Quote:
Originally Posted by rubecube
Okay, so you're not going to answer my question? I said in my first post that my first instinct if someone were to say that police brutality, etc., wasn't grounded in white supremacy as likely incredibly ignorant due to my own experiences with these types of debates. Ignorant might have been the wrong term. You can substitute misinformed, uninformed, missing a certain perspective, etc. However, I also said that I'm open to the possibility that they're not, or that I'm wrong.
|
I'm not sure what the question was? That I'm predisposed to bias and characterize my opponent in every debate? I agree that I'm predisposed to bias because everyone is. I try not to characterize my opponent, and try to give the most charitable possible reading to their perspective - to interpret it in a way that they would agree with. For example, earlier when you made the "sugar coating" argument, that seemed extreme to me because I don't agree with the notion that white supremacy is the root cause of police violence against black people, so I confirmed that you meant what I took you to mean.
When you say "anyone who disagrees with me is ignorant", or "uninformed", you really do not come across as someone who wants to have a conversation, or that anyone would want to have a conversation with. I would never say something like that, unless it's on something I see as totally uncontroversial, like whether vaccines cause autism. In saying that anyone who disagrees with me on that is ignorant, I'm signalling that I don't want to have a conversation about it, because... I don't. That shouldn't be the approach to most political issues, in my opinion. To then add, "I'm open to the possibility that I'm wrong" seems pretty disingenuous.
EDIT: I guess I should say that I'd never say something like that if I wasn't in a pretty bad mood, or that if I did I'd regret saying something like that if I thought about it. Frankly, we're probably all in a pretty bad mood right now, understandably.