this post was submitted on 09 Jul 2026
288 points (95.6% liked)
People Twitter
10159 readers
1322 users here now
People tweeting stuff. We allow tweets from anyone.
RULES:
- Mark NSFW content.
- No doxxing people.
- Must be a pic of the tweet or similar. No direct links to the tweet.
- No bullying or international politcs
- Be excellent to each other.
- Provide an archived link to the tweet (or similar) being shown if it's a major figure or a politician. Archive.is the best way.
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
What false dichotomy?
This. The person you're responding to opened up the conversation to include a measured response in using the OP's advice. And then you come in to add emphasis, but your emphasis turns the position from "we do also need to be open to criticism" to "those who agree with OP apply this advice to all critics"
OP's advice is for not listening to haters on how to advance your cause. You twisted it into "all criticism is haters, who you should never listen to". Which then implies the other position is to be open to all criticism, thus the false dichotomy.
I don't think you understood what I said. It's not a dichotomy at all
That's the implication of the OP. Someone says this isn't helpful -> they hate you and what you believe in. If you disagree with that, congrats we agree.
You inferred that, I didn't imply that; my statement had no either-or. It's really the same message. I never said anything about accepting all criticism or rejecting all criticism, the dilemma is in your head. The meaning behind what I said is "don't assume the worst of criticism," you are twisting that into whatever you came up with.
Read what you said above and then understand this. OP is about people who hate your cause giving you advice (aka concern trolling, the title of this post). You have twisted that in your own head to be "criticism is from people who hate me". By strawmanning OP into that position (cause, again, that's not what they're saying) you force your interpretation of their words to juxtapose against your implied position, creating the false dichotomy. You either agree with OP that all critiques come from haters so you should ignore them all, or you don't. Which, again, isn't what they said.
For example, criticizing a public figure is good, and public figures should listen to constructive criticism when they can, so that they can grow. This doesn't mean that Hasan Piker should take to heart the criticism that Fox News loves to heap on him, cause they want to see him fail. Does that make sense?
You're the one with the twisted logic.
Yes, and the person I replied to is about how sometimes we need to take advice to communicate better. I simply agreed by saying assuming the worst of all criticism (using the same phrasing as the OP, because it's applicable to more than just concern trolls) is not conductive to functional communication.
No, you've inferred that. I don't think the OP meant that, but what they said could very easily be used that way, which is why I borrowed the phrasing. Because there are absolutely people that think that way.
But that is the actual wording of the post. Someone gives criticism -> they hate you and your cause. OP may only specifically be thinking about concern trolls, but that is a rationale one can use to dismiss all criticism, which is what I asserted to be counterproductive.
I think you're the one forcing an interpretation here, and that's still not a dichotomy. Even if I accused OP of saying all criticism is from haters, I'm not advocating listening to all criticism, just to not make assumptions.
Of course it does, and it fits entirely within what I've said. If you want to continue this analogy, my reply says "don't assume everyone criticizing Hasan is Fox News"
I never said, or implied, that OP is applying "hates you and your cause" to all criticism, just that some people do, and it should be avoided.
If you think my statement is unspecific and implies that of OP, fair enough, but then you should also accept that the OP is unspecific enough be misapplied to all criticism.
Just wanted to say this last section is especially well articulated, I always really appreciate when people can use language with great clarity and precision
That's not what a false dichotomy is. If anything, what you're depicting it as is an overgeneralization. But the person you're responding to was literally debunking an overgeneralization. So what you're saying essentially amounts to "it's not always overgeneralized!" Which is a moot point, almost self-contradictory. They never implied that it was.
I read their original comment as agreeing with the top comment. You either misunderstood them or I don't know what you're trying to do.