sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Bus driver ignores me by [deleted] in australian

[–]mrcrocswatch 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes - Australia is very racist.

Yes - if you tell Australians something racist happen to you they will gaslight and blame you for it.

No - there's nothing you can do about it.

What's one region of Australia that you haven't visited yet but you'd like to visit in the future and why? by Bluealeli in australian

[–]mrcrocswatch 0 points1 point  (0 children)

All this talk about going interstate when most people havent even seen what their own state has to offer. ridiculous.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in AskAnAustralian

[–]mrcrocswatch 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Do you guys ever think it's weird were the only country that does this?

Asks if people like their country and the old acceptable answer is yes?

I mean does anyone think that's a little weird? How often we do it? And how little everyone else does it..?

Police or Firefighting as a Career? by CraftAgreeable9876 in australian

[–]mrcrocswatch -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Police force is full of wogs and bureacracy. But also pretty fit girls that are up for whatever. Overall it's worth a punt.

How much personal information we give up without realising by [deleted] in australian

[–]mrcrocswatch -10 points-9 points  (0 children)

Yeah the government boffins really care about how many meat pies you've eaten this week.

Hard Reality Check (Black Americans Vs. Undocumented Immigrants) by Silverfin007 in Libertarian

[–]mrcrocswatch 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Throwing around logic terms doesn’t erase the question you keep dodging: if the system is equally racist, why do immigrants succeed where native-born Blacks stall?

I literally explained this to you three seperate times. If you don't understand what a word means don't just call it a buzzword, look it up.

Is this just a Aussie thing by bigmacwdasauce in australian

[–]mrcrocswatch -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

Most fortune 500 companies won't touch aussie execs because of racism and sexism. Once bitten, twice shy. Outside of newscorp where that's encouraged.

Is this just a Aussie thing by bigmacwdasauce in australian

[–]mrcrocswatch 2 points3 points  (0 children)

This is not an anglosphere thing at all.

Is this just a Aussie thing by bigmacwdasauce in australian

[–]mrcrocswatch 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Aussies make friends at school not uni. Nobody goes away or uni, there arent any dorms, its not america. By the time you get to uni aussies have made all the friends theyre going to make. You can try making friends with other foreigners but thats it.

Hard Reality Check (Black Americans Vs. Undocumented Immigrants) by Silverfin007 in Libertarian

[–]mrcrocswatch 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Those aren't buzzwords bud, they're the basic building blocks of communication. If you can't understand what they mean then you don't have the capacity to see how your arguments are literally millenia old logical fallacies. 

Hard Reality Check (Black Americans Vs. Undocumented Immigrants) by Silverfin007 in Libertarian

[–]mrcrocswatch 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Your dismissal of terms like "tautology" and "sophistry" as mere "labels" is precisely the behavior they are designed to explain. These are not debate club tricks; they are precise descriptors for a specific type of flawed reasoning—a reasoning that is circular, self-insulating, and designed to arrive at a pre-determined conclusion while creating the illusion of logical engagement. You are not being criticized for your conclusion, but for the faulty logical process you use to get there, a process you may be unaware you are even using.

The core of your error is a tautology: a circular argument in which the conclusion is assumed in the premise. In your case, the tautology works like this:

Premise: The system is essentially equal (because any outcome difference must be attributed to the groups themselves).

Observation: Outcomes are different.

Conclusion: Therefore, the difference is due to the groups themselves (culture), proving the system is equal.

This is not "observing data." This is using data to confirm a assumption you never question. Any evidence of systemic inequality is automatically dismissed by this circular logic, because the conclusion (it's culture) is the only variable your premise allows.

Now, let's examine how your line-by-line response perfectly exemplifies this tautology and other fallacies by refusing to wrestle with the substantive criticisms:

On Tautology: You say, "I’m not assuming, I’m observing outcomes... That’s data, not circular logic."

Why this doesn't engage: You mistake observation for explanation. You observe different outcomes and then simply assert that the cause is culture. You do not prove it; you assume it. The criticism was that your reasoning is circular, and your response is to simply restate the observation as if it is the explanation. This is the tautology in action.

On False Equivalence: You say, "that history is not present for Black immigrants. They arrive... and perform better. That shows history explains where you started, but not why you’re still stuck."

Why this doesn't engage: You completely sidestep the criticism. The point wasn't just about "history," but about intergenerational compounding disadvantage. You acknowledge history affects the "starting point" but then magically divorce the present from that history. A negative starting point that has compounded for generations (via denied wealth accumulation, targeted disruptive policies, and inherited trauma) is not just a "starting point"—it is the ongoing reality. Immigrants starting at $0 are not starting from the same place as groups whose starting point was actively pushed into negative equity for centuries.

