[Danukem]

 Radar 100 Watts, on 07 January 2020 - 07:46 PM, said:

imo Trying to convince people is a waste of time. I personally see a good debate as an art form, composing of good rhetoric, humor, and style. Good art always has a message. The best debaters know how to convey their thoughts in a vivid and colorful way.

I understand having that level of cynicism, and why people become that cynical. But it's not for me, at least not as generally as you put it.

There is more to argumentation than sophistry. Even the most cynical will usually concede that there are such things as mathematical proofs. Well, a proof is just an argument -- a really good one. And it has nothing to do with rhetoric. Most arguments fall well short of that standard, and/or include assumptions that we can't be 100% confident in. Still, we can strive for a higher standard. I've had positive academic experiences. Not so much in the realm of politics, but in philosophy and science and other areas, and I can tell you from experience that there are lots of people out there who argue in good faith and convince each other on the merits. And sure, academia is rife with frauds and stupid political types, too.

[Forge]

let us celebrate this time of year with peace and joy.

it is roughly the 12th anniversary when hr clinton aide and advisor sid blumenthol requested james asher to investigate obama's place of origin.

Happy Birthday birther movement.

[Danukem]

And now, a wholesome acceptance speech.



01:22 "The 1st Amendment is 1st for a reason. The 2nd Amendment is just in case the 1st one doesn't work out."

[Aristotle Gumball]

 Radar 100 Watts, on 07 January 2020 - 07:46 PM, said:

imo Trying to convince people is a waste of time.

I agree. There's a degree to which conservatism and liberalism are genetic in origin. So neither the right or the left can really help it. People often take on aspects of one or the other only if they have a strong personal experience, usually traumatic in some way. Like if you always hated black people (or something) and a black person saves your life, etc. Or you somehow see the real effects of some policy that you previously approved of. Most people are sheltered and the ease at which the internet presents us with a detailed version of reality has made it all the more tempting to stay in these intellectual cubby-holes and shut out information that conflicts with your worldview. It has become easier than ever to just find other likeminded individuals and self-segregate.

[Danukem]

 thricecursed, on 08 January 2020 - 01:00 AM, said:

I agree. There's a degree to which conservatism and liberalism are genetic in origin. So neither the right or the left can really help it.

Those links appear to be an attempt to convince us of your opinion. But if trying to convince people is a waste of time, then including those links --indeed, your post itself-- would appear be a waste of time. Even if you did succeed at convincing people that you are correct, then you would be undermining your own position, since you would have successfully convinced people of something (i.e. not wasted your time).

More seriously, I know you guys are actually talking about the difficulty of convincing others on political matters, and you aren't actually proposing that any kind of convincing is a waste of time.

One of the most common complaints from both sides is that people favor the policies that benefit them personally. E.G., if I am unable to earn a lot of money, then I'm more likely to support policies that redistribute wealth in my direction, since I'm unlikely to be getting those resources otherwise. If I have a lot of earning power, then I'm more likely to favor lower taxes (or so it is said). The idea that evolutionary psychology predisposes people to certain political preferences is an extension of that idea. But rather than the preference being an immediate response to my situation, it's a response trained into my genes by the successful reproductive strategy of my ancestors who shared a lot of my genes.

But whether the claims of evolutionary psychology are BS or not doesn't really change what we knew already -- that it can be fucking difficult to convince people.

Even if we fail to convince others most of the time, I like to think that there are benefits to convincing people at the margins. What I mean is that, even though I may fail to convince 90% of people about something with a good argument, the 10% that I do convince are typically of higher value than the 90%. People smart enough to be convinced by a good argument, free thinkers who are not weak-minded slaves to their genes or their tribe, are generally people producing more value in the world. Or even if they don't, I can live with the knowledge that I'm able to reach some people who are open to reason. I'm sure that sounds arrogant, but it's honest.

[Aristotle Gumball]

 Trooper Dan, on 08 January 2020 - 02:02 AM, said:

Those links appear to be an attempt to convince us of your opinion. But if trying to convince people is a waste of time, then including those links --indeed, your post itself-- would appear be a waste of time.

