4 ms·

That's a near-perfect example of what the GP was referring to with "...instead of catching the low hanging fruit, people counter with bike shedding style questi

That's a near-perfect example of what the GP was referring to with "...instead of catching the low hanging fruit, people counter with bike shedding style questions of 'is it really abuse?'" And while I get your point about circularity, it pretty much has to be that way. For example, if I threatened to stab a random person with a syringe, that would be abusive. If I threatened to stab my brother with a syringe, that's an inside joke from when we used to play "Battlefield Vietnam" together. Which is pretty much what the article was getting at when they talked about context mattering more than content.

sievebrain 10y ago
It's not "bike shedding". Bikeshed painting is a term for discussions where the outcome doesn't matter, often started to give management a feeling that they're in control and being involved. Pointing out that "abuse is whatever an abused person defines it as" is an argument built on quicksand is very much not bikeshedding.
- nstart 10y ago
  Well to be fair, I didn't say that abuse is fully defined by the abuse. Just that the abused have a fair amount of say. This is very different. Couple that with the statement of things that can be easily and objectively defined as abusive and we have a group of people who can easily be put in to an objectively defined bucket of abuse. This is the group that can further share their experiences which lets anyone who's willing to listen hard enough, to qualitatively identify/define how abuse is happening. Or at least attempt to.
yummyfajitas 10y ago
That's a near-perfect example of what the GP was referring to with "...instead of catching the low hanging fruit, people counter with bike shedding style questions of 'is it really abuse?'" Ok, in that case lets also catch the low hanging fruit of black men raping white women. And if you say "a black man asking out a girl who doesn't like him isn't rape" then you are guilty of bikeshedding. <- Spot the fallacy yet? If circularity is valid then as a victim I define names that start with "brei" to be harassment. You can tell I'm a victim because someone with a name starting with "brei" replied to me, which makes this valid. <- Spot the fallacy yet? Consider the possibility that if you can't prove your point without deliberately resorting to logical fallacies, that your point might be wrong.
- scott_s 10y ago
  I think you ignored breischl's point, which was about context mattering. That is, you can't treat the claim as a logical proposition alone in the universe.
  - yummyfajitas 10y ago
    I'm not disputing that context can provide information about an action, I'm disputing the need to use circular reasoning/appeals to emotion rather than clear objective principles.
- breischl 10y ago
  Yes, clearly one can construct ridiculous examples. On the other hand, one can also ignore clearly valid cases while trying to construct the perfect solution. Sometimes the real world involves solutions that are merely acceptable. Or even individual judgement calls - hence why we have judges and juries. But since you seem to think that there is a fully-cohesive, non-circular, objective way to judge what is harassment or abuse, please enlighten me as to what it is. If you fail to do so, then somebody will probably rape and kill your entire family. <-- Not abusive, because there isn't a peer-reviewed Theory of Abuse available. edit: Just for the hard-of-sarcasm, the last bit is to illustrate the ridiculousness of the argument, not an actual threat.
  - yummyfajitas 10y ago
    If I were calling on twitter to police the behavior of others, I would in fact try to come up with a meaningful definition of said behavior. But I'm not, so I won't.
    - breischl 10y ago
      Ah, so you'd just like distract everyone from the big, obvious problems by arguing endlessly over minor details without offering a solution to your objections, an idea about where one might find a solution, or even if a solution is possible. Which is exactly the bikeshedding that @nstart referred to about 6 posts ago. Thanks for yet another near-perfect example.

sievebrain 10y ago

It's not "bike shedding". Bikeshed painting is a term for discussions where the outcome doesn't matter, often started to give management a feeling that they're in control and being involved. Pointing out that "abuse is whatever an abused person defines it as" is an argument built on quicksand is very much not bikeshedding.

nstart 10y ago
Well to be fair, I didn't say that abuse is fully defined by the abuse. Just that the abused have a fair amount of say. This is very different. Couple that with the statement of things that can be easily and objectively defined as abusive and we have a group of people who can easily be put in to an objectively defined bucket of abuse. This is the group that can further share their experiences which lets anyone who's willing to listen hard enough, to qualitatively identify/define how abuse is happening. Or at least attempt to.

yummyfajitas 10y ago

That's a near-perfect example of what the GP was referring to with "...instead of catching the low hanging fruit, people counter with bike shedding style questions of 'is it really abuse?'" Ok, in that case lets also catch the low hanging fruit of black men raping white women. And if you say "a black man asking out a girl who doesn't like him isn't rape" then you are guilty of bikeshedding. <- Spot the fallacy yet? If circularity is valid then as a victim I define names that start with "brei" to be harassment. You can tell I'm a victim because someone with a name starting with "brei" replied to me, which makes this valid. <- Spot the fallacy yet? Consider the possibility that if you can't prove your point without deliberately resorting to logical fallacies, that your point might be wrong.

scott_s 10y ago
I think you ignored breischl's point, which was about context mattering. That is, you can't treat the claim as a logical proposition alone in the universe.
- yummyfajitas 10y ago
  I'm not disputing that context can provide information about an action, I'm disputing the need to use circular reasoning/appeals to emotion rather than clear objective principles.
breischl 10y ago
Yes, clearly one can construct ridiculous examples. On the other hand, one can also ignore clearly valid cases while trying to construct the perfect solution. Sometimes the real world involves solutions that are merely acceptable. Or even individual judgement calls - hence why we have judges and juries. But since you seem to think that there is a fully-cohesive, non-circular, objective way to judge what is harassment or abuse, please enlighten me as to what it is. If you fail to do so, then somebody will probably rape and kill your entire family. <-- Not abusive, because there isn't a peer-reviewed Theory of Abuse available. edit: Just for the hard-of-sarcasm, the last bit is to illustrate the ridiculousness of the argument, not an actual threat.
- yummyfajitas 10y ago
  If I were calling on twitter to police the behavior of others, I would in fact try to come up with a meaningful definition of said behavior. But I'm not, so I won't.
  - breischl 10y ago
    Ah, so you'd just like distract everyone from the big, obvious problems by arguing endlessly over minor details without offering a solution to your objections, an idea about where one might find a solution, or even if a solution is possible. Which is exactly the bikeshedding that @nstart referred to about 6 posts ago. Thanks for yet another near-perfect example.