3 ms·

> I don't think the devil needs any more advocates, tbh, and I kind of wish people would stop refusing to take responsibility for the arguments they put forth b

> I don't think the devil needs any more advocates, tbh, and I kind of wish people would stop refusing to take responsibility for the arguments they put forth by hedging in that way. my kneejerk reaction is that I kind of hate this mindset. people should be allowed to consider whether there is any internal logic to the opposing position without actually committing to it. at the same time, I have come to agree that devil's arguments in favor of an already dominant position can be harmful in broader discourse. if you already have a representative sample of american voices, for instance, there's no need to make the american status quo's argument for it. but this conversation is taking place on hacker news, where I daresay the consensus is opposed to palantir and other companies working with law enforcement. in this case, the devil's argument is actually the minority position, and I do feel it adds to the discussion. when you spend most of your time in filter bubbles that cater to positions you already hold, it's easy to end up only engaging with strawman versions of the outside world.

_petronius 6y ago
> but this conversation is taking place on hacker news, where I daresay the consensus is opposed to palantir and other companies working with law enforcement I don't share your confidence of that assessment, but it would warm my heart to think so. > people should be allowed to consider whether there is any internal logic to the opposing position without actually committing to it. I'm gonna stand by this one, I think, and disagree with you, although I think I see where you're coming from. What I see a lot more than testing for internal logic of a position is people advancing their sole, or only substantial discussion point, with the "devil's advocate, but" position. If a consistency test is what you're after, you can attempt to perform an explication of someone else's position without advocating that position yourself, and without accidentally advocating it by presenting it unchallenged. If I can omit the "devil's advocate" disclaimer and it still reads as a position earnestly advanced by the writer, then they are not playing at anything, they are making a real argument.
kayfox 6y ago
In warfare one of the common aphorisms is "know thy enemy" and I think this is very much lost on many people these days. So often I see people fighting against some thing without any understanding of how that thing works or why its that way. So they end up fighting some badly drawn caricature, and many of their arguments end up being unsound as they reflect the caricature and not the opponent. This is especially disappointing in politics, where at times in the past political dealing was centered around achieving a consensus, these days it seems to be based more around wielding power and whatever tricks are needed to get the thing to stick. Unsurprisingly since the opposite side has nothing to get them to stick to the plan, if they get into power they try to wipe it out. So, I think understanding your enemy puts you in a position to make strategic choices to lock them into a path that achieves your goals and makes it hard for them to block them. So, with all the caveats about looking into abysses and fighting monsters, we should understand our enemies.

_petronius 6y ago

> but this conversation is taking place on hacker news, where I daresay the consensus is opposed to palantir and other companies working with law enforcement I don't share your confidence of that assessment, but it would warm my heart to think so. > people should be allowed to consider whether there is any internal logic to the opposing position without actually committing to it. I'm gonna stand by this one, I think, and disagree with you, although I think I see where you're coming from. What I see a lot more than testing for internal logic of a position is people advancing their sole, or only substantial discussion point, with the "devil's advocate, but" position. If a consistency test is what you're after, you can attempt to perform an explication of someone else's position without advocating that position yourself, and without accidentally advocating it by presenting it unchallenged. If I can omit the "devil's advocate" disclaimer and it still reads as a position earnestly advanced by the writer, then they are not playing at anything, they are making a real argument.

kayfox 6y ago

In warfare one of the common aphorisms is "know thy enemy" and I think this is very much lost on many people these days. So often I see people fighting against some thing without any understanding of how that thing works or why its that way. So they end up fighting some badly drawn caricature, and many of their arguments end up being unsound as they reflect the caricature and not the opponent. This is especially disappointing in politics, where at times in the past political dealing was centered around achieving a consensus, these days it seems to be based more around wielding power and whatever tricks are needed to get the thing to stick. Unsurprisingly since the opposite side has nothing to get them to stick to the plan, if they get into power they try to wipe it out. So, I think understanding your enemy puts you in a position to make strategic choices to lock them into a path that achieves your goals and makes it hard for them to block them. So, with all the caveats about looking into abysses and fighting monsters, we should understand our enemies.