Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Lucus Casius]

Redking:

Faulted premise.

My counter, "you can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make it drink."

You can shout from the rooftops that something is wrong, but there is nothing you can do to make people act. Ironically, much like this very conversation.

To wit-- the reason Hitler still rose to prominence, despite intellectual outcry-- is exactly the same reason why your opinion is unchanged by my own intellectual arguments against it.

The solution is to teach people how to think, so they know that what they are hearing is the truth-- rather than clinging more tightly to belief and bias.


Your argument can be directly flipflopped to support the original nazi cause, with minor edits.  Observe:

If only there had been enough nazis to fight the zionists in the streets, we could  have achieved our grand vision.

I mean, broadly speaking, they wouldn't be wrong?  If there were a sufficiently large number of nazis, they probably would win.

And you really, really aren't helping your point by insisting you're an intellectual.  The implied "My arguments are perfect, you're clearly just an irrational tool who doesn't know how to think, compared to me"  isn't gonna win you many prizes.

Not that you've actually made clear what "teaching them how to think" means, or as to why you believe that anyone "taught how to think" would automatically end up agreeing with you after a few moments of conversation.

[Lord Shonus]

What wierd is saying is that most extremist groups thrive on insular tribalism and ignorance. Attempting to weaken these groups by pure aggression and invective boosts the tribalism, and doesn't do a thing to combat the ignorance that they rely on.

If you "teach people how to think", or more precisely impart them with the critical thinking skills to analyze the shit they've been taught instead of simply accepting it, you can hopefully erode the ignorance they rely on, which also erodes the tribalism.

[wierd]

Lucus, EH--

An intellectual takes in all statements, and evaluates all statements, and does everything they can to mitigate their internal biases, including acknowledging that they have them.

When you silence another party, you do not take in all statements, and you ENSHRINE bias.

I acknowledge that I have biases. That is why I cling to objectively proven processes and methods.  That is part of learning how to think.

As for the quip about zionists--- look more deeply into the WHY the nazi party wanted to exterminate the jews.  It was very much tied to invective over how jewish culture elevates jews over non-jews, (which is the very heart of the modern zionist movement), and how this had resulted in wealth disparity and issues with equal representation of law. (I used that term specifically, because it covers both allied forces, and the 'hated jews' under a single umbrella.)  Oh-- right, that would require you to take in and evaluate all statements.... (trollface)


EDIT--
This process is essential for the purposes that Shonus rightly mentions. 

[Trekkin]

What wierd is saying is that most extremist groups thrive on insular tribalism and ignorance. Attempting to weaken these groups by pure aggression and invective boosts the tribalism, and doesn't do a thing to combat the ignorance that they rely on.

If you "teach people how to think", or more precisely impart them with the critical thinking skills to analyze the shit they've been taught instead of simply accepting it, you can hopefully erode the ignorance they rely on, which also erodes the tribalism.

See my point above, though. Just knowing how to think critically doesn't mean they'll reach accurate conclusions or recognize their own ignorance. They need a reason to do so, and that reason has to appeal to them on their own terms.

Critical thinking is definitely part of the solution. Taken on its own, though, it just makes the problem worse.

EDIT: Hey, weird, does "evaluating all statements" include being able to read peer-reviewed scientific literature behind paywalls? Just curious.

[wierd]

I would personally say that paywalls are an insufferable obstacle to intellectualism, YES.  I very much despise the likes of Elsevier and pals, and greatly appreciate and laud open access journals.

Or did you mean this in some other, more twisted way?  (When I said "Paywalled Bro", it was really intended as "Hey, get me this paper from an open access source, so I can ingest it.")

[Folly]

I'm kinda disturbed by the number of people placing all the fault on the gun's modification. Because really, they're basically saying that this scenario would have been totally fine if the psycho had been limited to only killing people as quickly as he could pull the trigger for 10 minutes.

[EnigmaticHat]

Lucus, EH--

An intellectual takes in all statements, and evaluates all statements, and does everything they can to mitigate their internal biases, including acknowledging that they have them.

When you silence another party, you do not take in all statements, and you ENSHRINE bias.

I acknowledge that I have biases. That is why I cling to objectively proven processes and methods.  That is part of learning how to think.

As for the quip about zionists--- look more deeply into the WHY the nazi party wanted to exterminate the jews.  It was very much tied to invective over how jewish culture elevates jews over non-jews, (which is the very heart of the modern zionist movement), and how this had resulted in wealth disparity and issues with equal representation of law. (I used that term specifically, because it covers both allied forces, and the 'hated jews' under a single umbrella.)  Oh-- right, that would require you to take in and evaluate all statements.... (trollface)


EDIT--
This process is essential for the purposes that Shonus rightly mentions.

What you're describing isn't intellectualism.  Its logic.  The thing about logic is, two people can follow totally valid logic to different conclusions, providing they have different assumptions.  For example:

Life begins at conception + killing is wrong = abortion is unjustified killing
Fetuses aren't alive until they reach X point = abortion prior to X point aren't killing at all

Thus, two totally rational human beings with opposed views can walk into a room, and have nothing to discuss.  And in the case of abortion, we've all heard the arguments so much that we get it.  Further discussion between the two extremes is useless and annoying, there will be no reconciliation of those two perspectives and we all know it.  Instead the efforts have turned towards pulling the apathetic centrists out to one view or the other, because that's where ground is to be made.