The people who are somehow predisposed to getting what I'm saying, will (and they probably believed in this position already). Others will not. It's a funny world. I believe that we are in essence just signaling in-group belonging. Just so happens I haven't found much of an audience for my particular set of stances here, so I've taken a step back. No point in being a perpetual nuisance.

Your last point is simply one application of the Pareto principle.

[Danukem]

 thricecursed, on 08 January 2020 - 02:23 AM, said:

The people who are somehow predisposed to getting what I'm saying, will (and they probably believed in this position already). Others will not. It's a funny world. I believe that we are in essence just signaling in-group belonging.

Oh, I GET what you are saying, and I think you are mostly correct, at least when it comes to politics. Mostly. In fact, it was my own post bemoaning the pointlessness of political discussion around here that got us started on this topic. If you would concede that not all argumentative communication is just signaling in-group belonging (or whatever you want to call it) and that some of it --albeit a minority of it-- are genuine and sometimes successful attempts at convincing / learning, then we can agree.

Haven't you ever read a book with cogent arguments that convinced you of something that you hadn't been convinced of before? Written by someone who genuinely wanted to share their truth with others? I'm not trying to deny that the vast majority of political argumentation is group signaling / rallying the troops. But the part that doesn't fit into that model -- it's a very important part.

[Aristotle Gumball]

 Trooper Dan, on 08 January 2020 - 02:53 AM, said:

Haven't you ever read a book with cogent arguments that convinced you of something that you hadn't been convinced of before? Written by someone who genuinely wanted to share their truth with others? I'm not trying to deny that the vast majority of political argumentation is group signaling / rallying the troops. But the part that doesn't fit into that model -- it's a very important part.

Well, first of all, when I say that all most of us are doing is "signaling", I want to clarify that I don't mean to say that it's conscious. And sure I've been convinced, but again - I think that's maybe something innate in me that responds to arguments based on reason. I'm also a pretty solitary introvert who doesn't rely on a lot of other people, so perhaps I have less intrinsic need to belong. I'm also not saying that anybody reading this is some kind of unthinking moron, but our brains really do fool us into believing we are in control and that we rationally accept what's objectively true, rather than what's convenient for our evolutionary goals.

Where I agree is that the conscious and self-aware quest for truth is very important indeed, but that is really the same as saying "smart, free-thinking individuals are important". Your 10-20%. So yeah, when I engage in online debates, it's usually with those people in mind and I care less about convincing my opponent. At some point I get bored, though. Political discussions here really are a waste of time.

[dukefan4evah02]

 Mark, on 07 January 2020 - 04:34 PM, said:

But after a short while I see he loves confrontation a bit too much, is firm in his beliefs and has no real intentions of informing/persuading anyone in an good debate.

Just a quick and friendly reminder - you are fighting alongside this guy:

 Radar 100 Watts, on 07 January 2020 - 01:03 PM, said:

Still sending dick pics?

Quote

I'll back out quietly. I'm sure in his mind he will think its because someone doesn't agree with my views and I couldn't handle it.

Tell me with a straight face that if I had expressed the exact same sentiment, you wouldn't be screaming "BULLSHIT!!!"

[Forge]

 dukefan4evah02, on 08 January 2020 - 07:21 AM, said:

Just a quick and friendly reminder - you are fighting alongside this guy:

Tell me with a straight face that if I had expressed the exact same sentiment, you wouldn't be screaming "BULLSHIT!!!"

[dukefan4evah02]

 Forge, on 08 January 2020 - 07:26 AM, said:

You say bait, I say reliable and efficient method of ensuring I'll never be subjected to his drivel on here again.

[dukefan4evah02]

 OccludeOlga, on 07 January 2020 - 10:08 AM, said:

If you take one thing away from this conversation know this: Almost everyone you are disagreeing with once believed as you did. Therefore only one side of this conversation actually understands both points of view.

I found this to be particularly absurd/amusing.

Hypothetically speaking, if someone grows up believing that world is round and then gets brainwashed by flat earthers...his converted beliefs are of higher credulity because he used to buy into all that dumb (pseudo)scientific mumbo-jumbo?

So if a reformed Neo-Nazi(e.g. Christian Picciolini, Derek White; please try not to get triggered by my fake news sources) were to say the same thing in denouncing someone who shared your exact views, albeit from birth...would that automatically grant them higher stature?

