7 ms·

It’s a matter of attribution of consequences; if A enables B; then should A take credit for B? This is the point of utilities; to enable people to live and thr

It’s a matter of attribution of consequences; if A enables B; then should A take credit for B? This is the point of utilities; to enable people to live and thrive. Arguing that A should be axed while ignoring, either out of ignorance or malice, that it enables B hides the full picture. > That doesn't mean they're being ignored here. Mention them to enrich the discussion, rather than suppressing the discussion with fearmongering. See, that’s the problem with bullshit. It takes substantially more effort to counter and clean up the bullshit than it takes to spread it. This is what is dangerous, making claims or insinuating things out of ignorance or malice. > Who gets to decide the full picture? I tell my kid gravity exists, and in doing so I hide the big picture. Your definition is too vague. That’s a strawman. > The solution is to stop calling ideas dangerous and figure out what actually is dangerous. Also a strawman as you left the qualifiers out. Right, ideas are not dangerous, ideas ghat misrepresent reality are dangerous. Populists like to present their ideas as simple solutions and every single time they make things worse. Exhibit A: brexit.

robertlagrant 3y ago
> See, that’s the problem with bullshit. It takes substantially more effort to counter and clean up the bullshit than it takes to spread it. This is what is dangerous, making claims or insinuating things out of ignorance or malice. You're spending effort just name calling instead, though. Countering through insinuation (you think that? That's what populists think!) or arguing from adverse consequences are just terrible alternatives. I would spend that effort finding out how to logically counter instead of using these tactics. > That’s a strawman. No; I think your definition was just easy to falsify. You need a better definition. If you want to demonstrate why my example was a straw man, feel free to do so, but I don't think the phrase even applies here. > Arguing that A should be axed while ignoring, either out of ignorance or malice, that it enables B hides the full picture This is the straw man. You're making up that I argued something should be axed, because that is an easy argument to counter than what I actually said. That is the definition of a straw man argument.

robertlagrant 3y ago

> See, that’s the problem with bullshit. It takes substantially more effort to counter and clean up the bullshit than it takes to spread it. This is what is dangerous, making claims or insinuating things out of ignorance or malice. You're spending effort just name calling instead, though. Countering through insinuation (you think that? That's what populists think!) or arguing from adverse consequences are just terrible alternatives. I would spend that effort finding out how to logically counter instead of using these tactics. > That’s a strawman. No; I think your definition was just easy to falsify. You need a better definition. If you want to demonstrate why my example was a straw man, feel free to do so, but I don't think the phrase even applies here. > Arguing that A should be axed while ignoring, either out of ignorance or malice, that it enables B hides the full picture This is the straw man. You're making up that I argued something should be axed, because that is an easy argument to counter than what I actually said. That is the definition of a straw man argument.