What Is an Internet Troll?

 and How to Handle Trolls

Internet trolls are people who want to provoke and upset others online for their own amusement. Here’s how to spot the signs that someone is a troll, and how to handle them.

What Are Internet Trolls?

If you’ve been on the internet for any period of time, you’ve likely run into a troll at some point. An internet troll is someone who makes intentionally inflammatory, rude, or upsetting statements online to elicit strong emotional responses in people or to steer the conversation off-topic. They can come in many forms. Most trolls do this for their own amusement, but other forms of trolling are done to push a specific agenda.

Trolls have existed in folklore and fantasy literature for centuries, but online trolling has been around for as long as the internet has existed. The earliest known usage of the term can be traced back to the 1990s on early online message boards. Back then, it was a way for users to confuse new members by repeatedly posting an inside joke. It’s since turned into a much more malicious activity.

Trolling is distinct from other forms of cyberbullying or harassment. It is normally not targeted towards any one person and relies on other people paying attention and becoming provoked. Trolling exists on many online platforms, from small private group chats to the biggest social media websites. Here’s a list of places online where you’re likely to see online trolls:

• Anonymous online forums: Places like Reddit, 4chan, and other anonymous message boards are prime real-estate for online trolls. Because there’s no way of tracing who someone is, trolls can post very inflammatory content without repercussion. This is especially true if the forum has lax or inactive moderation.
• Twitter: Twitter also has the option to be anonymous, and has become a hotbed for internet trolls. Frequent Twitter trolling methods involve hijacking popular hashtags and mentioning popular Twitter personalities to gain attention from their followers.
• Comment sections: The comment sections of places such as YouTube and news websites are also popular areas for trolls to feed. You’ll find a lot of obvious trolling here, and they frequently generate a lot of responses from angry readers or viewers.

You’ll find trolls anywhere online, including on Facebook and on online dating sites. They’re unfortunately pretty common.

Signs Someone Is Trolling

It can sometimes become difficult to tell the difference between a troll and someone who just genuinely wants to argue about a topic. However, here are a few tell-tale signs that someone is actively trolling.

• Off-topic remarks: Completely going off-topic from the subject at hand. This is done to annoy and disrupt other posters.
• Refusal to acknowledge evidence: Even when presented with hard, cold facts, they ignore this and pretend like they never saw it.
• Dismissive, condescending tone: An early indicator of a troll was that they would ask an angry responder, “Why you mad, bro?” This is a method done to provoke someone even more, as a way of dismissing their argument altogether.
• Use of unrelated images or memes: They reply to others with memes, images, and gifs. This is especially true if done in response to a very long text post.
• Seeming obliviousness: They seem oblivious that most people are in disagreement with them. Also, trolls rarely get mad or provoked.

The list above is by no means definitive. There are a lot of other ways to identify that someone is trolling. Generally, if someone seems disingenuous, uninterested in a real discussion, and provocative on purpose, they’re likely an internet troll.

How Should I Handle Them?

The most classic adage regarding trolling is, “Don’t feed the trolls.” Trolls seek out emotional responses and find provocation amusing, so replying to them or attempting to debate them will only make them troll more. By ignoring a troll completely, they will likely become frustrated and go somewhere else on the internet.

You should try your best not to take anything trolls say seriously. No matter how poorly they behave, remember these people spend countless unproductive hours trying to make people mad. They’re not worth your time of day.

If a troll becomes spammy or begins to clog up a thread, you can also opt to report them to the site’s moderation team. Depending on the website, there’s a chance nothing happens, but you should do your part to actively dissuade them from trolling on that platform. If your report is successful, the troll may be temporarily suspended or their account might be banned entirely.

https://www.howtogeek.com/465416/what-is-an-internet-troll-and-how-to-han

Ecological Existential Dread: We Need to Talk about our Feelings

We’re feeling a tipping point emerge, and it’s not just ecological. It’s cultural, political, and institutional. We’d best do the emotional work and be ready.

