I haven’t watched the video, but I want to address your rhetoric, because it has several issues.
What you are engaging in is a form of projection.
No one is obligated to give you a solution to a problem, or does their identification of a problem imply they have some kind of ulterior motive. You are projecting what you wish their motivation was onto them, and then attacking them what you imagine their motivation to be.
Saying that Joe Biden’s electoral chances are weak and he has little chance of getting elected doesn’t mean I support Trump. Before we can have a conversation about alternatives, we need to be honest with ourselves about what the facts are. Being clear eyed about facts doesn’t mean I support your perceived opposing interpretation of what those facts mean.
When and if you do this thing, you are projecting a false narrative onto people. In projecting that false narrative, you shut down the legitimate criticism they are bringing forward, which is a kind of gaslighting.
There are two primary fallacies at work here, the red hearing fallacy and the false choice fallacy.
The red hearing fallacy is that instead of addressing the premise of the argument the interlocutor is making, you are projecting onto them a perceived motivation (your perception), identifying that as the issue, and attacking that. Its way of distracting from their premise and making the argument about something it isn’t or didn’t’ start as.
The false dichotomy fallacy is that this is a binary between Trump and Biden, which has nothing to do with the arguers premise. Its not clear to me that the video even mentions Trump (I’ll check it out once I get this response written), which isn’t at all what they were arguing. Its another form of gaslighting, that if you are bringing these criticisms forward, you must support Trump.
The original interlocutor owes you answers to neither of those. I bring this criticism of your rhetoric to your attention because I’ve been seeing the identical sequence of fallacies, in almost the exact same order, being used across lemmy in an attempt to shut down criticism of Biden, to ignore his realistic chances of re-election, and in-general, to gaslight people as if they were Trump supporters because they are bringing forward legitimate criticism of Biden.
Suppose I tell you your house is flooding. Your current response would have two components: “Flooding is far less damaging than fire”, and “You must be a fan of fire if you aren’t telling me how to put stop the flooding”.
Neither of those have anything to do with the original premise of if the house is, in-fact, flooding.
No one owes you a solution to your problems. Them bringing up that you have a problem doesn’t make them a proponent of some other problem.
Cablerumor@discuss.online 1 year ago
We have no obligation to coddle or avoid acknowledging the complicity of a sitting president in a genocide. Biden expressed full support for this bill if it passes. Getting angry at communists for calling out the one person who can flip the situation overnight is ridiculous.
Surely that makes sense?
mozz@mbin.grits.dev 1 year ago
Was "He's enabling genocide" somehow not clear enough for you to understand that I agree with you on this? Feels like you're just assigning some kind of strawman view to me so you can have your little grandstanding, and avoid dealing with the totally different things that my message was actually saying. Which, I mean, sure, carry on if that's what you want to do, but regardless of that nothing in this is anything that I was doing or anything that I disagree with.
Citation needed (not saying you're wrong, I just haven't seen it; I'm just curious)
Citation needed
(Also, totally separate topic, while I was reading up to write this message: You will never guess why it is that MTG and Matt Gaetz had objections to the bill. I'm serious -- it would have taken me quite a few guesses before I arrived at why it is that they're angry about it.)