644
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 30 Jan 2026
644 points (96.8% liked)
Progressive Politics
3939 readers
1412 users here now
Welcome to Progressive Politics! A place for news updates and political discussion from a left perspective. Conservatives and centrists are welcome just try and keep it civil :)
(Sidebar still a work in progress post recommendations if you have them such as reading lists)
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
You haven't gotten anywhere. Here, let me make this clear. I'll use an extreme example.
During a debate I could say "you're using a Strawman argument". If I simply state that as a reason for why the person I'm talking to is wrong and do nothing else but just state a falacy they supposedly made and declare victory then I'm the idiot. I haven't actually discussed anything. It may "look smart" to someone that just wants to watch someone they already agree with. But I'm not. I'm just stating a conclusion without going through the steps to actually declare it.
People that actually want to have a discussion of debate don't do this. They are aware of fallacies or bad faith arguments. But they don't just "declare" them. Actually, I'd say no intelligent or good faith person does that. That's internet debate slop.
That's essentially what you are doing though. You made some vague criticism about his use of morality. But didn't actually bring any evidence or examples.
All I can say is "huh, I guess you believe that". Like, what am I supposed to say? Are you just use to people that jump to disagree with you based on your vague criticisms? I have no idea. Maybe I would even agree with you. Why would I rebut to something you haven't even explained.
You have no substance because you are just stating your conclusion. If you can't actually build that conclusion why would you expect me to engage?
You’re asking for a formal, step-by-step evidentiary case. I’m offering a high-level critique of a rhetorical pattern. Those are different kinds of claims, and neither is illegitimate.
I’m not “declaring victory,” I’m describing how his style reads to a lot of leftists: moral preloading, reframing, and condemnation first, engagement second. That’s an interpretive claim, not a syllogism, and it doesn’t require me to footnote every instance to exist.
You’re right that if this were a debate, I’d need to walk through examples. But this isn’t a debate, it’s a comment thread. I’m explaining why many people react to him the way they do, not trying to prove a theorem.
If you don’t recognize that pattern, that’s fine. We just have different readings of the same content. But saying “there is no substance” because it isn’t presented in your preferred format is just another way of refusing to engage with the claim itself.
Holy shit. It's exhausting trying to talk to someone that just refuses to actually explain their opinion beyond the vague criticisms they started with. Like, I can't ask why you think those things? That's literally all I'm trying to get out of you and you refuse. If you didn't want to do that then don't reply. My initial point still stands. No substance. You've literally spent the last few comments avoiding giving any reason or example for why you have these criticisms in the first place.
Why? Why is that so hard to do?
The problem here is that you provide no actual proof of something you claim Hasan "always does", then go on to claim "it's too much work" for you to cite your evidence, instead we should take on that work because it's on us to educate ourselves.
TBH, this is the same shit antivaxxers try to pull.
Put up or shut up, what you are saying is not true and you have no evidence to back it up. You got got by the clipfarm industry.