Hacker News Reader

Comment by jlawson | Hacker News Reader

As formulated, the resistance to D-decoupling is simply a refusal to discuss issues, or a blocking technique to prevent certain things from being understood.

It's in the same bag of tricks as screaming to stop someone from being heard, sticking your fingers in your ears, bluntly changing the subject over and over, Gish galloping, or disconnecting someone's microphone.

Obviously a choice to do any of these things is a moral decision. It is a moral decision to try to prevent discourse from happening; prevent people from thinking things through because you think they might end up at a conclusion you dislike.

Often it's a way to prevent yourself from thinking things through.

Generally I think that if you're choosing to block the discussion in order to win it, you're no longer participating in good faith and should be censured and then ignored because of it. We have a moral imperative to discuss ideas in good faith, not play thought-blocking power tactics.

View on HN

I don’t think that quite captures everything, though. Because in the same way that attempting to block decoupling is a rhetorical device, decoupling itself (at least in a public debate) is also a rhetorical device.

The decoupler says “put aside your objections to my proposal for a moment so that you can better understand it; then later you can reflect on these objections with a fuller understanding.”

And the person blocking the decoupling says “no, the objections are valid and therefore should be kept firmly in mind whenever you are considering anything to do with the proposal.”

Both approaches are trying to achieve something in terms of discourse. I don’t believe it’s possible to say that one approach is more fair or valid or better in all circumstances.

I don't think attempting to block decoupling is a "rhetorical device".

"Rhetor" means teacher. A rhetorical device is a way to explain, communicate, teach.

Blocking this was is an attempt to prevent explanation, communication, and learning. That isn't a rhetorical device - it's an anti-rhetorical device.

Perhaps better called an argumentative tactic.

A good discussion is one where ideas are most fully-examined, questioned, and understood from the maximum number of angles. If the goal is to have a good discussion, you must encourage and support devices that increase understanding.

If the goal is simply to win for a specific agenda, you don't care about having a good discussion, and you should use whatever argumentative/blocking/interruption tactics you can.

Ultimately it's a question of whether you value finding truth and mutual understanding, or the dominance of your pre-existing beliefs.

If refusal to “discourse decouple” is a refusal to discuss then attempts to “discourse decouple” must equivalently be a refusal to accept objections to the premise.

It’s not a given that the opponent attempting to use decoupling is operating in good faith.

> As formulated, the resistance to D-decoupling is simply a refusal to discuss issues

There's an old adage that tells us that what is discussed frequently seems more acceptable. I think there's a fear that if we start discussing how an IQ difference between races WOULD looks like, the notion might start feeling more "right".

Reply on news.ycombinator.com