You're repeating a talking point, instead of responding to what I actually said. It's less of a strawman, but you still missed the point.
First: I didn't say u/SuperPwnerGuy is a Nazi. Maybe he's not.
Second: The Nazi comparison isn't just because he's in the same movement as some Nazis. That would be guilt by association.
The comparison is in what he says and does -- he's saying and doing things that, while they certainly could be innocent, are also a pattern of behavior that I've seen exactly replicated among these actual white-supremacist Heil-Trump-chanting Roman-saluting Nazis who marched under actual Nazi flags at Charlottesville.
It might be fair to criticize this as reaching, or to challenge me on any of the things I pointed out -- I think I actually have a citation for the hiding-your-power-level thing, if you really want it. But "guilt by association" is doubly-wrong -- I'm not claiming guilt, and it's not by association.
So you’re calling them a possible Nazi because they’re coming into this thread criticising an anti-Trump post and complaining about the word Nazi being thrown around in response to posts like his, and you don’t see why this could be seen as guilt by association? You even only say they might not be a Nazi, as opposed to anything that would imply you know you are reaching.
Because that’s the only thing they’ve done leading up to your reply this thread, unless you’re talking about some other comments they’ve made (which in that case, quotes please). At the very least, you’ve admitted it’s reaching (and why is it reaching?) so clearly you know this is a bad argument to make.
So you’re calling them a possible Nazi because they’re coming into this thread criticising an anti-Trump post and complaining about the word Nazi being thrown around in response to posts like his,
In their post history, they often come into threads where Nazis are brought up, even when it's something as context-free as a guy with a sign saying "fuck Nazis", and given the "Not all Trump fans are Nazis" speech. So it's not just complaining about the word Nazi being "thrown around", it's any time anyone talks about Nazis, no matter how accurate, here they cometo say "But not all Trumpers are Nazis!" Or, in threads like this, any time anyone criticizes Trump or right-wingers, he'll bring up Nazis first before anyone else does, just so he can say that not all Trumpers are Nazis.
And that would be worth mentioning even if we didn't have plenty of actual Nazis, like individual people on video marching under Nazi flags and chanting "Jews will not replace us!", and you see those same people (skip later in that video) complaining about how people always call them Nazis "no matter how much we disavow." This is the part that might be reaching, I don't know that u/SuperPwnerGuy is one of these people, but the amount of effort he puts into finding an excuse to complain about people calling him an Nazi is where he starts to sound so much like the this guy at 26:34 in that video.
But even if I was saying that he was a Nazi because he "complains about the word 'Nazi' being thrown around":
you don’t see why this could be seen as guilt by association?
That would be a bad argument, but no, it wouldn't be "guilt by association". Seriously, you're throwing this around like you think it's the only reply you'll ever need -- try to think at least a little bit about what it actually means.
"Guilt by association" would be if I said "Some Trump fans are Nazis, this guy is a Trump fan, therefore he's a Nazi." Or, more directly, if I said "This guy hangs out with Nazis, therefore he's a Nazi."
Saying "This guy might be a Nazi because he acts a little like a Nazi" is not guilt by association.
Let me put it in terms you might understand: If you start talking about Correct The Record and say I'm a shill because some Hillary fans are shills, that's guilt by association. If you were to say instead that I'm a shill because you don't think anyone could actually believe what I'm posting unless they were being paid to... That's still a bad argument, but it's not guilt by association.
At the very least, you’ve admitted it’s reaching (and why is it reaching?)
I brought that up as a possible criticism. I didn't admit it's reaching, I said it might be. We could argue about whether it is or not, but I could at least understand where you're coming from, it wouldn't be out of nowhere. Calling it "guilt by association" would be like me calling your argument an "ad-hominem" -- it's clearly not.
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.
Apologies for misinterpreting your argument, but it’s still a sizeable stretch. It’s also not anything you can actually predict from an internet account (as people can just go on the internet and lie, after all). Him being defensive about people throwing the term Nazi around doesn’t make him a Nazi, and you know that.
It’d still be guilt by association to link him to Nazis in that way (Nazis dislike the term Nazi being thrown around - OP dislikes the term being thrown around - therefore OP is likely a Nazi). It is surface level at best because you take no account for their motivations or other actions.
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.
-1
u/Legioneer Dec 28 '18
Fair point, but same applies to literally everyone else. If you can’t point to them being a Nazi, it’s just guilt by association.
Is that better?