4 ms·

There’s a kind of thing that happens in these discussions where somebody makes a complaint about an extremist position and somebody else responds that nobody th

There’s a kind of thing that happens in these discussions where somebody makes a complaint about an extremist position and somebody else responds that nobody thinks that and the two are kind of talking past one another. To be clear, I acknowledge that we’re talking about an extreme, broadly unpopular position, but it is one running through certain segments of leftish twitter and academia. (No, I don’t keep a file of such utterances, so I can’t produce a list offhand.)

nobody9999 4y ago
>To be clear, I acknowledge that we’re talking about an extreme, broadly unpopular position, but it is one running through certain segments of leftish twitter and academia. (No, I don’t keep a file of such utterances, so I can’t produce a list offhand.) That's as may be, but lots of people say lots of stupid/ridiculous/untrue things all the time. Who, in a position of power or influence (or reasonably adjacent to such power/influence), advocates such a view? I can say all sorts of things, ranging from the mundane ("I like coffee.") to the ridiculous ("There is an underground advance alien invasion base under Biscayne Bay."). And while that does mean I will make coffee for myself tomorrow morning, it most certainly doesn't mean that the Army Corps of Engineers will be planting nukes in Biscayne Bay to destroy those evil aliens. And it doesn't matter how many times I say it or to whom I say it, the Army Corps of Engineers aren't going to nuke Biscayne Bay. And no one should pay any attention to such ramblings. And so I have to ask, why are you giving credence to (as you readily state) what some unbalanced rando thinks about prosecuting crime. And not just giving such credence, you also claimed that such views were those of "progressives." You're now walking that back, but you (and that's what I responded to) implied that "excusing" criminal acts was somehow a "progressive" position. It is not, and never has been. There are those who claim that certain government officials routinely abduct babies and small children in order to murder them and extract some hormone to make them live longer. Overwhelmingly, at least in the US, the folks who make (and/or believe -- not the same thing) such claims almost exclusively supported one political party over another. Does that mean that everyone who supports that political party (or even a a tiny fraction) also believes such things? By your logic, the answer should be "yes." Is that correct? I could give a host of other examples of other ridiculous tropes from the extremes. None of which have support from anyone with or near any real power. The upshot is that I took issue with you (specifically you, dionidium) smearing a broad group of folks (progressives) with a broad brush, claiming that an extreme stance by folks who may or may not consider themselves part of that group is the default belief of a group. That's a clear example of "othering"[0], in which you are attempting to besmirch folks with beliefs they do not hold. If you'd instead said something like "some extremist positions claim that people shouldn't be prosecuted for crimes if they had a bad childhood," I would have heartily agreed. But "othering" has no place in reasoned discourse. Don't like progressives? I'm sure you can find stuff that's actually true to beat up on them. But just making shit up is low effort and doesn't add to the discussion. [0] https://www.verywellmind.com/what-is-othering-5084425 https://www.verywellmind.com/what-is-othering-5084425 Edit: Added the missing link.
- dionidium 4y ago
  > * Does that mean that everyone who supports that political party (or even a a tiny fraction) also believes such things? By your logic, the answer should be "yes." Is that correct?* I think the source of the conflict here is that, no, this does not follow. The position I described is distinctly progressive in nature, on the opposite end of the spectrum from a belief that one might characterize as conservative. That does not imply that everybody who identifies as progressive believes it.
  - nobody9999 4y ago
    >I think the source of the conflict here is that, no, this does not follow. The position I described is distinctly progressive in nature, on the opposite end of the spectrum from a belief that one might characterize as conservative. That does not imply that everybody who identifies as progressive believes it. No. The source of the "conflict," as you describe (I call it a spirited conversation, but whatever blows your skirt up) is that you made an unsupported assertion (that the "progressive" position is that people with bad childhoods shouldn't be prosecuted for crimes they go on to commit), and I asked for specific information as to who, exactly, claims that to be not only their position, but that of progressives in general. You danced around that very specific request and then somewhat backed off your (ridiculous) assertion. And no, you didn't say "it's a progressive position," you said[0]: There’s something very odd to me about the modern progressive position that, more or less, if you can explain a crime, then you can in some sense excuse it. Not "a progressive postion," which is debatable at best, you called it "the progressive position" implying that was the belief of most who call themselves "progressive." That's simply not true. Nor has it ever been. And I called you out on your wholly unsupported, unsubstantiated and flat wrong assertion. You are seemingly trying to walk back your statement and chalk it up to "conflict." No. I'm not in conflict with you at all. You may think you're in conflict with me, but I'm just here trying to have good faith discussions. You might try it some time. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34317453 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34317453 Edit: clarified my prose.
    - dionidium 4y ago

