Darryl George: Texas judge rules school district can restrict the length of male students’ natural hair

Ranvier@sopuli.xyz to News@lemmy.world – 569 points –
Darryl George: Texas judge rules school district can restrict the length of male students’ natural hair | CNN
cnn.com
195

You are viewing a single comment

I swear, 9 times out of 10, when I come across one of your posts, you're misrepresenting what's happening in order to artificially ramp up your outrage.

That's funny. I have you tagged as "stupid sophist/troll" because whenever I see your posts, you're ginning up moronic arguments against self-evident conclusions. Anyone with a modicum of historical contextual knowledge can see that this policy and judgement are racially motivated. Many data points supporting this have already been posted here. Nobody's injecting race into a situation from which it was previously absent.

Can we take a moment to appreciate the irony of me being called a troll because I'm not conforming with the general opinion around here?

Being factually incorrect is not an opinion. Your argument is wrong.

You're only admitting that you don't understand the difference between fact and opinion.

It's got nothing to do with me.

The policies that regulate hair length for male students are designed to target minorities and are racist. These are facts. Picking alternate facts is not an opinion.

These are facts.

I'm sure it's true in some cases, but the blanket claim that it's the only reason is an opinion (and almost certainly an incorrect one at that). So the fact that you don't understand the difference between a fact and a opinion has everything to do with you.

It's true for the case that we are discussing in the article and every other time it's been used to punish minorities. Your argument is splitting hairs over word choice instead focusing on the content of my argument.

Your argument is splitting hairs over word choice

You claimed an opinion was a fact and that I was factually wrong for having a different opinion than you. It's not "splitting hairs" to point out you have no clue what you're talking about.

If you recognize that you used the wrong word, say "I apologize, you're right, I used the wrong term" and then simply rephrase your argument. Stop trying to make it my fault you said something absolutely ridiculous and I called it out

If you recognize that you used the wrong word, say “I apologize, you’re right, I used the wrong term” and then simply rephrase your argument.

I went back and checked what I wrote in my argument. Now your argument is pretending there is an incorrect statement in my argument.

These policies are always racist. Your argument misrepresenting my argument will not change this.

You claimed an opinion was a fact and that I was factually wrong for having a different opinion than you.

No, what I claimed is a fact. What your argument claims is false. False claims are not opinions.

It’s not “splitting hairs” to point out you have no clue what you’re talking about. Stop trying to make it my fault you said something absolutely ridiculous and I called it outs

Ad hominem attacks against me aren't compelling.

Now your argument is pretending there is an incorrect statement in my argument.

No, not pretending. You are confusing fact with opinion. That's actually a fact.

Ad hominem attacks against me aren’t compelling.

And accusing me of "splitting hairs" instead of addressing my actual argument is also an ad hominem. You're basically undercutting your own position.

No, not pretending. You are confusing fact with opinion. That’s actually a fact.

Your argument is definitely the one pretending and the one confusing incorrect facts as an opinion.

And accusing me of “splitting hairs” instead of addressing my actual argument is also an ad hominem.

Your argument attempted to split hairs.

I’m sure it’s true in some cases, but the blanket claim that it’s the only reason is an opinion (and almost certainly an incorrect one at that).

Your argument attempted to split hairs unsuccessfully. My argument's statement was correct.

You’re basically undercutting your own position.

Your argument does this to itself.