• Diva (she/her)@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    36
    arrow-down
    22
    ·
    edit-2
    10 months ago

    “far left nutjobs think joe biden hasn’t done anything, check out this list of things that are either fake, symbolic, or terrible”

    The problem is that centrists seem to actually think the following are ‘good’ things:

    • Enabling and supplying Israeli genocide

    • Bombing Yemen for trying to interfere with the Israeli genocide

    • Prevented negotiations in Ukraine

    • Over a million COVID deaths

    • Most active border concentration camps ever

    • jonne@infosec.pub
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      10 months ago

      Yeah, even if you’re somehow pro-genocide, he’s not doing anything to stop this conflict from escalating into a full war in the middle east. Something Trump even managed to avoid doing despite doing some really stupid shit.

    • yetAnotherUser@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      10 months ago

      Prevented negotiations in Ukraine

      As in, they supplied Ukraine with military aid? That’s like saying US military aid/sales from 1939 to 1941 to the allies prevented negotiations in Europe and prolonged WW2.

      • Diva (she/her)@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        The conditions for the unlimited military aid were “do not negotiate”

        That’s why Boris Johnson was airlifted into Istanbul to put a stop to things when they almost had an agreement at the outset of the war.

      • Zuberi 👀@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        10 months ago

        Ad hominem (Latin for ‘to the person’), short for argumentum ad hominem, refers to several types of arguments, most of which are fallacious. Typically this term refers to a rhetorical strategy where the speaker attacks the character, motive, or some other attribute of the person making an argument rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself. This avoids genuine debate by creating a personal attack as a diversion often using a totally irrelevant, but often highly charged attribute of the opponent’s character or background. The most common form of this fallacy is “A” makes a claim of “fact,” to which “B” asserts that “A” has a personal trait, quality or physical attribute that is repugnant thereby going entirely off-topic, and hence “B” concludes that “A” has their “fact” wrong -without ever addressing the point of the debate.