4 ms·

> before you're allowed to respond to someone being wrong, you have to first be able to express their position in a way that they agree represents their view W

> before you're allowed to respond to someone being wrong, you have to first be able to express their position in a way that they agree represents their view While we're at it, let's stipulate that everyone is only allowed to be honest and logical and to base their reasoning on valid premises! :) It's a nice thought, at least at first glance, but it's just not going to happen. Besides, the real problem with debates is actually willful dishonesty. There are vast hordes of sociopaths playing games and overcomplicating things to no end, arguing for positions they don't actually hold, and basically just preventing discussions from ever getting anywhere. The smart ones are like firehoses of sophistry and misdirection, the dumb ones just (fake-)rage and call people names, and I guess somewhere in between you'll find militant feminists and race baiters and people calling for "safe spaces" and whatever nonsense they come up with. Some sociopaths have come up with a fun new game: trying to convince people that the earth is actually flat. Yes, sadly that's actually a thing. Look them up on YouTube or something. But these "people" are the real reason why we can't seem to have a reasonable discussion on anything. Apparently it's enjoyable for them to fuck everything up, and to prevent mankind's progress towards enlightenment as best they can. That seems like self-destructive behaviour, but they do it anyway. A bunch of them will see this post, but not one will sincerely help us understand.

ericjang 11y ago
It's not obvious to me that the militant feminists/race baiters/safe space people are sociopaths bent on willful dishonesty. I think it's reductive to assume they all have bad intentions. I disagree with many of their points of view, but it doesn't mean that they are being dishonest. For all you know, I could be the willfully dishonest one here. But you bring up an interesting point I've been wondering about lately - is the world complicated and full of nuance to be debated ad infinitum? Or is truth actually quite simple, with the source of complexity being only those who would cloud the truth with bias and/or willful dishonesty?
- sukulaku 11y ago
  Your comment made my Spidey-sense tingle, so I looked at your history and found out you "like crime movies/drama for the allure of ruthless power" and work in the financial industry.. You're an interesting case though. Your HN comments are clean - no sophistry or trolling - so I guess you have your fun elsewhere. I've been wondering if there's such a thing as a "benign sociopath", but it's not like I could trust you even if you claimed to be one. I hope so, but so far I'm leaning towards "No".

ericjang 11y ago

It's not obvious to me that the militant feminists/race baiters/safe space people are sociopaths bent on willful dishonesty. I think it's reductive to assume they all have bad intentions. I disagree with many of their points of view, but it doesn't mean that they are being dishonest. For all you know, I could be the willfully dishonest one here. But you bring up an interesting point I've been wondering about lately - is the world complicated and full of nuance to be debated ad infinitum? Or is truth actually quite simple, with the source of complexity being only those who would cloud the truth with bias and/or willful dishonesty?

sukulaku 11y ago
Your comment made my Spidey-sense tingle, so I looked at your history and found out you "like crime movies/drama for the allure of ruthless power" and work in the financial industry.. You're an interesting case though. Your HN comments are clean - no sophistry or trolling - so I guess you have your fun elsewhere. I've been wondering if there's such a thing as a "benign sociopath", but it's not like I could trust you even if you claimed to be one. I hope so, but so far I'm leaning towards "No".