TPOI and Triggers

[krinndnz]

What breaks the game?

There are certain things you can say in a conversation that bring matters to a dead halt, force a re-evaluation of everything that's already been said, and generally make people want to walk out on the discussion. It's easy to think of things that shake up discourse like that - but why them?

I said one of those things

Comments

[krinndnz]

I don't remember ever hearing #1.

[krinndnz]

So, basically what kickachupacabra said. I can dig it. Tryin' to not go there, really. What about Rule #34 ?

[hemlock_martini]

I've often wondered how much of my worldview is just my parents', updated and buffed to a shiny polish. I don't think they'd approve of my H+ endgame cheerleading, though.

And I have a difficult time imagining debate with a hardcore fundie or a blindfolded Bushite--I would welcome said debate if I for a moment believed that it would do any good at all for either of us. I'd be completely open to accepting their POV's if they weren't built on what I believe to be superstition and lies. Would it really benefit a Newtonian physicist to chat with someone who believes themselves to be hovering in midair because the fairies keep them aloft?

As for the conversation you linked to, it appears that you responded pretty well to the initial salvo and rather than respond to you, they decided to call you names. JUDGMENT: both posters are assbadgers and their mothers dress them funny. Thus I decree.

[krinndnz]

I took the time to look at the public parts of both of their journals, though, and they both seem to be reasonable enough people. That's part of why there's this bit of soul-searching - in another context, I think it's pretty likely we'd have gotten along famously (of course, I just reread "Red Son" so there's a little irony on that) - but I say "Chomsky!" and suddenly everything grinds to a halt.

As for doing good to either of us - the good I want it to do is understanding why people believe what they believe. Engaging the beliefs directly if you have a huge divergence in underlying axioms is, you're right, spectacularly unproductive. People generally recognize that. That's why you have to switch to arguing about axioms, which is a sticky business. I think - this shouldn't be too hard - that everyone considers themselves to have solid, well-grounded beliefs that are based on a sober look at reality. On the other hand, there's a huge divergence of human belief. So why is there a difference? I want to attain some insight into

[prickvixen]

I've found a whole lot... okay, pretty much all the people who deride Chomsky haven't actually read him.

You've got the major subset of people who claim he denies Khmer Rouge atrocities, based upon a book he co-authored which compared coverage of the Cambodian atrocities with known information about them, in the context of a larger exploration of the media. These people haven't actually read the book; Chomsky has nothing to say about whether the atrocities took place or not, or even whether the known information was accurate... just that the information provided in news reports didn't correspond to data from anyone who was in a position to have an accurate picture of the situation on the ground, such as intelligence services, or even the experts some news reports cited. And Chomsky and Edward Herman drew conclusions about the media and its coverage, based upon this discrepancy, but the conclusions did not pass judgment regarding what was or wasn't actually happening in Cambodia

[krinndnz]

Hey, I didn't know all of that - thank you.

I have to confess to much more skimming and listening to recordings of Chomsky than actual reading. What you point out, though, is what I find compelling about Chomsky's theories: that they explain, without requiring conspiracy theories, shadowy cabals, or leprechauns, observable events in the world. I tried to mention those points a couple of times in the thread - that the Democrats are also full of flaws and that no conspiracy theories are required to explain the behavior that's going on, just selfish decisions piling up. That's what I think the evidence indicates about the WTC/Pentagon attacks and Pearl Harbor, for instance - not that it was an inside job or perpetrated with the direct aid of the government, but that people making self-interested decisions blinded themselves to the evidence about what was likely to happen, with disastrous results.

[circuit_four]

They are thinking purely in categories. However intelligent and richly minded they may be in other contexts, currently they are frightened, screeching chimpanzees who merely recognize Not My Tribe. See Mark Twain's old line about the cat on the stovetop. There's really no point in talking to anybody who's going to debate that way. They might as well have said that other classic of patronizing anti-discussion, "Educate yourself!"

