[asabjorn]

Let's make it concrete.

She proposes a ministry for regulating tech which means there will be a permanent line between Washington and large social media companies. This is a horrible approach by any objective meassure and it would obviously also institutionalize Facebook (see "An array of possible next steps"[1]). This indicate that I am right this is not an attempt at weakening Facebook and social media in general, but an attempt to commandeer its power to censor.

Since she is proposing a political body with the power to censor all social media, why is evidence of her political motivations and potential political connections to the whistleblowing a strawman?

> In closing, I get that you and others are frustrated that certain types of posted content are targeted for removal. However, that in and of itself does not mean meaningful and opposed discourse can't occur or that anyone has a "right" to post wherever they like, saying whatever they want.

New discoveries are in the margins, and is indistinguishable from nonsense. A lack of certainty and a certain amount of curiosity is needed to go through the process of distinguishing the two, which is why tyrannical regimes do not innovate well.

Why are you so certain that you are right and is capable of knowing when dissenters are wrong? Whom do you think is capable of distinguish truth from falsity in the margins, and censor with absolute power without falling for the temptation to misuse it?

> It is that it (your comments) may not occur without significant work involved that we all care about. Cheap and easy discourse isn't good for anyone, harms society, and will continue to be exploited until we come up with a technical solution to solve it.

This accusation of dissenters not doing the work, while those in tech that censor do, is not supported by evidence.

Censorship by tech has in the last year been wrong on major important points, e.g:

- Not long ago the lab leak hypothesis was censored, delaying potential life saving measures

- Not long ago Hunters laptop was called fake and censored, affecting democratic primary outcome and election outcomes

- Not long ago early treatment solutions to covid was censored, delaying deployment of early treatment solutions similar to the one Merck just released [2]

[1] https://www.theguardian.com/technology/live/2021/oct/05/face... [2] https://fortune.com/2021/10/05/everything-to-know-about-merc...

[kordlessagain]

This is the problem replying to people who make strawman arguments.

Also, dissent is being amplified with software, which itself is not conscious. Being more conscious of your points will help matters. Not being more conscious of your points will help accelerate the madness.

You've failed to acknowledge anyone's argument here, which is really the hard part to learn.

[asabjorn]

My point was exactly relevant because it sought to contextualize your claim specifically to the argument I made that you claimed to explain.

If your points explanatory power is too poor to contextualize to what it criticize its honestly just a smear. You are to my estimation going into ad hominem in lieu of a good argument in both your replies.

Whom do you think you can convince that I am wrong without contextualizing your claim?

[asabjorn]

> Also, dissent is being amplified with software, which itself is not conscious.

I find it hilarious that you accuse me of using a strawman by arguing that because I don't have a critical consciousness [1] I am not conscious of what I think and how it relates to the reality we live in. You are literally arguing that because I don't agree with (in your term "have") the gnostic knowledge of critical social justice activists I am essentially an unthinking program.

I am sorry to break your bubble, but you can both be thinking and principally disagree with critical social justice (CSJ). Arguably the inherently group-based CSJ doctrine suppress individual thought in favor of group based identity.

[1] https://newdiscourses.com/tftw-critical-consciousness/

[chalst]

Your insertion of the word "critical" is making a strawman out of the assertion you replied to.

[asabjorn]

Full quote:

> Also, dissent is being amplified with software, which itself is not conscious. Being more conscious of your points will help matters. Not being more conscious of your points will help accelerate the madness.

The parent is clearly accusing me of not being conscious of my opinions, and this person doesn't know me so this is an assertion (s)he can not principally make. So how do you interpret what he/she refers to with conscious if it is not ideologically driven by critical social justice (CSJ)?

My impression is that this person is an adherent of CSJ. In general adherents to CSJ tend to drop essential qualifiers, so that they can use the Motte-and-Bailey [1] rhetorical trick of arguing a more radical position (Bailey) and then when challenged defend a more moderate position(Motte).

The CSJ adherents liberal individual Motte is not compatible with their group-based Bailey, it is purely a lie to provide cover until resistance has abated, and in general accusing someone of not being conscious simply because they agree with you is completely 100% unacceptable behavior. Especially if your viewpoints could have been spewed by a bot programmed to believe in CSJ. ;)

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motte-and-bailey_fallacy#:~:te...

[chalst]

I am not going to explain your error to you if you have a track record of not admitting problems in your argumentation when they are pointed out to you.

Seriously, you wrote the above just after I wrote the following:

> To be clear, the problem kordlessagain is referring to is that if you make the effort to make explicit what the X and Y are, the response will rarely include the slightest explicit acknowledgement of any incoherence.

> Generally, if a fallacy is found in one's arguments and one values intellectual honesty, the best response is to apologise for the error first and only then attempt to restart the argument. If you don't do this, but try to act as if there was no error, you do avoid loss of face in the eyes of the unthinking that comes from admitting error, but you lose the respect of readers who understood the error and saw the evasion.

> It is a sad fact that today most people have little awareness of this risk of losing respect in heated arguments, let alone place high importance to it.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28785685

[asabjorn]

The way to show I am in error with you (or the parent) agreeing with the radical Bailey of critical social justice, such as the DEI initiatives true position in its Bailey, would be to say "I do not believe that people are defined by group identity" and "I think redistributing resources and position based upon group identity is wrong". Neither of you have done that.

Do you (or the parent) believe that "people are not defined by group identity" and that "redistributing resources and position based upon group identity is wrong"?

A way to show that I am in error about the whistleblower proposing Critical Social Justice activism would be to show that the links I provided showing the whistleblower calling for censoring "hate speech", her call for a ministry of truth, her association with CSJ, and the suspicious political ties of her whistleblowing being wrong. These are not moderate positions.

[chalst]

To be clear, the problem kordlessagain is referring to is that if you make the effort to make explicit what the X and Y are, the response will rarely include the slightest explicit acknowledgement of any incoherence.

Generally, if a fallacy is found in one's arguments and one values intellectual honesty, the best response is to apologise for the error first and only then attempt to restart the argument. If you don't do this, but try to act as if there was no error, you do avoid loss of face in the eyes of the unthinking that comes from admitting error, but you lose the respect of readers who understood the error and saw the evasion.

It is a sad fact that today most people have little awareness of this risk of losing respect in heated arguments, let alone place high importance to it.