4 ms·

One problem with your nuance here is that this is the internet. Numbers mean basically nothing when one group with extreme views can then go 'alert' their echo

by rjf72 8y ago

One problem with your nuance here is that this is the internet. Numbers mean basically nothing when one group with extreme views can then go 'alert' their echo chamber to an 'incident.' Whether the only comment you receive is me or whether it's me and my 50,000 adherents should not sway you more or less. What should or should not sway you is the logic in what I say. And so too with Linus whether 10 people say something or a million people say something is nowhere near as relevant as what they say.

eropple 8y ago
"The logic in what [you] say" is part of it. Your humanity does, too. "That hurts me and you should stop" need not be "logical" to be deserving of respect.
- rjf72 8y ago
  Do you not intuitively see the problem with your argument? "You claiming women should be treated equally to men hurts me, you should stop." Do you care or respect this view? What if you consider the fact that there are hundreds of millions, if not billions, of people that would completely genuinely state and agree with the above? Does that somehow make it a more legitimate claim? Obviously not. This is precisely why logic is what matters. Appeals to emotion can be used to argue for great or awful things using the exact same language which ultimately makes the entire notion completely pointless. This is likely the reason the word pathetic has the etymology that it does. At the point one is appealing to emotion, they've long since lost the thread. I'd also add here that behind nearly all great travesties in history there was some charismatic leader who likely thought he was in the right, swaying people largely through appeals to emotion to his cause. And this is because emotion sidesteps the necessity of actually having to show that e.g. the people you are demonizing are actually bad.
  - eropple 8y ago
    I see the asserted problem. I discount it, in this very specific sphere, because at present the protests of "but the logics!" is acting as a sinecure for shitheads. Not empowering shitheads is more valuable to me than Emerson's foolish consistency. When the situation on the ground changes--and it hasn't yet, don't @ me--I will reevaluate my position, because my brain works and I do not feel tethered to immutable positions (on topics like this, at least).
    - rjf72 8y ago
      I fully respect the honest reply. That is surprising and refreshing. This is the point that most people begin to engage in mental gymnastics. The one thing I'd clarify is that I'm not critiquing what your opinion is. Everybody is entitled to their own perspective on issues, and like you implied many of those those views will, and should, change over time. Imagine if you held all the views you did when you were 16, or 20, or so on upwards, depending on your age. That'd be quite the underdeveloped individual! The only thing I'm critiquing is how you came to your view. It's a rationale that, as illustrated, leads to views you'd obviously never endorse. So should the views of masses of people mean something? Of course my opinion on this is clear, but I think if you want to argue that it does surely you must be able to find some form of logic or evidence to support the view. Alternatively, you might even focus on how Linus' behavior is likely harmful to himself. I think it's extremely likely that he changed his views not because he changed his actual view, but because he got tired of years of harassment because of his behavior. But of course such harassment is to be fully expected when you act like a dick. Catch more flies with honey than vinegar, and all that. I don't really agree with these notions, but they are at least reasonable and mostly logical.

by rjf72 8y ago

eropple 8y ago

"The logic in what [you] say" is part of it. Your humanity does, too. "That hurts me and you should stop" need not be "logical" to be deserving of respect.

rjf72 8y ago
Do you not intuitively see the problem with your argument? "You claiming women should be treated equally to men hurts me, you should stop." Do you care or respect this view? What if you consider the fact that there are hundreds of millions, if not billions, of people that would completely genuinely state and agree with the above? Does that somehow make it a more legitimate claim? Obviously not. This is precisely why logic is what matters. Appeals to emotion can be used to argue for great or awful things using the exact same language which ultimately makes the entire notion completely pointless. This is likely the reason the word pathetic has the etymology that it does. At the point one is appealing to emotion, they've long since lost the thread. I'd also add here that behind nearly all great travesties in history there was some charismatic leader who likely thought he was in the right, swaying people largely through appeals to emotion to his cause. And this is because emotion sidesteps the necessity of actually having to show that e.g. the people you are demonizing are actually bad.
- eropple 8y ago
  I see the asserted problem. I discount it, in this very specific sphere, because at present the protests of "but the logics!" is acting as a sinecure for shitheads. Not empowering shitheads is more valuable to me than Emerson's foolish consistency. When the situation on the ground changes--and it hasn't yet, don't @ me--I will reevaluate my position, because my brain works and I do not feel tethered to immutable positions (on topics like this, at least).
  - rjf72 8y ago
    I fully respect the honest reply. That is surprising and refreshing. This is the point that most people begin to engage in mental gymnastics. The one thing I'd clarify is that I'm not critiquing what your opinion is. Everybody is entitled to their own perspective on issues, and like you implied many of those those views will, and should, change over time. Imagine if you held all the views you did when you were 16, or 20, or so on upwards, depending on your age. That'd be quite the underdeveloped individual! The only thing I'm critiquing is how you came to your view. It's a rationale that, as illustrated, leads to views you'd obviously never endorse. So should the views of masses of people mean something? Of course my opinion on this is clear, but I think if you want to argue that it does surely you must be able to find some form of logic or evidence to support the view. Alternatively, you might even focus on how Linus' behavior is likely harmful to himself. I think it's extremely likely that he changed his views not because he changed his actual view, but because he got tired of years of harassment because of his behavior. But of course such harassment is to be fully expected when you act like a dick. Catch more flies with honey than vinegar, and all that. I don't really agree with these notions, but they are at least reasonable and mostly logical.