Location: In a land without pants, or war, or want. But mostly we care about the pants.
Exp:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Erick Estrada
The problem is that when you are an extremist all contrary opinions are going to be perceived by you as UNINFORMED.
Which is an argument against being an extremist, not against ignoring uninformed opinions that are exactly that. Not everything is subjective, you can subjectively have an opinion and that opinion can be objectively wrong. For example, if your opinion is that the Earth is flat, you are wrong. Your opinion is worth less, on this subject. This is not elitism or extremism. If you think it is, you are also wrong.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Erick Estrada
I will never change my belief that everyone is entitled to their own opinion whether you agree with it or not or even if the opinion that is of bad taste.
That's fair enough, but being entitled to your opinion does not mean others are obliged to take it seriously.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Erick Estrada
It's hard not to see in your posts that you think very highly of yourself and your beliefs.
Again, fair enough. I also think highly of other people that base their opinions on what I perceive to be rational thought and logic. I also prefer the adversarial style of debate, and I am sure that annoys many, many people.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Erick Estrada
However you are no higher on the totem pole than anyone else here. You are not the smartest person here. Your opinion matters no more than anyone else here and I will never, ever agree that "weeding out contrarians" is a good thing ever in any part of a democratic society.
My opinion matters more if it's based on reasoning and evidence. That is not being "higher on the totem pole", that is how argument works. If we aren't arguing to change opinions based on those factors, what are we even talking for? To hear the sound and the fury?
I am interested (not being sarcastic) to know what you intend when you argue with someone here. Are you trying to convince them of anything, or do you just want to express yourself? If you do want to convince others, what methodology do you think is better than logic based on facts and what is provisionally known to be true?
__________________
Better educated sadness than oblivious joy.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to jammies For This Useful Post:
Maybe, but if they don't win the presidency then the populace is telling them that they agree with the democrat plan.
I think that depends on what the popular vote numbers end up looking like.
With a 3-man (err, 2-man/1-woman) race, the popular vote total for Trump + the Republican might be greater than what the Democrat receives, but because the Democrat received more than what Trump or the Republican received individually, the Dem wins the State and its electoral votes.
In that case, I can totally see the Republicans (and the populace) saying, "hey, a majority of the voters didn't agree with the democrat plan." And I think that they would be correct.
And if Trump does go independent, I think that will help revive the call for electoral college/vote reform, which is something that truly needs to be reconsidered.
Good insight from Maajid Nawaz about the results of Trump promising these things and then being blocked from doing so.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to CorsiHockeyLeague For This Useful Post:
I did not always agree with Lanny and he frequently "lost his $hit" on here but he was a distinctive voice. As far as Cowperson goes, he was the primary source of civility on here. He could be a thread back on track and out of the cage match with a single post. He brought up nuances no one else did. If he got banned... wow...
These threads have turned into the Rachael Maddow show. All Liberal all the time and if you don't see it just that way then you are dog piled into submission, From the same posters citing the same sources and single world view. The Daily Beast is right of this place.
I think from a social standpoint, you may be correct, but as mentioned after this post, it's likely more because the demographic skews to younger, more educated folks. However, there are a significant number of posters that vote right in spite of their centrist/left social views for a myriad of reasons, so I'm more inclined to think it's 50/50 or 40/60, skewing right of centre.
That said, I know a lot of you are still really mad about the demise of the Love You Lose thread, and think that makes everyone here a bunch of commie pinko ######s. So whatever, get over it.
I don't know, but whatever they're doing to develop leaders now its not working.
Seems like it ought to be a fairly simple solution (that they would, without a doubt, not do) to get better leadership in general. It's a combination of...
A: Massive further public investment in public education, and
B: Strict spending and donation limits (Hard and Soft Money) for political campaigns (including third party advertising).
Again, fair enough. I also think highly of other people that base their opinions on what I perceive to be rational thought and logic. I also prefer the adversarial style of debate, and I am sure that annoys many, many people.
It's also highly unproductive and encourages entrenched thinking. I'm a lawyer, I engage in adversarial debate for a living, so I understand its virtues, and when I get lazy or just can't be bothered I slip into that mode on the internet, too. But on issues like the ones we've been discussing, it's a bad method. Essentially it results in people trying to win an argument for their pre-existing ideological perspective rather than trying to expand that perspective. It's far more productive to try to figure out what the truth is, than to try to convince others that you're right.
Epistemic humility trumps adversarial debate every time.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
The Following User Says Thank You to CorsiHockeyLeague For This Useful Post:
Location: In a land without pants, or war, or want. But mostly we care about the pants.
