you had to assign partisan blame (the left becoming racist).
And it's not being dishonest to use your own words in context.

There is some dishonesty in this thread for sure though. It went like this. We can agree that what the MAGA kids did was wrong. But because 'the left' may have done similar things, that somehow makes it all the left's fault.
And we see this dishonest argument over and over again from the right. You are never to blame for anything you do because you can always blame the other side for somehow giving you no choice.
And my concern is, how far does this illogic of the right go?
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
You make no sense

It makes perfect sense in the context of your expressed desire to burn it all down. The first thing that has to go is common decency & mutual respect. These members of the Trump Youth show an appalling lack of it.

Putin loves it as much as you.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DarthKyrie

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
34,007
8,041
136
Not sure, it’s something we’re having to deal with and there’s not good or straightforward answers. Just be cautious of e mobs the permanence of the Internet. Kids are just as stupid as they’ve always been but it’s so much easier for them to permanently ruin their lives than it was when we were growing up.

Would you vote against a social safety net, one strong enough to pick them back up when they are down?
 

Capt Caveman

Lifer
Jan 30, 2005
34,543
651
126
If you look at the video, he and his group clearly walked into and through the group. He was not mobbed or confronted. He then stopped in front of the guy who kept smiling, beating his drum the whole time.

The students were insensitive, clearly. But they didnt mob or surround the man as has been breathlessly reported by NYT and WaPo.

The men had a permit to march to the Lincoln Memorial and these kids would not get out of their way to allow them to. Not difficult to understand. I'm sure chanting 'Build the Wall' and doing the tomahawk chop was being respectful. Not
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,422
14,336
136
None of that changes that its not really doxxing if you do something on camera in public, when you know you are on camera in public. That was an organised protest, there was going to be press there. Are the press not allowed to report on stuff because some kid does something stupid there?
He's just repeating another alt-right meme where their free speech is so important that it supersedes everyone else's free speech and shouldn't have any social consequences.
And note the light he puts the different speech in. The MAGA kid was just innocently expressing his opinion, while the people who spoke to disagree with that opinion are a mob trying to destroy the kid's life.
 

HurleyBird

Platinum Member
Apr 22, 2003
2,759
1,455
136

No.

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/196/Argument-from-Incredulity

If I'm wrong about either my claim that you crafted a straw man argument, or that the only thing resembling a tu quoque argument was your own strawman which even then didn't fit the mould, then I'm wrong on the basis or either misinterpreting you or the fallacy in question. That's completely orthogonal to saying that your claim is false based on its subjective (to myself) pure absurdity, unlikelihood, or stupidity.
 

feralkid

Lifer
Jan 28, 2002
16,616
4,705
136
Not sure, it’s something we’re having to deal with and there’s not good or straightforward answers. Just be cautious of e mobs the permanence of the Internet. Kids are just as stupid as they’ve always been but it’s so much easier for them to permanently ruin their lives than it was when we were growing up.


You certainly had no problem becoming a fucked up adult.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Capt Caveman

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,422
14,336
136
No.

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/196/Argument-from-Incredulity

If I'm wrong about either my claim that you crafted a straw man argument, or that the only thing resembling a tu quoque argument was your own strawman which even then didn't fit the mould, then I'm wrong on the basis or either misinterpreting you or the fallacy in question. That's completely orthogonal to saying that your claim is false based on its subjective (to myself) pure absurdity, unlikelihood, or stupidity.

Ok, what's my straw man then? That I've been accusing Ugly of tu quoque since we started discussing in this thread? And is not his argument of 'it's okay for us to do it because they did it first' not a textbook example of tu quoque? Or are you saying he (and others here) are not doing that as they argue that MAGA kid was blameless for his racist actions because 'the left' was racist first?
 

HurleyBird

Platinum Member
Apr 22, 2003
2,759
1,455
136
Ok, what's my straw man then? That I've been accusing Ugly of tu quoque since we started discussing in this thread? And is not his argument of 'it's okay for us to do it because they did it first' not a textbook example of tu quoque? Or are you saying he (and others here) are not doing that as they argue that MAGA kid was blameless for his racist actions because 'the left' was racist first?

So, number one is that "we have to be racist because they're racist" is not a tu quoque fallacy. There's some similarity, so I can understand the confusion, but this statement is affirming the claim made against its arguer. It is not deflecting or ignoring it.

The very thing that makes tu quoque fallacious is that it doesn't address the original argument, it merely points to some hypocrisy in order to imply that the accuser lacks the moral authority to make the accusation -- a non-sequitur: Person 1 argues "X," person 2 argues "Y."

Saying "Yes, we do this but we have to do this because you do it too" on the other hand is not a non-sequitur: Person 1 argues "X," person 2 argues "Yes X, because Y." It may not be the most impressive argument, but it's not in and of itself fallacious.

Number 2 is that "we have to be racist because they're racist" is a very obvious straw man. UC's claim is that left wing racism played a substantial part in electing Trump, and that's it. He didn't say anything like "we have to be racist," nor does he even seem to make the claim that the kid is a racist (excepting the implication of his initial retracted reaction which was made "without all the context"). That's your own substitution.
 
Last edited:

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,422
14,336
136
So, number one is that "we have to be racist because they're racist" is not a tu quoque fallacy. There's some similarity, so I can understand the confusion, but this statement is affirming the claim made against its arguer. It is not deflecting or ignoring it.

