3 ms·
> what is harder is presenting a superior alternative. ...and the OP doesn't even try. Instead he asserts his privilege by asking others to justify themselves
by notacoward 9y ago
> what is harder is presenting a superior alternative.
...and the OP doesn't even try. Instead he asserts his privilege by asking others to justify themselves and their actions to him individually according to his framing and questions. Does he even ask, for example, about the other culture(s) at play here, racists and sexists and so on pulling in the other direction? Surely understanding them is just as important, but that would be inconvenient. No, only one group has to be completely transparent and explicit and specific, while others remain free to roam around the rhetorical battleground changing claims however/whenever it suits them.
This doesn't seem to be about understanding. It's a delaying tactic. Keep people busy answering an endless series of questions and objections, so they can't spend that time doing anything else. It's not like we haven't seen this before. It even has a name: sea-lioning. To the author: show some evidence that you've tried to educate yourself before you expect others to do it for you.
- Pilfer 9y ago>It's a delaying tactic. Keep people busy answering an endless series of questions and objections, so they can't spend that time doing anything else. It's not like we haven't seen this before. It even has a name: sea-lioning. Something I find quite amusing is you accuse the author of sea-lioning while you blatantly do so in the rest of the thread https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15029410 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15029410 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15029531 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15029531
- notacoward 9y agoYes, it's very amusing that I deliberately put the shoe on the other foot. I even explicitly pointed out that I was doing it. Some people recognize their own bad behavior much more readily when it's reflected back to them. There, now you're all caught up.
- Pilfer 9y agoBut the author isn't sea-lioning, you're the only one doing it. @civilian explains why in a followup comment. Sea-lioning yourself reflects badly on you and makes it hard to take your other comments seriously. You admit half your comments here are troll comments, so why should readers take your other comments seriously? > I even explicitly pointed out that I was doing it It's not clear to anyone reading the thread. You never explicitly point out you are doing so.
- civilian 9y agoThe accusation of sea-lioning is ridiculous. Alex wrote in his blog, he's not pestering someone on twitter. All he's done is committed a thoughtcrime for questioning. :-] I have friends who are social-justicey and I've read a lot online, and it continually feels like Social Justice is just an extended application of marxism. (I.e. there are some disadvantaged groups, and it's because the system, so take down the system by any means necessary!!) And Marxism itself suffers from being more of a critcism than offering an alternative moral system. http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/09/13/book-review-singer-on-marx/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/09/13/book-review-singer-on-m... I'm telling you so that you know that I've done the research. And I hear you, I also get the feeling that mainstream political discourse is just different camps shouting out eachother's most obvious flaws. And our last election was a _perfect example of that_. When surveyed for why someone was going to vote Trump/Clinton, the most common answer was: "Well they're not Clinton/Trump!!". [citation needed] But like, where do we go from there? We just can't talk to eachother because the other side is just trying to fuck with us? We gotta keep trying. Even if AlexRohde is not asking questions in good faith, you've got a chance to win over the audience.
- notacoward 9y ago> The accusation of sea-lioning is ridiculous. Alex wrote in his blog, he's not pestering someone on twitter. OK, it's not quite sea-lioning, but it's similar in effect - and, I still strongly suspect, in spirit. The asymmetry of one person asking dozens of questions, without much context or any hint of their own answers (except where those are evident from the leading nature of the questions), is a poor basis for dialog. If you want to engage with someone, there has to be give as well as take. Anyone who has tried to find common ground on a contentious topic before is likely to realize that. I guess I should just assume Alex doesn't have such experience. > Even if AlexRohde is not asking questions in good faith, you've got a chance to win over the audience. Indeed, that's a good point. I do so all the time, here and elsewhere. It's important. However, the "please fill out form ABC" format is a terrible way to do that. When the best outcome is a very small increase in understanding and the more likely outcome is an exercise in goalpost-chasing, I'll pass. I'd rather save my energy to persuade people of the points I consider important, in a less biased frame, with some interactivity thrown in.