I don’t quite understand the significance of the perceived level of power in this context. Shouldn’t it be acceptable to criticize virtually anything you disagree with? I get the sentiment, but it seems to break down when you consider the edge cases. To me, it sounds like this would justify the most underprivileged individuals acting poorly towards everyone else, while someone like the president couldn’t criticize even the most fringe extremists.
Can we please leave the “I don’t understand” meaning “I understand it but I disagree with it” redditism in Reddit? Let’s call a duck a duck; you disagree with that view, it’s fine, no need to mask it behind lack of understanding.
That said, this sort of rule of thumb always breaks down when you consider the edge cases. It’s still useful as long as you have a default like “treat people decently”, because it makes you consider that, when you go against someone more powerful than you, the person can fight back; people less powerful than you can’t.
Sorry, am I being impolite, hostile, jerk or something or why I’m not allowed to discuss this? ‘I disagree’ is too simplified definition and does not represent my view. I’m interested in hearing how people think, and even if it turns out I disagree, then that’s fine. Atleast I can now properly steelman the position of the people I disagree with.
Personally I think that your “I don’t understand” sounds disingenuous, since the rest of your comment shows that you understood the comment that you were replying to. Beyond that, I don’t think that you’re being impolite, a jerk, hostile, or touching a “forbidden” subject.
Given the four downvotes, other people may or may not found something else that they don’t like in your comment, I can’t speak for them.
‘I disagree’ is too simplified definition and does not represent my view.
“I partially agree”, “I partially disagree”, “I think that it’s complicated”, there are multiple ways to convey this. Or simply going straight to the parts that you disagree with, without the “I don’t quite understand”.
I know that I’m being obnoxious with this, and I apologise for that. It’s just that people who use[d] Reddit - including me - often bring its obnoxious culture into Lemmy, often not noticing it. One of those is to disguise disagreements as lack of understanding. I can go deeper on that if you want.
[On-topic] The whole “punch up, never down” thing is about acknowledging that sometimes you need to oppose people. And it’s morally better to oppose the ones “up” than the ones “down”. That’s it - in some situations it will break, but:
since you’re expected to behave nicely by default, it doesn’t justify underprivileged people acting poorly towards everyone else
it still gives room for people in power to criticise others, specially in defence of people with less privileges (note that “fringe extremists” often target vulnerable groups and individuals)
I disagree with the statement ‘punching up is good’ but I wasn’t sure I disagreed with what the person making that claim actually means by it, so before writing an essay on why that is wrong, I’d rather first ask them to clarify their stance to make sure I’m arguing against their actual view, instead of the view I’m only imagining them holding.
‘Don’t punch down’ is a rule I mostly agree with it. There are exceptions, but you’re probably not a bad person even if you resist “punching” in those cases. ‘Punching up is good’ however not only says that it’s okay to do so, but that it’s actually a virtuous thing. That I disagree with, and since most people in this thread seems to think “the golden rule” (Do unto others as you would have them do unto you) is a good rule to live by, then I’d also like to draw attention to the apparent conflict between these two.
Personally I’m of the mind that punching, be that literal or figurative speech, is almost never good. Punching, to me atleast, sounds like something that’s directed towards a person instead of ideas. There is nothing too holy to criticize or anyone too privileged to criticize it. That doesn’t mean all critique is valid, but that’s what discussion and debate is for. As long as you’re coming in good faith, then all critique is fair game.
I disagree because sometimes you need to go against people too, not just the ideas. For example, if you protest against a politician trying to approve a law that fucks everyone for the benefit of his personal business, you are “punching” him metaphorically. If you bring the authorities against someone powerful for breaking the law, you’re also “punching” the person. So goes on.
On the other hand, someone gave a great example, about someone poor stealing baby food. Calling the cops against the person would be to punch down.
if you protest against a politician trying to approve a law that fucks everyone for the benefit of his personal business
Even in this case, going after them as a person, instead of protesting against the law itself seems counter-productive. If I make an argument and someone then calls me stupid, it’s not going to change my mind, nor anyone else’s who agrees with me. It’s just makes it sound like they simply don’t have a better argument. It’s maybe a bit different when the personality flaw in itself is the issue, as is the case with Trump and lying for example, but if one then starts making fun on his small hands that just makes them look petty.
However, I still want to aknowledge, that humans are social animals and such public ridicule has been a powerful weapon throught the ages, so even though I personally don’t want to act in this way, and in my ideal world no one else would either, it is still possible, if not even likely, that such ridicule is very effective. Then again, shooting them is effective aswell, but I don’t want to live in a world where we solve disagreements that way.
