1432: "The Sake of Argument"

This forum is for the individual discussion thread that goes with each new comic.

Moderators: Moderators General, Prelates, Magistrates

HungryHobo
Posts: 1708
Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2010 9:01 am UTC

Re: 1432: "The Sake of Argument

Postby HungryHobo » Fri Oct 10, 2014 6:12 pm UTC

VDZ wrote:Historical context is in order. This comic was posted in the wake of the 2014 Brendan Eich controversy, in which Mozilla CEO Brendan Eich (Netscape employee since 1995, creator of Javascript and one of the founders of the Mozilla project) was forced to resign after controversy arose about his $1000 donation to a political campaign in favor of an anti-gay marriage bill back in 2008 (that was eventually passed by majority vote). Let me reiterate: Somebody who has been with the company for 19 years and was vital in the company's success was forced to resign from his position for his opinion on an unrelated controversial issue 6 years earlier, an opinion that was shared by the majority of the state.


You might find this quite interesting:
http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/09/30/i- ... -outgroup/

Short version: yes his views were similar to those of half the state, but they were red tribe views and a lot of tech and open source is very very blue or grey tribe.

If you repeat classic psych racism experiments looking for partyism it's about twice as strong an effect. Note: I am not claiming it's a bigger social problem, it's not. it's just a larger driver of peoples actions.

Foelhe wrote:Which cuts both ways. Which is the problem. If the anti-SJW crowd only used the insult for Obviously Unreasonable things, we'd have no problem. But mostly, in my experience, they use it on Currently Controversial things (or even Obviously Reasonable things) and try to paint them as Obviously Unreasonable by association


Absolutely, 100%. Every group does it. Some more than others but everyone does to some degree.
Beliel is doing it in the post above.

It doesn't mean there aren't real, genuine nutter fringe crazies on your opponents side who it's perfectly rational to laugh at and oppose but it's also a dirty rhetoric tactic.

it's actually better when you see people using a separate term for the extremists and the non-extremists as it's noting the differences and separating them into a different group.

of course that only angers the people who get classed into the nutter fringe even more.

On an unrelated note, the term "devils advocate" is quite interesting.

"During the canonization process employed by the Roman Catholic Church, the Promoter of the Faith (Latin: promotor fidei), popularly known as the Devil's advocate (Latin: advocatus diaboli), was a canon lawyer appointed by Church authorities to argue against the canonization of a candidate.[2] It was this person’s job to take a skeptical view of the candidate's character, to look for holes in the evidence, to argue that any miracles attributed to the candidate were fraudulent, and so on. The Devil's advocate opposed God's advocate (Latin: advocatus Dei; also known as the Promoter of the Cause), whose task was to make the argument in favor of canonization. "
Last edited by HungryHobo on Fri Oct 10, 2014 6:23 pm UTC, edited 2 times in total.
Give a man a fish, he owes you one fish. Teach a man to fish, you give up your monopoly on fisheries.

Mikeski
Posts: 1094
Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2008 7:24 am UTC
Location: Minnesota, USA

Re: 1432: "The Sake of Argument"

Postby Mikeski » Fri Oct 10, 2014 6:16 pm UTC

Klear wrote:@VDZ Great summary, I just find it funny how you seem to imply that the internet was a great place for an enlightened discussion until very recently =D
It was, up through last August.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26727
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: 1432: "The Sake of Argument"

Postby gmalivuk » Fri Oct 10, 2014 6:22 pm UTC

Invertin wrote:The main reason you may not have seen the term taken seriously is because you don't hang out on tumblr enough.
You're adorable.

I hang out on tumblr plenty, thank you very much, and mostly choose to surround myself with the sorts of activists others often dismiss as meanieheads. And every time I've seen anyone self-identify as an meaniehead it's as a sort of "fuck you" to the people using that term as an attack. Kind of like how I've seen others describe themselves as feminist killjoys or agents for the Gay Agenda or Elders of Zion. It's a snarky response to those things being constantly leveled as insults.

That site is either amazing stupid fun or a toxic anti-normal-to-the-point-of-insanity nightmare depending on which 'parts' of tumblr you hang out in.
Literal pedophiles and nazis and rape blogs don't bear a mention? Or are those the fun parts for you?
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

Foelhe
Posts: 56
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2014 4:07 pm UTC

Re: 1432: "The Sake of Argument

Postby Foelhe » Fri Oct 10, 2014 6:34 pm UTC

VDZ wrote:
Historical context is in order. This comic was posted in the wake of the 2014 Brendan Eich controversy, in which Mozilla CEO Brendan Eich (Netscape employee since 1995, creator of Javascript and one of the founders of the Mozilla project) was forced to resign after controversy arose about his $1000 donation to a political campaign in favor of an anti-gay marriage bill back in 2008 (that was eventually passed by majority vote). Let me reiterate: Somebody who has been with the company for 19 years and was vital in the company's success was forced to resign from his position for his opinion on an unrelated controversial issue 6 years earlier, an opinion that was shared by the majority of the state.

Legally, it's too complicated for free speech protection (hey, he never got fired, he just resigned!), but it should be very clear that this is the exact kind of issue freedom of speech is supposed to protect against. That's what the 'yelled at' and 'boycotted' are referring to.


I don't really know enough about Mozilla's decision to really comment. Kind of bizarre to describe someone resigning/being fired as a boycott, and if people were boycotting I don't see that as a problem in and of itself. But I guess I can't comment beyond that.

HungryHobo wrote:unfortunately a some of those "some people" have an unfortunate tendency to march into public fora where people debate for fun, present their cases as things to be debated fairly and openly.

