LWDT 7: The Earth and Heavens Tremble.

[Crysuko]

it means "we must dissect it in order to rpevent this disease from spreding" kind of way

I know what you mean, I'm saying that that mental image of seriously ill animal is very sad to me.

a metaphor must be a blunt instrument

[Uiiop]

"Of course, the researchers caution, these results are fairly preliminary and further researcher is needed to understand exactly how and why repetition biases judgement."
It seems like a self-own on this end.

I don't see how. Even Gobbels, the father of modern political propaganda, said, "If you repeat a lie often enough, it becomes the truth." (And I'd say he's worth listening to, given he was extremely adept at manipulating people.) Sure, psychological evidence is still forthcoming (and that's a fair critique--though, it should be noted that almost everything we know about the brain at this point is still considered "preliminary" due to how little knowledge we have of it), but historical evidence has demonstrated that we should definitely take heed.

The only thing one can say to that is Correlation is not the same as causation.
Just because a good propagandist thought one thing was a good tactic does not prove by itself that is actually is the good tactic. Gobbels did another thing and how/where the "lie" repeated may matter more than if it was repeated.
To use this logic to a absurd conclusion i'll send off with acclaimed communicator(While distinct from someone like Gobbles he still made stuff that tried to convince people) and scientist Carl Sagan:

"One of the great commandments of science is, "Mistrust arguments from authority." ... Too many such arguments have proved too painfully wrong. Authorities must prove their contentions like everybody else."

[Uiiop]

Why, hello, Mr. Strawman, fancy seeing you here! (Also, under no definition of the phrase does a liberal socialist qualify as "far-left.")

Well you did it to me Mr. Hypocrite. Don't play the victim now.

There is a distinct difference between misunderstanding a position and intentionally misinterpreting it.
And since you're the only one who has evidence of doing the latter....I'd guess he could.

[Byzconia]

Look at that, it's Mr. Strawman again!

What's the difference between Dankula and Monty Python?

Holy shit, you actually asked a good question! Well, let me explain a concept known as "punching down." "Punching down" is where the punchline of a joke falls on a historically oppressed group of people (in this case, Holocaust victims). In contrast, "punching up" is where the punchline of a joke falls on the oppressors (in this case, the Nazis). Why aren't the Monty Pyhton sketches offensive (and, by the same token, Allied propaganda)? Because their target was clearly the Nazis. It wasn't ambiguous--they were clearly 100% painting the Nazis as a group of clowns (which, IMO, is still somewhat problematic, as they really weren't and portraying them like that makes them seem like less of a threat than they really are, but that's a separate discussion).

Now, in terms of Dankula, what did he do wrong? Well, it's not entirely clear what he's doing. Sure, he claims he was making fun of the Nazis (and that could be true), but then again it's also entirely possible that he was actually celebrating them and his claim is just a cover story. That's the difference. One is clearly, unambiguously anti-Nazi, the other is questionable and open to interpretation.

[Byzconia]

Why, hello, Mr. Strawman, fancy seeing you here! (Also, under no definition of the phrase does a liberal socialist qualify as "far-left.")

Well you did it to me Mr. Hypocrite. Don't play the victim now.

"How dare you play the victim by pointing out my logical fallacies, you hypocrite!" What exactly have I said that's hypocritical?

[Byzconia]

I don't see how. Even Gobbels, the father of modern political propaganda, said, "If you repeat a lie often enough, it becomes the truth." (And I'd say he's worth listening to, given he was extremely adept at manipulating people.) Sure, psychological evidence is still forthcoming (and that's a fair critique--though, it should be noted that almost everything we know about the brain at this point is still considered "preliminary" due to how little knowledge we have of it), but historical evidence has demonstrated that we should definitely take heed.

The only thing one can say to that is Correlation is not the same as causation.
Just because a good propagandist thought one thing was a good tactic does not prove by itself that is actually is the good tactic. Gobbels did another thing and how/where the "lie" repeated may matter more than if it was repeated.
To take use this logic to a absurd conclusion i'll send off with acclaimed communicator(While distinct from someone like Gobbles he still made stuff that tried to convince people) and scientist Carl Sagan:

"One of the great commandments of science is, "Mistrust arguments from authority." ... Too many such arguments have proved too painfully wrong. Authorities must prove their contentions like everybody else."

Okay, I'll admit you make fair points. However, I still think making light of mass murder is simply a line that should not be crossed. Life is far too valuable for that.

[Uiiop]

What's the difference between Dankula and Monty Python?

