5 ms·

The problem of course is that not every issue needs a "both sides" treatment. Sometimes there are questions of objective facts that reading lies from alternativ

The problem of course is that not every issue needs a "both sides" treatment. Sometimes there are questions of objective facts that reading lies from alternative sources do not actually help you in understanding the truth of the world. The person who desperately tries to cite "50/50" liberal and conservative sources in the article is the worst kind of fence sitter. Sometimes, one side or the other is just wrong, or their position is disingenuous. It doesn't make sense to provide a fair and balanced view when the other view is that maybe there are literal demons running the government. One of these sites outright says they offer a "conspiracy theorist" feed. While there is some educational benefit to understanding what those people are reading, in the context of getting a balanced perspective, we should acknowledge it's useless information to most people, if not downright harmful.

UncleOxidant 5y ago
> The problem of course is that not every issue needs a "both sides" treatment. Exactly. Imagine saying that it's important to be able to make an impassioned argument for slavery? To make it contemporary: Should I be trying to get into the mind of a Q Conspiracy theorist? An Antivaxer? How many conspiracies do I need delve into and understand such that I can make a passionate argument for them?
- cbsmith 5y ago
  It is important to understand the different sides. Understanding a side doesn't mean it is on equal ground, or really any ground at all. A failure to understand allows the underlying causes to remain in place.
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago
  Actually I would say it is. Not because the argument for slavery actually had merit, but because that position did not form in a vacuum and it is important to understand how such ideas came to be and why people might be unwilling to give them up.
- slibhb 5y ago
  > To make it contemporary: Should I be trying to get into the mind of a Q Conspiracy theorist? An Antivaxer? How many conspiracies do I need delve into and understand such that I can make a passionate argument for them? Yes and it's disturbing that you (and many others) have no interest in understanding other people.
  - UncleOxidant 5y ago
    There is no end to conspiracy theories. Why should I be obligated to delve into other people's psychosis? I'm not a psychiatrist. There are many more constructive things to spend time on.
    - slibhb 5y ago
      If you were a little more curious, maybe you wouldn't dismiss large swathes of the population as psychotic.
    - AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago
      When such ideas become mainstream enough to start influencing politics, it would be a good idea to try to understand why those ideas have taken root and grown to that level of influence. Even when such ideas are batshit insane, they are almost always indicative of some severe underlying issue. If that issue isn't addressed, then such ideas keep growing and growing and could eventually lead to disaster. That Q Anon and the like are taken seriously by as many people as they appear to be, enough to start influencing mainstream politics, should set off all sorts of alarm bells about the state of our society.
      - UncleOxidant 5y ago
        As I said in another part of the thread: For many of these conspiracy theories the 'understanding' part should probably be more along the lines of epistemic forensics - "What kind of misinformation got them to this point?"
        5y ago
- _-david-_ 5y ago
  How are you supposed to argue against something if you don't even understand why someone supports what they support? All you will end up doing is strawmaning their views which won't convince anybody to change their views.
  - UncleOxidant 5y ago
    Do I need to understand why someone supports flat earth theory to be able to argue that it's scientifically invalid? Why is it up to me to figure out how they got deluded?
    - 8note 5y ago
      More importantly, why does that deserve priority in my time, vs say, climate change regulation, or ending police violence
    - Ajedi32 5y ago
      You don't have to argue with flat earthers if you don't want to. But if you're going to argue against that position then yes, you absolutely must first understand why they hold it. Otherwise you'll spend all your time attacking straw men and get nowhere with your argument.
    - zamadatix 5y ago
      How can you both show a claim is scientifically invalid and simultaneously not understand the claim? The "why" here is the "why of the claim" not the "why they came to think that" (though the latter may still be useful if you're trying to convince someone but that's a different issue).
