4 ms·

One prerequisite to having those sorts of meaningful exploratory discussions is trust between the participants. When I was a member of my college's debate team,

by eduren 9y ago

One prerequisite to having those sorts of meaningful exploratory discussions is trust between the participants. When I was a member of my college's debate team, there were plenty of times I had to not only explore distasteful viewpoints, but also defend them. But because all participants (debaters, judges, audience) were participating in a structured activity there was less fear that my words would be tied to my worldview. But in general social contexts, there are vastly different rules. When it comes to dealing with possibly distasteful words or actions, then the safest assumption is that the speaker means what he says (walks like a duck...) Now, whether that has always been as apparent, I can't say. I didn't live in the golden years before the internet. But I don't like the automatic assumption that "these days" are somehow incapable of fostering well-intentioned rhetoric.

kbenson 9y ago
I would say another prerequisite is allowing that you might have misinterpreted the other party, and exploring what they said that you disagree with before assuming you know all the details of their stance, or whether what you think is their position is actually their position. That's what confused me about the following, if I'm interpreting it correctly: > But in general social contexts, there are vastly different rules. When it comes to dealing with possibly distasteful words or actions, then the safest assumption is that the speaker means what he says (walks like a duck...) I would say the safest assumption is to assume as little as possible initially, and try to dig out the details. Assuming they mean what they say is always problematic because you are assuming they mean what you interpreted them as saying, when in reality they may mean what they intended to express. And lest someone say that's uncommon, I find that it's at least in part true of the vast majority of positions I don't agree with here when solicit more details from the other party. Edit: Cleaned up for clarity
- dcow 9y ago
  Exactly this. I prefer to "assume no evil" because in my experience, at large, humans are not trying to be assholes to each other and genuinely want what's best for everyone. Or at least it's pretty depressing to operate under the oppossing worldview. After gaining more context then fine, declare evil where it does exist, but don't assume such off the bat.
- pdpi 9y ago
  Safest doesn't mean likeliest to lead to clarity and/or agreement. If I were a black man and saw a guy spewing what seems like inflammatory racist drivel, asking probing questions to better understand his position and clear up misunderstandings is all well and good, but I'd feel much safer hightailing out of there.
  - the8472 9y ago
    And there would be nothing wrong with hightailing it out of there. On the other hand calling for the potentially racist drivel or potentially devil's advocate debater to be shut down because you were feeling unsafe and didn't want to try better understand his position and thus it would be better for everyone if he didn't talk at all and thus everyone could feel safer... well... that seems to be some kind of goal displacement error. It's elevating the heuristic of feeling safe over the actual outcome of avoiding real harmful events.
- eduren 9y ago
  Thanks for responding, I think I get what you're saying. >I would say the safest assumption is to assume as little as possible initially, and try to dig out the details Just to clarify, when I said safest assumption I actually meant in the context of personal safety (not trying to spread FUD, just acknowledging we live in uncertain times). I would characterize your assumption as the fairest because it avoids misunderstanding and makes sure all participants get to fully articulate what they believe. While fair discourse ought to be the bedrock of a just society, it might not always be irrational to take people at their word.
  - kbenson 9y ago
    That's true, I was still looking at it from the perspective of a safe setting (such as an internet comment). In physical contexts, my strategy is a bit more nuanced, in that I'll assume I may have misinterpreted[1], but make certain decisions as to involvement with the assumption I interpreted correctly. In other words, I'll choose to disassociate myself from situations where I feel danger. What I endeavor to do after situations like that is to not assume I was correct (without further evidence) and use that in future decisions. That is, I try not to say or think "the guy driving in front of me was drunk so I made sure not to drive close to him" but instead "the guy driving in front of me was swerving a lot and it appeared he might be drunk, so I made sure not to drive close to him." To some it seems like a small difference, but keeping your assumptions classified as assumptions in your head can be hard. 1: Of course this is with respect to how possible it is to misinterpret. "Kill the Jews!" is unlikely to result in a different interpretation on examination that results in a different action on your part.
- brightball 9y ago
  Yep. That's why labeling is one of the most active tactics in political marketing. If you CREATE a definition for a subset of view points and pound it into the general public enough, if a person hears a piece of it from somebody they'll tend to assume the entire label. This is how people end up arguing with things that other people have never said. They're arguing with the label, not the person.
indubitable 9y ago
What does it matter if somebody genuinely holds heinous views? So long as they are willing to discuss things logically, cool-headedly, and coherently --- I'd be happy to discuss anything with anybody. In making this distinction, it seems you are implicitly providing evidence of argument you're replying against. Today there is an increasing tendency of labeling people a certain way and then using that as a justification to completely avoid any and all discussion. I wish people could imagine others doing this in a similar situation. For instance in most Mideastern nations apostasy and heresy/blasphemy are still crimes. In a number of nations they're among the most grievous of crimes imaginable, carrying the death penalty. And the majority of people support this. Can you imagine how ridiculous it is that many of these people would thusly refuse to even consider discussing the possibility that these acts ought not be criminalized, if they felt the person discussing it genuinely believed that? After all the person suggesting such thing must be some sort of subhuman deviant incapable of basic moral and ethical comprehension. We're doing the exact same thing. And the only reason it seems less ridiculous is because of our cultural values. To believe that all of our beliefs that are taboo to go against are somehow objectively true and just is, in my opinion, the height of arrogance. Even if, somehow, it is true - it certainly will not always be. And we risk ending up in this same sort of silly cycle these countries are left in where religion holds them back, yet it is simultaneously impossible for them to ever actually discuss such a thing as words would be met with sticks and stones. And that behavior is something that I think, more than any other, is the epitome of cultural regression.
- throwaway613834 9y ago
  > What does it matter if somebody genuinely holds heinous views? So long as they are willing to discuss things logically, cool-headedly, and coherently --- I'd be happy to discuss anything with anybody. Sadly that's not how the world works. People end up on lists for discussing "anything" or having "any" heinous views, and sometimes have their lives via this. And so far as I can see, the vast majority are okay with this.
- pjc50 9y ago
  > What does it matter if somebody genuinely holds heinous views? "I think you should be murdered. Don't worry, that's just my opinion. But I'll be voting for the 'murder people like you' candidate at the midterms. Do you like my 'Death To The Inferior' lawn sign?" (OK, so that's the extreme version, but "I think you should be denied a particular kind of medical treatment even if it results in your death" is practically mainstream policy, as is "some kinds of humans are intrinsically inferior" and "people should be deported to countries which will murder them") Edit: I literally tabbed out to twitter and found another example immediately, https://stv.tv/news/international/1399390-model-targeted-by-rape-threats-after-posing-with-hairy-legs/ https://stv.tv/news/international/1399390-model-targeted-by-...
jshevek 9y ago
While trust can be helpful, I don't see that trust is in any way a "prerequisite." One can apply the principle of charity, without developing trust with another. One can strive for objectivity, without trust. One can allow that they might be wrong, without trust. One can be aware of their biological responses to their own thoughts and feelings, and the consequences these have, without trusting another. Edit: Trust may (?) be a sufficient condition, but is not a necessary condition.