[wierd]

Lucus, EH--

An intellectual takes in all statements, and evaluates all statements, and does everything they can to mitigate their internal biases, including acknowledging that they have them.

When you silence another party, you do not take in all statements, and you ENSHRINE bias.

I acknowledge that I have biases. That is why I cling to objectively proven processes and methods.  That is part of learning how to think.

As for the quip about zionists--- look more deeply into the WHY the nazi party wanted to exterminate the jews.  It was very much tied to invective over how jewish culture elevates jews over non-jews, (which is the very heart of the modern zionist movement), and how this had resulted in wealth disparity and issues with equal representation of law. (I used that term specifically, because it covers both allied forces, and the 'hated jews' under a single umbrella.)  Oh-- right, that would require you to take in and evaluate all statements.... (trollface)


EDIT--
This process is essential for the purposes that Shonus rightly mentions.

What you're describing isn't intellectualism.  Its logic.  The thing about logic is, two people can follow totally valid logic to different conclusions, providing they have different assumptions.  For example:

Life begins at conception + killing is wrong = abortion is unjustified killing
Fetuses aren't alive until they reach X point = abortion prior to X point aren't killing at all

Thus, two totally rational human beings with opposed views can walk into a room, and have nothing to discuss.  And in the case of abortion, we've all heard the arguments so much that we get it.  Further discussion between the two extremes is useless and annoying, there will be no reconciliation of those two perspectives and we all know it.  Instead the efforts have turned towards pulling the apathetic centrists out to one view or the other, because that's where ground is to be made.

In terms of the abortion debate, I have come to the conclusion that it is moot.  At the core of the matter is a systemic bias-- "Human life is important".  At the end of the day, human life is no more or less important than other forms of life.  The slavish devotion to preserving human life at all other expenses (which is at the heart of the pro-life rhetoric, and why it bumps heads with much of the pro-choice thinking) has resulted in many demonstrably deleterious consequences for our planet, not the least of which is a looming mass extinction caused by biosphere destruction.  That is at least my 2 cents worth. 

Eventually, at the current rates of biosphere destruction, the argument will become moot regardless of which side wins; human life will become significantly harder to sustain, that unwanted pregnancy will be among the least important issues humanity will face.

[hector13]

That... that wasn't the point to which I imagine he wanted a response.

[RedKing]

So edge. Much lord. Wow.


EH is right. Extremists don't suffer from a lack of logic, they suffer from starting suppositions which are drastically different than everyone else. Which leads the to logical conclusions drastically different from everyone else, and leave them wondering "What is wrong with these people?? Why doesn't everyone else get it?"

Sure, you can try to undermine those suppositions, but that's very difficult to do. Especially in an era where documented facts and media are easily dismissed and one can find "facts" and media to support any notion under the sun.

[misko27]

The Sartre quote on Anti-semites, where is it when you need it? Oh hey, wait a second.

“Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.”

I'm not a fan of the 'punching nazis' wing here, and I think the people who think too much about 'punching nazis' have their own issues. But engaging every extremist in argument, and by opposing, end them? Lofty, but impossible.

The problem is you have people who are both A) arguing in bad faith, and B) causing harm (even if that harm is as trivial as derailing the conversation and starting hostilities). Engagement achieves nothing, since by arguing in bad faith they attack the debate itself: you are trying to 'engage' with someone who will not actually engage with you except on a superficial level necessary to cause you consternation/frustration and in doing so discredit your argument. No debate is actually happening (or indeed, possible), but the fiction of the debate allows them to challenge the credentials of their would-be opponent, even though they would not actually participate in a real debate should their opponent accept. So finally I think it's sort of ridiculous to have this position that if we aren't engaging them in debate when they don't want to be, that frustration, and even blanket rejection, isn't a fair position.

I understand that convincing people to abandon their terrible views is important, and it absolutely can be done, but many extremists are not willing to be honest about their arguments, and so there is a need to engage with something they aren't saying (will still trying to be  understanding and not dismissive).

[Folly]

At the core of the matter is a systemic bias-- "Human life is important".  At the end of the day, human life is no more or less important than other forms of life.  The slavish devotion to preserving human life at all other expenses (which is at the heart of the pro-life rhetoric, and why it bumps heads with much of the pro-choice thinking) has resulted in many demonstrably deleterious consequences for our planet, not the least of which is a looming mass extinction caused by biosphere destruction.  That is at least my 2 cents worth.

The value of human life can be measured for any given individual according to the importance their ego places upon their own life, offset by their capacity for empathy. Thus someone who does not care about themself, or is incapable of effectively imagining themself in another person's position, will not place significant value on another's life. Of course, it's easier to avoid empathizing with a subject if they are unable or rendered unwilling to vocalize their plight.

[Helgoland]

“Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.”

Huh, kinda sounds like what I do at parties.

[martinuzz]

I hope it's not NSDA Parties

[Helgoland]

Naah, I usually just advocate killing the bourgeoisie. Or the poor. Occasioally it's invading some country, or expulsing some German state from the federation. It varies, really.