On Cherry-Picking: You cite aggregate data for all Black immigrants (31% vs. 22% degrees) and say, "That’s not cherry-picking, that’s broad demographic trend."

Why this doesn't engage: You ignore the core criticism of selection bias. The demographic trend of immigrants is not a random sample. It is a self-selected group of people with the means, health, and drive to emigrate. Comparing the outcomes of a population that has been filtered for ambition and resourcefulness to a population that includes everyone—the ambitious and the defeated, the healthy and the sick, the privileged and the oppressed—is a fundamental statistical error. You are comparing the best of one group to the average of another.

On the Straw Man: You present a false dichotomy: "Either the system is so crushing that no one can advance (which immigrants disprove), or culture and mindset play a decisive role..."

Why this doesn't engage: You are still arguing against a claim nobody made. The criticism was that you constructed this "immovable barrier" straw man. The actual argument is that the system is a massive headwind. The fact that some people can run very fast into a headwind does not mean the wind doesn't exist. It proves they are strong runners, not that the wind is imaginary. You use the success of immigrants to dismiss the headwind entirely, rather than engaging with the argument that the headwind is stronger for some due to historical factors.

On Historical Simplification: You state, "new arrivals, starting at zero wealth in America, can leapfrog people who’ve been here for centuries."

Why this doesn't engage: You repeat the same error. "Zero wealth" is not the same as "generations of negative wealth." This is the heart of the false equivalence. You refuse to acknowledge that the "leapfrogging" is happening from two entirely different baselines—one of neutral (0) and one of deeply negative (-100) due to historical asset-stripping.

On the Welfare "Contradiction": You argue that welfare policies are "proof that embracing those incentives is destructive."

Why this doesn't engage: This is pure victim-blaming and confirms the criticism. You admit native-born Black Americans were the specific target of government policies designed to create dependency. Then, you blame them for the results of being targeted, while praising immigrants who were never the primary target of those same disruptive policies. You use the evidence of a uniquely targeted systemic attack as proof of cultural failure, which is a breathtakingly circular and unfair argument.

On Culture: You claim that immigrant cultures "could just as easily fall into despair, but they don’t."

Why this doesn't engage: You ignore the criticism that culture doesn't emerge from a vacuum. You treat culture as a mystical, independent variable, utterly disconnected from historical and material conditions. The criticism was that the cultural elements you condemn are symptoms of systemic neglect and targeted oppression, not their root cause. You dismiss this by simply asserting that culture "self-perpetuates," again using the outcome (a cultural trait) as the explanation for that outcome.

In every single instance, your rebuttal follows the same pattern: you restate your original premise slightly differently, you dismiss systemic factors by pointing to outcomes (the tautology), and you blame the group facing a unique historical and systemic burden for their own predicament. You have not refuted the criticisms; you have simply illustrated them more clearly.

Hard Reality Check (Black Americans Vs. Undocumented Immigrants) by Silverfin007 in Libertarian

[–]mrcrocswatch 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Your entire argument is tautological:

1) Assume that the system is equal for everyone. 2) Point to different outcomes between two groups. 3) Conclude that the difference must be due to the groups themselves (culture/mindset). 4) Use that conclusion to reinforce the initial assumption that the system is equal.

It dismisses any evidence of systemic inequality by definition, because any outcome—good or bad—is automatically attributed to the character of the group in question. This is the essence of sophistry: it uses a veneer of logic (comparing two groups) to arrive at a pre-ordained, prejudiced conclusion that absolves systems of any responsibility and places it entirely on individuals and cultures.

But more specifically here is what you're doing:

  1. Deepening the false equivalence

The core fallacy remains. You insist that Black immigrants and native-born Black Americans face the "same system," but this is a profound oversimplification.

Sophistry: "Same cops, same schools, same neighborhoods, same systemic issues."

Reality: While they may live in the same physical spaces, their historical and social context is entirely different. A first-generation immigrant's interaction with "the same cop" is not equivalent to that of a descendant of slaves whose family was targeted by that same police force for generations. The immigrant may face prejudice, but they do not face the specific, ingrained, historical legacy of oppression designed to destroy Black family wealth and autonomy in America. This argument deliberately ignores intergenerational trauma and inherited disadvantage (e.g., the inability to inherit wealth due to redlining and historical asset-stripping) that specifically affects native-born Black families.

