Print

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

[G-Flex]

I just thought of another example of the point I just made: The moon landing hoax.

Years back, it was surprisingly popular to believe the moon landing was a hoax, based on some ridiculous show that Fox aired, or something like that. Obviously, it was completely ridiculous on its face, but the fact that it was popular enough meant that the idea was treated as legitimate and plausible. For example, in one history course I was taking, it was brought up, and I started to argue against it, but still got nowhere, because the idea had reached that certain point in popular discourse where it starts to be considered plausible, even though there was no reason. Compare this with, say, bringing up any similarly ridiculous or paranoid conspiracy theory. The fact is that ideas in the popular consciousness are treated on a sliding scale of "legitimacy", to the point where if some zany crackpot idea becomes popular, the fact that it's zany doesn't matter anymore; those who believe it are treated as rational, and belief in it is treated as reasonable, even if that same idea, when less popular, would have been treated as crazy. The same thing happens with political groups and ideology.

[Heron TSG]

It'd be cool to discuss that soon, Barbar, but I'd like it if we could keep all other discussion but the thread itself on hold for a little while.

Righto. I skipped over the bickering on accident and then saw Lysabild's post, assuming we were back on that topic. I'll sit and watch for now.

[Lysabild]

Ah-ha, okay.  Thanks a lot for the clarification, Lysabild.

No problem at all.

I think I'm going to add a couple more "posting guidelines" in the OP, just as suggestions on how to avoid escalating, rather than defusing, conflict.

I don't think this will help much honestly, I haven't even read the first post. I just go by the common sense of live and let live and don't attack people on the internet.

I would really appreciate it, though, if we could try to talk through the given subjects for a little bit longer, until all of our bad feelings are aired out and we feel we've got a rough consensus (or at least feel good enough to agree to some standards).  I'm not going to post on the subject right now because I'm emotionally exhausted, but I anticipate seeing what everyone has to say =)

Which subject you mean? Right now I think we kind of lost it all by discussing nothing with Andir again.

Spoiler: Not for thread discussion, but a pm might be nice (click to show/hide)

But actually, I'd like if someone could explain me what he says, I read it, I read everything he posted in the thread, and I don't understand him. O_O

Lots of ninja o_o

It'd be cool to discuss that soon, Barbar, but I'd like it if we could keep all other discussion but the thread itself on hold for a little while.

You want to discuss the thread itself then?

It'd be cool to discuss that soon, Barbar, but I'd like it if we could keep all other discussion but the thread itself on hold for a little while.

Righto. I skipped over the bickering on accident and then saw Lysabild's post, assuming we were back on that topic. I'll sit and watch for now.

Miniderail, but it makes me happy for some reason seeing my name in posts xD

[RedKing]

To be honest, comments like this do bother me. As a movement, they may be getting too much attention. However, when you're talking to a particular person who does ascribe to it, you don't assume that they're wrong because you think they're overrepresented, and you don't dismiss them as though they've already been proven wrong. Maybe those arguments have been refuted to you, but obviously the other person here doesn't believe that's the case; if you want to assert that the movement is wrong, that's fair enough, but you're obligated to provide evidence for that conclusion if you want anyone to agree with it. Otherwise, you don't really have much more to discuss.

In other words, you might think their policies shouldn't be implemented because they aren't an accurate reflection of American political will. That's reasonable enough. What isn't, though, is concluding that an individual's arguments have no merit because of that. Any position, no matter how seemingly ridiculous, is either not worth discrediting (in which case don't bother with calling them wrong) or is worth discussing rationally and thoroughly.

For my part, I disagree with this. I don't see the necessity of re-arguing the wheel every time someone new with the same old talking points pops up. Yes, that's not the most enlightened view and it risks stereotyping and creating an echo chamber. I will fully admit that. But the alternative is rehashing the same arguments over and over and over, just because we have to rationally and thoroughly debunk the same tired bullshit time and time again.

But I'll concede to the group consensus and try to rein myself in. Might be better for all concerned if I just ignore certain types of posts, rather than responding aggressively.

