33 ms·

Both sides is a reductionist argument that ignores the extremes one side is taking versus the other.

jokethrowaway 5y ago
- jlongr 5y ago
  >Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith. >Please don't use Hacker News for political or ideological battle. It tramples curiosity.
freedomben 5y ago
suggesting that anything that mentions "both sides" as having a problem is a reductionist argument, is itself a reductionist argument, and a major logical fallacy. It is perfectly possible for there to be issues that affect "both sides" to either different or equal extent, and an extreme position that one of those sides has on some other issue is irrelevant. Just think about which "side" is worse on the drug war and the incredible damage it has caused? If you come up with an answer of "which side" is worse, does that mean that everything the other side did is totally cool, totally non-destructive, etc? Of course not. sorry for the lecture, but this argument is one of the few that triggers the hell out of me. the other one is, "I don't care about privacy violations because I'm not doing anything wrong"
- WoahNoun 5y ago
  I didn't say extreme positions since that is subjective. One side is using tactics like creating laws that let a state legislature overturn the Presidential vote; the other side is not doing that.
  - dudul 5y ago
    Just to clarify: creating laws is an extrem tactic? Laws that are created by representants?
  - freedomben 5y ago
    What do voting laws have to do with the problem of outrage circulating on social media, or the harm caused by the drug war, etc? If you want to argue that "both sides" are not equally bad on voting rights, I would agree (with the caveat that I've not researched that issue so could certainly encounter information that changed my mind), but that seems entirely irrelevant to the question of whether both sides are equally bad when it comes to circulating outrage on social media
rhino369 5y ago
Both sides can be a fallacy--but it isn't always. But I think its very reasonable to conclude "both sides" are engaging in social media mobs, censorship, and cancel culture. Of Mice and Men and To Kill a Mockingbird are on the list of most "challenged" books for 2020 because they upset liberal sensibilities. It's not just a right wing problem.
- ryandrake 5y ago
  “Both sides” just provides cover for the really heinous side. Anything that categorizes evil and really-really-evil into the same bucket, benefits really-really-evil the most.
  - rhino369 5y ago
    It *can* be used to do that. But there is nothing inherent in that. And hardcore partisans always think the other sides is the really-really-really-evil side and they are on the side of angels. So your line of thinking can be used to justify bad behavior because the other side is worse.
- WoahNoun 5y ago
  What is your definition of "challenged"? I believe the liberal position is not to ban those books from libraries, but that there are newer books that can replace those books in the classroom.
  - rhino369 5y ago
    https://www.ala.org/advocacy/bbooks/frequentlychallengedbooks/top10 https://www.ala.org/advocacy/bbooks/frequentlychallengedbook...
ljm 5y ago
The issue is that you see one side versus the other, like the US is a football and two rival teams are fighting for possession of it. I mean, that might seem to be the case but it shouldn't be competitive, it needs to be co-operative. Authoritarian people are going to find ways to be authoritarian no matter their political persuasion.
finite_jest 5y ago
You mean extremes like literally burning books [1], or banning a broad category of books from the largest bookstore in the world for ideological reasons [2], or using copyright to censor the most popular American children's author [3]? I'm against censorship, and I think banning books from school libraries is ridiculous [4]. But a single school district in Texas banning a book is not really comparable with the scale and significance of the corporate/woke censorship. [1]: https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/book-burning-at-ontario-francophone-schools-as-gesture-of-reconciliation-denounced https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/book-burning-at-ontario... [2]: WSJ: "Amazon Won’t Sell Books Framing LGBTQ+ Identities as Mental Illnesses" https://archive.fo/v5rWn https://archive.fo/v5rWn [3]: Guardian: "It's a moral decision': Dr Seuss books are being 'recalled' not cancelled, expert says" https://archive.fo/SPBMh https://archive.fo/SPBMh [4]: A school library has limited space, and obviously can't hold all the books in the world, so the librarian have to make a choice. But selection should be based on things like what the students would like to read, exposure to a broad diversity of views, etc. instead of ideology.
- space_fountain 5y ago
  Two things worth bringing up. I’m unconvinced book banning is as big a deal on the left. The one example you bring up was apparently attacked across the board in Canada and the other two are non government institutions, the last one literally being the family of the author. Maybe more importantly though I’m unconvinced that book restrictions are actually universally illegitimate, but certainly some motivations are. If as the article claims it is mostly multicultural books being attacked despite similar books in terms of sex being left alone, then that is worse than books being restricted because people feel they’re racist because racism is bad. I would for example completely support restricting middle schoolers access to books supporting “race science” at least without the proper context being provided
  - finite_jest 5y ago
    I think you are correct in implying that the current wave of censorship is mostly non-governmental, but that doesn't make it look any better in my eyes. This is a discussion about culture, not who has the legal right to do what. Banning "inappropriate" books from school is most likely legal in the US [1], but that doesn't automatically make puritanism and prudishness good. I disagree, I think book restrictions are Orwellian, but that's another discussion. [1]: https://www.findlaw.com/education/student-rights/banning-books-and-the-law.html https://www.findlaw.com/education/student-rights/banning-boo...
762236 5y ago
Liberals banning the Adventures of Huckleberry Finn due to race issues is extreme.