    - _-david-_ 5y ago
      You only need to understand their positions if you want to argue against it. Since like 5 people actually believe in a flat earth (there are a lot of memers) it probably isn't worth the effort to learn about their positions. For more mainstream issues you should absolutely understand all sides of an issue to the best of your abilities. Many people only understand generals and miss a lot of nuance when it comes to their opponent's views. If you are going to argue with a flat earther they will not accept the arguments you will make if you just argue for a round earth. You can show them some math, images from space, eyewitness testimony or whatever you want, but they have almost certainly seen it all before. They were unconvinced by those arguments in the past and you will likely not be any more convincing to them. The only way to convince them is to tear down their arguments one by one which means you have to actually know what they believe. If you tear down strawman arguments they don't even believe they won't change their mind. Just to be clear, when you say it is not up to you to figure out how they got deluded. I agree. You don't have to know what books or videos or whatever they consumed. You only need to understand the views themselves.
- onlyrealcuzzo 5y ago
  Or imagine having to dedicate equal time in school to the flat earth "theory", which can be disproved by video calling anyone in a different time zone...
- deanCommie 5y ago
  > Imagine saying that it's important to be able to make an impassioned argument for slavery? We don't need to imagine this. This is actively happening in the American South in their high school history books: https://twitter.com/jbenton/status/1404245820103348227 https://twitter.com/jbenton/status/1404245820103348227 (tweet and replies)
- briandear 5y ago
  > Imagine saying that it's important to be able to make an impassioned argument for slavery? But that’s a straw man. Did the virus come from a lab or not isn’t a “slavery” argument. Should taxes be lower or higher also isn’t a slavery argument. Are there election irregularities also isn’t a slavery argument. These are all issues that, stating opposing facts or even conclusions that differ from the Facebook-Twitter “Approved Truth,” will get you banned. Even questioning Covid vaccine safety, or even linking to mainstream news about safety concerns will get you a “missing context” label or outright banned. We aren’t allow to even hint that the vaccine could be dangerous (when compared to other vaccines.) So yes, there are often two or more sides that have a legitimate value in being heard. When was the last time we had mainline publications or socials or even scientific journals shutting down debate on scientific research? It’s insane. There have even been instances of papers that didn’t support the Fauci views being obfuscated or removed from search results. Or other instances of statistical election anomalies being ignored by people that would normally be very interested in such things. And none of those things are the equivalent of “the other side of the slavery argument.” Look at how the left has treated Glen Greenwald, a journalist that has earned some credibility with his Snowden reporting. Yet, when he points out some of the nonsense parading as “fact,” he gets accused of being some kind of right wing shill. If Glen is being accused of being “right wing,” then something has gone really wrong. Even Bill Maher is speaking out about the lunacy. Is the vaccine safe? Did Covid come from a Chinese lab funded by Fauci? Were there unexplained statistical anomalies in the election? Those are all topics that deserve hearing “both sides.” It would seem like shutting down debate is indicative of an agenda as opposed to a commitment to truth. The lady doth protest too much, methinks.
  - 8note 5y ago
    "are there election irregularities" pretty well is a slavery argument. Its a thinly veiled "I don't think black people should have been allowed to vote" and you can verify that by the laws states are implementing to ensure they don't vote next election
altcognito 5y ago
Teach the conspiracy!
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
joe_the_user 5y ago
The problem of course is that not every issue needs a "both sides" treatment. Another point is that there aren't "two sides" to political issues but a wide variety of sides and that often, when you pick the two supposed sides of an issue, you've actually picked the answer - without, say, having to have an argument for this answer. Unpopular note: HN has had too many of these garbage articles leveraging this vacuous and manipulative "two sides" rhetoric - "Ivy League" article but several others. And these have had an actually pretty strong center-right bias and just generally detract from the site imo.

