I’m trying to get started on the Bradbury Challenge, where you read a poem, an essay, and a short story every day. Right now the biggest challenge is just finding engaging texts, especially when it comes to poetry. I find myself just going back to “the classics” like Shakesspeare, Robert Frost, C. S. Lewis and so on. I’d like to broaden my horizons.
- 1 post
- 51 comments
Joined 2 months ago
Cake day: August 16th, 2026
You are not logged in. If you use a Fediverse account that is able to follow users, you can follow this user.
5 daysad hominem literally means
Thanks for starting out with showing you’re arguing at the level of Jordan Peterson, so I know I dont have to waste my time reading the rest of your drivel. We all know what the words mean, you need to learn what the fallacy is.
You are doing the thing little children do of going “Uhh i didnt specifically say the thing” but in your case its even more pathetic because you did and it has been explained to you.
It is is a dismissal of the others arguments based on nothing but the perceived character of the arguments/the person making the argument. It is an ad hominem. You are in no way engaging with anything the other says, instead you are relying on a simple attack on character. That is an ad hominem.
If the statements are conspiracy theories then it would do well to prove such an assertion. By simply stating it and then fleeing from any reasonable discussion makes you appear as a fanatic cultust that cannot handle challenge. This is not good optics for you
Yeah black people can’t be scumfuck pieces of shit! Just like that really cool Supreme Court Justice!
Like Bernie? Or the many other progressives that are actively sabotaged by the DNC?
And the “anti-fascist” party is also fascist, just more polite about it
Gonna write in Hillary (in reality im voting third party)
I am begging you people to read up on the terms you use. Youre all just saying shit without understanding it. Accelerationism is not “when someone wants something, anything, to happen faster” you oaf. It is not “someone who wants things to get bad really quickly” either.
It is a specific marxist tendency where those that subscribe to it believe that capital must be nearly completely concentrated in the imperial core in order for the conditions necessary for a successful proletarian revolution to occur. They therefore believe that the faster capital can be accumulated, the faster we can advance. As such they support whomever they consider the most competent administrators of empire. In the US that is, in the eyes of most people, the democratic party. Accelerationists would therefore generally vote for democrats and urge others to do as well.
Learn what the terms you use mean. If you are trying to argue that republicans are more competent administrators of empire and the arguments the person you are responding to follow the line of reasoning of an accelerationist, then you gotta provide arguments to aid your assertions. I might as well call you a republican, its just as logical as your statement.
Seems like the strategy of voting for any politician no matter what their policy has led us to a point where genocide isn’t even on the ballot anymore, so I don’t know about that.
“Everyone who disagrees with me is a subhuman foreigner” and other insane conspiracies for the racist right-wing mind
“Everyone who disagrees with me is a foreigner, so I can disregard everything they say” and other insane conspiracies for the racist right-wing mind
No one is going to open a restaurant where the target market is “people who don’t go to restaurants”
There’s plenty of people opening restaurants on the basis of “this kind of cuisine is not available in this neighborhood. I think people would like it.”
Your analogy is incredibly flawed. People are able to go to more than one restaurant.
Sad to start out with an ad hominem. All of the things stated is verified, that you do not like facts do not make them less so
Buddy I dont know how to spell it out more clearly than this: “you are saying conspiracy theories” and “you are a conspiracy theorists” are functionally the same statements when they are not supported by any evidence. You are like a child trying to argue that you didnt call someone ugly, you just said they looked ugly.
Your statements have the function of attacking some imaginary moral value of the argument, rather than attacking the arguments content.
You are arguing like a terminally online pill-addict because you, like him, try to argue out from what the words mean in a literal translation, rather than engaging with the meaning of the concept. Instead of asking a philosophy prof, go talk to someone who does rhetorics.
Of course you study philosophy, it would make sense that an idiotic halfwit farthuffer like you would study such a thing. Hopefully you one day actually manage to move on from your terminal reddit-brain. And in case you’re in doubt, this was not an ad hominem, its just an insult. Im not attaching the value of your character onto the argument, im just calling you stupid.