Then they start looking like fools because their arguments are bad, their clean confident sounding blanket statements suddenly get holes poked in them, their arguments are sexist, racist, poorly thought out, contemptible or utterly disconnected from the real world. Then they suddenly declare that nobody who disagrees with them has the right to speak because privilege.


I like how you can't discuss Devil's Advocates without making sure we know the people you disagree with are dumb and hopeless.

Honestly, dude, I'm not sure why this is complicated. If you're dealing with people you don't know well, and they're talking about something personal, don't turn it into a word game. Learn To Social. You're the one setting this on a public forum. If you want to set up a public forum that treats hot topic issues like they're not a big deal, that's your call, but if newbies leave because they think you're an abrasive asshole, welp, actions, consequences.

Vanzetti wrote:Look, SWJs take the fact that trolls use Devil's advocate tactic, and turn it into an excuse to attack (and avoid discussion with) people they don't agree with. "Oh, you use Devil's advocate - you must be a troll! Go die in a fire!". XKCD is famous. XKCD posted a comic that attacks the Devil`s advocate method. It doesn't matter if it was done jokingly (I don't know if it was) - it will still be used to justify that behavior.


People don't think Devil's Advocate is some kind of secret troll language, they find people who play Devil's Advocate annoying as hell. Yeah, they will "avoid discussion with" people who play Devil's Advocate all the time, like they'll avoid discussion with the guy who can't spell for shit or find the Enter key. That's not discrimination, that's people not liking you.

User avatar
Horselover Frost
Posts: 28
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 10:36 pm UTC
Location: NY

Re: 1432: "The Sake of Argument"

Postby Horselover Frost » Fri Oct 10, 2014 6:36 pm UTC

This thread is a very good example of why it's useful to take a step back and consider ideas unemotionally from an outsider's perspective.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 1432: "The Sake of Argument

Postby Tyndmyr » Fri Oct 10, 2014 6:45 pm UTC

Vanzetti wrote:I don't agree with their methods. That's what the SJW-plague is about. It's when its suddenly okay to say "all white people are X" and "all males are Y". It's when the idea that your opponents may not be 100% wrong and you may not be 100% right is unthinkable. It's radicalism.


Sure, that's all well and good...but this comic isn't doing that. Yeah, people absolutely go too far in generalization, but no claims are being made here about "all group are X". It's just...two people tossing words back and forth, with one evidently being slightly trollish. I'm having trouble understanding where you get the crazed-SJW image from in this particular case.

HungryHobo
Posts: 1708
Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2010 9:01 am UTC

Re: 1432: "The Sake of Argument"

Postby HungryHobo » Fri Oct 10, 2014 6:46 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:Literal pedophiles and nazis and rape blogs don't bear a mention? Or are those the fun parts for you?


You're really going to jump straight to implying Invertin is a pedophile-rapist because ve doesn't like a social group on a website you like?

Foelhe wrote:I like how you can't discuss Devil's Advocates without making sure we know the people you disagree with are dumb and hopeless.


There's plenty of people who disagree with me who have good arguments.

the thing is that a lot of people are very very bad at presenting their groups arguments. The average member of r/atheism who marches into a forum for catholic priests will be a meme spouting fool in comparison to the strongest debater in the forum.

The average meaniehead who marches into a public forum will also almost always be a meme spouting fool in comparison to the strongest debater in the forum.

That's not a slur on r/atheism or people who believe in SJ, it's just averages.

Honestly, dude, I'm not sure why this is complicated. If you're dealing with people you don't know well, and they're talking about something personal, don't turn it into a word game. Learn To Social. You're the one setting this on a public forum. If you want to set up a public forum that treats hot topic issues like they're not a big deal, that's your call, but if newbies leave because they think you're an abrasive asshole, welp, actions, consequences.


If you want a safe space, call it a safe space in advance. If you march into a paintball arena shooting around you with a paintball gun and start crying when someone shoots back and actually hits you they're not the ones who have failed to "Learn to Social" or the ones being abrasive. I don't touch safe spaces that people care to declare but if it's deeply personal and you've chosen to put it up for debate in a social space designed for open debate , have the decency to tell people in advance if you want to put anything out of bounds. 99% of real life is basically safe spaces where devils advocate style debate isn't the norm. People have their open forums where they can discuss freely as a special area, when you come in and start shitting on them for pointing out that your arguments are bad it isn't them who are being dicks, it's you.
Give a man a fish, he owes you one fish. Teach a man to fish, you give up your monopoly on fisheries.

DanD
Posts: 332
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2010 12:42 am UTC

Re: 1432: "The Sake of Argument"

Postby DanD » Fri Oct 10, 2014 6:52 pm UTC

Everyone, including the comic (in this case deliberately), is using the wrong definition of argument:

a discussion in which people express different opinions about something


The definition that is meant by the phrase is:

: a statement or series of statements for or against something


It means "in order to make this argument, I am specifying something". It is commonly, although not exclusively used when executing a proof by contradiction.

"For the sake of argument if geese are trying to take over the world, we would occasionally see goose droppings inside the white house."

As mentioned above, it can also be used to argue that a specific point in contention is not relevant to the larger picture.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26727
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: 1432: "The Sake of Argument"

Postby gmalivuk » Fri Oct 10, 2014 7:00 pm UTC

HungryHobo wrote:
gmalivuk wrote:Literal pedophiles and nazis and rape blogs don't bear a mention? Or are those the fun parts for you?


You're really going to jump straight to implying Invertin is a pedophile-rapist because ve doesn't like a social group on a website you like?

