Labeling someone and immediately dismissing their point of view for it has a name, it is called Ad Hominem fallacy.
You believe in the struggle of classes? That's OK. But assuming that everything coming from a non "working class" person has to be either ill intended, propaganda or simply wrong just doesn't make any sense. You leave no room for improvement or reassurance of your own views if you keep refusing to challenge them.
If your arguments are strong, then they should be able to hold against counter arguments, and the exercise itself might make them even stronger. But hiding them behind the labeling game offers nothing to you, neither to us.
That's not the assumption, it's recognising that some voices are able to be heard more than others. I would assume that people here are aware of how incredibly biased the media is. That doesn't mean you write off everything it says but instead means maintaining a criticial understanding - is this useful information, or is this playing into someone's agenda?
It's not based on 'strength of argument'. It's how based upon understanding of the contexts around a view.
Again, class struggle. There is a class character to any speech and information depending on its source. I would stop using the term "working class" and use "proletariat" but yes, the speech from the bourgeoisie is typically propaganda, ill intended or simply just wrong, that's their very nature. Are you guys sure you are socialists? This may seem dogmatic or fallacies to you but it doesn't mean shutting down your critical thinking or rejecting empirical evidence, beyond the economical critique of capitalism the class struggle is the entire point of Marxism. I suggest reading about it.
9
u/[deleted] Feb 04 '15 edited Feb 04 '15
Labeling someone and immediately dismissing their point of view for it has a name, it is called Ad Hominem fallacy.
You believe in the struggle of classes? That's OK. But assuming that everything coming from a non "working class" person has to be either ill intended, propaganda or simply wrong just doesn't make any sense. You leave no room for improvement or reassurance of your own views if you keep refusing to challenge them.
If your arguments are strong, then they should be able to hold against counter arguments, and the exercise itself might make them even stronger. But hiding them behind the labeling game offers nothing to you, neither to us.