Thread by @babuyagu

Let me introduce you to my old friend - the hierarchy of disagreement.

Whenever people attack you or your character rather than refuting what you say, it is because they know whatever they have to counter whatever you said is piss-weak and therefore their best approach is to

https://twitter.com/Leoskillz/status/1465133715093401600

attack your credibility rather than attack what you have said.

Defence lawyers do this ALL THE TIME in trials. Attack the character of the witness not the evidence presented. Get the jury to doubt the evidence by making them doubt the person providing it.

Whenever people's opening gambit with me is a logical fallacy - ad hominem, false equivalency, whataboutery - it doesn't really matter which, I tend to just immediately block that person because trying to have any discussion with someone who uses logical fallacies is a waste of

time. Because the whole purpose of using them is to distract from what you are talking about and talk about something else instead.

Change the talk from why Ronaldo is a problem to me having to discuss whether or not I personally like him - which doesn't actually change the

validity of anything I just said. It is just a distraction.

Whataboutery - same thing. All logical fallacies are designed to sabotage discussion. So when I see them, I call them out. But don't engage it. Don't play their game. Just tell them to join the conversation like a

mature person or fuck off.

There is an important exception to make to this - hate speech.

You cannot get dragged into a debate with intolerance. It is the tolerance paradox.