Occupy

[minuspace]

Sedition can only go so far?

[BadBeast]

Sedition doesn't go far enough.

[the last yatto]

When I first started hearing about objections to the Occupy protests, the imediatly reminded me of that fallacious argument Dawkins used at that conference to belittle a woman harassed at night in an elevator.

I think, because I'm seeing this everywhere, it needs a name, so I'm going to start calling it the argumentum ad oblitum, or more simply the Dawkins Fallacy.

The Dawkins fallacy is when a problem of larger scope is used as a foil to dismantle protest over a problem seemingly of smaller scope. The smaller scope argument superficially seems to disappear under the larger scope, but it is actually only dismissed or belittled, not refuted.

The lowest level and least insidious version of this is the child who argues about eating their poorly cooked vegetables and the parent uses children starving in Africa to quiet them. The worst offenders use the foil of international problems to keep individuals from seeking to improve their lives, they should be content with what they have because others have it worse off. Don't like your shitty job? At least you HAVE a shitty job, tones of people don't, so you should be content with it. Don't like getting harrassed in the workplace? Why are you complaining about workplace harassement when women in the middle east have to wear burkhas and get raped daily?

It may be cognitive bias, but I'm starting to see Dawkins Fallacy everywhere.

But I would have called it Dawkins Elevator

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

When I first started hearing about objections to the Occupy protests, the imediatly reminded me of that fallacious argument Dawkins used at that conference to belittle a woman harassed at night in an elevator.

I think, because I'm seeing this everywhere, it needs a name, so I'm going to start calling it the argumentum ad oblitum, or more simply the Dawkins Fallacy.

The Dawkins fallacy is when a problem of larger scope is used as a foil to dismantle protest over a problem seemingly of smaller scope. The smaller scope argument superficially seems to disappear under the larger scope, but it is actually only dismissed or belittled, not refuted.

The lowest level and least insidious version of this is the child who argues about eating their poorly cooked vegetables and the parent uses children starving in Africa to quiet them. The worst offenders use the foil of international problems to keep individuals from seeking to improve their lives, they should be content with what they have because others have it worse off. Don't like your shitty job? At least you HAVE a shitty job, tones of people don't, so you should be content with it. Don't like getting harrassed in the workplace? Why are you complaining about workplace harassement when women in the middle east have to wear burkhas and get raped daily?

It may be cognitive bias, but I'm starting to see Dawkins Fallacy everywhere.

I really just can't bump this enough. I feel like it deserves its own thread. This is a form of argument that has bugged me since I was 19 years old; I used to describe it as "I kick my dog, but my neighbor beats his kids so I'm OK in comparison" but having an actual name for it is so so useful. I feel like a pretty good dialogue could be opened about this argumentative gambit, because it is SO widely used.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

In fact, it's one of those things like the Dunning/Kruger Effect, that's so pervasive it's hard to believe it's only just been properly described!

[trix]

Spelled out like that, and looking back, I realize I have been guilty of this fallacy many times myself.  I have memories of retarded facebook arguments that ended with me saying something like "Get some fucking perspective, hundreds of children have died by the time you finish reading this" or something loosely related to the topic.

I'm glad you brought this to my attention, I shall now endeavor to avoid this false argument whenever I catch myself using it.

Question though, does the "First-world problem" / "Coffeemaker broken" type things I see many people here annoyed with fit into this?
I mean, the term "first-world problem" seems to have an implication of "small fries because non first world countries have bigger problems!", which would seem like an underwritten Dawkins fallacy.  I guess what I'm saying is, is there a distinction somewhere between "putting things in perspective" vs "belittling the problem"?  Because I could see that line getting rather blurry.

[the last yatto]

Speaking of first world problems... they ruined the McRib by using inferior bread!

[Prince Glittersnatch III]

I believe this is relevant.

[Prince Glittersnatch III]

Spelled out like that, and looking back, I realize I have been guilty of this fallacy many times myself.  I have memories of retarded facebook arguments that ended with me saying something like "Get some fucking perspective, hundreds of children have died by the time you finish reading this" or something loosely related to the topic.

I'm glad you brought this to my attention, I shall now endeavor to avoid this false argument whenever I catch myself using it.

