I've certainly argued shit I didn't personally believe, because I believed that people *should* be able to argue the thing in question, and we're in danger of losing that 'ground' to people who want to make more and more opinions unacceptable to hold. I mean, I wouldn't choose flat Earthism as my yardstick there, but plenty of other things spring to mind.
The truth is, despite all my anti-EU polemic, I am actually Jean-Claude Juncker.
I tend to argue stuff out of boredom if I see too many people agreeing with the position, like a reflexive contrarian. The more controversial the topic the more thought I put into it, the more consensus the topic the more I test the consensus because it's fun
I spent a couple years in a debate sport. One of the first skills (and it is a skill) you have to acquire is the ability to basically drive yourself insane on the spot and believe whatever argument you're running. The alternative is to become really comfortable with lying, but believing is more effective. Do neither and you're sure to lose. Even after a lot of experience there was only one argument I could not mindfuck myself enough to believe or even lie convincingly about, that being contemporary panpsychism. I had no problem arguing in favor of human extinction or galactic conquest right after one another, though. Among some crazier things.
I don't think it's insanity if done right, more like method acting, self-deception and hyper-empathy, where you can argue fervently as if you were a zealot born to the cause - of a cause you care nothing about, or perhaps are even entirely antithetical too. I've never had to argue in favour of human extinction or galactic conquest, however I have had to argue such things as total warfare being beneficial for humanity and on a day to day basis am usually formulating the best arguments I can think of in opposition to everything I consider good in this world.
I do have one friend of note who was in med school on one such debate to do with ethics - namely that of screening for genetic diseases in future pregnancies and aborting the child based on the results. My friend learned from a very talented debater this very same ability to embody your argument as if you had lived it your whole life, whilst in reality he opposed aborting children merely for having signs of genetic diseases. Whilst pressing his argument forth systematically, having waited for all else to exhaust their points, he began dismantling them using very specific examples of suffering that could be averted with this screening and termination. His debate won, with the judges saying perhaps it was too good and a bit like Goebbels, and his opponent actually broke down in tears and started crying, saying he was right and she (unbeknownst to him) had a younger brother who suffered from one of the conditions he mentioned. She actually started crying, saying she should have put her younger brother out of his misery, and he never saw her again - which brings up the second most important thing in debates, to never have your personal being factor into your arguments at all. It's for your own safety as much as it is for performance, which really ties into the whole method acting thing, where you see method actors completely lose it in the act. Reminds me of the film 'thank you for smoking.'
1) My point was that we should be more forgiving and not hold people accountable for views they held years ago if they have changed their views. I don't think we disagree on this. But I'm not surprised that you seems to believe that acknowledging that you were wrong when you were and or/apologizing for past mistakes is a show of weakness or something. Fits right in that conservative/reactionnary stick you got going.
My point is that by establishing acceptable criteria based upon viewpoints, with which to destroy people's lives, there is nothing moral inherent in that. Such a system merely enforces a rolling agenda that ruins the lives of people the collective mass of internetizens decides is appropriate, with their definitions being entirely subjective and of ill-judgement. Why should you have to seek forgiveness on the internet for believing in something someone else doesn't like
at all? Why do you have to change your views simply because someone on the internet is threatening to ruin your life?
You're starting from the basis that people accused by the internet of being wrong are wrong. The problem inherent in that is that in such things, especially political ones, what is considered right and wrong is subjective - thus what one considers acceptable is absolutely unacceptable for another.
Taking responsibility for your wrongs is one of the highest most admirable virtues that all must learn in life. Yet facing an angry internet mob, you must never, ever say sorry. Once you do it doesn't matter whether you did any wrong or not, people will attack you and ruin your life because you have signaled you are wrong and are now an acceptable target, with no one coming to your aid because they don't give a shit to defend wrong people. You are also wrong to pin this to the right wing, as it is something that is true to everyone and not just politicians, and not just right-wing.
Look at this guy. You don't know who he is, because his is just a normal guy. An American, left-wing, supported Hillary Clinton, he made a poorly worded tweet condemning a veteran widow that was picked up and pilloried by everyone. He kept trying to apologize multiple times but this made the backlash intensify, he deleted his twitter and the posts and the internet responded by ramping this up and getting him fired. I shouldn't have this tweet for example, but like I said before, once you post something it's on the internet forever. He didn't learn that by apologising you're letting your blood fall in the shark tank
Doesn't matter where or what the context is, even if they're bullying you into killing yourself while you beg for forgiveness for having done nothing wrong (the girl in question here is toxic for having drawn fat characters normally), the internet hate machine uses an apology to draw every inch of blood from your body. It isn't a question of what's right, merely what is happening - anyone who apologises gets ruined.
More powerful people have been killed by "sorry" without regard to how much you've done for humankind, those who absolutely refuse to apologise and stand by everything the say are capable of weathering the world. Those who apologise get their lives ruined by people who'll forget who they are in one week.
Thus I argue that the moral thing is not to cease attacking someone for changing their worldview just to acquiesce to internet mobs, the moral thing to do is to not attack to begin with. And that's just not happening
Author
Topic: The Unpopular/Controversial Ideas Thread. (Read 81904 times)