Game in the Brain

In a previous argument, someone used on me the Impossible Standard Argument – or what is basically “Moving Goal Posts” or “No True Scotsman”. It basically argues that the claim or the conjecture creates a situation “Impossible” to meet as there needs to be a criteria.

On sensitive matters, the Case of Rape, this argument “Impossible Standard” is used and it can be frustrating to get to the bottom of a situation or claims when you have to worry about “hurting feelings and reputation”…. hell talking about it is TABOO because I can be accused of blaming the Victim by just discussion the Procedure of verification. Lolz – speaking about something controversial makes me “Guilty by Association” (a fallacy) for wanting to talk about it and clear things up. Already there is guesswork as to my motivations by just bringing up the topic…

Whoah these days “Racist”, “Objectification of Women”, and various sides of an argument can be hurled accusations of “Guilt by Association” even when you have a vetted Identity (as to not being a sock puppet).  

Getting back to Impossible Standards – its simple to just call for Criteria and work around that. No criteria is perfect, so if someone calls for Impossible Standards and you call back “Then Give me your criteria” (reminds me of the time I asked why were the “Trolls angry at Anita” and the answer given to me was to the effect/but not verbatim “Because they are evil” which kinda pissed me off… and my further questioning, which can be called clarification of criteria or definition or thesis, was attacked with Guilty by Association)

I dont want to hear “Impossible Standard!” called out – of either side. If the Thesis or Criteria is not clear “Clarify your Thesis/Criteria!” is the call. Basically – GIVE me a STEELMAN to work with (ya douchebag!). If your not going to give me a steelman then WTF is the point?

When someone starts working on their Steelman the first thing the other side asks is “What are the exceptions to this” because typically it is a claims which have a wide criteria and it is this where people really have trouble with.

When a certain someone painted a particular community with a BROAD brush it is this kinda Shotgun approach that pissed off a lot of people and some terrible people. It brought them to light, but it just made the Validity of the people who were critical of the “Exceptions” and nuances grouped with the Trolls. If you think about, this is the NEW Battleground – being swept aside by being GUILTY BY ASSOCIATION (you happen to be in this Side of the Argument – F*ck you regardless of the validity of your argument, despite the action of people who have nothing to do with you).

From Impossible Standard, I went to “building” as Steelman, and being unable to do so because one side use guilty by Association when they throw around <insert social conflict>

The New Era of GUILTY BY ASSOCIATION