Comment on A reminder
5318008@lemmy.ml 4 days agoIf your target audience consists of people who already agree with the basic economic principle, then by all means, add as much nuance as you like.
If your target audience is a single, white, cis male, 55k per year salary-making, apartment-renting, roommate-having, college dropout normie, then maybe a simpler distinction will be more effective?
Depends on what the purpose is. In this thread we have people who very legitimately feel that despite literally being closer to millionaires than homeless on this “three months” test, they don’t feel financially secure. That feeling matters, and we shouldn’t ignore it.
And my point is that implicitly conceding ground by framing things in the language of emotionless finance and economics may actually be fighting things on less friendly territory to begin with.
implicitly conceding ground by framing things in the language of emotionless finance and economics
Your mileage may vary, but I do not consider this a concession. Anyone can make an emotional argument. You usually need to actually be right in order to make an emotionless academic argument.
may actually be fighting things on less friendly territory to begin with.
When it comes to arguing for the claim being discussed… whether you’re closer to homelessness or being a millionaire (the three month thing is incidental to the main point)… then whether these disciplines are friendly territory pretty much boils down to whether you can explain it or not.
Your mileage may vary, but I do not consider this a concession. Anyone can make an emotional argument.
No, I’m not making an emotional argument. I’m arguing that the subjective feeling of financial security specifically traces to certain hard-to-measure factors that aren’t easily reduced to quantitative metrics.
That’s why many people will look at the argument and say “oh I’m actually not that close to homelessness” or even “I’m basically a millionaire but I don’t feel like one.”
By highlighting the easy-to-measure metrics (net worth of a million dollars, not having a legal right to occupy a residence), it steers the discussion into the quantitatively easy metrics rather than the lived reality of people in the economy, which depends on other less quantitative factors. And then we’re talking about “winning” an argument that no longer cleanly maps onto what actually matters.
No, I’m not making an emotional argument.
Perhaps not, but you indicated that the “emotionless language of finance and economics” constitues “conceding ground”.
If you’re not making an emotional argument, then why would emotionless language be a problem? If we have no intention of making emotional arguments, why would we be conceding ground by focusing on “emotionless” disciplines?
And then we’re talking about “winning” an argument that no longer cleanly maps onto what actually matters.
I entered this conversation by specifying a target audience. In the same capacity, “winning” depends on who you’re talking to, as does the mappability of the argument onto real life.
If someone already agrees with the same basic principles you do, you can just talk, and they’ll believe you, because people aren’t skeptical of people they agree with.
But I’m not always having a discussion with someone who shares most of my fundamental beliefs. That’s simply not a situation where nuance matters. Just getting them to understand a single basic principle that they disagree with is already hard enough.
dream_weasel@sh.itjust.works 4 days ago
That second paragraph of distinction is more clear