4 ms·

I find the differences between these statements minimal. The former implies the latter very easily, making both dangerous.

ghusto 4y ago
The difference is that the first can be easily rebuffed with logic and evidence. The second can too, but it's obvious that logic and evidence aren't at the top of the agenda there. So there's no discussion necessary in the latter, and you can just shut it down. Why allow the first one then? It's about giving them enough rope to hang themselves with, _in public_. The public bit is important, because having them claim persecution and censorship, then saying those things in private anyway without rebuttable, may swing certain people.
zajio1am 4y ago
I can see that difference between these statements can be minimal for collectivists, who consider benefit of society as the most important value. But for individualists, the former does not implies the latter. It is more like: All X are good for nothing leaches on society, but their individual rights and freedom are inalienable and that is more important that their negative effect on society.
- hirundo 4y ago
  People from the individualist perspective almost always argue for its overall social utility, that the benefits of invididual rights and freedoms have negative and positive social effects that net positive. I've never heard one (and I've heard many) argue that the net social effects are negative but that the policy is still preferrable.
  - prottog 4y ago
    I suppose nobody would argue that, but in practice it happens all the time, because the people who benefit from the policy aren't directly paying for the costs of those negative net social effects.
- nightpool 4y ago
  I can see where you're coming from theoretically, but at least in America, the vast majority of the people who complain about "leaches on society" are right-wing individualists. They see the undesirable elements as being supported by a welfare state and believe that without the welfare state, their "leaches" would die. It's a gross and dehumanizing view that absolutely abdicates any responsibility for society's role in supporting other people. So individualists can also believe that the two statements are identical.
  - prottog 4y ago
    This is a gross and dehumanizing view because you built a gross and dehumanizing strawman. Do you connect on a personal level with American conservatives in real life? The many I know are compassionate people at an individual level, and you might argue better and have a better chance of convincing people of your viewpoint if you charitably[0] interpreted their position as something like: welfare benefits should be temporary (for those who are able to work and are looking, but are temporarily unemployed) and minimal (for those who either aren't capable of working or choose not to); welfare should not "pay" better than work; and the government should prove that the redistribution of wealth they enforce to pay for welfare is in fact doing what it set out to do, instead of creating a class of permanent welfare beneficiaries who could actually be gainfully employed instead. Very few people are actually wanting "undesirable elements" to "die". [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity

ghusto 4y ago

The difference is that the first can be easily rebuffed with logic and evidence. The second can too, but it's obvious that logic and evidence aren't at the top of the agenda there. So there's no discussion necessary in the latter, and you can just shut it down. Why allow the first one then? It's about giving them enough rope to hang themselves with, _in public_. The public bit is important, because having them claim persecution and censorship, then saying those things in private anyway without rebuttable, may swing certain people.

zajio1am 4y ago

I can see that difference between these statements can be minimal for collectivists, who consider benefit of society as the most important value. But for individualists, the former does not implies the latter. It is more like: All X are good for nothing leaches on society, but their individual rights and freedom are inalienable and that is more important that their negative effect on society.

hirundo 4y ago
People from the individualist perspective almost always argue for its overall social utility, that the benefits of invididual rights and freedoms have negative and positive social effects that net positive. I've never heard one (and I've heard many) argue that the net social effects are negative but that the policy is still preferrable.
- prottog 4y ago
  I suppose nobody would argue that, but in practice it happens all the time, because the people who benefit from the policy aren't directly paying for the costs of those negative net social effects.
nightpool 4y ago
I can see where you're coming from theoretically, but at least in America, the vast majority of the people who complain about "leaches on society" are right-wing individualists. They see the undesirable elements as being supported by a welfare state and believe that without the welfare state, their "leaches" would die. It's a gross and dehumanizing view that absolutely abdicates any responsibility for society's role in supporting other people. So individualists can also believe that the two statements are identical.
- prottog 4y ago
  This is a gross and dehumanizing view because you built a gross and dehumanizing strawman. Do you connect on a personal level with American conservatives in real life? The many I know are compassionate people at an individual level, and you might argue better and have a better chance of convincing people of your viewpoint if you charitably[0] interpreted their position as something like: welfare benefits should be temporary (for those who are able to work and are looking, but are temporarily unemployed) and minimal (for those who either aren't capable of working or choose not to); welfare should not "pay" better than work; and the government should prove that the redistribution of wealth they enforce to pay for welfare is in fact doing what it set out to do, instead of creating a class of permanent welfare beneficiaries who could actually be gainfully employed instead. Very few people are actually wanting "undesirable elements" to "die". [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity