3 ms·

I'm an expert in something, and I suspect that you are as well. I don't engage with every argument about my domain of expertise that I encounter, because it wou

I'm an expert in something, and I suspect that you are as well. I don't engage with every argument about my domain of expertise that I encounter, because it would be impractical to do so: I have a finite amount of time and energy, and when I make the contextual determination that the argument is especially ill-informed, or disingenuous, I choose not to engage with it, because I believe that my time and energy is better spent on other ends. I presume you do the same. Is that "just a way of giving yourself an excuse to not engage with opinions cloaked in the veneer of righteousness"? If I had infinite time and patience then yes, I would engage with all opinions. But I do not.

jerf 7y ago
It is reasonable not to want to engage with everything. It is not even possible to engage with everything. However, that particular paragraph of slurs is not a reasonable excuse to not engage with everything. That particular paragraph is indeed "just a way of giving yourself an excuse to not engage with opinions cloaked in the veneer of righteousness". Note that not having time to deal with everything in particular is not "cloaked in the veneer of righteousness"; it simply is a fact of life, not something that one can claim as either righteousness or weakness. The particular problem with that paragraph is the veneer of unearned righteousness it confers on the listener, not the lack of engagement. It is also not reasonable to expect people to change their minds by virtue of being insulted enough. I don't think I've ever seen that work once no longer in forced school environments, and even then it's a pretty darned weak persuasion technique, despite its enduring popularity.
- HuShifang 7y ago
  I think the very reason why the commenter used the example of anti-Semitism is precisely because, taken on its own terms, it is, a priori, an indefensible position. Refusing to engage with such positions isn't so much righteous as just plain right. And I agree that insults aren't generally effective, rhetorically, but was there any more than an implicit insult in said comment? And do we really want to worry so much about the hurt feelings of anti-Semites? (I don't think it's entirely fair to replace "anti-Semite" with "Republican" or "Democrat." FWIW I would, as an example, be happy to engage with people who held political positions opposed to mine in general, and concerning immigration in particular, in arguments concerning economic impact and so forth. But, if those people's arguments can be boiled down to axioms I don't share -- e.g., person X deserves the opportunity of living in the United States because they were born there, and person Y does not because they'd weren't -- then I would choose not to engage with them.)
  - jerf 7y ago
    'I don't think it's entirely fair to replace "anti-Semite" with "Republican" or "Democrat."' I'm not claiming it's "fair". I'm claiming the rhetoric still fits. Nothing about it was specific to "anti-Semites". I'd bet at least 5% of the people who read that would agree to the Republican one, if you could ask them, and I feel here on HN I'm being fairly conservative with that number. (Especially if we're specifically referring to politicians, and not the general rank and file, in which case I'm stroking my chin and eyeing the paragraph pretty seriously for both the Democrat and the Republican paragraph... but then, the common factor there is politician, rather than whatever specific platform is in play.) And what that rhetoric is is an excuse. If you don't want to engage, don't, but precisely by your lack of engagement you are in no position to judge anyone's true motives or whether they're just pulling your leg or whatever.

jerf 7y ago

It is reasonable not to want to engage with everything. It is not even possible to engage with everything. However, that particular paragraph of slurs is not a reasonable excuse to not engage with everything. That particular paragraph is indeed "just a way of giving yourself an excuse to not engage with opinions cloaked in the veneer of righteousness". Note that not having time to deal with everything in particular is not "cloaked in the veneer of righteousness"; it simply is a fact of life, not something that one can claim as either righteousness or weakness. The particular problem with that paragraph is the veneer of unearned righteousness it confers on the listener, not the lack of engagement. It is also not reasonable to expect people to change their minds by virtue of being insulted enough. I don't think I've ever seen that work once no longer in forced school environments, and even then it's a pretty darned weak persuasion technique, despite its enduring popularity.

HuShifang 7y ago
I think the very reason why the commenter used the example of anti-Semitism is precisely because, taken on its own terms, it is, a priori, an indefensible position. Refusing to engage with such positions isn't so much righteous as just plain right. And I agree that insults aren't generally effective, rhetorically, but was there any more than an implicit insult in said comment? And do we really want to worry so much about the hurt feelings of anti-Semites? (I don't think it's entirely fair to replace "anti-Semite" with "Republican" or "Democrat." FWIW I would, as an example, be happy to engage with people who held political positions opposed to mine in general, and concerning immigration in particular, in arguments concerning economic impact and so forth. But, if those people's arguments can be boiled down to axioms I don't share -- e.g., person X deserves the opportunity of living in the United States because they were born there, and person Y does not because they'd weren't -- then I would choose not to engage with them.)
- jerf 7y ago
  'I don't think it's entirely fair to replace "anti-Semite" with "Republican" or "Democrat."' I'm not claiming it's "fair". I'm claiming the rhetoric still fits. Nothing about it was specific to "anti-Semites". I'd bet at least 5% of the people who read that would agree to the Republican one, if you could ask them, and I feel here on HN I'm being fairly conservative with that number. (Especially if we're specifically referring to politicians, and not the general rank and file, in which case I'm stroking my chin and eyeing the paragraph pretty seriously for both the Democrat and the Republican paragraph... but then, the common factor there is politician, rather than whatever specific platform is in play.) And what that rhetoric is is an excuse. If you don't want to engage, don't, but precisely by your lack of engagement you are in no position to judge anyone's true motives or whether they're just pulling your leg or whatever.