I throw this up for comment

No pedophile acceptance

~~~~~~

To save people a click: just your average racist, Jew-hating YouTube propagandist, the kind who cares about pedophilia when she can link it to Evil Brown Immigrants but has nothing to say about Roy Moore, Dennis Hastert, or Donald "bust into the girls' changing rooms" Trump.

I checked her out on line. She talks about how she's opposed to interracial relationships. She spreads conspiracy theories about how Jewish bankers are taking over the world and how non-whites are going to change the US Constitution and take land away from white people. She supports a guy who went to jail for almost derailing a major pedophilia trial (after a previous warning for the exact same thing).

Oh, and she stole the name of some much better people who were murdered by the Nazis for fighting against the same kind of bullshit she's now spewing.

"Throw up" is about right.

tip 'o the hat to Bramblethorn

Bramblethorn said:

To save people a click...
"Throw up" is about right.

Click to expand...

Thanks for cutting through the brambles and providing this public service.

Bramblethorn...

You realize you are employing a fairly common logical fallacy in your critique of this particular video clip -?

What was the actual specific point she was putting out there, in the video, and what was your actual directly point-focused rebuttal of it?

Watching the video, it seemed to me that she was largely saying pedophiles are disregarding the rights and views and perspectives of children. And your rebuttal of that... ...is?

Desiremakesmeweak said:

Bramblethorn...

You realize you are employing a fairly common logical fallacy in your critique of this particular video clip -?

What was the actual specific point she was putting out there, in the video, and what was your actual directly point-focused rebuttal of it?

Watching the video, it seemed to me that she was largely saying pedophiles are disregarding the rights and views and perspectives of children. And your rebuttal of that... ...is?

Click to expand...

That's not what she was saying. She was making a political point -- that the left, in league with secularism, atheism, the LGBT agenda, and post-modernism, endorses pedophilia. And that's nonsense. She doesn't support that point at all in her video. She quotes loosely and irresponsibly from various commentators who suggest treating pedophilia as a disorder, and she suggests without evidence that these people, therefore, don't want acts of pedophilia treated as crimes. But there's no evidence given for that. It's just nonsense.

If you scan the videos on her Youtube page you can tell she's a nutjob. I wasn't able to find links to the other information about her that Bramblethorn referred to.

SimonDoom said:

That's not what she was saying. She was making a political point -- that the left, in league with secularism, atheism, the LGBT agenda, and post-modernism, endorses pedophilia. And that's nonsense. She doesn't support that point at all in her video. She quotes loosely and irresponsibly from various commentators who suggest treating pedophilia as a disorder, and she suggests without evidence that these people, therefore, don't want acts of pedophilia treated as crimes. But there's no evidence given for that. It's just nonsense.

If you scan the videos on her Youtube page you can tell she's a nutjob. I wasn't able to find links to the other information about her that Bramblethorn referred to.

Click to expand...

FWIW, my comments were based on her Twitter feed. In particular, this tweet and her retweets of this, this, and this.

See here for context on the Rothschild conspiracy theory; in brief, it's right out of the original Nazi playbook.

See here for context on "Tommy Robinson", real name Stephen Yaxley-Lennon. (Short version: SYL is a repeat violent offender who has recently been jailed for prejudicing a child-rape trial, after being given a suspended sentence and a very clear warning for the exact same thing a year earlier.)

Desiremakesmeweak said:

Bramblethorn...

You realize you are employing a fairly common logical fallacy in your critique of this particular video clip -?

What was the actual specific point she was putting out there, in the video, and what was your actual directly point-focused rebuttal of it?

Watching the video, it seemed to me that she was largely saying pedophiles are disregarding the rights and views and perspectives of children. And your rebuttal of that... ...is?

Click to expand...

Nope. Not playing that game. I might be naïve but I'm not quite that naïve.

I come from lawyers and scientists. I'm pretty familiar with how rational debate works, and I believe that between people who care about truth it's a very important tool for establishing what the truth actually is. I love writing point-by-point arguments, I really do.