Just as the smoke disperses from fire-ravaged parts of the world, the spectre of ecological breakdown is creeping into humanity’s collective psyche. Whether that manifests as a bit of anxiety or full-on dread of mass extinction, we need to start talking about our feelings. If we don’t, we may avoid rather than confront the reforms needed for the planet to continue supporting life.

As a university instructor in Canada, I increasingly hear from students how the notion of financial “retirement security” seems decadent to them. A recent Washington Post article highlighted the sentiment among today’s youth: “We won’t die from old age,” read a placard at an environmental protest. “We’ll die from climate change.”  Indeed, youth around the world are concerned about what to do when the weather starts ravaging food, water, and energy systems on a more widespread and permanent basis. Or how to reclaim the relevant survival skills and live peacefully with one another should the floods and fires hit home. With such uncertainty in the background — and sometimes in the foreground — it becomes difficult to make committed life choices, or undertake (even very critical) administrative tasks. And for me, the kinds of discussions I hope to facilitate about public policy become mired in frustration.

For many, and Gen Z in particular, participating in consumer society feels unavoidable yet deeply questionable. Life decisions that once seemed obvious, like getting a house or well-paying job, don’t just seem out of reach; they seem futile. And since the personal is political, our collective dread is beginning to shape our political and institutional conversations. How do we make long-term decisions under these circumstances?

Eco-anxiety and paralysis

A great deal of attention has been given to the obstructive nature of climate denial and associated political polarization, but less attention has been focused on the phenomenon of cultural paralysis due to eco-anxiety. In a survey of the literature, psychologists Kevin Coyle and Lise Van Susteren describe how fears of extreme weather have become phobic on a widespread level and are experienced similar to the “unrelenting day-by-day despair” that can be experienced during a drought. The delayed and slow impacts of climate change, they write, can be just as damaging as the acute climate impacts themselves. That’s a psychological double-whammy, paradoxically cloaked in relative personal comfort and material satisfaction. Watching the slow and irreversible impacts unfold and “worrying about the future for oneself, children, and later generations,” is a source of stress, loss, guilt, helplessness, and frustration that inflames existing day-to-day concerns.

Of course, anxiety can either be harmful or helpful. It can be harnessed for pragmatic use under conditions of near-term threat (ie. “fight” or “flight”), and it can also lead to paralysis (“freeze”).

Processing grief and fear in public forums

Recently, a number of news articles have been published about eco-anxiety as if the phenomenon is something to be witnessed from a distance; as if it isn’t yet a pervasive experience shared by all.

Ecological economist and self-defined “realist” William Rees recently opined that Greta Thunberg needs to inspire “more than emotional release about climate change” because the world is “headed toward catastrophe.” He writes that “If you accept my facts, you will see the massive challenge we face in transforming human assumptions and ways of living on Earth,” adding, “I welcome being told what crucial facts I might be missing.” Unfortunately, as he is likely well aware, even accurate facts do not often change hearts and minds, especially for those who are experiencing the “unrelenting day-to-day despair” articulated above.

On the other side of the debate, Guy Dauncey’s “OK Doomer” response to Rees features this declaration: “spiritually and emotionally it’s not in my makeup to accept defeat, so I have a problem with [Rees’ argument].” Here, too, at least there is an acknowledgement that one might have an emotional response to the ecological crisis, and yet Dauncey’s article featured precisely the kind of administrative to-do list that some of us are having a hard time tackling (it’s easier to distract ourselves with affordable luxuries, like $4 coffee and new tech, thank you very much).

It sounds like if we aren’t “getting the facts,” or resisting defeat, we’re just not trying hard enough. But what if we start by acknowledging and accepting the reality of distress, instead? Author Clementine Morrigan has suggested that accepting how ecological distress affects human nervous systems is “important political work.”

It reads:

We feel ecological distress in our bodies

The panic, grief, helplessness and despair

We feel about ecological catastrophe

Are embodied nervous system experiences

…

Learning to co-regulate our nervous systems and

Be together with ecological distress is important political work.

