4 ms·

In general the argument template is "If you're not 100% committed to realizing a more extreme version of your mission statement than the status quo, then you're

In general the argument template is "If you're not 100% committed to realizing a more extreme version of your mission statement than the status quo, then you're being hypocritical and cannot be taken seriously." We see the same thing pop up in, "You don't like capitalism, yet you still participate in it," and "You don't like cars, yet you still drive places." It's the sort of tired teenager type argument that doesn't seek to advance the discourse. It does nothing to convince anyone of anything and instead it exacerbates division. There's plenty of other better arguments to make and for some reason the author goes for this one.

registeredcorn 4y ago
If your concern is with tone, don't you think your concerns are in the wrong place?
- kelseyfrog 4y ago
  Tone? No, my concerns are purely with the rubber-stamped form of the argument. It's as ineffective in this incarnation as it is in its other forms.
  - registeredcorn 4y ago
    Hey, I tried replying yesterday but I hit some kind of posting limit. My bad! I think I had hit reply to the wrong comment. I could have sworn there was something written about tone, but it must have been someone else. Sorry about that.
belorn 4y ago
Sweden had an election yesterday, and I can't think of a single political subject where political opponents do not accuse the other side of being insincere. Environment, taxes, law and order, immigration, education, healthcare, elder care... "You say you want X, yet you still say/do/vote Y" would match the intended message in about 95% of every statement being made when a politician is describing an other politician politics. Political debates would be much more interesting if they weren't allowed to do this. It would be a bit like the rule that one should never discuss the speaker, only the content. It would really help against polarization.
- kelseyfrog 4y ago
  At the very least giving a name to the phenomena (and logical fallacy experts, please chime in) gives people the power to identify and categorize such arguments as not being worthwhile pursuits and can castrate their power.
  - belorn 4y ago
    A more productive way for political discourse would be to analyze the expected result of different political strategies, especially when mirror opposite strategies has the same intended end goal. Of course, when people are pulling and advocating for one direction, doing the opposite seems like an contradiction. Thus the political debates becomes about trust and sincerity. No longer is the discussion about the effectiveness of the strategy but rather about how trustworthy the strategy is. One very common way polls measure political strategies is thus in voter trust. Do voters trust that party X has a good strategy to solve problem Y. It generally only experts and researchers that attempt to measure the actually effectiveness of a political strategy.

registeredcorn 4y ago

If your concern is with tone, don't you think your concerns are in the wrong place?

kelseyfrog 4y ago
Tone? No, my concerns are purely with the rubber-stamped form of the argument. It's as ineffective in this incarnation as it is in its other forms.
- registeredcorn 4y ago
  Hey, I tried replying yesterday but I hit some kind of posting limit. My bad! I think I had hit reply to the wrong comment. I could have sworn there was something written about tone, but it must have been someone else. Sorry about that.

belorn 4y ago

Sweden had an election yesterday, and I can't think of a single political subject where political opponents do not accuse the other side of being insincere. Environment, taxes, law and order, immigration, education, healthcare, elder care... "You say you want X, yet you still say/do/vote Y" would match the intended message in about 95% of every statement being made when a politician is describing an other politician politics. Political debates would be much more interesting if they weren't allowed to do this. It would be a bit like the rule that one should never discuss the speaker, only the content. It would really help against polarization.

kelseyfrog 4y ago
At the very least giving a name to the phenomena (and logical fallacy experts, please chime in) gives people the power to identify and categorize such arguments as not being worthwhile pursuits and can castrate their power.
- belorn 4y ago
  A more productive way for political discourse would be to analyze the expected result of different political strategies, especially when mirror opposite strategies has the same intended end goal. Of course, when people are pulling and advocating for one direction, doing the opposite seems like an contradiction. Thus the political debates becomes about trust and sincerity. No longer is the discussion about the effectiveness of the strategy but rather about how trustworthy the strategy is. One very common way polls measure political strategies is thus in voter trust. Do voters trust that party X has a good strategy to solve problem Y. It generally only experts and researchers that attempt to measure the actually effectiveness of a political strategy.