3 ms·

> otherwise why they are using a Shanghai-based startup for their voice backend platform? Is there a term for this form of argument? Like where someone makes a

> otherwise why they are using a Shanghai-based startup for their voice backend platform? Is there a term for this form of argument? Like where someone makes a rhetorical question after seeding the answer? Its like creating a false dilemma, where one intentionally removes non-binary choices for their own agenda, but its not quite a false dilemma yet, except after someone responds about how weak this form of argument is by presenting second, third and fourth reasons that were outside of the boundaries of the question but inside the boundaries of reality.

acheron9383 6y ago
Seems like begging the question, they assume it is a CCP honeypot and then push the false dichotomy with the voice back end? *edit s/video/voice/
darkteflon 6y ago
There is huge power in knowing the name of a thing, isn’t there. Reminds me of a Wittgenstein quote: "The limits of my language mean the limits of my world.”
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
swebs 6y ago
I believe the term is called "debate". You're just assuming the question is rhetorical, but I don't think that's true.
188201 6y ago
I would admit it was actually not a proper form of argument and a constructive way to form a discussion. However, there is a real dilemma right here. If a company is going to use a technology from an adversarial country that could potentially harming oppressed people, it could potentially be a PR disaster. The bigger question right here is why startup culture works so successfully. The purpose of a VC Startup assumes to create a product to expand the marketshare to the world eventually. And it was based on the assumption of globalization. In a world where it was less polarized to politics opinion and enjoy the economical growth and appreciation of new tech. A entrepreneur who neglect geo-politics could do pretty fine in this environment. With the rise of sharp power of China, the question is not so straightforward. Hollywood company faced China's influence by banning content that is not favorable to China, in order to get access to China's market. Airline companies were threatened by China to not referring Taiwan as country otherwise a boycott to those airline. If a company just comply to China's request or threat, then they could potentially piss off Taiwan and Hong Kong customers, and potentially losing other countries in the free world if the PR was too bad. However, they don't comply, then they could potentially lose access to China's market. It is difficult to be neutral and not taking side, because of the polarization of both parties. Not taking side was potentially the worst option which would piss off both side because both thinks the company does not stand for their value. It is just a extension of this underwater war. The take right here is if a startup is intended to be used by the world, the owner may need to be prepared for unintentionally pissing off a potential group of customers because of not understanding sensitive geo-polictics issue.
- vmception 6y ago
  The American and Western market has sensibilities too even if they dont come from the government the user experience is the same. Try disagreeing with Isreali domestic and foreign policy and doing business in any industry in the West, especially Hollywood. You have to censor. Deciding that China’s gatekeeping is worse just because it comes the government is where we lose a lot of possibility of introspection from people.
188201 6y ago
On retrospective, is it just another form of this technique? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transfer_(propaganda) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transfer_(propaganda)
- vmception 6y ago
  This is interesting, glad to see the retrospective, this technique does seem similar

acheron9383 6y ago

Seems like begging the question, they assume it is a CCP honeypot and then push the false dichotomy with the voice back end? *edit s/video/voice/

darkteflon 6y ago

There is huge power in knowing the name of a thing, isn’t there. Reminds me of a Wittgenstein quote: "The limits of my language mean the limits of my world.”

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

swebs 6y ago

I believe the term is called "debate". You're just assuming the question is rhetorical, but I don't think that's true.

188201 6y ago

I would admit it was actually not a proper form of argument and a constructive way to form a discussion. However, there is a real dilemma right here. If a company is going to use a technology from an adversarial country that could potentially harming oppressed people, it could potentially be a PR disaster. The bigger question right here is why startup culture works so successfully. The purpose of a VC Startup assumes to create a product to expand the marketshare to the world eventually. And it was based on the assumption of globalization. In a world where it was less polarized to politics opinion and enjoy the economical growth and appreciation of new tech. A entrepreneur who neglect geo-politics could do pretty fine in this environment. With the rise of sharp power of China, the question is not so straightforward. Hollywood company faced China's influence by banning content that is not favorable to China, in order to get access to China's market. Airline companies were threatened by China to not referring Taiwan as country otherwise a boycott to those airline. If a company just comply to China's request or threat, then they could potentially piss off Taiwan and Hong Kong customers, and potentially losing other countries in the free world if the PR was too bad. However, they don't comply, then they could potentially lose access to China's market. It is difficult to be neutral and not taking side, because of the polarization of both parties. Not taking side was potentially the worst option which would piss off both side because both thinks the company does not stand for their value. It is just a extension of this underwater war. The take right here is if a startup is intended to be used by the world, the owner may need to be prepared for unintentionally pissing off a potential group of customers because of not understanding sensitive geo-polictics issue.

vmception 6y ago
The American and Western market has sensibilities too even if they dont come from the government the user experience is the same. Try disagreeing with Isreali domestic and foreign policy and doing business in any industry in the West, especially Hollywood. You have to censor. Deciding that China’s gatekeeping is worse just because it comes the government is where we lose a lot of possibility of introspection from people.

188201 6y ago

On retrospective, is it just another form of this technique? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transfer_(propaganda) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transfer_(propaganda)

vmception 6y ago
This is interesting, glad to see the retrospective, this technique does seem similar