9 ms·

These are real problems. But they are also loaded questions, if someone asked me these at a party I would view them as looking for confirmation, and not seeking

by cle 2y ago

These are real problems. But they are also loaded questions, if someone asked me these at a party I would view them as looking for confirmation, and not seeking truth. There's nothing wrong with that, but the author's goal is curiosity and truth seeking, and I'm skeptical that most of these questions align with that goal.

InDubioProRubio 2y ago
I always wondered, what those Pinkerton man thought, when they attacked union members with machine guns for their masters in the guilded age.
- rpd9803 2y ago
  They thought "Well, I guess this makes me one of those people for whom "Not talking about politics with Friends" becomes a core tenent to my personal philosophy."
- analog31 2y ago
  They thought that the union members were criminals.
  - pixl97 2y ago
    Without the ability to realize that it's politics that defines what a criminal is.
- exoverito 2y ago
  The original argument put forth by capitalists was that unionized workers were effectively engaging in economic sabotage by striking and blockading factories. That said the Pinkertons were basically mercenaries akin to organized crime, so probably viewed things in terms of might makes right.
- sylos 2y ago
  Unfortunately they're thinking the same thing today.
- int_19h 2y ago
  They thought, "if I do a good job, I'm going to get a bonus"
- cle 2y ago
  This is about having political conversations with friends, not with people shooting at you with machine guns.
moolcool 2y ago
[flagged]
- analog31 2y ago
  Every rationalist movement eventually ends up at odds with rational people.
  - moolcool 2y ago
    It always falls down because the end-goal of ones "rationalism" always has to be determined by a set of values. If you want to form a political ideology based on rationality, your very first step will stick you right in the middle of the sticky-icky world of the humanities. 'Hello deontology, my old friend.'
    - bumby 2y ago
      Isn’t rationalism (as discussed above) more closely related to utilitarianism? Thus rationalism is more of a consequentialist framework than a deontological one?
      - moolcool 2y ago
        Even definitions there are extremely hazy. "The most good for the most people". Define "good". Happiness? Economic prosperity? Community? And over what time span? Define "most". Percentage of people served? Number of people served? Define "people". Are you counting citizens? Immigrants? Foreigners? Prisoners? People in the future? You know the joke in the sciences about how everything distills down to mathematics? I would argue that we just as often distill down to philosophy. You have to reckon with a lot of questions which a stats degree can't help you much with.
        bumby 2y ago
        To steal a quote from The Good Place, “This is why everyone hates moral philosophy professors”
Workaccount2 2y ago
The strawmanning of arguments from both sides is so intense that most people lay in a bed composed entirely of strawman arguments. I firmly blame the media above all for this, but individuals carry a burden to for not trying to remake their bed. It took me 15 years to to remake my bed into somewhat rational arguments, and still I find lots of hay in there. Generally both sides, or all sides really, want the same things and disagree on how to get there. And the truth is there is almost never an obvious or clear way to get there. It's fractal pros and cons all the way down.
- matwood 2y ago
  > but individuals carry a burden to for not trying to remake their bed In what way? I turn on Fox sometimes and it's not that it's slanted, but it's just a stream of lies and BS. I've watched a bunch of Trump's speeches and in addition to being incoherent, he says the same lies and BS all the way down. Yesterday's tariff speech was a great example. I don't consider myself progressive (though the MAGA right would think me so), but where do I go to try and 'remake [my] bed'?
  - ablob 2y ago
    I think what's meant is that you need to be open to changing your opinion and manner of approach to things. To stay with the analogy: when you "remake" your bed and it ends up the same, chances are that you didn't try to improve on its design. By turning on Fox sometimes (provided it's not your main source) you might already not fall into the category of people not trying to remake their bed.
    - freejazz 2y ago
      Wait, we're designing bedding now? Not just remaking our beds? What a strained analogy that when you 'remake' your bed and it's the 'same' (why would it be different?) then you didn't improve the design?? Even more shocking is that you ran with this as opposed to realizing that these were warning signs that either your fundamental argument is ridiculous, or your analogy is.
  - 2y ago
paulsutter 2y ago
Actually they make great conversion. Preface with, “Why is neither party talking about…” and you’ll find that most people agree.
- immibis 2y ago
  Then lead them to the understanding that both parties are right-wing? (support the current economic system, support mass-murdering brown people overseas, support embezzling for personal gain as long as they don't get caught, etc)
  - aerostable_slug 2y ago
    > support embezzling for personal gain as long as they don't get caught If you think this is a strictly right-wing characteristic you are hopelessly partisan.
    - immibis 2y ago
      Notice that I said both parties do it.
hn_throwaway_99 2y ago
The ironic thing to me is that the author essentially makes this the main point right from the get go: > The insidious nature of this question comes from the false representation as earnest, intellectual discourse. Many who ask it may truly believe they’re engaging earnestly, but their responses quickly reveal an angle more akin to religious police. As you point out, nearly all of talkingtab's questions are loaded. At the very least, talkingtab essentially says outright what they expect the "correct" answer to be, e.g I'm baffled why talkingtab seems to think "inflation" is a "code word". I speak English, and inflation is "telling it like it is" based on the simple definition of the word. As another example, for this question: > Are common Americans paid a living wage? Can one person earn enough to have a family? What happens if a response is "No, I don't believe that cashiers at McDonald's deserve to be paid a 'living wage', because I don't believe that job is intended to support a family on its own"? To emphasize, I'm not saying what the "right" answer is, but I do believe reasonable people can disagree over what constitutes a living wage and which jobs deserve to be paid it. If anything, talkingtab's post just highlights to me the author's specific point about political "tribes" vs political views, and if anything has convinced me more that the author's view is spot on here.
- keybored 2y ago
  My read is that talkingtab’s agenda here is to focus the conversation on what politics is. Rather than being this thing you discuss with people (or not) it’s about injustice against the majority. So why does that get brought up? Because with the OP it’s easy to end up concluding that politics to the average person is something you choose to idly or deliberately or max-brainpower chatter with other people about. Then it can be easily thought that it’s just about differing policy positions. But talkingtab is saying that it’s more confrontational than that. So why are the questions “loaded”? Because as you can see with your own eyes, they have their own political agenda. Part of politics is defining what the the agenda should be—and what should be considered political. As you can imagine, people who think they are arguing or fighting on behalf of people making a living wage etc. want to put that message out there. They are not discussing abstract concepts or competing in some open-mindedness competition or some rationality contest. It matters to them. > If anything, talkingtab's post just highlights to me the author's specific point about political "tribes" vs political views, and if anything has convinced me more that the author's view is spot on here. You are even more convinced. Yet there is nothing here that suggests that talkingtab is tribal in the sense of what the OP is talking about. None. Is this received opinion or opinion born from studying like a monk for 10 years? You don’t know. You also say that talkingtab is presenting what the “correct” answer is. Yes, according to them. Again, is it really tribalism? Or is it conviction as well as the polemic tone of the whole comment? And having conviction doesn’t mean that you cannot conceive of people having other opinions, or being intellectually unable to present counter-arguments to their own position. Again, no proof of tribalism is presented. And this focus on tribalism presupposes that the end goal is to find your tone. Alternatively you can look at their arguments. Maybe they want to change the flaws they perceive in the world.
keybored 2y ago
They are both real problems and loaded questions. Okay. Ostensibly the point of politics is to solve problems that people have. That will lead to people putting forth what they think the problems are. We simply don’t have time to theorize every concievable potential problem and then, one by one, painstakingly (with our minds wide open like an open brain surgery) consider whether they are in fact problems that people have. All of these pointed questions can also be disputed.

