Calling white men racist seems to be the new "have you stopped beating your wife"

[Roy]

6 is more than a few...

Not necessarily.

[Mountain Man]

Unbelievable.

You just quoted a source describing something as a fallacy* as support for that fallacy.

*"I will show that the kafkatrap is a form of argument that is so fallacious and manipulative that those subjected to it are entitled to reject it based entirely on the form of the argument, without reference to whatever particular sin or thoughtcrime is being alleged."

So now it's a fallacy to tell people to be wary of certain manipulative arguments that try to induce guilt without making any specific claims against the target?

Yeah, okay. You go ahead and think that.

[Sparko]

Unbelievable.

You just quoted a source describing something as a fallacy* as support for that fallacy.

*"I will show that the kafkatrap is a form of argument that is so fallacious and manipulative that those subjected to it are entitled to reject it based entirely on the form of the argument, without reference to whatever particular sin or thoughtcrime is being alleged."

It is not saying the argument against the kafkatrap is fallacious, it is saying the kafkatrap argument is fallacious. The argument that a person is guilty because they belong to a group is what is fallacious. Read it again.

[Sparko]

So now it's a fallacy to tell people to be wary of certain manipulative arguments that try to induce guilt without making any specific claims against the target?

Yeah, okay. You go ahead and think that.

He read it wrong.

[Mountain Man]

He read it wrong.

Let's see how he responds...

[Roy]

It is not saying the argument against the kafkatrap is fallacious, it is saying the kafkatrap argument is fallacious. The argument that a person is guilty because they belong to a group is what is fallacious. Read it again.

I don't need to read it again. I read it correctly first time. Read MM's post and my comment again. They don't say what you think they do.

[Sparko]

I don't need to read it again. I read it correctly first time. Read MM's post and my comment again. They don't say what you think they do.

You seem to think it is criticizing itself? It is criticizing the kafkatrap as a fallacy, then giving an example of why it is fallacious.

[Mountain Man]

I don't need to read it again. I read it correctly first time.

[Mountain Man]

You seem to think it is criticizing itself? It is criticizing the kafkatrap as a fallacy, then giving an example of why it is fallacious.

He seems to think that the essay is saying that you can reject a conclusion based simply on the fact that it is reached through fallacious reasoning, which would be a fallacy (for example, "All stars are 93-million miles away from the Earth; the Sun is a star; therefore, the Sun is 93-million miles away from the Earth"; the conclusion is true even though the argument is false), but that's not what the essay is saying. What it is saying is that if you're confronted with an argument that makes no specific claims against you and yet vaguely implies that you're guilty through fallacious reasoning (such as guilt by association, or broad brushing), then that argument can be rejected out of hand without further consideration; for instance, "You're guilty of racism whether or not you realize it because you have benefited from a society that rewards white privilege."

[Roy]

You seem to think it is criticizing itself? It is criticizing the kafkatrap as a fallacy, then giving an example of why it is fallacious.

You think CRT is a kafkatrap, but you're conflating CRT with dumb claims made by idiots, rather than trying to understand what CRT actually is.

[Sparko]

You think CRT is a kafkatrap, but you're conflating CRT with dumb claims made by idiots, rather than trying to understand what CRT actually is.

right now we are discussing your criticism of MM's source.

[Roy]

right now we are discussing your criticism of MM's source.

I didn't criticise MM's source.

You're misreading what I wrote, misguessing my meaning, and refusing to be corrected. This is pointless.

[Sparko]

I didn't criticise MM's source.

You're misreading what I wrote, misguessing my meaning, and refusing to be corrected. This is pointless.

sure looks like exactly what you were doing:

Unbelievable.

You just quoted a source describing something as a fallacy* as support for that fallacy.

*"I will show that the kafkatrap is a form of argument that is so fallacious and manipulative that those subjected to it are entitled to reject it based entirely on the form of the argument, without reference to whatever particular sin or thoughtcrime is being alleged."

[Mountain Man]

I'm not sure even he knows what he's arguing at this point, but it's something I posted, so he just has to be against it!

[Sparko]

I'm not sure even he knows what he's arguing at this point, but it's something I posted, so he just has to be against it!

methinks Roy hates it when people nitpick him like he does them