Channelling collective dread

By doing both the emotional and administrative work at the same time, we might be able to direct a unifying sense of dread into productive channels. Without doing that work, dread may instead fragment into existing political and economic divisions. Fears and frustrations will be directed towards power-holders (eg. “politicians” and “corporations”); “other” nationalities (eg. “China”); and newcomers or other social groups (eg. “immigrants”) who are perceived to be competing for land and resources.

And therein lies the silver lining about our predicament: it’s difficult to foster meaningful and lasting change in a scenario where things feel fine. Perhaps this moment of fire and fury will foster an opportunity to work through existential dread productively.

We’re collectively feeling a tipping point emerge, and it’s not just ecological. It’s cultural, political, and institutional. We’d best do the work and be ready.

https://www.resilience.org/stories/2020-02-26/ecological-existential-dread-we-need-to-talk-about-our-feelings/

Court Ruling Protects Absolute Presidential Immunity from Congressional Investigation

The New York Times reports that an appeals court ruling holds that congress cannot sue to force executive branch officials to testify about anything. This ruling appears to provide absolute presidential immunity from any congressional investigation or inquiry. If that is the correct interpretation, and I hope it isn't, congress has no power to force any executive branch employee to answer any questions about anything. If that is the correct interpretation of this case, it constitutes a massive shift in power from congress to the executive branch.

None of the three judges on the case were appointed by the president. The full ruling is here.

The NYT writes:

“WASHINGTON — A federal appeals court ruled on Friday that Congress could not sue to enforce its subpoenas of executive branch officials, handing a major victory to President Trump and dealing a severe blow to the power of Congress to conduct oversight. 

In a ruling that could have far-reaching consequences for executive branch secrecy powers long after Mr. Trump leaves office, a divided three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit dismissed a lawsuit brought by the House Judiciary Committee against Mr. Trump’s former White House counsel, Donald F. McGahn II.  

But two of the three appeals court judges ruled on Friday that the Constitution gave the House no standing to file any such lawsuit in what they characterized as a political dispute with the executive branch. If their decision stands, its reasoning would shut the door to judicial recourse whenever a president directs a subordinate not to cooperate with congressional oversight investigations.   

Judge Griffith said that Congress had political tools to induce presidents to negotiate and compromise in disputes over oversight demands for information about the government — like withholding appropriations or derailing the president’s legislative agenda — and that courts should not be involved. 

‘The absence of a judicial remedy doesn’t render Congress powerless,’ he wrote, adding, ‘Congress can wield these political weapons without dragging judges into the fray.’” 

The dissenting judge, Judith W. Rogers, wrote this in her dissent:

“Today the court reaches the extraordinary conclusion that the House of Representatives, in the exercise of its “sole Power of Impeachment,” U.S. CONST. art. I, § 2, cl. 5, lacks standing under Article III of the Constitution to seek judicial enforcement of a subpoena in connection with an investigation into whether to impeach the President. The House comes to the court in light of the President’s blanket and unprecedented order that no member of the Executive Branch shall comply with the subpoena duly issued by an authorized House Committee. Exercising jurisdiction over the Committee’s case is not an instance of judicial encroachment on the prerogatives of another Branch, because subpoena enforcement is a traditional and commonplace function of the federal courts. The court removes any incentive for the Executive Branch to engage in the negotiation process seeking accommodation, all but assures future Presidential stonewalling of Congress, and further impairs the House’s ability to perform its constitutional duties. I respectfully dissent.” (emphasis added)

This country is in very deep trouble. The imperial presidency, above the law and unaccountable to congress, is rising before our very eyes. Our government is badly broken. It has ceased to function in anything other than broken ways.

SNOWFLAKES

Snowflake
A term for someone that thinks they are unique and special, but really are not. It gained popularity after the movie "Fight Club" from the quote “You are not special. You're not a beautiful and unique snowflake. You're the same decaying organic matter as everything else."

