3 ms·

I downvoted OP because "Well they did it too." is a BS defense. I would hope that some more substantive comments would appear above that here. Let's "raise t

I downvoted OP because "Well they did it too." is a BS defense. I would hope that some more substantive comments would appear above that here. Let's "raise the bar" of debate.

ttt0 6y ago
Well, that's just how it is. Every election cycle one side will use the tactics of the other side and everyone will call each other hypocrites for it. As a result no one's mind is changed and nothing gets done besides normalizing the worst behaviors and tactics, like violence and censorship.
dahfizz 6y ago
I don't think that is a very charitable reading of this conversation. The topic of the post is career / financial implication of voting against the certification of elections. I think fleshing out exactly what that means is an important part of the "debate", as you say. I don't think pointing out that Democrats voted against certification in 2004 is a defense of what Trump and the Republicans did in any way. I think its an important clarifying point in deciding how we want to treat voting against certification. Crying whataboutism is a very tempting way to avoid nuance. I see a lot of people propose dramatic, sweeping action. When the consequences and implications of those actions are brought up, everyone cries whataboutism. > We should defund all politicians who vote against certification > Voting against certification is a normal thing that people from both parties have done, maybe we should come up with better criteria? > How dare you bring up $PartyA, I only want to talk about $PartyB
- carapace 6y ago
  FWIW I think the overall conversation is well worth having, I was tone-policing a specific comment. > I think its an important clarifying point in deciding how we want to treat voting against certification. > Crying whataboutism is a very tempting way to avoid nuance. I see a lot of people propose dramatic, sweeping action. When the consequences and implications of those actions are brought up, everyone cries whataboutism. Two things: #1) I pretty much agree with you. #2) Aren't you avoiding nuance when you employ rhetorical devices like "everyone cries". (FWIW, I'm not decrying "whataboutism" above, I'm tone-policing. It's also an odious practice, and I feel a little low and preachy doing it, but WTF, let's go ahead and try to have the nuanced and informed conversion if we can, eh, yo?) I feel like it's on all of us to take a deep breath and step back from the drama. We have shared values and common ground. Instead of shouting on Twitter and in the streets, let's talk. FWIW I know of a few formal methods for communication that seem to hold promise, I'll mention NVC ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonviolent_Communication https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonviolent_Communication ) and E-Prime ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-Prime https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-Prime ).

I downvoted OP because "Well they did it too." is a BS defense. I would hope that some more substantive comments would appear above that here. Let's "raise the bar" of debate.

ttt0 6y ago

Well, that's just how it is. Every election cycle one side will use the tactics of the other side and everyone will call each other hypocrites for it. As a result no one's mind is changed and nothing gets done besides normalizing the worst behaviors and tactics, like violence and censorship.

dahfizz 6y ago

I don't think that is a very charitable reading of this conversation. The topic of the post is career / financial implication of voting against the certification of elections. I think fleshing out exactly what that means is an important part of the "debate", as you say. I don't think pointing out that Democrats voted against certification in 2004 is a defense of what Trump and the Republicans did in any way. I think its an important clarifying point in deciding how we want to treat voting against certification. Crying whataboutism is a very tempting way to avoid nuance. I see a lot of people propose dramatic, sweeping action. When the consequences and implications of those actions are brought up, everyone cries whataboutism. > We should defund all politicians who vote against certification > Voting against certification is a normal thing that people from both parties have done, maybe we should come up with better criteria? > How dare you bring up $PartyA, I only want to talk about $PartyB

carapace 6y ago
FWIW I think the overall conversation is well worth having, I was tone-policing a specific comment. > I think its an important clarifying point in deciding how we want to treat voting against certification. > Crying whataboutism is a very tempting way to avoid nuance. I see a lot of people propose dramatic, sweeping action. When the consequences and implications of those actions are brought up, everyone cries whataboutism. Two things: #1) I pretty much agree with you. #2) Aren't you avoiding nuance when you employ rhetorical devices like "everyone cries". (FWIW, I'm not decrying "whataboutism" above, I'm tone-policing. It's also an odious practice, and I feel a little low and preachy doing it, but WTF, let's go ahead and try to have the nuanced and informed conversion if we can, eh, yo?) I feel like it's on all of us to take a deep breath and step back from the drama. We have shared values and common ground. Instead of shouting on Twitter and in the streets, let's talk. FWIW I know of a few formal methods for communication that seem to hold promise, I'll mention NVC ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonviolent_Communication https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonviolent_Communication ) and E-Prime ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-Prime https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-Prime ).