4 ms·

Engaging with those who don't like the idea is a fool's errand, because a lot of these people will just cherry-pick whatever objection they can think of in bad

Engaging with those who don't like the idea is a fool's errand, because a lot of these people will just cherry-pick whatever objection they can think of in bad faith. And even in good faith, people who don't like the idea all have different reasons. Start with the root axiom "Slavery is wrong", people will be happy to engage with you on that. Disregard them and move on to the next syllogism, you'll have a different set of people objecting. One thing that might be helpful, if I'm in favor and you're opposed, then maybe identify one obstacle - it can be as big as you wish - where if resolved, you'd be in favor of reparations. Then maybe that is worth engaging with.

generalizations 6y ago
> One thing that might be helpful, if I'm in favor and you're opposed, then maybe identify one obstacle - it can be as big as you wish - where if resolved, you'd be in favor of reparations. Then maybe that is worth engaging with. On the contrary; if I represent the status quo and you represent a new idea, the onus is on you to defend it. It's your responsibility. Put it out there. Say exactly what your thesis is, and back it up, and defend it. Sunlight is the best disinfectant - anything about your ideas that are indefensible will be shown to be so, and what's left will be gold. To make my point via reductio ad absurdum, let's flip the script and use something hyperbolic: you represent the status quo, and I represent (heaven forbid) some new variation of racial cleansing. But, I declare to those opposed, "engaging with those who don't like the idea [of racial cleansing] is a fool's errand, because a lot of these people will just cherry-pick whatever objection they can think of in bad faith." So, I say to you, the skeptical defendent of the status quo, if you don't like the idea of racial cleansing, "then maybe identify one obstacle - it can be as big as you wish - where if resolved, you'd be in favor of [exterminating a race]." To me, flipping your proposition on its head like that makes it pretty obvious that it's unsatisfactory as the starting point of an intellectual discussion. It even tends to beg the question: you've made your position the 'null hypothesis'. The status quo should be the null hypothesis. > And even in good faith, people who don't like the idea all have different reasons. Start with the root axiom "Slavery is wrong", people will be happy to engage with you on that. Disregard them and move on to the next syllogism, you'll have a different set of people objecting. Yes, exactly. Your job is to answer every set of people who don't like your idea. Just because you believe that this new thing is moral and right does not make it so, and it is the acme of hubris to distain to justify your proposed actions.
- tunesmith 6y ago
  The onus is not necessarily on me to convince you. Reasoned arguments exist to convince people, but there isn't any sense in expecting to convince 100% of people, including my racist drunk Uncle Harry. The bar you're setting with "Your job is to answer every set of people who don't like your idea," is essentially saying that change should not happen at all unless there is unanimous acceptance.

generalizations 6y ago

> One thing that might be helpful, if I'm in favor and you're opposed, then maybe identify one obstacle - it can be as big as you wish - where if resolved, you'd be in favor of reparations. Then maybe that is worth engaging with. On the contrary; if I represent the status quo and you represent a new idea, the onus is on you to defend it. It's your responsibility. Put it out there. Say exactly what your thesis is, and back it up, and defend it. Sunlight is the best disinfectant - anything about your ideas that are indefensible will be shown to be so, and what's left will be gold. To make my point via reductio ad absurdum, let's flip the script and use something hyperbolic: you represent the status quo, and I represent (heaven forbid) some new variation of racial cleansing. But, I declare to those opposed, "engaging with those who don't like the idea [of racial cleansing] is a fool's errand, because a lot of these people will just cherry-pick whatever objection they can think of in bad faith." So, I say to you, the skeptical defendent of the status quo, if you don't like the idea of racial cleansing, "then maybe identify one obstacle - it can be as big as you wish - where if resolved, you'd be in favor of [exterminating a race]." To me, flipping your proposition on its head like that makes it pretty obvious that it's unsatisfactory as the starting point of an intellectual discussion. It even tends to beg the question: you've made your position the 'null hypothesis'. The status quo should be the null hypothesis. > And even in good faith, people who don't like the idea all have different reasons. Start with the root axiom "Slavery is wrong", people will be happy to engage with you on that. Disregard them and move on to the next syllogism, you'll have a different set of people objecting. Yes, exactly. Your job is to answer every set of people who don't like your idea. Just because you believe that this new thing is moral and right does not make it so, and it is the acme of hubris to distain to justify your proposed actions.

tunesmith 6y ago
The onus is not necessarily on me to convince you. Reasoned arguments exist to convince people, but there isn't any sense in expecting to convince 100% of people, including my racist drunk Uncle Harry. The bar you're setting with "Your job is to answer every set of people who don't like your idea," is essentially saying that change should not happen at all unless there is unanimous acceptance.