Current Events > Is there a name for when you replace your argument with a more palatable one?

Topic List	Page List: 1
Anteaterking 07/12/22 6:23:20 PM #1:	The closest thing that I've come up with is just "ulterior motives" but I don't think that encapsulates it completely. Examples: "It's actually good that Roe v Wade was overturned, because it was settled on privacy grounds rather than as a matter of bodily autonomy" [Speaker is actually anti-abortion] Person doesn't like [movie]. Person presents legitimate issues with movie as cancellable, when in reality they don't like it for reasons that people don't empathize with. --- http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b136/Anteaterking/scan00021.jpg http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b136/Anteaterking/scan00021.jpg <cite>Anteaterking posted [p:966527415] in Is there a... [t:80092027]...</cite> <quote>The closest thing that I've come up with is just "ulterior motives" but I don't think that encapsulates it completely. Examples: "It's actually good that Roe v Wade was overturned, because it was settled on privacy grounds rather than as a matter of bodily autonomy" [Speaker is actually anti-abortion] Person doesn't like [movie]. Person presents legitimate issues with movie as cancellable, when in reality they don't like it for reasons that people don't empathize with. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
ViewtifulJoe 07/12/22 6:26:43 PM #2:	I'm not sure exactly, but it reminds me a bit of how concern trolls operate. Especially the example about the movie. --- Still waiting on that third threat <cite>ViewtifulJoe posted [p:966527489] in Is there a... [t:80092027]...</cite> <quote>I'm not sure exactly, but it reminds me a bit of how concern trolls operate. Especially the example about the movie. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
MarcoRubio 07/12/22 6:28:00 PM #3:	Means they trolling --- Vote for me, 2016! <cite>MarcoRubio posted [p:966527523] in Is there a... [t:80092027]...</cite> <quote>Means they trolling </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
sabin017 07/12/22 6:28:30 PM #4:	rationalization --- https://i.imgur.com/oZKLfiX.jpg <cite>sabin017 posted [p:966527541] in Is there a... [t:80092027]...</cite> <quote>rationalization </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
BuckVanHammer 07/12/22 6:30:15 PM #5:	thats moving the goalpost it sounds like --- Minimal, yet feature rich. https://imgur.com/bphehs8 <cite>BuckVanHammer posted [p:966527588] in Is there a... [t:80092027]...</cite> <quote>thats moving the goalpost it sounds like </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
MedeaLysistrata 07/12/22 6:31:23 PM #6:	I think it depends if the person wants to convince people the movie is bad, or it is bad for the reasons they believe it is. But it might be a case of Concealing Your Game --- "Why is ontology so expensive?" - JH [Is this live?][Joyless planet...] <cite>MedeaLysistrata posted [p:966527620] in Is there a... [t:80092027]...</cite> <quote>I think it depends if the person wants to convince people the movie is bad, or it is bad for the reasons they believe it is. But it might be a case of Concealing Your Game </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Anteaterking 07/12/22 6:32:12 PM #7:	ViewtifulJoe posted... I'm not sure exactly, but it reminds me a bit of how concern trolls operate. Especially the example about the movie. Concern trolls is definitely a subset of that space, you're right. sabin017 posted... rationalization Rationalization is more you tricking yourself. I'm describing more that you know you're lying, but you think you'll be more persuasive if you us other (potentially valid) reasons but that you don't actually care about. --- http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b136/Anteaterking/scan00021.jpg http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b136/Anteaterking/scan00021.jpg <cite>Anteaterking posted [p:966527648] in Is there a... [t:80092027]...</cite> <quote>ViewtifulJoe posted... </cite> <quote>I'm not sure exactly, but it reminds me a bit of how concern trolls operate. Especially the example about the movie.</quote> Concern trolls is definitely a subset of that space, you're right. sabin017 posted... </cite> <quote>rationalization</quote> Rationalization is more you tricking yourself. I'm describing more that you know you're lying, but you think you'll be more persuasive if you us other (potentially valid) reasons but that you don't actually care about. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Mearcstapa 07/12/22 6:38:15 PM #8:	disingenuousness --- after years of waiting nothing came <cite>Mearcstapa posted [p:966527791] in Is there a... [t:80092027]...</cite> <quote>disingenuousness </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
