3 ms·

You may be right, but by making a polarized response to a comment claiming its a complicated issue with polarized sides... Its hard to take away much.

MBCook 11y ago
So there is an interesting question. In a polarized situation where there are two sides presenting themselves as victims of the other... how could show one side is ACTUALLY right and one is wrong (assuming reasonable evidence) without sounding partisan? Wouldn't anything that bolstered one side and defamed the other look very partisan? Wouldn't stronger evidence look MORE partisan? Would you have to slowly dish out the evidence over time to turn the tide without setting off people's 'partisan hack' sensors in any single discussion? Could you evidence end up making things MORE partisan and doing the opposite of what you intend?
- striking 11y ago
  Um, okay. Here's a paper that did a study based on gendered behavior in Halo 3. http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0131613 http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.... (tl;dr: there is male hostility towards women in online video games) No one's stopping you from posting evidence and discussing it, of course. In a debate with sides this polarized, you will sound partisan whenever you use any kind of evidence. I try fairly hard to combat that fact when I present evidence, although I honestly don't know all the facts and thus can't represent them all fairly. But then again, that's why I participate in discussions online. To learn.
  - MBCook 11y ago
    I remember seeing that. I meant my comment in the abstract, outside of this issue. I seem to remember On The Media (or something else) discussing something like this. I think there was a study that at a certain point any evidence tends to reinforce people in their position even if it's backwards (i.e. your proof I'm wrong convinces me I'm right). It's not like we haven't seen a number of topics get wedged in this permanent 'stuck' state even when we have objective proof. They become politicized and truth no longer works on the discussion.

MBCook 11y ago

So there is an interesting question. In a polarized situation where there are two sides presenting themselves as victims of the other... how could show one side is ACTUALLY right and one is wrong (assuming reasonable evidence) without sounding partisan? Wouldn't anything that bolstered one side and defamed the other look very partisan? Wouldn't stronger evidence look MORE partisan? Would you have to slowly dish out the evidence over time to turn the tide without setting off people's 'partisan hack' sensors in any single discussion? Could you evidence end up making things MORE partisan and doing the opposite of what you intend?

striking 11y ago
Um, okay. Here's a paper that did a study based on gendered behavior in Halo 3. http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0131613 http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.... (tl;dr: there is male hostility towards women in online video games) No one's stopping you from posting evidence and discussing it, of course. In a debate with sides this polarized, you will sound partisan whenever you use any kind of evidence. I try fairly hard to combat that fact when I present evidence, although I honestly don't know all the facts and thus can't represent them all fairly. But then again, that's why I participate in discussions online. To learn.
- MBCook 11y ago
  I remember seeing that. I meant my comment in the abstract, outside of this issue. I seem to remember On The Media (or something else) discussing something like this. I think there was a study that at a certain point any evidence tends to reinforce people in their position even if it's backwards (i.e. your proof I'm wrong convinces me I'm right). It's not like we haven't seen a number of topics get wedged in this permanent 'stuck' state even when we have objective proof. They become politicized and truth no longer works on the discussion.