Is this a faithful recreation of the version of Graham’s Hierarchy of Disagreement with 2 additional bottom levels?
Wheres the one for refuting a point that was not actually made and then pretending that was the central point?
For when arguments go off the bottom of The Debate Pyramid
Submitted 15 hours ago by Digit@lemmy.wtf to [deleted]
https://lemmy.wtf/pictrs/image/a411f8bc-e025-4134-b4d7-cdc71731bb6e.png
Comments
jrs100000@lemmy.world 26 minutes ago
HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world 1 hour ago
chicken@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 hours ago
I don’t think the additional levels quite fit. From the original blog post:
The most obvious advantage of classifying the forms of disagreement is that it will help people to evaluate what they read. In particular, it will help them to see through intellectually dishonest arguments. An eloquent speaker or writer can give the impression of vanquishing an opponent merely by using forceful words. In fact that is probably the defining quality of a demagogue. By giving names to the different forms of disagreement, we give critical readers a pin for popping such balloons.
The bottom two aren’t really themselves arguments. They aren’t things you read and then make a decision whether to take seriously, but rather means of controlling what you read to begin with. So while there is reason to criticize these practices, their inclusion muddles the scope of the message. The scope of the message is important, because the ideal of free expression has become more controversial since it was written in 2008, and it’s not itself a defense of free expression, more of a proposed heuristic for getting more out of a debate with the assumption that you are approaching that debate with the intention of improving your rational understanding of something or leading others to a rational understanding.
IMO arguments about censorship and violence need to be made separately, because the value of that approach (as opposed to words being valued mainly as persuasive weapons) is in question and has to be addressed.
A_norny_mousse@feddit.org 12 hours ago
I’m sorry I can’t answer your implicit or explicit Q, but I have something to say about “discussion”:
It’s really good and important to communicate with people you disagree with. But sometimes there comes a point where all parties realize that there’s just no common ground, or what little there is has been charted.
You say one last thing, then it ends.
Or at least I would think so, but there’s way too many people who do not. It must go on, until … what, they whittled me down to agree after all? That’s where it becomes slightly abusive* imho.* Of course I can just block them online, but not IRL
Melvin_Ferd@lemmy.world 12 hours ago
Ok but are you arguing for something selfish like getting them to agree with you? Or do you care that the president is a fucking racist child because everybody disengaged with his followers giving them free access to the eyes and ears of every day people.
Digit@lemmy.wtf 12 hours ago
Thanks for the thoughtful response.
sometimes there comes a point where all parties realize that there’s just no common ground, or what little there is has been charted. You say one last thing, then it ends.
I suspect (or perhaps am being wishfully optimistic), this may be confirmation bias, and that common ground and progressing dialogue can be rediscovered.
whittled me down to agree after all? That’s where it becomes slightly abusive* imho.
We are each not our arguments, and it serves the dialogue and exploration/search for truth, to rest in this non-attachment. But yes, there’s much risk of misfortune and succumbing to compellingly argued wrongness, failing to find adequate counterargument in a timely manner.
A_norny_mousse@feddit.org 12 hours ago
I suspect (or perhaps am being wishfully optimistic), this may be confirmation bias, and that common ground and progressing dialogue can be rediscovered.
The argument was the discovering of common ground. But at some point it will end.
Fyrnyx@kbin.melroy.org 14 hours ago
I feel that online arguments always start at the Contradiction layer and always sharply go down short of the violence part.
TheLeadenSea@sh.itjust.works 14 hours ago
This is a really great resource, thanks for sharing it!
SoftestSapphic@lemmy.world 12 hours ago
When two humans can’t come to an agreement about fundamental human rights, the only option left is violence.
yesman@lemmy.world 11 hours ago
The problem with human rights is that they function as the justification for State violence. “We’re arresting you to protect property rights”. “We’re invading you to free your people from oppression”. I can’t think of a modern conflict that doesn’t have a “human rights” casus belli.
Even your comment follows the form: I can suspend human rights to protect human rights.
SoftestSapphic@lemmy.world 11 hours ago
Exactly
When that conclusion is reached then unfortunately might makes right
chicken@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 hours ago
Until you physically can’t communicate anymore, it’s always an option to keep trying.
yesman@lemmy.world 11 hours ago
The lowest form of argument is semantics.
Digit@lemmy.wtf 15 hours ago
I ask, because, I’m not sure if the 2nd from bottom level was called “suppression”, nor am I sure (at all) what was the elaboration in the “violence” layer. … But I hope I’ve at least remained faithful to the spirit of it. Eager to hear any corrections. Or even, if anyone finds the original extended version, that would be great to compare to.
sem@lemmy.blahaj.zone 15 hours ago
I just did this today in another thread. Currently at name calling, hopefully stops there.
chiliedogg@lemmy.world 14 hours ago
Mods - please ban this
Digit@lemmy.wtf 13 hours ago
Hope better, higher.
Hopefully you can raise it to centrally refuting the point.
Or at least to counterargument, above mere contradiction.
UltraGiGaGigantic@lemmy.ml 25 minutes ago
Image