Thought Terminating Cliches

Author: Double_R

Posts

Total: 185
#31
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 23,289
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@3RU7AL
funny you're still focused on it yourself
I'm focused on exposing the liberal elites trying to tell working Americans to ignore the destruction of the way of their life to pave the way for a Marxist Dystopia.

It makes me vomit when you see pasty white women on TV declaring the economy to be in great shape. Didn't work out so well for Marie Antionette.
#32
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 13,056
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
-->
@Greyparrot
It's nice to know only a small minority of Americans care about the partisan theatre and have finally told politicians to kindly fuck off when they patronizingly tell voters what they are SUPPOSSED to care about.
Imagine thinking that Jim Banks and Jim Jordan are implicated when there is no criminal investigation to date and the House Ethics committee hasn’t even opened an investigation. Not to mention there hasn’t been a vote on expulsion from the House of Representatives.

Imagine thinking that officials in half the states that legally brought a lawsuit to the Supreme Court should be in jail for 20 years under sedition charges.

These people live in an alternate dimension.
#33
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 23,289
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@bmdrocks21
There are many examples of using "thought terminating cliches" on the Left. Such as calling someone a racist, transphobe, white supremacist, white nationalist, xenophobe, sexist, or far-right. After you hear that someone is one of these awful things, you don't have to hear them out and engage with anything they say because they are bad- therefore everything they think is bad.

The entire J6 shitshow is all about shutting out and shutting down political opposition.

We do live in 2 worlds though. Average people that care about losing out on the American Dream and the elite bastards that have stolen it from them.
#34
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 13,056
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
-->
@Greyparrot
They gonna cope. Now when Speaker McCarthy rejects Adam Schiff from being on the Select Committee on Intelligence, I’m going to laugh.


#35
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 23,289
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@ILikePie5
These people live in an alternate dimension.
6 years of "the walls are closing in" 

4 more months to go.
#36
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 23,289
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@bmdrocks21
There are many examples of using "thought terminating cliches" on the Left. Such as calling someone a racist, transphobe, white supremacist, white nationalist, xenophobe, sexist, or far-right.
My ears are still ringing from that epic Mic Drop.
#37
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 23,289
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@3RU7AL
funny you're still focused on it yourself
Also, evil thrives when good men ignore it.
#38
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,791
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@bmdrocks21
suggesting that someone is evil for believing something rather than critiquing their beliefs.
basically, AD HOMINEM ATTACK
#39
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,689
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->
@ILikePie5
I said his caucus. Pelosi isn’t going to choose whichever Republicans she wants.
  • That is precisely what Pelosi did after Republicans forfeited.  Pelosi correctly appointed every single House Republican who is not afraid of Trump.  That there are only two speaks to the cowardice of the Republican party generally more than any partisanship.

And if Pelosi would’ve allowed Banks and Jordan,
  • No honest investigation would ever allow the targets of that investigation on to the investigation team.  There are no circumstances under which Banks and Jordan would be empaneled in a just or free society.
Nice strawman. Benghazi allowed both sides to present their arguments. J6 does not. 
  • Apparently, you don't understand what makes  a "strawman fallacy
    • You  said,
"There is no such thing as an “impartial” commission when people like Adam Schiff get to be on it."
P1: Adam Schiff sat on the Benghazi Committee
P2: No impartial committee may include Adam Schiff
C:  Therefore, The Benghazi Committee was not impartial.

