5 ms·

Do you expect people to pretend the trend isn't happening in order to comfort you? What does it say about your own values that they are so loosely held that you

Do you expect people to pretend the trend isn't happening in order to comfort you? What does it say about your own values that they are so loosely held that you'd sacrifice them out of contempt like this?

dvt 5y ago
> Do you expect people to pretend the trend isn't happening in order to comfort you? There are plenty of trends happening on the "other side" which are also veritably nuts, so I don't find this to be a very compelling argument. The ad hominem doesn't help, either.
- carlisle_ 5y ago
  This is called “whataboutism”.
  - moron4hire 5y ago
    Just a note: right-wing conservatives don't see "whataboutism" to be a fallacy.
  - foobar2021 5y ago
    > Do you expect people to pretend the trend isn't happening in order to comfort you? What does it say about your own values that they are so loosely held that you'd sacrifice them out of contempt like this? And now we’ve come full circle. Using “whataboutism” to avoid conversations about topics is a problem. Whether you’re using it to deflect to a different topic or using it as an excuse to avoid talking about a topic altogether. Someone could argue your comment is the latter and is just as harmful. But I think most of that is a limitation of text/internet communication that people don’t consciously notice. It’s much easier to have nuance in an in-person conversation.
    - carlisle_ 5y ago
      I don’t follow the logic. Saying something is whataboutism isn’t recursive.
    - danbmil99 5y ago
      Yes, I was very impressed by the nuance exhibited through in-person communication on January 6th
  - hllooo 5y ago
    There are two parties and you have to pick one. If the argument is that trends on the republican side are so insane you must vote democrat, it's certainly not whataboutism to argue there are also similarly insane trends on the democratic side... you can disagree but you can't honestly call it whataboutism.
    - carlisle_ 5y ago
      > There are two parties and you have to pick one. Well that’s certainly a dishonest premise.
  - dvt 5y ago
    "Whataboutism" is an informal fallacy that most non-technical folks (as in, not logicians) mis-invoke, like almost all other informal fallacies. My argument is not even remotely whataboutism. In fact, it can be even formulated without addressing the "other side" at all: you're making a category error by going from general (party trends) to particular (individual voters). It's simply a bad argument. I only brought up the "other side" to help analogize it, my apologies if it confused things.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - carlisle_ 5y ago
      I can’t reply with emojis, so imagine this comment is just the eye roll emoji.
      - dvt 5y ago
        I'm trying to be as charitable, polite, and thoughtful as possible with my replies. It's a real shame that HN is slowly devolving into reddit.
        carlisle_ 5y ago
        So polite but still ready to insinuate other people are incapable of making a correct assertion because they are non-technical. To me it’s just painfully obvious you think very highly of yourself.
  - AYBABTME 5y ago
    All these "your side/my side" sideism stuff is going to destroy everything. No one can have any nuanced opinion without all of their individuality being discarded and all weight being given to the party they vote for. It seems to me that the party they vote for is just an ephemeral label and really doesn't suffice in extrapolating much. We should stop contextualizing all conversations on the political affiliation of people.
    - danbmil99 5y ago
      I'll take your snowflake of nuanced positions on every issue, and bet on tribalism and dumbed-down sound bytes to win every time
chacham15 5y ago
> Do you expect people to pretend the trend isn't happening in order to comfort you? This is a strawman. The parent was saying that in order to have an effect and convince people, you shouldnt alienate them. You can do this without lying or ignoring things that are happening. In fact, the people you're most likely able to convince are people in the middle and by alienating them you're actually causing the trend that you're denouncing. > What does it say about your own values that they are so loosely held that you'd sacrifice them out of contempt like this? This is just a straight ad hominem. I thought we were supposed to be above these sorts of things on hn.
- hackersword 5y ago
  Republicans have been trying to hold Democrats to a higher standard for 40 years, all the while playing low ball ... it has been a GREAT strategy for them that is nearing end game (courts stacked, gerrymandering, control of state houses, etc) The "other side" has ZERO capacity/will/desire to ACTUALLY engage in meaningful dialog , but sole goal is to "win" no matter what the cost. There is no logical appeal that can sway the state-level propaganda and brainwashing that billions have been spent on over the last 40 years.
  - vanattab 5y ago
    Anyone who thinks only one of the two sides refuses to engage in meaningful dialog makes me think they have drunk far too much Kol-Aid from on side or the other. The fact of the matter is that nether side has tried to engage in reasonable dialog and exploration of the other sides views because it's apparently not good politics to due so. Both side's take a few random snapshots from extremists on twitter and try to paint the entire other side with that brush despite there being much more common ground between voters of the two camps. A significant proportion of "politically engaged" democrats think that half our country are literally Nazis and many "politically engaged" republicans have equally ridiculous caricatures about the average dem voter.
- Salgat 5y ago
  But that's what he's asking, why is it okay to avoid alienating people at the cost of the truth?
300bps 5y ago
We don’t live in a binary world where our only two choices are: 1. Respond one single way to events 2. Ignore events There are lots of ways to express concern that are less alienating.

