>100 pages of glorified ad hominem
>>25347974fuck them Frankfurt school jews
in the realm of dialectic warfare psychology has been the equivalent of the weaponization of gunpowder for physical warfare, it became basically an inevitable tool, use it or you are left behind, if you aren't trying to retroactively refute your adversaries(because despite its own attempts at concealing itself, it's just that, war between two sides) by preemptively nullifying their premises as symptoms of some sort of precondition, nowadays, you are not competing dialectically
>>25348002But…but…ad hominem!!
>>25348002>In the realm of shit, toilet paper has become the equivalent of the weaponization of gunpowder for physically wiping your ass. It is now basically an inevitable tool: use it or get left behind with a horror movie on your hands. If you aren’t trying to retroactively out-wipe your adversary by preemptively nullifying their turds as symptoms of some sort of bowel precondition, you are not competing in the bathroom.
>>25347974>OP identifies with the term "rightwing" STRONGLYWingnut
>>25347981>>25348002>>25348042>>25348178study logic
>>25348033missed this poststudy logic
>>25348217Misfired link, wingnut.
>>25348309Study logic, retard. You haven't studied even one page of logic in your life, admit it.Study logic by for example reading this.https://www.rexresearch1.com/DebateLibrary/AttackingFaultyReasoningDamer.pdf
>>25348335>Using buzzwords ends the confrontationYou are using ad hom and guilty of not using logic yourself. This was the joke, right?
>>25348345You know jack shit about logic and argumentation.
>>25348002This. Rightoids complain about this because they can't write ad hominem as good and intellectually sophisticated as the Frankfurt school leftists. Right wing hit-pieces are always some cringeworthy pearl-clutching moralfaggotry.
>>25348489No. Stating the fact that this book is one long ad hominem has nothing to do with being right-wing or left-wing. Study logic.
>>25348489Nah we just call people gay. Brevity is the soul of wit. It gets to the point quicker.
>>25347974>Friend-Enemy Distinction: Is this goy shabbos or amalek?that's the jewish intellectual metaethical heuristic here.
>>25348489the religious right is stuck there indeed, the whole spiteful mutant or bioleninism angle is on the right track however
I thought this board had somewhat higher IQ than /pol/. Apparently not. Complete fucking brainlets this entire site.
>>25347974Basically everything he said came to fruition and especially in eastern Germany. He was so beyond his time it feels like he was precognitive.
>>25349677The thread is about the book, not about anything he said.
>>25349677They followed their plans and infected academia with cultural Marxism. Why do you think are academics so leftist?
>>25347974Oh noooo, did the iddle widdle chuddy wuddy baby get his feefees hurt? Let momma Kirk kiss it better, *mwah*
>>25349737Study logic. Spambot.
>>25349730Are you really asking why the people who rely on government funding for research aren't supporting policies that would see them jobless?
>>25348489>pearl-clutching moralfaggotryThis is literally the whole of the Frankfurt School
>>25347974ok snowflake
>>25349772gotta admitthats a really dumb posthavent seen a dumb post like that in a long time.you MAGA?
>>25349776>you MAGA?No.MAGAs aren't moralfags tho, so how are they relevant? They started a war by bombing a school full of kids and cut USAID to millions of starving Third World children
>>25349773Can you fucking retards stop spamming and fuck off and learn basic logic? Whether something is ad hominem or not has fuckall to do with whether your feelings/pride/ego are hurt or not. There are so many garbage posts on this site now that I suspect 90% of those garbage posts are bots.
>>25349740>SpambotYou mean just like what you’re doing by replying the same two words to everyone? Expand vocabulary.
>>25349783YOUR posts are garbage. Theres no argument, just a superficial statement with zero justification or explication. Theres literally nothing of substance for us to respond to, so we may as well just ridicule you. Faggot
>>25349791>>25349793The topic of this thread is the book. Discuss that or fuck off.
>>25349799We’re waiting for you to start. You’re the one who posited the initial claim (ie, that the book is 100 pages of ad hominem), the burden of proof is on you to make the argument that that is really the case. I thought you were our resident expert in logic?
>>25349801Fuck off, you're not welcome in this thread, fag.
