Now stop and talk about something else.
Well, how about this?
Not using citations where they are needed in an argument defeats the whole point of using that argument (general statement).
At what point does something become such common knowledge that it becomes redundant to cite it/it becomes ridiculous to ask for a citation? (speaking generally here. I'm not trying to troll, just in case someone jumps to misinterpret...)
I'm pretty sure we'd all agree on, say, the fact that Obama was born in the US and is a natural citizen, not needing a citation. But what about the moon landing being real? What about Guyana's health care system being a wreck? Or that the Austrian basement-rapist guy looks creepy as fuck?
Or does this rule not apply when it's about controversial issues?
Also, let me propound my theory of what makes for a good debate zone on the internet. In the (admittedly not allllll that many) forums I've posted on, I've seen a pretty good correlation between the tolerance of vitriol a forum has (as in, members can be calling each other ignorant twats in one thread and then go into a forum about a non-divisive topic and be buddies like it never happened) and the amount of interesting, in-depth debate that goes on there. Not necessarily that all the good debaters are vitriolic (although many are) but the fact that nobody minds when people get "mad" tends to allow space for worthwhile debates to play out.
Here's my stab at why: Arguing is naturally something that gets people riled up. Why...I'm going on an evolutionary-psychological limb here of course, but I'd propose that, in a social species in the cognitive niche (us) social/intellectual/rhetorical banter is one of the battlegrounds for sexual selection. Getting called out on something makes you look stupid; it has to do with belittling worldviews which are probably shared by in-groups you belong to which in turn has to do with group cohesion (very important for a social species, and incidentally the subject of my current research) and it can make you look weak (if someone can pick on you, even verbally, you look weak). All of these things would be fitness costs, and a good defense against them is probably anger, a very handy social emotion that deters people from treading the wrong way around you. Maybe this is why arguments get so heated even on fairly bland subjects (like, for example, modularity of mind).
Anyway, that was a ramble. The point is people get mad when they argue, it's almost natural. Because of this, to smooth over social cohesion people tend to steer clear of "touchy" topics, although of course certain relationships allow for "friendly/angry" arguments about subjects without damaging the relationship(s). Now, in real life this is sure legitimate; I wouldn't try and bring up gay marriage at a politically mixed dinner party for obvious reasons.
But on the internet the rules of real life don't really apply. Nobody on there has any impact on you whatsoever beyond what you allow them to have (aside from the keen blade of truth, I suppose). Virtually all relationships on an internet forum are superficial and internet-only, not relating to anybody's real-life social situation. This is a very good reason not to be emotionally sensitive to what these people say, for one thing. But the other thing is that if people learn to let that emotional sensitivity go, the "hostility" and flaming that goes on loses all its power to disturb anyone and becomes the kind of friendly bull session material you'd find in any college dorm. Once THIS happens, interesting arguments are free to go on, inevitable "anger" and all, because people release their grip on their desire for politeness and social smoothness, and their sensitivity to barbs, once they realize the normal social rules don't really matter. The result, I've found, is much, much more laid back and friendly than on other boards (this one's an example, though sure not the worst) where people get uneasy the second things start to get heated.
Anyway, this turned into a huge long ramble. Buy what I say or not, but it's my prescription for making this general discussion forum more hospitable to intellectual rumblings and debates...
Author
Topic: Criticism of a nation is equal to criticism of a ethnic group within that nation (Read 27582 times)