General butthurt & pc faggotry etc

[Cementimental]

don't care what anyone says, if you asked me to draw that antisemitic meme character from memory in MS paint you'd basically get what behringer put on there :D That's their problem, not mine or anyone else pointing out the similarity

[Andrew McIntosh]

I suppose I can see a couple of similarities, if I were looking for similarities. But I'm as familiar as anyone else with that Jewish caricature, and if I'd seen the Behringer thing before reading about this affair, I would not have picked it as a copy, intentional or not. Doesn't even look like the chap they're trying to take the piss out of, either. It's petty, but it's hardly offensive.

Overreactions from everyone, really.

[tiny_tove]

don't care what anyone says, if you asked me to draw that antisemitic meme character from memory in MS paint you'd basically get what behringer put on there :D That's their problem, not mine or anyone else pointing out the similarity

I love you my friend ah ah

[tiny_tove]

this is the most complete article on the Behringer affair. Even motherboard attempted to draw the attention on the subject. I contacted the journalist  of motherboard and she did not reply.

https://www.musictech.net/news/11-things-need-know-history-behringer-peter-kirn/?utm_source=hootsuite&utm_medium=&utm_term=&utm_content=&utm_campaign=

[Yrjö-Koskinen]

I'd take a balanced position here, after making at least quick-google sure that Kirn isn't an obvious disgusting shill. His criticism in the original articles weren't that aggressive, and didn't say anything new as far as I can tell. Considering that Behringer doesn't exactly hide their cloning habits, I can't even see why they took notice to begin with. Behringer could simply have ignored it, or perhaps made a curt reply. At the very worst they could have done the hilarious pedal meme without the copyright bullshit.

In total, my opinion is that any talk of the dangers of anti-semitic pedal decorations is too stupid to even be discussed, but trying to copyright someone's name - "spite-copyrighting" seems to sum it up - is not legit behavior coming from a major company towards a single dude. I say this despite the fact that I am quite sure that the entire mob ganging up on Behringer (at least the parts of it that are concerned with the artwork of the peda memel) is completely fine with any sort of harassment against people they dislike, and can all go fornicate themselves with whatever pedals they prefer to this one. Despite that, I think it's a sound principle to limit the power of companies to exert pressure on single individuals, and that Behringer went overboard here. Not that "journalists" have or should have any claim what so ever to special protection , but despite all evidence to the contrary I believe they can still be classified as individuals.

[tiny_tove]

in fact. we have two separate issues:

- this poor guy saying things that many think and getting attacked in a creative way
- the antisemitic farce used as an excuse to damage Berhinger. As said, Pinocchio is no Shylock. It's easy to call a Kraut a Nazi if you want to hurt him. The whole world will confirm.

it is a loose lose situation

[Cementimental]

Don't worry, the whole thing has gone down the memory hole and everyone's moved on to posting handwashing guides with 'hilarious' inappropriate song lyrics added

[PuddysJacket]

oh no that's terrible are all the white supremacists going to be ok?

slippery slopes. I hope a chinaman coughs in your mouth

[Cementimental]

A slippery slope argument (SSA), in logic, critical thinking, political rhetoric, and caselaw, is often viewed as a logical fallacy[1] in which a party asserts that a relatively small first step leads to a chain of related events culminating in some significant (usually negative) effect.[2] The core of the slippery slope argument is that a specific decision under debate is likely to result in unintended consequences. The strength of such an argument depends on the warrant, i.e. whether or not one can demonstrate a process that leads to the significant effect. This type of argument is sometimes used as a form of fearmongering, in which the probable consequences of a given action are exaggerated in an attempt to scare the audience.

[aububs]

not giving a shit about white supremacists is a slippery slope to drinking diseased phlegm

[host body]

oh no that's terrible are all the white supremacists going to be ok?

slippery slopes. I hope a chinaman coughs in your mouth

china pretty much has the epidemic under control. europe or america, not so much.

[GEWALTMONOPOL]

Also, Dude, Chinaman is not the preferred nomenclature.

[Yrjö-Koskinen]

Virtually every political and social change (violent revolutions included) has been begun with, often even fully accomplished through, a "slippery slope". The assertion that it is a logical fallacy makes no sense.

[deutscheasphalt]

It is by definition a logical fallacy since the assumed consequence cannot be established in a logical argument.
However this other dude just used it as a buzzword to make himself look intelligent for something that doesn't contain a slippery slope argument at all.

[Yrjö-Koskinen]

When people point out logical fallacies it is almost always an expression of hypocrisy, but many logical fallacies (straw man, ad hominem, even reductio ad hitlerum), can theoretically be avoided by all parties. You don't HAVE to call your leftie buddie a communist, you CAN argue all relevant points with a MAGA hat dude without bringing up Hitler. If you're discussing concrete political or social predictions, I'm not so sure you can avoid the slippery slope argument as comfortably. At least no-one ever does.

"Slippery slope" arguments can certainly be discarded as fallacies in philosophy class or Rhetoric 101, but how would you discuss the relationship between current decisions and events and the future without them? One of the more famous arguments against Trump from the Left is that he will, or at least wants to, create a White Supremacist 50's America, much like the boomer argument against Obama was that he would make America more Islamic (or something, I don't care about these things). These are indeed stupid arguments, but only because we know that Trump isn't much of a "white racist", and that Obama was a secular capitalist shill with a bit of Scandinavian polish on him. The arguments, however, are not "illogical" or "fallacious" in any politically meaningful sense, and we can well formulate adult and even rational alternatives to them. Say "If Trump Tweets and says that NATO and the US will not defend the Baltic states unless they pay their full NATO dues, this will strengthen the geopolitical position of Russia". This is clearly "slippery slope" stuff - perhaps Putin will resign and personally head up the next Moscow Pride Parade out of sheer gratitude simply because Trump said he wouldn't back up Estonia, who knows? It's still a potentially relevant argument in a political discussion on Trump's public statements, and must be refuted with something else than wikipedia references.

To put it simpler:
"If you shoot heroin ten times a week there's a real possibility you will become a heroin addict and live in a shoe."
"SLIPPERY SLOPE ARGUMENT!"

Indeed it is - almost nothing in the realm of manifest reality and time follows logically from anything else - but the argument is still a very pertinent to the question of whether you should be shooting heroin regularly or not. Pure logic doesn't always interact well with reality, even if I agree that it is clearly the superior realm of those two.