|
|
|
|
|
by emcq
3433 days ago
|
|
Why is it that people like scratching the hypocrisy itch? It's not even a logical fallacy. In fact, pointing out hypocrisy as a way of negating the merits of an argument _is a logical fallacy_: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque I think we as commenters on HN should hold ourselves to a higher bar. Pointing out hypocrisy changes the conversation in a way that avoids discussing the relative merits of an argument. It doesn't invalidate the original argument - it's just that, rhetoric. For example, I'm sure there were other hypocritical posts today. Isn't it hypocritical to try and fight hypocrisy by commenting on specific political points in a discussion but not others? (please dont take this argument seriously as I'm just offering it as an example of rhetoric) |
|
It's like a game theory problem. Rhetoric becomes meaningless: there needs to be a track record that shows that you cooperate.
That's why hypocrisy is invoked in the debate; rather than an argumentative tool, I see hypocrisy accusations as "flags" that say "I can't cooperate because of your low credibility"
If this sounds harsh, I sincerely apologize.