5 ms·

"Some arguments are valid and some conclusions true, regardless of the identity and motives of the one who argues them." Yes I know, "both sides", but this has

by gedy 6y ago

"Some arguments are valid and some conclusions true, regardless of the identity and motives of the one who argues them." Yes I know, "both sides", but this has been the biggest challenge I've had speaking with progressive friends. Unless I agree that someone's beliefs/opinions/arguments are totally invalid because who they are or who they voted for, I'm also part of the problem..

bsder 6y ago
> Unless I agree that someone's beliefs/opinions/arguments are totally invalid because who they are or who they voted for, I'm also part of the problem.. Look, we've got a bunch of people attacking the foundations of our democracy. If you voted with them, yeah, you've got a pretty steep climb to convince me that you're not part of the problem. "Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection."--Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.
- ithkuil 6y ago
  Somebody can be part of the problem and also be right about something. Call it "accidentally right" if you need to deprive them from the merit of being right. But let's not turn facts and logic into collateral damage of a fight that happens at a different level.
  - bsder 6y ago
    A stopped watch is correct twice a day--yet everybody would still throw it out.
    - ithkuil 6y ago
      Sure. But you won't say that it's not 8:30am when it's 8:30am just because a broken watch happens to say so. Humans care about reputation. Our trust in people is based a lot on past performance and what other people though about that past performance. Thus, we also find it dangerous to let people get away with being perceived as having competence on something where they don't have it, because they may in future capitalize on that and spread their wrong ideas and be believed because you conceded that they had competence in the past. However it cuts both ways. If you want to expose somebody's incompetence you surely don't want to behave in ways that are clearly dishonest and bending facts just to strip the other person of being accidentally right once or twice a day. That shortcut won't pay off. I've seen so many discourse between otherwise honest people derailed by this practice that is now so entrenched. Call out fallacies by all means. Give credit when credit is due and move on to attack arguments that are worth attacking.
- emerged 6y ago
  There isn’t a hill for people to climb, there’s a fortress you’re standing on top of with an assault rifle firing at them before they can say a word. The rise of this closed-off-to-discussion approach is legitimately dangerous.
  - bsder 6y ago
    You are judged by the company you keep. Supporting people who "Stand by and stand ready" is "legitimately dangerous." Supporting people who think kidnapping a governor is a good idea is "legitimately dangerous." Supporting people who think inciting violence is perfectly okay is "legitimately dangerous." Yeah, putting the supporters of such people in the "part of the problem" bucket is perfectly valid, thanks. The majority of people in Germany didn't really support gassing the Jews. However, the majority of people in Germany also didn't stand up and oppose it either--and that's why we consider them "part of the problem". “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” ― Edmund Burke
justin66 6y ago
It sounds less like a dispute about the objective validity or soundness of arguments, and more like a dispute about which side you’ve chosen in a conflict.

by gedy 6y ago

bsder 6y ago

> Unless I agree that someone's beliefs/opinions/arguments are totally invalid because who they are or who they voted for, I'm also part of the problem.. Look, we've got a bunch of people attacking the foundations of our democracy. If you voted with them, yeah, you've got a pretty steep climb to convince me that you're not part of the problem. "Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection."--Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.

ithkuil 6y ago
Somebody can be part of the problem and also be right about something. Call it "accidentally right" if you need to deprive them from the merit of being right. But let's not turn facts and logic into collateral damage of a fight that happens at a different level.
- bsder 6y ago
  A stopped watch is correct twice a day--yet everybody would still throw it out.
  - ithkuil 6y ago
    Sure. But you won't say that it's not 8:30am when it's 8:30am just because a broken watch happens to say so. Humans care about reputation. Our trust in people is based a lot on past performance and what other people though about that past performance. Thus, we also find it dangerous to let people get away with being perceived as having competence on something where they don't have it, because they may in future capitalize on that and spread their wrong ideas and be believed because you conceded that they had competence in the past. However it cuts both ways. If you want to expose somebody's incompetence you surely don't want to behave in ways that are clearly dishonest and bending facts just to strip the other person of being accidentally right once or twice a day. That shortcut won't pay off. I've seen so many discourse between otherwise honest people derailed by this practice that is now so entrenched. Call out fallacies by all means. Give credit when credit is due and move on to attack arguments that are worth attacking.
emerged 6y ago
There isn’t a hill for people to climb, there’s a fortress you’re standing on top of with an assault rifle firing at them before they can say a word. The rise of this closed-off-to-discussion approach is legitimately dangerous.
- bsder 6y ago
  You are judged by the company you keep. Supporting people who "Stand by and stand ready" is "legitimately dangerous." Supporting people who think kidnapping a governor is a good idea is "legitimately dangerous." Supporting people who think inciting violence is perfectly okay is "legitimately dangerous." Yeah, putting the supporters of such people in the "part of the problem" bucket is perfectly valid, thanks. The majority of people in Germany didn't really support gassing the Jews. However, the majority of people in Germany also didn't stand up and oppose it either--and that's why we consider them "part of the problem". “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” ― Edmund Burke

justin66 6y ago

It sounds less like a dispute about the objective validity or soundness of arguments, and more like a dispute about which side you’ve chosen in a conflict.