3 ms·

> On the flip side, if everyone hates you equally you're probably on the right track. This is the false equivalence argument. Some argue that 5g spreads covid.

> On the flip side, if everyone hates you equally you're probably on the right track. This is the false equivalence argument. Some argue that 5g spreads covid. Some argue it doesn’t. You advocate both views and everyone hates you. Doesn’t make you right.

qmarchi 6y ago
So you're saying that 5G towers don't broadcast both COVID-19 _and_ 5G signaling? Why are there split bands then! /s
spuz 6y ago
What if you weight dislike by the number of people? There are surely more people who believe 5G doesn't cause COVID than those who do.
- hef19898 6y ago
  Propably wouldn't work, as the minority is much more liuder and active than the majority.
- pornel 6y ago
  Some myths and conspiracy theories are dangerously close to being believed by the majority of people: https://www.npr.org/2020/12/30/951095644/even-if-its-bonkers-poll-finds-many-believe-qanon-and-other-conspiracy-theories https://www.npr.org/2020/12/30/951095644/even-if-its-bonkers... so in the end you have to anchor this to some expertise and grounded-in-reality judgement. For example, the majority in the aforementioned poll believed that COVID-19 was created in a lab in China. And to be honest, an average person really has no way of truly knowing this. They're not virologists or spies. They can only judge based on a gut feeling whether China is/isn't evil, and that is likely based on other things they've heard, which may include rumors, propaganda and Bond movies.
atleta 6y ago
I haven't heard of the false equivalence before, but it doesn't sound like this. There is that popular fallacy though, but I'm not aware if it has a name, where people think that the truth is always in the middle (the golden middle). And you could say that this is it, but given the strong polarization and extremism around topics that involve politics it might be a good measure in this case. (Of course, depending on what exactly 'everybody' means.) By definition extremists of either side will see independent actors as hostile. But, of course, this is just a measure, not a proof.
- Can_Not 6y ago
  https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/middle-ground https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/middle-ground https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_to_moderation https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_to_moderation
beowulfey 6y ago
The umpire is not going to advocate for either stand in this metaphor. The umpire will restrict or disseminate information for both sides. If the umpire does so in a way that irritates both parties, then they are doing so equally. Thus why PC said this.

qmarchi 6y ago

So you're saying that 5G towers don't broadcast both COVID-19 _and_ 5G signaling? Why are there split bands then! /s

spuz 6y ago

What if you weight dislike by the number of people? There are surely more people who believe 5G doesn't cause COVID than those who do.

hef19898 6y ago
Propably wouldn't work, as the minority is much more liuder and active than the majority.
pornel 6y ago
Some myths and conspiracy theories are dangerously close to being believed by the majority of people: https://www.npr.org/2020/12/30/951095644/even-if-its-bonkers-poll-finds-many-believe-qanon-and-other-conspiracy-theories https://www.npr.org/2020/12/30/951095644/even-if-its-bonkers... so in the end you have to anchor this to some expertise and grounded-in-reality judgement. For example, the majority in the aforementioned poll believed that COVID-19 was created in a lab in China. And to be honest, an average person really has no way of truly knowing this. They're not virologists or spies. They can only judge based on a gut feeling whether China is/isn't evil, and that is likely based on other things they've heard, which may include rumors, propaganda and Bond movies.

atleta 6y ago

I haven't heard of the false equivalence before, but it doesn't sound like this. There is that popular fallacy though, but I'm not aware if it has a name, where people think that the truth is always in the middle (the golden middle). And you could say that this is it, but given the strong polarization and extremism around topics that involve politics it might be a good measure in this case. (Of course, depending on what exactly 'everybody' means.) By definition extremists of either side will see independent actors as hostile. But, of course, this is just a measure, not a proof.

Can_Not 6y ago
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/middle-ground https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/middle-ground https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_to_moderation https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_to_moderation

beowulfey 6y ago

The umpire is not going to advocate for either stand in this metaphor. The umpire will restrict or disseminate information for both sides. If the umpire does so in a way that irritates both parties, then they are doing so equally. Thus why PC said this.