Began being used extensively as a putdown for someone, usually on the political left, who is easily offended or felt they needed a "safe space" away from the harsh realities of the world, but now has morphed into a general putdown for anyone that complains about any subject.
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Snowflake


Who are the real snowflakes: Liberals or conservatives?
#SnowflakeLibs
30.8%
A festive crown for the winner
#RightWingSnowflakes
69.2%

The Guardian described "snowflake" as "the defining insult of 2016." Originally from "Fight Club," conservatives began using the term to vilify liberals who decry microaggressions while demanding safe spaces and trigger warnings. But lefties have been hurling the insult back, saying right-wingers who make scenes over Starbucks cups are the thin-skinned ones. Do they not see the irony in complaining about their oppression and silencing in the New York Times? Who are the real snowflakes? ❄️️

The Arguments:
https://thetylt.com/politics/snowflakes-liberals-conservatives


Paul Krugman Breaks Down Why Conservatives Are The Real Snowflakes
“All that talk about liberal ‘snowflakes’ is projection,” explained the Nobel Prize-winning economist.
Paul Krugman dismissed as “projection” the oft-touted conservative idea that liberals are delicate “snowflakes” who are easily offended in his latest column for The New York Times.

The Nobel Prize-winning economist noted in the op-ed published on Monday — headlined “The Power Of Petty Personal Rage” — that “rage explosions over seemingly silly things” are actually “extremely common on the right.”

“The point is that demented anger is a significant factor in modern American political life — and overwhelmingly on one side,” Krugman wrote. “If you really want to see people driven wild by tiny perceived slights and insults, you’ll generally find them on the right.”

Krugman cited recent conservative outrage over straws, the Green New Deal and the new “Captain Marvel” movie starring Brie Larson as examples.
https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/entry/paul-krugman-conservatives-snowflakes_n_5c876028e4b0ed0a0016b3b3?ri18n=true


Understanding Your Conservative SNOWFLAKE Family
Most of your conservative family are SNOWFLAKES!
Once mildly challenged, they will melt like Frosty the Snowman in Miami and walk away (or straight-up leave depending on their maturity level).rstanding Your Conservative SNOWFLAKE Family
https://medium.com/christopher-oldcorn/understanding-your-conservative-snowflake-family-bef4ea564838

The Human Mind, Risk & Statistics

Humans did not evolve to think of risk in terms of statistics. Because of that, most people are bad at assessing risk. Slow moving risks and unremarkable events due to well-known risks are hard to assess. This chart shows relative risks of death from various causes.

Terrorism

Fear of death and injury after a terrorist attack on US soil are grossly overestimated. People estimated there was about a 30% chance of personal involvement in a terrorist attack in the next 12 months.  Emotional reactions of either fear or anger alter risk perception. This is a great example of how emotional responses impairs our ability to think rationally. Lack of sleep makes the irrationality problem worse. Emotion-driven irrationality influences policy and that can make policy more irrational.

According to one analysis, the annual risk of injury from terrorist attack in the US is about 1 in 678,000 and the risk of death is about 1 in 3.8 million.

Flu virus vs terrorists vs coronavirus

Seasonal flu that tends generally starts spreading in the fall and peaks during the winter months. Flu infections can become life-threatening from complications such as pneumonia. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) estimated there were 61,100 flu deaths for the 2017-2018 flu season. The rate of death from flu virus infection is about 0.1%, meaning that about 1 infected person in 1,000 will die. To be rational, people would fear flu far more than terrorists, but most don't. Terrorist attacks are unusual, spectacular and heavily reported in the media. That elicits fear and/or anger and increases or decreases the appearance risk. Citing statistics doesn't seem to change that much.

By comparison, coronavirus appears to be more lethal with an associated rate of death of about 0.4%. That makes it about four times more lethal than influenza.

Infections and spread of flu is limited by annual vaccinations and antivirals that make an infection less severe. At present, there is no drug or vaccine available to treat or prevent Coronavirus infections. Most Coronavirus infections are fairly mild and resolve on their own. The unknown risk about Coronavirus is how many people will be infected. At present, quarantines are used to limit spread of the virus. If the quarantines work reasonably well, flu will pose a greater risk of death than Coronavirus. If the quarantines do not work and the virus spreads freely, it is possible that Coronavirus will turn out to pose a higher death risk.