ViewtifulJoe 07/12/22 6:40:36 PM #9:	Re-framing? Something like that? I think I heard that used as the name of a psychological trick, with an example being a time Ronald Reagan was asked if age was going to be an issue and responded that he had no intent to take advantage of his (Also quite old but younger than himself) opponent's youth and inexperience. Not perfect but similar. --- Still waiting on that third threat <cite>ViewtifulJoe posted [p:966527856] in Is there a... [t:80092027]...</cite> <quote>Re-framing? Something like that? I think I heard that used as the name of a psychological trick, with an example being a time Ronald Reagan was asked if age was going to be an issue and responded that he had no intent to take advantage of his (Also quite old but younger than himself) opponent's youth and inexperience. Not perfect but similar. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
dioxxys 07/12/22 6:42:11 PM #10:	BuckVanHammer posted... thats moving the goalpost it sounds like <cite>dioxxys posted [p:966527906] in Is there a... [t:80092027]...</cite> <quote>BuckVanHammer posted... </cite> <quote>thats moving the goalpost it sounds like</quote> </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Lokison 07/12/22 6:50:04 PM #11:	Sounds like cowardice. Rather than being honest about what they want you say, they're being a coward and trying to reframe the issue for the other person's perspective. Maybe manipulation? Edit: makes me think of this, something a lot of people could take time to understand around here https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/2/2/2/AAe7xyAADcg2.jpg --- Word from the wise: Don't run in the shower. <cite>Lokison posted [p:966528088] in Is there a... [t:80092027]...</cite> <quote>Sounds like cowardice. Rather than being honest about what they want you say, they're being a coward and trying to reframe the issue for the other person's perspective. Maybe manipulation? Edit: makes me think of this, something a lot of people could take time to understand around here https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/2/2/2/AAe7xyAADcg2.jpg </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Anteaterking 07/12/22 7:49:26 PM #12:	BuckVanHammer posted... thats moving the goalpost it sounds like Nah, moving the goalpost would be more like "Roe v Wade being overturned is great because abortion is wrong" "Abortion is necessary in many cases due to health of mother and in other cases you are taking away bodily autonomy" "Okay well still, Roe v Wade settled the matter as one of privacy, so it's good it was overturned". --- http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b136/Anteaterking/scan00021.jpg http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b136/Anteaterking/scan00021.jpg <cite>Anteaterking posted [p:966529438] in Is there a... [t:80092027]...</cite> <quote>BuckVanHammer posted... </cite> <quote>thats moving the goalpost it sounds like</quote> Nah, moving the goalpost would be more like "Roe v Wade being overturned is great because abortion is wrong" "Abortion is necessary in many cases due to health of mother and in other cases you are taking away bodily autonomy" "Okay well still, Roe v Wade settled the matter as one of privacy, so it's good it was overturned". </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Sariana21 07/12/22 7:58:43 PM #13:	Its kind of like an extended euphemism. --- ___ Sari, Mom to DS (07/04) and DD (01/08); Pronouns: she/her/hers <cite>Sariana21 posted [p:966529649] in Is there a... [t:80092027]...</cite> <quote>Its kind of like an extended euphemism. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Guide 07/12/22 8:02:13 PM #14:	BuckVanHammer posted... thats moving the goalpost it sounds like Goalposts is shifting what the conclusive point was. This is maintaining the goal but changing the argument of how you reach the conclusion. I've seen what TC's talking about plenty, so it's a bit surprising that no one knows a term for it, though it's more a sort of presentation tactic than a fallacy, the latter of which are much easier to find listed and described. --- evening main 2.4356848e+91 https://youtu.be/Acn5IptKWQU <cite>Guide posted [p:966529737] in Is there a... [t:80092027]...</cite> <quote>BuckVanHammer posted... </cite> <quote>thats moving the goalpost it sounds like</quote> Goalposts is shifting what the conclusive point was. This is maintaining the goal but changing the argument of how you reach the conclusion. I've seen what TC's talking about plenty, so it's a bit surprising that no one knows a term for it, though it's more a sort of presentation tactic than a fallacy, the latter of which are much easier to find listed and described. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
