3 ms·

I'm not surprised, but continually amazed that people actually and truly think this way; that there's only one insidious group that are the problem, and only th

I'm not surprised, but continually amazed that people actually and truly think this way; that there's only one insidious group that are the problem, and only they will be the cause of disaster. Take the blinders off, there's more at work here that petty tribalism.

hackerlight 4y ago
Sometimes there is only one truly insidious group, and to suggest otherwise is the false balance fallacy. That group's supporters will think of themselves as just, and even see themselves as victims. It's always like that with authoritarian movements.
- Tr3nton 4y ago
mint2 4y ago
Can you pleas explain how that bothersiderism logic would not be equally valid for defending the Nazi party in the 30s? You must believe it’s not valid because it being valid means the comment is gas lighting.
- andrew_ 4y ago
  Godwin, every time.
  - mint2 4y ago
    The only thing surer than debates on the internet eventually leading to nazi comparisons is that some commenter will then cite godwins law. It’s actually godwins second law of nature. how pertinent nazis are to the topic is not relevant, Godwin’s law will be brought up and very often inappropriately as even Godwin himself has noted. “Godwin's law itself can be applied mistakenly or abused as a distraction, diversion or even as censorship, when fallaciously miscasting an opponent's argument as hyperbole when the comparison made by the argument is appropriate.[12]” “Godwin himself has also criticized the overapplication of the law, claiming that it does not articulate a fallacy, but rather is intended to reduce the frequency of inappropriate and hyperbolic comparisons“
    - andrew_ 4y ago
      And yet it doesn't make it any less true. The correlation exists, just as tides to moon phase, and doesn't negate the existence of either. HN has turned into that one site where any remotely ideological topic, any minutely political (cue the "everything is political crowd") will invariably bring out the "BUT NAZIS" replies. It's insufferable.
      - mint2 4y ago
        A. I wasn’t the one who broached the topic of nazis B. This is a comment page about censorship and this thread in particular is about one party trying to end open society So nazis are a natural comparison, and the valid comparison was attempted to be censored and avoided by bringing up an internet meme in exactly the way the originator has criticized. But hey knowing the meme is a get out of jail free card, no civil discourse needed! Just admit that the comment would have been a valid defense of the nazi party in its ramp up. No meme-ing out of that and there’s been no attempt to deny it, just distract from it.
        deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
      - hackerlight 4y ago
        Bringing up Godwin's law as meta commentary is a thought terminating rhetorical tactic. It isn't an argument and it conveys no information.

hackerlight 4y ago

Sometimes there is only one truly insidious group, and to suggest otherwise is the false balance fallacy. That group's supporters will think of themselves as just, and even see themselves as victims. It's always like that with authoritarian movements.

Tr3nton 4y ago

mint2 4y ago

Can you pleas explain how that bothersiderism logic would not be equally valid for defending the Nazi party in the 30s? You must believe it’s not valid because it being valid means the comment is gas lighting.

andrew_ 4y ago
Godwin, every time.
- mint2 4y ago
  The only thing surer than debates on the internet eventually leading to nazi comparisons is that some commenter will then cite godwins law. It’s actually godwins second law of nature. how pertinent nazis are to the topic is not relevant, Godwin’s law will be brought up and very often inappropriately as even Godwin himself has noted. “Godwin's law itself can be applied mistakenly or abused as a distraction, diversion or even as censorship, when fallaciously miscasting an opponent's argument as hyperbole when the comparison made by the argument is appropriate.[12]” “Godwin himself has also criticized the overapplication of the law, claiming that it does not articulate a fallacy, but rather is intended to reduce the frequency of inappropriate and hyperbolic comparisons“
  - andrew_ 4y ago
    And yet it doesn't make it any less true. The correlation exists, just as tides to moon phase, and doesn't negate the existence of either. HN has turned into that one site where any remotely ideological topic, any minutely political (cue the "everything is political crowd") will invariably bring out the "BUT NAZIS" replies. It's insufferable.
    - mint2 4y ago
      A. I wasn’t the one who broached the topic of nazis B. This is a comment page about censorship and this thread in particular is about one party trying to end open society So nazis are a natural comparison, and the valid comparison was attempted to be censored and avoided by bringing up an internet meme in exactly the way the originator has criticized. But hey knowing the meme is a get out of jail free card, no civil discourse needed! Just admit that the comment would have been a valid defense of the nazi party in its ramp up. No meme-ing out of that and there’s been no attempt to deny it, just distract from it.
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
    - hackerlight 4y ago
      Bringing up Godwin's law as meta commentary is a thought terminating rhetorical tactic. It isn't an argument and it conveys no information.