Yes you are. Instead of engaging with the content of my argument, you’re attempting to discredit it by implying I’m parroting a biased media outlet - suggesting my view is invalid not because of its reasoning, but because of its supposed origin or alignment. It’s a bad faith logical fallacy meant to undermine credibility without addressing the substance.
Then engage with the discussion??? It’s very frustrating reading your comments actively shutting down discourse.
Here I’ll do it for you:
I disagree with @opinionhaver because I think that filling stadiums in red and swing states is a tangible metric that is at least correlated with general election support. I think that Trump is even more polarizing than AOC, and so her polarization isn’t as much of an issue as they make it out to be.
There. Now we find out how substantial their position is when they defend it, instead of just crying about talking points
If they are incorrect, lying, and don’t realize it, but still arguing in good faith, then their arguments will fall short when challenged. If they are arguing in bad faith, then it’s a different story.
I’ll admit the claims they made are perhaps overly broad and difficult to challenge, but it is entirely within the realm of possibility that they can back it up with examples / evidence.
Jumping straight to calling them out is pretty disingenuous. Even if their points are more disingenuous and misleading, you shouldn’t be fighting fallacy with another fallacy.
Yes you are. Instead of engaging with the content of my argument, you’re attempting to discredit it by implying I’m parroting a biased media outlet - suggesting my view is invalid not because of its reasoning, but because of its supposed origin or alignment. It’s a bad faith logical fallacy meant to undermine credibility without addressing the substance.
Removed by mod
Then engage with the discussion??? It’s very frustrating reading your comments actively shutting down discourse.
Here I’ll do it for you: I disagree with @opinionhaver because I think that filling stadiums in red and swing states is a tangible metric that is at least correlated with general election support. I think that Trump is even more polarizing than AOC, and so her polarization isn’t as much of an issue as they make it out to be.
There. Now we find out how substantial their position is when they defend it, instead of just crying about talking points
Removed by mod
If they are incorrect, lying, and don’t realize it, but still arguing in good faith, then their arguments will fall short when challenged. If they are arguing in bad faith, then it’s a different story.
I’ll admit the claims they made are perhaps overly broad and difficult to challenge, but it is entirely within the realm of possibility that they can back it up with examples / evidence.
Jumping straight to calling them out is pretty disingenuous. Even if their points are more disingenuous and misleading, you shouldn’t be fighting fallacy with another fallacy.
Removed by mod
I have not once mentioned the media in my comments. Please do not misunderstand. They all were pertaining to your and @opinionhaver’s interaction