5 ms·

I had a discussion yesterday at Thanksgiving with my brother-in-law, who is a closet Trump supporter. The reason I don't think Accord will NOT go well: when yo

by e40 10y ago

I had a discussion yesterday at Thanksgiving with my brother-in-law, who is a closet Trump supporter. The reason I don't think Accord will NOT go well: when you discuss things with people for whom facts do not matter, you either get steamrolled or it turns into a yelling match/argument. Very, very, very few people that hold untrue facts in their mind are open to re-evaluating those facts. No thank you. EDIT: added the word "NOT" above.

sweezyjeezy 10y ago
re: your edit - don't think it will not go well...
hx87 10y ago
"The reason I don't think Accord will NOT go well" = "The reason I think the Accord will go well" Your statement made more sense before the edit.
- e40 10y ago
  Yep, thanks.
philovivero 10y ago
Ah, yes, those Trump supporters with their "untrue facts" in their heads. Discussions won't work. Re-education camp is probably called for. Or maybe... just maybe... you're the one with untrue facts in your head, and his true facts collide with your untrue ones? Unpossible!
- SomeStupidPoint 10y ago
  I don't think the GP meant a one-sided generalization at all, and your comment reads as a needless partisan dig. The charitable way to read the comment is that a particular person he talked to was unconcerned by facts, and that this is a common problem with heated/divisive discussions. (This jives with my experience that most people don't care what's true, they just want to make socially approved noises.)
- Sir_Cmpwn 10y ago
  Gave you an upvote to help you out of the grey. You didn't state it so eloquently but it's an important point: e40 is making the ridiculous assumption that those who hold a different opinion from him do so for uneducated and unconcievable reasons. He's exactly the sort of person who needs to make this phone call. I hope that comment doesn't stay on top for too long.
- intended 10y ago
  Missed the point entirely. It doesn't matter if it's trump. Or Hillary. Or global warming or vaccines or JS or Modi or Putin or any number of things. Most human beings don't tend to change their opinions when directly engaging in discussions. The only people who change their positions are people actively trying to change their views. The real trick to changing an opinions is to stop trying and start listening. That's anathema to most people.
  - slededit 10y ago
    Wouldn't calling into a service explicitly advertised as a way to talk to someone who disagrees self select people more open to discussion?
    - vidarh 10y ago
      "Open to discussion" doesn't mean they'll be more amenable to change their views.
- e40 10y ago
  Yeah, sure, that's possible. You don't know me. I presume you've seen countless interviews with Trump supporters, like I have, where they are given objective truths ("you know Trump said X" for which there is an unedited video of him saying X) and still don't believe them? Because if I held a belief and someone showed me a video like that, I'd question my belief.
seanwilson 10y ago
"You cannot reason people out of a position that they did not reason themselves into" is a good quote to keep in mind.
fanzhang 10y ago
More neutrally, maybe you mean "two people who disagree about the facts won't have a meaningful conversation". To that extent I wholeheartedly agree. If you can't even agree on the base data, how can you build a conclusion?
- gnode 10y ago
  But what is a fact, other than a conclusion that appears obvious? The logic by which people have decided what they regard as factual data, upon which they base their arguments, can itself be debated.
imaginenore 10y ago
My typical argument about Brexit with the leftists goes like this: ME: British are against the muslim immigration because large percentage of muslims hold these undemocratic antiwestern beliefs: A, B, C, D, and they don't assimilate. THEM: You're a racist / bigot. Shame! Shame! Shame!
- EliRivers 10y ago
  Are you using the US meaning of "leftist" here? The British meaning is a bit different, but you seem to be using the US meaning in a British context.
  - imaginenore 10y ago
    Yeah, you're correct.
- switch007 10y ago
  How would the perfect argument go? I'm thinking of the 2nd person asking questions about the first argument, asking for evidence, facts, definitions etc, in an attempt to understand. I ask as a British citizen who has failed at all attempts to try to understand the other side (and I could take blame of course. I still seek a solution)
  - imaginenore 10y ago
    Well, I don't even consider calling names an argument. It's a cop-out, and it usually shows they have nothing else to counter with. A perfect argument would indeed require both sides to show the evidence, to use logical constructs, to refute the opposing ideas. And some definitely try.
- veddox 10y ago
  Politics per se shouldn't be discussed on HN (https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html). However, I agree with you that all elements of the political spectrum are engaging in some pretty heavy name calling these days. One reason why Accord's project is so important.
veddox 10y ago
Ideally, the point of such a discussion should not be to persuade the other person, nor to be persuaded oneself, but to gain a deeper understanding and respect of the other's position. I think the website makes it clear that this is for people who are willing to listen to each other. Once that mutual willingness is there, I believe a discussion like this can be very profitable. (Actually, I do not only believe so, I know so from many personal experiences.) Of course you are going to have some bad apples in the lineup who are going to start nasty arguments, but I think the presentation of the website is such that these should be kept to a minimum. A big thank you to the Accord team from me - in a political age defined increasingly by the demonization of other political/social opinions (something all sides engage in), we desperately need more polite, levelheaded discussions.