I haven't read this but I have read a bit of Frankfurt stuff and I'm inclined to agree. In a sense it is kind of hilarious. Marxism is a huge ivory tower, a gigantic leftist project that has spanned generations, and at the top of the tower is some retarded shit like "Fascism is bad because they're incels and their parents hated them"
Why are you doing this thread again? Even the first thread wasn't that good, Adorno's speech is too rooted in his time and place and a particular resurgence of fascism which was a failure. The modern nu Right is not like NPD, that's why it's actually successful. There are bits that look similar to Trumpism but it's light on theory which is all presupposed. And besides one or two people who were talking about it just drew out these retarded zoomer /pol/tards. In this thread it's already nothing but zoomer /pol/tards, the few people who could sit through 25 paragraphs have already read it and shared their thoughts. Try something else. Really any thread that has remotely to do with politics or anything trad-adjacent (like Aristotle or scholasticism) is guaranteed to be swamped by retards, that's why I prefer more esoteric threads on things like German idealism or Deleuze where the zoomers are for the most part completely filtered. Even there you have the problem of low-IQ schizos and faux-neoplatonist Schelling stoners.
>>25348002>preemptively nullifying their premises as symptoms of some sort of precondition
>>25349952neither of the threads were good, because you were in them
>>25349856What a coward lmao. I offered you the opportunity to justify the claim in the OP so that we actually have something substantial to discuss, and instead you bleat (impotently) about me not being welcome for simply asking you to elaborate. Why even bother making this thread if you’re too insecure to have a real discussion?
>>25349856>complains the book is ad hom>immediately does ad hom when asked to elaboratelol okay
>>25348002Bad analogy. A weapon's effectiveness is an inherent quality of that weapon that is independent of outside opinion, support and context (you can't just decide to ignore the explosion of a tank's cannon), but ideology is a creature of elective affinities and societal forces. Ideologies aren't adopted or "win" over other ideologies on the basis of rhetorical or logical superiority but on the basis of usefulness ("does this make my irrational or pre-rational predilections come off rational?" or "Does this legitimize or delegitimize the status quo?"), popularity, and perhaps most importantly, which ideology has more legal backing or opposition (usually depends on the overton window of a given milieu).The soundness of one's argument is probably the least important aspect of making sure that you dominate discourse. You don't need to be sound if you have power, and no amount of logical and rhetorical kama sutra is going to push an argument through if it stems from the outside of the overton window.
everyone itt wants to be smart so badly
>>25350373You have no fucking clue what ad hominem is, as we already knew. Now fuck off.
>>25350365The topic is the book. Fuck off retard.
>>25350401Now THIS is a guy who knows how to tie his own shoelaces.
>>25350390I don't disagree I think the analogy remains, point being, the plateau is what it is, this kind of discourse is a standard form of rhetorical warfare as things stand, adapt to it or perish, that includes both, to keep the analogy going, open centralized warfare and guerrilla/asymmetric warfare i.e if you don't have institutional backing to artificially prop up your side's discourse's effectiveness you can still, within your own limits, deploy the enemy's weapons against it, it does't help to recuse it out of some principled stance which only weakens you, all gloves are off and have been off for sometime, it's not a gentleman's duel with rules and etiquette to follow, that has been a strong limiting factor especially on the normie right which insists on rules of engagement while the other side demolishes the ground they stand on from below
Wisdom is knowing it isn't "ad hominem" if it's true.
I've noticed that people only bring up logical fallacies when they are getting BTFO in an internet argument.
>>25350874>>25350889You know jack shit about logic. I posted a link. Read it and lurk, shitheads.
https://annas-archive.gl/md5/fd70ad3f14721f2a55b6fa6b75bb620fhttps://voca.ro/1o4JdLBQUpbBhttps://pastes.io/tM5TDeRs
https://youtu.be/U3Jm8zF7bJ8&t=2984
Many people don't understand the difference between ad hominem and general expression of a negative opinion of another person. There is a difference. Ad hominem isn't just "you're a fascist". Ad hominem is "you're a fascist and therefore your proposition is false". If a lunatic shouts "2+2=4", then saying that he's a lunatic is not ad hominem. Saying or thinking that because he's a lunatic therefore his statement "2+2=4" must be false is ad hominem.
>>25348489>Rightoids complain about this because they can't write ad hominem as good and intellectually sophisticated as the Frankfurt school leftists.Thats not true.The right side has not the recourses to publicate their ideas has wide as the left. Just consider Nietzsche's theory of ressentiment.The extrem right is full of retards, like the left wing.>>25349737You fun about a person that has been killed by a retarde leftwinger like yourself, you feel good about it?You little piece of shit.