emblem-man 07/13/22 1:16:15 PM #15:	I know there's a term for it, but I can't think of it. It's essentially just messaging. If you're trying to convince someone of something, based on their background, you'll phrase your message in different ways. It's what leftists have been told to do during this whole culture war era. Message things differently to different people until you find phrasing and language that resonates with them. And my pet peeve with that has always been that I end up feeling like I'm not being fully honest when trying to convince someone on an issue. Messaging is hard and is ultimately what is needed to convince people. Messaging and to some extent, pandering. There are many things I am morally against or for, but I know my rational isn't something that could convince people. So do I use some other more "logical" reasoning to convince them, despite not even fully caring about that reasoning? And some bad actors (Chris Rufo, see Twitter link below ) say this quiet part out loud. Like, Rufo is fucking abhorrent but he knows how to message odious things to the people he wants to convince. And part of that messaging is. The below example is an egregious one, but only one I could think about off my head. https://twitter.com/realchrisrufo/status/1537807543895998464?t=CoTroASBaRcgnzRfFdHQAA&s=19 --- http://avatar.xboxlive.com/avatar/emblem%20boy/avatar-body.png haters gonna hate <cite>emblem-man posted [p:966544976] in Is there a... [t:80092027]...</cite> <quote>I know there's a term for it, but I can't think of it. It's essentially just messaging. If you're trying to convince someone of something, based on their background, you'll phrase your message in different ways. It's what leftists have been told to do during this whole culture war era. Message things differently to different people until you find phrasing and language that resonates with them. And my pet peeve with that has always been that I end up feeling like I'm not being fully honest when trying to convince someone on an issue. Messaging is hard and is ultimately what is needed to convince people. Messaging and to some extent, pandering. There are many things I am morally against or for, but I know my rational isn't something that could convince people. So do I use some other more "logical" reasoning to convince them, despite not even fully caring about that reasoning? And some bad actors (Chris Rufo, see Twitter link below ) say this quiet part out loud. Like, Rufo is fucking abhorrent but he knows how to message odious things to the people he wants to convince. And part of that messaging is. The below example is an egregious one, but only one I could think about off my head. https://twitter.com/realchrisrufo/status/1537807543895998464?t=CoTroASBaRcgnzRfFdHQAA&s=19 </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
AsucaHayashi 07/13/22 1:23:38 PM #16:	Lokison posted... image saved. easy chart to pull up when somebody is obviously bullshitting their way through a debate. --- http://abload.de/img/pcgamingxtuvt.jpg http://i.imgur.com/9Yv0R2Z.jpg <cite>AsucaHayashi posted [p:966545157] in Is there a... [t:80092027]...</cite> <quote>Lokison posted... </cite> image saved. easy chart to pull up when somebody is obviously bullshitting their way through a debate. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
emblem-man 07/13/22 1:27:06 PM #17:	Like, are your examples different than someone trying to fnd different analogies, data/analysis, and ways to communicate an issue to someone to switch them from indifference or hostility to being a supporter? Is it bad to tailor a meta-narrative through multiple different avenues. --- http://avatar.xboxlive.com/avatar/emblem%20boy/avatar-body.png haters gonna hate <cite>emblem-man posted [p:966545220] in Is there a... [t:80092027]...</cite> <quote>Like, are your examples different than someone trying to fnd different analogies, data/analysis, and ways to communicate an issue to someone to switch them from indifference or hostility to being a supporter? Is it bad to tailor a meta-narrative through multiple different avenues. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Anteaterking 07/13/22 5:14:54 PM #18:	emblem-man posted... Like, are your examples different than someone trying to fnd different analogies, data/analysis, and ways to communicate an issue to someone to switch them from indifference or hostility to being a supporter? Is it bad to tailor a meta-narrative through multiple different avenues. I think there's a difference between trying to find an effective argument for a person and camouflaging your real "arguments". If I think that Star Wars Episode 7 is a poorly made movie and I try to appeal to whatever your particular film craft "priorities" are, my arguments are at least supporting my true thoughts, even if I might care less about the problems with sound editing than I do with the cinematography but used sound editing as my argument. If I think that Star Wars Episode 7 is a bad movie because Star Wars went woke by having a woman and a black person as the two leads, but I try to appeal to in terms of film craft, I'm probably just avoiding the fact that if I actually led with that you would not talk to me. In the abortion example, it would even be reasonable if you said "I don't think women should have the right to abortion, but even if I did it shouldn't have been decided on privacy grounds". At least you're owning your stance with that one. The other one just feels a lot like people who try to imply that they aren't against gay marriage/slavery/etc. but are just strong proponents of state's rights. --- http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b136/Anteaterking/scan00021.jpg http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b136/Anteaterking/scan00021.jpg <cite>Anteaterking posted [p:966550404] in Is there a... [t:80092027]...