No. He proceeded to say my argument is based on anecdotal evidence (which I had no problem acknowledging because personal experiences are subjective even if they are personal experiences of an entire group of people) only to turn around and present an even more anecdotal evidence than mine (the experience of a single individual) as something factual, and then double down defending it when called out about it being anecdotal evidence. He will dismiss or deflect any kind of argument he doesn’t agree with and then present his own arguments that are just as fallible to the reasons he uses to dismiss arguments. He’s not in discussions in good faith, he refuses to question his own beliefs and he only pushes his own beliefs onto others.
I’m not salty about talking to him, I simply don’t see any value in having a discussion where the only possible outcome is him being right about everything and me being wrong about everything. Just look at the thread here. I’ll give you an example. OP clarified who he meant by tankies.
People who
Support modern russia and/or are opposed to Ukraine
Deny that the Uyghurs were mistreated by china
Think the DRPK is a nice place to live right now.
and his response to that was:
Most Marxists do not uncritically support Russia, though opposition to the Nationalists like Azov in Ukraine is something common on the Left, and believe Russia’s anti-US stance is beneficial for the Global South (see the string of African liberation movements in the past few years).
Translation. We don’t fully support Russia but we do support Russia for reasons not at all related to the conflict in question.
Most Marxists can agree that the Uyghur people have been placed in re-education camps, but most do not believe they are being systemically murdered en masse like many people report.
Translation. We can (which doesn’t mean you actually do) accept Uyghurs have been mistreated, but we do (no longer can) not accept the systematical mistreatment. (which is the core of the criticism when it comes to the treatment of Uyghurs, not to mention the allegations of torture and sterilization etc. that are also completely glossed over).
Most Marxists think the DPRK is doing surprisingly well for a country under extreme embargoes and was subject to more tons of bombs than the pacific front in World War II, not that it would be preferable to live there than in a highly developed country free from those problems.
Translation. DPRK would be a nice place to live right now if not for those pesky embargoes and bombs (notice not a single criticism at the authoritarian government that is arguably the biggest reason DPRK is not a good place to live at)
And then when OP gives him an inch in good faith he takes the whole inch and pushes OP to “not call people tankies” even though he’s exactly the kind of person OP is calling out.
There are more examples of him being disingenuous, deflecting arguments that push him to admit even the slightest of mistakes and then pushing his own agenda on others. No examples of him dismissing valid arguments in this thread but I’m sure people can find those in other threads. And with that I think I’ve made my point to the people will listen.
The fact that you felt the need to write out - at length - your extremely one-sided and obviously self serving account of the argument makes me even more convinced that you lost an argument and are extremely salty about it.
He’s not in discussions in good faith, he refuses to question his own beliefs and he only pushes his own beliefs onto others.
Sounds like projection on your part.
Translation.
No, the comment was already in English. You’re just ignoring what he actually said so you can create a lazy strawman. I’m unsurprised that you were absolutely the one not discussing in good faith.
Translation
Again, no. You can’t address what he said, so you’re making up your own strawman.
And then when OP gives him an inch in good faith he takes the whole inch and pushes OP to “not call people tankies”
What, specifically, are you accusing him of doing wrong? Sounds like you just don’t like him disagreeing with you.
even though he’s exactly the kind of person OP is calling out.
OP has explicitly said otherwise, but you’ve already established you feel entitled to tell people their own opinions.
There are more examples of him being disingenuous,
Any actual examples though?
then pushing his own agenda on others.
Yes, that’s what arguing for your position is. What is he supposed to do, just automatically concede to you?
I’m sure people can find those in other thread
Uhuh. Still seems like you’re the one arguing in bad faith.
And with that I think I’ve made my point to the people will listen.
You have indeed demonstrated that your were arguing in bad faith from the start and that you’re just salty someone disagreed with you.
Again, no. You can’t address what he said, so you’re making up your own strawman.
Ad hominem
What, specifically, are you accusing him of doing wrong? Sounds like you just don’t like him disagreeing with you.
Ad hominem
OP has explicitly said otherwise, but you’ve already established you feel entitled to tell people their own opinions.
Yes, because OP gave him the benefit of doubt because OP thought he’s not a bad actor. But not that it matter because the second part of your one-liner goes back to Ad hominem.
