#false equivalencies

[odinsblog]

This is what dehumanization + propaganda looks like

Benjamin Netanyahu is a war criminal

Collective punishment is a war crime

Forced deportation is a war crime

Targeting civilians is a war crime

Israel is an apartheid state

Hamas ≠ Palestine

Free Palestine 🇵🇸

[creature-wizard]

Critical thinking tip: Beware of false equivalencies!

A false equivalence is a claim that two or more things that might appear superficially similar are actually the same, when in reality they aren't really comparable at all.

An example of this is when young Earth creationists (who proclaim that Earth is only 6000 years old and everything in Genesis happened literally) claim that they are simply just interpreting the same facts differently from other scientists, as if it's just like the famous rabbit-duck illusion where one is equally justified in seeing either a rabbit or a duck.

But the reality is that young Earth creationism simply doesn't work like this. Instead, their "science" is based on cherry picked data and ad hoc reasoning to try and dismiss the many facts real scientists discover that constantly show that young earth creationism just isn't very likely. Radiometric dating, tree ring data, and geological data consistently show that the Earth is quite a bit older than 6000 years. YEC responses to this often boil down to "well maybe physics just worked differently back then" (here's one example of this), and of course they never do any real tests or research to show that this is a real possibility. Moreover, they invent some absolutely bizarre claims to supposedly disprove evolution - like falsely claiming that the Second Law of Thermodynamics prohibits it.

All of this shows us that YECs aren't just scientists who interpret the data correctly - they are politically-motivated spin doctors using the aesthetic of science to make themselves look more credible. This is why when someone claims that their fringe idea is just as scientifically credible as a mainstream one, you have to ask yourself if that's really true. Are they following the scientific method and accepting results that don't align with what they wanted? Or are they engaging in special pleading and relying on fake evidence?

(By the way, I recommend Gutsick Gibbon's YouTube channel as a resource debunking YEC claims!)

Another form of false equivalence is when someone claims that mystical experiences and intuition are just as valid for determining what's going on in the world as genuine scientific research. But when we consider that something as wrong as World Ice Theory came from an apparently mystical dream, we have to consider that these kinds of experiences can be extremely misleading. We also know that professional psychics' yearly predictions have a high rate of failure. (Some examples. More examples. And some more examples. And even more examples!) We know that a tool such as the Ouija board can enhance memory recall, but when we're really honest about the accuracy of mystical information-gathering means, we have to admit that they're just no substitute for research and study.

So when someone asserts that two things are basically the same, or are fundamentally equivalent or fungible, ask yourself - are they really, though? And then do the research to find out!

[buzzdixonwriter]

Abortion =/= Murder

This post is going to piss off a lot of people on both sides of the equation, but so be it:  Let the chips fall where they may.

The pro-choice side will doubtless have those who think I’m trivializing the issue and / or am speaking out of turn since I can’t get pregnant.

So be it.  

The underlying truth needs to be brought home, and there’s a long history of using absurdity to prove a moral / ethical point.

The anti-abortion side will claim I’m making a false argument, that life begins at conception, etc., etc., and of course, etc.

Fuck ya.

The difference between abortion and murder is simple.

Abortion is like burning a pile of lumber that's been set aside to build a house; murder is burning down a fully constructed home with somebody in it.

The lumber is the genetic material and human DNA tissue that has the potential to make up a viable human being; until it's actually constructed and inhabited it is not a home.

As Polly Adler observed w-a-a-a-y back in 1953, “a house is not a home.”

Once the house is built / a viable body is formed, then a human being may inhabit it.  Humans don't live on lumber piles, they live in constructed homes.

Unless and until there's a viable human body, there can't be a viable human being.

And to be utterly fair, science is pushing the viability age earlier and earlier.  The current record for a premature infant to be delivered and survive is 21 weeks.  When medical catastrophes threaten a mother's life in the third trimester and require the pregnancy to be terminated, doctors will do everything in their power to deliver the child alive, and they’re succeeding more and more often.

Brava.