I didn't need to imply anything. The implication was already there. "Tumblr is either fun or full of meanieheads," combined with the fact that Nazis aren't meanieheads, leaves the other option.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

Foelhe
Posts: 56
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2014 4:07 pm UTC

Re: 1432: "The Sake of Argument"

Postby Foelhe » Fri Oct 10, 2014 7:07 pm UTC

HungryHobo wrote:If you want a safe space, call it a safe space in advance. If you march into a paintball arena shooting around you with a paintball gun and start crying when someone shoots back and actually hits you they're not the ones who have failed to "Learn to Social" or the ones being abrasive. I don't touch safe spaces that people care to declare but if it's deeply personal and you've chosen to put it up for debate in a social space designed for open debate , have the decency to tell people in advance if you want to put anything out of bounds. 99% of real life is basically safe spaces where devils advocate style debate isn't the norm. People have their open forums where they can discuss freely as a special area, when you come in and start shitting on them for pointing out that your arguments are bad it isn't them who are being dicks, it's you.


I kind of feel like I'm arguing against some very specific set of rules I've never seen in real life. IME, people have no problem whipping out Devil's Advocates arguments all over the place. They don't save it for special rage-zones and act perfectly polite everywhere else. Also, life isn't neatly divided into "safe space" and "free for all" - sometimes you get places where people want to have honest discussions that'll be treated with respect. Sometimes you get places where the rules aren't really stated and people are just feeling each other out. Either way, being dismissive (such as, for example, playing Devil's Advocate) is going to get on people's nerves.

Kit.
Posts: 1117
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2011 5:14 pm UTC

Re: 1432: "The Sake of Argument"

Postby Kit. » Fri Oct 10, 2014 7:10 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:the fact that Nazis aren't meanieheads

[citation needed]

Ray Kremer
Posts: 46
Joined: Fri Apr 26, 2013 8:21 pm UTC

Re: 1432: "The Sake of Argument"

Postby Ray Kremer » Fri Oct 10, 2014 7:19 pm UTC

I'm of the mind that "for the sake of argument" generally means to accept one point as true, or a certain option as chosen, in order to facilitate focusing the debate, without actually conceding that point as true or that option as chosen in the long term.

Devil's advocate generally means arguing with someone for the sole reason that you want to argue with them, either because you're just contrary in nature or you want to test the strength of their position.

Of course the comic is deliberately void of context, so ponytail there has to be vague, also so that the other fellow can fuck with her head more easily.

VDZ
Posts: 19
Joined: Wed Sep 01, 2010 10:17 pm UTC

Re: 1432: "The Sake of Argument

Postby VDZ » Fri Oct 10, 2014 7:26 pm UTC

HungryHobo wrote:You might find this quite interesting:
http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/09/30/i- ... -outgroup/


Thank you for this link. It was a very interesting read. Especially chapter XII was food for thought.

Invertin
Posts: 127
Joined: Fri Mar 20, 2009 8:08 pm UTC

Re: 1432: "The Sake of Argument"

Postby Invertin » Fri Oct 10, 2014 7:34 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:I didn't need to imply anything. The implication was already there. "Tumblr is either fun or full of meanieheads," combined with the fact that Nazis aren't meanieheads, leaves the other option.

or i could've been over-simplifying to not have to list every single tiny subcommunity of assholes, saints, idiots and geniuses on a website with millions of blogs on it geeze

I didn't mention art blogs either. You didn't say I was maybe an artist, or a science blog or something, nope, must be nazis.

wow

User avatar
orthogon
Posts: 3059
Joined: Thu May 17, 2012 7:52 am UTC
Location: The Airy 1830 ellipsoid

Re: 1432: "The Sake of Argument"

Postby orthogon » Fri Oct 10, 2014 7:41 pm UTC

DanD wrote:Everyone, including the comic (in this case deliberately), is using the wrong definition of argument:

a discussion in which people express different opinions about something


The definition that is meant by the phrase is:

: a statement or series of statements for or against something


It means "in order to make this argument, I am specifying something". It is commonly, although not exclusively used when executing a proof by contradiction.

"For the sake of argument if geese are trying to take over the world, we would occasionally see goose droppings inside the white house."

As mentioned above, it can also be used to argue that a specific point in contention is not relevant to the larger picture.

I would argue (a meta-argument?) that it's neither of those exactly, because it's "the sake of argument" with zero article, not "of the argument", so it's the mass noun meaning "the process of making/having an argument". Those are still two slightly different senses, but the distinction is less important since both parties are simultaneously doing one thing individually and the other jointly. You're probably right that the phrase is more about moving your own argument on than about moving the discussion on, but I think both interpretations make some sense.

Regarding devil's advocate, I take the point about being upfront about doing it, and that it could be used to weasel out of a corner, but I also suspect that it's another of those things, like sarcasm, that can easily be lost in a text-only medium. I think you can probably go a bit further in a spoken conversion before you say " I mean, I'm playing devil's advocate a bit" without annoying people: body language will tend to signal whether they're properly upset by what you're saying or just engaging enthusiastically and knowingly with your devil's advocacy.