  • The major premise is yours not mine.  The minor premise is well-documented fact so the conclusion derived from your premise is inescapable.
  • "A straw man (sometimes written as strawman) is "a form of argument and an informal fallacy of having the impression of refuting an argument, whereas the real subject of the argument was not addressed or refuted, but instead replaced with a false one."
  • I am not refuting your argument. In fact, I totally disagree with your premise, I am simply pointing out the logical conclusion of your own premise.  That's not a straw man,  it is not even an argument.  It's just pointing out how you tie yourself up in knots of self-contradiction trying to defend treason.
Okay so you concede that no matter what McCarthy wasn’t going to be allowed to put Jordan and Banks on the committee. Thanks!
  • No honest investigation would ever allow the targets of that investigation on to the investigation team.  There are no circumstances under which Banks and Jordan would be empaneled in a just or free society.  
False. John Boehner could’ve removed the members if he so chose per the rules. 
  • Per the rules but in violation of his prior agreement with Pelosi.  That's the point.  McCarthy could have negotiated but chose to forfeit.
And you contradicted yourself saying Pelosi couldn’t prevent McCarthy from appointing whoever he wants  if he “negotiated.”
  • I never said that.  Pelosi correctly objected to the empaneling of  any of the alleged conspirators- that's just Democracy 101.
So every state official that sued before the Supreme Court is also a seditionist and should be in jail. Got it.
  • Sedition is "overt conduct, such as speech and organization, that tends toward rebellion against the established order. Sedition often includes subversion of a constitution and incitement of discontent toward, or insurrection against, established authority. "
    • By definition, any official who took an oath to uphold the Constitution and then signed on to those obviously silly and  fake election claims is guilty of sedition yes.
To quote Noah Feldman, Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law at Harvard University, leading expert in constitutional studies, with particular emphasis on power and ethics:  "It’s bad for the functioning of our democracy that elected officials like the Texas attorney general (to say nothing of Trump) think it is acceptable to go on the record asking the Supreme Court for a coup d’état."

Might as well put half the country in jail lol.
  • Half the country never took an oath to uphold the US Constitution and then tried to overthrow it. 
  • But let's face facts:  Hundreds of Republican elected officials did knowingly and deliberately participate in an attempted coup and perpetuated the big lie to manufacture a false pretense of justification.   We know now that Giuliani was clearly advising  the DeSantises and Abbotts and Republican leadership across the nation that it was all bullshit and that Trump just working to hold on to the Presidency permanently- fuck America and its Constitution.   Most Republican leadership, Abbot and DeSantis included, went along with promoting the Big Lie, knowing they were deceiving half of the country, objectively hoping and actively working to achieve the stated goal  that government of the people, by the people, for the people, would perish  and a new national order would arise.  Every American should be appalled at the clear and present threat to our freedom and prosperity.
    • Most of these seditionists are still  actively openly working together to take a second stab at Democracy in the near term.  Do you really think Americans should do nothing about it?
But there is no criminal investigation into Jim Banks and Jim Jordan. Not even an ethics inquiry. 
  • Obviously, there should be more investigation and such may be forthcoming as the scale and peril of the Republican game plan becomes more plain.  Our Democracy can't afford any increases in Republican power until the threat of another coup is decapitated.



Topic's author
#40
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 4,346
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@ILikePie5
The main reason why the finding of the J6 committee don’t concern me is because it lacks any semblance of cross examination.
Exactly. This is the whole point of the thread. 

The reason there is no cross examination is because McCarthy decided to pull all of his members out. You can sit here all day long justifying it by quoting rules, precedent, etc., that's still what happened. So when he did that, no investigation into Trump was possible in your mind. No matter what the committee found it would be considered illigitimate to you and the millions of there just like you. Hence the strategy, and it clearly worked.

The findings of the committee either could have had an impact on you, or there was never a chance they would have. If it's the latter then you're BSing - legitimacy has nothing to do with it, you dismiss the findings because you're a pure partisan. If it's the former then you have been successfully manipulated by Kevin McCarthy. One or the other.

#41
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 13,056
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
-->
@oromagi
Good for you man. Cope
Topic's author
#42
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 4,346
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Greyparrot
Still not a crime, and in a Democracy, people can vote for Unstable Narcissists if they know it means 2 dollar gasoline.
So much said in so few words.

No one cares that it's not illegal, that's not what were talking about and you know that.

Presidents do not control gas prices. To claim gas would be $2 right now if Trump won is just plain stupid.

