Sure, though, in this case (in person conversation, friend I know well), it was clear it was a sincere, heartfelt argument rather than a tactical ploy.
If I’m stuck in arguments where I can’t tell if my opponent is sincere, I tend to bow out.
Something being a heartfelt argument doesn’t mean that it’s not a choice that someone made. Especially in the social justice movement people do make choices about shunning specific words and developing an emotional attachment.
Sure, though, in this case (in person conversation, friend I know well), it was clear it was a sincere, heartfelt argument rather than a tactical ploy.
Sincere and heartfelt dark arts are the most effective dark arts. In fact, they are most dark arts period. That’s more or less the reason social emotions exist.
Well, a world where contributing to the campaign for one side of a pretty even referendum (52% vs 48%) is morally equivalent to personally enabling genocide, such a world to me looks very similar to a world where voting against government shutdown is morally equivalent to hanging rich people on the lamp posts and personally shoving their wives and daughters into cattle cars which will take them to gulags.
In either of these words even only a logical and reasonable discussion, never mind a rational one, is pretty much impossible.
Sure, though, in this case (in person conversation, friend I know well), it was clear it was a sincere, heartfelt argument rather than a tactical ploy.
If I’m stuck in arguments where I can’t tell if my opponent is sincere, I tend to bow out.
Something being a heartfelt argument doesn’t mean that it’s not a choice that someone made. Especially in the social justice movement people do make choices about shunning specific words and developing an emotional attachment.
Sincere and heartfelt dark arts are the most effective dark arts. In fact, they are most dark arts period. That’s more or less the reason social emotions exist.
In cases where it is a heartfelt argument the question becomes whether you can have a rational discussion with a person of such views.
Working pretty well to date!
Well, a world where contributing to the campaign for one side of a pretty even referendum (52% vs 48%) is morally equivalent to personally enabling genocide, such a world to me looks very similar to a world where voting against government shutdown is morally equivalent to hanging rich people on the lamp posts and personally shoving their wives and daughters into cattle cars which will take them to gulags.
In either of these words even only a logical and reasonable discussion, never mind a rational one, is pretty much impossible.
I think permitting tactical incentives for my interlocutors to self-modify is a real cost, and worthy of careful consideration.