How the Coronavirus outbreak will turn out cannot be predicted with certainty, but quarantines in the US are likely to work well. Time will tell if that prediction is accurate or not. We will probably have a fairly good feel for the potential risk within the next 3-4 months.

A Quick Primer on What a Woman Needs to Be

I just saw this 3 minute thing and thought that it is relevant. Highly relevant.

https://www.instagram.com/p/B843JEzg2Q7/

Thanks to larrymoutz for pointing this out.

Some things are worth mention.

The Commander-in-Chief Deals With Coronavirus

A 3 minute video the the Washington Post assembled clearly explains why it is reasonable to think the president has the coronavirus issue well in hand. It is because he handed the problem off to the vice president's hands. The VP has a fine record in dealing with public health matters in conformance with the dictates of merciful God and all around righteousness:

"In late 2014, health officials belatedly became aware of an HIV outbreak in Scott County, Indiana. With fewer than 24,000 people, this rural county rarely saw a single new case in a year, according to The New York Times. But by the time government agencies tried to stop the transmission of the virus a few months later, some 215 people had tested positive. 

One man seemed responsible for needlessly letting the situation get out of control: Indiana’s then-Governor Mike Pence. In 2015, when the virus was seeming to rapidly move through networks of people who use intravenous drugs, even the reluctant local sheriff encouraged the governor to authorize a clean-needle exchange, a proven tool to reduce such an outbreak. 

But, as the Times reported when he became Donald Trump’s running mate, “Mr. Pence, a steadfast conservative, was morally opposed to needle exchanges on the grounds that they supported drug abuse.” His opposition was based on an incorrect belief; while research has long shown that needle exchanges do reduce HIV and hepatitis, it has also shown that they do not encourage drug use."

But, as the president says in the video, "There's a very good chance you're not gonna die. .... We're very very ready for this."

Michigan student with lesbian parents stopped by teacher from writing about gay marriage

A Michigan high school teacher would not allow a student with two mothers to write about same-sex marriage for a class assignment.

Destiney McDermitt, 16, a junior at Hill McCloy High School in Montrose, was instructed by an English teacher on Feb. 7 to pick a topic she felt strongly about and argue either for or against it as part of an assignment titled, "Taking a Stand," she and her mother, Angela McDermitt-Jackson, told NBC News on Tuesday.

McDermitt-Jackson said the teacher told her daughter that she could not write about same-sex marriage because the topic might offend someone in the class.

"My daughter actually asked the teacher to ask the class if it would offend anybody," McDermitt-Jackson said, recalling the account of events as told to her by Destiney. "At which point, the teacher told her, 'I don't want to hear about it, I don't want to read about it and I am the one who has to grade it.'"

Destiney then texted her mothers from class and told them what was going on, McDermitt-Jackson said.

"She was upset and offended and she felt it was very inappropriate," McDermitt-Jackson said.

Later that day, McDermitt-Jackson said she and Destiney's other mother, Christine Jackson, went to the school and met with the principal and superintendent.

"They both agreed it was absolutely wrong and was unacceptable," she said.

Administrators took a statement from Destiney and other students in the classroom at the time and vowed to conduct an investigation, McDermitt-Jackson said.

Linden Moore, Montrose Community Schools superintendent, said in a statement on Friday that "the teacher attempted to avoid disruption and controversy by limiting the topics that students could choose for a writing assignment."

"Unfortunately, although well-intentioned, the teacher was too restrictive," the statement said. "We have spoken to the teacher and all of our staff about valuing opinions, beliefs, and rights of all of our students."

The superintendent said this has been "a learning opportunity for everyone involved." Moore did not immediately return a request for comment Tuesday.

McDermitt-Jackson said she is unsatisfied with the school district's response.

"They completely failed not only my daughter, but they failed all of us," she said. "They did not handle this appropriately."

She said she filed a complaint last week with the ACLU of Michigan because she believes her daughter was discriminated against and her right to freedom of speech had been violated.

