"If your side won you wouldn't be saying this"

[jackfaire]

As heard in every argument after every contest ever. Can we stop saying this? Complaining that your brother beat you in Monopoly that's fine. Said brother telling you that you wouldn't be upset if you had won. No shit.

When this argument is presented for a football game where the referees were making bad calls there is always the "If your side had won you wouldn't care about the bad calls" I have heard this particular argument made, hence I avoid sports bars.

The problem with this argument is that it's disingenuous. Of course most people won't complain when the win is in their favor but this argument pretends they would.

The whole idea behind the argument is to imply "You're being whiny I wouldn't be Whiny if you had won" but in reality if it was reversed then of course you would. Your whole argument ignores that while if the person's side won they wouldn't be complaining about the things they are complaining about your side would be complaining about those things.

So maybe stop pretending you have some mythical moral high ground. Either ignore petty complaints like a bloody grownup or acknowledge valid complaints and see how you can fix them together so that when your side loses someone isn't telling you, "If your side won you wouldn't be saying this"

[s_stabeler]

there's also the fact that it's actually something of a logical fallacy, in that it's used to dismiss- for example- complaints the Electoral College does not produce a President supported by the majority of Americans. While it's certainly true the winning party rarely complains about the Electoral College, it doesn't mean the flaws don't exist. (though not the ones usually believed: it's actually suburban voters that swing the election (basically, a 5% majority in the suburbs can allow a rural-base candidate to overwhelm a substantial lead in the cities)

[jackfaire]

Exactly, though do note I am trying to keep this completely apolitical as this is an issue that extends to every competition between two sides of anything.

But that's exactly right. The very dismissive nature of the argument ignores any real flaws.

Yes it might be time consuming to address not real flaws but the thing to remember is that while it's a not-real flaw to one person it may be to the other person.

For example a treaty regarding Nuclear Disarmament.

Person A feels it's a good thing that it wasn't signed.

Person B feels it's a travesty.

Person A dismisses Person B's concerns with "Well if your side won"

But if they had a real discussion about it a few things would be realized:

1) Both A and B want Nuclear Disarmament

2) A knows that in the treaty was an addendum that would make it a violation of the treaty for Party B7 to develop a missle defense system unrelated to the Nuclear Weapons they are discussing. This effectively allows for Party C7 to just lob conventional missles at the first party without any worry of them being stopped. Sure Nukes go away but B7 loses.

3) B doesn't know this fact as whatever media outlet they consume didn't mention that detail for whatever reason. A civil discussion of the issue allows B to have full information and then make up their mind.

That's what it all comes down to. In the end both sides may still disagree but instead of yelling sour grapes try to understand the other side's position. It may either benefit you in the future or you may better understand how to argue your own side.

[TheHuckster]

But if they had a real discussion about it a few things would be realized:

1) Both A and B want Nuclear Disarmament

2) A knows that in the treaty was an addendum that would make it a violation of the treaty for Party B7 to develop a missle defense system unrelated to the Nuclear Weapons they are discussing. This effectively allows for Party C7 to just lob conventional missles at the first party without any worry of them being stopped. Sure Nukes go away but B7 loses.

3) B doesn't know this fact as whatever media outlet they consume didn't mention that detail for whatever reason. A civil discussion of the issue allows B to have full information and then make up their mind.

That's what it all comes down to. In the end both sides may still disagree but instead of yelling sour grapes try to understand the other side's position. It may either benefit you in the future or you may better understand how to argue your own side.

So many political discussions come down to this if they're actually discussed civilly. Between rational people, their opinions of many controversial issues often come from different perspectives of the same problem they want to solve. Take voter ID laws: You ask a rational supporter of voter ID laws, and they'll tell you they want to mitigate voter fraud. Regardless of whether facts and figures justify this, it's what their goal is. And that goal, in and of itself, is fine. Rational people would love to minimize voter fraud. On the other side, you ask a rational opponent of voter ID laws, and they'll tell you that they want to mitigate people's inability to vote, even though they are fully entitled to do so. Again, a goal any rational person would support.

The two rational sides discuss the issues at hand, and there'll be some arguments that voter fraud is not as rampant as some would have you believe, or statistics on discouraged legal voters are overstated, whatever. One side might even come out of the discussion with a different point of view. At least the two are on the same page as to what they want to see in the voting system. They both are against voter fraud and they both want to maximize people's access to vote.

Instead, a lot of disagreements just default to the bottom rung of supporters and opponents. Someone supports voter ID laws because they are racist, or opposes voter ID laws because they want millions of illegal votes.

And that is what derails so many discussions on the internet. Someone makes a statement about an issue, and they are automatically associated with the worst of their peers who agree with them.

[BlaqueKatt]

And that is what derails so many discussions on the internet. Someone makes a statement about an issue, and they are automatically associated with the worst of their peers who agree with them.

this is known as "the excluded middle".The two opposing sides have extremists, and the extremists get the coverage because they're loud and exploitable. Add in internet echo chambers, and the human condition to hold onto beliefs, and double down in holding those beliefs when they're shown to be false.....and powderkeg with no one wanting to give an inch.

