4 ms·

Asking for evidence of claims is very offensive to those who don’t have any. They feel very strongly about a topic, but it’s entirely based on their various pe

by tt24 5mo ago

Asking for evidence of claims is very offensive to those who don’t have any. They feel very strongly about a topic, but it’s entirely based on their various personal experiences. They arrive at the conclusion first, and then try to arrange reality around their opinions.

Forgeties79 5mo ago
When people write it that way it’s as useless as going “source?” I hope I don’t have to to explain the problem with that approach to discussion, but I will anyway. It takes no effort and almost always obfuscates the fact that they object but would rather try and put a bunch of burden on the person rather than actually articulate their disagreement. It also gives them the semblance of being “above the fray” and “just asking questions.” It’s this nonsense https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48154443 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48154443 on repeat. It’s plausible deniability. I am very surprised this has to be explained on HN. This is an old debate tactic and one that is frequently, as well as lazily, deployed on the internet. It’s a close cousin to sealioning and usually morphs into it. You are engaging in a tactic that covers your rear, requires no actual expression of opinions or values, and burdens others. It is very unlikely you don’t have an opinion on this subject and yet you are acting like a casual observer with no opinion. If I’m wrong then I bet wrong on otherwise smart money and I apologize for the mistake.
- tt24 5mo ago
  I very much have an opinion on the subject and never claimed otherwise. My opinion is that lobbying is a nonissue and there’s very little money in politics, and that money doesn’t really impact political outcomes. What makes you think that this is something I’m obscuring?
  - Forgeties79 5mo ago
    > I very much have an opinion on the subject and never claimed otherwise Of course you do. That’s why I said something. Your omission is the problem, you intentionally didn’t say anything. > What makes you think that this is something I’m obscuring? This entire comment chain explains why I think that I don’t know why we’re playing games here - just be straight with people out the gate. Opacity doesn’t facilitate conversation. I know you understand what I’m talking about and I won’t belabor the point further.
    - tt24 5mo ago
      In what way was I being opaque? I have no obligation to say “Give me evidence (btw I disagree with you)” lol. I’m sorry that asking your side to support its claims is so offensive to you. I can’t say I relate to this mindset. It’s completely foreign to me.
    - tt24 5mo ago
      Ah, I see, you have an emotional / personal investment in this topic. That’s why my harmless request for evidence offends you. I won’t engage further then because it won’t be productive. I’ll continue to call out baseless claims of course, but I don’t think there’s any amount of argumentation or evidence that could convince you since you arrived at your position via feeling - proof or citations are just window dressing.
      - deleted 5mo ago
        [deleted]

by tt24 5mo ago

Forgeties79 5mo ago

When people write it that way it’s as useless as going “source?” I hope I don’t have to to explain the problem with that approach to discussion, but I will anyway. It takes no effort and almost always obfuscates the fact that they object but would rather try and put a bunch of burden on the person rather than actually articulate their disagreement. It also gives them the semblance of being “above the fray” and “just asking questions.” It’s this nonsense https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48154443 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48154443 on repeat. It’s plausible deniability. I am very surprised this has to be explained on HN. This is an old debate tactic and one that is frequently, as well as lazily, deployed on the internet. It’s a close cousin to sealioning and usually morphs into it. You are engaging in a tactic that covers your rear, requires no actual expression of opinions or values, and burdens others. It is very unlikely you don’t have an opinion on this subject and yet you are acting like a casual observer with no opinion. If I’m wrong then I bet wrong on otherwise smart money and I apologize for the mistake.

tt24 5mo ago
I very much have an opinion on the subject and never claimed otherwise. My opinion is that lobbying is a nonissue and there’s very little money in politics, and that money doesn’t really impact political outcomes. What makes you think that this is something I’m obscuring?
- Forgeties79 5mo ago
  > I very much have an opinion on the subject and never claimed otherwise Of course you do. That’s why I said something. Your omission is the problem, you intentionally didn’t say anything. > What makes you think that this is something I’m obscuring? This entire comment chain explains why I think that I don’t know why we’re playing games here - just be straight with people out the gate. Opacity doesn’t facilitate conversation. I know you understand what I’m talking about and I won’t belabor the point further.
  - tt24 5mo ago
    In what way was I being opaque? I have no obligation to say “Give me evidence (btw I disagree with you)” lol. I’m sorry that asking your side to support its claims is so offensive to you. I can’t say I relate to this mindset. It’s completely foreign to me.
  - tt24 5mo ago
    Ah, I see, you have an emotional / personal investment in this topic. That’s why my harmless request for evidence offends you. I won’t engage further then because it won’t be productive. I’ll continue to call out baseless claims of course, but I don’t think there’s any amount of argumentation or evidence that could convince you since you arrived at your position via feeling - proof or citations are just window dressing.
    - deleted 5mo ago
      [deleted]