Exp:
Quote:
Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague
It's also highly unproductive and encourages entrenched thinking.
I don't agree, I generally am trying to convince people that aren't actually in the debate rather than those I'm directly questioning. How often does one actually "win" an argument on the internet, when you define "win" as convincing the other person they are wrong? Or, alternatively, how often has someone convinced you?
I've been occasionally convinced I was wrong, but I can only think of once (and it was Mr. Coffee, if I recall correctly) when someone actually conceded the argument. Many more times have I not been involved in an argument, but eventually came down on one side or the other due to the arguments laid out by the participants, and I am not arrogant enough (but almost!) to think that's because I only argue when I am right, but rather that we all have the human failing that we will rationalize our opinions to extreme lengths rather than ever admit we are in error.
__________________
Better educated sadness than oblivious joy.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to jammies For This Useful Post:
I think that depends on what the popular vote numbers end up looking like.
With a 3-man (err, 2-man/1-woman) race, the popular vote total for Trump + the Republican might be greater than what the Democrat receives, but because the Democrat received more than what Trump or the Republican received individually, the Dem wins the State and its electoral votes.
In that case, I can totally see the Republicans (and the populace) saying, "hey, a majority of the voters didn't agree with the democrat plan." And I think that they would be correct.
And if Trump does go independent, I think that will help revive the call for electoral college/vote reform, which is something that truly needs to be reconsidered.
Sure they can say that...and then the Democrats can say "But more agreed with our plan than either of yours".
The Republicans are already "reforming" things by making sure those nasty minority votes can't influence the election as well as they could before. The new rules and voting districts being put in place by republican governments at all levels is pretty disgusting.
What the US really does need is three viable parties to be perfectly honest.
I've been occasionally convinced I was wrong, but I can only think of once (and it was Mr. Coffee, if I recall correctly) when someone actually conceded the argument.
If someone is rarely convinced they're wrong about something important, I think that person is talking to and listening to the wrong people. Confirmation bias is a waste of time; it's boring. If the conversation isn't framed the way you say you like frame it, i.e. in debate terms, then it's really not a matter of winning or conceding.
Take the thread about the private member's bill regarding lease-breaking for abused spouses. It was, inevitably, raised that there was potential for someone to lie and abuse the law to get out of their lease. Instead of taking sides - which typically shake out as, "a bunch of these people are just liars" vs. "false reporting isn't an issue at all and you're a monster for not supporting victims", which goes nowhere, it was immediately acknowledged that there was a potential problem, and then people went on to talk about how big of a problem it was, whether it was a problem we could live with, and how it might be mitigated. More good came of it than people lobbing salvos of text at each other.
It's not surprising that no one wins debates on the internet, because no one is usually absorbing any information - in an internet debate, the only reason to read the other "side's" posts is to look for weaknesses to exploit in your response and develop a rebuttal.
Quote:
we all have the human failing that we will rationalize our opinions to extreme lengths rather than ever admit we are in error.
This is certainly a bias, but biases can be overcome when we're aware of them. You just recognized this, presumably you can self-examine a bit and account for it. I'm subject to the same bias, of course, but I try (sometimes fail, but try) to look at it as something standing in the way of me fully understanding an issue and being right in my perspective about it. At the end of the day, do you want to be right, or just be able to convince yourself that you are?
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
The Following User Says Thank You to CorsiHockeyLeague For This Useful Post:
Essentially it results in people trying to win an argument for their pre-existing ideological perspective rather than trying to expand that perspective. It's far more productive to try to figure out what the truth is, than to try to convince others that you're right.
There are now entire networks and media outlets tailored to specific ideological perspectives. What we typically see now on the internet is the reshashing of the talking points from these outlets regurgitated by people posting of that ideology. Seldom is any original thought or idea even discussed that hasn't been played out in the talking points of each side. Everyone is so looking for that triumphant "gotcha" for those of their tribe so they can feel better about themselves.
The Following User Says Thank You to tjinaz For This Useful Post:
Location: In a land without pants, or war, or want. But mostly we care about the pants.
Exp:
Quote:
Originally Posted by CliffFletcher
I think the coming decades will be marked by increased friction between liberalism and the new left (which is anything but liberal). Science and empiricism will reveal things about the human condition that are anathema to the abstract doctrines and unchallenged pieties of the left, and will provoke fierce attacks. We're starting to see the breach already in academia, where liberal and tolerant academics are waking up to the monsters they've fostered in their own nest.