by e40 10y ago

sweezyjeezy 10y ago

re: your edit - don't think it will not go well...

hx87 10y ago

"The reason I don't think Accord will NOT go well" = "The reason I think the Accord will go well" Your statement made more sense before the edit.

e40 10y ago
Yep, thanks.

philovivero 10y ago

Ah, yes, those Trump supporters with their "untrue facts" in their heads. Discussions won't work. Re-education camp is probably called for. Or maybe... just maybe... you're the one with untrue facts in your head, and his true facts collide with your untrue ones? Unpossible!

SomeStupidPoint 10y ago
I don't think the GP meant a one-sided generalization at all, and your comment reads as a needless partisan dig. The charitable way to read the comment is that a particular person he talked to was unconcerned by facts, and that this is a common problem with heated/divisive discussions. (This jives with my experience that most people don't care what's true, they just want to make socially approved noises.)
Sir_Cmpwn 10y ago
Gave you an upvote to help you out of the grey. You didn't state it so eloquently but it's an important point: e40 is making the ridiculous assumption that those who hold a different opinion from him do so for uneducated and unconcievable reasons. He's exactly the sort of person who needs to make this phone call. I hope that comment doesn't stay on top for too long.
intended 10y ago
Missed the point entirely. It doesn't matter if it's trump. Or Hillary. Or global warming or vaccines or JS or Modi or Putin or any number of things. Most human beings don't tend to change their opinions when directly engaging in discussions. The only people who change their positions are people actively trying to change their views. The real trick to changing an opinions is to stop trying and start listening. That's anathema to most people.
- slededit 10y ago
  Wouldn't calling into a service explicitly advertised as a way to talk to someone who disagrees self select people more open to discussion?
  - vidarh 10y ago
    "Open to discussion" doesn't mean they'll be more amenable to change their views.
e40 10y ago
Yeah, sure, that's possible. You don't know me. I presume you've seen countless interviews with Trump supporters, like I have, where they are given objective truths ("you know Trump said X" for which there is an unedited video of him saying X) and still don't believe them? Because if I held a belief and someone showed me a video like that, I'd question my belief.

seanwilson 10y ago

"You cannot reason people out of a position that they did not reason themselves into" is a good quote to keep in mind.

fanzhang 10y ago

More neutrally, maybe you mean "two people who disagree about the facts won't have a meaningful conversation". To that extent I wholeheartedly agree. If you can't even agree on the base data, how can you build a conclusion?

gnode 10y ago
But what is a fact, other than a conclusion that appears obvious? The logic by which people have decided what they regard as factual data, upon which they base their arguments, can itself be debated.

imaginenore 10y ago

My typical argument about Brexit with the leftists goes like this: ME: British are against the muslim immigration because large percentage of muslims hold these undemocratic antiwestern beliefs: A, B, C, D, and they don't assimilate. THEM: You're a racist / bigot. Shame! Shame! Shame!

EliRivers 10y ago
Are you using the US meaning of "leftist" here? The British meaning is a bit different, but you seem to be using the US meaning in a British context.
- imaginenore 10y ago
  Yeah, you're correct.
switch007 10y ago
How would the perfect argument go? I'm thinking of the 2nd person asking questions about the first argument, asking for evidence, facts, definitions etc, in an attempt to understand. I ask as a British citizen who has failed at all attempts to try to understand the other side (and I could take blame of course. I still seek a solution)
- imaginenore 10y ago
  Well, I don't even consider calling names an argument. It's a cop-out, and it usually shows they have nothing else to counter with. A perfect argument would indeed require both sides to show the evidence, to use logical constructs, to refute the opposing ideas. And some definitely try.
veddox 10y ago
Politics per se shouldn't be discussed on HN (https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html). However, I agree with you that all elements of the political spectrum are engaging in some pretty heavy name calling these days. One reason why Accord's project is so important.

veddox 10y ago

Ideally, the point of such a discussion should not be to persuade the other person, nor to be persuaded oneself, but to gain a deeper understanding and respect of the other's position. I think the website makes it clear that this is for people who are willing to listen to each other. Once that mutual willingness is there, I believe a discussion like this can be very profitable. (Actually, I do not only believe so, I know so from many personal experiences.) Of course you are going to have some bad apples in the lineup who are going to start nasty arguments, but I think the presentation of the website is such that these should be kept to a minimum. A big thank you to the Accord team from me - in a political age defined increasingly by the demonization of other political/social opinions (something all sides engage in), we desperately need more polite, levelheaded discussions.