Criticizing ideas . . . help . . .

[Marcus]

Over on an Alaska forum, members are discussing the idea of limiting how much fish nonresidents (tourists, summer visitors) can take out of the state of Alaska. Those supporting the idea are doing so on the basis of conservation, limiting wanton waste, etc. Understand these nonresidents are doing nothing illegal, only taking out the fish they are legally entitled to catch under existing regulations governing limits, means, etc. It is very possible, given our state's fisheries, to catch and process (can or freeze) literally hundreds of pounds of fish.

I oppose the idea, claiming that the idea is selfish, xenophobic, a mask for jealousy, etc.

Well, the shit hit the fan, and I am accused by forum authorities of impugning the motives of those supporting the idea of limiting nonresidents.

I say, "No such thing, I am criticizing the idea, nothing more." If, say, John Boehner introduces a bill into Congress that proposes a huge tax break for people with incomes over five million/year on the basis that it will spur the economy, and if I criticize the bill, claiming instead that it is really class warfare, pandering to special interests, whatever, am I criticizing the idea or am I impugning Boehner's motives?

To my mind, it's crystal clear that my criticism is directed at the idea, not the person, and certainly not the person's motives. Voicing a contrary opinion, here's a quote from the forum's administrator:

"Ascribing motives such as selfishness and xenophobia to those who have made posts here seems to be the very definition of criticizing people. An idea does not have a "self". An idea cannot be selfish, only a person and their motivations can be. Granted, you didn't mention a single individual, but it most certainly is a criticism of people." (emphasis added!)

And another from the same guy:

"And it is there that your post runs afoul of our forum rules. Suggesting that someone's ideas are a smoke screen for selfishness is ascribing motives of selfishness to a person and is thus a negative personal comment. Terms such as selfishness cease to be abstract when ascribed to a person." (emphasis added!)

And another from the forum's owner:

"Attributing motivations of selfishness to some who hold a certain position is not only dangerous (because you could be wrong), . ."

From where I sit, I'm dumbfounded that my criticism of the idea of limiting nonresidents as selfish is being misconstrued into accusing supporters of the idea of nefarious motives.

How then is it possible to criticize an idea if all such criticism amounts to accusing the other side of vile motives? Or am I missing something?

[Demon of Undoing]

Okay, so the idea is selfish. Maybe the person promoting it is selfish.

...And ???

This strains the bounds of " ad hominem" . I mean it could be over the line, but are they going to fall out if you call them a meanie?

Sounds like someone needs to put on the Daddy waders and toughen up.

[Tinker]

I think we worry too much about separating the person from the idea. If you hold an idea, and you believe in it, that's part of the formulation of who you are, and how you present it to others. It's somewhat impossible to criticize someone's ideas without in fact criticizing them.

[Marcus]

[Tinker]

[Marcus]

[Tinker]

[Marcus]

[Tinker]

[Marcus]

[ansuchin]

[Tinker]

[Marcus]

[ansuchin]

[Marcus]

[ansuchin]

[Tinker]

Ansuchin

Very insightful thank you.

[Ibrahim]

Marcus,

Just call them all racist liars.

[noddy]

for me its only "real" when it becomes law and is not just about personal preference... and as such i take things on that level...

i suspect part of mr p's and tinkers lack of ability to communicate is that mr p only talks about these meta-levels of law and tinker likes talking about personal preferences... hence they talk past each other lots.

the fine nuances of criticizing people/ideas is somewhat moot... you *might* be being critical of that persons private agenda when you dislike their idea because ideas come from agendas or you might be coming up with a better idea for that agenda.. depends on context, depends on history between you... depends....

however, unless your a rabidly insecure authoritarian with megalomania having different preferences and agendas isnt a problem in itself and many of us happily live in groups with lots of squabbling going on... its also about your tolerance for squabbling ;P

in the context you have provided, id consider the forum owners overly selfish (muahahahah) and their opinions are a good sign about their agenda

totalitarianism is the comfortable state of humans... all that ego reinforcing agreement.. all hail the echo chamber.

[Marcus]

[Marcus]

[ansuchin]

[Marcus]