But your screenshots *didn’t* prove that. The fact you *think* they did is why you are in error. You mistakenly think you’ve made a successful case but you haven’t.
https://twitter.com/gellmanrebecca/status/1354172455707934720
I don’t see any reason to doubt that someone on 4Chan had this idea in 2014 or whenever it was.
This is in no way proof than someone else putting forward the same or similar ideas is *also* trolling.
Let’s PROVE that point: ⬇︎
This is in no way proof than someone else putting forward the same or similar ideas is *also* trolling.
Let’s PROVE that point: ⬇︎
As most people know the idea to say the OK hand sign👌🏼is a white supremacy sign was also a 4Chan op. That doesn’t mean either (1) lots of people sincerely came to believe it was a white supremacy sign, or (2) it wasn’t adopted by actual white supremacists.
adl.org/education/refe…
adl.org/education/refe…
So, by pointing to the 4Chan post, what you are doing is committing a GENETIC FALLACY.
EVEN IF the text has ANY connection to the 4Chan thing—which you have NOT shown—that doesn’t show it isn’t sincere/is trolling.
EVEN IF the text has ANY connection to the 4Chan thing—which you have NOT shown—that doesn’t show it isn’t sincere/is trolling.
You haven’t CONNECTED the two things, only noted they are SIMILAR.
You have to (1) connect them directly, and (2) show that, in addition to the connection, it is not a case of transfer from trolling to sincere belief.
You haven’t done either 1 or 2.
So you have made a case.
You have to (1) connect them directly, and (2) show that, in addition to the connection, it is not a case of transfer from trolling to sincere belief.
You haven’t done either 1 or 2.
So you have made a case.
So you have NOT posted “proof.”
You have posted “a thing that could serve as the basis for a proof if you could in addition connect the thing you posted to the thing in question AND in addition show that the trolling property transfers from the one to the other.”
You have posted “a thing that could serve as the basis for a proof if you could in addition connect the thing you posted to the thing in question AND in addition show that the trolling property transfers from the one to the other.”
Again, I’m *not* arguing it is genuine.
I could be a troll, for all I know.
But you have most definitely NOT proven it to be one.
And you can’t paint me as arguing it is NOT A TROLL, just because I’m demolishing your “proof” that it is.
I’m cleaning up your epistemic mess.
I could be a troll, for all I know.
But you have most definitely NOT proven it to be one.
And you can’t paint me as arguing it is NOT A TROLL, just because I’m demolishing your “proof” that it is.
I’m cleaning up your epistemic mess.
I *am* strongly confident that the person who posted it in the thread I found it *was* sharing it sincerely. He certainly seemed to be offering it as a real case.
Where *he* got it I don’t know. 🤷🏻♀️
I’d really love to find it again. I didn’t expect it to go as widely as it has.
Where *he* got it I don’t know. 🤷🏻♀️
I’d really love to find it again. I didn’t expect it to go as widely as it has.
To me, it was just a random piece of Woke madness that I screenshotted and shared.
My “Huh.” comment was along the lines of “Huh, would you look at that.”
My “Huh.” comment was along the lines of “Huh, would you look at that.”
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
