Hacker News Reader

To be fair, the emotional approach is what actually works in the vast majority of cases. Normal people don't connect with or understand facts.

I think this might be a case of content audience mismatch.

View on HN

"The essential characteristic of the Argument from Intimidation is its appeal to moral self-doubt and its reliance on the fear, guilt or ignorance of the victim. It is used in the form of an ultimatum demanding that the victim renounce a given idea without discussion, under threat of being considered morally unworthy. The pattern is always: “Only those who are evil (dishonest, heartless, insensitive, ignorant, etc.) can hold such an idea.”"

etherael doesn't appear to be supporting the logical clout of that type of argument, but rather commenting on its ubiquity in modern public discourse and success in driving policy.

E.g., "think of the children," "if we don't X, the terrorists win," or "we must censor the Internet or undermine crypto, because it enables Y."

To clarify my original intent, this is exactly correct. I wish it were otherwise, but the fact is that it is not.

> Normal people don't connect with or understand facts.

I consider myself and, almost by definition, most of the people I know to be normal and I can assure you us plebians are perfectly capable of understanding facts.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com