3 ms·
Be careful with this type of argument. It can be easily employed by “both sides” since the information each side is working from supports their own view and sim
by imoverclocked 1y ago
Be careful with this type of argument. It can be easily employed by “both sides” since the information each side is working from supports their own view and simply polarizes each side further.
- esseph 1y agoThe largest voting block are independents, so everytime someone gives me the "both sides" argument I normally throw something at them.
- imoverclocked 1y agoI can see how you got there since I did use the term "both sides." My argument is that anyone can make the same claim towards any stance with the exact same passion. Making that claim simply polarizes the opposing viewpoint further. The discourse doesn't provide constructive feedback nor a reason outside of a bandwagon style pressure to conform to a different opinion. Arguably, a cult of personality is part of the problem in the first place. HN tends to value academic discourse rather than emotional triggers. While both do exist here, academic discourse is generally the goal.
- esseph 1y agoYou can't reason someone out of something they didn't reason themselves into, right?
- imoverclocked 1y agoOften true. The discourse between people on HN is seen by many so the effects are more varied than just the active participants. As such, I’m loath to leave certain comments completely unchecked.