nobody9999 4y ago

>To be clear, I acknowledge that we’re talking about an extreme, broadly unpopular position, but it is one running through certain segments of leftish twitter and academia. (No, I don’t keep a file of such utterances, so I can’t produce a list offhand.) That's as may be, but lots of people say lots of stupid/ridiculous/untrue things all the time. Who, in a position of power or influence (or reasonably adjacent to such power/influence), advocates such a view? I can say all sorts of things, ranging from the mundane ("I like coffee.") to the ridiculous ("There is an underground advance alien invasion base under Biscayne Bay."). And while that does mean I will make coffee for myself tomorrow morning, it most certainly doesn't mean that the Army Corps of Engineers will be planting nukes in Biscayne Bay to destroy those evil aliens. And it doesn't matter how many times I say it or to whom I say it, the Army Corps of Engineers aren't going to nuke Biscayne Bay. And no one should pay any attention to such ramblings. And so I have to ask, why are you giving credence to (as you readily state) what some unbalanced rando thinks about prosecuting crime. And not just giving such credence, you also claimed that such views were those of "progressives." You're now walking that back, but you (and that's what I responded to) implied that "excusing" criminal acts was somehow a "progressive" position. It is not, and never has been. There are those who claim that certain government officials routinely abduct babies and small children in order to murder them and extract some hormone to make them live longer. Overwhelmingly, at least in the US, the folks who make (and/or believe -- not the same thing) such claims almost exclusively supported one political party over another. Does that mean that everyone who supports that political party (or even a a tiny fraction) also believes such things? By your logic, the answer should be "yes." Is that correct? I could give a host of other examples of other ridiculous tropes from the extremes. None of which have support from anyone with or near any real power. The upshot is that I took issue with you (specifically you, dionidium) smearing a broad group of folks (progressives) with a broad brush, claiming that an extreme stance by folks who may or may not consider themselves part of that group is the default belief of a group. That's a clear example of "othering"[0], in which you are attempting to besmirch folks with beliefs they do not hold. If you'd instead said something like "some extremist positions claim that people shouldn't be prosecuted for crimes if they had a bad childhood," I would have heartily agreed. But "othering" has no place in reasoned discourse. Don't like progressives? I'm sure you can find stuff that's actually true to beat up on them. But just making shit up is low effort and doesn't add to the discussion. [0] https://www.verywellmind.com/what-is-othering-5084425 https://www.verywellmind.com/what-is-othering-5084425 Edit: Added the missing link.

dionidium 4y ago
> * Does that mean that everyone who supports that political party (or even a a tiny fraction) also believes such things? By your logic, the answer should be "yes." Is that correct?* I think the source of the conflict here is that, no, this does not follow. The position I described is distinctly progressive in nature, on the opposite end of the spectrum from a belief that one might characterize as conservative. That does not imply that everybody who identifies as progressive believes it.
- nobody9999 4y ago
  >I think the source of the conflict here is that, no, this does not follow. The position I described is distinctly progressive in nature, on the opposite end of the spectrum from a belief that one might characterize as conservative. That does not imply that everybody who identifies as progressive believes it. No. The source of the "conflict," as you describe (I call it a spirited conversation, but whatever blows your skirt up) is that you made an unsupported assertion (that the "progressive" position is that people with bad childhoods shouldn't be prosecuted for crimes they go on to commit), and I asked for specific information as to who, exactly, claims that to be not only their position, but that of progressives in general. You danced around that very specific request and then somewhat backed off your (ridiculous) assertion. And no, you didn't say "it's a progressive position," you said[0]: There’s something very odd to me about the modern progressive position that, more or less, if you can explain a crime, then you can in some sense excuse it. Not "a progressive postion," which is debatable at best, you called it "the progressive position" implying that was the belief of most who call themselves "progressive." That's simply not true. Nor has it ever been. And I called you out on your wholly unsupported, unsubstantiated and flat wrong assertion. You are seemingly trying to walk back your statement and chalk it up to "conflict." No. I'm not in conflict with you at all. You may think you're in conflict with me, but I'm just here trying to have good faith discussions. You might try it some time. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34317453 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34317453 Edit: clarified my prose.
  - dionidium 4y ago