> Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive.
> Eschew flamebait. Avoid generic tangents. Omit internet tropes.
I'm not accusing of bad faith, I'm witnessing bad faith, bikeshedding and multiple sophisms trying to deny what this group is.
And it's not only on HN, this behavior doesn't really lead to productive discussion anywhere either.
Not that I care much, I'm not going to convince people going as far as denying neo-nazi groups, I'm just passing by and pointing the large argumentation issues made while doing said process.
You can have a good day.
This comment is yet another example of how you are not arguing in good faith.
You're somehow trying to misrepresent the problem of your insistence in downplaying and even denying evidence of Wagner's neonazi and white supremacists ties as just people disagreeing, and then passing yourself as a victim for being attacked for not agreeing with something. This is a gross misrepresentation of the whole discussion.
You're referring to a guy covered in Nazi tattoos who created an organization reflecting Nazi ideology and with known tie with white supremacists and neonazi ideologies as having no objective ties to Nazi ideologies. While you deny that, you're desperately trying to pass off any remark refuting your baseless claim as being attacks o difference of opinions, when actually you're irrationally denying evidence and insisting on pushing a blatantly false idea.
You don't seem to be arguing in good faith, and it looks you're trying to manipulate and distort things to whitewash neonazi organizations under the excuse of relativizing evidence, shift burdens of proof, and manipulating objectivisim bars to still claim a fact is not verified in spite of all the evidence and thus it should be treated as false. This is not good faith, and screams as neonazi apologism.
If you go back and read what I said, I said:
> what is the evidence either of them is a "nazi sympathizer"?
That's not denying anything. That's simply asking what the evidence is.
When asking what the evidence for an assertion is gets the response:
> This is not good faith, and screams as neonazi apologism.
I don't think we are engaging in rational discussion any more. Continued engagement is pointless.
No, you're not. Evidence was already presented, time and again. You chose to ignore it, time and again.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning
https://www.seekfind.net/Logical_Fallacy_of_Argument_by_Dema...
The jig is up. Stop it. You could be faced with a signed confession with someone asserting they are a neonazi white supremacist, and you'd still try to reject it with some lame excuse like "oh they might just be joking", and proceed as you've been proceeding and insist in more evidence.
That's simply false. There absolutely is such a thing as neo-Nazis: people like George Lincoln Rockwell, Matthias Koehl and Rocky Suhayda (leaders of the "American Nazi Party" and its splinter groups), William John Beattie (founder of the "Canadian Nazi Party"), Colin Jordan (leader of the "World Union of National Socialists" and founder of the "National Socialist Movement in the United Kingdom"). David Myatt, the founder of the O9A Satanist group, used to publicly identify as a Nazi–and although he has since insisted that he has renounced Nazism, I'm sceptical that his renunciation is genuine. I could go on, there's many more names I could add to that list.
If someone says "I'm a Nazi", I'm going to take their word for it. All the people I just mentioned openly said that (or words to that effect), so I am going to take their word for it.
Prigozhin and Utkin are both horrible human beings, and very likely guilty of war crimes–but I'm not aware either of them has ever said "I'm a Nazi". Stuff like tattoos are weak evidence because symbols can mean different things to different people, and you can only guess at what it actually means to that person–that's especially the case when dealing with a different country with a very different culture. Whereas, "I'm a Nazi" is evidence that is very hard to dispute.
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Just_asking_questions
>Just asking questions
>Just asking questions (also known as JAQing off) is a way of attempting to make wild accusations acceptable (and hopefully not legally actionable) by framing them as questions rather than statements. It shifts the burden of proof to one's opponent; rather than laboriously having to prove that all politicians are reptoid scum, one can pull out one single odd piece of evidence and force the opponent to explain why the evidence is wrong.
>The tactic is closely related to loaded questions or leading questions (which are usually employed when using it), Gish Gallops (when asking a huge number of rapid-fire questions without regard for the answers), and Argumentum ad nauseam (when asking the same question over and over in an attempt to overwhelm refutations).
>Strategy
>The purpose of this argument method is to influence spectators' views by asking leading questions, regardless of the answers given. The term is derived from the questioner's frequent claim that they are "just asking questions," albeit in a manner much the same as political push polls. Additionally, this tactic is a way for a crank to escape the burden of proof behind extraordinary claims.[1]
>In some cases, it also helps hide the nebulousness or absurdity of the questioner's own views. For example, a 9/11 truther may ask questions about perceived irregularities in the collapse, Larry Silverstein saying "pull it," and the plane that hit the Pentagon. If turned back around on the truther, the implication is that they think that the plot involved numerous bizarre complications (rigging three buildings with explosives, making an on-the-spot decision to instruct the FDNY to detonate one of them, replacing a plane with a missile and later littering the Pentagon with plane wreckage). In avoiding proposing their own hypothesis, the questioner can come across as smoothly winning a debate, since the other person is unable to answer a "just being asked" question. In fact, it can be very useful to "just ask questions" of woos, inasmuch as getting woos to put a hypothesis forward (or even just admitting to believing something crazy) can be a worthy accomplishment.
>The questioner may claim they are playing devil's advocate. This is frequently to advance an odious position with no shortage of existing advocates.
>A dead give-away is when the person using this technique ignores the answers given, and just continues to ask the same questions.
If someone else is wrong or you feel they are, the good options include (1) post correct information substantively, so the rest of us can learn (this is very different from calling names and attacking personally, as you and others did in this thread); (2) downvote and/or (if the comment breaks the site guidelines) flag the post; (3) chalk it up to the internet being wrong and simply move on.
Also, you accuse me of violating the guidelines, but your allegation never cites their text; whereas, in accusing me of "bad faith" you are violating an explicit statement in them ("Assume good faith")