The goalposts to being a nazi got moved farther back because “we can’t know their intent from just this license plate” and then 2 seconds later, the goalposts for being a nazi was moved way forward because “everyone who says good luck in Chinese is a Nazi.”
Yes, that’s literally moving the goalposts on what defines a Nazi.
Moving the goalposts means changing the rules of a debate while having it. They said they’d agree with them being a Nazi if there was evidence beyond the number 88 being on the license plate, someone else pointed out what the “BOOG” meant, they accepted that the person who owns the car is a Nazi. No goalposts moved.
I think you should be cautious of just how much faith you’re putting into this person.
They said they’d agree
They didn’t. They only gave reasons to not agree. They implied that they would agree if that condition was met, but that’s not what they said.
they accepted that the person who owns the car is a Nazi
Again, they didn’t. They said, “I missed that,.my bad.” They didn’t change anything about their argument from this information (that was always available to them), just acknowledged that they didn’t use it.
Maybe I should’ve called their argument a strawman argument instead, but the discrepancy between what they say OP can call a Nazi and what they can call a Nazi feels wide enough to change the rules of the debate for each side.
Yes, I simplified for the sake of brevity. But you’re reading a lot into their comments that just isn’t there. Yes they were running interference for a nazi (and not making a particularly compelling case) but there’s nothing to indicate it was intentional. (It’s not a strawman argument either btw, unless you’re claiming they intentionally ignored the boogaloo reference rather than just not knowing about them.)
Edit: Also I don’t think not making assumptions about someone’s motivations is the same thing as ‘putting faith’ in them.
You admit that they were running interference for a nazi, but also want to give them the benefit of the doubt? Historians have a word for people who didn’t agree fully with, but still defended nazis. Want to know what they were called?
Nazis.
If you’re aligning yourself with them, running interference for them, I’m going to treat you as if it is intentional because the effect is the exact same. If it was an accident, there were plenty of opportunities to change opinions and apologize. That hasn’t happened, so all evidence we have points to the person defending Nazis being disingenuous here.
You have to make assumptions on people’s motivations either way. I’m just more willing to base my assumptions on how genuine someone is being whether or not they are running interference for Nazis.
No, you’re not basing your assumptions on how genuine someone is being, you’re basing your assumptions on your assumptions of how genuine they’re being.
Dismissing someone’s arguments by establishing they’re acting in bad faith is a valid rhetorical tactic but it doesn’t work if you can’t establish that. And labeling their argument as something it isn’t doesn’t help with that.
Addressing someone’s presumed ignorance is helpful because you’re also providing information for onlookers, pointing out the harmful effects of what someone’s saying (like potentially muddying the waters when it comes to recognizing dog whistles) is constructive, attacking anyone who may be acting in bad faith but could just as easily just be ignorant is just a waste of your energy.
I’m not particularly interested in defending the person you replied to, I don’t think they made a good case either. I just want people to be a bit more discerning with the terms they use. (And I have a compulsive need to correct people which I’m aware is really annoying.)
I don’t care if they’re being genuine or not and don’t feel a need to prove it one way or the other. I will treat anyone who is defending Nazis as if they are genuinely Nazis themselves because at the end of the day, that’s what they’re pushing for, intentionally or not.
The damage this can cause does not change if it was intentional or not, so our reaction to it should not change either.
Their initial comment was complete nonsense, and sarcastic derision is one of the few things that actually upsets people like that who ignore the content of the conversation while also pretending to have the moral high ground. Their point is often to get people arguing amongst themselves instead of realizing they just shifted the conversation from “Here is a Nazi in Indiana” to “You can’t prove that Chinese speakers aren’t Nazis.” (Like we’re doing now.)
What would you have called them out for that fits better than moving goalposts or a strawman argument?
Your back must hurt from moving all those goalposts.
That’s… not what moving the goalposts means.
The goalposts to being a nazi got moved farther back because “we can’t know their intent from just this license plate” and then 2 seconds later, the goalposts for being a nazi was moved way forward because “everyone who says good luck in Chinese is a Nazi.”
Yes, that’s literally moving the goalposts on what defines a Nazi.
Moving the goalposts means changing the rules of a debate while having it. They said they’d agree with them being a Nazi if there was evidence beyond the number 88 being on the license plate, someone else pointed out what the “BOOG” meant, they accepted that the person who owns the car is a Nazi. No goalposts moved.
I think you should be cautious of just how much faith you’re putting into this person.
They didn’t. They only gave reasons to not agree. They implied that they would agree if that condition was met, but that’s not what they said.
Again, they didn’t. They said, “I missed that,.my bad.” They didn’t change anything about their argument from this information (that was always available to them), just acknowledged that they didn’t use it.
Maybe I should’ve called their argument a strawman argument instead, but the discrepancy between what they say OP can call a Nazi and what they can call a Nazi feels wide enough to change the rules of the debate for each side.
Yes, I simplified for the sake of brevity. But you’re reading a lot into their comments that just isn’t there. Yes they were running interference for a nazi (and not making a particularly compelling case) but there’s nothing to indicate it was intentional. (It’s not a strawman argument either btw, unless you’re claiming they intentionally ignored the boogaloo reference rather than just not knowing about them.)
Edit: Also I don’t think not making assumptions about someone’s motivations is the same thing as ‘putting faith’ in them.
You admit that they were running interference for a nazi, but also want to give them the benefit of the doubt? Historians have a word for people who didn’t agree fully with, but still defended nazis. Want to know what they were called?
Nazis.
If you’re aligning yourself with them, running interference for them, I’m going to treat you as if it is intentional because the effect is the exact same. If it was an accident, there were plenty of opportunities to change opinions and apologize. That hasn’t happened, so all evidence we have points to the person defending Nazis being disingenuous here.
You have to make assumptions on people’s motivations either way. I’m just more willing to base my assumptions on how genuine someone is being whether or not they are running interference for Nazis.
No, you’re not basing your assumptions on how genuine someone is being, you’re basing your assumptions on your assumptions of how genuine they’re being.
Dismissing someone’s arguments by establishing they’re acting in bad faith is a valid rhetorical tactic but it doesn’t work if you can’t establish that. And labeling their argument as something it isn’t doesn’t help with that.
Addressing someone’s presumed ignorance is helpful because you’re also providing information for onlookers, pointing out the harmful effects of what someone’s saying (like potentially muddying the waters when it comes to recognizing dog whistles) is constructive, attacking anyone who may be acting in bad faith but could just as easily just be ignorant is just a waste of your energy.
I’m not particularly interested in defending the person you replied to, I don’t think they made a good case either. I just want people to be a bit more discerning with the terms they use. (And I have a compulsive need to correct people which I’m aware is really annoying.)
You misunderstand my point. Let me explain again.
I don’t care if they’re being genuine or not and don’t feel a need to prove it one way or the other. I will treat anyone who is defending Nazis as if they are genuinely Nazis themselves because at the end of the day, that’s what they’re pushing for, intentionally or not.
The damage this can cause does not change if it was intentional or not, so our reaction to it should not change either.
Their initial comment was complete nonsense, and sarcastic derision is one of the few things that actually upsets people like that who ignore the content of the conversation while also pretending to have the moral high ground. Their point is often to get people arguing amongst themselves instead of realizing they just shifted the conversation from “Here is a Nazi in Indiana” to “You can’t prove that Chinese speakers aren’t Nazis.” (Like we’re doing now.)
What would you have called them out for that fits better than moving goalposts or a strawman argument?
sorry - your comment is not helping me to engage further. at least put some content in it.
Why? You ignore content anyway.