Submitted 5 months ago by Digit@lemmy.wtf to nostupidquestions@lemmy.world
https://lemmy.wtf/pictrs/image/a411f8bc-e025-4134-b4d7-cdc71731bb6e.png
Is this a faithful recreation of the version of Graham’s Hierarchy of Disagreement with 2 additional bottom levels?
I don’t think the use of a pyramid is ideal here. It implies that violence is the basis of every conflict and should be used most often.
Invert the rows and you get “time and effort required”
For the original version, nearer true, since suppression may take time and effort, or none, similarly with violence. Even then, arguing tone seems to always take more time and effort than mere contradiction.
No, I don’t think so. You’ve introduced metagaming. It’s an interesting thing you’ve created, but it’s not the same kind of thing.
You’ve introduced metagaming.
???
I’m not sure you’re aware what’s happening here.
You’ve introduced
This is an attempt at a re-creation of someone else’s extended version. As noted in the text in the image, and in my other post here (which in hindsight (especially after seeing this comment) I think I should have included in the original post, and put my question in the title.)
It’s an interesting thing you’ve created, but it’s not the same kind of thing.
Like I say, I’m not sure you’re aware of what’s happening here.
If you are, then please, by all means, if you have access to the original extended version this is a re-creation of, please share it, so we can compare where I went wrong. (I re-created it as faithfully as I could from memory, after exhausting myself on several attempts to find it again.)
If not, and you thought this extended version is entirely created by me, then let this reply be a correction, refuting that.
Also… re:
metagaming
it’s not the same kind of thing.
I’d like to know more about your thoughts and feelings on this, as it’s not clear to me how you think this is so, and is not apparent to me how the original 2-layer-extended version I’ve copied from memory is doing this.
To my thinking this extended version seems exactly in the same spirit of Paul Graham’s original, adding necessary extension to cover further levels by which some people seek to win arguments by worse means than mere name-calling.
But like I say, I’d love to hear more about your perceptions of this is being in error, and it being “metagaming”, and “not the same kind of thing”. If you can, for those of us to whom that nuanced insight’s not apparent, may you please elaborate on that?
Zionists live at the bottom.
Orwellian language of the oppressor. But beyond that, yes.
Could be not even on the chart, or could be suppression.
Wheres the one for refuting a point that was not actually made and then pretending that was the central point?
The chart does not cover fallacies like strawman arguments. Perhaps that’s around a corner of the “pyramid”, on a side not shown.
Your suggestion that men are made out of pyramids is laughable and logically flawed.
Check and mate.
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.
The lowest form of argument is semantics.
Wouldn’t that merely be responding to tone?
When two humans can’t come to an agreement about fundamental human rights, the only option left is violence.
Until you physically can’t communicate anymore, it’s always an option to keep trying.
That’s a nice thought
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.
Exactly
When that conclusion is reached then unfortunately might makes right
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
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.
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.
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.
This is a really great resource, thanks for sharing it!
I feel that online arguments always start at the Contradiction layer and always sharply go down short of the violence part.
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.
I just did this today in another thread. Currently at name calling, hopefully stops there.
Hope better, higher.
Hopefully you can raise it to centrally refuting the point.
Or at least to counterargument, above mere contradiction.
Mods - please ban this
Flax_vert@feddit.uk 5 months ago
Shouldn’t it be the other way around
Digit@lemmy.wtf 5 months ago
how so?