Holy shit, you actually asked a good question! Well, let me explain a concept known as "punching down." "Punching down" is where the punchline of a joke falls on a historically oppressed group of people (in this case, Holocaust victims). In contrast, "punching up" is where the punchline of a joke falls on the oppressors (in this case, the Nazis). Why aren't the Monty Pyhton sketches offensive (and, by the same token, Allied propaganda)? Because their target was clearly the Nazis. It wasn't ambiguous--they were clearly 100% painting the Nazis as a group of clowns (which, IMO, is still somewhat problematic, as they really weren't and portraying them like that makes them seem like less of a threat than they really are, but that's a separate discussion).

Now, in terms of Dankula, what did he do wrong? Well, it's not entirely clear what he's doing. Sure, he claims he was making fun of the Nazis (and that could be true), but then again it's also entirely possible that he was actually celebrating them and his claim is just a cover story. That's the difference. One is clearly, unambiguously anti-Nazi, the other is questionable and open to interpretation.

You got ninja'd by me for that. The only difference is that i kinda view the "Making light/Punching down" distinction as kinda like the "Erotic art/ Porno" distinct.

[LiberNovusAmericae]

Well you did it to me Mr. Hypocrite. Don't play the victim now.

"How dare you play the victim by pointing out my logical fallacies, you hypocrite!" What exactly have I said that's hypocritical?

You claimed I didn't support the rule of law, because I criticized a case. You strawmanned someone else too. You call out logical fallacies (in this case strawmanning), then commit them yourself.

[Byzconia]

"How dare you play the victim by pointing out my logical fallacies, you hypocrite!" What exactly have I said that's hypocritical?

You claimed I didn't support the rule of law, because I criticized a case. You strawmanned someone else too. You call out logical fallacies (in this case strawmanning), then commit them yourself.

Except, no, I didn't "claim you didn't support rule of law." The point was that your logic could easily be used to argue against any laws. It's not my fault you made a shitty argument and got upset that I pointed that out. As opposed to you literally calling me "far-left" for having the audacity to disagree with you.

[LiberNovusAmericae]

You claimed I didn't support the rule of law, because I criticized a case. You strawmanned someone else too. You call out logical fallacies (in this case strawmanning), then commit them yourself.

Except, no, I didn't "claim you didn't support rule of law." The point was that your logic could easily be used to argue against any laws. It's not my fault you made a shitty argument and got upset that I pointed that out.

You used quotes as if I meant something different, so don't try to weasel around me. Also, the second post I linked to is also a thing.

[Pasong Tirad]

Holy shit, you actually asked a good question! Well, let me explain a concept known as "punching down." "Punching down" is where the punchline of a joke falls on a historically oppressed group of people (in this case, Holocaust victims). In contrast, "punching up" is where the punchline of a joke falls on the oppressors (in this case, the Nazis). Why aren't the Monty Pyhton sketches offensive (and, by the same token, Allied propaganda)? Because their target was clearly the Nazis. It wasn't ambiguous--they were clearly 100% painting the Nazis as a group of clowns (which, IMO, is still somewhat problematic, as they really weren't and portraying them like that makes them seem like less of a threat than they really are, but that's a separate discussion).

Now, in terms of Dankula, what did he do wrong? Well, it's not entirely clear what he's doing. Sure, he claims he was making fun of the Nazis (and that could be true), but then again it's also entirely possible that he was actually celebrating them and his claim is just a cover story. That's the difference. One is clearly, unambiguously anti-Nazi, the other is questionable and open to interpretation.

You got ninja'd by me for that. The only difference is that i kinda view the "Making light/Punching down" distinction as kinda like the "Erotic art/ Porno" distinct.

For me, it's when the penis goes in.

Pars & Rec reference, anyone?

[Crysuko]

You got ninja'd by me for that. The only difference is that i kinda view the "Making light/Punching down" distinction as kinda like the "Erotic art/ Porno" distinct.

For me, it's when the penis goes in.

Pars & Rec reference, anyone?

The day a sitcom actually makes me laugh is the day I eat my shoes

[Byzconia]

Except, no, I didn't "claim you didn't support rule of law." The point was that your logic could easily be used to argue against any laws. It's not my fault you made a shitty argument and got upset that I pointed that out.

You used quotes as if I meant something different, so don't try to weasel around me. Also, the second post I linked to is also a thing.

Except that was literally your argument (whether you intended it or not, that's how it comes off).

And sorry, didn't see the second link. As has been mentioned, misunderstanding an argument isn't the same as deliberately misrepresenting one (I've talked with that person further already and better understand their position). Though, fair enough, I can certainly be more clear in that in the future.

Not like it particularly matters, anyway.

[Valrifell]

For me, it's when the penis goes in.

Pars & Rec reference, anyone?

The day a sitcom actually makes me laugh is the day I eat my shoes

Clearly the problem is actually with you.

[LiberNovusAmericae]

You used quotes as if I meant something different, so don't try to weasel around me. Also, the second post I linked to is also a thing.

