4 ms·

"That's reductio ad absurdum. You can take pretty much any conflict between groups of people and reduce it to: Group X feels its economic survival is threatened

by Crito 13y ago

"That's reductio ad absurdum. You can take pretty much any conflict between groups of people and reduce it to: Group X feels its economic survival is threatened; looks for a scapegoat in Group Y to blame for it." Because you are correct, because it is possible to reduce (most) conflicts down to that, it is therefore vital to realize that and come to gripes with that. We aren't going to go anywhere pleasant by ignoring the underlying issues (hatred fueled by economic disparity and jealousy) just because the scapegoats are softer targets who are more fun to pick on. > "Tech workers [are] spending their energies figuring out how to put ordinary people out of work" Neo-luddism. The solution is social reform, particularly focusing on reeducation and safety-nets for those who can no longer productively contribute, not smashing machines.

rayiner 13y ago
> Because you are correct, because it is possible to reduce (most) conflicts down to that, it is therefore vital to realize that and come to gripes with that. We aren't going to go anywhere pleasant by ignoring the underlying issues (hatred fueled by economic disparity and jealousy) just because the scapegoats are softer targets who are more fun to pick on. If you want to talk about a particular phenomenon, don't pick the most highly charged and divisive example you can think of that in a minor way embodies that phenomenon. Perkins didn't just say something potentially offensive. He buried his point in an analogy that is, for substantially the reasons 'michaelochurch points out in a sibling comment, both historically questionable and clumsy to work with. It's not wrong to use a controversial analogy, but if you're going to throw that hammer strike, it had better ring true and pure.
- Crito 13y ago
  I agree. The issue is not that there is anything intrinsically wrong with such examples, but because such examples cause people to get themselves worked up into a tizzy and miss the point. Picking those sort of examples is therefore a good way to be ignored. I am nevertheless concerned by what I perceive to be the idea that such examples are inherently wrong, not merely ineffective.

by Crito 13y ago

rayiner 13y ago

> Because you are correct, because it is possible to reduce (most) conflicts down to that, it is therefore vital to realize that and come to gripes with that. We aren't going to go anywhere pleasant by ignoring the underlying issues (hatred fueled by economic disparity and jealousy) just because the scapegoats are softer targets who are more fun to pick on. If you want to talk about a particular phenomenon, don't pick the most highly charged and divisive example you can think of that in a minor way embodies that phenomenon. Perkins didn't just say something potentially offensive. He buried his point in an analogy that is, for substantially the reasons 'michaelochurch points out in a sibling comment, both historically questionable and clumsy to work with. It's not wrong to use a controversial analogy, but if you're going to throw that hammer strike, it had better ring true and pure.

Crito 13y ago
I agree. The issue is not that there is anything intrinsically wrong with such examples, but because such examples cause people to get themselves worked up into a tizzy and miss the point. Picking those sort of examples is therefore a good way to be ignored. I am nevertheless concerned by what I perceive to be the idea that such examples are inherently wrong, not merely ineffective.