@[email protected] Debatebrain: By bringing up rhetorical gotchas, you are annoying everyone.
And more importantly, ignoring the validity of the claims. It’s not a court, you can’t get it thrown out on a technicality; either the claim is valid or it’s not and, although the way the claim is conveyed can be worth mentioning, ignoring the claim itself and only assessing the conveyance method is just useless. @[email protected]
@yogthos oh my god dude, you’re a gold mine!
You should probably stick to the software side of the fediverse. I think you’re out of your league here.
I’m guessing from the :clojure: in their profile that they’re a clojure dev. I recall seeing @[email protected] mention on multiple occasions that he’s also a clojure developer. Is he Yogthos’s evil twin?
🤔
@yogthos 5. Use of emotionally charged language: The words like ‘hysteria’, ‘atrocities’, ‘rampages’ play with the emotions of the readers, leading them to take sides without looking into the facts.
Such manipulation could be intended to steer readers towards a particular point of view on these complex geopolitical issues.
Writing “objectively” is also biased, it just supports the status quo. I actually think it’s more deceitful to try and hide support of the status quo behind so called “objective language”, yog makes no effort to hide that he’s a communist and that is his bias.
For instance, the status quo opinion is that Israel is 100% justified in genocidng Palestinians. Couching our language to “let people come to their own conclusions” directly supports that genocide