Any actual examples though?
Besides the one I mentioned? Well there’s also the one where he’s pushed about being critical of Russia’s actions he deflects to America being worse.
Uhuh. Still seems like you’re the one arguing in bad faith.
Ad hominem
You have indeed demonstrated that your were arguing in bad faith from the start and that you’re just salty someone disagreed with you.
Okay. I looked up the definition of ad hominem and I came to a conclusion, it’s still ad hominem. Maybe you should learn what is it and then come back when you’ve actually got something to say.
No. He proceeded to say my argument is based on anecdotal evidence (which I had no problem acknowledging because personal experiences are subjective even if they are personal experiences of an entire group of people) only to turn around and present an even more anecdotal evidence than mine (the experience of a single individual) as something factual, and then double down defending it when called out about it being anecdotal evidence. He will dismiss or deflect any kind of argument he doesn’t agree with and then present his own arguments that are just as fallible to the reasons he uses to dismiss arguments. He’s not in discussions in good faith, he refuses to question his own beliefs and he only pushes his own beliefs onto others.
I’m not salty about talking to him, I simply don’t see any value in having a discussion where the only possible outcome is him being right about everything and me being wrong about everything. Just look at the thread here. I’ll give you an example. OP clarified who he meant by tankies.
and his response to that was:
Translation. We don’t fully support Russia but we do support Russia for reasons not at all related to the conflict in question.
Translation. We can (which doesn’t mean you actually do) accept Uyghurs have been mistreated, but we do (no longer can) not accept the systematical mistreatment. (which is the core of the criticism when it comes to the treatment of Uyghurs, not to mention the allegations of torture and sterilization etc. that are also completely glossed over).
Translation. DPRK would be a nice place to live right now if not for those pesky embargoes and bombs (notice not a single criticism at the authoritarian government that is arguably the biggest reason DPRK is not a good place to live at)
And then when OP gives him an inch in good faith he takes the whole inch and pushes OP to “not call people tankies” even though he’s exactly the kind of person OP is calling out.
There are more examples of him being disingenuous, deflecting arguments that push him to admit even the slightest of mistakes and then pushing his own agenda on others. No examples of him dismissing valid arguments in this thread but I’m sure people can find those in other threads. And with that I think I’ve made my point to the people will listen.
The fact that you felt the need to write out - at length - your extremely one-sided and obviously self serving account of the argument makes me even more convinced that you lost an argument and are extremely salty about it.
Sounds like projection on your part.
No, the comment was already in English. You’re just ignoring what he actually said so you can create a lazy strawman. I’m unsurprised that you were absolutely the one not discussing in good faith.
Again, no. You can’t address what he said, so you’re making up your own strawman.
What, specifically, are you accusing him of doing wrong? Sounds like you just don’t like him disagreeing with you.
OP has explicitly said otherwise, but you’ve already established you feel entitled to tell people their own opinions.
Any actual examples though?
Yes, that’s what arguing for your position is. What is he supposed to do, just automatically concede to you?
Uhuh. Still seems like you’re the one arguing in bad faith.
You have indeed demonstrated that your were arguing in bad faith from the start and that you’re just salty someone disagreed with you.
Removed by mod
I rest my case: you just consider anyone disagreeing with you in any way to be unacceptable.
Sure.
Ad hominem
Ad hominem
Ad hominem
Yes, because OP gave him the benefit of doubt because OP thought he’s not a bad actor. But not that it matter because the second part of your one-liner goes back to Ad hominem.
Besides the one I mentioned? Well there’s also the one where he’s pushed about being critical of Russia’s actions he deflects to America being worse.
Ad hominem
Ad hominem conclusion.
Where is the substance?
Incorrect, it is not an ad hominem.
Again, no it isn’t.
Do you even know what an ad hominem is?
Are you saying that OP has changed their mind?
Still not what an ad hominem is. Or a one liner for that matter…
No, an actual example
That’s not an example though. That’s literally just him stating his opinion.
Can you actually learn what “ad hominem” means and come and try again?
Okay. I looked up the definition of ad hominem and I came to a conclusion, it’s still ad hominem. Maybe you should learn what is it and then come back when you’ve actually got something to say.