We can liken that to somebody inhabiting an unfinished house; the framework, walls, and roof are up but the details need to be completed.

To carry this analogy further, once the house is built, it belongs to the person inhabiting it.  Until the house is built, the owner of the lumber may do what they wish with it.

Now, there are imbeciles and poltroons out there spreading the lie that all abortions are performed on lazy sluts who won’t use birth control and won’t stop fucking.

They’re especially fond of spreading the lie that these women will wait until just before they’re due to deliver and one day short of a full term birth demand the fetus be aborted.

Speaking purely metaphorically, these imbeciles and poltroons should be drag hanged over a mile and a half of broken coke bottles.

Purely metaphorically.

I refer to these imbeciles and poltroons as imbeciles and poltroons because anyone who is not an imbecile or a poltroon recognizes no sane woman is going to go through nine months of pregnancy just to abort the fetus on a whim at the last second.

Third trimester abortions account for less than 2% of all abortions performed.  They are almost certainly always performed in cases where not immediately terminating a pregnancy will result in the death of the fetus and quite probably the death of the mother.

(Actually, “third trimester” is a misnomer; that would mean 26+ weeks into the pregnancy.  What is typically meant by third trimester is any time after the 21st week.)

As noted above, doctors in these cases will make every effort to save both mother and fetus, but there are cases where something has gone horribly wrong and the option is either lose the fetus or lose both fetus and mother.

You need to be an imbecile and / or a poltroon to advocate the latter over the former.

One in 50 pregnancies is an ectopic pregnancy where the fetus develops outside the uterus (typically in a fallopian tube).  The fetus cannot survive such a pregnancy.  If not aborted, ectopic pregnancies kill the woman bearing them. 

Abort a doomed fetus or murder a live woman?

Over 90% of all abortions are performed before the 13th week.

They’re typically performed as soon as the woman is aware she’s pregnant.

Whatever makes us human beings, it’s not found at the moment of conception.

Human life has not started yet; there is no human being yet, there isn’t even a potential human being.

None of the vital organs -- especially the neurological system, most especially the brainstem -- are functioning yet.

All that’s happened is that the lumber is stacking up.

Whatever makes us us is not found in unformed human tissue.

We tragically have too many cases of fully developed fetuses brought to term stillborn.

They are not and never were human beings because those “houses” were never “inhabited homes”.

Pro-choice is not pro-abortion; only imbeciles and poltroons make that claim.

Pro-choice is giving each woman -- the “builder” as it were -- the right to decide what they want to build and when, and how they wish to hand it over to someone else.

Give them all the choices they need:

Adoption

Adequate social services

Income to support the child

Pre-natal medical care

…and the right to terminate a pregnancy if the woman thinks that is the best option.

If it’s not your pregnancy, it’s none of your business.

 © Buzz Dixon

[whatbigotspost]

chattabooty said: 

“Can you believe all these liberals think genocide is bad” 🙄🙄🙄

This is why I don’t trust conservatives.

[brentseabiscuit]

Anyone else on here sick and tired of the false equivalency between tampons/pads and condoms? Because I am.

[odinsblog]

Can we please get something straight here??

Mitch McConnell has supported Donald Trump and will support him again if Trump wins the Republican nomination. I have never supported Trump and I never will.

Mitch McConnell has been a willing tool of the NRA and helped pass countless stand-your-ground laws, he has helped pave the way for laws like permitless carry, and he has helped make guns easier for anyone to get. I have not.

Mitch McConnell has helped pass laws that intentionally suppress the votes of millions and millions Black people. I have not.

Mitch McConnell has helped write or pass laws that deny millions of women access to reproductive health care. I have not.

Mitch McConnell has helped write or pass laws that deny basic healthcare and living wages to millions of poor people. I have not.

I AM NOW AND I WILL ALWAYS BE BETTER than Mitch McConnell and Republicans, because my wishes do not have any material impact on anyone, unlike the myriad of hateful draconian laws that Mitch McConnell has helped to pass.

