4 ms·

Without commenting on whether I agree or disagree with anything in the article itself, I do find the rhetorical sleight-of-hand curious: the writer is effective

• microcolonel 6y ago
  How exactly are you supposed to make the argument that somebody else's argument is valid without explaining that argument? What you're asking for here is a basically a Tweet: “I mean, maybe they're not wrong.”
  • wk_end 6y ago
    Is it really "someone else's argument" though? If you change the framing a little bit there's no reason this article couldn't have been titled "We Should Start to Think About Ending the Shutdown" or something. But if it had been titled that, most people who don't already agree would just write it off immediately. It's clear the framing was chosen to appear more reasonable and neutral in order to target those a little more open-minded or on the fence, to sneak past the out-grouping that leads people to dismiss the other side instinctively. That's not even really a criticism, given how polarized and partisan political discourse is; it's smart rhetoric. So to answer your question directly: you can explain the argument without uncritically recapitulating it. The latter is what this essay does, which is why I think the idea that it's "someone else's argument" is a front. For comparison, this [1] article showed up here a while ago. The authors repeatedly made clear that they disagreed with the skeptics, that they had "consensus views", that they weren't trying to Trojan horse a contrarian argument in under the guise of a call for open-mindedness and debate. That essay has flaws, and maybe it's naive, but I got the genuine sense when reading it that the authors were being forthright and earnest. I think they succeeded at making the case for the validity and worthwhileness of someone else's argument without looking like they're endorsing it. [1] https://www.statnews.com/2020/04/27/hear-scientists-different-views-covid-19-dont-attack-them/ https://www.statnews.com/2020/04/27/hear-scientists-differen...
• lux 6y ago
  There's still a valid point in there that we should take the underlying need seriously, not the proposed solution of reopening. For example, a solution could be as simple as America financially supporting its citizens like other countries have done, reducing the desperation that's causing the pressure to reopen sooner than they likely know is safe. Don't make it a lesser of two evils choice in the first place. Reminds me of something I read on here about assuming a strong man version of people's arguments instead of a straw man one. Maybe they're knowingly protesting because they believe those are the only choices they have.
  • microcolonel 6y ago
    > For example, a solution could be as simple as America financially supporting its citizens like other countries have done Money is not nutritious when eaten.
    • AnimalMuppet 6y ago
      I believe the parent's point is this: We need an economy that produces a certain amount of stuff - food, water, electricity, fuel, healthcare. We can't just make that stuff appear by moving or printing money, we have to actually produce the stuff. Now, I know, that was the idea behind "critical infrastructure" - we had to keep those things running, even if we shut down everything else. But the longer we shut down, I suspect the more things we find that are critical. (Made up example: Water is critical, so water treatment is critical, so the chemicals used are critical, so the ingredients to manufacture them are critical, so certain kinds of mining are critical, so eventually mining machinery is critical.)
      • microcolonel 6y ago
        It turns out the majority of things people work on are a critical and fragile component of the supply chain of an essential good or service.
    • ceejayoz 6y ago
      > Money is not nutritious when eaten. Neither is an empty cupboard, which a lack of money can lead to.