Edit: typos
Last edited by orthogon on Fri Oct 10, 2014 7:44 pm UTC, edited 2 times in total.
xtifr wrote:... and orthogon merely sounds undecided.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26727
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: 1432: "The Sake of Argument"

Postby gmalivuk » Fri Oct 10, 2014 7:42 pm UTC

Invertin wrote:
gmalivuk wrote:I didn't need to imply anything. The implication was already there. "Tumblr is either fun or full of meanieheads," combined with the fact that Nazis aren't meanieheads, leaves the other option.

or i could've been over-simplifying to not have to list every single tiny subcommunity of assholes, saints, idiots and geniuses on a website with millions of blogs on it geeze

I didn't mention art blogs either. You didn't say I was maybe an artist, or a science blog or something, nope, must be nazis.

wow
The point is that people seem to enjoy criticizing Tumblr on the basis of all the alleged meanieheads there, rather than for something legitimate like how many blogs promote things like white supremacist hate crimes and rape and incest or for how bad Tumblr (the company/admin staff) is at enforcing its own ToS when it comes to accounts like that.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

lgw
Posts: 437
Joined: Mon Apr 12, 2010 10:52 pm UTC

Re: 1432: "The Sake of Argument

Postby lgw » Fri Oct 10, 2014 7:43 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:
Vanzetti wrote:Is it just me, or is Randall starting to exhibit the symptoms of the SJW-plague? I don't want XKCD to go in the direction of Sinfest...
Yeah, because if there's one thing plaguing the Internet these days, it's definitely a desire for too much justice.

Like, do you not get how much it sounds like you're setting yourself up as some kind of comic-book villain? When you start referring to a group of people as literal Warriors for Justice and then you oppose that group?


Literal "Warriors for Justice"? Sort of like ISIS? There's nothing more terrifying than a man who's convinced he's inarguably in the right on some moral issue and is taking up arms to compel everyone else to agree. C'mon, tell me it doesn't creep you out just a little to hear Johnny Cash sing, completely deadpan, "I went out walking, with my Bible and my gun. The word of God lay heavy on my heart; I was sure I was The One." (Very cool song about a bad place to be.)

Stereotypical meanieheads who complain on social media instead of actually doing something useful about a problem: these I find reassuring. That's a nice safe bullet-free outlet.
"In no set of physics laws do you get two cats." - doogly

Foelhe
Posts: 56
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2014 4:07 pm UTC

Re: 1432: "The Sake of Argument

Postby Foelhe » Fri Oct 10, 2014 7:49 pm UTC

VDZ wrote:
HungryHobo wrote:You might find this quite interesting:
http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/09/30/i- ... -outgroup/


Thank you for this link. It was a very interesting read. Especially chapter XII was food for thought.


Honestly, I think he's reaching for a lot of his conclusions. But then, I'm pretty much Blue Tribe. Could be bias.

lgw wrote:Literal "Warriors for Justice"? Sort of like ISIS? There's nothing more terrifying than a man who's convinced he's inarguably in the right on some moral issue and is taking up arms to compel everyone else to agree. C'mon, tell me it doesn't creep you out just a little to hear Johnny Cash sing, completely deadpan, "I went out walking, with my Bible and my gun. The word of God lay heavy on my heart; I was sure I was The One." (Very cool song about a bad place to be.)

Stereotypical meanieheads who complain on social media instead of actually doing something useful about a problem: these I find reassuring. That's a nice safe bullet-free outlet.


You think ISIS is interested in justice? Like, "Warriors for Justice" and that's the first group that jumped into your head? Uh, okay.

Invertin
Posts: 127
Joined: Fri Mar 20, 2009 8:08 pm UTC

Re: 1432: "The Sake of Argument"

Postby Invertin » Fri Oct 10, 2014 7:53 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:
Invertin wrote:
gmalivuk wrote:I didn't need to imply anything. The implication was already there. "Tumblr is either fun or full of meanieheads," combined with the fact that Nazis aren't meanieheads, leaves the other option.

or i could've been over-simplifying to not have to list every single tiny subcommunity of assholes, saints, idiots and geniuses on a website with millions of blogs on it geeze

I didn't mention art blogs either. You didn't say I was maybe an artist, or a science blog or something, nope, must be nazis.

wow
The point is that people seem to enjoy criticizing Tumblr on the basis of all the alleged meanieheads there, rather than for something legitimate like how many blogs promote things like white supremacist hate crimes and rape and incest or for how bad Tumblr (the company/admin staff) is at enforcing its own ToS when it comes to accounts like that.

The problem is that the 'alleged' meanieheads do exist and they promote the exact same things as the blogs you are talking about, just the other way around, to the point that female-to-male transgenders are being harassed and yelled at because males are obviously the evil gender and wanting to become them is some kind of crime.
It's like if a white guy ran around with a flamethrower and nobody did anything about it, and in response, a black guy picked up a flamethrower and did the same thing, but he said he was the goodguy because he's not white. They are both the villains. Picking apart my statement because I didn't mention the other villain when that wasn't what the conversation was about and I frankly wanted to move on from the topic is deliberately finding your own badguy to drag out and show to people. Patronising me, calling me a nazi and making huge leaps of logic all over the place (nobody mentioned drug trafficking, well shit, bring in the sniffer dogs!) is not going to endear me to your point.

User avatar
Horselover Frost
Posts: 28
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 10:36 pm UTC
Location: NY

Re: 1432: "The Sake of Argument

Postby Horselover Frost » Fri Oct 10, 2014 7:53 pm UTC

Foelhe wrote:You think ISIS is interested in justice? Like, "Warriors for Justice" and that's the first group that jumped into your head? Uh, okay.


Everybody is the hero of the story in their head. Even ISIS.

rmsgrey
Posts: 3616
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2011 6:35 pm UTC

Re: 1432: "The Sake of Argument

Postby rmsgrey » Fri Oct 10, 2014 7:54 pm UTC

Vanzetti wrote:
Belial wrote:Then your reaction to this particular comic is completely baffling. Are you lost?

