3 ms·

Agendas are like you-know-whats... everyone's got one. I wouldn't say I agree with them on everything but this is definitely on the sane side as agendas go, es

by api 8y ago

Agendas are like you-know-whats... everyone's got one. I wouldn't say I agree with them on everything but this is definitely on the sane side as agendas go, especially these days when vast numbers of people seem to have eaten the brown acid. They also deserve a bit of credit for being pretty up front with it.

CydeWeys 8y ago
Yeah, everyone has an agenda, and I find theirs particularly noxious. You can immediately see their agenda shining through in the linked article once you know what to look for, like how they defend a man who was fired from the Atlantic for advocating for the death penalty for women who get abortions, and poo-pooed the notion that his presence might make his female coworkers very uncomfortable. I don't know about you, but if one of my coworkers were calling for people like me to get the death penalty for doing something that was legal, I too would feel uncomfortable being around them.
- busterarm 8y ago
  So rather than debate the content of the article, you go for argumentum ad hominem instead? You should give pg's Hierarchy of Disagreement a look: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem#/media/File:Graham%27s_Hierarchy_of_Disagreement-en.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem#/media/File:Graham%...
  - CydeWeys 8y ago
    I'm literally debating the content of the article in the comment you replied to.
    - busterarm 8y ago
      You aren't debating their points, you're debating their motives, as does your top post. This is literally textbook ad hominem here.
      - CydeWeys 8y ago
        I can't help but notice the irony that all you're doing here is ad hominem against me, in an even purer form.
        writepub 8y ago
        Discussion here is not about the author's (supposed) background, or ulterior motive, it's about the merits of the issues specifically discussed in the article. It's best to focus on that
        jerf 8y ago
        Telling someone they are using ad hominem is a specific relevant criticism, not dismissing you because you are just an intrinsically bad person who has wrongthink. Ad hominem is something specific, not just a catchall for disagreement, despite the popularity of that interpretation.
        oh_sigh 8y ago
        How exactly does one call out an ad hominem without saying that a person is performing an ad hominem?
    - alehul 8y ago
      > I don't know about you, but if one of my coworkers were calling for people like me to get the death penalty for doing something that was legal, I too would feel uncomfortable being around them. The entirety of your root comment and the first paragraph of your comment afterwards seems to be ad hominem, while the above quote is not. I think your argument would be stronger if you had just commented with this sentence; it's a very fair position to have. While I'm empathetic to those who disagree with anything, and I think that we should try and increase the size of the Overton window wherever possible, advocating for the death penalty for an action that would apply to coworkers can absolutely, and understandably, create discomfort. Maybe enough to warrant the removal of that individual.
- haberman 8y ago
  Kevin Williamson is the child of an unplanned pregnancy. He was born a few months before Roe v Wade. He could easily apply your logic and say he's uncomfortable being around people who would advocate that he could have been killed before he was born. I don't agree with his position on this at all. But I especially disagree with the 2018 approach of deciding that we can't tolerate people who think differently from us, and that we have to banish them so we're not uncomfortable. If someone is going to physically harm you, or harass you, that is one thing. But we have to be able to tolerate differences of opinion. Pro-life people literally believe that millions of babies are being killed every year legally. It's a good thing they don't generally refuse to hire any pro-choice person on account of this.
alehul 8y ago
> They also deserve a bit of credit for being pretty up front with it +1 to this. It's impossible to write about anything without a basis of reasoning and accepted truths to start from, and to see it laid out offers a level of transparency rarely found. It also allows the reader to examine and critique the piece better. If I argued that we should do 'x' because it's better for humanity long-term, and you argued that we should do 'y' instead because it will create more happiness in the world, then our argument will devolve into which of our fundamental ideologies/metrics is "better," (humanity vs happiness), rather than whether 'x' or 'y' makes more sense from the agreed-upon agenda/ideology/metric.

by api 8y ago

CydeWeys 8y ago

Yeah, everyone has an agenda, and I find theirs particularly noxious. You can immediately see their agenda shining through in the linked article once you know what to look for, like how they defend a man who was fired from the Atlantic for advocating for the death penalty for women who get abortions, and poo-pooed the notion that his presence might make his female coworkers very uncomfortable. I don't know about you, but if one of my coworkers were calling for people like me to get the death penalty for doing something that was legal, I too would feel uncomfortable being around them.

busterarm 8y ago
So rather than debate the content of the article, you go for argumentum ad hominem instead? You should give pg's Hierarchy of Disagreement a look: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem#/media/File:Graham%27s_Hierarchy_of_Disagreement-en.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem#/media/File:Graham%...
- CydeWeys 8y ago
  I'm literally debating the content of the article in the comment you replied to.
  - busterarm 8y ago
    You aren't debating their points, you're debating their motives, as does your top post. This is literally textbook ad hominem here.
    - CydeWeys 8y ago
      I can't help but notice the irony that all you're doing here is ad hominem against me, in an even purer form.
      - writepub 8y ago
        Discussion here is not about the author's (supposed) background, or ulterior motive, it's about the merits of the issues specifically discussed in the article. It's best to focus on that
      - jerf 8y ago
        Telling someone they are using ad hominem is a specific relevant criticism, not dismissing you because you are just an intrinsically bad person who has wrongthink. Ad hominem is something specific, not just a catchall for disagreement, despite the popularity of that interpretation.
      - oh_sigh 8y ago
        How exactly does one call out an ad hominem without saying that a person is performing an ad hominem?
  - alehul 8y ago
    > I don't know about you, but if one of my coworkers were calling for people like me to get the death penalty for doing something that was legal, I too would feel uncomfortable being around them. The entirety of your root comment and the first paragraph of your comment afterwards seems to be ad hominem, while the above quote is not. I think your argument would be stronger if you had just commented with this sentence; it's a very fair position to have. While I'm empathetic to those who disagree with anything, and I think that we should try and increase the size of the Overton window wherever possible, advocating for the death penalty for an action that would apply to coworkers can absolutely, and understandably, create discomfort. Maybe enough to warrant the removal of that individual.
haberman 8y ago
Kevin Williamson is the child of an unplanned pregnancy. He was born a few months before Roe v Wade. He could easily apply your logic and say he's uncomfortable being around people who would advocate that he could have been killed before he was born. I don't agree with his position on this at all. But I especially disagree with the 2018 approach of deciding that we can't tolerate people who think differently from us, and that we have to banish them so we're not uncomfortable. If someone is going to physically harm you, or harass you, that is one thing. But we have to be able to tolerate differences of opinion. Pro-life people literally believe that millions of babies are being killed every year legally. It's a good thing they don't generally refuse to hire any pro-choice person on account of this.

alehul 8y ago

> They also deserve a bit of credit for being pretty up front with it +1 to this. It's impossible to write about anything without a basis of reasoning and accepted truths to start from, and to see it laid out offers a level of transparency rarely found. It also allows the reader to examine and critique the piece better. If I argued that we should do 'x' because it's better for humanity long-term, and you argued that we should do 'y' instead because it will create more happiness in the world, then our argument will devolve into which of our fundamental ideologies/metrics is "better," (humanity vs happiness), rather than whether 'x' or 'y' makes more sense from the agreed-upon agenda/ideology/metric.