4 ms·
> This kind of post-facto justification for poor working conditions or wages needs a name, so it can be dismissed out of hand. This seems to capture the curren
by haberman 8y ago
> This kind of post-facto justification for poor working conditions or wages needs a name, so it can be dismissed out of hand.
This seems to capture the current intellectual zeitgeist very well. Once we name something, we can dismiss it without engaging it.
I was going to read the rest of your comment, but I decided it was "Jacobin whinging" so I realized I didn't have to.
- jnbiche 8y ago> I was going to read the rest of your comment, but I decided it was "Jacobin whinging" so I realized I didn't have to. But the rest of the comment supports the first part, which you seem to agree with. Plus, "Jacobin whinging", seriously? Advocating for a living wage is "Jacobin" now?
- haberman 8y agoI regret that my point may not have come across. I don't actually believe in pejoratively labeling any good-faith argument, and I would not actually use a label like "Jacobin whinging" in earnest. My point is: labeling something is not the same as refuting it.
- jnbiche 8y agoApologies, my irony meter is malfunctioning today. I read it twice but I'm so used to reading this serious comments similar to your sarcastic critique online these days, it didn't read as sarcasm.
- jasonm23 8y agoI like to say, the best thing about the Internet is the reasonable debate, and the accurate detection of sarcasm.
- memling 8y agoYou have an absolutely terrible assessment of the Internet.
- SmellyGeekBoy 8y agowhoosh
- u02sgb 8y agoOh the irony :)
- memling 8y agoYou know, I built an irony detector once...but it detected everything BUT irony.
- AlexandrB 8y ago> This seems to capture the current intellectual zeitgeist very well. Once we name something, we can dismiss it without engaging it. In the internet age, this is a necessity because the other pattern is the same claims repeated over and over again with the expectation that a comprehensive rebuttal must be provided each time. At some point you have to name the thing so it can be added as an entry to Wikipedia and move on. See also: how global warming denialists have an evergreen grab bag of false claims to pull from and expect a thesis-length answer to each one. Also, this is nothing new. Commonly referenced fallacies like tu quoque are a way of saying that the other person is arguing from shaky ground, and their argument does not need a complete rebuttal until they refine it a bit. In fact, the comment I was replying to can be considered a derivative of the just-world fallacy[1], substituting the hand of the free market for the kind of ephemeral karma that the original just-world fallacy implies. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-world_hypothesis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-world_hypothesis
- haberman 8y agoYour arguments are examples of the false equivalence fallacy. [1] Sorry but I don't have time to provide any more comprehensive of a rebuttal. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_equivalence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_equivalence (This is why I don't think labeling is a rebuttal.)
- isoskeles 8y agoPeople aren’t understanding what you’re doing, apparently. But I appreciate it.
- javajosh 8y agoI mean, I see what you're doing here, haha, but AlexanderB brings up a good point about asymmetrical debate, where one side says something sloppy, vague and poorly sourced and then expects you to "write a thesis" to rebut. Personally, I think this phenomena really does need a name, less to dismiss it, more to get lazy arguers to stop demanding high quality rebuttals (and at the very least to make the debate easier to walk away from). Fundamentally it's a kind of hypocrisy, but it needs a lyrical name. I like the pattern of naming a fallacy and then opting out that you're demonstrating, but a name could actually be useful. Indeed you could even term it a fallacy, the "vice demanding virtue" fallacy, or something like that.