Making a purely anecdotal claim of that sort reeks of classic alt-right debate tactics. Deflect from the real issues, avoid substance at all costs, throw out deceptive number and statistics, make fantastical claims...but sound impressive and authoritative enough to garner positive attention and a cult following.

Either that, or Charlie just be trollin'(again).

[Forge]

only 250 shopping days left before we celebrate the anneversary of the racist, xenophobic democrat signed Secure Fence Act of 2006

Obama is going to throw a suprise party with the 48.5 billion dollars that redirected from the unfinished project into a secret slush fund just for this occasion

[dukefan4evah02]

 Forge, on 08 January 2020 - 08:25 AM, said:

only 250 shopping days left before we celebrate the anneversary of the racist, xenophobic democrat signed Secure Fence Act of 2006

Obama is going to throw a suprise party with the 48.5 billion dollars that redirected from the unfinished project into a secret slush fund just for this occasion

Yes, because I don't support Trump it must mean I worship Hillary and everything she's ever done. Good thing nobody ever changes their stances on important issues, so they can have lived on "both sides". Obviously that proposed wall from nearly 1.5 decades ago was every bit as ambitious and extensive and practical as what Trump is doing today. And shame on Hillary for generalizing Mexicans as "rapists" and "criminals" right as her racist, xenophobic, Democratic(at least you weren't being redundant!) ass sketched her John Hancock on that bill.

Did you know that I'm not even a Democrat and I have some pretty scathing critiques of liberals(which I never identified myself as, since I most certainly am not)?

I guess some of the most prolific GOPers like John McCain should also be categorized as liberal Democrats since they've spoke out against Donald.

What a formidable debate opponent you are. I'm so glad you hold the concept of objectivity as such a fundamental virtue.

[Aristotle Gumball]

 dukefan4evah02, on 08 January 2020 - 09:41 AM, said:

Did you know that I'm not even a Democrat and I have some pretty scathing critiques of liberals(which I never identified myself as, since I most certainly am not)?

I've been called a Russian shill, a liberal snowflake, a centrist as well as a future mosque shooter! What a rich life I lead.

[Forge]

 dukefan4evah02, on 08 January 2020 - 09:41 AM, said:

I worship Hillary and everything she's ever done.

never claimed you did. You took that mantle up yourself.
You're projecting again.

simply made a general comment aimed at no particular person.
same with the birther post towards the top of this page.
You assumed it was directed at you because of your feelz.
says more about you, your perceptions, and how you think the world revolves around your existance

[dukefan4evah02]

 Forge, on 08 January 2020 - 11:22 AM, said:

never claimed you did. You took that mantle up yourself.
You're projecting again.

Okay, so you just felt like letting out a nice little serendipitous Hillary rant. Never saw anyone get so triggered by the LOSING candidate...how did you survive those eight years of Obama? If it wasn't aimed at me, then what was the relevance? I thought we decided that the key to good debate was staying on topic, focused, and germane to the focal points at hand? If I just wanted to randomly let out steam and post an anti-Trump meme out of angst, there's plenty I could introduce. But that doesn't really accomplish anything does it? Oh, it makes you feel better to vent about the insufferable liberals...man, called the hypocrisy out like a boss!

Quote

simply made a general comment aimed at no particular person. You assumed it was directed at you because of your feelz.
says more about you, your perceptions, and how you think the world revolves around your existance

I don't think you're even trying anymore. Doing the same thing you chastise me for purportedly doing in the next sentence. Since I made what you outwardly perceived to be an incorrect assertion I must have some personality dysfunction where everything revolves around me and me alone. Where was that attitude when I initially alluded to the opinion that Trump benefits white people and everybody got their panties in a wad and took it personally?

[Forge]

 dukefan4evah02, on 08 January 2020 - 11:37 AM, said:

If it wasn't aimed at me, then what was the relevance?

 Forge, on 08 January 2020 - 11:22 AM, said:

how you think the world revolves around your existance

point proven

[Danukem]

 dukefan4evah02, on 08 January 2020 - 11:37 AM, said:

Okay, so you just felt like letting out a nice little serendipitous Hillary rant. Never saw anyone get so triggered by the LOSING candidate...

