debate   10999

« earlier    

Rapoport's Rules - RationalWiki
"""
How to compose a successful critical commentary:
1: You should attempt to re-express your target’s position so clearly, vividly, and fairly that your target says, "Thanks, I wish I’d thought of putting it that way."

2: You should list any points of agreement (especially if they are not matters of general or widespread agreement).

3: You should mention anything you have learned from your target.

4: Only then are you permitted to say so much as a word of rebuttal or criticism.
"""
rhetoric  debate  danieldennett  strawman  steelman 
3 days ago by mjs
Twitter
Joan Koehler, Sheila Gethin, Anne Rankin, & Treva Pamer were the Ohio Women's Intercollegiate Champions in…
Debate  from twitter_favs
11 days ago by jcarletonoh
Iona Italia on Twitter: "This is why it's a great idea to ASK people what they mean by "intersectionality" (or any other term you are arguing about). I am against it too—as a political strategy & as a philosophy. And obviously I know that you can be bot
This is why it's a great idea to ASK people what they mean by "intersectionality" (or any other term you are arguing about). I am against it too—as a political strategy & as a philosophy. And obviously I know that you can be both black & a woman. To find out why, just ask!

This is a classic motte-and-bailey technique. You pretend that you mean some completely banal truism with which everyone agrees. But actually you don't. You don't just think a person can be "both black & a woman." You believe there are consequences that arise from that,

hierarchies of value; special knowledges (only a black person can talk about x; stay in your lane etc.); things you can assume about a person based on their membership in particular groups; and that these group identities are more important than material circumstances & should be

our political focus, rather than primarily alleviating financial hardships. Your argument is "You can be both a woman and black. Now, given that you can be both a woman & black, these conclusions follow..." It's the CONCLUSIONS you draw people disagree with, not the facts.

If your argument is that people who disagree with you, even if they have PhDs, have spent years studying these topics, etc. do so because "hurr durr I'm smart and you're dumb," you lack humility. And a lack of epistemic humility is one of the reasons I oppose intersectionality.

Yes, you can strawman this & pretend that only white people disagree (completely ignoring people of colour who dissent), that only the dumb disagree (ignoring dissenting intellectuals) or only right wingers (ignoring liberals) etc. But that is wilful blindness & hubris.

And, in itself, this is an attitude typical of many (not all) who promote intersectional thinking: to caricature in both directions. Both: "you're a black woman, you must think x," & "you think x, you must not be a 'proper' black woman" (assert whatever category you like).
arguments  debate  twitter  motteandbailey  discussion  feminism  diversity  racism 
14 days ago by bbrown
HomePod - For those who think HomePod sounds like it's got a low pass filter on it... | MacRumors Forums
Good thread on how the Homepod works and what people think of its audio fidelity. Opinion is quite mixed.
homepod  reviews  debate  threads 
14 days ago by darkwater

« earlier    

related tags

&  'set  -  1080  19jam  1st  2018  2019  2020  2020ifwemakeit  2nd  538  a  about  ads  affairs  affected  ai  aislingmccrea  alcool  alcoolica  alderman  alt_facts  america’s  an  analogies  analysis  analytica  and  android  animal_rights  anti-semitism  aoc  aop  appropriation  architecture  are  argument  arguments  arron  article  at  attitude  author-scott-alexander  awards  bags  banks  bbc  bebida  bebidas  bennet  benshapiro  better?  biblia  big  biography  biz  blackmail  blog  blogs  bonhoeffer  book  books  booth  bowl  brexit  but  by  caabis  cafe  cambridge  cameron  cancer  cannabis  catholic  causes  census  center  ces  cfs-me  changed.  chapotraphouse  chip  chloe  chris  civil  classics  climate  climatechange  code  commentary  committee  commons  communication  communism  comparison  compiled  compiler  computing  conference  conflict  congress  consent  conservatism  contempt  control  cool  cost  creative  crisis  criticism  crop  crowdsourced  crypto  css  cults  cultural  culture  curry  cyrus'  danieldennett  davos  democracy  democratic  dialectics  dialog  disagreement  discussion  diversity  dj  donald  doritos  drugs  earth  ecochambers  education  election  elevatorgate  em  enlightenment  envy  ethics  eu  europe  evans  evidence  example'  experiment  explained  extremism  facebook  facts  fake_news  family  farage  featured  feminism  fermi  fintech  food  for  forum  france  français  fresnel  fullstack  future  gender  genevaengage  geopolitics  get  global  globalization  gmo  google  gop  gov2.0  government  grammar  gratitude  greek  groundglass  gun  has  health  heated  hilder  hispanics  history  homepod  hotdog  how  how_we_live  hr  huge  humanities  iandanskin  ibm  ibm’s  ideas  identity  ideology  important  in  iniciodecurso  innuendostudios  instagram  instapaper_favs  intelligence  internet  interpreter  interview  iq  is  israel  it  its  itv  joe-rogan-experience  journalism  journals  june  just  killer  kobe  language  lawmakers  leaders  like  lil  listening  logic  looks  lot  machinelearning  management  mann  marsh  medicine  melmagazine  memo  men  mercer  metaras  mike  miley  mj  modern  mom  moore  morality  more  motion  motteandbailey  msps  national  negotiating  negotiation  newatheists  news  next  nigeria  nuclear  nz  of  on  onlinejournalism  opendemocracy  outlined  over  p1  paul  paula  pearls  perennial  persuasion  peter_singer  phil  philosophy  phone  photo  pl  pluralism  poison  political-debate  political  politics  post  primary  privacy  privilege  programming  provocative  psychology  public  q1  questions  quote  rachel-andrew  racism  radio  ranch  rationalists  rationality  reason  reddit  redpill  reference  referendum  referrendum  reflexiones  rem  reportage  research  reviews  rhetoric  rogerspark  roman  russia’s  same  sanity  schedule  school  science  scotland  secretly  settles  sex  simultaneously  snapchat  snsa  so  social  social_media  socialmedia  sociology  software  spark  spca  stage  statement  states  steelman  stephenjaygould  steve  strategy  strawman  super  swarbrick  syntax  taco  tactics  tcl  team  tech  teologia  the  theoutline  this  threads  to  tobago  tone  took  trinidad  trump  truth  tv  twitter  typography  uk  united  uproar  urged  uspolitics  value  versus  video  vs.  vs  wales  wall  waste  wayne  wb  wearing  weed  weird  whether  white  why  with  world  writing  year's  you  your  youtube  zhuinden  zines   

Copy this bookmark:



description:


tags: