4 ms·

The parent comment proposes that Nazis as such are not the actual problem, that Nazis are merely an extreme case of typical in-group/out-group behavior, and tha

The parent comment proposes that Nazis as such are not the actual problem, that Nazis are merely an extreme case of typical in-group/out-group behavior, and that "21st century intellectuals" need to avoid all the badness of Nazis by being more aware of their own in-group biases. The first proposition is then not a non sequitur at all: it is simply a restatement of the original poster's view that certain people ought to be more aware of their in-grouping bias. Even if the proposal had not been explicitly limited to "21st century intellectuals," this explicitly calls for the differentiation of people into "those who are aware of their in-group bias" and "those who are not aware of their in-group bias." The point I made follows even more strongly from the explicit qualification of "21st century intellectuals": the original post is stating directly that 21st century intellectuals ought to act a certain desired way -- that is, forming an in-group with a certain sociall prescribed norm of belief. It indeed follows from this that not only all people who do not adhere to the "be aware of your in-group bias" proposal, but indeed all people who are not intellectuals, form an out-group. I believe this explanation of how my reprhasing correctly restates the original proposition adequately addresses the "straw man" point, as well.

hawkfish 11y ago
'The first proposition is then not a non sequitur at all: it is simply a restatement of the original poster's view that certain people ought to be more aware of their in-grouping bias.' No, it isn't a restatement. You make the (new) claim that "being more aware of one's own bias" creates another in-group, but it does not follow that this is your opponents position. You made no argument as to why this would be the case, either. 'Even if the proposal had not been explicitly limited to "21st century intellectuals," this explicitly calls for the differentiation of people into "those who are aware of their in-group bias" and "those who are not aware of their in-group bias."' This is your claim. Even if it was accepted (which I will do for the sake of argument), you did not make an argument on how this logically invalidates the original proposition, which merely calls for awareness and doesn't claim that in-grouping itself is to be avoided, or that it is avoidable at all. Your proposed in-group that mandates awareness of (various) in-group biases would also call for awareness about its own biases. This is not paradoxical, at all. 'I believe this explanation of how my reprhasing correctly restates the original proposition adequately addresses the "straw man" point, as well.' It does not. In your "straw man", you misrepresent your opponents view in quite strong terms, accusing them of "condemning" those who do not belong to an in-group that you (not your opponent) defined. This accusation holds no ground whatsoever.

hawkfish 11y ago

'The first proposition is then not a non sequitur at all: it is simply a restatement of the original poster's view that certain people ought to be more aware of their in-grouping bias.' No, it isn't a restatement. You make the (new) claim that "being more aware of one's own bias" creates another in-group, but it does not follow that this is your opponents position. You made no argument as to why this would be the case, either. 'Even if the proposal had not been explicitly limited to "21st century intellectuals," this explicitly calls for the differentiation of people into "those who are aware of their in-group bias" and "those who are not aware of their in-group bias."' This is your claim. Even if it was accepted (which I will do for the sake of argument), you did not make an argument on how this logically invalidates the original proposition, which merely calls for awareness and doesn't claim that in-grouping itself is to be avoided, or that it is avoidable at all. Your proposed in-group that mandates awareness of (various) in-group biases would also call for awareness about its own biases. This is not paradoxical, at all. 'I believe this explanation of how my reprhasing correctly restates the original proposition adequately addresses the "straw man" point, as well.' It does not. In your "straw man", you misrepresent your opponents view in quite strong terms, accusing them of "condemning" those who do not belong to an in-group that you (not your opponent) defined. This accusation holds no ground whatsoever.