4 ms·

The problem with this line of thought is that some of the "crazies at the edge" in the past are the sensible, moderate ideas that you no doubt hold right now. F

The problem with this line of thought is that some of the "crazies at the edge" in the past are the sensible, moderate ideas that you no doubt hold right now. For example, viewing slavery as an evil institution was considered the "crazies at the edge" opinion in the early-mid 1800s in the US, as opposed to the dominant opinion among "sensible" abolitionists that slavery was personal sin that requires a redemption process (like drinking). In some cases, this change of sentiment can take only a couple decades: See opinion polling on gay marriage or weed legalization. This is why both-sides-ing or argument to moderation is not really a useful or convincing rhetorical device.

toyg 5y ago
Both you and parent are right, but you have to acknowledge that extremists and totalitarians do exist.
- krastanov 5y ago
  "you have to acknowledge that extremists and totalitarians do exist" is a cheap rhetorical device to sneak in "both sides are the same" fallacies. Yes, of course there are crazies in any political movement, demographic, subculture, or other group. Elevating these crazies to the first thing mentioned when discussing the actual substance of the beliefs of a group is silly at best, but more frequently it is simply a dishonest distraction. This is not a slippery slope (also typically a fallacy in practice).
  - eloff 5y ago
    To be clear, I'm not saying both sides are the same - that's a value judgment. But it's obviously not a one side is right and the other is wrong situation either.
  - michaelpb 5y ago
    Yeah, exactly! It's also simply not a useful type of statement even when made in good faith. It assumes all issues fit on scales. For example, there are people today who call themselves feminists, and have extremely different views about LGBTQ+ rights compared to others who call themselves feminist (notably around the BTQ+ part). I really don't know who is the more "extreme", since that implies that I am referencing an agreed upon "center" which these positions differ from, and that simply doesn't exist. There is no agreed upon "center" for anything. Both claim to be feminists, and claim the other side is wrong, and neither would consider the other either more "extreme" or more "centrist". This is just one example, but I would argue that this holds true in nearly every case: Reducing something to a scale with "extremes" on each side mostly just shows how the speaker perceives other positions and is otherwise not very useful. CS stuff: IMO a better mental model would be non-Cartesian. Perhaps a weighted graph, where the vertices are ideologies (or, to be more granular, people), and the edge-weights represent some fuzzy metric of overlap of beliefs.
  - betwixthewires 5y ago
    I think that it is just as important to talk about the extremes and the bad ideas as it is to talk about the good ones. We bring up the extremes because they're there, and they can be tempting, and so we should warn each other about them. Saying what you're saying usually (but not always) is an attempt to not address the usually perfectly reasonable point one is responding to without outright defending the extremes. Extreme ideas do need to be pointed out precisely to do what you want: prevent the reasonable discussion from becoming one between two extremes.
    - krastanov 5y ago
      You are completely right in the appropriate context: when talking about ideology A we should consider more than just its most standard version. But when comparing ideology A and ideology B, focusing on the extremes of ideology A while considering only the middle ground of ideology B (what happened in this thread) is more or less whataboutism.
eloff 5y ago
Nothing about what I said means that values are static over time or that the balance can't shift. It's true that today's crazies at the edge might be tomorrows center - although I find that thought troubling! But make no mistake, the extremes at both ends harbor dangerous crazies. In politics, while the evils of the right are obvious and dangerous, the evils of the left are much more seductive but have been just as dangerous this past century (think fascists vs communists). On gender issues, the incels are clearly unhinged. But so are the extreme feminists.
- eloff 5y ago
  Just an aside, I've noticed that anything I post criticizing the right gets me upvotes on HN. Anything criticizing the left is much more controversial. I wonder how HN leans as a whole? I view myself as left of center, but not left enough by the standards of this community. I just find that interesting.
  - michaelpb 5y ago
    I've have had the opposite observation, probably has a lot to do with whoever is in the particular thread

toyg 5y ago

Both you and parent are right, but you have to acknowledge that extremists and totalitarians do exist.

krastanov 5y ago
"you have to acknowledge that extremists and totalitarians do exist" is a cheap rhetorical device to sneak in "both sides are the same" fallacies. Yes, of course there are crazies in any political movement, demographic, subculture, or other group. Elevating these crazies to the first thing mentioned when discussing the actual substance of the beliefs of a group is silly at best, but more frequently it is simply a dishonest distraction. This is not a slippery slope (also typically a fallacy in practice).
- eloff 5y ago
  To be clear, I'm not saying both sides are the same - that's a value judgment. But it's obviously not a one side is right and the other is wrong situation either.
- michaelpb 5y ago
  Yeah, exactly! It's also simply not a useful type of statement even when made in good faith. It assumes all issues fit on scales. For example, there are people today who call themselves feminists, and have extremely different views about LGBTQ+ rights compared to others who call themselves feminist (notably around the BTQ+ part). I really don't know who is the more "extreme", since that implies that I am referencing an agreed upon "center" which these positions differ from, and that simply doesn't exist. There is no agreed upon "center" for anything. Both claim to be feminists, and claim the other side is wrong, and neither would consider the other either more "extreme" or more "centrist". This is just one example, but I would argue that this holds true in nearly every case: Reducing something to a scale with "extremes" on each side mostly just shows how the speaker perceives other positions and is otherwise not very useful. CS stuff: IMO a better mental model would be non-Cartesian. Perhaps a weighted graph, where the vertices are ideologies (or, to be more granular, people), and the edge-weights represent some fuzzy metric of overlap of beliefs.
- betwixthewires 5y ago
  I think that it is just as important to talk about the extremes and the bad ideas as it is to talk about the good ones. We bring up the extremes because they're there, and they can be tempting, and so we should warn each other about them. Saying what you're saying usually (but not always) is an attempt to not address the usually perfectly reasonable point one is responding to without outright defending the extremes. Extreme ideas do need to be pointed out precisely to do what you want: prevent the reasonable discussion from becoming one between two extremes.
  - krastanov 5y ago
    You are completely right in the appropriate context: when talking about ideology A we should consider more than just its most standard version. But when comparing ideology A and ideology B, focusing on the extremes of ideology A while considering only the middle ground of ideology B (what happened in this thread) is more or less whataboutism.

eloff 5y ago

Nothing about what I said means that values are static over time or that the balance can't shift. It's true that today's crazies at the edge might be tomorrows center - although I find that thought troubling! But make no mistake, the extremes at both ends harbor dangerous crazies. In politics, while the evils of the right are obvious and dangerous, the evils of the left are much more seductive but have been just as dangerous this past century (think fascists vs communists). On gender issues, the incels are clearly unhinged. But so are the extreme feminists.

eloff 5y ago
Just an aside, I've noticed that anything I post criticizing the right gets me upvotes on HN. Anything criticizing the left is much more controversial. I wonder how HN leans as a whole? I view myself as left of center, but not left enough by the standards of this community. I just find that interesting.
- michaelpb 5y ago
  I've have had the opposite observation, probably has a lot to do with whoever is in the particular thread