This is the same thing as people who claim Trump’s not racist. It’s so patently absurd to claim that you can’t see evidence of her transphobia even when it’s right in front of you that people are left dumbfounded. It’s so obvious you’re not saying this is earnest.
Someone help me out, isn’t there a name for this technique? It’s not “gish gallop” because it’s not an endless stream of out-of-pocket claims, but rather one claim that’s so colossally batshit that it can’t be addressed. It’s like someone saying, “No one’s produced evidence of humans requiring oxygen to live.” It’s a way to successfully dodge an issue because of the absurdity of the claim being made. Is it called “red herring”?
Hmmm. I feel like it’s more a deliberate distortion of reality.
The way I see it, it’s closely related to the approach used by segregationists who would use things like gerrymandering or poll tax to exclude Black voters and then claim that it’s not racist policy because they didn’t expressly mention race.
Well then you’re just as dumb as the guy who suggested it in the first place. I don’t give af about Rowling, I simply asked for some evidence. Maybe she’s a piece of shit, but how would I know? Everyone in this thread is just like “DUH SHES OBVIOUSLY A BIGOT YOU MORON”. the only info I have on the subject was the opinion piece she wrote in the last couple years. Don’t be a cynical twat.
You’re already online, you can look for evidence yourself. It’s a sensitive issue, and one that’s been around long enough that interested people have read a lot about it. Imagine going into another thread and asking for evidence that there’s a blockade in Palestine. You have to take control of your own learning at some point.
Edit: I see that you don’t have a twitter. You can look Rowling up on nitter.
See how easy that was? The fact that so many people got up in arms immediately, yet provided no evidence suggests to me that people are overreacting and that there isn’t really any evidence. So now I’m going to carry that opinion forward.
Rowling absolutely doesn’t matter enough to me to research any further, and people digging their heels in and calling me names has done nothing but make me believe that their evidence is either fabricated or overblown. I’m done with this, I was way more invested in conversation on lemmy than I was in Rowling’s alleged transphobia.
I think people have you conflated with the OP, which sucks, because the OP is quite obviously a sealion from the way that they phrase their issue, or what have you. Their issue isn’t really an open, geniune question, it sounds like they’re putting the onus on everyone else for having not educated them, and it also kind of implicitly contains the idea that they expect everyone else to fail at changing their mind. They’ve obviously looked for evidence before, or have argued about it before, and have become more entrenched, and haven’t looked further. They also slight anyone that would be arguing the opposite viewpoint more directly in order to get a rise out of them. So I think being equated with that person, especially after they’ve posted like, some pretty effective bait, is gonna get you blasted back. Their phrasing is optimized to make anyone replying to them be heated, you’re gonna take crossfire from that.
Also I wouldn’t necessarily draw the conclusion that rowling isn’t a transphobe, from the fact that you’ve been downvoted for asking that, that would be a pretty bad fallacy to make, that the people representing the argument are the best arguers for it.
Anyways, if you need evidence, I don’t have any because I don’t really give a shit about JK rowling’s shit, but I remember watching a couple contrapoints videos a while back that were pretty thorough in the way that a two hour youtube essay tends to be. Links are here and here. I don’t remember much from them, other than that they were good, and obviously she holds the opposing opinion, so take it with a grain of salt, but that’s what I’ll give you since it’s what I can remember on hand. I also seem to remember rowling hanging out with some more hardcore right wing folks, but I can’t seem to remember which specific video that was from. I wanna say shaun? Anyways, that’s all I got for you, dude, have a nice. Night, day? Have a nice time, lol
Red-herring refers to a deliberately misleading clue. Gish gallop might be closer, it’s when you make a bunch of claims at once to overwhelm your opponent without regard to the validity of the claims. It’s not quite willful ignorance either. Hmmm…
I love pedantic stuff like this so I’m pretty sure I will be thinking about this the rest of the day now… thanks lol
The invincible ignorance fallacy,[1] also known as argument by pigheadedness,[2] is a deductive fallacy of circularity where the person in question simply refuses to believe the argument, ignoring any evidence given. It is not so much a fallacious tactic in argument as it is a refusal to argue in the proper sense of the word. The method used in this fallacy is either to make assertions with no consideration of objections or to simply dismiss objections by calling them excuses, conjecture, etc. or saying that they are proof of nothing, all without actually demonstrating how the objection fit these terms. It is similar to the ad lapidem fallacy, in which the person rejects all the evidence and logic presented, without providing any evidence or logic that could lead to a different conclusion.
Whatever it is, it’s pretty common to the point that I can predict the entire conversation:
Me: [Posts links to numerous transphobic tweets by Rowling].
Them: That’s not transphobic, she’s just saying [superficial bad-faith reading of the tweet in question and a statement about transgender people being “too sensitive”]
If there’s not a term for this, someone needs to coin one lol
I used to engage, but I’ve learned from my tenure on reddit to recognize the pattern and that there’s no point
This is the same thing as people who claim Trump’s not racist. It’s so patently absurd to claim that you can’t see evidence of her transphobia even when it’s right in front of you that people are left dumbfounded. It’s so obvious you’re not saying this is earnest.