by cle 2y ago

InDubioProRubio 2y ago

I always wondered, what those Pinkerton man thought, when they attacked union members with machine guns for their masters in the guilded age.

rpd9803 2y ago
They thought "Well, I guess this makes me one of those people for whom "Not talking about politics with Friends" becomes a core tenent to my personal philosophy."
analog31 2y ago
They thought that the union members were criminals.
- pixl97 2y ago
  Without the ability to realize that it's politics that defines what a criminal is.
exoverito 2y ago
The original argument put forth by capitalists was that unionized workers were effectively engaging in economic sabotage by striking and blockading factories. That said the Pinkertons were basically mercenaries akin to organized crime, so probably viewed things in terms of might makes right.
sylos 2y ago
Unfortunately they're thinking the same thing today.
int_19h 2y ago
They thought, "if I do a good job, I'm going to get a bonus"
cle 2y ago
This is about having political conversations with friends, not with people shooting at you with machine guns.

moolcool 2y ago

[flagged]

analog31 2y ago
Every rationalist movement eventually ends up at odds with rational people.
- moolcool 2y ago
  It always falls down because the end-goal of ones "rationalism" always has to be determined by a set of values. If you want to form a political ideology based on rationality, your very first step will stick you right in the middle of the sticky-icky world of the humanities. 'Hello deontology, my old friend.'
  - bumby 2y ago
    Isn’t rationalism (as discussed above) more closely related to utilitarianism? Thus rationalism is more of a consequentialist framework than a deontological one?
    - moolcool 2y ago
      Even definitions there are extremely hazy. "The most good for the most people". Define "good". Happiness? Economic prosperity? Community? And over what time span? Define "most". Percentage of people served? Number of people served? Define "people". Are you counting citizens? Immigrants? Foreigners? Prisoners? People in the future? You know the joke in the sciences about how everything distills down to mathematics? I would argue that we just as often distill down to philosophy. You have to reckon with a lot of questions which a stats degree can't help you much with.
      - bumby 2y ago
        To steal a quote from The Good Place, “This is why everyone hates moral philosophy professors”