[G-Flex]

But the alternative is rehashing the same arguments over and over and over, just because we have to rationally and thoroughly debunk the same tired bullshit time and time again.

This is a good point. To reiterate, my point is basically that whether or not an idea is considered worth rehashing over and over again, and debating seriously, by the general public/media, seems to have absolutely nothing to do with its merits in the first place and more to do with how popular an idea it is. If enough people believe something, its perceived plausibility and acceptability increases dramatically.

[RedKing]

But the alternative is rehashing the same arguments over and over and over, just because we have to rationally and thoroughly debunk the same tired bullshit time and time again.

This is a good point. To reiterate, my point is basically that whether or not an idea is considered worth rehashing over and over again, and debating seriously, by the general public/media, seems to have absolutely nothing to do with its merits in the first place and more to do with how popular an idea it is. If enough people believe something, its perceived plausibility and acceptability increases dramatically.

True. Like when mainstream media outlets were running stories like "Is the President actually a Muslim?". Of course, the problem is that even when fully debunked, the idea didn't die. Hell, STILL hasn't died for some people. To wit, if someone comes into the thread and invokes Obama's purported membership in the Ulema, do we really need to be nice and calmly explain that that's not true for the umpteenth time, do we say "STFU troll", or do we just ignore the person, try not to emote the rolly-eyes, and move on?

[Vector]

The reason to changing certain concrete rules in the OP is that then I have something to point to when someone is acting a way non-conducive to discussion.

Anyway... OP modified, at least in part!

[Bauglir]

I agree that it's frustrating and often ultimately pointless to continually reargue the same things over and over again. You don't have to if you don't want to. You do if you want to convince somebody that they're wrong; you do nothing to prove that, say, Obama is an American by simply insisting that he is. No more than those who believe otherwise do by continually insisting that he isn't. If your side really is the more sensible, it should be the one with the weight of evidence that can be referred to.

That said, when this does become an issue (and yeah, I get that it does, that was a big part of starting that "Unoriginal Ideas" post in the Atheism Redux thread), if you don't want to argue again but still want to point out that someone is wrong, then it's perfectly fine to direct them to a place where their argument has already been debunked. But otherwise, you just need to ignore it.

As for the whole legitimacy thing: I get where you're coming from, but at the same time, it's sort of a self-fulfilling thing. When a significant number of people buy into something, and you can prove it wrong, then it's definitely worth your while to argue reasonably against it. The scope changes the nature of the tactics the problem deserves; in the same way that you wouldn't nuke a lone spear-wielding goblin from orbit, you often don't need to argue convincingly and at great length about whether or not the moon landing is a hoax. An army of such goblins, though, might warrant more effort.

[RedKing]

I agree that it's frustrating and often ultimately pointless to continually reargue the same things over and over again. You don't have to if you don't want to. You do if you want to convince somebody that they're wrong; you do nothing to prove that, say, Obama is an American by simply insisting that he is. No more than those who believe otherwise do by continually insisting that he isn't. If your side really is the more sensible, it should be the one with the weight of evidence that can be referred to.

That said, when this does become an issue (and yeah, I get that it does, that was a big part of starting that "Unoriginal Ideas" post in the Atheism Redux thread), if you don't want to argue again but still want to point out that someone is wrong, then it's perfectly fine to direct them to a place where their argument has already been debunked. But otherwise, you just need to ignore it.

As for the whole legitimacy thing: I get where you're coming from, but at the same time, it's sort of a self-fulfilling thing. When a significant number of people buy into something, and you can prove it wrong, then it's definitely worth your while to argue reasonably against it. The scope changes the nature of the tactics the problem deserves; in the same way that you wouldn't nuke a lone spear-wielding goblin from orbit, you often don't need to argue convincingly and at great length about whether or not the moon landing is a hoax. An army of such goblins, though, might warrant more effort.

This is DF. We use magma nukes on one goblin or an army of goblins pretty much indiscriminately. 
(Sorry, it's a derail but it was too good to pass up.)

