[FRIAM] strawman fallacy

[Marcus Daniels]

Glen writes:


< Such wilting rhetoric makes an actual individualist like the Unabomber seem more upstanding and trustworthy ... and that inference is just plain dangerous. >


He gave a coherent description of this aspect of the individualist psychology and a need for dignity above all else.   It's a self-indulgent mental weakness, and one that can be broken with some effort.  Unfortunately, it isn't broken for people who live in  monocultures, as exists in many small towns in the U.S. flyover states.   These folks aren't forced to confront social complexity or even technological complexity.   The only way to get away from that complexity is to go live in a cabin in Montana.   To have that kind of "personal responsibility" means finding an environment where it makes sense.   Such environments will be reducing in number as the population increases.   It's a similar kind of thinking behind economic isolationism.   It drives down complexity, which is really what frightens the individualist that David describes:  Not knowing what to do or how to do it.


Marcus

________________________________
From: Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> on behalf of ∄ uǝʃƃ <gepropella at gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, December 28, 2018 8:45:04 AM
To: FriAM
Subject: [FRIAM] strawman fallacy

In support (that he likely doesn't want) of Marcus' constraints on the wiggle room allowed to "individualists", I've often wondered about the VERY common accusation of "strawman!", as a response to criticism.  To put my wonder in context, I saw this article on a very liberally biased website (RawStory):

  The Varieties of American Evangelicalism
  https://crcc.usc.edu/report/the-varieties-of-american-evangelicalism/

wherein they use some seemingly strawman characterizations of some pretty deep and interesting psychological pathologies.  With names like Trump-vangelicals and iVangelicals, even *if* their classification is useful, it's offensive (by proxy, of course, since all that god stuff is obsolete to me).

Contrast that with an article to which it links:

  Can Evangelicalism Survive Donald Trump and Roy Moore?
  https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/can-evangelicalism-survive-donald-trump-and-roy-moore

The question I care about is: To what extent are tedious regressions into the etiology of a toxin attempts to *treat* the disease and to what extent are they a waste of time?  I try to steelman whenever I can.  But the snowflake sensibilities of self-described individualists are a bit too irritating.  It's tough to imagine a canonical, self-sustaining, self-governing, morally solid, archetype like John Wayne whimpering about how he's been strawmanned.  Such wilting rhetoric makes an actual individualist like the Unabomber seem more upstanding and trustworthy ... and that inference is just plain dangerous.

Here's a fun exploration of whether it's OK to punch nazis: https://youtu.be/iEyL1rDe60w

--
∄ uǝʃƃ

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20181228/92332e1f/attachment.html>