4 ms·

First, I think the entire "liberal" v. "conservative" distinction does far more harm than good to productive public conversation. It causes people to pay more a

by leot 9y ago

First, I think the entire "liberal" v. "conservative" distinction does far more harm than good to productive public conversation. It causes people to pay more attention to where ideas come from rather than to the ideas themselves. Second, it is a kind of ad hominem fallacy to claim that there exists some kind of unspecified (and no doubt nefarious) "liberal agenda" to which advocates subscribe. Especially given that 97% of the US supports universal background checks, how can the o.p. be so sure that this is the product of a "liberal agenda" and not instead a sensible response to an epidemic-level problem? When people refuse to describe the entities they claim to exist (again: where and what is this "liberal agenda"?) there's good reason to be skeptical of both the people and the entities. Often it's scary packaging for something that's reasonable if you take the time to look at it.

reitanqild 9y ago
> First, I think the entire "liberal" v. "conservative" distinction does far more harm than good to productive public conversation. It causes people to pay more attention to where ideas come from rather than to the ideas themselves. You might have noticed already but in case anyone else didn't: yes, I partly agree with you on this (and I also to some degree think this behaviour is childish.) > Second, it is a kind of ad hominem fallacy to claim that there exists some kind of unspecified (and no doubt nefarious) "liberal agenda" to which advocates subscribe. It seems to me a majority of HN thinks Youtube is even more "liberal". > Especially given that 97% of the US supports universal background checks, how can the o.p. be so sure that this is the product of a "liberal agenda" and not instead a sensible response to an epidemic-level problem? Many of us (me included) would like more background checks etc. The problem for me is that a number of people see background checks only as a first small step towards banning guns. I think there is still room in USA for a European style collaboration between hunters, sports shooters and police. That would be a win-win. But as long as everyone with a brain can see a ratchet I guess enthusiasm will be limited in the NRA/2A camp.

by leot 9y ago

reitanqild 9y ago

> First, I think the entire "liberal" v. "conservative" distinction does far more harm than good to productive public conversation. It causes people to pay more attention to where ideas come from rather than to the ideas themselves. You might have noticed already but in case anyone else didn't: yes, I partly agree with you on this (and I also to some degree think this behaviour is childish.) > Second, it is a kind of ad hominem fallacy to claim that there exists some kind of unspecified (and no doubt nefarious) "liberal agenda" to which advocates subscribe. It seems to me a majority of HN thinks Youtube is even more "liberal". > Especially given that 97% of the US supports universal background checks, how can the o.p. be so sure that this is the product of a "liberal agenda" and not instead a sensible response to an epidemic-level problem? Many of us (me included) would like more background checks etc. The problem for me is that a number of people see background checks only as a first small step towards banning guns. I think there is still room in USA for a European style collaboration between hunters, sports shooters and police. That would be a win-win. But as long as everyone with a brain can see a ratchet I guess enthusiasm will be limited in the NRA/2A camp.