I ll start : I have been following a pretty known tech/Linux journalist, and always found he is a fun dude to listen to, with interesting tech takes

The fact that he is also very openly “american conservative” (aka, religious & weapon nut, anti abortion, etc) annoys me, but i keep those things separate. And he does keep it separate too (politics channel vs tech channel), which is a great decision.

  • bionicjoey@lemmy.ca
    3·
    11 months ago

    More like interactions would play out thusly:

    Them: All X is Y

    Me: hmm, it may not be helpful to paint with such a broad brush. Sometimes X isn’t Y. (Gives example)

    Them: wow, sounds like something a (insert opposing tribe here) would say.

    Basically, this

    • phillaholic@lemm.ee
      42·
      11 months ago

      Using that as an example, if you spend a lot of most of your time let’s say defending little details about bad people it can come off as someone muddying the waters on purpose to downplay the awful things they do.

      Or maybe your just on some shitty subs full of dumb people 🤷‍♂️

      • bionicjoey@lemmy.ca
        2·
        11 months ago

        You’re assuming I spend my time defending bad people, which I don’t do. I just use critical thinking and point out logical fallacies. I believe fallacies are always bad, even if they support a position I agree with.

        • phillaholic@lemm.ee
          11·
          11 months ago

          That’s exactly what I’m talking about. If a lot of your comments are pointing out logical fallacies against bad people then it looks like you’re muddying the waters. For example pointing out logic fallacies in arguments against conservatives but not doing the same against liberals wouldn’t make you wrong outright, but you’d be wrong by omission.