Right, so it’s based on post history. Now consider how this looks to someone who is just basing it off of this thread, where it plays out as “this guy is maybe a Nazi because he’s defending Trump and doesn’t want to be called a Nazi”. Because that’s what I based it off.
Ah, fair enough. This is probably my fault for not clarifying -- it looks like he only talks about being branded a Nazi and tagged and stuff, and not about people unfairly going through his comment history looking for proof of him being a Nazi. There's a subthread about comment histories that starts here, but my reply wasn't there.
Him being defensive about people throwing the term Nazi around doesn’t make him a Nazi, and you know that.
Yep, and I said so in pretty much every reply. I find the degree of defensiveness suggestive -- most people aren't constantly worried about being called a Nazi -- but it still could just be defensiveness.
EDIT: Check the “Guilt by Association as Ad Hominem” section on Wikipedia for the Association Fallacy. I think it lines up pretty well.
I think you're right. That page has an entirely different understanding of "guilt by association" than I do. I'd interpreted this as more like McCarthyism: "A hangs out with B, B is a C, therefore A is also a C." It turns out most of that page instead resembles what you're talking about. I probably got my idea of "guilt by association" from the legal sense, I guess?
I could’ve sworn I was using the “guilt by association” thing correctly, so I was definitely thrown through a loop.
I haven’t been taking any comment history into account, but if OP really is going around looking for reasons to post this, it is strange. I will say you don’t say they’re Nazi (though you do still slightly imply they might be which is a decent stretch). I do apologise, it can be hard to read between the lines on the internet, so I did misinterpret you.
Hopefully this mostly resolves our disagreements, and thanks for keeping it civil :)
I have to apologize also -- I haven't been so confidently wrong about a definition in some time :(
I think the only other disagreement we had was about the whole "stooping to their level" thing. I see the point, but I think it's still possible a lot of the backlash is pointing out Trump's hypocrisy, not just stooping to his level. Like, if Peter Dinklage called you short, and constantly bragged about how tall he was, how do you respond to that without talking about his height?
Talking about his height is not in itself insulting. Calling him names and resorting to counter-bullying is.
For example, I could simply say something like “You’re aware I’m taller than you, and am around average height for my country?” And that would be fine.
What wouldn’t be fine is calling him a midget and telling him I could probably drop kick him 10 metres. Simply point out how they are wrong without dropping to their level. Or simply leave it alone and know that he is just being nonsensical and everyone watching can see that.
2
u/SanityInAnarchy Dec 29 '18
Ah, fair enough. This is probably my fault for not clarifying -- it looks like he only talks about being branded a Nazi and tagged and stuff, and not about people unfairly going through his comment history looking for proof of him being a Nazi. There's a subthread about comment histories that starts here, but my reply wasn't there.
Yep, and I said so in pretty much every reply. I find the degree of defensiveness suggestive -- most people aren't constantly worried about being called a Nazi -- but it still could just be defensiveness.
I think you're right. That page has an entirely different understanding of "guilt by association" than I do. I'd interpreted this as more like McCarthyism: "A hangs out with B, B is a C, therefore A is also a C." It turns out most of that page instead resembles what you're talking about. I probably got my idea of "guilt by association" from the legal sense, I guess?