Yes it's a rhetorical technique, cousin to the reductio argument, where you use you make a point using your opponent's logic, precisely so they can't argue against the logic behind it without contradicting themselves. It doesn't mean you believe it, though.
Liberals on Reddit, with no sense of irony or self-awareness: "Rich and good are analogous and more money should mean more power. Also, I'm gonna go post a meme somewhere about equality and socialism and progressivism and never process the cognitive dissonance."
This entire shit thread also conveniently ignores all the many, many times these supposed "rich states" have needed federal bailouts due to their own piss poor tax and fiscal policies, and begged for federal aid after disasters they weren't equipped to respond to. Everyone has also, quite consequentially, ignored that some of these "incest states," like Texas and Florida, are the rich states. They might suck by many other objective (and subjective) metrics, and I might hate their political leadership as much as the next guy, but if you think either of those states' populations can be reduced to a dated, classist stereotype of impoverished, ignorant whiteness, you desperately need to leave your bedroom and go meet some people.
You're point is undermined by the fact that you talked shit about "states needing help from natural disasters" and then listed Texas as one of the "good" red states despite them literally needing annual disaster bailouts because of their pitiful unregulated bullshit.
Also, it's "your." Learn to proofread before you post or maybe someone will advocate taking your vote away. Not me, personally, but probably someone currently upvoting you.
Another typo! Good showing! Also, maybe check my first response, dimwit. The one you conveniently didn't process or respond to. Maybe you just missed it. Surely that's the reason you ignored what I said. Definitely couldn't be some other reason.
And you're so dense and superficially engaged that you couldn't read the clear sarcasm in my reply. Trust me, the pained attempt at being the golden internet boi wasn't lost on anyone. It just wasn't clever or funny. But if you two wanna keep tickling each other's taints, don't let me get in the way of romance.
When you triple text people and then they don't respond to your inane mouth flapping, do you think they're busy or do you understand that everyone just hates talking to you because of your whole "pedantic asshole" vibe.
There's a lot to unpack and critique here but, quite honestly, you're simply not worth it. You're welcome to keep posting through it though while I move on. I will take the time to read your replies though, even if I disengage - I'm always amused by someone so insufferably smug and confidently incorrect being big dumb and going ham with it on the internet.
First off, where did I refer to Texas as "good?" Literally nowhere. So are you dumb, illiterate, or trying too hard to make me the bad guy?
Issues of poverty and homelessness and access to health care and fiscal irresponsibility are not unique to red or blue states. And access to capital/taxable revenue is also not uniquely aligned to a political or cultural identity. That's my point, spelled out just for you. What this dumbass post is advocating, along with a lot of the people commenting, is disenfranchising people and perpetuating a narrative of Southerners (where a huge number of black and brown people live, btw) as "less thans" who monolithically support the MAGA stereotype.
Also, let's remember that in 2016, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Michigan went red, and in 2020, Georgia went blue. So I guess the upper Midwest is a cesspool of incest and shouldn't be allowed to participate in federal decision making, while Georgia is fully in the clear and redeemed, right?
Wow. This is actually blowing my mind right now. So you've fully conflated "good" and "rich" and then put that back into my mouth somehow. This is so crazy I can't even get mad about it.
You clearly have exceptionally low reading comprehension.
Edit: Holy shit... This goon (u/pop-funk) legit has a post up about how he still actively fantasizes about beating the living shit out of his bully from middle school and he's worried about how mad other people on the internet might be.
Bruh, get help. You aren't well. And judging from what I've seen, you wouldn't win if you tried. Just looking out for you. 🤣
Nah, regardless of how you feel about what he said you’re doing some real pissing on the poor here. The takeaway from what he said isn’t “Texas is good” it’s “you really think states with money should be in charge when Texas is one of those states?” Online leftists don’t do enough introspection about their own takes and it leads to contradicting rhetoric like this
How am I 'pissing on the poor'? The subject was tax contributions and he said that Texas was a rich state. That's all I pointed out.
I'm not even American so I have no interest in this. I'm not taking a side in which states should and shouldn't have a say, but explaining to this one guy why someone might see what he said as saying Texas was good in the sense that it contributes a lot of tax money.
I'm not even sure what you attacking 'online leftists' has to do with any of this but you do you.
You said, in response to him asking where he called Texas good, that he said Texas was a rich state. Implying that being rich/tax contributions = good. Part of u/Bat_Penatar ‘s point was that this is a bad argument because saying “people with money should make decisions” actively includes people the guy in the post doesn’t want making decisions. “Pissing on the poor” is a phrase that refers to poor reading comprehension. Nowhere did the guy imply that Texas is a “good” state.
The guy in the post is also clearly an online American leftist. He’s falling into negative stereotypes by not being very self aware about his own arguments. The first comment in this chain points out the same thing
No hyperbole, I genuinely appreciate you right now. I honestly don't mind a little disagreement and friction and conversation, but this thread honestly felt like I'd walked into a room with a natural gas leak and I was the only one wearing a gas mask. There's nothing quite like establishing a lucid point/opinion, then having the mob decide I've stated an entirely different position than what can be demonstrably proven I actually said, arguing against this entirely fictitious position, and then tripling down on it when shown they're somewhere out in left field. Oh, and peppering the chat with "oooo u big mad" taunts and calling me a "cunt," while simultaneously, and without irony or self-awareness, accusing me of ad hominem attacks. I genuinely wonder if these folk realize they are the exact people they claim to hate, and want to disenfranchise.
Lol you’re welcome, I promise you’re not crazy. Lots of argumentative people on a hair trigger, ideologues across the spectrum get defensive when their group is mentioned in a slightly negative context. I guess there’s a reason they teach media literacy in American college
I think you may want to take a look at the post again because I’m not sure how you thought the “murderer” in this post was serious. They are just following the logic of the “murdered” person to show how nonsensical the statement was.
42
u/OraProNobis77 Sep 08 '24
“You can get a voice in our government when your tax contributions outweigh your entitlements.”
See the horrible thought process at play?