Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Bawylie" data-source="post: 6706260" data-attributes="member: 6776133">Sure, and pointing out logical fallacies in an argument is addressing the form of the argument rather than its substance. My point was that the idea behind CA is to create some new sin demanding redress, to invent a category of compensable harm. And in my experience, that's the only way I've seen it used so far.&nbsp; Nobody's obliged to be nice to me, of course, but when, as a practical matter, people are devising new ways to make an enemy out of me (or us) or cast me (or us) as some oppressor, then I'm not terribly interested in offering the best advice on how to sharpen the knives aimed at me (or us). (This is all rhetorical). And maybe that's NOT what's going on. Maybe there is a wrong that demands redress. But from my &quot;lived experience&quot; that's not the case. It appears to me to be the presumption of guilt based on charges alone, and not a demonstration of harm done, damages tallied, and proof given. In essence I don't take for granted that CA exists, exists in such a way that necessarily harms anyone, that any CA done is a substantial contributor to systemic oppression, that any harm done outweighs any benefits such that compensation is fair/reasonable/necessary, nor from whom such compensation should be taken. It's a category of grievances and unsubstantiated charges. And, IMO, it's not tone policing to say &quot;Hey wait a minute, you can't jump straight to liability and compensation; charges have been levied but the case hasn't been made.&quot; Nor is that a shutdown of the conversation. If anything it's at least the idea that assertions ought to be proved and counter-arguments entertained.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Bawylie, post: 6706260, member: 6776133"] Sure, and pointing out logical fallacies in an argument is addressing the form of the argument rather than its substance. My point was that the idea behind CA is to create some new sin demanding redress, to invent a category of compensable harm. And in my experience, that's the only way I've seen it used so far. Nobody's obliged to be nice to me, of course, but when, as a practical matter, people are devising new ways to make an enemy out of me (or us) or cast me (or us) as some oppressor, then I'm not terribly interested in offering the best advice on how to sharpen the knives aimed at me (or us). (This is all rhetorical). And maybe that's NOT what's going on. Maybe there is a wrong that demands redress. But from my "lived experience" that's not the case. It appears to me to be the presumption of guilt based on charges alone, and not a demonstration of harm done, damages tallied, and proof given. In essence I don't take for granted that CA exists, exists in such a way that necessarily harms anyone, that any CA done is a substantial contributor to systemic oppression, that any harm done outweighs any benefits such that compensation is fair/reasonable/necessary, nor from whom such compensation should be taken. It's a category of grievances and unsubstantiated charges. And, IMO, it's not tone policing to say "Hey wait a minute, you can't jump straight to liability and compensation; charges have been levied but the case hasn't been made." Nor is that a shutdown of the conversation. If anything it's at least the idea that assertions ought to be proved and counter-arguments entertained. [/QUOTE]

Verification