dvt 5y ago

> Do you expect people to pretend the trend isn't happening in order to comfort you? There are plenty of trends happening on the "other side" which are also veritably nuts, so I don't find this to be a very compelling argument. The ad hominem doesn't help, either.

carlisle_ 5y ago
This is called “whataboutism”.
- moron4hire 5y ago
  Just a note: right-wing conservatives don't see "whataboutism" to be a fallacy.
- foobar2021 5y ago
  > Do you expect people to pretend the trend isn't happening in order to comfort you? What does it say about your own values that they are so loosely held that you'd sacrifice them out of contempt like this? And now we’ve come full circle. Using “whataboutism” to avoid conversations about topics is a problem. Whether you’re using it to deflect to a different topic or using it as an excuse to avoid talking about a topic altogether. Someone could argue your comment is the latter and is just as harmful. But I think most of that is a limitation of text/internet communication that people don’t consciously notice. It’s much easier to have nuance in an in-person conversation.
  - carlisle_ 5y ago
    I don’t follow the logic. Saying something is whataboutism isn’t recursive.
  - danbmil99 5y ago
    Yes, I was very impressed by the nuance exhibited through in-person communication on January 6th
- hllooo 5y ago
  There are two parties and you have to pick one. If the argument is that trends on the republican side are so insane you must vote democrat, it's certainly not whataboutism to argue there are also similarly insane trends on the democratic side... you can disagree but you can't honestly call it whataboutism.
  - carlisle_ 5y ago
    > There are two parties and you have to pick one. Well that’s certainly a dishonest premise.
- dvt 5y ago
  "Whataboutism" is an informal fallacy that most non-technical folks (as in, not logicians) mis-invoke, like almost all other informal fallacies. My argument is not even remotely whataboutism. In fact, it can be even formulated without addressing the "other side" at all: you're making a category error by going from general (party trends) to particular (individual voters). It's simply a bad argument. I only brought up the "other side" to help analogize it, my apologies if it confused things.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - carlisle_ 5y ago
    I can’t reply with emojis, so imagine this comment is just the eye roll emoji.
    - dvt 5y ago
      I'm trying to be as charitable, polite, and thoughtful as possible with my replies. It's a real shame that HN is slowly devolving into reddit.
      - carlisle_ 5y ago
        So polite but still ready to insinuate other people are incapable of making a correct assertion because they are non-technical. To me it’s just painfully obvious you think very highly of yourself.
- AYBABTME 5y ago
  All these "your side/my side" sideism stuff is going to destroy everything. No one can have any nuanced opinion without all of their individuality being discarded and all weight being given to the party they vote for. It seems to me that the party they vote for is just an ephemeral label and really doesn't suffice in extrapolating much. We should stop contextualizing all conversations on the political affiliation of people.
  - danbmil99 5y ago
    I'll take your snowflake of nuanced positions on every issue, and bet on tribalism and dumbed-down sound bytes to win every time

chacham15 5y ago

> Do you expect people to pretend the trend isn't happening in order to comfort you? This is a strawman. The parent was saying that in order to have an effect and convince people, you shouldnt alienate them. You can do this without lying or ignoring things that are happening. In fact, the people you're most likely able to convince are people in the middle and by alienating them you're actually causing the trend that you're denouncing. > What does it say about your own values that they are so loosely held that you'd sacrifice them out of contempt like this? This is just a straight ad hominem. I thought we were supposed to be above these sorts of things on hn.

hackersword 5y ago
Republicans have been trying to hold Democrats to a higher standard for 40 years, all the while playing low ball ... it has been a GREAT strategy for them that is nearing end game (courts stacked, gerrymandering, control of state houses, etc) The "other side" has ZERO capacity/will/desire to ACTUALLY engage in meaningful dialog , but sole goal is to "win" no matter what the cost. There is no logical appeal that can sway the state-level propaganda and brainwashing that billions have been spent on over the last 40 years.
- vanattab 5y ago
  Anyone who thinks only one of the two sides refuses to engage in meaningful dialog makes me think they have drunk far too much Kol-Aid from on side or the other. The fact of the matter is that nether side has tried to engage in reasonable dialog and exploration of the other sides views because it's apparently not good politics to due so. Both side's take a few random snapshots from extremists on twitter and try to paint the entire other side with that brush despite there being much more common ground between voters of the two camps. A significant proportion of "politically engaged" democrats think that half our country are literally Nazis and many "politically engaged" republicans have equally ridiculous caricatures about the average dem voter.
Salgat 5y ago
But that's what he's asking, why is it okay to avoid alienating people at the cost of the truth?

300bps 5y ago

We don’t live in a binary world where our only two choices are: 1. Respond one single way to events 2. Ignore events There are lots of ways to express concern that are less alienating.