Hacker News Reader

Comment by whatshisface | Hacker News Reader

Allowing something isn't pushing something. To see how, look at the following debate:

Liberal: "Stop trying to push your views on us, let people decide for themselves whether they want to be gay."

Conservative: "You are also pushing your views, and the fact that gay marriage is allowed is a result of that. By allowing gay marriage, you are forcing your views on everyone."

So, that's clearly wrong, because as smart as it sounds to say things like "the null policy is a policy," being permissive is actually possible to distinguish from any of the particular ways one could be restrictive.

View on HN

> let people decide for themselves whether they want to be gay

> By allowing gay marriage, you are forcing your views on everyone

This is a straw man. People don't choose to be gay, and conservatives are depriving people of their rights for something they can't choose. Allowing individuals the right of self determination is nowhere near allowing a sitting president to incite violence against American citizens.

I think you're misusing the term "straw man." A straw man is an argument that nobody ever uses, brought forward purely to discredit. I am pretty sure I have heard that argument before, so it's not a straw man.

In any case, it doesn't even matter whether that example has happened in a debate before. It's simply meant to illustrate the error in failing to distinguish between liberality and restrictivism.

A straw man is misrepresenting an argument so that it's easier to counter. I don't think this is a straw man, I just think it's a poor analogy.

The difference between same–sex marriage and what Trump is doing is that same–sex marriage affects no one except for those getting married. No one is being forced to have a same–sex marriage or go to a same–sex wedding. "Forcing your views on us" means "we don't want to live in a society where this is permitted, even if I am never personally affected by it."

Trump, on the other hand, has posted propaganda about voter suppression and incited violence. This absolutely affects other people. It's not neutral to unaffiliated parties at all — how many protesters will be hurt because Trump has openly called for violence against them?

Going back to the original point, if Zuckerberg was in charge of deciding which policy positions were good and which ones were bad, it would be his personal opinions that mattered. So your or my opinion about whether Trump tweets or gay marriage are good or bad, are not very relevant.

Yes, I agree with you about that. The point at which we diverge is that I’m saying it’s not hypothetical — Zuckerberg is making political decisions which reflect his personal values.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com