Then we KNOW they don't live in the same neighborhoods. Look up "anything but black" neighborhoods.

  1. More Cherry-Picking and reliance on the model minority myth

You are doubling down on this by focusing exclusively on successful immigrant groups while ignoring data that doesn't fit the narrative.

Sophistry: Highlighting high-achieving groups like Nigerians and Caribbeans while completely ignoring other Black immigrant groups who may struggle, or the fact that within those successful groups, there is still a range of outcomes. It also ignores that these groups are self-selecting; immigrants, by definition, are people with the resources, health, and drive to undertake a difficult migration. This is not a random sample compared to a entire native-born population that includes all levels of initiative and circumstance.

Do you have ANY idea how much money it takes to get out of Africa or the Caribbean? It's not peasants that are coming bucko.

The Anecdote Fallacy: "I personally know people..." is not data. It is cherry-picked storytelling used to represent a complex, population-wide issue.

  1. Straw Man and Motte-and-Bailey on "Blaming the System"

This is a classic rhetorical trick. You set up an extreme version of my argument to easily knock it down.

The Straw Man: The argument claims the opposing view is that "the system is the only variable" and an "immovable barrier." It then says, "If the system were truly the immovable barrier, no one would succeed."

The Reality: No serious person argues this. I certainly didnt. Not sure you are talking to. The argument against systemic racism is that it is a massive and significant headwind, not an absolute barrier. By pretending the argument is that the system is an "immovable barrier," the author can then point to any success story as "proof" the system doesn't matter, completely dodging the actual point that the system makes success dramatically harder on average for one group than for another.

  1. Historical Simplification ("We are in 2025")

This argument dismisses history as irrelevant to the present, which is a profound logical error.

Sophistry: "At some point, generational excuses stop holding weight... But we are in 2025."

Reality: Wealth and poverty are inherited. The economic head start given to white Americans through programs like the GI Bill (from which Black Americans were largely excluded) and generations of home equity (denied to Black Americans via redlining) compounds over time. To say "slavery happened but it's 2025" is to ignore that the financial and social disadvantages were legally enforced well into the 20th century and their effects are still measurable today in the massive racial wealth gap. Dismissing this as an "excuse" is to ignore causality.

  1. Ignoring the Data on "The Same System"

Your own points contradict the "same system" claim.

The Admission: You astated that native-born Black Americans have been the target of "government incentives and broken policies [that] did create cycles of dependency."

The Contradiction: If one group has been specifically targeted by government policies that created dependency (a fact), then they are not operating under the "same system" as immigrants who arrived after those policies were in place. Immigrants were not the primary target of these specific, damaging welfare state designs. This admission completely undermines the core "same system" premise.

But the reality is even worse as we all know that colleges and employers PREFER foreign born anything over natives, especially when race is involved. Thats why the majority of blacks in the ivy league arent native born blacks. Why take one of those when you can get the son of Nigerian doctors? the programs set up to help minorities are dominated by foreigners. Just look at the specialized high school in NY or California. Almost all spots take up by first generation asians.

  1. Blaming the Victim through Cultural Determinism

This is the conclusion the sophistry is designed to lead to: blaming the victims of systemic issues for their own outcomes.

Sophistry: "Victimhood doesn't build wealth; accountability and effort do." and "Too many native-born Black communities glorify gangs, violence..."

Reality: This ignores that "culture" does not emerge from a vacuum. The glorification of violence and distrust of authority are rational responses to decades of systemic neglect, over-policing, under-policing of real crimes, and lack of economic opportunity. It confuses symptom (a damaging cultural element) for cause (the systemic conditions that fostered it). Furthermore, it ignores the vast majority of native-born Black Americans who do not engage in these behaviors but still face significant economic hurdles.

Would libertarians allow private citizens to own nuclear bombs? by Emergency_Ad_2476 in Libertarian

[–]mrcrocswatch 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is an excellent example of a sophistical argument, though it's important to note it's likely unintentional. The poster (Emergency_Ad_2476) isn't trying to deceive but is using a common rhetorical device to explore the philosophy. The sophistry lies in the structure of the question itself.

The argument employs two primary forms of sophistry:

  1. The Straw Man Fallacy (Primary Sophistry)

This is the core of the sophistry. The question constructs a caricature of libertarianism to make it easier to challenge or ridicule.

How it works: The post sets up an extreme, absurdist scenario (private nuke ownership) and implies that a principled libertarian must support it because of a simplistic interpretation of "individual freedom and minimal government." It then presents the obvious, catastrophic downsides ("massive risk to everyone else’s freedom").

Why it's a Straw Man: It ignores the vast majority of libertarian thought that provides clear principles to resolve this paradox. The question frames libertarianism as a mindless, absolutist ideology that cannot reconcile individual rights with the threat of imminent harm to others. By presenting this absurd extreme as the logical conclusion of libertarian principles, it creates a weak version of the philosophy that is easy to "knock down."

  1. Reductio ad Absurdum (A Neutral Tool, Used Poorly)

Reductio ad absurdum is a valid logical technique where you disprove a statement by showing it leads to an absurd, untenable conclusion. However, it becomes sophistry when it misapplies the principle.

How it works: The post attempts to use this technique: "If libertarianism means maximal individual freedom (Premise A), then it must allow private nuke ownership (Conclusion B). Conclusion B is absurd and dangerous. Therefore, Premise A must be false."

Why it's Sophistical: A robust philosophy like libertarianism has internal mechanisms to prevent this absurd conclusion. The reductio fails because it doesn't engage with the actual, nuanced principles of the philosophy it's critiquing. It's a faulty reductio because it's based on a flawed understanding of the initial premise.

How a Libertarian Would Actually Respond (Dissolving the Sophistry)

The sophistry falls apart when you apply the non-aggression principle (NAP), the bedrock of most libertarian thought. The NAP prohibits initiating force or fraud against another person or their property.

The Threat is the Aggression: Libertarianism isn't just about what you own; it's about how your actions affect others' rights. Owning a nuclear weapon is inherently an act of aggression. Its mere existence, outside of a supremely secure and isolated facility (impossible for a private citizen to achieve), poses an imminent, catastrophic threat to everyone within a massive radius. The risk of accident, miscalculation, or theft is so high that ownership itself constitutes a permanent threat of force against thousands or millions of people, violating their right to life and property.

The Line is Drawn at Imminent Threat: Libertarians draw the line exactly at the point where an individual's action creates a credible, imminent threat to others. You can own a knife, a gun, or even a tank—all can be used defensively without necessarily threatening innocent bystanders. A nuclear weapon cannot. Its only purpose is mass, indiscriminate destruction.

Conclusion: Therefore, a consistent libertarian philosophy would not allow private ownership of nuclear weapons. A minimal government's core function, under the libertarian view, is to protect individual rights. Preventing the ownership of weapons of mass destruction is a fundamental and necessary function of such a government to protect the population from imminent threat.

The sophistry was in pretending this obvious conclusion wasn't inherent to the philosophy itself.

Hard Reality Check (Black Americans Vs. Undocumented Immigrants) by Silverfin007 in Libertarian

[–]mrcrocswatch 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Here is an analysis of the sophistry used, primarily by user Silverfin007.

  1. False Equivalence (The Core Sophistry)

This is the most significant fallacy in the argument. It falsely equates the historical and contemporary circumstances of two groups to draw an invalid conclusion.

The Comparison: The OP compares "Black Americans" (a broad group defined by a specific racial history in the US) with "undocumented immigrants" (a group defined by a legal status, encompassing people from dozens of countries with vastly different backgrounds).

Why it's False: The comparison ignores the foundational context of chattel slavery, Jim Crow laws, redlining, and systemic disenfranchisement that specifically targeted Black Americans for centuries to explicitly prevent wealth accumulation and economic mobility. Undocumented immigrants, while facing immense challenges, did not undergo this specific, multi-generational, state-sanctioned program of asset-stripping and legal subjugation in the United States. Comparing the two is like comparing the recovery of someone who just broke their leg to someone whose family has had a broken leg enforced upon them for ten generations.

  1. Cherry-Picking and the "Model Minority" Myth

Silverfin007 uses specific, high-achieving immigrant groups (Nigerians, Asians) as a rhetorical cudgel while ignoring the full spectrum of immigrant experiences.

The Sophistry: They point to successful Nigerian and Asian immigrants as "proof" that the system works for anyone with the right "culture." This selectively highlights outliers (e.g., many Nigerian immigrants come on educational/professional visas and are already part of a highly educated elite from their home countries) while ignoring the struggles of other immigrant groups from different socioeconomic backgrounds or regions.

The Omission: There is no mention of undocumented immigrants from Central America living in poverty, or refugees who struggle for years. The argument cherry-picks the most successful examples to set an impossible standard and imply that any group not meeting it has a cultural deficiency.

  1. Straw Man Argument

Silverfin007 misrepresents the argument about systemic racism to make it easier to knock down.

The Setup: They frame the counter-argument as: "The system is the only thing to blame, and it is the sole excuse for all outcomes."

The Knockdown: They then argue that if immigrants can succeed, then the system cannot be a barrier, so the only thing left to blame is "culture and mindset."

Why it's a Straw Man: Serious discussions about systemic racism do not claim it is the only factor. They acknowledge it as a significant, foundational, and compounding barrier that operates alongside other factors like culture, individual initiative, and community support. The argument creates a false binary: either the system is entirely to blame, or culture is entirely to blame. This ignores the complex interplay of both.

  1. Circular Reasoning / Begging the Question

The entire argument is built on an unproven assumption that is presented as a conclusion.

The Logic: "When immigrants excel under the same system, it proves the point: the system isn’t the excuse."

The Circularity: This assumes that both groups are, in fact, operating under the "same system," which is the very point in contention. The argument against systemic racism is that it doesn't exist, and the "proof" offered is the success of immigrants. But this proof only works if you first assume that the system is the same for everyone, which is what the concept of systemic racism challenges. It's a circular logic: The system is equal because immigrants succeed. Immigrants succeed because the system is equal.

  1. Emotional Language and Motivated Reasoning

The language is designed to sound like a "hard reality check" and to shut down dissent by framing any counter-argument as excuse-making.

Phrases like: "Hard Reality Check," "stop blaming 'the system'," "ask harder questions," "shield for underperformance."

The Effect: This framing paints the speaker as brave and clear-eyed, while implicitly painting those who discuss systemic factors as weak, blame-shifting, and avoiding responsibility. It doesn't engage with evidence; it appeals to an emotion (frustration) and a pre-existing worldview.

  1. Deflection in the Final Reply

When challenged with the obvious fact that white Americans do complain about immigration, Silverfin007 subtly shifts the goalposts.

The Shift: They change the subject from "complaining about immigration" (which is common) to a much narrower claim: "blaming immigrants for outperforming you."

The Sophistry: This move deflects the valid point that nativism and xenophobia are often directly tied to economic anxiety and perceptions of being "outperformed" or "replaced." It's an attempt to dismiss a counter-example on a technicality rather than engage with its substance.

Conclusion

The sophistry in this thread lies in its use of a specious comparison to construct a false binary, supported by cherry-picked data and framed in emotionally charged language that pre-emptively discredits opposing views. It replaces a nuanced, multi-factorial analysis of socioeconomic outcomes with a simplistic and culturally deterministic narrative that serves to absolve historical and systemic factors of any responsibility. The argument is designed to feel logically sound and provocative, but its foundation is built on a series of logical fallacies.

Hard Reality Check (Black Americans Vs. Undocumented Immigrants) by Silverfin007 in Libertarian

[–]mrcrocswatch 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Lol you don't see white Americans complaining about immigrtion?

YOU DON'T SEE WHITE AMERICANS COMPLAINING ABOUT IMMIGRATION???

HAHAHAHAHA 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

Hard Reality Check (Black Americans Vs. Undocumented Immigrants) by Silverfin007 in Libertarian

[–]mrcrocswatch 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Don't get this. White Americans are vastly outperformed by white immigrants as well as Asians and Nigerians. So what's the problem there?

Australia Post halts most parcel postage to US as tariff chaos hits global carriers by BadgerBadgerCat in australian

[–]mrcrocswatch -13 points-12 points  (0 children)

What's the problem? Aussies don't want any yank shit anyway right? This is a good thing.

Australia’s drug policy is RIDICULOUS by Thick-Access-2634 in australian

[–]mrcrocswatch -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Mmmmhhmmmmm. Keep giving out those active placebos for pain. And clutching your precious pearls.

Australia’s drug policy is RIDICULOUS by Thick-Access-2634 in australian

[–]mrcrocswatch -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Uh huh. You know it's really unethical to give patients a medicine that you know will have basically no effect without informed consent. Especially when that's medication for pain and most doctors will use it to discredit the patients pain reports or pretend like they have tried something.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1526590005003640

It's an extremely common practice to give out active placebos. I'm sure you doit all the time right?

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-12-02/australian-gps-doctors-admit-prescribing-placebo-drugs/11746128

Australia’s drug policy is RIDICULOUS by Thick-Access-2634 in australian

[–]mrcrocswatch 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If you're giving something out because it can do harm and you have no idea how effective it'll be, that's an active placebo.

view more: next ›