(I mean, also, :roll: at that entire line of thought, but I find "what are you even talking about?" a more pressing question than "what did that strawman do to you to provoke such a beating?")


Look, SWJs take the fact that trolls use Devil's advocate tactic, and turn it into an excuse to attack (and avoid discussion with) people they don't agree with. "Oh, you use Devil's advocate - you must be a troll! Go die in a fire!". XKCD is famous. XKCD posted a comic that attacks the Devil`s advocate method. It doesn't matter if it was done jokingly (I don't know if it was) - it will still be used to justify that behavior.


So, are you arguing that

a) XKCD should avoid the use of sarcasm and/or parody?
b) XKCD should avoid comics that people with an agenda could interpret as supporting their agenda?
c) that meanieheads and/or Devil's Advocate is a special case, in which one or both of the above apply within this restricted domain, even though they don't apply generally?

If someone wants to post this particular strip and claim that it's a denunciation of the practices of assuming things for the sake of argument and of playing devil's advocate, I'm sure they'll be able to find plenty of people happy to point and laugh at them - and maybe one or two to patiently explain the concept of wit...

Foelhe
Posts: 56
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2014 4:07 pm UTC

Re: 1432: "The Sake of Argument

Postby Foelhe » Fri Oct 10, 2014 7:58 pm UTC

Invertin wrote:The problem is that the 'alleged' meanieheads do exist and they promote the exact same things as the blogs you are talking about, just the other way around, to the point that female-to-male transgenders are being harassed and yelled at because males are obviously the evil gender and wanting to become them is some kind of crime.
It's like if a white guy ran around with a flamethrower and nobody did anything about it, and in response, a black guy picked up a flamethrower and did the same thing, but he said he was the goodguy because he's not white. They are both the villains. Picking apart my statement because I didn't mention the other villain when that wasn't what the conversation was about and I frankly wanted to move on from the topic is deliberately finding your own badguy to drag out and show to people. Patronising me, calling me a nazi and making huge leaps of logic all over the place (nobody mentioned drug trafficking, well shit, bring in the sniffer dogs!) is not going to endear me to your point.


They exist, but they're not the people I see being called meaniehead. Which is the problem. Anyone who thinks the meaniehead label only gets thrown at the worst extremists isn't paying much attention. I've seen someone accused of being an meaniehead because she was trying to get donations for a battered women's shelter.

Horselover Frost wrote:
Foelhe wrote:You think ISIS is interested in justice? Like, "Warriors for Justice" and that's the first group that jumped into your head? Uh, okay.


Everybody is the hero of the story in their head. Even ISIS.


Okay, I'll grant that point.

pareidolon
Posts: 31
Joined: Fri Apr 08, 2011 6:59 am UTC

Re: 1432: "The Sake of Argument"

Postby pareidolon » Fri Oct 10, 2014 8:01 pm UTC

No Mr. Munroe, the idea is that if the Devil can defeat your argument you're doing a pretty poor job, for heaven's sake!

Invertin
Posts: 127
Joined: Fri Mar 20, 2009 8:08 pm UTC

Re: 1432: "The Sake of Argument

Postby Invertin » Fri Oct 10, 2014 8:01 pm UTC

Foelhe wrote:
Invertin wrote:The problem is that the 'alleged' meanieheads do exist and they promote the exact same things as the blogs you are talking about, just the other way around, to the point that female-to-male transgenders are being harassed and yelled at because males are obviously the evil gender and wanting to become them is some kind of crime.
It's like if a white guy ran around with a flamethrower and nobody did anything about it, and in response, a black guy picked up a flamethrower and did the same thing, but he said he was the goodguy because he's not white. They are both the villains. Picking apart my statement because I didn't mention the other villain when that wasn't what the conversation was about and I frankly wanted to move on from the topic is deliberately finding your own badguy to drag out and show to people. Patronising me, calling me a nazi and making huge leaps of logic all over the place (nobody mentioned drug trafficking, well shit, bring in the sniffer dogs!) is not going to endear me to your point.


They exist, but they're not the people I see being called meaniehead. Which is the problem. Anyone who thinks the meaniehead label only gets thrown at the worst extremists isn't paying much attention. I've seen someone accused of being an meaniehead because she was trying to get donations for a battered women's shelter.

And that happens BECAUSE those people exist. By those people existing they become strawmen, and by associating themselves with the wider world of people who actually fight for equality it is giving people like your example a perfect target to paint around anyone who is trying to change things for the better. It's 'P C Gone Mad' all over again, but this time, the 'threat' that anti-sj people throw around actually DOES exist and as long as they DO exist they make any attempts to actually progress so much harder.

Foelhe
Posts: 56
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2014 4:07 pm UTC

Re: 1432: "The Sake of Argument

Postby Foelhe » Fri Oct 10, 2014 8:10 pm UTC

Invertin wrote:And that happens BECAUSE those people exist. By those people existing they become strawmen, and by associating themselves with the wider world of people who actually fight for equality it is giving people like your example a perfect target to paint around anyone who is trying to change things for the better. It's 'Basic Human Decency Gone Mad' all over again, but this time, the 'threat' that anti-sj people throw around actually DOES exist and as long as they DO exist they make any attempts to actually progress so much harder.


I'm pretty sure that's nonsensical bullshit, but thanks for admitting you have no problem attacking the group because you don't approve of specific members. Saves me the trouble of pointing out you're a jackass when you do it for me.

(I also have no idea what the Basic Human Decency Gone Mad is even supposed to mean in this context. Do you not think any of the crap pro-equality folks deal with actually exist? I don't understand what you're even driving at.)

