harm innocents in order to also hurt your political opponents
There are different levels of harm. As long as you’re attacking arguments instead of people, you’ll only hurt those who attach their identify to those arguments. For example, if you say an argument that same-sex couples shouldn’t be allowed to marry is bigoted, that may offend religious types who firmly believe homosexuality to be morally wrong, but that doesn’t make your argument any less valid. Or you could argue that increasing welfare benefits is fiscally irresponsible while running a deficit, which could imply that those who receive those benefits are also fiscally irresponsible and simultaneously not worth the benefits they receive.
Collateral damage should be avoided in a well-structured argument, but it shouldn’t prevent you from making an important argument. But as long as you attack the argument and not individuals or groups, I don’t think you have any need to feel guilty for those who take offense at your arguments.
There are also two types of arguments: arguments for something and arguments against something. For the first group, you should attack nameless “others” that are to blame for you not having nice things, such as “big tech” designing obsolescence into their products so you can’t repair your own stuff. The counter should attack that argument, not the person making that argument.
the recent “weird” meme being applied to MAGAists
But what’s the benefit? All it does is give “your side” some chuckles and causes “their side” to become defensive and attack you for something equally irrelevant.
And it does have collateral damage, because you’re implying that anyone who is considering voting for them is “weird.” If the best argument the opposition has is personal attacks, that makes the attacked party more attractive and defensible. I’d rather vote for a “weird” candidate that’s genuine instead of a “normal” establishment candidate who’s guaranteed to disappoint.
You’re actually critiquing their own insecurity.
Sure, but insecurity isn’t an argument, and it’s just going to put people who sympathize with them on the defensive.
For example, if you say “truck drivers are compensating for something,” that puts all truck drivers as well as anyone who thinks owning a truck would be cool to be on the defensive. They’re going to ignore the rest of your argument, even if it could convince them to change what they value.
Instead of that, attack the people selling these products to insecure people. Say something like, “truck companies want you to think ‘real men’ buy big trucks, but the truth is they’re just trying to manipulate you to take your money. Look at average truck sale prices, they’re getting more and more expensive. Look past the marketing BS and get something more reasonable that still meets your needs so you can afford to do more cool stuff, like trips with the family or home improvement projects. A ‘real man’ makes his own choices, so make yours.” That way you turn their insecurity into a way for them to take control, while also painting the thing you want to discourage in a bad light. So instead of “you’re a fool for buying that stupid truck,” it’s “you’re smart for seeing through their lies and manipulation”).
I probably could have worded it better, but hopefully my point is clear. It could be that people are hurt by this type of argument (i.e. “you’re saying I’m stupid because I fell for their marketing? I made that choice”), but if avoiding that reduces your reach, it’s worth breaking a few eggs to get the message out there. But the message needs to be constructive and shift the blame to be effective.
But what’s the benefit? All it does is give “your side” some chuckles and causes “their side” to become defensive and attack you for something equally irrelevant.
You’re neglecting the third “side”. Those who are neutral. Criticising an opponent—so long as those criticisms are well-grounded and don’t cause a neutral observer to say “wtf are you on about, you’re obviously making stuff up”—weakens their ability to convert others to their cause.
you’re implying that anyone who is considering voting for them is “weird.”
Someone voting for them isn’t collateral damage. They’re the intended targets.
There are different levels of harm. As long as you’re attacking arguments instead of people, you’ll only hurt those who attach their identify to those arguments. For example, if you say an argument that same-sex couples shouldn’t be allowed to marry is bigoted, that may offend religious types who firmly believe homosexuality to be morally wrong, but that doesn’t make your argument any less valid. Or you could argue that increasing welfare benefits is fiscally irresponsible while running a deficit, which could imply that those who receive those benefits are also fiscally irresponsible and simultaneously not worth the benefits they receive.
Collateral damage should be avoided in a well-structured argument, but it shouldn’t prevent you from making an important argument. But as long as you attack the argument and not individuals or groups, I don’t think you have any need to feel guilty for those who take offense at your arguments.
There are also two types of arguments: arguments for something and arguments against something. For the first group, you should attack nameless “others” that are to blame for you not having nice things, such as “big tech” designing obsolescence into their products so you can’t repair your own stuff. The counter should attack that argument, not the person making that argument.
But what’s the benefit? All it does is give “your side” some chuckles and causes “their side” to become defensive and attack you for something equally irrelevant.
And it does have collateral damage, because you’re implying that anyone who is considering voting for them is “weird.” If the best argument the opposition has is personal attacks, that makes the attacked party more attractive and defensible. I’d rather vote for a “weird” candidate that’s genuine instead of a “normal” establishment candidate who’s guaranteed to disappoint.
Sure, but insecurity isn’t an argument, and it’s just going to put people who sympathize with them on the defensive.
For example, if you say “truck drivers are compensating for something,” that puts all truck drivers as well as anyone who thinks owning a truck would be cool to be on the defensive. They’re going to ignore the rest of your argument, even if it could convince them to change what they value.
Instead of that, attack the people selling these products to insecure people. Say something like, “truck companies want you to think ‘real men’ buy big trucks, but the truth is they’re just trying to manipulate you to take your money. Look at average truck sale prices, they’re getting more and more expensive. Look past the marketing BS and get something more reasonable that still meets your needs so you can afford to do more cool stuff, like trips with the family or home improvement projects. A ‘real man’ makes his own choices, so make yours.” That way you turn their insecurity into a way for them to take control, while also painting the thing you want to discourage in a bad light. So instead of “you’re a fool for buying that stupid truck,” it’s “you’re smart for seeing through their lies and manipulation”).
I probably could have worded it better, but hopefully my point is clear. It could be that people are hurt by this type of argument (i.e. “you’re saying I’m stupid because I fell for their marketing? I made that choice”), but if avoiding that reduces your reach, it’s worth breaking a few eggs to get the message out there. But the message needs to be constructive and shift the blame to be effective.
You’re neglecting the third “side”. Those who are neutral. Criticising an opponent—so long as those criticisms are well-grounded and don’t cause a neutral observer to say “wtf are you on about, you’re obviously making stuff up”—weakens their ability to convert others to their cause.
Someone voting for them isn’t collateral damage. They’re the intended targets.