I don't know if the information is correct or not and I'm not presuming it is or not — Baden

Do you at least understand that part yet?

But you shouldn't need a peer reviewed journal confirming that a riot took place in Baltimore — Thorongil

No, but one needs a report from a reliable source. The fact that you have, despite receiving repeated requests, failed to provide one suggests it would be a waste of time anybody else looking for them.

Saying it is a compendium of links is irrelevant. I bet a lot of the links are to similarly unreliable sources. If they were to reliable sources i expect you would have posted some by now.

For anyone to spend time trawling through the tainted website to see how much, if any, references to actual verified events and measurements it contains would make as much sense as a physics professor reading somebody's 100-page plan for a perpetual motion machine to see if there were any good ideas in it.

And it's not the genetic fallacy. That would be to assert that everything on the website is wrong, because of the bias of the source. This is simply saying it would be a waste of time doing the work to discern which bits are wrong, because there is no reason to expect we would learn anything new.

I may just have to research it myself if he can't back up his claim. I'm actually interested why anyone would call BLM terrorists.

I wouldn't suggest wasting any time on the Horowitz site. In the interests of charity, I had a quick look to see if there were links to credible sources and found that nearly all the links were just to other places on the same site. Those that weren't were mostly to other reactionary sites or to books written by Horowitz and Collier. There are a few links to a BLM website, presumably to paint a veneer of balance, but they are only for very mild claims, not for any of the sort of dribble that has been pasted above.

Cheers. That saves me time. :up:

Well I'm sorry you and your wife have had these experiences, but it remains unclear to me how these incidents have been extrapolated and constructed into modern tenets of the Democratic platform, e.g. that whites are incapable are anything other than evil etc., or that women must choose a career rather embrace motherhood. — Maw

Fair enough.

Party platforms seem to be in perpetual flux so it's hard to pin down specific positions - especially concerning cultural issues - which can be considered essential to the left or the right in an ahistorical, decontextualized way. Those Counter-Enlightenment thinkers, and even some essential figures of postmodernism (e.g. Nietzsche and Heidegger), are widely identified with the right. And yet their primary influence today is on the academic left, which in turn has shaped the way the younger and possibly more radical generation understands the need to deconstruct dominant frameworks, to reconfigure power relations, etc. Very confusing stuff.

It's way easier, I think, to identify those things which fall on the left or right on political and economic matters. It's more black and white in those cases. But I did make the claim that there's a cultural shift to the left taking place in the US and should therefore be able to back it up with more than just personal experiences and gut feelings. Maybe some actual, tangible evidence supporting the tentative idea that heterosexual white supremacist patriarchy (or some such - I'm not trying to make it sound ridiculous and I do think there's some truth to the social justice platform as I understand it) is the new(ish) cultural enemy which the left rallies around? Can we agree on something like that?

I'm talking about things like gender-neutral bathrooms, the desired elimination of Confederate statues, the ending of Columbus Day celebrations in favor of (I believe) Native American Day, etc. These are all relatively new changes to the culture landscape that were not around when I was a kid, and imo they clearly indicate that shift to the left that I mentioned originally. It seems to be a cumulative, incremental process which has picked up significant momentum at the grassroots level over the past 10-15 years. I would say this is especially true since the day of Trump's election and the subsequent equating of his supporters with lingering racism, sexism and xenophobia allegedly at the heart of America.

Good topic though and I've enjoyed the testy back and forth between participants. Oh and by the way I'm only vaguely familiar with Jordan Peterson so I'm not tying my position in with his; not because I disagree with him, but because I'm almost entirely ignorant of what his positions actually are. I've seen the somewhat recent and well-known 'gotcha' interview but that's about it. Nothing he said there struck me as particularly crazy or radically conservative, but you likely have more knowledge of his views than I do.

I think the most fertile area on which to establish a new conservative movement, if anyone's interested, would be to incorporate those prior critiques of our technological commercial civilization in an endeavor to transform the way we understand ourselves and our world. In other words the 'revolution' would be ontological in origin rather than political or economic, although those too would change accordingly. To be a bit more specific, this shift would combine the best of our current situation's focus on speed, efficiency, productivity and the like - so no 'Ludditism' - with an increased openness to less 'reductionist' and less calculative/instrumental ways of relating to things.

Not necessarily an either/or situation and ideally we could draw upon the benefits of modern science and technology while also ameliorating some of the pernicious social, environmental and psychological effects. That's a rough outline for a future conservatism. Actually, this hypothetical shift in paradigm could render the traditional left and right divide obsolete, so maybe 'conservatism' isn't the right way to describe it. Those terms only make sense, it seems, given the current framework, and by altering that framework those terms would no longer apply. On top of that the terms 'conservatism' and 'right-wing' conjure up negative associations for many, so as a practical measure it's probably best to leave them behind.

