3 ms·
This form of argument does not seem to apply to every parallel drawn between any two things. It seems to apply specifically to comparisons that are very close f
by saithound 5y ago
This form of argument does not seem to apply to every parallel drawn between any two things. It seems to apply specifically to comparisons that are very close fits with dominant cultural trends.
In 1800s Britain, it could be applied to reject claims such as "cholera is caused by the jews", but it could not be applied to claims such as "cholera is caused by contaminated water pumps".
Similarly, the claim "prostitution was made illegal because the Plumbers and Deliverypeople Union wanted exclusive nibs on spontaneous sexual encounters" would be impervious to this 'sword', because blaming plumbers for the problems of society is not a current trope of our culture.
Disregarding the merits of this particular instance, that seems like a reasonable general heuristic: after all, if some conclusion is socially desirable, then people may reach it even when it's not supported by the preponderance of evidence.
- u20210623 5y agoWhy couldn't it? The statement has nothing to do with current tropes, but rather is an implicit accusation of a confirmation bias on a single person. You can make a claim, and regardless of what it is I can reply with "well, you're saying that because you have an a priori belief and you were looking for any evidence to confirm it".
- saithound 5y agoThe statement has a lot to do with current tropes: that's exactly what "product of the times" means. Cf. a "sign of the times": something that shows the kinds of things that are happening, popular, important, etc., in a culture at a particular period in history.