[mjr]

there's also the fact that it's actually something of a logical fallacy, in that it's used to dismiss- for example- complaints the Electoral College does not produce a President supported by the majority of Americans.

You're right in that it's probably a logical fallacy, but can there be truth in logical fallacies? Most of us operate within the auspices of logical fallacies on a daily basis. And recall that with logic, something can be logical, but incorrect, if the premise is wrong.

Not to nit-pick, but it's actually a plurality. Nobody to my knowledge got over 50% in the overall vote totals, which would actually be called a "majority". But I understand your point.

While it's certainly true the winning party rarely complains about the Electoral College, it doesn't mean the flaws don't exist. (though not the ones usually believed: it's actually suburban voters that swing the election (basically, a 5% majority in the suburbs can allow a rural-base candidate to overwhelm a substantial lead in the cities)

That's reasonable. But to that end, you'd have to at least acknowledge that there's a high probability that those "suburban" voters wouldn't really have much of a voice the other way. And as the large cities get more and more populous, that would give "suburban" and "rural" areas even less of a voice. I suppose some think that's perfectly OK, though.

To go to a "true" popular vote style system, you'd have to enact federal laws for registration, standardize ballots across the country, and standardize the voting system (i.e. electronic vs paper, or whatever). Right now, we don't have those laws, AFAIK.

And that is what derails so many discussions on the internet. Someone makes a statement about an issue, and they are automatically associated with the worst of their peers who agree with them.

This. So much this! It's like it's automatically assumed that if someone takes a contrary opinion, they are the worst of the "peers" who agree with them. Going political again, it's like it's assumed that all Democrats/Liberals are bad people who just want to destroy values, the Constitution, and the country itself. And it's assumed that all Republicans/Conservatives are a bunch of religious dummies who are greedy, a$$holes, and just want people to starve and such.


We both know that's not the case, and I think to tie into what you're saying, that causes the schism to get wider.

Though I do think with some issues, it's possible the "best" agreement people are going to reach is some sort of "agree to disagree" stalemate. Whether that's a good thing or not is up for discussion.

To your point about voter ID & immigration laws, sometimes when that comes up I'll ask the following question:

Could someone just waltz into your house, uninvited, and live there? Yes, or no? If that happened, what would you do?

It's not meant as an antagonizing question. I know what most people would do. They'd call law enforcement or do something to defend their property. The question is meant to draw a parallel, and to give people the opportunity to "think outside the box" as it were, and to possibly have a "wait a minute..." moment.

But to piggyback on what jackfaire said, going into the world of sports we see this as well. Think about all the "You're just jealous our team/player is better than yours!" stuff that came out regarding the Patriots. Jackfaire is right in that it's the same sort of thing. "Our guy didn't do anything! You're just jealous!" or things like "Your team broke the rules, too!"

It's a crazy thing. People like competition, but don't like losing.

"Sour Grapes" is apropos, though. But recall, the fox just said that the grapes were sour. He didn't know if they were.

[mjr]

this is known as "the excluded middle".The two opposing sides have extremists, and the extremists get the coverage because they're loud and exploitable. Add in internet echo chambers, and the human condition to hold onto beliefs, and double down in holding those beliefs when they're shown to be false.....and powderkeg with no one wanting to give an inch.

BlaqueKatt...you make a valid point here.

The problem is, I don't think people (in general) have learned not to insult the other side when trying to make a point/argument. Heck, we saw that in the election.

It actually causes people to dig their heels in deeper.

So if you had a position (call it Position A), and someone else insulted you for holding that position, because they had the opposite position (Position B), wouldn't you dig in more and defend your point more vehemently?

Social media, I think, has sort of amplified negative discourse.

[s_stabeler]

That's reasonable. But to that end, you'd have to at least acknowledge that there's a high probability that those "suburban" voters wouldn't really have much of a voice the other way. And as the large cities get more and more populous, that would give "suburban" and "rural" areas even less of a voice. I suppose some think that's perfectly OK, though.

the thing is, at the moment, if the suburban vote is split more-or-less 50/50 ( it was 45-50) then the rural vote seems to dictate the election, since the difference in Clinton's margins percentage-wize in the cities was more-or-less equal to Trumps' margin in rural areas. Yet Trump won a convincing majority (80-odd votes) when arguably it should have been a tied Electoral College ( which may well have ended up with a Trump Presidency- that isn't the issue.) since overall, Trump's losses in the cities should have cancelled out his gains in rural areas. It just makes it worse when you consider that 34% of the voters were from cities, while 17% were from rural areas. (49% were from suburbia) hence, since rural votes arguably gave Trump 40 more electoral college votes than he should have got, then it's reasonable to point out that rural votes seem to have disproportionate power ( it works out to be about 14% more electors than he really should have earned)