That’s “target-seeking”? Saying “your comment is on the thing that is the problem” and asking whether you’re suggesting the underlying assumption is valid?
2 Likes
I’m probably the one responsible for the “genetic fallacy” you’re referring to. I don’t think I was really committing that fallacy, but arguably I could have made my point in a way that didn’t sound so much like the genetic fallacy: by arguing that there’s an ongoing pattern of people in power arguing for “tone policing”.
This wasn’t meant to be an attack on you. You had, after all, referred to Marcus Aurelius’s stoicism while making it clear you had reservations about subscribing to it.
This going to sound, just, so flippant but I really feel there is some kind of neurochemical barrier to speaking cogently with those out with our in-group, however tenuous that differentiation might be.
We have so many people fighting so many different corners, even disagreeing over how to fight the same ones, the atomisation of any issue seems a forgone conclusion in most circumstances. Fatigue sets in, we incorrectly pattern match based on previous negative experiences, trip over our own criticism and pour high-octane pride on the fire. Surely we, the fighters for change, deserve that indulgence.
And that’s leaving confirmation bias and fallacies up the hee-haw to one side.
So anyway, to flippancy.
The most striking example I am smitten by is the precipitous drop in Football (soccer) hooliganism (just read ‘violence’, lol) when MDMA came on the scene.
I’ve read personal accounts from rival supporters, getting together for a prematch drink and singing songs instead of getting together for a knife-fight. Bloody hugging one another and swapping scarves instead of the traditional lacerations.
I’m not calling for E in the tap water or anything but perhaps some kind of large scale pharmacological intervention really is what it would take to dissolve those insidious boundaries. Better health, a more complete understanding of each and every individuals neurochemical needs could do it but that there boundary dissolution at least gets the ball rolling.
2 Likes
I think “out with our in-group” is the fundamental problem. Seems all living things rely on distinguishing me/us from not me/them. When you’re all intellectually advanced and smart, like a human, you extend the line beyond the cell wall, beyond the species, to the tribe, to the occupation, to the race, to the class, to the religion, to the politics, to the sports team. The trick will be to extend recognition of inclusion to all humankind, then all life.
It can be a courageous thing to identify yourself with anything who isn’t you. (My partner is the person I most closely identify wth, but it’s not complete.) Some philosophers suggest that it can be done with reflection, meditation, discourse. I do like your neurochemical approach; along with reflection, it’s the one I’ve relied on mostly.
2 Likes
Dialectic, like enlightenment, is impossible but we must do it anyway.
3 Likes
2 Likes
See? We are better than YouTube!
2 Likes
9 Likes
That was a very mild example. In that case there was no stripping of context and the response was phrased as a query instead of an accusation. And also the person doing it has a history of being willing to have a real two-way conversation.
But there’s this recurring conversational pattern (and it happens two or three times in that discussion, as I recall) where a person takes part of what someone says (quite often plucking a line completely out of context) and says “so you’re saying THIS HORRIBLE THING I WANT TO SPEAK AGAINST?”.
If this only happened occasionally I’d hesitate to call it target-seeking… but look at what’s going on here! The mods peel away truly offensive posts that are made by people who might deserve to be rhetorically scourged, so people who want to vent their spleens are seeking targets among whomsoever is left. I have no idea if this is conscious behavior or not.
1 Like
Why do we keep talking past each other?
2 Likes
I still see the occasional Piñata left hanging around.
Although walking that line is probably a tough decision.
And of course we have our pet… I don’t want to call them trolls, feels too close to home. I really do wonder if sometimes Rob or other friendlies aren’t out there, pitching slow, encouraging walloping home runs in order to fuel the discussion.
I mean, there are some really feeble arguments bandied about. But then… yeah well, I guess. I’m probably just spoiled by boingboing.
1 Like
Thanks for the clarification. It seemed to me, at the time, that I was trying to call out ongoing unpleasant behavior (without actually naming all of the people I consider innocent victims of it) and that others were picking off little pieces of my comments and using them as attack vectors to discredit me as an individual.
Despite my 'nym I’m actually better read in Ancient history than Medieval, so I did understand your point about the cruelty and many inequities of the Roman principate. I suspect Marcus Aurelius himself lived a far less comfortable and satisfying life than either of us, though, and his “Meditations” were written as exhortations to himself. They were certainly not intended to be arguments for “tone policing” by their author.
I used to think Takuan was really Mark. 
One of my favorite Antinous posts was: Piñata at twelve O’clock! directly underneath a post that contained well known, easily disproved, invalid arguments.
2 Likes
There’s a name I haven’t heard in a while. That was back when I was but a lurker. He seemed really well informed and cool.
I like him, but he’s in Cali so we rarely communicate. Time zones and schedules… that’s one of the reasons I thought he was Mark, actually.
I’m unclear how one could disagree with you, without meeting your definition of “target-seeking.”
1 Like
Well, one could object to something I’d actually said, or take a position opposite one I’d actually taken. I’d call that disagreement.
But if someone wants to make a point orthogonal to mine, or if wants to argue the same side of the position I’m already on, it isn’t necessary to disagree with me. If a person’s ideas are valid, they really don’t need to try to force or trick me into a supporting role as whipping boy.
And that’s what I meant by target-seeking. If I say “the sky is blue” you can disagree with me by saying “the sky is red” or “the sky is not blue”. You could even provide evidence or reasoned argument to support your dissenting view. But if you start out by saying “so what you are saying is that outer space is made of blue colored material” or “are you saying that the sky is controlled by SATAN, who loves blue?” or “you’re a horrible person for talking about the blue sky when the dirt is so brown!” there’s a non-zero chance that you’re misrepresenting me to get to some completely other place, and that you’re not really talking to me at all, you’re purposely talking past me. Using me as a stepping-stone, which I do not like.
I’m not saying that every request for clarification that robs context is disingenuous. What I’m saying is that I’ve seen a perceptible pattern of behavior, that is relevant to the title of this thread, and I think if you watch for it you will see it too.
Sorry I took so long to answer. I was cleaning mice out of an old lawn tractor and quarreling with a local corrupt cop.
For some utterly inexplicable reason I was picturing this happening between Richard Scarry anthropomorphic animal characters. (And the cop was a badger rather than the stereotypically more obvious pig.)
Sorry about that. Anyway, I do believe I’ve occasionally noticed that pattern too. Usually I try to keep my trap shut about it anymore since I no longer have the energy for such things (especially when I feel I’m being deliberately misunderstood or misrepresented), but every now and then I get suckered into it.
I do feel that a lot of potentially positive energy is wasted on infighting between imperfect allies.
6 Likes
In regards to that specific article, I think maybe the author hasn’t been to a lot of well-publicized urban protests, and so is unfamiliar with the black-masked opportunists who often show up (sometimes proclaiming themselves “anarchists”) and try to cause random chaos and engage in looting, under the cover of whatever protest is going on. These people are a great problem for legitimate political protestors.
But yeah, it makes you want to weep. I read the article, but purposely did not read the BB comment thread, because I figured there would be nothing new or useful there.