Well I did say "mostly" errors of excess, but there is certainly some dogmatism in every political leaning. I don't really think the left-right spectrum is very useful anymore, other in the sense that the nutbars self-identify themselves as one or the other, which helps to differentiate them out from the more reasonable and thoughtful.
Perhaps it's just that, being in North America, we have a far larger "rightist" population so there is statistically a greater chance that any particular loony is a fellow-traveller of that type. So the anti-GMO crowd, for example, is a lot smaller than the pro-militia crowd. Perhaps in Europe I'd think the ratio was more around 50/50.
__________________
Better educated sadness than oblivious joy.
Very possible. When I was young I always thought I was the smartest guy in the room because I had been professionally tested to a superior IQ and everything came very easily to me but I learned over the years that it's pretty rare that I'm the smartest guy in the room as there's always someone smarter than you.
Location: In a land without pants, or war, or want. But mostly we care about the pants.
Exp:
Quote:
Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague
At the end of the day, do you want to be right, or just be able to convince yourself that you are?
I want to be right. Still, I know that I'm very good at justifying my opinions so i can't be sure I am, ever. Recognizing that one is biased is a good thing, yes, but recognizing that you will never be free of all your biases is even better.
__________________
Better educated sadness than oblivious joy.
I want to be right. Still, I know that I'm very good at justifying my opinions so i can't be sure I am, ever. Recognizing that one is biased is a good thing, yes, but recognizing that you will never be free of all your biases is even better.
There was a study conducted which concluded that subjects who had high amounts of self-awareness and were very aware of their own biases, still could not avoid them. They are very powerful.
The Following User Says Thank You to heep223 For This Useful Post:
Which is an argument against being an extremist, not against ignoring uninformed opinions that are exactly that. Not everything is subjective, you can subjectively have an opinion and that opinion can be objectively wrong. For example, if your opinion is that the Earth is flat, you are wrong. Your opinion is worth less, on this subject. This is not elitism or extremism. If you think it is, you are also wrong.
That's fair enough, but being entitled to your opinion does not mean others are obliged to take it seriously.
Again, fair enough. I also think highly of other people that base their opinions on what I perceive to be rational thought and logic. I also prefer the adversarial style of debate, and I am sure that annoys many, many people.
My opinion matters more if it's based on reasoning and evidence. That is not being "higher on the totem pole", that is how argument works. If we aren't arguing to change opinions based on those factors, what are we even talking for? To hear the sound and the fury?
I am interested (not being sarcastic) to know what you intend when you argue with someone here. Are you trying to convince them of anything, or do you just want to express yourself? If you do want to convince others, what methodology do you think is better than logic based on facts and what is provisionally known to be true?
Nothing really. I haven't really participated in this thread as I read it at times but I don't feel overly compelled to post regarding the topic because on a personal level I don't really care about the outcome of the US election because most of the candidates are morally corrupt losers and the citizens are lose regardless of who gets in. I don't get overly excited about things that are out of my control so I have been fairly amused at the outrage over Donald Trump. I have been enjoying how he's making a mockery of U.S. politics and I sense some people are taking him a little too seriously as I go over posts in this thread as well as Facebook, etc.
Perhaps it's just that, being in North America, we have a far larger "rightist" population so there is statistically a greater chance that any particular loony is a fellow-traveller of that type. So the anti-GMO crowd, for example, is a lot smaller than the pro-militia crowd. Perhaps in Europe I'd think the ratio was more around 50/50.
Maybe the reason I come into conflict with the left more often than the right these days is I don't consume American news media (posting in a thread about American politics is unusual for me). So the fact a bunch of nutjobs in Ohio or Kansas deny evolution and are arming themselves against the government is no more than a social curiosity to me. It doesn't affect me any more than the far right movement in France, or ultra-nationalists in Russia. Scary and weird, but not part of my political landscape.
In the social landscapes I do travel - forums like this, the CBC, the Globe and Mail, the local music scene, forums dedicated to my hobbies of gaming and speculative fiction - I'm far more likely to come across left-wing zeal and dogma than right-wing. And the people who parrot the left-wing talking points seem even less self-reflective than their counterparts on the right. Maybe it's because they're younger, and because the mainstream media has adopted many of the shibboleths of the left, but many on the new left seem to have never had their beliefs challenged, or had to defend them with reason and empiricism. And the prospect of a whole generation that holds very strong opinions that are unchallenged and unexamined is troubling. So I don't hesitate to challenge and poke and question them, even though it often brings down a pack of righteous puritans on my head.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by fotze
If this day gets you riled up, you obviously aren't numb to the disappointment yet to be a real fan.
Last edited by CliffFletcher; 12-09-2015 at 01:11 PM.
