> Some people on the letter are well meaning but misguided.
There's no reason to believe that the majority of the people on the letter aren't earnest in their support of it. But calling them "misguided" is pretty slanted. What you really mean is that you disagree with them.
> their endorsement of something doesn't automatically make it a bad idea
True, but it does heavily cast a massive amount of doubt upon it. At least adds evidence that a lot of the Pro reasons may be based on... less than sensible ideas.
These people are operating under the false premise that their views are representative of some consensus that should be ratified in law. In truth the consensus they imagine is merely the prevailing group-think of their own preferred cohort.
> Is it bias if the accurate description naturally leans to one direction?
No, but you should be confident about that.
> I'm firmly opposed to the notion that you need to cater to both sides of an issue and meet in the middle, when the legitimacy of both sides are clearly assymetric.
> the intent of that original letter was to pre-bias against opposing viewpoints
Isn't that the same thing as saying the intent was "persuade" the reader? How is it different except in the sense that they managed to persuade people to believe something with which you disagreed?
That isn't bias but rather an understanding of burden of proof. If you think it is, then you are very fundamentally misinformed about how our society functions.
>Maybe these people have good intentions and are just being naive
Ive noticed a lot of good people take awful political positions this way.
Usually they trust the wrong person - e.g. by falling victim to the just world fallacy ("X is a big deal in our world and X wouldn't be where they are if they werent a decent person. X must have a point.")
> Rather all I've been able to find is the equivalent of how dare he say these things.
I completely agree. The original memo may be wrong, but it was a cogently and constructively stated position (if a bit thin on references) and it deserves to be at worst ignored, more likely respectfully rebutted, and (dare I even say this?) perhaps taken seriously. Because I think one of the reasons people are so up in arms about it is that they are afraid that if they start to try to rebut the argument they will find that it is not so easy to do, and possibly even that parts of the argument might even be correct.
> "this person is wrong, why don't they see how wrong they are"
Each person, company, industry, street, city, country, state, country, ..., each thing has their own viewpoint from their own vantage point and will most likely see, interpret, view what's being conveyed differently than the sender.
Each person has their own view and it's valid, i just may not agree with it, but i still want to understand why they think / believe / convey that.
at the same time, i'm obtuse and sometimes forget to look outside myself. :|
> The underlying issue is my biggest peeve with both the buisness and political world. There is a popular viewpoint spread by many defacto authority figures that one should presume good faith from all groups involved, even though everything I can see tells me the opposite.
This is a pretty big deal.
Assuming good faith by authority figures is a popular and common fallacy from people who sit in the "Lawful" quadrant. N.b., I see this a lot in academic circles. Arguing from authority is the M.O. there, and assuming from authority is the consequence.
There's also assuming bad faith, a equally fallacious and (at least equally) popular idea from people who sit in the "Chaotic" quadrant.
We have to remember to have nuance in our opinions and dealings with others.
> Hyperbole like this doesn’t help, and in fact often turns off people whom you might be able to sway to your cause.
I disagree; sometimes hyperbole is an effective way of waking people up to how they perceive the world. In this case I think it's fairly effective, and also worth it.
> There is a sizeable contingent of people who are so convinced that what they believe is the absolute truth that any disagreement or critique must therefore be out of malice rather than genuine disagreement.
I think they are less confident in their own ideas (politicians aren't even required to state what policies they stand for anymore!) than they are confident that the other side (or at least the cartoonish version of it presented to them via allied media) is wrong/evil.
Is it, though? We've got here an article about a multibillion dollar company using its money and influence to peddle a view that's beneficial to them and trying very hard to make it look like it's not actually coming from them. This is absolutely not always the case. This is more than just run of the mill people being open to changing their minds then, is it?
>in every instance I've seen, including this one, it was deployed as an argument that some specific belief should be disregarded
I think you've misread the post above, because at no point in that comment was it suggested that said belief should be disregarded.
There's no reason to believe that the majority of the people on the letter aren't earnest in their support of it. But calling them "misguided" is pretty slanted. What you really mean is that you disagree with them.
reply