Ann Mullen, a spokeswoman for the ACLU of Michigan, declined comment Tuesday, saying: "We do not disclose if or when we are contacted by a potential client."

McDermitt-Jackson said she does not believe the teacher, who the district is not naming, "has any business teaching in a public school district."

Destiney has since been switched out of the teacher's class, McDermitt-Jackson said.

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/world/michigan-student-with-lesbian-parents-stopped-by-teacher-from-writing-about-gay-marriage/ar-BB10ofWt?li=AAggNb9&ocid=mailsignout

China's “Pair Up and Become a Family” program

This is something awful. No one maybe except fiction writers could have dreamed this horror up. Fact is way more bizarre than fiction, at least from what normal humans can come up with.

A four and a half minute broadcast by PRI on The World today was mind-blowing.

PRI writes: “In China's Xinjiang region, being part of the Uyghur ethnic minority means facing mass surveillance or detention in an internment camp. And when men are detained, Uyghur women are often left to keep their families and households together on their own. But Chinese policies in the region are increasingly repressive. Take the "Pair up and become a family" program, which assigns male Chinese minders to live in the homes of Uyghur families. Zubayra Shamseden of the Chinese Outreach Coordinator for the Uyghur Human Rights Project tells Marco Werman how policies like "Pair Up" affect Uyghur women in Xinjiang.”

What the ruthless tyrants that rule China are doing is assigning Chinese men to live in Uyghur family homes after Uyghur men have been arrested. The assigned men can sleep in the same bed with the Uyghur wife and do who knows wherever else. The Chinese government says no hanky panky, e.g., rape or pedophilia, is occurring. The Chinese government lies and calls this a “cultural exchange” and says that the Uyghur women welcome the Chinese “minders” and “re-educators” into their beds. Obviously, this is not a cultural exchange. It is barbaric savagery designed to forcefully obliterate the Uyghur culture and language by making Uyghur women serve as sex slaves to horny Chinese men who cannot find a Chinese wife because there are none.

This makes a lot of sense in view of China’s years of female infanticide under the one child policy. Millions of Chinese men cannot find Chinese wives. So, they get shipped off to the Xinjiang region and they get to rape Uyghur wifes as sex slaves. That’s tyranny with a vengeance.

One can only wonder what proportion of the Chinese people outside the Uyghurs will see the propaganda about this and come to believe that this is only an innocent re-education effort by virtuous and patriotic Chinese minders (men) who have been generously provided by the generous Chinese people and government.

My guess is at least half. Probably at least about 65%. Maybe more. If so, that's what propaganda (dark free speech) in the hands of tyrants and demagogues can do to a society who does not have access to facts and truth. That is why facts and truth is so critically important for a civilized democracy and civil society, democracy or not. Crushing facts and truth is not merely important to tyrants and demagogues. It is critically necessary.

Logic Fallacies: Hypocrisy and Whataboutism

One thing that I used to assert when it seemed reasonable was an allegation that politicians and other players were hypocrites about blatantly doing the same things or worse variants they bitterly criticized their political opposition for doing.[1] By the time the president won the electoral college in 2016, political hypocrisy on the right was simply mind-boggling. What about hypocrisy on the left? It was still there, but it had not reached the quantity and quality of hypocrisy the right routinely practiced right out in the open. There was and still is very little moral, political or social equivalence on this point between the left and right.

A logical fallacy is reasoning mistake or error that makes an argument invalid. Logical fallacies are non-sequiturs, i.e., arguments where the conclusion doesn't follow logically from what preceded it. In essence, a logic fallacy is an invalid connection between a premise(s) (fact(s)) and the conclusion, because the conclusion does not necessarily flow from the premises. Often the facts are disputed as not facts. The human mind did not evolve to do precise logic. People make various kinds of mistakes unless they are aware of the errors and consciously try to avoid them. Instead of using formal logic, humans usually rely on informal logic, which is probably best called reasoning.

