Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

> I'm trying to steelman

Why? This administration is not acting in good faith, you don't have to act as if they are. People and institutions doing that is part of how we got here in the first place.



Force of habit. We don't have a framework for talking under these circumstances, so we apply our outdated ones.

As you say, that's exactly what got us here. But the alternatives are very unclear, and seem deeply unpleasant.


People should suck it up and not do it again.


The question is what they should do instead.

They could attack the non-steelmanned version, but that just opens them up to having their own comments attacked. You quickly get derailed. (It's sometimes called "sealioning".)

They could propose alternatives, but that too is subject to sealioning. Real alternatives are always subject to tradeoffs, and the answer to "how about you do X instead of attacking me?" is always "no".

They could refrain from discussing it, but that just allows the offenses to continue.

So what often happens is that people persist in acting as if this were a sincere discussion, and hope that a majority will recognize the quality of your argument. It's a lousy plan but I don't have much else to suggest.


I still find it wild that so many people are trying to frame these decisions through a political lens. This is the actions of a foreign bad actor dismantling critical institutions from within, not "bad policy".

Surely there's an antibody response.


> I still find it wild that so many people are trying to frame these decisions through a political lens.

Why? The decisions are pretty well politically aligned with the ideology which detests the size and scope of the government (realistically, those aspects which the ideologues feel are not in their interest). What is unexpected is the swiftness and the brutality of action, but revolutions tend to be messy, and make no mistake, this is a revolution.

> This is the actions of a foreign bad actor

Now this sounds like a coping strategy: everything is so preposterous it couldn't possibly be homegrown. Foreign influence and underhanded actions are as old as human interactions, but IMO outright plants can't succeed without a massive economic and power asymmetry between the adversaries.


They are not. Trump is no libertarian or small government guy. The build the wall guy is the opposite of that. Even with stuff like social security he usually at least rhetorically claimed to be for more benifits (as long as it goes to "real Americans") and he is all for increasing police and military spending. And generally spending more on stuff that gives him money. Plus giant tax increases (tarrifs). He doesn't care much if government is dismembered as long as it owns the libs and gets rid of the public corruption prosecutors/others who might stand up to him

Trump's actions towards Putin are highly irrational. Maybe he's being blackmailed, maybe he's being bought, maybe he just has likes Putins style but there is a reason people suspect him despite it being unlikely in the general case.


> He doesn't care much if government is dismembered

This is exactly the process that conservatives take to privatise services into their own friends pockets. Destroy services until they're ineffective and use it as an excuse to privatise it.

There's no such thing as small government, only large sprawling private services that the government hands money to.


lol, coping strategy? I'm not American and have no reason to 'cope' with anything. There is enough evidence to make a strong allegation about Trump being a Russian asset.

The entire world seems to be able to 'cope' with that assessment.


Imagine being eaten alive by a cackling hyena that ambushed you and all the while being like "hmm what is the appropriate steelman here? why do I deserve this? why is this just?"

In reality this would never happen so all these people playing steelman are just detached/insulated.


It is the belief that it is not in good faith that makes it more important that you try to steelman it.

If the steelmanning fails then you can you can be even more confident that it is in bad faith.


>> I'm trying to steelman

> Why?

It's a sensible practice and good practice


I just don't see how it is universally so, frankly. As a general guideline sure but some discernment is necessary nothing is gained from steelmanning apartheid or the third reich or torture prisons or or you see my point I hope.


How can you argue effectively against something if you don't understand the strongest version of the argument _for_ it?


We're way past the point of policy disagreements the relevant question right now is how do you stop them. It's certainly not by reimagining your adversary's actions in the most charitable light.


Exploiting the need to invent a "logical" reason to do something illogical is the exact attack vector that the Gish Gallop uses to fuck over people.

Like you get that right? This administration does not discuss or debate, it shits out lies and laughs as people play make believe high school debate games, and give them infinitely more effort than they did.

There is no such thing as "effectively arguing" against a Gish Gallop, that's it's entire purpose.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: