Quote Originally Posted by rumox View Post
No Ganelon my point of discussion with you and Helz are different, you aren't the same person. My point with you and always has been is how you keep pushing away the slavery aspect of the civil war. You have done it since the beginning of the thread and you are still doing it.

>Abolishment was an undeniable Northern policy
>War is started over this policy

"Northerners didn't give a shit about slavery they just wanted to protect the union."

If you think the Northerners didn't give a shit about slavery what was the point of even taking the stance? You keep on trying to separate the slavery when you fucking can't, then you go off on a tangent. You can't chop away the driving factor of something and just look at the result. This is what I have been saying on the topic since I started commenting on it. I give up chasing you down all these rabbit holes you go down to dodge this.
This is a typical conservative/right wing method of arguing that I see all the time, especially with demagogues like Tucker Carlson and especially Ben Shapiro. They rapid fire a bunch of irrelevant, dubious, or even completely made-up points in an argument about anything such that they still come out the victor in an argument with someone who cares about integrity of facts and addressing points. It's impossible to address a plethora of irrelevant and often factually incorrect points when they're presented without evidence and you feel compelled to address each one with actual facts. It makes it such that, even if you conclusively argue against some of the points, you'll leave many unanswered and thus presumed true by others. Often, the person themselves isn't even lying, they've just fallen victim to the same tactic and they're parroting points that their favourite talking head has spoon fed them.

Many will also take a so-called "centrist" position where they spout whataboutisms and do both-sides arguments, but conveniently only in a way that benefits the side they argue for. You'll find these people arguing that, for example, Democrats are just as bad as Republicans for any given reason. But when a topic such as Hillary Clinton's emails or Obama's civilian drone strikes come up, you'll oddly find that these so-called centrists are completely missing. They won't hop in with their enlightened statements that, really if you think about it, both sides are bad because Trump and his family did exactly the same thing with their own private email servers, or that the drone war actually escalated under Trump. If anything, they'll shout from the rooftops about how these points further prove that liberals are just as bad as conservatives. These people are extremely dangerous because you can't spot them without knowing more about the person. They implicitly argue for one side by butting in with centrist arguments in defence of their own side, while letting anything that makes their side look good or the other side look bad slide. In principle, their arguments hold water a lot of the time, but they misrepresent themselves as being centrists when really they are very much for a specific side, which manifests in them muddying specific conversations and sowing discord among a specific group.

Once you're aware of these argument styles, you'll see them everywhere. It's quite worrying how often people fall victim to them.