Not everything cam be reduced to 140 characters, nor should it be.

Look up the definition of 'strawman argument.' That is the very definition of what you just said. And it's pretty silly.

The point remains. Everything doesn't need to be condensed little blurbs. Real discussion doesn't happen.

[quote]The point remains. Everything doesn't need to be condensed little blurbs. Real discussion doesn't happen.[/quote]There is no point because you just strawmanned. Twice. I never said everything had to be in little blurbs. I said overcomplicating a point to try and make yourself seem smart, or make the argument seem more profound, just shows it isn't a good enough discussion to continue on its own merit. It's silly.

Short and direct. That's what you said, so I don't see how I have strawmanned you twice. There is no over complication, and I'm not trying to seem profound. In fact I tried to simplify it. I'm sorry if you don't like big words. Tough shit. If you think something that requires some explanation isn't worth discussing then your discussions must revolve around some pretty simple and mundane things.

[quote]That's what you said, so I don't see how I have strawmanned you twice.[/quote]You first said that you can't get this post under 140 characters. I never said you had to. That is a false representation of what I said. So there's the first strawman. The second is when you implied that I said everything has to be in ''little blurbs.'' Again, not what I said. I said unnecessarily complicating a post to try and make yourself seem smart or the post more intelligent just muddles it. And a post that has to be muddled to have discussion means it probably isn't a strong argument in the first place. So please, don't strawman. It's silly. Especially considering it can be done away with in a pretty quick explanation. [quote]There is no over complication, and I'm not trying to seem profound. In fact I tried to simplify it.[/quote]Let's take a randomly plucked part of the post. "Everyone is guilty of this to varying degrees. A demagogue will play to this be reinforcing this view, through supplying the ingroup with rhetoric that creates a confirmation bias." So you're going to tell me that this line was something you tried to simplify, and you did not in any way try to over complicate it. Yes? [quote] I'm sorry if you don't like big words. Tough shit.[/quote]Strawmanning again, and swearing isn't exactly making you look like the bees knees, here. [quote]If you think something that requires some explanation isn't worth discussing then your discussions must revolve around some pretty simple and mundane things.[/quote]Two things here. The first that you have strawmanned again. I never said that something requiring explanation isn't worth discussing. I said unnecessarily complicating a post to try and make yourself seem smart or the post more intelligent just muddles it. And a post that has to be muddled to have discussion means it probably isn't a strong argument in the first place. The second is that when you have to resort to insulting the person, you know you have nothing more of note to say. Just something to think about, mate.

You said [quote]short and direct.[/quote] another way of saying that is little blurbs. Which plays into societies current obsession with everything be 140 character statements. Don't play dumb, and don't play semantics. You're saying is that it's muddled so its irrelevant. The quoted sentence is from the OP is worded to say an exact thing, to limit the amount of incorrect interpretation, which is the opposite of muddled. The entire point of this thread is to [b][i][u]break down[/u][/i][/b] Demagoguery, not simply define it. So either you don't understand that or you just dont like the post. Either way, your complaint that it's too wordy doesn't make sense in the context of the thread. The thread is not even making an argument. It's an analysis, which uses precise language. It's not to make me seem smart, its to raise awareness of a topic. I don't care if you don't like swear words, don't be a dumbass and pretend to not understand the point. Also, you claiming I have strawmanned you every comment is in fact a strawman. Gg. Decent troll, but the fact I can tell you didn't read it ruins it.

Being short and direct in your sentences is not the same as 'short little blurbs.' Something can be hundreds of pages and still be short and direct. It's about getting the point across in the most direct and least confusing manner. As long as the topic is what requires that length, and not the author's wish to seem smarter than he is. That is not 'playing dumb' nor 'playing semantics.' That is you actually arguing for one of your posts that I am 'wrong' because your topic needs to be longer than a Twitter post. When, in fact, I,never once set that requirement. You are arguing against a point I never made and acting as if I did, and that is what Strawmanning is Next. You claim your sentence is already as simple as possible. Why not say, 'A demagogue will tell a group what it wants to hear to make them keep agreeing.' Just a quick example. You unnecessarily complicate it to the point where your meaning is confusing. Poor word choice aside, the fact I had to read that statement multiple times in order to paraphrase it means it is a poor statement. Because you did not simplify it, and the point was muddled not because the topic was confusing, but because you wrote it so poorly. Next. I do not care if you want to 'analyze' or make an argument. Either way it is very poorly written. And to say this isnt directly related to the thread topic... uh, obviously. This oa about how poorly it was written, not about the topic itself. That isnt something I'm arguing against. You're trying to create arguments to score points here which is silly. I am not sure why you brought that up. Next. Calling me a dumbass is rude, childish, and kind of defeats the purpose of you overcomplicating the post in the first place. Grow up there, mate. Finally, I did not in fact strawman you. That claim shows you don't understand what the word means. Read the definition again. 'I know you are and what am I' might have worked in school, but it doesn't really work as well online, mate.

And all that's your opinion.

That's a false dichotomy. Thanks for being an example.

As I said.