But I'm also familiar with Brandolini's principle:

"The energy needed to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude greater than that required to produce it".

Grifters understand this and they love it. When they insist on "rational debate", what they actually mean is: "I'm going to spend one minute telling a lie, and then I'm going to exploit the fact that you care about truth by holding you to a standard that requires you to spend an hour rebutting it according to the norms of debate. By the time you've done that, I'll have fifty-nine new lies out there."

If you try to respond to such people with point-by-point rebuttals, you are a mug. If you expect a rebuttal to change their position on anything, you are doubly a mug, because they do not care what the truth is. And by playing along with their pretense that this is a genuine "rational debate", you're giving these grifters an undeserved semblance of legitimacy which they can use to impress the gullible.

As a wise woman recently said:

"You want my critique of Heidegger, I will give you pages. You want my critique of a clown, it’ll be laughter. You’re not entitled to anyone inventing intellectual depth on [another YouTube personality's] part just because you wish he had it."

Bye now.

Gah, Brambles: you're so hot when you talk like this

stickygirl said:

Gah, Brambles: you're so hot when you talk like this

Click to expand...

*blush*

Bramblethorn said:

But I'm also familiar with Brandolini's principle:

"The energy needed to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude greater than that required to produce it".

Grifters understand this and they love it. When they insist on "rational debate", what they actually mean is: "I'm going to spend one minute telling a lie, and then I'm going to exploit the fact that you care about truth by holding you to a standard that requires you to spend an hour rebutting it according to the norms of debate. By the time you've done that, I'll have fifty-nine new lies out there."

If you try to respond to such people with point-by-point rebuttals, you are a mug. If you expect a rebuttal to change their position on anything, you are doubly a mug, because they do not care what the truth is. And by playing along with their pretense that this is a genuine "rational debate", you're giving these grifters an undeserved semblance of legitimacy which they can use to impress the gullible.

Click to expand...

I've been thinking about this statement about grifters ever since you made it.

coati said:

I've been thinking about this statement about grifters ever since you made it.

Click to expand...

It was a real "oh fuck" moment for me when I encountered it. I think of myself as a rationalist, and I so very much want to believe that every disagreement can be resolved by people talking it out until we see things the same way. But rationalism also means looking at what actually works, and accepting that this only works with certain types of people.

On a personal note... I'm autistic, and putting words together is a lot of work. That might seem weird to others since I end up posting quite a bit here and there, and I've been told I'm not bad at it when I take the time to assemble my worlds. But it's like the swan: above the waterline everything looks smooth and effortless, below the waterline paddling furiously. I didn't have the timer on but it probably took me a couple of hours to write that post and get the words just the way I wanted them.

If I did that every time somebody demanded it, I'd burn myself out and I'd never get anything else done. So sometimes I have to remind people - starting with myself - that I'm not obliged to perform debate for everybody who requests it, and especially not for people who think they can demand it from me.

I also like this flowchart:

Bramblethorn said:

I
... get the words just the way I wanted them.

If I did that every time somebody demanded it, I'd burn myself out and I'd never get anything else done. So sometimes I have to remind people - starting with myself - that I'm not obliged to perform debate for everybody who requests it, and especially not for people who think they can demand it from me.

Click to expand...

The hardest part is walking away from it sometimes - because the argument keeps rattling round and round your head unless you can set it to rest with a response.
It was worth it here Bramblebums and I stored the idea away for when I'm next faced with inane provocation

Bramblethorn said:

So sometimes I have to remind people - starting with myself - that I'm not obliged to perform debate for everybody who requests it, and especially not for people who think they can demand it from me.

Click to expand...

Using the term "grifter" was very effective in getting your point across about the motives of people who abandon rationality but try to engage you in point-for-point debate. You stepped back from the point-for-point, and talked about a bigger issue.

I really appreciate the clarity you brought to this thread.

Jerseyshore said:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Q6pDGNQw3I

Click to expand...

Oh! I thought you had thrown up a big hairy fur ball and, and was asking for comments on it.

Yeah, that's pretty close to what happened.