Invertin
Posts: 127
Joined: Fri Mar 20, 2009 8:08 pm UTC

Re: 1432: "The Sake of Argument"

Postby Invertin » Fri Oct 10, 2014 8:13 pm UTC

Okay thanks for not reading what I said. I'm saying that the crazy people are forcing themselves into the group of "I'm helping to change things!" but by doing so the crazy people are making things harder for the people who are actually trying to make things better.
Last edited by Invertin on Fri Oct 10, 2014 8:16 pm UTC, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26727
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: 1432: "The Sake of Argument"

Postby gmalivuk » Fri Oct 10, 2014 8:15 pm UTC

Invertin wrote:The problem is that the 'alleged' meanieheads do exist and they promote the exact same things as the blogs you are talking about, just the other way around, to the point that female-to-male transgenders are being harassed and yelled at because males are obviously the evil gender and wanting to become them is some kind of crime.
TERFs have been a scourge on feminism for a lot longer than Tumblr has been around, and as Foelhe points out they generally aren't the ones being called meanieheads. For the most part, actually, folks that other people call meanieheads are the only ones criticizing transphobia.

Foelhe wrote:I've seen someone accused of being an meaniehead because she was trying to get donations for a battered women's shelter.
I've also seen it leveled at people who think getting people of color to play canonical characters of color in live-action media, people who think it's not okay to add rapey comments to people's sexy pictures without their consent, and people who ask others not to throw around ethnic or sexist or ableist slurs.

Invertin wrote:Okay thanks for not reading what I said. I'm saying that the crazy people are forcing themselves into the group of "I'm helping to change things!" but by doing so the crazy people are making things harder for the people who are actually trying to make things better.
Yes, but people like you who paint with too broad a brush are also instrumental in that making things harder bit.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

Invertin
Posts: 127
Joined: Fri Mar 20, 2009 8:08 pm UTC

Re: 1432: "The Sake of Argument"

Postby Invertin » Fri Oct 10, 2014 8:20 pm UTC

You're still not listening to what I'm actually saying. I'm NOT saying that the crazy people who hate on straight white cis people is all that there is, or that they're right, or that their opposite (neo-nazi hatecrimes) is a good thing.

I'm saying that those people are FORCING THEMSELVES INTO THE GROUP, that they are saying "I'm one of those people who helps social justice too!" and no matter how much the actual people will try to kick them out, as long as they give themselves a pro-social justice title, they are a part of that group as far as anyone on the outside can tell.

Human beings place importance in what we SAY we are, meaning that anyone can claim to be anything and they become a representative of that group in the eyes of people around them and because of that, the crazy people who refuse to understand that they are just as bad as their opposite are a downside to the group they are pretending to be a part of.

Foelhe
Posts: 56
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2014 4:07 pm UTC

Re: 1432: "The Sake of Argument"

Postby Foelhe » Fri Oct 10, 2014 8:23 pm UTC

Invertin wrote:Okay thanks for not reading what I said. I'm saying that the crazy people are forcing themselves into the group of "I'm helping to change things!" but by doing so the crazy people are making things harder for the people who are actually trying to make things better.


I misunderstood your post. That also doesn't scan with my experiences, since there really don't need to be any extremists around for people to start flinging the meaniehead label everywhere. Either you guys have decided everyone in the group should be treated with openly hostile suspicion, or none of this has anything to do with anything and it's all an ad hoc rationalization after the fact. At best you guys are dangerously ineffectual, at worst you're just using this as an excuse to attack people.

User avatar
Pfhorrest
Posts: 5380
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:11 am UTC
Contact:

Re: 1432: "The Sake of Argument"

Postby Pfhorrest » Fri Oct 10, 2014 8:26 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:add rapey comments to people's sexy pictures without their consent

I'm having trouble picturing what the opposite of this would be. Specifically, I'm trying to imagining a conversation where a potential-rapey-comment-poster seeks consent to post the comment first, and does so without somehow making the comment. How exactly do you get consent to SAY something, without saying it?

Reminds me of something that happened to me last weekend. A store clerk said "Would you be offended if I said you look like Meat Loaf?" I wasn't offended, but I walked away musing that if that had been a comparison I would have found offensive, asking "Would you be offended if..." first wouldn't really make it any less offensive, and that he was, in the process of asking, already making the potentially-offensive remark anyway.

(Also, honest question, what is a "rapey comment"? Does it have to be straight up "i wanna rape you" type of thing, or just something like "dam gurl u fine I wanna fuk u all nite long"? While I'd never defend the tact of the latter comment, it doesn't suggest anything nonconsensual; and, tactfulness aside again, if you want to say that all sexual advances without prior consent are inherently "rapey", then you're requiring people to be mind readers and only approach people they already know will be open to the approach, because something like "Can I hit on you?" is already tantamount to hitting on them, for the same reason "Would you be offended if I said..." is already tantamount to saying the offensive thing).
Last edited by Pfhorrest on Fri Oct 10, 2014 8:33 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of All Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
The Codex Quaerendae (my philosophy) - The Chronicles of Quelouva (my fiction)

VDZ
Posts: 19
Joined: Wed Sep 01, 2010 10:17 pm UTC

Re: 1432: "The Sake of Argument"

Postby VDZ » Fri Oct 10, 2014 8:28 pm UTC

The problem here is that both sides feel that the other side is the cause and that their own side is innocent. And it's happening in this very thread.