jlongr 5y ago
>Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith. >Please don't use Hacker News for political or ideological battle. It tramples curiosity.

suggesting that anything that mentions "both sides" as having a problem is a reductionist argument, is itself a reductionist argument, and a major logical fallacy. It is perfectly possible for there to be issues that affect "both sides" to either different or equal extent, and an extreme position that one of those sides has on some other issue is irrelevant. Just think about which "side" is worse on the drug war and the incredible damage it has caused? If you come up with an answer of "which side" is worse, does that mean that everything the other side did is totally cool, totally non-destructive, etc? Of course not. sorry for the lecture, but this argument is one of the few that triggers the hell out of me. the other one is, "I don't care about privacy violations because I'm not doing anything wrong"

WoahNoun 5y ago
I didn't say extreme positions since that is subjective. One side is using tactics like creating laws that let a state legislature overturn the Presidential vote; the other side is not doing that.
- dudul 5y ago
  Just to clarify: creating laws is an extrem tactic? Laws that are created by representants?
- freedomben 5y ago
  What do voting laws have to do with the problem of outrage circulating on social media, or the harm caused by the drug war, etc? If you want to argue that "both sides" are not equally bad on voting rights, I would agree (with the caveat that I've not researched that issue so could certainly encounter information that changed my mind), but that seems entirely irrelevant to the question of whether both sides are equally bad when it comes to circulating outrage on social media

rhino369 5y ago

Both sides can be a fallacy--but it isn't always. But I think its very reasonable to conclude "both sides" are engaging in social media mobs, censorship, and cancel culture. Of Mice and Men and To Kill a Mockingbird are on the list of most "challenged" books for 2020 because they upset liberal sensibilities. It's not just a right wing problem.

ryandrake 5y ago
“Both sides” just provides cover for the really heinous side. Anything that categorizes evil and really-really-evil into the same bucket, benefits really-really-evil the most.
- rhino369 5y ago
  It *can* be used to do that. But there is nothing inherent in that. And hardcore partisans always think the other sides is the really-really-really-evil side and they are on the side of angels. So your line of thinking can be used to justify bad behavior because the other side is worse.
WoahNoun 5y ago
What is your definition of "challenged"? I believe the liberal position is not to ban those books from libraries, but that there are newer books that can replace those books in the classroom.
- rhino369 5y ago
  https://www.ala.org/advocacy/bbooks/frequentlychallengedbooks/top10 https://www.ala.org/advocacy/bbooks/frequentlychallengedbook...

ljm 5y ago

The issue is that you see one side versus the other, like the US is a football and two rival teams are fighting for possession of it. I mean, that might seem to be the case but it shouldn't be competitive, it needs to be co-operative. Authoritarian people are going to find ways to be authoritarian no matter their political persuasion.

finite_jest 5y ago

You mean extremes like literally burning books [1], or banning a broad category of books from the largest bookstore in the world for ideological reasons [2], or using copyright to censor the most popular American children's author [3]? I'm against censorship, and I think banning books from school libraries is ridiculous [4]. But a single school district in Texas banning a book is not really comparable with the scale and significance of the corporate/woke censorship. [1]: https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/book-burning-at-ontario-francophone-schools-as-gesture-of-reconciliation-denounced https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/book-burning-at-ontario... [2]: WSJ: "Amazon Won’t Sell Books Framing LGBTQ+ Identities as Mental Illnesses" https://archive.fo/v5rWn https://archive.fo/v5rWn [3]: Guardian: "It's a moral decision': Dr Seuss books are being 'recalled' not cancelled, expert says" https://archive.fo/SPBMh https://archive.fo/SPBMh [4]: A school library has limited space, and obviously can't hold all the books in the world, so the librarian have to make a choice. But selection should be based on things like what the students would like to read, exposure to a broad diversity of views, etc. instead of ideology.

space_fountain 5y ago
Two things worth bringing up. I’m unconvinced book banning is as big a deal on the left. The one example you bring up was apparently attacked across the board in Canada and the other two are non government institutions, the last one literally being the family of the author. Maybe more importantly though I’m unconvinced that book restrictions are actually universally illegitimate, but certainly some motivations are. If as the article claims it is mostly multicultural books being attacked despite similar books in terms of sex being left alone, then that is worse than books being restricted because people feel they’re racist because racism is bad. I would for example completely support restricting middle schoolers access to books supporting “race science” at least without the proper context being provided
- finite_jest 5y ago
  I think you are correct in implying that the current wave of censorship is mostly non-governmental, but that doesn't make it look any better in my eyes. This is a discussion about culture, not who has the legal right to do what. Banning "inappropriate" books from school is most likely legal in the US [1], but that doesn't automatically make puritanism and prudishness good. I disagree, I think book restrictions are Orwellian, but that's another discussion. [1]: https://www.findlaw.com/education/student-rights/banning-books-and-the-law.html https://www.findlaw.com/education/student-rights/banning-boo...

762236 5y ago

Liberals banning the Adventures of Huckleberry Finn due to race issues is extreme.