Wishful thinking perhaps, but I do think the possibility is there, even if not likely anytime soon (if at all). That's the direction I would go in at least. Crazy talk? Probably lol.

Well I'm sorry you and your wife have had these experiences, but it remains unclear to me how these incidents have been extrapolated and constructed into modern tenets of the Democratic platform, e.g. that whites are incapable are anything other than evil etc., or that women must choose a career rather embrace motherhood. — Maw

How funny... on the one hand you tell me that you have a problem with people on the right claiming, for example, that there are biological differences in IQ between black people and white people on average, because it ends up resulting in discrimination, even though logically there is no link between that fact and discrimination. And on the other hand, when it comes to the narratives of the left, you say it's okay, the damage isn't their responsibility, it's not their fault - these are not their tenets. So which is it? You should adopt the same attitude across the board, and you don't. Why is that?

You clearly were part of the PF community back when you were in your early 20s, probably the period of time when your views most clearly solidified. And so, you've read the works and books recommended by the overly left-leaning PF, you've immersed yourself in the material, and haven't looked with the same intensity into other material.

Also, this community, back at old PF, had an even stronger bias for the left than it does here. Here it's not as easy to ridicule people on the right, thanks to the continuous efforts of people like, for example, Thorongil. When you have returned to TPF here, you seem to have brought back with you some of the old dismissive attitudes as the 'right way' to play the game. But things have changed a little in the meantime.

What's fascinating to me is that Maw can post an op-ed from Vox and receive no derisive hand waving of the source. As much as it amuses me to see it cited with authority, you will not find me saying, "you cited Vox, therefore your position can be rejected." No, it would seem that only right wing sources, even if they relate demonstrable facts, are intrinsically unreliable and so are to be rejected.

This is simply saying it would be a waste of time doing the work to discern which bits are wrong, because there is no reason to expect we would learn anything new. — andrewk

This is question begging. The reason you expect not to learn anything new is because of the biased nature of the compilers and sources of the information. Ergo, genetic fallacy. You and Baden have rejected the content provided on the basis of the political persuasion of the source.

I've marked them and taught sourcing — Baden

Does this mean you've a doctorate, then? How'd you go from being a professor to being a janitor? Seems a strange turn of events for someone who seems to view himself as some intellectual paragon.

This is question begging. The reason you expect not to learn anything new is because of the biased nature of the compilers and sources of the information. Ergo, genetic fallacy. — Thorongil

Precisely. "This is an unreliable source, so I won't look at it, so I have no reason to believe it's a reliable source."

The Vox point is interesting as well. Vox is (strident) propaganda but it passes the sniff test because of the obvious left-wing editorial policy. One can high-mindedly expound on the virtues of critical scrutiny, but this falls a little flat when one refuses to critique anything from one's own side.

What polarizing times. I don't think talking in left vs right ever ends up being productive. I've always avoided it personally but I'm sort of bemused to watch it in action over (what has now been) some time. The labels that get ascribed have totally shifted; no idea how any of you keep up.

Whoever came up with all the new genders should get started on a much more granular set of political identities - those might actually have some utility. Politics should definitely be less binary than gender.

Vox
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/vox/

Factual Reporting: HIGH

Notes: Vox is an American advocacy news website run by Vox Media, co-founded by liberal columnists Ezra Klein, Melissa Bell, and Matt Yglesias and launched in April 2014. Vox presents with left wing bias in reporting and story choices. There is some use of loaded words, but most articles are sourced to credible information.

Discover the Networks (David Horowitz)
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/discover-the-networks/

QUESTIONABLE SOURCE
A questionable source exhibits one or more of the following: extreme bias, overt propaganda, poor or no sourcing to credible information and/or is fake news.

Bias: Extreme Right, Hate Group

How funny... on the one hand you tell me that you have a problem with people on the right claiming, for example, that there are biological differences in IQ between black people and white people on average, because it ends up resulting in discrimination, even though logically there is no link between that fact and discrimination. And on the other hand, when it comes to the narratives of the left, you say it's okay, the damage isn't their responsibility, it's not their fault - these are not their tenets. So which is it? You should adopt the same attitude across the board, and you don't. Why is that? — Agustino

Because there is no "narrative of the left", or more focally, tenets of Democratic Party which assert women must value careers over motherhood, or that all whites are destructive. It. Does. Not. Exist. Can card-carrying members of the Democratic Party hold such beliefs? Sure. I'm sure that they exist, and I never doubted the veracity of @Erik's experiences, and I find such beliefs similarly ludicrous. I do "have a problem with them". But do these ideas form the foundation of the modern Democratic Party? NO.