I could continue, but hopefully I’ve made my point: people sending Mitch McConnell “ill wishes” IS NOT being “just the same” as Mitch McConnell and Republicans, and it doesn’t make anyone “as bad as” McConnell and the GOP.

Are you fucking kidding me??

Saying that my wishes = McConnell’s actions is a false equivalence. It’s false, it’s offensive and it’s gaslighting.

Mitch McConnell is an elected politician who has a very long history of using his political power to actively harm the poor, marginalized communities, women, LGBTQ people, and non-Christian, non-white people. If you cannot differentiate between the words and the unenforceable “wishes” of the oppressed vs. the actions of an oppressor, then you have some serious problems to unpack.

I could ~almost~ see it if there was some chance that a Republican would go, “Oh wow, those progressives are being nice to Mitch McConnell, maybe I’ll stop being a racist and vote for a Democrat now.” But that almost never ever happens, does it??

You are not going to win over a Republican by being kind. Their entire ideology is based on racism, misogyny, homophobia, transphobia, and cruelty.

Look, I’m not tryna write a dissertation here, but please believe me when I say that this neoliberal knee jerk Pollyanna reaction of, “turn the other cheek” and “be kinder to your oppressors” is very much rooted in Christofascism + white supremacy. It’s a weaponization of the “hate breeds hate” trope and the “forgiveness narrative” meant to tame slaves, and I refuse to fall for it.

I absolutely positively do not wish Mitch McConnell well, and HELL NO, I am not being a bad person for hoping that a racist, evil, old white man suffers a fraction of the pain he has inflicted on others for decades and decades.

I am a proud member of the #MitchMcConnellDieChallenge community.

That all said, at the very least, Mitch McConnell has unintentionally provided us with a teachable moment: please learn to spot the warning signs of someone having a stroke

[odinsblog]

“I think there is a simpler explanation to the tragedy and the barbarism on October the 7th, which is that you cannot indefinitely contain a group of people under military occupation for decades and expect that there won't be violence. There is violence in the Middle East, and the root cause of that violence is an illegal military occupation that is now in what, it's 57th year in the occupied West Bank and Gaza. And this is not just me saying this.

I mean, people like General Shlomo Brom, one of Israel's most famous military strategists, says, the oppressed will rise against the oppressor because it's absurd to hope that Israel can indefinitely contain with its military might millions of Palestinians who claim the right to a free, normal life. That is the statement of Shlomo Brom.

It's not true that the previous Gaza conflicts were all started by Hamas. Some were, but not all of them. Ceasefires have been broken on both sides and that's been well documented by multiple neutral observers and international observers.

But just on the broader point, Israel was never done with Gaza. This myth that they pulled out all the settlers and the occupation ended, first of all, under international law, Gaza is still occupied.

The Israelis control most of the land borders, all of the naval waters, all of the airspace. You tell me a country in the world that would accept that, any kind of country that you would call independent or sovereign. The Israelis even control the population register in Gaza, which means if you're born in Gaza, the Israelis are the ones who register you in control.

All of the information about your birth, life, and death. So this idea that Gaza was free, it was not free. And the boycott, the siege, I mean, it was not defensive.

Again, multiple human rights groups, including Israeli human rights groups like Gisha have said over the years, that the boycott was not defensive, that it was arbitrary, that it was cruel. Items like pasta, coriander, right? These are items that were banned at certain points going into Gaza.

Even now, David Miliband, the former British Foreign Minister, head of the International Rescue Committee, went on CNN this week to point out that dual-use items are being blocked going into Gaza. Entire aid trucks are being turned away because there's a scissors in them. A pair of scissors is inside a truck.

For medical purposes, the entire truck is turned away. For years now, the people in Gaza have been blockaded, besieged. The UN said it would be unlivable years ago.

We're now in 2024. It's certainly unlivable now. So no, I don't believe the Israeli narrative.

And one last thing, let's say everything Israel said was true. That still does not justify the collective punishment of 2.2 million people, half of whom are children, and who are now in the midst of one of the worst famines in living memory, according to the experts.