Workaccount2 2y ago

The strawmanning of arguments from both sides is so intense that most people lay in a bed composed entirely of strawman arguments. I firmly blame the media above all for this, but individuals carry a burden to for not trying to remake their bed. It took me 15 years to to remake my bed into somewhat rational arguments, and still I find lots of hay in there. Generally both sides, or all sides really, want the same things and disagree on how to get there. And the truth is there is almost never an obvious or clear way to get there. It's fractal pros and cons all the way down.

matwood 2y ago
> but individuals carry a burden to for not trying to remake their bed In what way? I turn on Fox sometimes and it's not that it's slanted, but it's just a stream of lies and BS. I've watched a bunch of Trump's speeches and in addition to being incoherent, he says the same lies and BS all the way down. Yesterday's tariff speech was a great example. I don't consider myself progressive (though the MAGA right would think me so), but where do I go to try and 'remake [my] bed'?
- ablob 2y ago
  I think what's meant is that you need to be open to changing your opinion and manner of approach to things. To stay with the analogy: when you "remake" your bed and it ends up the same, chances are that you didn't try to improve on its design. By turning on Fox sometimes (provided it's not your main source) you might already not fall into the category of people not trying to remake their bed.
  - freejazz 2y ago
    Wait, we're designing bedding now? Not just remaking our beds? What a strained analogy that when you 'remake' your bed and it's the 'same' (why would it be different?) then you didn't improve the design?? Even more shocking is that you ran with this as opposed to realizing that these were warning signs that either your fundamental argument is ridiculous, or your analogy is.
- 2y ago

paulsutter 2y ago

Actually they make great conversion. Preface with, “Why is neither party talking about…” and you’ll find that most people agree.

immibis 2y ago
Then lead them to the understanding that both parties are right-wing? (support the current economic system, support mass-murdering brown people overseas, support embezzling for personal gain as long as they don't get caught, etc)
- aerostable_slug 2y ago
  > support embezzling for personal gain as long as they don't get caught If you think this is a strictly right-wing characteristic you are hopelessly partisan.
  - immibis 2y ago
    Notice that I said both parties do it.

hn_throwaway_99 2y ago

The ironic thing to me is that the author essentially makes this the main point right from the get go: > The insidious nature of this question comes from the false representation as earnest, intellectual discourse. Many who ask it may truly believe they’re engaging earnestly, but their responses quickly reveal an angle more akin to religious police. As you point out, nearly all of talkingtab's questions are loaded. At the very least, talkingtab essentially says outright what they expect the "correct" answer to be, e.g I'm baffled why talkingtab seems to think "inflation" is a "code word". I speak English, and inflation is "telling it like it is" based on the simple definition of the word. As another example, for this question: > Are common Americans paid a living wage? Can one person earn enough to have a family? What happens if a response is "No, I don't believe that cashiers at McDonald's deserve to be paid a 'living wage', because I don't believe that job is intended to support a family on its own"? To emphasize, I'm not saying what the "right" answer is, but I do believe reasonable people can disagree over what constitutes a living wage and which jobs deserve to be paid it. If anything, talkingtab's post just highlights to me the author's specific point about political "tribes" vs political views, and if anything has convinced me more that the author's view is spot on here.

keybored 2y ago
My read is that talkingtab’s agenda here is to focus the conversation on what politics is. Rather than being this thing you discuss with people (or not) it’s about injustice against the majority. So why does that get brought up? Because with the OP it’s easy to end up concluding that politics to the average person is something you choose to idly or deliberately or max-brainpower chatter with other people about. Then it can be easily thought that it’s just about differing policy positions. But talkingtab is saying that it’s more confrontational than that. So why are the questions “loaded”? Because as you can see with your own eyes, they have their own political agenda. Part of politics is defining what the the agenda should be—and what should be considered political. As you can imagine, people who think they are arguing or fighting on behalf of people making a living wage etc. want to put that message out there. They are not discussing abstract concepts or competing in some open-mindedness competition or some rationality contest. It matters to them. > If anything, talkingtab's post just highlights to me the author's specific point about political "tribes" vs political views, and if anything has convinced me more that the author's view is spot on here. You are even more convinced. Yet there is nothing here that suggests that talkingtab is tribal in the sense of what the OP is talking about. None. Is this received opinion or opinion born from studying like a monk for 10 years? You don’t know. You also say that talkingtab is presenting what the “correct” answer is. Yes, according to them. Again, is it really tribalism? Or is it conviction as well as the polemic tone of the whole comment? And having conviction doesn’t mean that you cannot conceive of people having other opinions, or being intellectually unable to present counter-arguments to their own position. Again, no proof of tribalism is presented. And this focus on tribalism presupposes that the end goal is to find your tone. Alternatively you can look at their arguments. Maybe they want to change the flaws they perceive in the world.

keybored 2y ago

They are both real problems and loaded questions. Okay. Ostensibly the point of politics is to solve problems that people have. That will lead to people putting forth what they think the problems are. We simply don’t have time to theorize every concievable potential problem and then, one by one, painstakingly (with our minds wide open like an open brain surgery) consider whether they are in fact problems that people have. All of these pointed questions can also be disputed.