Except they do make a good point here. As much as I understand and share the sentiment 'imiric expressed, the comment is sloppy with its implications, and GP is right to point out that the regulation can have both good and bad effects, be praised for the former and criticized for latter, all at the same time, without any one being incorrect.
Unfortunately, normal people do have to be reminded of the basics, because they seem statistically unable to process nuance in any argument they already have an opinion on. The whole idea of winning an argument is a kind of weird normie thing, a sportsball game with words, which is fine as entertainment, but problematic when it gets confused for reasoning about things.
> The whole idea of winning an argument is a kind of weird normie thing, a sportsball game with words, which is fine as entertainment, but problematic when it gets confused for reasoning about things.
Arguments as soldiers. Win at any cost, doesn't matter if what's said now contradicts what came before.
I didn't know about the idea until someone else explained it to me; talking about it with my much older brother, he had noticed it spontaneously.
Unfortunately, normal people do have to be reminded of the basics, because they seem statistically unable to process nuance in any argument they already have an opinion on. The whole idea of winning an argument is a kind of weird normie thing, a sportsball game with words, which is fine as entertainment, but problematic when it gets confused for reasoning about things.