The fact that right wingers are still talking about this man as if he were some god despite being an unstable narcissist is the point and problem. The fact that you can talk about it so freely is quite remarkable.
Topic's author
#43
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 4,346
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@bmdrocks21
There are many examples of using "thought terminating cliches" on the Left. Such as calling someone a racist, transphobe, white supremacist, white nationalist, xenophobe, sexist, or far-right. After you hear that someone is one of these awful things, you don't have to hear them out and engage with anything they say because they are bad- therefore everything they think is bad.
Agreed. This is a major is a problem on the left

#44
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 13,056
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
-->
@Double_R
Exactly. This is the whole point of the thread. 

The reason there is no cross examination is because McCarthy decided to pull all of his members out.
Because Pelosi was picking and choosing who could be on it. Without her involvement in internal GOP matters, there wouldn’t be a question of illegitimacy Her involvement in a matter that should be decided by the GOP caucus is what caused the J6 committee’s exercise partisan and lacking in cross-ex. If she had kept her mouth shut there wouldn’t be allegations of illegitimacy lol

You can sit here all day long justifying it by quoting rules, precedent, etc., that's still what happened. So when he did that, no investigation into Trump was possible in your mind. No matter what the committee found it would be considered illigitimate to you and the millions of there just like you. Hence the strategy, and it clearly worked.
Illegitimate, no. Irrelevant/don’t care yes. There have been a million investigations into Trump to no avail. What’s another one.

The findings of the committee either could have had an impact on you, or there was never a chance they would have. If it's the latter then you're BSing - legitimacy has nothing to do with it, you dismiss the findings because you're a pure partisan. If it's the former then you have been successfully manipulated by Kevin McCarthy. One or the other.
What makes you think the findings of the J6 committee couldn’t have had an impact me? If there was proper representation thousands of other people could’ve believed it, but Pelosi allowed this talking point to get up. With great power comes great responsibility. If Pelosi gets to pick the GOP slate, there’s obviously something partisan and illegitimate about it.
#45
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 23,289
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Double_R
Presidents do not control gas prices. To claim gas would be $2 right now if Trump won is just plain stupid.
Then why did Biden make a campaign promise to END oil?

The fact that right wingers are still talking about this man as if he were some god despite being an unstable narcissist is the point and problem.
I literally know no people that do this lol! Sometimes you remind me of Don Quixote with these pointless threads.
Topic's author
#46
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 4,346
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@ILikePie5
If there was proper representation thousands of other people could’ve believed it, but Pelosi allowed this talking point to get up.
Kevin McCarthy handed Pelosi 7 picks, 5 of them were accepted. McCarthy still had well over a hundred other GOP members to pick from. He chose to pull them all out. Why is that so difficult for you? Why is Nancy Pelosi responsible for Kevin McCarthy's decision to not participate at all?

Let's try and make this a little simpler. 

P1: Kevin McCarthy had multiple members which he could have chosen to put on the committee who could have cross examined witnesses

P2: Kevin McCarthy made the decision to not put any of those members onto the committee

C: The fact that none of Kevin McCarthy's picks are able to cross examination witnesses was a decision made by Kevin McCarthy

Nancy Pelosi has absolutely nothing to do with the above, and your constant whataboutisms continue to demonstrate the cognitive dissonance you are experiencing given what the committee has revealed. Which brings me to my second point:

P1: You continue to justify your lack of concern over any of the J6 committee's finding by citing a lack of cross examination

P2: The lack of cross examination was a choice made by Kevin McCarthy (see conclusion above)

P3: Kevin McCarthy understood ahead of time that leaving none of his choices on the committee to be able to cross examine would allow the committee to be attacked as purely partisan, which many GOP supporters would accept as justification to not consider the committee's findings.

C: Your justification for not accepting the committee's findings regardless of what they were was decided ahead of time by Kevin McCarthy. Aka, you have been successfully manipulated.
Topic's author
#47
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 4,346
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Greyparrot
Presidents do not control gas prices. To claim gas would be $2 right now if Trump won is just plain stupid.
Then why did Biden make a campaign promise to END oil?
If Trump had won in 2020, would gas be around $2? Yes or No?

