CHaNGE my miNd
I am literally going to use this
Nice!! Share your results with us if you want to. B)
No
I agree that Crowder shouldn’t be a meme.
I also think that his meme “Change my mind” shouldn’t live on through Calvin. We can get the point across without keeping any of the Crowder-created bits.
What is the actual source of the image? I assumed all the text was unrelated. Did he really do a “change my mind” table?
yes the original text was “there are only 2 genders change my mind” if I’m remembering correctly
“Steven Crowder Does Not Deserve a Meme Format” deserves a meme format!
Make chowder of Crowder.
Then throw it in the bin.
Sure, I’ll play this game.
The premise of the convincing is loaded. No one deserves shit. Steven Crowder made the format famous and therefore he is attributed to it.
Whether or not the person is a piece of shit is irrelevant and ad hominem. If Hitler said 1 + 1 = 2, Hitler is right. You don’t get to deny that just because you hate the person. Shitty people can make correct statements and they can achieve things. Doesn’t matter which name we apply to it. We must be able to argue on the merits of the statement or format without sorting to personal feelings on the person, lest you become the one who is intolerant.
Main problem is: Steven Crowder did not make the meme. People made a meme out of him. There was no “format” - he wanted to be edgy and debate. Then, he became a meme. Nothing to take from, nor attribute to him.
However, I much prefer Calvin and never want to see anything related to Steven Crowder. And what was that about Hitler? …that…just…wow …
What correct statement are you even talking about how is that hypothetical relevant at all? Is a format a fact now?
The correct statement is that he popularized this format of “change my mind.” Therefore, the attribution goes to him.
Thank fuck there’s someone on this website that still has brains.
The way most people around here operate Good = smart and bad = dumb.
I think that’s the way most people operate anywhere, not just this website.
I feel like it’s the chronically online who have it worse.
I don’t know who the is; should I?
Satanism is this meme but as a religion.
Like in the way Satanism parodies christianity and does it better in every way?
Pretty much. Their whole identity is basically “not Christianity”. They don’t even worship Satan!
Hail Satan!
The difference is Satan is god and I am Satan. You can also be Satan it is not a parody… or it can be if you want it to be. 666
Does it help that I don’t know who Steve Crowder is? I suspect he’s done something bad if people don’t like him, but seeing as I don’t even know the guy, he can’t be that globally famous. So…I couldn’t care less about the guy 🤷♀️
What is the blue checkmark about?
I used to enjoy Steven Crowder but then after he attacked the Daily Wire who had been his friends and help him grow, Then offered him a deal to keep him going, I wrote him off.
He argued about the financial side of it, well hey this is a capitalist system. To be able to continue fighting and doing what we’re doing you have to make money. Obviously the Daily Wire would need to make money that’s almost ridiculous to even mention. He talks big but doesn’t really practice.
He’s winning that one clearly
Oh is that his name, steven crowder, are we trying to cancel steven crowder? whats did steven crowder do? steven crowder?
He’s a wife beater
Oh no someone I don’t like is in a meme format.
Why is it always a strawman with you people. Crowder is on video verbally abusing and degrading his wife, among the constant garbage hate, propaganda and misinformation he spews. He is a piece of shit and I could do without seeing his face. Even if you agree with his politics, he’s a sniveling smug asshole and has been a provocateur for years. I’ll take calvin any day
Do you not know what strawman means? There’s plenty of people in memes I don’t like, e.g. Zuckerberg, Alex Jones, etc. But I don’t demand they no longer be a meme because I don’t agree with them. Your life must be so taxing if you care so much about a silly meme format.
It is a strawman because you are clearly underselling the problem with Crowder and misrepresenting the point. It’s not just “I don’t like him”. It seems you care a lot more about this meme format than you let on.
That’s not a strawman. He’s on topic.
Underselling is not an attribute of strawman. And I’m not sure what he misrepresented.
If anything, your argument is an ad hominem. Why is verbally abusing and degrading his wife, an insult towards his character, relevant to what he said? He is a piece of shit. So? If you’re saying we should use Calvin because Crowder is piece of shit, you’re just proving @[email protected] 's point.
P.S. I’m sure I’m gonna get mega downvoted. Arguing with logic is apparently not a thing on the internet.
He is purposefully misrepresenting the argument being made and dismissing it. He is trivializing the actual point which is that Crowder is problematic beyond “I don’t like him”. He is dismissing a facile version of the actual problem, which is indeed a strawman. The subject is Crowder’s bad behavior (to put it mildly), which is manifested in his actions toward others as well as his other unsavory views.
“Piece of shit” is surely ad hominem – if I was addressing Crowder’s arguments and responding to him. But I am not. So, no, in this context, it is really not ad hominem.
My one and only point is that Crowder is a PoS (or shall we say “problematic” if that is more your speed) for many reasons, and I like the Calvin version better.
Dismissing claims based on a counter logic is how a proper arguments are formed. Once again, that is not a strawman. Strawman is a fallacy where they attack a different claim. He is not attacking a different claim in any way. Underselling and dismissing is not a strawman.
Misrepresenting it is, but if anything, you keep proving him right. You’re putting your feelings of Crowder, as a person, as the reasoning. In other words, someone you don’t like is a meme format. There is no misrepresentation here.
My only point here is that you have your fallacies wrong.
I appreciate the pedantry on this. Where is the logic? I’ll grant the meme didn’t make a specific claim, but I definitely did. If my claim is that Crowder has serious ethical violations and another dismisses my argument saying “You just don’t like him,” have they addressed my point? IMO they have taken an easier path by conflating my “feelings” with the more serious, actual point.
Take the example from Wiki:
Alice: Taking a shower is beneficial.
Bob: But hot water may damage your skin.
Bob attacked a non-existing argument: “Taking a hot shower is beneficial.”Note that the claim addressed is indeed related but is nonetheless a strawman.
While it is true I don’t personally like Crowder, that is not my point. I am saying that Crowder has said and done things that broach beyond a simple distaste. Perhaps that is debatable or one can disagree, but that isn’t what the other commenter is doing. They have painted my argument as purely emotional and trivial while not addressing the actual point.
Anyway, if that doesn’t convince you then I don’t think we’ll agree on this, which is fair enough.
Cheers
We must cleanse reality itself from people we don’t like. If someone has so much uttered one problematic world in the course of their lives, they’re a Nazi chud, they must be killed, and their memory damned.
Anything less and you may as well be genociding minorities.
Mmmm that’s the violent extremism in the name of tolerance I love. 💕 slay queen slay
