6 ms·

generally, yeah. it's always better to criticize some actual property of what you're talking about rather than try to make derogatory associations with some tot

by ruined 5y ago

generally, yeah. it's always better to criticize some actual property of what you're talking about rather than try to make derogatory associations with some totally unrelated thing. people pushing these ideas aren't "stupid", they have goals you disagree with. explain why the goals are harmful and the arguments are misleading. in a more familiar context, if you are working with someone and they are making bad design decisions, calling them names isn't likely to be well received, but providing a better design is helpful. here, in online-debate-speak: "stupid" is an ad-hominem

bryanrasmussen 5y ago
At some point there are people in the world who are stupid, there are people whose goals are stupid, at some point one must be able to describe things as they are. on edit: not necessarily so that these people are stupid, but I think vanishing the concept of stupidity is a worse result than just sometimes mistakenly describing people as stupid.
- andrewaylett 5y ago
  Lacking intelligence is not a moral failing. Using words that imply lack of intelligence to describe moral failings associates those lacking intelligence with those lacking morals, to the detriment of those lacking intelligence.
mannerheim 5y ago
> people pushing these ideas aren't "stupid" GGGP was not calling these individuals stupid, rather, their interpretations of the law. And while they're not argued by stupid people, you would certainly have to be stupid to believe such arguments, e.g. the one at issue in this case. I don't think Axel Springer's lawyers are stupid. I think they're malicious. I think their argument is stupid and one should have to be stupid to believe it. > in a more familiar context, if you are working with someone and they are making bad design decisions, calling them names isn't likely to be well received, but providing a better design is helpful. I work with reasonable people. Entities like Axel Springer are not reasonable because they have a vested financial stake in the matter. Reason and debate won't change the money at stake for them.

by ruined 5y ago

bryanrasmussen 5y ago

At some point there are people in the world who are stupid, there are people whose goals are stupid, at some point one must be able to describe things as they are. on edit: not necessarily so that these people are stupid, but I think vanishing the concept of stupidity is a worse result than just sometimes mistakenly describing people as stupid.

andrewaylett 5y ago
Lacking intelligence is not a moral failing. Using words that imply lack of intelligence to describe moral failings associates those lacking intelligence with those lacking morals, to the detriment of those lacking intelligence.

mannerheim 5y ago

> people pushing these ideas aren't "stupid" GGGP was not calling these individuals stupid, rather, their interpretations of the law. And while they're not argued by stupid people, you would certainly have to be stupid to believe such arguments, e.g. the one at issue in this case. I don't think Axel Springer's lawyers are stupid. I think they're malicious. I think their argument is stupid and one should have to be stupid to believe it. > in a more familiar context, if you are working with someone and they are making bad design decisions, calling them names isn't likely to be well received, but providing a better design is helpful. I work with reasonable people. Entities like Axel Springer are not reasonable because they have a vested financial stake in the matter. Reason and debate won't change the money at stake for them.