</cite> <quote>emblem-man posted... </cite> <quote>Like, are your examples different than someone trying to fnd different analogies, data/analysis, and ways to communicate an issue to someone to switch them from indifference or hostility to being a supporter? Is it bad to tailor a meta-narrative through multiple different avenues.</quote> I think there's a difference between trying to find an effective argument for a person and camouflaging your real "arguments". If I think that Star Wars Episode 7 is a poorly made movie and I try to appeal to whatever your particular film craft "priorities" are, my arguments are at least supporting my true thoughts, even if I might care less about the problems with sound editing than I do with the cinematography but used sound editing as my argument. If I think that Star Wars Episode 7 is a bad movie because Star Wars went woke by having a woman and a black person as the two leads, but I try to appeal to in terms of film craft, I'm probably just avoiding the fact that if I actually led with that you would not talk to me. In the abortion example, it would even be reasonable if you said "I don't think women should have the right to abortion, but even if I did it shouldn't have been decided on privacy grounds". At least you're owning your stance with that one. The other one just feels a lot like people who try to imply that they aren't against gay marriage/slavery/etc. but are just strong proponents of state's rights. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
ehhwhatever 07/13/22 5:33:03 PM #19:	David Bowie wasnt always a weirdo. --- "Drinking a cup of coffee with your eyes closed isn't a sophisticated task for a person, but it's hard for a robot." Vijjay Kumar <cite>ehhwhatever posted [p:966550837] in Is there a... [t:80092027]...</cite> <quote>David Bowie wasnt always a weirdo. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
haloiscoolisbak 07/13/22 6:03:02 PM #20:	Compromising --- Started from the bottom now we here <cite>haloiscoolisbak posted [p:966551550] in Is there a... [t:80092027]...</cite> <quote>Compromising </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
knightmarexx 07/13/22 6:06:50 PM #21:	Anteaterking posted... I think there's a difference between trying to find an effective argument for a person and camouflaging your real "arguments". If I think that Star Wars Episode 7 is a poorly made movie and I try to appeal to whatever your particular film craft "priorities" are, my arguments are at least supporting my true thoughts, even if I might care less about the problems with sound editing than I do with the cinematography but used sound editing as my argument. If I think that Star Wars Episode 7 is a bad movie because Star Wars went woke by having a woman and a black person as the two leads, but I try to appeal to in terms of film craft, I'm probably just avoiding the fact that if I actually led with that you would not talk to me. In the abortion example, it would even be reasonable if you said "I don't think women should have the right to abortion, but even if I did it shouldn't have been decided on privacy grounds". At least you're owning your stance with that one. The other one just feels a lot like people who try to imply that they aren't against gay marriage/slavery/etc. but are just strong proponents of state's rights. The term is "obfuscation"the action of making something obscure, unclear, or unintelligible. You could also use "doublespeak", which is quite used in politics it means language that deliberately obscures, disguises, distorts, or reverses the meaning of words, or sentences. Doublespeak comes from doublethink, which is a term coined in a book called 1984, which has entered the lexicon, which George Orwell in his book sums up as meaning: "To know and not to know, to be conscious of complete truthfulness while telling carefully constructed lies, to hold simultaneously two opinions which cancelled out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them, to use logic against logic, to repudiate morality while laying claim to it, to believe that democracy was impossible and that the Party was the guardian of democracy, to forget whatever it was necessary to forget, then to draw it back into memory again at the moment when it was needed, and then promptly to forget it again, and above all, to apply the same process to the process itselfthat was the ultimate subtlety: consciously to induce unconsciousness, and then, once again, to become unconscious of the act of hypnosis you had just performed. Even to understand the worddoublethinkinvolved the use of doublethink" Remember, obfuscation and doublespeak are not, by themselves, a logical fallacy. They can only be described as a fallacy if it forms part of an argument, and you're sure the other party is doing it for those purposes. <cite>knightmarexx posted [p:966551625] in Is there a... [t:80092027]...