3 ms·

Unfortunately when they realize that their opponents are not constrained by logic and reason, it seems to have the effect of convincing the other side to no lon

Unfortunately when they realize that their opponents are not constrained by logic and reason, it seems to have the effect of convincing the other side to no longer bother with it either. The left has their own set of "religious" reasoning. It's important that we make the debate about logic and reality vs magical thinking and emotional reasoning. Not only does "us vs. them" just set people off, it really only shuffles the problem around a bit rather than solving it.

hackuser 10y ago
> The left has their own set of "religious" reasoning. I strongly disagree with the argument that it's all the same, both sides are the same, etc. It's like saying that everyone is a liar, therefore they all are equally dishonest. Or that all software has bugs, therefore it's all equally flawed. In fact, 'it's all the same' is the refuge of liars (not the parent, to be 100% clear) - 'we all lie, right?' - and a well-known, well-practiced tactic of propagandists - their purpose isn't to persuade, but to make truth indistinguishable from lies. It's not the same at all. There is a serious problem on the right.
- taeric 10y ago
  Worse, I now agree that my complacency with this argument has been a large part of worsening things. :( It sucks right now to finally be speaking up and having folks just assume I somewhat agreed with them in the past. No. I just didn't realize how misguided you were. All people are highly likely to make mistakes. This does not excuse the brazen bullshit we have gotten from the right.
- int_19h 10y ago
  The statement that you quoted does not claim, or imply, that it's all the same. It merely says that the left has its own sacred cows that aren't entirely objective and based on facts - which is correct. But there's a difference in the number of such cows, and just how much rejection of reality is involved in maintaining them.
  - hackuser 10y ago
    > The statement that you quoted does not claim, or imply, that it's all the same. Fair point, and it crossed my mind when I wrote my GP comment. I disagree with your statement but I can't disprove it and any comment's implications are in the eye of the beholder, to a degree. But I still think the implication I took is a reasonable one, and I did write carefully so as address an argument made by many, even if not by the GGP: > I strongly disagree with the argument that it's all the same [emphasis added]

hackuser 10y ago

> The left has their own set of "religious" reasoning. I strongly disagree with the argument that it's all the same, both sides are the same, etc. It's like saying that everyone is a liar, therefore they all are equally dishonest. Or that all software has bugs, therefore it's all equally flawed. In fact, 'it's all the same' is the refuge of liars (not the parent, to be 100% clear) - 'we all lie, right?' - and a well-known, well-practiced tactic of propagandists - their purpose isn't to persuade, but to make truth indistinguishable from lies. It's not the same at all. There is a serious problem on the right.

taeric 10y ago
Worse, I now agree that my complacency with this argument has been a large part of worsening things. :( It sucks right now to finally be speaking up and having folks just assume I somewhat agreed with them in the past. No. I just didn't realize how misguided you were. All people are highly likely to make mistakes. This does not excuse the brazen bullshit we have gotten from the right.
int_19h 10y ago
The statement that you quoted does not claim, or imply, that it's all the same. It merely says that the left has its own sacred cows that aren't entirely objective and based on facts - which is correct. But there's a difference in the number of such cows, and just how much rejection of reality is involved in maintaining them.
- hackuser 10y ago
  > The statement that you quoted does not claim, or imply, that it's all the same. Fair point, and it crossed my mind when I wrote my GP comment. I disagree with your statement but I can't disprove it and any comment's implications are in the eye of the beholder, to a degree. But I still think the implication I took is a reasonable one, and I did write carefully so as address an argument made by many, even if not by the GGP: > I strongly disagree with the argument that it's all the same [emphasis added]