2 ms·

But “Black = bad” is not a simple argument because you cannot make that argument without backing it with a bunch of convoluted nonsense (complexity). Likewise w

by Cyph0n 2mo ago

But “Black = bad” is not a simple argument because you cannot make that argument without backing it with a bunch of convoluted nonsense (complexity). Likewise with illegal immigration. Racism never was (and still isn’t) simple. There were entire scientific fields developed to justify racial hierarchy. Nazism was similar.

jolmg 2mo ago
black = bad is the generalization, not the argument. The argument tends to be to just look at the number of incarcerated black people. That's simple. > you cannot make that argument without backing it with a bunch of convoluted nonsense (complexity). Unfortunately, the one listening is the one that determines how much complexity you need. Some people are convinced more easily than others. In the end, people tend to believe what they want.
- Cyph0n 2mo ago
  > In the end, people tend to believe what they want. Agreed. My point about complexity vs. simplicity does not apply to people who are coming in with strong, preconceived notions. Because how would a simple argument convince them of a generalization otherwise? Expanding on this, the point I was making is that Complexity is dangerous for those who are genuinely interested in trying to understand a topic or are simply on the fence. Just muddy the water until they lose interest and you’re golden. The antidote to that is simplicity and empathy: start with the core issue and frame it in terms the audience will empathize with. In fact, I think this is also how you deal with the aforementioned group who are easy to fall into the trap of oversimplification; you just have to find a way to simplify things differently :)
  - jolmg 2mo ago
    > My point about complexity vs. simplicity does not apply to people who are coming in with strong, preconceived notions. Because how would a simple argument convince them of a generalization otherwise? If it covers enough ground and they're prone to lose interest with more complex explanations, that can convince them... They can justify it with Occam's razor. You're talking about coming in with strong, preconceived notions, but I think those notions start with simplistic race/DNA explanations. It's precisely because the explanation is simple that it's appealing. Even just pointing at the pattern may suffice.

by Cyph0n 2mo ago

jolmg 2mo ago

black = bad is the generalization, not the argument. The argument tends to be to just look at the number of incarcerated black people. That's simple. > you cannot make that argument without backing it with a bunch of convoluted nonsense (complexity). Unfortunately, the one listening is the one that determines how much complexity you need. Some people are convinced more easily than others. In the end, people tend to believe what they want.

Cyph0n 2mo ago
> In the end, people tend to believe what they want. Agreed. My point about complexity vs. simplicity does not apply to people who are coming in with strong, preconceived notions. Because how would a simple argument convince them of a generalization otherwise? Expanding on this, the point I was making is that Complexity is dangerous for those who are genuinely interested in trying to understand a topic or are simply on the fence. Just muddy the water until they lose interest and you’re golden. The antidote to that is simplicity and empathy: start with the core issue and frame it in terms the audience will empathize with. In fact, I think this is also how you deal with the aforementioned group who are easy to fall into the trap of oversimplification; you just have to find a way to simplify things differently :)
- jolmg 2mo ago
  > My point about complexity vs. simplicity does not apply to people who are coming in with strong, preconceived notions. Because how would a simple argument convince them of a generalization otherwise? If it covers enough ground and they're prone to lose interest with more complex explanations, that can convince them... They can justify it with Occam's razor. You're talking about coming in with strong, preconceived notions, but I think those notions start with simplistic race/DNA explanations. It's precisely because the explanation is simple that it's appealing. Even just pointing at the pattern may suffice.