Aldaron
geriatric
I'm not really sure what the formal name for this is, but I'm referring to when people lambast a system / concept / idea based on examples of that system / concept / idea instead of lambasting that example.
They basically generalize faults of implementation / practice to faults of the overarching concept, which I find to be highly flawed and a main cause for many circular internet debates. I think the most obvious example of this is capitalism vs. socialism, on both sides of any debate either is injected into.
Essentially, criticism for an example leads to criticism for the concept. And vice versa, associated attributes of concepts tend to be attached to that concept and criticized as such. These can feed into each other as well; for example, if an example fails, and it's overarching concept has certain attributes, those attributes tend to be attached to the failure of the example.
I'm speaking abstractly atm so let me give some discreet examples (also, when I use some terms here, it is the general, masses accepted definition of the term, so spare me me the definitions lecture lol):
1.) Big corporations are evil. This is an example of "criticism for an example leads to criticism for the concept." The concept here would be big companies; examples are numerous, but can be any of Monsanto, JPMorganChase, Pepsi, etc. I frequently see some of my bigger activist friends hating on "big corporations," but they aren't even simply using "big corporation" as an easy catch-all phrase to mean "just all these examples of bad corporations", they're actually hating on the concept of big companies, but using examples, not conceptual reasons for why they are evil. The question here is, if there is a possibility for the overall concept to not be evil, should we hate the overall concept just because there are examples of that concept being evil? What is the answer to preventing future evil examples? More systematic controls?
2.) Universal healthcare is socialist. Higher taxes is socialist. Blah blah is socialist. This is an example of "associated attributes of concepts tend to be attached to that concept and criticized as such." Just because we have some examples of assumed communist / socialist regimes such as Russia / various Latin American countries failing, and just because these systems (should) have some concepts like universal healthcare, these attributes are seemingly painted red from the start. In the USA, instead of viewing the concept of universal healthcare on a practical "can we sustainably do this" level, the argument has far too frequently been "are we really socialist Europe" and nonsense like that. The point would be...who cares if Socialist Europe does it? Do we want to support poor people who can't take care of themselves, and can we feasibly do it? That should be the sole focuses of the conversation.
Those are just two basic (overly simplified) examples, but I've noticed this fallacy on numerous sides of almost every singe political / economic / social debate we have here on smogon. I've also noticed it SIGNIFICANTLY by the prime motivators of such debates.
The takeaway here is that I believe these debates should, optimally, be two-fold: first discussing the pros and cons of the concept, ignoring examples, and second, talking how to reduce the likelihood of future negative / evil examples. Namely, let's not go on some hyperbolic rant about big corporations and capitalism, let's discuss big corporations generally (they produce jobs (good), they corner markets (bad)) and then discuss how to prevent examples like Monsanto / JPMorgan (good luck lol). Let's also not go on some hyperbolic rant about universal healthcare being socialist or raising taxes being socialist, and instead talk about why would want to do either, ignoring whether or not they are part of something else.
I think we far too frequently get stuck on examples of things (and associating attributes) which leads us down circular debates which causes the overall conversation to die.
They basically generalize faults of implementation / practice to faults of the overarching concept, which I find to be highly flawed and a main cause for many circular internet debates. I think the most obvious example of this is capitalism vs. socialism, on both sides of any debate either is injected into.
Essentially, criticism for an example leads to criticism for the concept. And vice versa, associated attributes of concepts tend to be attached to that concept and criticized as such. These can feed into each other as well; for example, if an example fails, and it's overarching concept has certain attributes, those attributes tend to be attached to the failure of the example.
I'm speaking abstractly atm so let me give some discreet examples (also, when I use some terms here, it is the general, masses accepted definition of the term, so spare me me the definitions lecture lol):
1.) Big corporations are evil. This is an example of "criticism for an example leads to criticism for the concept." The concept here would be big companies; examples are numerous, but can be any of Monsanto, JPMorganChase, Pepsi, etc. I frequently see some of my bigger activist friends hating on "big corporations," but they aren't even simply using "big corporation" as an easy catch-all phrase to mean "just all these examples of bad corporations", they're actually hating on the concept of big companies, but using examples, not conceptual reasons for why they are evil. The question here is, if there is a possibility for the overall concept to not be evil, should we hate the overall concept just because there are examples of that concept being evil? What is the answer to preventing future evil examples? More systematic controls?
2.) Universal healthcare is socialist. Higher taxes is socialist. Blah blah is socialist. This is an example of "associated attributes of concepts tend to be attached to that concept and criticized as such." Just because we have some examples of assumed communist / socialist regimes such as Russia / various Latin American countries failing, and just because these systems (should) have some concepts like universal healthcare, these attributes are seemingly painted red from the start. In the USA, instead of viewing the concept of universal healthcare on a practical "can we sustainably do this" level, the argument has far too frequently been "are we really socialist Europe" and nonsense like that. The point would be...who cares if Socialist Europe does it? Do we want to support poor people who can't take care of themselves, and can we feasibly do it? That should be the sole focuses of the conversation.
Those are just two basic (overly simplified) examples, but I've noticed this fallacy on numerous sides of almost every singe political / economic / social debate we have here on smogon. I've also noticed it SIGNIFICANTLY by the prime motivators of such debates.
The takeaway here is that I believe these debates should, optimally, be two-fold: first discussing the pros and cons of the concept, ignoring examples, and second, talking how to reduce the likelihood of future negative / evil examples. Namely, let's not go on some hyperbolic rant about big corporations and capitalism, let's discuss big corporations generally (they produce jobs (good), they corner markets (bad)) and then discuss how to prevent examples like Monsanto / JPMorgan (good luck lol). Let's also not go on some hyperbolic rant about universal healthcare being socialist or raising taxes being socialist, and instead talk about why would want to do either, ignoring whether or not they are part of something else.
I think we far too frequently get stuck on examples of things (and associating attributes) which leads us down circular debates which causes the overall conversation to die.