Question though, does the "First-world problem" / "Coffeemaker broken" type things I see many people here annoyed with fit into this?
I mean, the term "first-world problem" seems to have an implication of "small fries because non first world countries have bigger problems!", which would seem like an underwritten Dawkins fallacy.  I guess what I'm saying is, is there a distinction somewhere between "putting things in perspective" vs "belittling the problem"?  Because I could see that line getting rather blurry.

You just have to apply some common sense and perspective to it.

When I first heard of Elevatorgate it was all from 3rd party sources. I read Dawkins reply I immediately sided with him because the image of the woman that he projected in his reply was of some completely over-reacting feminist nutjob.

Then I watched the original video, all she said was "Dont do that guys" in a disproving way. She wasnt calling for this guy to be tarred and feathered, she wasnt sobbing from the trauma of being "almost raped", she was slightly annoyed with being awkwardly hit on in an elevator and was advising men not to do that. "Dont awkwardly hit on women" is hardly controversial advice, and judging by the average E.Q. of the Neo-Atheist community its probably deathly needed advice.

I still dont understand what possessed Dawkins to write that diatribe other than draining the fluid from his douchebag glands. 

Some people need to be given a good dose of perspective, but not everyone does. As long as people arent being disproportionately dramatic then I think they are justified in voicing their complaints.

[Prince Glittersnatch III]

Re-jacking this thread.

August 15, 2011

Dear Fellow Concerned Americans:

Our country is better than this.

Over the last few weeks and months, our national elected officials from both parties have failed to lead. They have chosen to put partisan and ideological purity over the well-being of the people. They have undermined the full faith and credit of the United States. They have stirred up fears about our economic prospects without doing anything to truly address those fears. They have spent a resource even more precious than the dollar: our collective confidence in each other, in the future, and in our ability to solve problems together.

As leaders in business, we have watched all this unfold, first with frustration and then with dismay. Like so many of our employees and customers, we are gravely concerned about the current situation. Today, with both humility and urgency, we propose to do something about it.

First, we aim to push our elected leaders to face the nation's long-term fiscal challenges with civility, honesty, and a willingness to sacrifice their own re-election. This means not kicking the can anymore. It means reaching a deal on debt, revenue, and spending long before the deadline arrives this fall. It means considering all options, from entitlement programs to taxes.

This is what so many common-sense Americans want. That is why we today pledge to withhold any further campaign contributions to the President and all members of Congress until a fair, bipartisan deal is reached that sets our nation on stronger long-term fiscal footing. And we invite leaders of businesses – indeed, all concerned Americans – to join us in this pledge.

We also believe in leading by positive example. And we believe that while the long-term fiscal challenge is serious, even more painful to millions of Americans today is the immediate crisis of jobs. Tens of millions are unemployed and underemployed. Right now our economy is frozen in a cycle of fear and uncertainty. Companies are afraid to hire. Consumers are afraid to spend. Banks are afraid to lend. Record levels of cash are piling up in corporate treasuries, idling. That cash is not being used to expand operations, train new workers, underwrite new ventures, or spark innovation.

The only way to break this cycle of fear is to break it. The only way to get the country's economic circulatory system flowing again is to start pumping lifeblood through it. That is why we today issue a second pledge. Our companies are going to hire. We are going to accelerate growth, employment, and investment in jobs.

We do this because we want to set in motion an upward spiral of confidence. We are not waiting for government to create an incentive program or a stimulus. We are not waiting for economic indicators to tell us it's safe to act. We are hiring more people now. We invite leaders of businesses across the country to join us in this pledge as well – and to bring their stakeholders into the effort. Confidence is contagious. The best thing we can do now is to spread it.

This is a time for citizenship, not partisanship. It is a time for action. We don't pretend that our two pledges are quick fixes. We just believe that in this moment of great uncertainty, the government needs discipline, the people need jobs – and leaders need to lead.

Our country is better than this. Let's get things moving now.

Respectfully,
Howard Schultz

[Laughin Jude]

I'm tired of this "we need jobs" bullshit. No, having a 40-hour-a-week job is part of how they control you, eating up your time and making you too tired to fight them. I don't have any problem with supporting myself, but that's not what having a job is really about from a sociological perspective.