For what it's worth, I have a different take on the Hillary thing. Now keep in mind I'm a card-carrying never-Trumper. I can't stand him. I changed my party registration from Republican to Independent after the election because I didn't want to be associated with him or the Republicans who defend his antics.

Having said that, it's very obvious to anyone with an once of objectivity that when it comes to the policies of his administration, they are not nearly as extreme as they are made out to be. Many Trump-haters are disingenuous; they want to make it sound like having a wall as part of border security or detaining immigrants is a radical right-wing approach. The Hillary image reminding us of her former support for a wall is a reminder of that dishonesty on the left. Pointing out that the detainment camps started under Obama would fall into the same category. Border security is a normal function that any country worth mentioning engages in. Walls are often part of that function. To be fair, I have seen this on both sides over the years. Normal policies suddenly become THE MOST EXTREME THING EVER when the opposing party is enacting them.

[Forge]

if only that Iranian general had been under the age of 17, then there would have been bipartisan support

Spoiler

[Aristotle Gumball]

I would've voted for Trump just because I didn't want HC to start a war with Russia (would've sucked for me personally), when otherwise I agree more with somebody like Bernie Sanders. To Trump's credit, I think we can thank him and Putin for Syria not being a total wasteland right now. They couldn't finish off Assad the way they did Gaddafi. Then again, I think he's pressured and will eventually cave to these people. Never seen a president so actively antagonize its own intelligence service, but even if he doesn't cave from pressure, I think once you become president, your flow of information becomes so tightly regulated that it's very hard to get a clear picture of what's going on, both at home and abroad. Dude's also old as fuck. That Iran attack is a terrible sign of things to come and this is where his cocky "We will blow you to smithereens!" rhetoric stops being merely obnoxious and becomes truly disgusting.

[dukefan4evah02]

 Forge, on 08 January 2020 - 11:51 AM, said:

point proven

Nice try. I was asking rhetorically. I'm the lone "liberal nut" here, you post an anti-Hillary image in the thick of our quarrel, but I'm just a paranoid egomaniac for thinking it might've directed at me? Again, nice try. Deflect from anything substantive and wearily try to make the other guy look the kooky one. Don't blame you one bit, though - how could I? It's pretty hard to defend BS and I'd rather just evasively do everything I could to disengenuously discredit my opponent himself instead of what he actually stands for(or against).

[dukefan4evah02]

 Forge, on 07 January 2020 - 11:44 PM, said:

let us celebrate this time of year with peace and joy.

it is roughly the 12th anniversary when hr clinton aide and advisor sid blumenthol requested james asher to investigate obama's place of origin.

Happy Birthday birther movement.

Well, if someone says it and it gels with what you already believe...run away with it and never stop!

But never mind all those pesky little facts and don't bother with a reality check! Just jab your fingers in them ears and keep repeating, "The Dems bitch about Trump doing exactly what Clinton did, so haha!"

https://www.politico...on-obama-228388

[Forge]

 dukefan4evah02, on 08 January 2020 - 12:55 PM, said:

never mind all those pesky little facts

"Did Sid Blumenthal really push birtherism?
He says no, but he did urge journalists to look into Barack Obama's ties to Kenya back in 2008."

"Clinton’s former campaign manager, Patty Solis Doyle, told CNN on Friday that she fired a volunteer coordinator in Iowa who had forwarded a birther-esque email"

yup. those pesky "volunteers" are to blame, not sure how that email escaped the bleach treatment though

[Hank]

 Trooper Dan, on 08 January 2020 - 02:02 AM, said:

... cut

But whether the claims of evolutionary psychology are BS or not doesn't really change what we knew already -- that it can be fucking difficult to convince people.

On a forum, yes.
As for evolutionary psychology - it seems we are on a current de-evolutionary trend. Our freedoms and self determination are rapidly decreasing, from one generation to the next. On the other hand, like in this typically two sided psychology studies, it could be argued, that we are progressing to our fore-fore-fore-forefathers genes, from the Middle Ages.

