At least the marketplace of ideas types tend to want to control the narrative by having the most compelling arguments, while the CCP (and other authoritarians) are clearly above such nonsense.
> I actually had a discussion about this last night. We came to the conclusion that you can't invalidate an argument solely because it might be biased.
Clearly. That's well-known. I'm just saying that the argument from authority being made actually was supported by evidence of ideology, not authority.
> The narrative of doing something for the greater good should be treated as a lie until the burden of evidence is so high that you are forced to accept that it was indeed good.
An obvious impossible standard, more than that you can’t really know if an action was right or wrong without an oracle to tell you what would have happened if different forces had been made.
I think people are suggesting not perfection, but a higher standard and thus increased likelihood of it being correct and requiring a higher standard for proving it incorrect or biased.
Do you have an organization that, if they publish something even if it runs counter to your own opinions, you assume that it is fair and likely to be correct?
> The woke argue objectivity and any either/or binary about truth (answers are either true or false) are part of white supremacy.
But see, critical theory also makes claims about truth that are quite binary. (Try telling them that objectivity and binary truth are not part of white supremacy, or any of a number of other things that contradict their doctrine.) But that means that, by the quoted statement, critical theory is also part of white supremacy.
I love using recursion on claims like the quote...
> Since when has listening to an authority on a topic been a bad thing?
It isn't a bad thing, but a reasoned argument is always preferable to an appeal to authority. This is especially true when there is scant evidence of actual authority.
>Can you call it that though?
>One is a person with a well-earned a reputation, the other.. well you get the point.
Yes
>An argument from authority, also called an appeal to authority, or argumentum ad verecundiam, is a form of defeasible argument in which a claimed authority's support is used as evidence for an argument's conclusion
You're not defending the point logically; you're only supporting argument is that someone with a good reputation supports it as well.
I love it when textualists go anti-textualist.
If people are going to espouse an absolutist ideology, they should at least be consistent.
reply