Someone help me out, isn’t there a name for this technique? It’s not “gish gallop” because it’s not an endless stream of out-of-pocket claims, but rather one claim that’s so colossally batshit that it can’t be addressed. It’s like someone saying, “No one’s produced evidence of humans requiring oxygen to live.” It’s a way to successfully dodge an issue because of the absurdity of the claim being made. Is it called “red herring”?
Head in the sand?
Hmmm. I feel like it’s more a deliberate distortion of reality.
The way I see it, it’s closely related to the approach used by segregationists who would use things like gerrymandering or poll tax to exclude Black voters and then claim that it’s not racist policy because they didn’t expressly mention race.
Fair point, good distinction. Maybe Big Lie? Or… medium lie? Lol
Someone pointed out that it looks like the setup for some sea lioning, and now I tend to agree.
Well then you’re just as dumb as the guy who suggested it in the first place. I don’t give af about Rowling, I simply asked for some evidence. Maybe she’s a piece of shit, but how would I know? Everyone in this thread is just like “DUH SHES OBVIOUSLY A BIGOT YOU MORON”. the only info I have on the subject was the opinion piece she wrote in the last couple years. Don’t be a cynical twat.
You’re already online, you can look for evidence yourself. It’s a sensitive issue, and one that’s been around long enough that interested people have read a lot about it. Imagine going into another thread and asking for evidence that there’s a blockade in Palestine. You have to take control of your own learning at some point.
Edit: I see that you don’t have a twitter. You can look Rowling up on nitter.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blockade_of_the_Gaza_Strip
See how easy that was? The fact that so many people got up in arms immediately, yet provided no evidence suggests to me that people are overreacting and that there isn’t really any evidence. So now I’m going to carry that opinion forward.
Rowling absolutely doesn’t matter enough to me to research any further, and people digging their heels in and calling me names has done nothing but make me believe that their evidence is either fabricated or overblown. I’m done with this, I was way more invested in conversation on lemmy than I was in Rowling’s alleged transphobia.
I think people have you conflated with the OP, which sucks, because the OP is quite obviously a sealion from the way that they phrase their issue, or what have you. Their issue isn’t really an open, geniune question, it sounds like they’re putting the onus on everyone else for having not educated them, and it also kind of implicitly contains the idea that they expect everyone else to fail at changing their mind. They’ve obviously looked for evidence before, or have argued about it before, and have become more entrenched, and haven’t looked further. They also slight anyone that would be arguing the opposite viewpoint more directly in order to get a rise out of them. So I think being equated with that person, especially after they’ve posted like, some pretty effective bait, is gonna get you blasted back. Their phrasing is optimized to make anyone replying to them be heated, you’re gonna take crossfire from that.
Also I wouldn’t necessarily draw the conclusion that rowling isn’t a transphobe, from the fact that you’ve been downvoted for asking that, that would be a pretty bad fallacy to make, that the people representing the argument are the best arguers for it.
Anyways, if you need evidence, I don’t have any because I don’t really give a shit about JK rowling’s shit, but I remember watching a couple contrapoints videos a while back that were pretty thorough in the way that a two hour youtube essay tends to be. Links are here and here. I don’t remember much from them, other than that they were good, and obviously she holds the opposing opinion, so take it with a grain of salt, but that’s what I’ll give you since it’s what I can remember on hand. I also seem to remember rowling hanging out with some more hardcore right wing folks, but I can’t seem to remember which specific video that was from. I wanna say shaun? Anyways, that’s all I got for you, dude, have a nice. Night, day? Have a nice time, lol
Edit: found maybe a link further down this thread, haven’t parsed it at all, but thought I would make you aware: https://www.glamour.com/story/a-complete-breakdown-of-the-jk-rowling-transgender-comments-controversy
Red-herring refers to a deliberately misleading clue. Gish gallop might be closer, it’s when you make a bunch of claims at once to overwhelm your opponent without regard to the validity of the claims. It’s not quite willful ignorance either. Hmmm…
I love pedantic stuff like this so I’m pretty sure I will be thinking about this the rest of the day now… thanks lol
Invincible Ignorance Fallacy maybe?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invincible_ignorance_fallacy
The invincible ignorance fallacy,[1] also known as argument by pigheadedness,[2] is a deductive fallacy of circularity where the person in question simply refuses to believe the argument, ignoring any evidence given. It is not so much a fallacious tactic in argument as it is a refusal to argue in the proper sense of the word. The method used in this fallacy is either to make assertions with no consideration of objections or to simply dismiss objections by calling them excuses, conjecture, etc. or saying that they are proof of nothing, all without actually demonstrating how the objection fit these terms. It is similar to the ad lapidem fallacy, in which the person rejects all the evidence and logic presented, without providing any evidence or logic that could lead to a different conclusion.
Same! If you think of it, please let me know 🙏
Whatever it is, it’s pretty common to the point that I can predict the entire conversation:
If there’s not a term for this, someone needs to coin one lol
I used to engage, but I’ve learned from my tenure on reddit to recognize the pattern and that there’s no point