</cite> <quote>Anteaterking posted... </cite> <quote>I think there's a difference between trying to find an effective argument for a person and camouflaging your real "arguments". If I think that Star Wars Episode 7 is a poorly made movie and I try to appeal to whatever your particular film craft "priorities" are, my arguments are at least supporting my true thoughts, even if I might care less about the problems with sound editing than I do with the cinematography but used sound editing as my argument. If I think that Star Wars Episode 7 is a bad movie because Star Wars went woke by having a woman and a black person as the two leads, but I try to appeal to in terms of film craft, I'm probably just avoiding the fact that if I actually led with that you would not talk to me. In the abortion example, it would even be reasonable if you said "I don't think women should have the right to abortion, but even if I did it shouldn't have been decided on privacy grounds". At least you're owning your stance with that one. The other one just feels a lot like people who try to imply that they aren't against gay marriage/slavery/etc. but are just strong proponents of state's rights.</quote> The term is "obfuscation"the action of making something obscure, unclear, or unintelligible. You could also use "doublespeak", which is quite used in politics it means language that deliberately obscures, disguises, distorts, or reverses the meaning of words, or sentences. Doublespeak comes from doublethink, which is a term coined in a book called 1984, which has entered the lexicon, which George Orwell in his book sums up as meaning: "To know and not to know, to be conscious of complete truthfulness while telling carefully constructed lies, to hold simultaneously two opinions which cancelled out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them, to use logic against logic, to repudiate morality while laying claim to it, to believe that democracy was impossible and that the Party was the guardian of democracy, to forget whatever it was necessary to forget, then to draw it back into memory again at the moment when it was needed, and then promptly to forget it again, and above all, to apply the same process to the process itselfthat was the ultimate subtlety: consciously to induce unconsciousness, and then, once again, to become unconscious of the act of hypnosis you had just performed. Even to understand the worddoublethinkinvolved the use of doublethink" Remember, obfuscation and doublespeak are not, by themselves, a logical fallacy. They can only be described as a fallacy if it forms part of an argument, and you're sure the other party is doing it for those purposes. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Tyranthraxus 07/13/22 6:10:09 PM #22:	The word for this is called "sanitization" Basically you're saying an argument you don't believe yourself because you know the other person agrees with it and you desire the end result. --- It says right here in Matthew 16:4 "Jesus doth not need a giant Mecha." https://i.imgur.com/dQgC4kv.jpg <cite>Tyranthraxus posted [p:966551696] in Is there a... [t:80092027]...</cite> <quote>The word for this is called "sanitization" Basically you're saying an argument you don't believe yourself because you know the other person agrees with it and you desire the end result. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
MedeaLysistrata 07/13/22 10:36:44 PM #23:	MedeaLysistrata posted... I think it depends if the person wants to convince people the movie is bad, or it is bad for the reasons they believe it is. But it might be a case of Concealing Your Game "If you want to draw a conclusion, you must not let it be foreseen, but you must get the premisses admitted one by one, unobserved, mingling them here and there in your talk: otherwise, your opponent will attempt all sorts of chicanery. Or, if it is doubtful whether your opponent will admit them, you must advance the premisses of these premisses; that is to say, you must draw up pro-syllogisms, and get the premisses of several of them admitted in no definite order. In this way you conceal your game until you have obtained all the admissions that are necessary, and so reach your goal by making a circuit. These rules are given by Aristotle in his Topica, bk. viii., c. 1. It is a trick which needs no illustration." - Schopenhauer, The Art of Being Right, Stratagem 4 Actually, I guess this isn't it. I will keep looking --- "Why is ontology so expensive?" - JH [Is this live?][Joyless planet...] <cite>MedeaLysistrata posted [p:966557424] in Is there a... [t:80092027]...</cite> <quote>MedeaLysistrata posted... </cite> <quote>I think it depends if the person wants to convince people the movie is bad, or it is bad for the reasons they believe it is. But it might be a case of Concealing Your Game</quote> "If you want to draw a conclusion, you must not let it be foreseen, but you must get the premisses admitted one by one, unobserved, mingling them here and there in your talk: otherwise, your opponent will attempt all sorts of chicanery. Or, if it is doubtful whether your opponent will admit them, you must advance the premisses of these premisses; that is to say, you must draw up pro-syllogisms, and get the premisses of several of them admitted in no definite order. In this way you conceal your game until you have obtained all the admissions that are necessary, and so reach your goal by making a circuit. These rules are given by Aristotle in his Topica, bk. viii., c. 1. It is a trick which needs no illustration." - Schopenhauer, The Art of Being Right, Stratagem 4 Actually, I guess this isn't it. I will keep looking </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