Scientific Racism, however has, in fact, had a long history in America, in practice supplying "scientific" verification to discriminate against Black Americans. Undeniably, discrimination against Blacks continues to exist today, and no doubt there are those who leverage such "science" to validate such beliefs, as history shows us. Additionally, the scientific connection between race genetics and intelligence have been widely discredited, so it's pseudo-science to boot. I not only have a problem with people holding deleterious ideas, but I have a problem with people holding wrong ideas based on bad science. Further, I never claimed that belief in biological differences is a "tenet" of the Right. It certainly may be a tenet of White Supremacists, or the Alt-Right in particular, but not of the Republican Party. No hypocrisy on my part, merely incomprehension and misreadings on yours, as usual.

Here it's not as easy to ridicule people on the right, thanks to the continuous efforts of people like, for example, Thorongil. When you have returned to TPF here, you seem to have brought back with you some of the old dismissive attitudes as the 'right way' to play the game. But things have changed a little in the meantime. — Agustino

Stupid ideas are stupid ideas, and bad philosophy is bad philosophy regardless of where the advocate stands on the political spectrum. I've been happy to call out bullshit ideas that have been held by liberals. It just so coincidentally happens that most forum members promoting bad arguments happen to identify on the Right.

Ok.




I'll explain again the genetic fallacy and the basic principles of gathering reliable evidence for use in a debate, particularly in supporting an accusation of criminality, and I ask you to please try to take the blinders off so we can have a sensible dialogue: My objection is to the extra work I would have to do to verify the information from a clearly biased source. I have not dismissed any argument on the basis of its origin, which would entail the genetic fallacy.

As in, if I dismissed Thorongil's argument that BLM are a terrorist organization based on the fact he is a biased right-winger I would be committing the genetic fallacy. But not only did I not dismiss it, I asked him for evidence so we could debate it. If it were the case, however, that any attempt to assess the credibility of evidence (which is all I did and I did visit the site—as did andrewk) automatically made you guilty of the genetic fallacy, our court system and science itself would as a whole be guilty of a continuous genetic fallacy for demanding that evidence be credible. This is how bizarre it is for you to claim it is a fallacy to question the reliability of a source. It happens all the time in academia and the courts for very good reasons which should be obvious.

On top of that none of the so-called evidence is analyzed, it's simply copy-pasted there. So, there is no argument from Thorongil to deal with in that post. Usually when you are giving evidence for an argument, you need to make the link between the evidence and your argument explicit. In other words, tell your interlocutor why the piece of evidence does the work you want it to do, i.e. support your claim.

So, I did look through the questionable information anyway and could find nothing but instances where members or associates of members either behaved badly or allegedly committed crimes or allegedly said other members were going to commit crimes etc. By that standard it would be easy to prove both the Tea Party and the Republican Party are terrorist organizations. In fact, the Tea Party has been labeled terroristic by the left and even the mainstream media. Again, unhelpfully.

https://www.politico.com/news/stories/0711/60202_Page2.html
https://www.mysanantonio.com/news/news_columnists/gilbert_garcia/article/Democratic-ad-brands-tea-party-Republicans-5864039.php

And this is the irony of all this, I could go to a left-wing website and copy walls of text concerning bad things Tea Party members have done in order to prove the Tea Party is a terrorist organization, and of course you would dismiss it. The difference is that I would not make the claim, not because I couldn't do exactly the same thing that Thorongil is doing, but because that's the type of hysterical polarizing language I object to on both sides. And you said you did too—until Thorongil did it. Remember, this is how we got into all this, through a discussion of hysterical language. Yet you two continue to try to justify it on your side simply because it's on your side while at the same time writing (in the case of @Pneumenon) unintentionally ironic posts about circling the wagons and so on.

unintentionally ironic posts about circling the wagons and so on. — Baden

"Circling the wagons" is a social phenomenon. The right isn't circling the wagons, as evidenced by its steady advances. Also, I see no response to Thorongil's point about the Vox op-ed....

Thanks, that puts the final nail in a coffin that was already six ft under. I presume we'll now get an ironic and amusing questioning of the source of the bias check, and a convenient forgetting of all the fake genetic fallacy claims.

Also, I see no response to Thorongil's point about the Vox op-ed.... — Pneumenon

Vox
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/vox/

Factual Reporting: HIGH

Notes: Vox is an American advocacy news website run by Vox Media, co-founded by liberal columnists Ezra Klein, Melissa Bell, and Matt Yglesias and launched in April 2014. Vox presents with left wing bias in reporting and story choices. There is some use of loaded words, but most articles are sourced to credible information.


Discover the Networks (David Horowitz)
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/discover-the-networks/

QUESTIONABLE SOURCE
A questionable source exhibits one or more of the following: extreme bias, overt propaganda, poor or no sourcing to credible information and/or is fake news.