I don’t quite understand the significance of the perceived level of power in this context. Shouldn’t it be acceptable to criticize virtually anything you disagree with? I get the sentiment, but it seems to break down when you consider the edge cases. To me, it sounds like this would justify the most underprivileged individuals acting poorly towards everyone else, while someone like the president couldn’t criticize even the most fringe extremists.
Downvoted for literally questioning the highest voted response…
Can we please leave the “I don’t understand” meaning “I understand it but I disagree with it” redditism in Reddit? Let’s call a duck a duck; you disagree with that view, it’s fine, no need to mask it behind lack of understanding.
That said, this sort of rule of thumb always breaks down when you consider the edge cases. It’s still useful as long as you have a default like “treat people decently”, because it makes you consider that, when you go against someone more powerful than you, the person can fight back; people less powerful than you can’t.
Sorry, am I being impolite, hostile, jerk or something or why I’m not allowed to discuss this? ‘I disagree’ is too simplified definition and does not represent my view. I’m interested in hearing how people think, and even if it turns out I disagree, then that’s fine. Atleast I can now properly steelman the position of the people I disagree with.
[Off-topic]
Personally I think that your “I don’t understand” sounds disingenuous, since the rest of your comment shows that you understood the comment that you were replying to. Beyond that, I don’t think that you’re being impolite, a jerk, hostile, or touching a “forbidden” subject.
Given the four downvotes, other people may or may not found something else that they don’t like in your comment, I can’t speak for them.
“I partially agree”, “I partially disagree”, “I think that it’s complicated”, there are multiple ways to convey this. Or simply going straight to the parts that you disagree with, without the “I don’t quite understand”.
I know that I’m being obnoxious with this, and I apologise for that. It’s just that people who use[d] Reddit - including me - often bring its obnoxious culture into Lemmy, often not noticing it. One of those is to disguise disagreements as lack of understanding. I can go deeper on that if you want.
[On-topic] The whole “punch up, never down” thing is about acknowledging that sometimes you need to oppose people. And it’s morally better to oppose the ones “up” than the ones “down”. That’s it - in some situations it will break, but:
I disagree with the statement ‘punching up is good’ but I wasn’t sure I disagreed with what the person making that claim actually means by it, so before writing an essay on why that is wrong, I’d rather first ask them to clarify their stance to make sure I’m arguing against their actual view, instead of the view I’m only imagining them holding.
‘Don’t punch down’ is a rule I mostly agree with it. There are exceptions, but you’re probably not a bad person even if you resist “punching” in those cases. ‘Punching up is good’ however not only says that it’s okay to do so, but that it’s actually a virtuous thing. That I disagree with, and since most people in this thread seems to think “the golden rule” (Do unto others as you would have them do unto you) is a good rule to live by, then I’d also like to draw attention to the apparent conflict between these two.
Personally I’m of the mind that punching, be that literal or figurative speech, is almost never good. Punching, to me atleast, sounds like something that’s directed towards a person instead of ideas. There is nothing too holy to criticize or anyone too privileged to criticize it. That doesn’t mean all critique is valid, but that’s what discussion and debate is for. As long as you’re coming in good faith, then all critique is fair game.
I disagree because sometimes you need to go against people too, not just the ideas. For example, if you protest against a politician trying to approve a law that fucks everyone for the benefit of his personal business, you are “punching” him metaphorically. If you bring the authorities against someone powerful for breaking the law, you’re also “punching” the person. So goes on.
On the other hand, someone gave a great example, about someone poor stealing baby food. Calling the cops against the person would be to punch down.
Even in this case, going after them as a person, instead of protesting against the law itself seems counter-productive. If I make an argument and someone then calls me stupid, it’s not going to change my mind, nor anyone else’s who agrees with me. It’s just makes it sound like they simply don’t have a better argument. It’s maybe a bit different when the personality flaw in itself is the issue, as is the case with Trump and lying for example, but if one then starts making fun on his small hands that just makes them look petty.
However, I still want to aknowledge, that humans are social animals and such public ridicule has been a powerful weapon throught the ages, so even though I personally don’t want to act in this way, and in my ideal world no one else would either, it is still possible, if not even likely, that such ridicule is very effective. Then again, shooting them is effective aswell, but I don’t want to live in a world where we solve disagreements that way.