One source says this about appeals to hypocrisy: “Tu Quoque [an appeal to hypocrisy] is a very common fallacy in which one attempts to defend oneself or another from criticism by turning the critique back against the accuser. This is a classic Red Herring since whether the accuser is guilty of the same, or a similar, wrong is irrelevant to the truth of the original charge. However, as a diversionary tactic, Tu Quoque can be very effective, since the accuser is put on the defensive, and frequently feels compelled to defend against the accusation.”

Defending ones-self from a hypocrisy charge makes the rhetorical mistake called stepping into an opponent’s frame, as mentioned here yesterday. That's probably why charges of hypocrisy in politics are almost always ignored and not even denied. Even a short, simple denial steps into the opponent’s frame, thereby strengthening the opponent’s argument.

Is alleging hypocrisy a logic fallacy?

Whataboutism or hypocrisy is a fallacy sometimes based on the argument that since someone or some group did something bad in the past, doing it now is justified. Sometimes that is true and sometimes it isn’t. An appeal to hypocrisy is an informal fallacy that intends to discredit an opponent’s argument by asserting the opponent’s failure to act consistently in accord with its conclusion(s). The logic looks like this:

1. Person A makes claim X, e.g., the president claims Hillary Clinton was sloppy about national security for using an unsecured personal server for official government business.
2. Person B asserts that A's actions or past claims are inconsistent with the truth of claim X, e.g., a critic claims the president is sloppy about national security for using an unsecured cell phone for official government business.
3. Therefore, X is false.

A Wikipedia article asserts that the conclusion, X is false, is “a fallacy because the moral character or actions of the opponent are generally irrelevant to the logic of the argument. It is often used as a red herring tactic and is a special case of the ad hominem [personal attack] fallacy, which is a category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of facts about the person presenting or supporting the claim or argument.”[2]

Is that true? Sometimes it is, but sometimes it doesn’t seem to be. Why? Because the moral character or actions of the opponent are clearly relevant to both the facts and the logic of the argument. In the national security sloppiness example above, X is true because the underlying facts and logic apply to the same concern, i.e., national security sloppiness. In Clinton’s server case, she was sloppy and X is clearly true. In the president’s cell phone case, he is still being sloppy. This particular appeal to hypocrisy therefore does not constitute seem to be a logic fallacy. It points out truth in two different situations.


Q: Does the foregoing analysis get it wrong? Is a charge of hypocrisy or whataboutism never logically sound because the underlying facts and logic always have to be evaluated independently?

Footnotes:
1. One example is the president criticizing the Clintons for having conflicts of interest due to their charity, while the president operates with conflicts of interest by continuing to profit from his for-profit businesses. The degree of the conflict the president is subject to is 100-fold to 1000-fold bigger financially than anything the Clinton charity ever constituted. Assuming the Clinton charity constituted an unacceptable conflict of interest, and it did, the situation for the president is far worse both qualitatively and quantitatively, but both situations constituted actual conflicts of interest.

Another example is how the GOP treated the impeachment of Bill Clinton for perjury (lying under oath) and an alleged obstruction of justice. The GOP enthusiastically pursued investigations into Clinton’s bad acts. By contrast, the GOP rejected and/or ignored evidence of obstruction of justice by the president, including blatant obstruction of congress during the impeachment inquiry. The GOP opposed any investigation by the House, Senate and the Department of Justice. The two situations are vastly different. Clinton’s bad acts constituted instances of bad judgment in lying under oath and immoral personal sexual behavior. On the other hand, the president’s bad acts go straight to corrupting governance and betraying the trust people put in him to be an honest politician while in office. The two situations are different but both still focus on differences in how evidence of bad acts is treated.

2. Wikipedia cites this as an example of the fallacy: “In the trial of Nazi war criminal Klaus Barbie, the controversial lawyer Jacques Vergès tried to present what was defined as a Tu Quoque Defence—i.e., that during the Algerian War, French officers such as General Jacques Massu had committed war crimes similar to those with which Barbie was being charged, and therefore the French state had no moral right to try Barbie. This defense was rejected by the court, which convicted Barbie.”