MedeaLysistrata 07/13/22 10:42:53 PM #24:	https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Art_of_Being_Right#Diversion I guess it could be this. If you know you won't be acknowledged on one point you divert to another point where your opponent might not want to disagree. --- "Why is ontology so expensive?" - JH [Is this live?][Joyless planet...] <cite>MedeaLysistrata posted [p:966557524] in Is there a... [t:80092027]...</cite> <quote>https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Art_of_Being_Right#Diversion I guess it could be this. If you know you won't be acknowledged on one point you divert to another point where your opponent might not want to disagree. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
emblem-man 07/15/22 9:52:35 AM #25:	Anteaterking posted... I think there's a difference between trying to find an effective argument for a person and camouflaging your real "arguments". If I think that Star Wars Episode 7 is a poorly made movie and I try to appeal to whatever your particular film craft "priorities" are, my arguments are at least supporting my true thoughts, even if I might care less about the problems with sound editing than I do with the cinematography but used sound editing as my argument. If I think that Star Wars Episode 7 is a bad movie because Star Wars went woke by having a woman and a black person as the two leads, but I try to appeal to in terms of film craft, I'm probably just avoiding the fact that if I actually led with that you would not talk to me. In the abortion example, it would even be reasonable if you said "I don't think women should have the right to abortion, but even if I did it shouldn't have been decided on privacy grounds". At least you're owning your stance with that one. The other one just feels a lot like people who try to imply that they aren't against gay marriage/slavery/etc. but are just strong proponents of state's rights. I agree that people should be honest about what their underlying feelings and reasoning is. But that's really the only difference I see. The persons ability to say or not say the quiet part out loud. I would feel uncomfortable obfuscating my reasoning like many bad faith people do. But it's also not my goal/job to really change people's minds. And at times these days...I do wish activists and politicians advocating for policies and arguments I support would actually not say the quiet parts out loud and I end up wanting them to do stuff in bad faith a bit more. Sometimes, the ends really do feel like they justify the means. But I'm rambling now. --- http://avatar.xboxlive.com/avatar/emblem%20boy/avatar-body.png haters gonna hate <cite>emblem-man posted [p:966590597] in Is there a... [t:80092027]...</cite> <quote>Anteaterking posted... </cite> <quote>I think there's a difference between trying to find an effective argument for a person and camouflaging your real "arguments". If I think that Star Wars Episode 7 is a poorly made movie and I try to appeal to whatever your particular film craft "priorities" are, my arguments are at least supporting my true thoughts, even if I might care less about the problems with sound editing than I do with the cinematography but used sound editing as my argument. If I think that Star Wars Episode 7 is a bad movie because Star Wars went woke by having a woman and a black person as the two leads, but I try to appeal to in terms of film craft, I'm probably just avoiding the fact that if I actually led with that you would not talk to me. In the abortion example, it would even be reasonable if you said "I don't think women should have the right to abortion, but even if I did it shouldn't have been decided on privacy grounds". At least you're owning your stance with that one. The other one just feels a lot like people who try to imply that they aren't against gay marriage/slavery/etc. but are just strong proponents of state's rights.</quote> I agree that people should be honest about what their underlying feelings and reasoning is. But that's really the only difference I see. The persons ability to say or not say the quiet part out loud. I would feel uncomfortable obfuscating my reasoning like many bad faith people do. But it's also not my goal/job to really change people's minds. And at times these days...I do wish activists and politicians advocating for policies and arguments I support would actually not say the quiet parts out loud and I end up wanting them to do stuff in bad faith a bit more. Sometimes, the ends really do feel like they justify the means. But I'm rambling now. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1

Current Events > Is there a name for when you replace your argument with a more palatable one? (+) Yeah! (+)

Current Events > Is there a name for when you replace your argument with a more palatable one?