The very thing that makes tu quoque fallacious is that it doesn't address the original argument, it merely points to some hypocrisy in order to imply that the accuser lacks the moral authority to make the accusation -- a non-sequitur: Person 1 argues "X," person 2 argues "Y."

Saying "Yes, we do this but we have to do this because you do it too" on the other hand is not a non-sequitur. Person 1 argues "X," person 2 argues "Yes X, because Y." It may not be the most impressive argument, but it's not in and of itself fallacious.

Number 2 is that "we have to be racist because they're racist" is a very obvious straw man. UC's claim is that left wing racism played a substantial part in electing Trump, that's it. He didn't say anything like "we have to be racist." That's your own substitution.

This is well-stated, except you're ignoring the part where MAGA kid's racist actions are being defended and justified by the left's supposed racism.
And two wrongs making a right is most definitely a logical fallacy. If the left's racism is wrong, then right's racism is wrong too. And vice versa. They do not cancel each other out, and one does not justify the other, it's just 'he hit me first' childishness. Nor is it straw man for me to point that out, or to point out the fact that this childish fallacy is a common meme of the right. FFS, even MAGA kid's mom blamed 'black muslims' for the kid's actions. Take some fucking responsibility for your own actions.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
This is well-stated, except you're ignoring the part where MAGA kid's racist actions are being defended and justified by the left's supposed racism.
And two wrongs making a right is most definitely a logical fallacy. If the left's racism is wrong, then right's racism is wrong too. And vice versa. They do not cancel each other out, and one does not justify the other, it's just 'he hit me first' childishness. Nor is it straw man for me to point that out, or to point out the fact that this childish fallacy is a common meme of the right. FFS, even MAGA kid's mom blamed 'black muslims' for the kid's actions. Take some fucking responsibility for your own actions.

The whole routine about "You're the real racists!" coming from Trumpsters is utterly mindless, complete denial.
 

HurleyBird

Platinum Member
Apr 22, 2003
2,759
1,455
136
This is well-stated, except you're ignoring the part where MAGA kid's racist actions are being defended and justified by the left's supposed racism.

The issue is that "the MAGA kid's racist actions" are in dispute. Your restatement of UC's position is only valid if he agrees with you on that point. If not, then you're transforming his argument.

And two wrongs making a right is most definitely a logical fallacy. If the left's racism is wrong, then right's racism is wrong too. And vice versa. They do not cancel each other out, and one does not justify the other, it's just 'he hit me first' childishness.

Two wrongs makes a right is fallacious because the fact that either one or both sides committed an act is divorced from whether that act is in and of itself moral. Your version of UC's claim does not assert that the left's racism makes the right's racism just or moral, but that it makes it necessary. "We have to be." It's semantically similar to "Your side has so many nukes. That's wrong!" -> "Yes, we do have a lot of nukes, but we need those nukes because you have a lot nukes!"
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,422
14,336
136
The whole routine about "You're the real racists!" coming from Trumpsters is utterly mindless, complete denial.
They simply use a variety of straw men to distract from their agenda of being against civil rights and social equality. It's not just racist to be against racism, it's the liberal agenda, socialist, leftist, marxist, etc.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
They simply use a variety of straw men to distract from their agenda of being against civil rights and social equality. It's not just racist to be against racism, it's the liberal agenda, socialist, leftist, marxist, etc.

And, God help us all, Eeevil Feminist! Gun grabbers! Sharia Law! Jade Helm! Witch hunt! Deep state conspiracy! But her emails! Unmasking! Benghazi! Gay frogs!
 
Nov 25, 2013
32,083
11,718
136
I’d say the increase in racism on the right (who has always had racists don’t get me wrong, but it was very unacceptable to be so publically) is a direct response to the left all of the sudden becoming racist. I mean look at this board, it’s become publically acceptable to boil a person down to the color of their skin. Don’t be surprised when there’s a reaction to that.

Can you pile that manure just a wee bit higher? Donald wants his wall and your shit should do the trick.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,422
14,336
136
The issue is that "the MAGA kid's racist actions" are in dispute. Your restatement of UC's position is only valid if he agrees with you on that point. If not, then you're transforming his argument.



Two wrongs makes a right is fallacious because the fact that either one or both sides committed an act is divorced from whether that act is in and of itself moral. Your version of UC's claim does not assert that the left's racism makes the right's racism just or moral, but that it makes it necessary. "We have to be." It's semantically similar to "Your side has so many nukes. That's wrong!" -> "Yes, we do have a lot of nukes, but we need those nukes because you have a lot nukes!"
The MAGA kid's actions are not in dispute.
 

Greenman

Lifer
Oct 15, 1999
20,941
5,562
136
And, God help us all, Eeevil Feminist! Gun grabbers! Sharia Law! Jade Helm! Witch hunt! Deep state conspiracy! But her emails! Unmasking! Benghazi! Gay frogs!
You were doing pretty good up until the gay frogs, that one just blew your credibility.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,422
14,336
136
They weren't before the entire "who approached whom" part went into dispute.
In other words, you're defending his actions (they're 'in dispute' even though they're on video) because 'they started it.' That makes him in the right and them in the wrong, right?
Are you having comprehension issues here, or are you just not reading my posts?