 Trooper Dan, on 08 January 2020 - 02:02 AM, said:

Even if we fail to convince others most of the time, I like to think that there are benefits to convincing people at the margins. What I mean is that, even though I may fail to convince 90% of people about something with a good argument, the 10% that I do convince are typically of higher value than the 90%. People smart enough to be convinced by a good argument, free thinkers who are not weak-minded slaves to their genes or their tribe, are generally people producing more value in the world. Or even if they don't, I can live with the knowledge that I'm able to reach some people who are open to reason. I'm sure that sounds arrogant, but it's honest.

People decide things emotionally, not logically, most of the time. Once you opened their heart, the brain is easy. The best way to do this is with eye contact, or if you have the pocket change, the media. And yes, we have a duty to use our freedom of expression, if we want to keep it.

[MC84]

Maybe it's silly of me to get involved in this discussion, but couldn't a lot of pointless back and forth on superficial issues be avoided by instead debating the core principles of left vs right thought? No doubt there will be disagreement as to what these core principles comprise of, but I've always liked Jonathan Bowden's characterization: "The left believes in the moral good of equality, the right believes in the moral good of inequality"

"The left believes in the moral good of equality" - obviously this manifests in a commitment to egalitarianism, which in its extreme forms involves the force of the state to crush any individual differences. While promoting equality may help generate compassion and understanding for dispossessed groups it also reduces the individual of achievement to the lowest common denominator (ie "there's nothing special about Einstein/Shakespeare/DaVinci/insert personal idol/ - they were just products of their societies")

"The right believes in the moral good of inequality" - as someone who leans to the right, I see this principle reflected in the natural world, from which human life arose. I also believe that the concept of accepting the superiority of certain individuals can inspire others to strive for greatness. However I imagine that many on the left interpret this worldview like the scene from American Psycho where the rich yuppie Bateman stabs the homeless dude just because he can - ie because of his superior social position and disregard for those 'below' him.

Anyways hope I'm not muddying the waters!

[Forge]

 Hank, on 08 January 2020 - 02:24 PM, said:

On a forum, yes.
As for evolutionary psychology - it seems we are on a current de-evolutionary trend. Our freedoms and self determination are rapidly decreasing, from one generation to the next. On the other hand, like in this typically two sided psychology studies, it could be argued, that we are progressing to our fore-fore-fore-forefathers genes, from the Middle Ages.

People decide things emotionally, not logically, most of the time. Once you opened their heart, the brain is easy. The best way to do this is with eye contact, or if you have the pocket change, the media. And yes, we have a duty to use our freedom of expression, if we want to keep it.

this is part of the process of having it too easy for too long. People aren't challenged and have no goals. They become mentally lazy and want big brother to baby sit them and their children. Governments get fat and send people to jail for teaching their dog to do a roman salute.

soylant green is made out of people

[Forge]

 conoklast, on 08 January 2020 - 02:41 PM, said:

"The left believes in the moral good of equality, the right believes in the moral good of inequality"

more or less
or
the right believes in equal opportunity
the left believes in equal outcome

both have strengths and flaws
equal opportunity fails because everyone doesn't start from the same chalk line. less fortunate will fail more often.
equal outcome fails because the award is not given to the most qualified, it's given to meet a diversity criteria

[Aristotle Gumball]

Equal rights & equal lefts till the bitter end, chaps.

[Radar]

 Trooper Dan, on 07 January 2020 - 08:30 PM, said:

I understand having that level of cynicism, and why people become that cynical. But it's not for me, at least not as generally as you put it.

There is more to argumentation than sophistry. Even the most cynical will usually concede that there are such things as mathematical proofs. Well, a proof is just an argument -- a really good one. And it has nothing to do with rhetoric. Most arguments fall well short of that standard, and/or include assumptions that we can't be 100% confident in. Still, we can strive for a higher standard. I've had positive academic experiences. Not so much in the realm of politics, but in philosophy and science and other areas, and I can tell you from experience that there are lots of people out there who argue in good faith and convince each other on the merits. And sure, academia is rife with frauds and stupid political types, too.

It's not that I'm cynical. It's that imo the most dogmatic people I know are those who claim to be "objective". Also those who claim to be "centrists". Drives me up a wall. You can tell if someone actually cares about learning something. IMO The most honest and genuine people are those that can admit their biases and presuppositions up front. Very few can do it and it's why you can't have a real "debate", at least the way you describe it.