Bias: Extreme Right, Hate Group — Michael

Now respond to my post.

Now respond to my post. — Baden

I did.

OK, well if you are happy to concede all but that point, then fair enough, we agree and can move on.

I mean, I don't see any basis for legitimacy of that "fact check" website, but whatever.

Anyhow, on a note unrelated to that previous discussion but still keeping with the general question of the thread, deconstruction of the prevailing narrative always meets with a peculiar kind of doxastic opposition, which is that evaluative standards (and even intelligibility) are reciprocally determined by the status quo. Institutions play into this, of course.

I mean, I don't see any basis for legitimacy of that "fact check" website, but whatever. — Pneumenon

And I didn't see any legitimacy for the right-wing propaganda site (and I had much more justification for doubting it imo). Glad we understand each other now.

Anyhow, on a note unrelated to that previous discussion but still keeping with the general question of the thread, deconstruction of the prevailing narrative always meets with a peculiar kind of doxastic opposition, which is that evaluative standards (and even intelligibility) are reciprocally determined by the status quo. Institutions play into this, of course. — Pneumenon

What point specifically do you want to make in relation to the OP?

And I didn't see any legitimacy for the right-wing propaganda site — Baden

Because I agree in not seeing a basis for the legitimacy of the fact checking website, and notwithstanding your longer post, the comment I quote above demonstrates the futility of continuing this conversation.

So, having dropped your claims of the "genetic fallacy" applying to questioning information based on the source of that information—now that it suits you to question the source of the information we have provided, you have no evidential basis for your comments about BLM, so those claims fail. And maybe you can explain why you wasted so much of our time by arguing for a position concerning the genetic fallacy you are willing to drop the second it becomes inconvenient for you to hold it. That suggests you were being disingenuous from the start.

I'll only add that the source @Michael provided explicitly sets out to question both left and right-wing websites whereas the source you provided expressly sets out to discredit the left. So, on what basis do you question its legitimacy? So far it seems to be merely because you don't like the information it provides. That's not a tenable position (i.e. you need to provide actual reasons for doubting the source as we did).

I haven't dropped the charge. You still haven't actually shown anything the website reports to be false. You assume what it reports to be false because you have deemed it illegitimate. And you deem it illegitimate on account of its being right wing or its sources being right wing. Unless you can prove that anything right wing is by definition wrong and untrustworthy, then you have committed said fallacy. I won't hold my breath, however, which is why I have tried (twice now) to end this futile conversation.

You assume what it reports to be false because you have deemed it illegitimate. — Thorongil

At least, if nothing else, stop misrepresenting my position.

I don't know if the information is correct or not and I'm not presuming it is or not — Baden

That's actually the third time I've posted that. Not only that but I actually dealt with the information on the presumption it could be true and responded to it in that way in my recent long post. Are you reading the discussion?

As well as that, I already explained the genetic fallacy to you several times. It's one of the easiest fallacies to understand and I'll bet there's not one other person reading this who doesn't get it by now. On top of that, if you think it applies to us for doubting your source, it must also apply to you for doubting ours. I honestly don't know what your mental block is here. The fact is that neither of us is committing the genetic fallacy by questioning the reliability of our respective sources. It's a perfectly legitimate position to take in principle. What it comes down to is the reasons for our questioning and how strong they are on either side.

So, here are my reasons. I deem your source untrustworthy because:

a) According to its front page It explicitly sets out to attack the left.
b) Horowitz is known for providing misinformation and is an alleged racist
c) It gets the following report from a site checker that deals with both left and right-wing sites:

QUESTIONABLE SOURCE
A questionable source exhibits one or more of the following: extreme bias, overt propaganda, poor or no sourcing to credible information and/or is fake news.
Bias: Extreme Right, Hate Group

Now why do you deem our source unnacceptable? If you are not willing to provide reasons, and want to end the conversation before doing so, you are simply conceding that your position that it's not legitimate is baseless.

untrustworthy — Baden

Equivocation.

a) According to its front page It explicitly sets out to attack the left. — Baden

Doesn't mean what it says is false or *ahem* untrustworthy. It might mean that, but then you'd have to demonstrate that.

b) Horowitz is known for providing misinformation and is an alleged racist — Baden

Ad hominem.

c) It gets the following report from a site checker that deals with both left and right-wing sites: — Baden

That site doesn't infallibly determine the reliability of sources.

Now give your reasons for distrusting our source.

That site doesn't infallibly determine the reliability of sources. — Thorongil

But...

Doesn't mean what it says is false or *ahem* untrustworthy. It might mean that, but then you'd have to demonstrate that. — Thorongil