4 ms·

>"Have you considered that complaint in itself might be considered the "shrieking" you so despise?" No. In fact I see this as a very underhanded rhetorical che

>"Have you considered that complaint in itself might be considered the "shrieking" you so despise?" No. In fact I see this as a very underhanded rhetorical cheap trick - essentially a catch-22. Only on the most basic level is criticism of critical people some kind of hypocritical indictment. 'You say you don't like people taking things too seriously, yet it sounds like YOU are the one taking things too seriously. Curious'.

malermeister 4y ago
It seems to me like you (and OP) are trying to police what is and what isn't acceptable criticism. Why is criticism of company policies "shrieking", but criticism of criticism not? Or to go a level further, why is my criticism of his criticism of their criticism a "rhetorical cheap trick", but your criticism to the power of four presumably legitimate? Is this fifth level of criticism a "rhetorical trick"/"shrieking" too? And will your potential riposte be legitimate again?
- BitwiseFool 4y ago
  From what I have gleaned from the posts made by the so-called 'shriekers' on Twitter, their style is to post and react in hyperbolic and pearl-clutching way. To be worried about something is one thing, to be gravely concerned is another, but it seems like such people routinely catastrophize and grandstand on issues that the average person would not consider that serious. I suspect this is because there is a feedback loop due to the way engagement works on social media. I like your perspective of criticism to a power/derivative level, but that's not the angle I'm trying to come from. Rather, I am saying the nature of the criticism is what distinguishes between the two.
  - malermeister 4y ago
    I must admit, I'm not really a Twitter user and can't speak to the comments made there. I do, however, read HN and every time a company changes policy due to some outrage, the first comment is always somebody saying something along the lines of what OP was saying. That, to me, is just as annoying as I'm sure the original outrage was to OP. It's a low-effort rant about society and how it budges to spammy complaints without seeing the irony of being a spammy complaint itself. I don't think the nature is fundamentally different and that might be where we disagree.
    - BitwiseFool 4y ago
      >"That, to me, is just as annoying as I'm sure the original outrage was to OP. It's a low-effort rant about society and how it budges to spammy complaints without seeing the irony of being a spammy complaint itself." Understandable. And to be honest I'm increasingly fatigued in relation to what discourse has become. You had mentioned earlier that I was trying to police what is and isn't acceptable criticism, and in a way you're right. I would like to see a lot less hyperbolic pearl-clutching sophistry. But the downside is that trying to confront the use of such rhetoric is sadly perceived as negative or equivalent.
- dabbledash 4y ago
  In the past if you made a movie with a lot of sex and violence, you might get some angry letters from conservative moral majority types. But eventually, people learned not to pay too much attention to those letter writers, because they didn't represent the preferences of the actual paying audience. I don't think discussing those letter writers is similar to engaging in the actual pressure campaign, but it doesn't matter much anyway. I just think it's likely that the people who prefer to see political ads are small in number but feel strongly and the people who prefer not to see political ads are large in number but less likely to organize around it.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

malermeister 4y ago

It seems to me like you (and OP) are trying to police what is and what isn't acceptable criticism. Why is criticism of company policies "shrieking", but criticism of criticism not? Or to go a level further, why is my criticism of his criticism of their criticism a "rhetorical cheap trick", but your criticism to the power of four presumably legitimate? Is this fifth level of criticism a "rhetorical trick"/"shrieking" too? And will your potential riposte be legitimate again?

BitwiseFool 4y ago
From what I have gleaned from the posts made by the so-called 'shriekers' on Twitter, their style is to post and react in hyperbolic and pearl-clutching way. To be worried about something is one thing, to be gravely concerned is another, but it seems like such people routinely catastrophize and grandstand on issues that the average person would not consider that serious. I suspect this is because there is a feedback loop due to the way engagement works on social media. I like your perspective of criticism to a power/derivative level, but that's not the angle I'm trying to come from. Rather, I am saying the nature of the criticism is what distinguishes between the two.
- malermeister 4y ago
  I must admit, I'm not really a Twitter user and can't speak to the comments made there. I do, however, read HN and every time a company changes policy due to some outrage, the first comment is always somebody saying something along the lines of what OP was saying. That, to me, is just as annoying as I'm sure the original outrage was to OP. It's a low-effort rant about society and how it budges to spammy complaints without seeing the irony of being a spammy complaint itself. I don't think the nature is fundamentally different and that might be where we disagree.
  - BitwiseFool 4y ago
    >"That, to me, is just as annoying as I'm sure the original outrage was to OP. It's a low-effort rant about society and how it budges to spammy complaints without seeing the irony of being a spammy complaint itself." Understandable. And to be honest I'm increasingly fatigued in relation to what discourse has become. You had mentioned earlier that I was trying to police what is and isn't acceptable criticism, and in a way you're right. I would like to see a lot less hyperbolic pearl-clutching sophistry. But the downside is that trying to confront the use of such rhetoric is sadly perceived as negative or equivalent.
dabbledash 4y ago
In the past if you made a movie with a lot of sex and violence, you might get some angry letters from conservative moral majority types. But eventually, people learned not to pay too much attention to those letter writers, because they didn't represent the preferences of the actual paying audience. I don't think discussing those letter writers is similar to engaging in the actual pressure campaign, but it doesn't matter much anyway. I just think it's likely that the people who prefer to see political ads are small in number but feel strongly and the people who prefer not to see political ads are large in number but less likely to organize around it.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]