Invertin
Posts: 127
Joined: Fri Mar 20, 2009 8:08 pm UTC

Re: 1432: "The Sake of Argument"

Postby Invertin » Fri Oct 10, 2014 8:32 pm UTC

Foelhe wrote:
Invertin wrote:Okay thanks for not reading what I said. I'm saying that the crazy people are forcing themselves into the group of "I'm helping to change things!" but by doing so the crazy people are making things harder for the people who are actually trying to make things better.


I misunderstood your post. That also doesn't scan with my experiences, since there really don't need to be any extremists around for people to start flinging the meaniehead label everywhere. Either you guys have decided everyone in the group should be treated with openly hostile suspicion, or none of this has anything to do with anything and it's all an ad hoc rationalization after the fact. At best you guys are dangerously ineffectual, at worst you're just using this as an excuse to attack people.


Again, 'you guys', assuming I am one of the people who think that social progression is bad. I have a boyfriend who I am not legally allowed to marry yet, and a family of mental illnesses, this is not a straight cis white guy who's never seen anything that isn't 'normal' and thinks anything weird or different is bad and change isn't allowed. I have multiple transgender friends who have faced harassment FROM the so called 'social justice warriors' I am talking about! But because you saw the label 'anti-sjw' you assumed I was anti social justice instead of reading what I actually said- that crazy people exist on both sides and they are both making the argument more complicated than it has to be.

CBusAlex
Posts: 34
Joined: Fri Aug 30, 2013 9:47 pm UTC

Re: 1432: "The Sake of Argument"

Postby CBusAlex » Fri Oct 10, 2014 8:36 pm UTC

HungryHobo wrote:I always took it to mean "for the sake of avoiding argument" when you're laying out your premise.

ie, you're tring to make a point about something else, someone keeps picking at your premise, so you say "for the "

"OK, so you've got a 2000kg hippo-" "I don't think hippos get quite that big" "for the sake of argument lets just say you've got a 2000kg hippo"


ie: "the thing you're picking at isn't central to my main point, for the sake of avoiding argument about details just take this as a premise and you can decide later if it really affects my point"


I will accept the 2000kg hippo as a premise, just because I really want to hear the rest of this argument.

Foelhe
Posts: 56
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2014 4:07 pm UTC

Re: 1432: "The Sake of Argument"

Postby Foelhe » Fri Oct 10, 2014 8:38 pm UTC

Pfhorrest wrote:
gmalivuk wrote:add rapey comments to people's sexy pictures without their consent

I'm having trouble picturing what the opposite of this would be. Specifically, I'm trying to imagining a conversation where a potential-rapey-comment-poster seeks consent to post the comment first, and does so without somehow making the comment. How exactly do you get consent to SAY something, without saying it?

Reminds me of something that happened to me last weekend. A store clerk said "Would you be offended if I said you look like Meat Loaf?" I wasn't offended, but I walked away musing that if that had been a comparison I would have found offensive, asking "Would you be offended if..." first wouldn't really make it any less offensive, and that he was, in the process of asking, already making the potentially-offensive remark anyway.


I figured that was more carving out an exception than setting up a code. If it's the picture of someone you know, and you also know they wouldn't mind, that's a different story. Otherwise just don't. Not that I know the story myself, granted.

VDZ wrote:The problem here is that both sides feel that the other side is the cause and that their own side is innocent. And it's happening in this very thread.


I don't think my side is innocent, but I deal with assholes on my side. If a feminist was saying something transphobic to a trans guy, you bet your ass I'd call her out on it. Anti-SJW don't do that, at least in my experience. Obviously my experience isn't proof, but it's what I have to go with.

Also, I don't have a problem with skeptics from the outside calling out people in my camp. But the meaniehead thing has been horribly abused, to the fact that it's basically useless for its stated purpose. If you want to communicate with a group, learn to speak their language.

Invertin wrote:Again, 'you guys', assuming I am one of the people who think that social progression is bad. I have a boyfriend who I am not legally allowed to marry yet, and a family of mental illnesses, this is not a straight cis white guy who's never seen anything that isn't 'normal' and thinks anything weird or different is bad and change isn't allowed. I have multiple transgender friends who have faced harassment FROM the so called 'social justice warriors' I am talking about! But because you saw the label 'anti-sjw' you assumed I was anti social justice instead of reading what I actually said- that crazy people exist on both sides and they are both making the argument more complicated than it has to be.


Okay, then you aren't who I'm talking about. Mea culpa. But I find "both sides are just as bad" arguments inaccurate the vast majority of the time. Neither side's perfect, that doesn't mean both sides are the same.

User avatar
Pfhorrest
Posts: 5380
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:11 am UTC
Contact:

Re: 1432: "The Sake of Argument"

Postby Pfhorrest » Fri Oct 10, 2014 8:46 pm UTC

Foelhe wrote:Also, I don't have a problem with skeptics from the outside calling out people in my camp. But the meaniehead thing has been horribly abused, to the fact that it's basically useless for its stated purpose. If you want to communicate with a group, learn to speak their language.

Ok, so honest question here for people (like you, I'm gathering) who see themselves as within the social justice movement in general, recognize the existence of unreasonable extremists within it, and don't like the term "meaniehead": what term would you prefer to succinctly label the unreasonable extremist fringe parts of the social justice movement?
Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of All Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
The Codex Quaerendae (my philosophy) - The Chronicles of Quelouva (my fiction)

Invertin
Posts: 127
Joined: Fri Mar 20, 2009 8:08 pm UTC

Re: 1432: "The Sake of Argument"

Postby Invertin » Fri Oct 10, 2014 8:50 pm UTC

Foelhe wrote:Okay, then you aren't who I'm talking about. Mea culpa. But I find "both sides are just as bad" arguments inaccurate the vast majority of the time. Neither side's perfect, that doesn't mean both sides are the same.