[krinndnz]

Hey, glad to hear from you - I particularly wanted your perspective on this. Where do you draw that "really no point in talking to them" line? I'm sure you, they, and I agree that one really can't afford to spend the time it takes to engage with the Differently Be-Axiom'd every time, but how about monthly? How about annually? You, I know, recognize the value in every so often taking on a challenge to one's worldview.

My old line to contribute here is the bit about - "The particular evil of silencing the expression of opinion is that it is robbing the human race, posterity as well as the existing generation - those who dissent as well as hold the opinion. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity to exchange error for truth, if wrong they loose what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth produced by its collision with error."
This isn't a situation about censorship, obviously, but rather about self-censorship and silencing the listening of opinion, if you take my

[circuit_four]

The smartassed answer is "When they've told you they don't care, can't listen, and won't think based on a two-word description of yourself, that's a pretty good time to shake your head and walk away." :) But more seriously, it's a subjective thing. It's a mitzvah to patiently approach these people for sure, and I respect you madly for still being unjaded enough to do it. I draw that "you're not worth it" line very, very broadly and quickly these days, though I Was Once Like You, Young OneTMI'd say when it feels like a chore rather than a spiritual joy, give up on that person, but YMMV. Because then you're gonna start losing your lateral thinking skills, as the frustration builds and the Monkey Training kicks in, and you'll be less effective. But maybe I'm projecting my own failure to engage

[krinndnz]

Thank you very much for this input. The other Buddhist theological concept that I find helpful here is the idea of " idiot compassion."

I should just re-emphasize that I love to get into arguing axioms when there's time and room for it. Usually there is not, which makes other approaches - like walking away - much better ideas.

[rabitguy]

I am very much in the same way about finding what makes people who disagree with me tick, but I think you're much too polite. I tend to be a lot more contemptuous when I debate in political discussions because I see it as a way to break through all the muddiness of typical political discussions that ultimately is nothing more than verbal masturbation that leads nowhere. Especially when you are speaking a completely different language from the people you are trying to convince. Simplicity is the key, and formulating your argument using language that is clear and universal is how to achieve it. Use their own rhetoric to force them to question their own use of language. It's not that hard when you have truth and reality on your side. If it's a lie, call it what it is

[krinndnz]

Well, it's definitely possible to be too polite, but I like to think it has a point. People dig their heels in when you argue with them about any topic and I don't think there's much reason to start shouting and get them even more defensive. This is distinct from activism, say, where what's sometimes called politeness is often halfheartedness - which is what I think you mean to criticize (and certainly I'm heartfelt when I recite the prayer to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable).

There's already a huge tribal rift between me and Greenspan-esque Rand admirers - using contempt, I think, ensures that the tribal sniping and not the merits of the argument will come forward. Of course, there's often enough of a rift that the argument will stay deadlocked, but I can deal with that. If someone can be persuaded to my way of thinking, that's great - and eclipses the need to figure out what their axioms are. If, on the other hand, they roll up and say things that amount to "I'll never agree with you!" the way terpsichoros did, it's a

[kickachupacabra]

All internet debate devolves into 4chan after long enough, in the case the thread at hand, not long at all. This is why I refer to 4chan as the internet raw. At least 4chan is honest about what it is; these people seem to think they are the height of academic debate, which they clearly are not. In short: fuck those guys.

As for the OP, I kinda buy his general thesis (fuck electability) though it is only a symptom of much larger problems. However, I cannot abide by anymore cheap shots at AL Gore. Al Gore is, as far as I'm concerned, eight feet tall, as strong as the world, and taught William Wallace how to shoot lightening bolts out his arse. Fuck everyone who says different.

[krinndnz]

Yeah, theferrett's place is kind of a den of Rand advocates, but he's a reasonably interesting centrist. I wish I'd been clearer about agreeing with the "fuck 'electable,' vote for the one you care about" topic. I kind of exploded there.

Al Gore does not sleep - he waits.

[prickvixen]

Oh, you mean like Cthulhu!