3 ms·

His argument is that few people caring about something doesn’t mean that thing doesn’t matter.

tptacek 8y ago
Isn't that, like, an extremely banal observation? It doesn't mean it does matter either. Meanwhile: what was the point of comparing this situation to internment camps?
- PavlovsCat 8y ago
  Banally true, yes. > It doesn't mean it does matter either. Someone said something doesn't matter because "few people care", just one example of something that mattered and about which also "few people cared" refutes that reasoning. They're not making an argument, they're refuting one. edit: Another example would be Linus' announcement of Linux at the time. Few people cared, in contrast to the people who today find Linux extremely important, or depend on it without knowing. And there you go, I now made a "direct" (whatever that means) comparison between Linux and Japanese being put into concentration camps in the US, as well as a "direct" comparison between Linux and neo-nazis being deplatformed. The point matters more than the comparison used to make it.
  - TheSpiceIsLife 8y ago
    > The point matters more than the comparison used to make it. Only if we assume the soundbite it's just like when Japanese Americans were put in concentration camps didn't happen. The point could have been made without the comparison, by writing something like this: "Surprisingly few people cared" is a very poor metric to apply to a principle of rights and justice. And then we can discuss how social norms and the legal system interact, rather than have this conversation.
    - PavlovsCat 8y ago
      The complaint wasn't that it was worded poorly, but that a direct comparison was made at all, using kinda spooky language such as "It sounds suspiciously as if you're drawing a direct comparison" and "That can't possibly be an argument you really want to make.". English isn't my first language, even I had no problem understanding the intention of the words, and arguing against the "strongest plausible interpretation" is in the guidelines. > And then we can discuss how social norms and the legal system interact Personally I'm content with it being settled that "few people care" is an invalid argument.

Isn't that, like, an extremely banal observation? It doesn't mean it does matter either. Meanwhile: what was the point of comparing this situation to internment camps?

PavlovsCat 8y ago
Banally true, yes. > It doesn't mean it does matter either. Someone said something doesn't matter because "few people care", just one example of something that mattered and about which also "few people cared" refutes that reasoning. They're not making an argument, they're refuting one. edit: Another example would be Linus' announcement of Linux at the time. Few people cared, in contrast to the people who today find Linux extremely important, or depend on it without knowing. And there you go, I now made a "direct" (whatever that means) comparison between Linux and Japanese being put into concentration camps in the US, as well as a "direct" comparison between Linux and neo-nazis being deplatformed. The point matters more than the comparison used to make it.
- TheSpiceIsLife 8y ago
  > The point matters more than the comparison used to make it. Only if we assume the soundbite it's just like when Japanese Americans were put in concentration camps didn't happen. The point could have been made without the comparison, by writing something like this: "Surprisingly few people cared" is a very poor metric to apply to a principle of rights and justice. And then we can discuss how social norms and the legal system interact, rather than have this conversation.
  - PavlovsCat 8y ago
    The complaint wasn't that it was worded poorly, but that a direct comparison was made at all, using kinda spooky language such as "It sounds suspiciously as if you're drawing a direct comparison" and "That can't possibly be an argument you really want to make.". English isn't my first language, even I had no problem understanding the intention of the words, and arguing against the "strongest plausible interpretation" is in the guidelines. > And then we can discuss how social norms and the legal system interact Personally I'm content with it being settled that "few people care" is an invalid argument.