The fact that right wingers are still talking about this man as if he were some god despite being an unstable narcissist is the point and problem.
I literally know no people that do this lol! Sometimes you remind me of Don Quixote with these pointless threads.
Trump supporters literally drape themselves in Trump flags. But ok bro.

#48
Danielle
Danielle's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 2,049
3
3
4
Danielle's avatar
Danielle
3
3
4
-->
@Greyparrot
Probably because the J6 findings only proved that [Trump was a narcissistic psychopath] instead of criminal conduct.
That's fine. It's not a criminal trial. Trump was never going to be prosecuted even though there is evidence of his crimes (he definitely violated Georgia election law which criminalizes the solicitation of election fraud, at the very least).

The purpose of the J6 trial is to showcase just how delusional, narcissistic and unfit for office Trump is.  I think it's working. More Republicans are leaning toward DeSantis over Trump by the day. I think that's a terrible strategy for Democrats unless somehow Trump winds up being the Republican nominee, in which case I think he would lose again, even to Biden. There's no way a moderate or independent looks at January 6 and thinks "now there's a guy who should have the nuclear codes." I mean what's worse: someone who babbles incoherently while reading off a teleprompter, or an ego maniac who flat out refuses to accept reality and accepts domestic violence to achieve their desired political ends? I think most people believe the latter. It's hard to see how a president will help resolve things like inflation if they're totally divorced from reality. 

What's wild is that despite Republicans calling Democrats "insane" for things like acknowledging transgender people exist, Donald Trump still leads the GOP in terms of whom they want to see run for president. That's insane lol. It's truly  a cult of personality and an absolutely wild phenomenon to observe. I'm thankful every day that I am not that brainwashed. It seems lot easier to be that thick than I would like to believe. I mean just take a look around... 
#49
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 23,289
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Danielle
I think it's working.

It sure is. Many people want the delusional narcissist MORE than before the hearings  if it means cheap gas. Trumplestilskin is more popular today after the J6 hearings. People don't care about personalities nearly as much anymore. That was a dated 2016 1st world problem.

De Santis isn't popular because of his good looks either.

acknowledging transgender people exist,
Laffles no!. They are insane for denying a woman exists.

. I mean just take a look around... 
Please don't tell me you are another one of those wealthy white women exasperated at having to explain to the peons about what a great shape the country is in today....
#50
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 23,289
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Double_R
If Trump had won in 2020, would gas be around $2? Yes or No?
It would probs be around 3.50

Trump supporters literally drape themselves in Trump flags. But ok bro.
Again, I don't know any Trump supporter that does this. You sound like some kid that saw a picture in a book and now has nightmares.
#51
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 23,289
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
 or an ego maniac who flat out refuses to accept reality and accepts domestic violence to achieve their desired political ends?
Who are you talking about? Biden declared 92 percent of Democrats support him and he fully supports the "peaceful protests" at SCOTUS family homes in violation of mafia-era laws.


#52
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,689
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->
@Double_R
Something I’ve noticed that seems to be taking over American politics is the strategy of invoking thought terminating cliches as a way of manipulating the public. The most obvious example of this is “fake news”, whereby with one phrase that can be applied to any scenario, absolves the listener of any responsibility to hear the message and apply actual thought.

We see this again in the J6 hearings where Kevin McCarthy planted at least one poison pill in his selections and then used the rejection of that pill to pull everyone out and claim this is a purely partisan committee. So now every witness who testifies, every video produced, every revelation can now be dismissed as a product of pure partisanship. Right wing networks do not even cover it, using this as an excuse.

The same happened during the Trump impeachments where republicans would band together and all vote against it, then claim it should be dismissed outright because of the partisan split they created.