[…]

I've been very, very, very critical of Hamas. I've been critical of Hamas for decades. I've been critical of Hamas since October the 7th.

I was critical of Hamas on October the 7th. So no, I'm not sparing in my criticism of Hamas, but the missing context here, of course, is that we don't fund Hamas. I'm not responsible for Hamas.

I am responsible for the famine in Gaza. I am responsible for the killing of 30,000 people in Gaza because my taxes paid for it. The United States government is funding one side of this conflict.

The United States does not fund Hamas, last time I checked. So this idea that we are either fund them or protect them with a UN veto or arm Hamas, I don't think we send arms to Hamas, we do to Israel. Therefore, that is the focus of my journalism.

And by the way, yes, the focus of my journalism right now is on criticism of Israel because the rest of the US media has completely failed on this issue, has dropped the ball. I mean, I can go through The New York Times, The Washington Post, and show the exact opposite, pieces that are providing cover and safety for the Israeli narrative, including in absurd headlines where we go out of our way to use the passive voice and never cite that Israel is responsible for bombing a hospital or Israel is responsible for bombing a refugee camp. So I'm trying to do a little bit of correction on my end with this new media organization.

But look, Hamas is a brutal group. What it did on October the 7th was pure terror. They killed innocents, they abducted innocent babies as hostages into the war crime.

But none of that justifies what Israel is doing right now. And nor are we responsible for what Hamas is doing. But we are, in New York and across the country, sadly, we are responsible for the crimes that Israel is carrying out.

And that's the point I'm trying to make.”

—Mehdi Hasan

[odinsblog]

False Equivalence

Why does the mainstream media keep depicting lunatic-right Republicans and normal Democrats as equidistant from the center?

With the final passage of the debt ceiling deal, Democrats got off easier than one might have expected, given that it was a deal between a mainstream Democratic president and a Republican House in thrall to the lunatic far right. In drastic contrast to the scorched-earth budget bill initially passed by the Republican-controlled House, the cuts were about par for the course in a divided government; and they spare the country a repeat of this debt-hostage ordeal for two years.

However, much of the media played the agreement as a compromise between two equal extremes. The New York Times story about the House passage of the deal included this astonishing sentence: "With both far-right and hard-left lawmakers in revolt over the deal, it fell to a bipartisan coalition powered by Democrats to push the bill over the finish line, throwing their support behind the compromise in an effort to break the fiscal stalemate that had gripped Washington for weeks."

Think about that for a moment. There is no doubt that Matt Gaetz, Elise Stefanik, Lauren Boebert, Paul Gosar et al. are far-right by any definition, as white supremacists, Christian nationalists, election deniers, and nihilists on fiscal policy.

But no Democrats in the House can fairly be described as hard left. Those who voted against the deal included moderate liberals such as Joaquin Castro, mainstream progressives like Rosa DeLauro and Jan Schakowsky, as well as self-described democratic socialists including Cori Bush and AOC. But none of them are "hard left," which suggests anti-democratic, any more than Franklin Roosevelt was hard left.

The Times coverage reinforces a narrative of false equivalence that the media keeps repeating, with lazy catchphrases like "partisan bickering." It also plays into the hands of corrupt No Labels and Third Way types, who promote the idea that the best course for the republic is to split the difference between neofascists and a normal mainstream Democratic Party and president.

Big media, obsessed as it is with the appearance of fair and balanced coverage, took years to give itself permission to accurately describe Donald Trump with the impolite word "liar." But its treatment of the two parties as in any sense symmetrical is far more insidious than using euphemisms to characterize Trump’s lies.

Our friend Peter Dreier, whose observations inspired this post, points out that by any reasonable definition, "even the most left-oriented Democrats (AOC, Bush, Bowman, Raskin, Jayapal) are not extremists. They are shades of social democrats. They are pro-union, pro-choice, pro-affirmative action, pro-LGBT equality, pro-Green New Deal, pro-progressive taxation. But the most right-wing Republicans are extremists and reactionaries."

(continue reading)