Hacker News Reader

"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.”"

View on HN

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com