I guess I need to learn to use my ignore button more, rather than get drawn into matches of "who can be the snarkier vicious asshole?"
'Cause I'm quite good at being one when riled.

[G-Flex]

if someone comes into the thread and invokes Obama's purported membership in the Ulema, do we really need to be nice and calmly explain that that's not true for the umpteenth time, do we say "STFU troll", or do we just ignore the person, try not to emote the rolly-eyes, and move on?

In the interest of both educating people and not wasting time, this is why I think having boilerplate responses and resources to link to are good ideas. If you can just say "I've heard this a lot, and here is a good response: link", then you can save time without belittling people. Of course, then the person will likely respond, leading to possibly the same dilemma.

As for the whole legitimacy thing: I get where you're coming from, but at the same time, it's sort of a self-fulfilling thing. When a significant number of people buy into something, and you can prove it wrong, then it's definitely worth your while to argue reasonably against it. The scope changes the nature of the tactics the problem deserves; in the same way that you wouldn't nuke a lone spear-wielding goblin from orbit, you often don't need to argue convincingly and at great length about whether or not the moon landing is a hoax. An army of such goblins, though, might warrant more effort.

I agree, but tactics aside: No matter how popular an idea is, how rational (or in some cases, ethical) I'll think someone is for believing in it will largely hinge on its actual merits... but not a lot of people seem to think that way. Of course, I can't say that with any absolute conviction, since an idea being popular can cause people to believe in it who otherwise wouldn't, simply due to social influence.


In other news vaguely related to progressive thought: I reread the OP and noticed that satirical articles are mentioned in general, and that reminds me: Is it just me, or does some of the best non-traditionalist thinking often come from satirists? To me, a truly satirical mind is one capable of a sort of seeing through the spirit of contemporary culture and seeing the absurdity in people, culture, and the world in a way that results in thought that, to me, seems much more timeless. When I read good satire, no matter how old it is, I feel like I understand the person who wrote it and feel a connection to them, even if they lived a thousand years ago in another part of the world. For example, read the introduction to Lucian's True History; it was written nearly 1,900 years ago, but I still get exactly where the guy is coming from. The reason I mention this is that, while satire and satirists are often disregarded as nonserious or inconsequential, I feel that they're actually fairly important to social change, progressive thought, and greater understanding of the culture in which one lives. Concerning Lucian: People remember Herodotus as the "father of history", Pliny's "Natural History", and similar ancient historians, but why don't we remember guys like this calling them out on how abjectly full of shit they were?

[Vector]

In that case, if you're looking for responses, I would highly recommend the GeekFeminist wiki and similar places.

(I'd recommend Shakesville's "feminism 101" series, but I think I'd get shoes thrown through my head =/)

[Bauglir]

@RedKing

You make a convincing argument. Magma for all!

... It really doesn't help that generally, when you get riled, I tend to agree with you and vicariously feel satisfaction through your effective verbal smackdowns. I probably shouldn't, but eh. Anyway, I'm suddenly happy with the direction the conversation has taken, if that means anything.

[Andir]

I think I need to change my signature to:

If you think I'm attacking you or putting words in your mouth, I'm not.  Read anything in parenthesis as a general collection of side-thoughts.  Feel free to respond in correction to those thoughts if needed.  Do not read hatred into them.  Do not assume.

[G-Flex]

I think I need to change my signature to:

If you think I'm attacking you or putting words in your mouth, I'm not.  Read anything in parenthesis as a general collection of side-thoughts.  Feel free to respond in correction to those thoughts if needed.  Do not read hatred into them.  Do not assume.

Honestly, if this is how you want people to respond to your posts, you probably shouldn't jump into threads taking cheap cracks at the OP about "angst".

[Blargityblarg]

I think I need to change my signature to:

If you think I'm attacking you or putting words in your mouth, I'm not.  Read anything in parenthesis as a general collection of side-thoughts.  Feel free to respond in correction to those thoughts if needed.  Do not read hatred into them.  Do not assume.

You could try 'Hear what I retroactively decided I meant to say, not what I said'?