I’m wondering if anyone here either disagrees that this is a major factor in why we live in two completely different universes with regards to our news and information, and I'm also interested to see if anyone can think of examples of this on the left.
Politics aside, I'll admit that I don't think of the tactical examples given as "thought-terminating clichés"  Republicans certainly hope to terminate discussion about Trump's many and various treasons and their active abetment if not outright approvals of those, but McCarthy's poison pill and the impeachment votes aren't really clichés if the "fake news" sense.

Two examples of thought terminating clichés common to debates on this site are SEMANTICS and FALLACY. 

  • SEMANTICS is the study of the meaning of language and to the extent that the majority of debates here fail to define their terms, much argument on this site is correctly devoted to semantics.  A "semantic argument" is usually just special pleading for a non-dictionary definition of a term.  Dismissing an argument as "mere semantics" is as feckless as dismissing an argument as "mere logic."  Every good argument is built on very specific meanings of every term found in the thesis.
  • FALLACY is fault in reason but claiming fallacy should be the beginning of any counter-argument, not an argument itself.  Since fallacious arguments can still be true, any claim of fallacy, formal or otherwise, needs to be held up against thesis and shown how that fallacy invalidates the argument.   Many claims of informal fallacy on this site are superficial to an unconvincing degree.  Any formal fallacy can be parsed.  Any informal fallacy can be shown to be ambiguous, presumptuous, irrelevant, etc.
Many arguments on this site treat either claim as the end of their burden and the thinking stop right there.



 

#53
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,791
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@oromagi
Every good argument is built on very specific meanings of every term found in the thesis.
#54
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,791
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@oromagi
Since fallacious arguments can still be true,
sure, but they can't be ASSUMED TO BE TRUE without sound logical support
#55
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 23,289
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
I think most people believe the latter. 
That may help explain why 88% of people think Biden is taking us down the wrong path.

There's no way a moderate or independent looks at January 6 and thinks "now there's a guy who should have the nuclear codes."
Didn't they start up Nuclear PSA broadcasts in New York in anticipation of yet another monumental Biden foreign policy fuckup?

You might be shockingly surprised what the Hoi Pelloi of moderates thinks about that.
#56
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,791
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@oromagi
Many arguments on this site treat either claim as the end of their burden and the thinking stop right there.
why would anyone be obligated to refute an incomplete claim ?
#57
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,689
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->
@3RU7AL
-->@oromagi
Many arguments on this site treat either claim as the end of their burden and the thinking stop right there.
why would anyone be obligated to refute an incomplete claim ?
Because, as Double_R points out, that is the termination of thinking.  Most philosophical claims, certainly most claims on this site are incomplete to some standard.  It's pretty easy to say- your thinking is incomplete and therefore I have no burden to counter but such a tactic is more likely to conceal than reveal truth.

I'd also just remark that merely linking to YouTube is another kind of thought termination.  Writing out an argument is thinking about that argument, linking to somebody else's argument is not thinking about that argument.  I can read an argument with superior comprehension in shorter time than watching the same argument on YouTube.  (True, I am deaf and so perhaps a little biased but I still think this is true for most experienced writers).  Unless the link is described as evidence supporting some argument, I usually just ignore links as another kind of stopthought.
Topic's author
#58
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 4,346
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@oromagi
I'll admit that I don't think of the tactical examples given as "thought-terminating clichés"
It may not be a cliche so to speak, so in that sense it's not the same as "fake news", but it is the same thing in every way that matters. It's a phrase designed to get their sympathizers to reject the alternative position without thought. Devasting findings released by the J6 committee? Nope, it's a partisan committee! Evidence rejected. Damning case to impeach the president? Nope, it's a partisan witch-hunt!

In many ways those examples are worse because they are carefully crafted strategies to manipulate the public, and they work. Just look at how ILP5 can't address a single fact brought up except to pretend were debating whether to criminally convict.
#59
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,791
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@oromagi
Topic's author
#60
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 4,346
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Greyparrot
If Trump had won in 2020, would gas be around $2? Yes or No?
It would probs be around 3.50
Back up this statement with actual facts. I'll wait.