Top 131 Conservative Websites

The Best Right Wing Sites In 2020

An updated and accurate rankings of the most popular conservative websites online.

Thanks to the freedom of the Internet, never before have right wing political thinkers had so many choices when it comes to news and editorials.

There are so many, it’s hard to know which are the top conservative websites worth your time, and which aren’t.

To make things easier for you, we’ve gathered the largest ordered list of best conservative websites online, sorted them by popularity, and added some of our own commentary.

The sites are sorted by Alexa Rank, a highly-reputable service which measures a site’s popularity and traffic. The lower the Alexa Ranking, the more popular the site.

1. FOX News

FOX News needs no explanation. It made its debut in 1996 and has been driving liberals bonkers ever since, dominating the ratings along the way.

2. Breitbart News Network

Founded by the late, great Andrew Breitbart in 2007, Breitbart is one of the most controversial right wing sites in the world. Critics often smear the site as being all sorts of -ists (racist, sexist . . . you know the routine by now), but honest people know better.

3. Western Journal

The site prides itself on its honest content, which the site claims is grounded in traditional Christian ethics.

4. DRUDGE REPORT

 If you want a broad overview of what’s happening in politics, DRUDGE REPORT is what you’re looking for.

5. Daily Caller

The Daily Caller is the work of conservative megastar (and smartest man alive) Tucker Carlson. 

THE REST OF THE LIST HERE:

https://rightsmarts.com/top-conservative-websites/

WARNING:

THIS LIST MIGHT TRIGGER SOCIALIST and LEFTIST SNOWFLAKES.

PROCEED WITH CAUTION.

Yes, let’s DO play some “Whataboutism”

ICYMI:

“When Donald Trump was a private business man in New York, he got millions of dollars in tax breaks and subsidies to build luxury housing.  That’s called corporate socialism.“ –Bernie Sanders, 60-Minutes (02/23/20)

For the Americans who fear Bernie Sander’s brand of “democratic socialism,” let’s take a deeper look into some of his outrageous proposals:

-Medicare for all (which, btw, probably won’t happen.  Best case scenario, a building on the ACA.  And if no Congress to back him, won’t happen at all; just pie-in-the-sky.)

-Tuition free higher education (best case scenario, it will be cheaper)

-Free childcare (best case scenario, some kind of voucher system to offset the costs)

-Taking on corporate greed (pharmaceuticals, health insurance companies, jails for profits, etc.  You can expect all of these groups to go kicking and screaming into that dark, profitless night.)

These are some of the highlights of what Sanders advocates for, along with, as a potential Sanders supporter, my personal opinions about them.

*          *          *

Now let’s play the whataboutism game.

What about America’s “corporate socialism”:

-Bank and other corporate bailouts
-Farm subsidies and tariff offsets

-Tax loopholes 
-Zero dollars paid in federal taxes companies   

Like it or not, these are four examples of “corporate socialism.”

Correct me if I’m wrong, but this leads me to wonder, why is one brand of “government socialism” okay, yet Sander’s brand of “democratic socialism” not okay?  Hold that thought.

Granted, we have many socialized programs already in play (Medicare for seniors, Medicaid and other safety nets for those at the poverty level, HUD, etc.).  We also have many, and I mean MANY, social institutions that operate on government budget tax allocations: Teachers, libraries, fire depts., police depts., civil service jobs, etc., all looking out for the betterment of the greater society.  Even the FBI, CIA, and the bloated Military Industrial Complex operate under budgets provided by the government, via our taxes.  A society cannot function very well, indeed is destined to fail, without these basic-type socially-oriented programs.  These social institutions keep our greater society afloat and competitive on the world stage.

Isn’t it time for America to rethink that scary word “socialism” that corporate America has, in the name of obscene profits, indoctrinated us to fear?  Seems to me (and Bernie) that our “just socialism for the rich” is another version of corporate America's dreaded “just socialism for the poor.”

Your Challenge: Defend “socialism for the rich.”

Thanks for posting and recommending.