politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
Exactly.
We cannot afford to fall victim to the Nirvana fallacy.
We must work within the system to change the system or we risk being excluded entirely.
Nirvana fallacy, also know as "perfect solution fallacy" is suggesting that no solution is better than an imperfect solution. If I can't have nirvana, I don't want anything.
I see it all the time in online arguments. "Oh, you advocate for housing the homeless? Well then why do you have empty rooms in your house? Just fill it with homeless people." this is an example of the fallacy. It suggests that my solution, "house the homeless" should be discarded because it is not a perfect solution, which would be filling my house up with strangers. The goal is to make me say, "oh, I'm not willing to do that, so we should do nothing instead."
I don't think that's an example. People housing others in their own homes isn't an example of the perfect solution to homelessness. I don't know if we have a name for that fallacy but it's kind of a "put your money where your mouth is" fallacy. If you aren't willing to give up a lot for the solution, you must not really believe it is a problem/solution.
People being against the ACA because it isn't single payer health care is an example of the perfect solution fallacy. Or people being against a $15 minimum wage because it really should be $25 now.
It's a bad faith argument and a strawman. They don't actually think it's reasonable for anyone to do that or think the other person is suggesting that. They are setting a person up as a hypocrite despite that obviously being an insufficient and inefficient solution to the housing crisis.
It's also a false equivalence. The government helping to house people is absolutely not the same as private individuals sharing their homes.
Is this a "fallacy" or is it an "angle"? Probably it is little more than straw-man attack, because you know even homeless people need actual homes not just places to crash, and it is also a form of ad hominem attack that typically targets progressive/social change demands (do you really hear that often the opposite, like "if you hate homeless people that much, why don't you support gassing them?"). I don't know if people call those fallacies these days, I tend to see them as tactical conversational attacks. A fallacy is sth you can easily fool yourself with.
Well, fallacies originally were not meant to fool yourself, but to win argument by any means. So you are describing a fallacy, even if it's not called that
Fallacy means sth in the effect of "cognitive illusion" as in "logical fallacy", not a rhetorical strategy. The difference is the intent of the speaker. A rhetorical strategy can be deceptive, or tactically motivated, a logical fallacy is more like a form of apparent naivete and common paradoxes. When there is intent to deceive and/or win at all costs, there is "prevarication" or "sophistry" instead of "fallacy".
You're right, I mixed up sophistry and fallacy. Better check next time
it does have some qualities of Nirvana fallacy in that it implies my support for a policy is inadequate unless I provide a perfect, personal solution. but thanks for your response.
This may be a mixture of a bunch of different arguments. There is the anti-Nimby argument which calls out Nimbys who want an end to homelessness but vote against the construction of housing for them in their neighbourhoods. “Why don’t you house homeless people in your house?” is a much more extreme, unreasonable, and therefore less efficacious version of that idea.
There is also the more general argument (from the right) that government shouldn’t be in the business of housing the homeless. The above line then proceeds by saying that your unwillingness to invite homeless people into your house is an indication that your solution to the problem is to get other people to solve the problem for you. This may also incorporate the anti-Nimby line by further claiming that what you really want is an “out of sight, out of mind” solution to homelessness.
I misread "being executed entirely".
Oh. Wait.