UncleOxidant 5y ago

> The problem of course is that not every issue needs a "both sides" treatment. Exactly. Imagine saying that it's important to be able to make an impassioned argument for slavery? To make it contemporary: Should I be trying to get into the mind of a Q Conspiracy theorist? An Antivaxer? How many conspiracies do I need delve into and understand such that I can make a passionate argument for them?

cbsmith 5y ago
It is important to understand the different sides. Understanding a side doesn't mean it is on equal ground, or really any ground at all. A failure to understand allows the underlying causes to remain in place.
AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago
Actually I would say it is. Not because the argument for slavery actually had merit, but because that position did not form in a vacuum and it is important to understand how such ideas came to be and why people might be unwilling to give them up.
slibhb 5y ago
> To make it contemporary: Should I be trying to get into the mind of a Q Conspiracy theorist? An Antivaxer? How many conspiracies do I need delve into and understand such that I can make a passionate argument for them? Yes and it's disturbing that you (and many others) have no interest in understanding other people.
- UncleOxidant 5y ago
  There is no end to conspiracy theories. Why should I be obligated to delve into other people's psychosis? I'm not a psychiatrist. There are many more constructive things to spend time on.
  - slibhb 5y ago
    If you were a little more curious, maybe you wouldn't dismiss large swathes of the population as psychotic.
  - AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago
    When such ideas become mainstream enough to start influencing politics, it would be a good idea to try to understand why those ideas have taken root and grown to that level of influence. Even when such ideas are batshit insane, they are almost always indicative of some severe underlying issue. If that issue isn't addressed, then such ideas keep growing and growing and could eventually lead to disaster. That Q Anon and the like are taken seriously by as many people as they appear to be, enough to start influencing mainstream politics, should set off all sorts of alarm bells about the state of our society.
    - UncleOxidant 5y ago
      As I said in another part of the thread: For many of these conspiracy theories the 'understanding' part should probably be more along the lines of epistemic forensics - "What kind of misinformation got them to this point?"
      - 5y ago
_-david-_ 5y ago
How are you supposed to argue against something if you don't even understand why someone supports what they support? All you will end up doing is strawmaning their views which won't convince anybody to change their views.
- UncleOxidant 5y ago
  Do I need to understand why someone supports flat earth theory to be able to argue that it's scientifically invalid? Why is it up to me to figure out how they got deluded?
  - 8note 5y ago
    More importantly, why does that deserve priority in my time, vs say, climate change regulation, or ending police violence
  - Ajedi32 5y ago
    You don't have to argue with flat earthers if you don't want to. But if you're going to argue against that position then yes, you absolutely must first understand why they hold it. Otherwise you'll spend all your time attacking straw men and get nowhere with your argument.
  - zamadatix 5y ago
    How can you both show a claim is scientifically invalid and simultaneously not understand the claim? The "why" here is the "why of the claim" not the "why they came to think that" (though the latter may still be useful if you're trying to convince someone but that's a different issue).
  - _-david-_ 5y ago
    You only need to understand their positions if you want to argue against it. Since like 5 people actually believe in a flat earth (there are a lot of memers) it probably isn't worth the effort to learn about their positions. For more mainstream issues you should absolutely understand all sides of an issue to the best of your abilities. Many people only understand generals and miss a lot of nuance when it comes to their opponent's views. If you are going to argue with a flat earther they will not accept the arguments you will make if you just argue for a round earth. You can show them some math, images from space, eyewitness testimony or whatever you want, but they have almost certainly seen it all before. They were unconvinced by those arguments in the past and you will likely not be any more convincing to them. The only way to convince them is to tear down their arguments one by one which means you have to actually know what they believe. If you tear down strawman arguments they don't even believe they won't change their mind. Just to be clear, when you say it is not up to you to figure out how they got deluded. I agree. You don't have to know what books or videos or whatever they consumed. You only need to understand the views themselves.
onlyrealcuzzo 5y ago
Or imagine having to dedicate equal time in school to the flat earth "theory", which can be disproved by video calling anyone in a different time zone...
deanCommie 5y ago
> Imagine saying that it's important to be able to make an impassioned argument for slavery? We don't need to imagine this. This is actively happening in the American South in their high school history books: https://twitter.com/jbenton/status/1404245820103348227 https://twitter.com/jbenton/status/1404245820103348227 (tweet and replies)
briandear 5y ago
> Imagine saying that it's important to be able to make an impassioned argument for slavery? But that’s a straw man. Did the virus come from a lab or not isn’t a “slavery” argument. Should taxes be lower or higher also isn’t a slavery argument. Are there election irregularities also isn’t a slavery argument. These are all issues that, stating opposing facts or even conclusions that differ from the Facebook-Twitter “Approved Truth,” will get you banned. Even questioning Covid vaccine safety, or even linking to mainstream news about safety concerns will get you a “missing context” label or outright banned. We aren’t allow to even hint that the vaccine could be dangerous (when compared to other vaccines.) So yes, there are often two or more sides that have a legitimate value in being heard. When was the last time we had mainline publications or socials or even scientific journals shutting down debate on scientific research? It’s insane. There have even been instances of papers that didn’t support the Fauci views being obfuscated or removed from search results. Or other instances of statistical election anomalies being ignored by people that would normally be very interested in such things. And none of those things are the equivalent of “the other side of the slavery argument.” Look at how the left has treated Glen Greenwald, a journalist that has earned some credibility with his Snowden reporting. Yet, when he points out some of the nonsense parading as “fact,” he gets accused of being some kind of right wing shill. If Glen is being accused of being “right wing,” then something has gone really wrong. Even Bill Maher is speaking out about the lunacy. Is the vaccine safe? Did Covid come from a Chinese lab funded by Fauci? Were there unexplained statistical anomalies in the election? Those are all topics that deserve hearing “both sides.” It would seem like shutting down debate is indicative of an agenda as opposed to a commitment to truth. The lady doth protest too much, methinks.
- 8note 5y ago
  "are there election irregularities" pretty well is a slavery argument. Its a thinly veiled "I don't think black people should have been allowed to vote" and you can verify that by the laws states are implementing to ensure they don't vote next election

altcognito 5y ago

Teach the conspiracy!

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

joe_the_user 5y ago

The problem of course is that not every issue needs a "both sides" treatment. Another point is that there aren't "two sides" to political issues but a wide variety of sides and that often, when you pick the two supposed sides of an issue, you've actually picked the answer - without, say, having to have an argument for this answer. Unpopular note: HN has had too many of these garbage articles leveraging this vacuous and manipulative "two sides" rhetoric - "Ivy League" article but several others. And these have had an actually pretty strong center-right bias and just generally detract from the site imo.