That simply depends on what you mean by 'worse'. In terms of pure morality, the people actually commiting hatecrimes and killing people are definately worse. In terms of actually negating progress, meanieheads (as I am using the term, at least) might rank higher (obviously there's no metric to be sure), if only because it's self-sabotage. Not only do they paint a big straw target on themselves and anyone on 'their side', but they scare people away from supporting social justice because it might make them look crazy too. Or because their version of social justice don't match, and the meanieheads harass and web-vandalize and stalk the opinion that doesn't match theres until it goes away.

The point isn't so much that one is worse than the other the point is more that they are both problems.

JudeMorrigan
Posts: 1264
Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2010 1:26 pm UTC

Re: 1432: "The Sake of Argument"

Postby JudeMorrigan » Fri Oct 10, 2014 8:55 pm UTC

Pfhorrest wrote:Ok, so honest question here for people (like you, I'm gathering) who see themselves as within the social justice movement in general, recognize the existence of unreasonable extremists within it, and don't like the term "meaniehead": what term would you prefer to succinctly label the unreasonable extremist fringe parts of the social justice movement?

How about "unreasonable extremists"?

Of course, the obvious problem with that is that the sorts of folk who use "meaniehead" as a derogatory term would be all too likely to use the above term to describe perfectly reasonable people as well as the true extremists.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26727
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: 1432: "The Sake of Argument"

Postby gmalivuk » Fri Oct 10, 2014 8:56 pm UTC

Pfhorrest wrote:
gmalivuk wrote:add rapey comments to people's sexy pictures without their consent

I'm having trouble picturing what the opposite of this would be. Specifically, I'm trying to imagining a conversation where a potential-rapey-comment-poster seeks consent to post the comment first, and does so without somehow making the comment. How exactly do you get consent to SAY something, without saying it?
It is possible to say that you don't mind people adding their own captions to your pictures. It's even possible specifically invite people to say what they'd do to your body with or without your consent, if that's the sort of thing you're into. At no point would you have to lay out the exact word-for-word content of an acceptable message.

(Also, honest question, what is a "rapey comment"? Does it have to be straight up "i wanna rape you" type of thing, or just something like "dam gurl u fine I wanna fuk u all nite long"? While I'd never defend the tact of the latter comment, it doesn't suggest anything nonconsensual; and, tactfulness aside again, if you want to say that all sexual advances without prior consent are inherently "rapey", then you're requiring people to be mind readers and only approach people they already know will be open to the approach, because something like "Can I hit on you?" is already tantamount to hitting on them, for the same reason "Would you be offended if I said..." is already tantamount to saying the offensive thing).
When I say "rapey" I mean specifcally having to do with rape. As in, explicitly describing the person as being raped or deserving rape.

But unsolicited sexual advances added to someone else's intellectual property without their consent is also a shitty thing to do, and if you can't think of any other way to hit on someone I feel bad for potential targets of your "romantic" advances.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

Foelhe
Posts: 56
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2014 4:07 pm UTC

Re: 1432: "The Sake of Argument"

Postby Foelhe » Fri Oct 10, 2014 9:02 pm UTC

Pfhorrest wrote:Ok, so honest question here for people (like you, I'm gathering) who see themselves as within the social justice movement in general, recognize the existence of unreasonable extremists within it, and don't like the term "meaniehead": what term would you prefer to succinctly label the unreasonable extremist fringe parts of the social justice movement?


Assholes. If you need something more exact it'd depend on what the person's doing wrong. Bigots. Fanatics, maybe. We could come up with others, given time.

It's kind of ironic because Social Justice Warrior as an insult originally came from inside the progressive movement. I think - I might be getting some details wrong here - it was an insult more "serious" people aimed at people who raged and ranted but never really got anything done. Once people outside the group picked it up, the use got more broad, until eventually it didn't mean anything beyond, "You talk about bigotry in a way that makes us uncomfortable." Actually, even that's probably too simple.

At the end of the day, it's about communication. If there's a problem, let us know about it. That's a little simplistic too, o' course, but generally we're be more willing to deal with the problem if we know what it is. meaniehead doesn't do that anymore.

Foelhe
Posts: 56
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2014 4:07 pm UTC

Re: 1432: "The Sake of Argument"

Postby Foelhe » Fri Oct 10, 2014 9:05 pm UTC

Invertin wrote:
Foelhe wrote:Okay, then you aren't who I'm talking about. Mea culpa. But I find "both sides are just as bad" arguments inaccurate the vast majority of the time. Neither side's perfect, that doesn't mean both sides are the same.


That simply depends on what you mean by 'worse'. In terms of pure morality, the people actually commiting hatecrimes and killing people are definately worse. In terms of actually negating progress, meanieheads (as I am using the term, at least) might rank higher (obviously there's no metric to be sure), if only because it's self-sabotage. Not only do they paint a big straw target on themselves and anyone on 'their side', but they scare people away from supporting social justice because it might make them look crazy too. Or because their version of social justice don't match, and the meanieheads harass and web-vandalize and stalk the opinion that doesn't match theres until it goes away.

The point isn't so much that one is worse than the other the point is more that they are both problems.


Well, sometimes you've gotta triage, but generally yeah. Any problems on the progressive side should be dealt with, I just don't see anti-SJW doing that.

Edit: Holy hell, have I been acting like Progressive Spokesperson? I should probably say now that I generally have no idea what I'm talking about.
Last edited by Foelhe on Fri Oct 10, 2014 9:09 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.


Return to “Individual XKCD Comic Threads”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 47 guests