I don't want a job. I want to use twenty-first-century technology to bring about a post-scarcity society where the average person doesn't need a job to survive.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Spelled out like that, and looking back, I realize I have been guilty of this fallacy many times myself.  I have memories of retarded facebook arguments that ended with me saying something like "Get some fucking perspective, hundreds of children have died by the time you finish reading this" or something loosely related to the topic.

I'm glad you brought this to my attention, I shall now endeavor to avoid this false argument whenever I catch myself using it.

Question though, does the "First-world problem" / "Coffeemaker broken" type things I see many people here annoyed with fit into this?
I mean, the term "first-world problem" seems to have an implication of "small fries because non first world countries have bigger problems!", which would seem like an underwritten Dawkins fallacy.  I guess what I'm saying is, is there a distinction somewhere between "putting things in perspective" vs "belittling the problem"?  Because I could see that line getting rather blurry.

Welllll, part of that blurry line is between entitlement and responsibility. And another part is between happenstance and fortune.

My life sucks (relatively speaking) because I've been rejected by a lover and am almost three months behind on the mortgage. However, my life doesn't suck at all because I and my children are well-fed and live in a comfortable home, and it has been this way for as long as they remember.

[Elder Iptuous]

I'm tired of this "we need jobs" bullshit. No, having a 40-hour-a-week job is part of how they control you, eating up your time and making you too tired to fight them. I don't have any problem with supporting myself, but that's not what having a job is really about from a sociological perspective.

I don't want a job. I want to use twenty-first-century technology to bring about a post-scarcity society where the average person doesn't need a job to survive.

you really believe the current state of technology is able to bring about a post-scarcity society?
i gotta say, i think that's a pipe dream, and until we are able to bring about a technotopia, people are going to be concerned about putting food on their plate, and that means they need a job...
you might as well ask for using 19th century technology to make a giant steam powered voltron.
which i want.

[Cain]

On the other hand, only being able to afford cheap, starchy, refined-sugar containing food while on welfare also makes people too weak to fight them.

Hey, it's an ideal, and I get that.  It's just not a very useful one to someone whose immediate problems are cash flow, lack of medical insurance and the possibility of being thrown out of rented accomodation/having their house foreclosed on them.

Generally, it's best to solve the more immediately solvable problems first, then work towards the more difficult, long-term and culture-changing ones.,

In other news, America's Concern Troll, Roger Cohen, is at last concerned about Wall Street:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/wall-street-is-still-playing-us-for-suckers/2011/10/31/gIQA3NGQaM_story.html?hpid=z5

As a mere youth, I bought a used car in New York to drive to California to be with the woman of my dreams. Inexplicably, she decided to rush back to New York, so I promptly took the car back to the dealer. He made a shockingly low offer. The car had been in an accident, he explained. The chassis was bent. I was flabbergasted. I had just bought the car from him. If the chassis was bent, it was bent when I bought it. The salesman offered me a take-it-or-leave-it shrug. He probably now works on Wall Street.

That the morality of the used car lot has been adopted by Wall Street is now abundantly clear. Citigroup recently settled a civil complaint in which it was accused of selling mortgage-related investments that it knew were dogs. It was so certain that the investments were the financial equivalent of my used car that it bet against them — heads I win, tails you lose — and even selected the investments themselves, choosing from a cupboard of depleted and exhausted financial instruments. An investment in the Brooklyn Bridge would have been safer.

He's still a torture-apologist dickweed, but this may be a sign of changing priorities among the chattering classes media.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

I'm tired of this "we need jobs" bullshit. No, having a 40-hour-a-week job is part of how they control you, eating up your time and making you too tired to fight them. I don't have any problem with supporting myself, but that's not what having a job is really about from a sociological perspective.

I don't want a job. I want to use twenty-first-century technology to bring about a post-scarcity society where the average person doesn't need a job to survive.

Oh, COME THE FUCK ON. What are you, 12? Everyone needs to work to survive, and I'm already fed up as shit about people not thinking the work I do is a "job" just because I'm self-employed.

Guess what asshole; if you aren't willing to work, it's nobody's job to feed your stupid entitled ass.

I am not a Libertarian; I would slaughter those cocktarded fuckers to the gods of evolution.

But don't pull out the "I am 12 and what is this" anarchy of total stupidity. If you really believe that you deserve to do absolutely not one fucking thing and yet be supported by everyone who does do something productive, you are an ass.