6 ms·

> reassuring to see more writing that fails to see all sides of every debate equally valid I'm not passing judgement on this particular case; but that's a comp

by girvo 11y ago

> reassuring to see more writing that fails to see all sides of every debate equally valid I'm not passing judgement on this particular case; but that's a complete fallacy. "All sides" of every given debate are _not_ equally valid in all cases, and in certain cases it is disingenuous to imply that they are. > regardless of consensus opinion among experts in the relevant fields I can't understand this opinion? Could you clarify what you mean, because from what I'm reading, it seems you're implying that someone who is uneducated in a given topic's "side" in a debate is as equally valid as someone who is? That seems incorrect to me on the face of it, but I'd love some clarification, because it's likely I've missed some nuance here

rz2k 11y ago
I wasn't clear. Instead: >reassuring to see more writing that refuses to see all sides of every debate as equally valid Treating "balance" like an implicit good is garbage. News organizations should have editors with enough judgement, and courage, to choose which arguments merit airtime. There's a difference between silencing your opponents, and refusing to give airtime to people when you can't even decide whether they are ignorant or pursuing some unstated agenda. I don't think there are many, if any, industry experts who believe that a policy mandating weaker encryption wouldn't cause far, far more harm than good. And yet, it seems like most of the time we see these trainwrecks proceed, with coverage portraying both sides as equally valid and advocates for both as acting in good faith.
- girvo 11y ago
  > Treating "balance" like an implicit good is garbage. News organizations should have editors with enough judgement, and courage, to choose which arguments merit airtime. There's a difference between silencing your opponents, and refusing to give airtime to people when you can't even decide whether they are ignorant or pursuing some unstated agenda. I completely agree, and thanks so much for clarifying; I hope I didn't come across as snarky!
TheSpiceIsLife 11y ago
> it seems you're implying that someone who is uneducated in a given topic's "side" in a debate is as equally valid as someone who is? That seems incorrect to me on the face of it That's a pretty good argument against democracy.
- jakub_h 11y ago
  > That's a pretty good argument against democracy. If you pardon a certain amount of sarcasm, it may seem like one to uneducated people. But I don't think democracy should be equated to dictatorship of optimality. Likewise, personal freedoms are also not about only being allowed to do those things that have the best outcomes.
- studentrob 11y ago
  Not really. Democracy is about having the right to an education. It's about free speech and allowing both good and bad ideas to be discussed openly so that we can all decide together which are good and which are bad. Without the power of voice and vote combined together, you don't get the combined strength of a collective conscience. Just because some people who have unpopular ideas have the same value and power (one vote, one voice) as other people does not mean that the bad ideas get implemented. Actually, it is almost by definition that a democracy yields ideas with which most of the country agrees. It's not perfect in practice because we can't all be informed and vote on everything, but I believe in the States it is nearly as close as you can get.

by girvo 11y ago

rz2k 11y ago

I wasn't clear. Instead: >reassuring to see more writing that refuses to see all sides of every debate as equally valid Treating "balance" like an implicit good is garbage. News organizations should have editors with enough judgement, and courage, to choose which arguments merit airtime. There's a difference between silencing your opponents, and refusing to give airtime to people when you can't even decide whether they are ignorant or pursuing some unstated agenda. I don't think there are many, if any, industry experts who believe that a policy mandating weaker encryption wouldn't cause far, far more harm than good. And yet, it seems like most of the time we see these trainwrecks proceed, with coverage portraying both sides as equally valid and advocates for both as acting in good faith.

girvo 11y ago
> Treating "balance" like an implicit good is garbage. News organizations should have editors with enough judgement, and courage, to choose which arguments merit airtime. There's a difference between silencing your opponents, and refusing to give airtime to people when you can't even decide whether they are ignorant or pursuing some unstated agenda. I completely agree, and thanks so much for clarifying; I hope I didn't come across as snarky!

TheSpiceIsLife 11y ago

> it seems you're implying that someone who is uneducated in a given topic's "side" in a debate is as equally valid as someone who is? That seems incorrect to me on the face of it That's a pretty good argument against democracy.

jakub_h 11y ago
> That's a pretty good argument against democracy. If you pardon a certain amount of sarcasm, it may seem like one to uneducated people. But I don't think democracy should be equated to dictatorship of optimality. Likewise, personal freedoms are also not about only being allowed to do those things that have the best outcomes.
studentrob 11y ago
Not really. Democracy is about having the right to an education. It's about free speech and allowing both good and bad ideas to be discussed openly so that we can all decide together which are good and which are bad. Without the power of voice and vote combined together, you don't get the combined strength of a collective conscience. Just because some people who have unpopular ideas have the same value and power (one vote, one voice) as other people does not mean that the bad ideas get implemented. Actually, it is almost by definition that a democracy yields ideas with which most of the country agrees. It's not perfect in practice because we can't all be informed and vote on everything, but I believe in the States it is nearly as close as you can get.