980
submitted 10 months ago by Rapidcreek@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] EatATaco@lemm.ee -3 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

If his book doesn't violate the law, and people removed it anyway as political retribution, then that is an abuse of power.

-or-

If he didn't support the law as-written, and is now pointing to his books being banned because of the poor wording as a reason to support that position, then the position is pretty consistent.

[-] pozbo@lemmy.world 8 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

-or-

He is a hypocritical piece of shit who wants to evade the rules he helped put into place for everyone else because he thinks he is elevated above the rest of the citizens of this country.

[-] EatATaco@lemm.ee 4 points 10 months ago

Yes, absolutely. Which goes back to my original point: the article provides no information upon which you can make this judgment, which is why it's useless.

[-] 6daemonbag@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 10 months ago

Y'all, this isn't some sort of centrist gotcha. Dude just wants a citation to which part of Billy's book violated the stupid and dumb law.

[-] prole@sh.itjust.works 1 points 10 months ago

Or we can use our brains and recognize that hypocrisy is a constant feature of this type of ideology? For fuck sake dude. These people don't deserve the benefit the doubt anymore, and the fact that you seem to believe so strongly that they do is suspicious.

[-] EatATaco@lemm.ee 0 points 10 months ago

One of the most common, and probably most dangerous, cognitive biases is confirmation bias. It's the exact opposite of "using your brain" to accept a claim simply because it confirms what you already believe to be true. In fact, that might be the time it's most important to ask yourself whether or not it's true.

It's sad that you find my objectivity when it comes to the facts "suspicious" but that's your own short-coming you need to deal with. The accusation is a reflection of yourself and maybe you need to sit and think on it a bit.

[-] prole@sh.itjust.works 1 points 10 months ago

This isn't confirmation bias, this is literally just making a (very) educated guess about a person's motivation given decades of behavior. Don't be fucking stupid.

[-] EatATaco@lemm.ee 0 points 10 months ago

this is literally just making a (very) educated guess about a person’s motivation given decades of behavior.

You are admitting it's just a "guess" but it's safe to admit it's true because it confirms what you already believe to be true. And you're trying to claim it isn't confirmation bias. lmao. Classic.

[-] prole@sh.itjust.works 1 points 10 months ago

No, it's an educated guess. Not a guess. An estimate.

I am using past behavior as a predictor for current/future behavior. Something that is done constantly (e.g. our credit system), and isn't fallacious.

[-] EatATaco@lemm.ee 0 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

No, it’s an educated guess. Not a guess. An estimate.

Holy shit, this is hilarious. Do you understand how language works? In this case "educated" is an adjective that modifies the noun "guess." An educated guess is a guess. Just specific type. . .basically, not "a blind guess", but one based on being "educated" on the topic. Using the monty hall problem as an example, when they remove the door, it's an "educated guess" to also switch your answer. But you don't know what's behind that door, you just are making the best bet. You're not "estimating" it's behind the other door, you're guessing it is. This is a ridiculous (and failed) attempt at a pedantic argument.

I am using past behavior as a predictor for current/future behavior.

So, again, admitting that it's not based on facts, but simply a guess.

Something that is done constantly (e.g. our credit system), and isn’t fallacious.

If you had just said "I bet it's hypocritical" I wouldn't have said anything. But you didn't. You state it as if it is fact. The credit system does not state "it is fact that they will be bad with any future credit" they are saying "the risk that they will be bad with credit is high, so we are not giving it to them."

[-] prole@sh.itjust.works 1 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Nobody fucking cares dude. Take a step back and think about what you're arguing about here. Just stop. I'm certain you have better things to do.

[-] EatATaco@lemm.ee 1 points 10 months ago

People who don't care just go away,they don't announce to the world how much they don't care.

You're attempt to make this about me and how much you "don't care" is as transparent as your piss poor argument that saying a guess isn't a guess. (Lol I still crack up when I realize you actually tried to argue that position)

[-] Modern_medicine_isnt@lemmy.world 3 points 10 months ago

Unlike conservatives, I prefer to be outraged by facts instead of misinformation.

[-] 800XL@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago

That's the beauty of it. Republicans write laws that always leave a backdoor for them to pull shenanigans that aren't in the spirit of the law. And if/when they're called out on it they hand wave and say "well it's not clear so the law is up for interpretation".

Now they're crying foul because it was used against them and kung-fu clutching those pearls.

this post was submitted on 13 Jan 2024
980 points (97.7% liked)

News

23388 readers
1757 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS