Elon Musk: Always A Douche

[grumbler]

Speaking of comparisons and the Paradox Fora...

When did "making comparisons" become so frowned upon?

I feel like I recall a time when you could compare two things (i.e. point out similarities), without being assumed/ accused of equating them in totality. Then at some point - and I feel like it happened in the early days of my time on the Paradox Fora - that changed. These days it seems you can only compare and contrast things if you want to make the point that "they're basically the same"; otherwise it seems you're 99.9% likely to be doing a disservice to one or both parties of the comparison.

Was it always like that and I just missed it, or was there a change at some point? I certainly remember writing all sorts of short answers and essays in elementary and high school comparing things. There the intention was always to express an understanding of the two subjects and not as a rhetorical device to condemn or elevate one subject by virtue of the other subject's traits.

Haven't been on the Paradox fora for many years, but if what you are saying is true, I am missing nothing.

Comparing the pros and cons of two possible outcomes for a decision, for instance, cannot be saying that they are essentially the same outcome.

[Jacob]

Haven't been on the Paradox fora for many years, but if what you are saying is true, I am missing nothing.

Me neither - this was years ago, but it's where I started noticing the trend. I don't think it's confined to Paradox OT, though.

Comparing the pros and cons of two possible outcomes for a decision, for instance, cannot be saying that they are essentially the same outcome.

Agreed. Yet I find I avoid using comparisons in online discussions because they inevitably go down the path of "how can you compare A to B like that?"

[crazy canuck]

I guess its similar to being annoyed by some of the editorials and a lot of the clickbait titles on the Guardian but still frequenting them because of the news updates. With the difference is that the platform provider and the content creators are different in this case.

You just equated the Guardian to Twitter (or whatever it is now). 

Best delete that app asap.

Yeah that's totally what I did. Thanks for contributing.

If you don't see the difference between an actual newspaper, and whatever it is, musk is running over there you've got some serious issues.


And I fear that your lack of insight into this issue is widespread and is contributing to the lack of meaningful political dialogue in our society. We are truly in a post- truth era.

You completely missed what I was trying to achieve wit my comparison, whixh has nothing to do with what you are up in arms about. But i didn't feel like explainig it because if you think me that ignorant and stuoid that I would equate the Guardian with posts on twitter then I am not even sure where to begin with that.

But ok here it goes again: I find utility in the Guardian as a news source so I continue using it despite some of the editorials making my eyes roll.

I wanted to use this to compare my usage of twitter: I find utility in it in reading Ukraine rumours and watching Ukraine videos so I continue using it despite the X sign reminding me of Musk and making my stomach turn.

Instead of the Guardian, I could have used the Paradox forums as an example, which I continue to browse occasionally to keep up with patch news despite the quite toxic collection of entitled powergamers and balkantards.

I know.  And I find it troubling that you have equated an editorial at a newspaper with what is happening at X.

Speaking of comparisons and the Paradox Fora...

When did "making comparisons" become so frowned upon?

I feel like I recall a time when you could compare two things (i.e. point out similarities), without being assumed/ accused of equating them in totality. Then at some point - and I feel like it happened in the early days of my time on the Paradox Fora - that changed. These days it seems you can only compare and contrast things if you want to make the point that "they're basically the same"; otherwise it seems you're 99.9% likely to be doing a disservice to one or both parties of the comparison.

Was it always like that and I just missed it, or was there a change at some point? I certainly remember writing all sorts of short answers and essays in elementary and high school comparing things. There the intention was always to express an understanding of the two subjects and not as a rhetorical device to condemn or elevate one subject by virtue of the other subject's traits.

Marti always got called on his silly analogies. 

An analogy only works if the things are roughly comparable for the purpose of the point being made.  If not it's not an analogy, it is something else that likely falls into the category of a logical fallacy. 

[DGuller]

Speaking of comparisons and the Paradox Fora...

When did "making comparisons" become so frowned upon?

I feel like I recall a time when you could compare two things (i.e. point out similarities), without being assumed/ accused of equating them in totality. Then at some point - and I feel like it happened in the early days of my time on the Paradox Fora - that changed. These days it seems you can only compare and contrast things if you want to make the point that "they're basically the same"; otherwise it seems you're 99.9% likely to be doing a disservice to one or both parties of the comparison.

Was it always like that and I just missed it, or was there a change at some point? I certainly remember writing all sorts of short answers and essays in elementary and high school comparing things. There the intention was always to express an understanding of the two subjects and not as a rhetorical device to condemn or elevate one subject by virtue of the other subject's traits.

I think it goes under the category of not making a good faith effort to have a discussion, which probably did become a lot more prevalent over time.  Human communication has a lot of shortcuts for reasons of practicality, and often good faith effort is required to understand the intended point.  Good faith effort is also required to respond to the intended point, and not to the point that could plausibly or not so plausibly be attributed to what was said.  If the people who don't disagree with you don't conflate comparison with equation, then the problem is not with comparisons.

[grumbler]

Tamas:  bail out!

[The Brain]

Many people view language not as a tool for communication but as a weapon to achieve and demonstrate dominance. Their view is very destructive.

[OttoVonBismarck]

I don't agree with Tamas's decision to get his news from Twitter(X), but I will defend to the death his right to do so!

[HVC]

I don't agree with Tamas's decision to get his news from Twitter(X), but I will defend to the death his right to do so!

How dare you compare musk to Voltaire. You're worse then Hitler.

[Barrister]

Speaking of comparisons and the Paradox Fora...

When did "making comparisons" become so frowned upon?

I feel like I recall a time when you could compare two things (i.e. point out similarities), without being assumed/ accused of equating them in totality. Then at some point - and I feel like it happened in the early days of my time on the Paradox Fora - that changed. These days it seems you can only compare and contrast things if you want to make the point that "they're basically the same"; otherwise it seems you're 99.9% likely to be doing a disservice to one or both parties of the comparison.

Was it always like that and I just missed it, or was there a change at some point? I certainly remember writing all sorts of short answers and essays in elementary and high school comparing things. There the intention was always to express an understanding of the two subjects and not as a rhetorical device to condemn or elevate one subject by virtue of the other subject's traits.

So two things come to mind.

First - it usually isn't about comparing "two things".  In particular if you're talking about early 2000s.  It's about making Hitler/holocaust comparisons.  There was even a name for the phenomenon - the Godwin Law - which stated that as an online conversation goes on, the chance of someone making a Hitler comparison approaches 100%.  There was a pretty natural reaction against Hitler comparisons.  That reaction is 99% of the time perfectly correct, but does mean that more-or-less literal Nazis can get away without being called Nazis.

More recently though it's been the phrase "whataboutism".  It isn't 100% what you're talking about, but it's really close.  It's a phrase that has become more and more popular over the last few years in online discourse.  And again there's been a probably natural reaction against whataboutism, but does mean some otherwise legitimate comparisons can get unfairly dismissed.

[Syt]

German (actual) ad:



"Protect our animal species before it's too late."

[grumbler]

German (actual) ad:



"Protect our animal species before it's too late."

That's great! 

[Syt]

So they added scratchmarks to the logo. I stick by my statement that he tries to bring back late 1990s WWF edginess.

[Syt]

FYI for people who are still on the site formerly known as Twitter to stay on top of developing news stories:

[Hamilcar]

FYI for people who are still on the site formerly known as Twitter to stay on top of developing news stories:

Absolutely baffling.

[HVC]

Trying to get his tax write off as quickly as possible.