> That comment uses an odd rhetorical technique... writing a long response claiming that he's refusing to write the response that he's writing.
> Ok, interesting use of sarcasm (at least I hope that's sarcasm)
Not quite sarcasm - well, the last line I was joking yes, but there's a reason I wrote like that. After finishing that article, most people will be feeling really good - it's a feel good story. So there's a serious risk that any criticism of the argument is written off without being considered.
So I put it that I would say that stuff if I wasn't afraid of knee jerk reactions which ideally makes people do two things - first, consider the arguments without knee-jerk dismissing them. Second and more importantly, I want people to think: Would I knee jerk dismiss arguments here?
That response was actually geared more at progressives and people that would favor those policies than people who don't like them or neutrals. If I was going to write to someone that already thought those policies were bad ideas, I wouldn't have to be delicate. But I really wanted to engage people who care about the world, who are kind hearted, and have them think critically about the effects of this sort of policy.
To do so, I needed to avoid being written off immediately, so I wrote in a way that hopefully gets people to consider the arguments, yes, but also to consider whether they'd have written them off immediately without thinking. Hopefully a reader thinks, "Huh, he did make some good points. Would I write him off as crazy for trying to say those points or would I consider them?" If people can think, "Would I consider those arguments honestly?" we can get into a good discussion and hopefully get at good governance.
> Ok, interesting use of sarcasm (at least I hope that's sarcasm)
Not quite sarcasm - well, the last line I was joking yes, but there's a reason I wrote like that. After finishing that article, most people will be feeling really good - it's a feel good story. So there's a serious risk that any criticism of the argument is written off without being considered.
So I put it that I would say that stuff if I wasn't afraid of knee jerk reactions which ideally makes people do two things - first, consider the arguments without knee-jerk dismissing them. Second and more importantly, I want people to think: Would I knee jerk dismiss arguments here?
That response was actually geared more at progressives and people that would favor those policies than people who don't like them or neutrals. If I was going to write to someone that already thought those policies were bad ideas, I wouldn't have to be delicate. But I really wanted to engage people who care about the world, who are kind hearted, and have them think critically about the effects of this sort of policy.
To do so, I needed to avoid being written off immediately, so I wrote in a way that hopefully gets people to consider the arguments, yes, but also to consider whether they'd have written them off immediately without thinking. Hopefully a reader thinks, "Huh, he did make some good points. Would I write him off as crazy for trying to say those points or would I consider them?" If people can think, "Would I consider those arguments honestly?" we can get into a good discussion and hopefully get at good governance.