• MF_COOM [he/him]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    91
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    I’ve been seeing so much of this specific style of “debunking” lately, where they debunk something no one has said or cares about but it’s close enough to the actual thing. It’s genuinely slippery af and seems really effective. Like whether it’s specifically Netflix that should be paying him royalties was never the point - it’s unjust that the owner of Paul’s labour continues to rake in cash without compensation.

    Another example I recently found of this is this USA Today fact check of whether Biden voted to overturn Roe v. Wade. (Spoilers: he fucking did.) Instead of fact-checking the actual claim they fact check whether he authored the bill himself lol, and then down in the seventh paragraph they say

    Biden did vote in favor of it in 1982, however.

    • AlexWIWA@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      30
      ·
      1 year ago

      It’s a debate tactic called “logic chopping” and it’s fucking annoying.

      • NewLeaf@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        1 year ago

        Thank you for giving me the name for that! It’s so fucking annoying and it’s all reddit type debate nerds do anymore.

        • AlexWIWA@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          11
          ·
          1 year ago

          Yeah I had to look it up a few years ago because I have a friend that does it. They laser in on one minor detail that wasn’t phrased correctly in order to distract from the overall point