Except that was literally your argument (whether you intended it or not, that's how it comes off).

And sorry, didn't see the second link. Hyperbole=/=strawman. Though, fair enough, I can certainly be more clear in that in the future.

Not like it particularly matters, anyway.

I stopped caring about "logical fallacies" when I seen some left-wing activists (tankies) criticize our prison system while defending gulags. This is an internet forum, not a formal academic paper.

[Crysuko]

The day a sitcom actually makes me laugh is the day I eat my shoes

Clearly the problem is actually with you.

It's not my problem that sitcom writers are a bunch of hacks who couldn't make a hyperactive bonobo laugh

[LiberNovusAmericae]

I stopped caring about "logical fallacies" when I seen some left-wing activists (tankies) criticize our prison system while defending gulags. This is an internet forum, not a formal academic paper.

By that logic your arguments are irrelevant because you use logical fallacies which shows lack of any real argument that is rational and isn't a failure and isn't wrong.


And by your logic the fallacy fallacy doesn't exist so my argument is completely valid.

Ok, I do mostly care about fallacies, but there are some I don't care for in certain circumstances.

[Crysuko]

By that logic your arguments are irrelevant because you use logical fallacies which shows lack of any real argument that is rational and isn't a failure and isn't wrong.


And by your logic the fallacy fallacy doesn't exist so my argument is completely valid.

Ok, I do mostly care about fallacies, but there are some I don't care for in certain circumstances.

So you admit to cherrypicking?

[Saiwania]

On second thought, this internal monologue of mine- this isn't the place to disclose it. Carry on.

[LiberNovusAmericae]

So you admit to cherrypicking?

Ok, I do mostly care about fallacies, but there are some I don't care for in certain circumstances.

You can't win here, I feel bad for you.

I don't care much about winning. I care about speaking my mind, no matter what others think.

[Uiiop]

I stopped caring about "logical fallacies" when I seen some left-wing activists (tankies) criticize our prison system while defending gulags. This is an internet forum, not a formal academic paper.

By that logic your arguments are irrelevant because you use logical fallacies which shows lack of any real argument that is rational and isn't a failure and isn't wrong.


And by your logic the fallacy fallacy doesn't exist so my argument is completely valid.

Must...resist...mentioning...his...blaming...colleges...for...violence...and....defunding...them.

Talk about projecting a slippery slope m8.

[Uiiop]

Must...resist...mentioning...his...blaming...colleges...for...violence...and....defunding...them.

Talk about projecting a slippery slope m8.

Me?
Or him?

Him.

[Greater Westralia]

It's kind of interesting that pro-fascism has degraded to such an extent, that a literal mutt doing a Hitler salute can be considered by some as celebrating fascism. I understand Hitler was an animal lover, but I think even he would have been dismayed by such a flippant expression of his glorious Aryan ideology. I'm certain that if Count Dankula taught his dog to flip a salute in the 1930's and 1940's, it would have been considered a Nazi spoof (Fascists as dogs isn't a new concept in anti-Nazi humour).

But with today's semi-ironic memer alt-right, any combination of fascism and humour, regardless of intent, can ruffle some feathers. Tbh, I understand it even if I disagree with it.

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

What's the difference between Dankula and Monty Python?

Holy shit, you actually asked a good question! Well, let me explain a concept known as "punching down." "Punching down" is where the punchline of a joke falls on a historically oppressed group of people (in this case, Holocaust victims). In contrast, "punching up" is where the punchline of a joke falls on the oppressors (in this case, the Nazis). Why aren't the Monty Pyhton sketches offensive (and, by the same token, Allied propaganda)? Because their target was clearly the Nazis. It wasn't ambiguous--they were clearly 100% painting the Nazis as a group of clowns (which, IMO, is still somewhat problematic, as they really weren't and portraying them like that makes them seem like less of a threat than they really are, but that's a separate discussion).

Now, in terms of Dankula, what did he do wrong? Well, it's not entirely clear what he's doing. Sure, he claims he was making fun of the Nazis (and that could be true), but then again it's also entirely possible that he was actually celebrating them and his claim is just a cover story. That's the difference. One is clearly, unambiguously anti-Nazi, the other is questionable and open to interpretation.

"I'm gonna turn him into the least cute thing I can think of, which is a Nazi," -Count Dankula. Unless yu believe this to be a lie, Nazis are very clearly the butt of Dankula's joke. This is not open to interpretation. Even if it was open to interpretation, I wouldn't convict aomeone based upon potential interpretation.

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

What's the difference between Dankula and Monty Python?

one was well written humour and the other is some edgelord thinking he's the next George Carlin

Whether or not a joke is legal should not hinge upon how well written it is.