by eduren 9y ago

kbenson 9y ago

I would say another prerequisite is allowing that you might have misinterpreted the other party, and exploring what they said that you disagree with before assuming you know all the details of their stance, or whether what you think is their position is actually their position. That's what confused me about the following, if I'm interpreting it correctly: > But in general social contexts, there are vastly different rules. When it comes to dealing with possibly distasteful words or actions, then the safest assumption is that the speaker means what he says (walks like a duck...) I would say the safest assumption is to assume as little as possible initially, and try to dig out the details. Assuming they mean what they say is always problematic because you are assuming they mean what you interpreted them as saying, when in reality they may mean what they intended to express. And lest someone say that's uncommon, I find that it's at least in part true of the vast majority of positions I don't agree with here when solicit more details from the other party. Edit: Cleaned up for clarity

dcow 9y ago
Exactly this. I prefer to "assume no evil" because in my experience, at large, humans are not trying to be assholes to each other and genuinely want what's best for everyone. Or at least it's pretty depressing to operate under the oppossing worldview. After gaining more context then fine, declare evil where it does exist, but don't assume such off the bat.
pdpi 9y ago
Safest doesn't mean likeliest to lead to clarity and/or agreement. If I were a black man and saw a guy spewing what seems like inflammatory racist drivel, asking probing questions to better understand his position and clear up misunderstandings is all well and good, but I'd feel much safer hightailing out of there.
- the8472 9y ago
  And there would be nothing wrong with hightailing it out of there. On the other hand calling for the potentially racist drivel or potentially devil's advocate debater to be shut down because you were feeling unsafe and didn't want to try better understand his position and thus it would be better for everyone if he didn't talk at all and thus everyone could feel safer... well... that seems to be some kind of goal displacement error. It's elevating the heuristic of feeling safe over the actual outcome of avoiding real harmful events.
eduren 9y ago
Thanks for responding, I think I get what you're saying. >I would say the safest assumption is to assume as little as possible initially, and try to dig out the details Just to clarify, when I said safest assumption I actually meant in the context of personal safety (not trying to spread FUD, just acknowledging we live in uncertain times). I would characterize your assumption as the fairest because it avoids misunderstanding and makes sure all participants get to fully articulate what they believe. While fair discourse ought to be the bedrock of a just society, it might not always be irrational to take people at their word.
- kbenson 9y ago
  That's true, I was still looking at it from the perspective of a safe setting (such as an internet comment). In physical contexts, my strategy is a bit more nuanced, in that I'll assume I may have misinterpreted[1], but make certain decisions as to involvement with the assumption I interpreted correctly. In other words, I'll choose to disassociate myself from situations where I feel danger. What I endeavor to do after situations like that is to not assume I was correct (without further evidence) and use that in future decisions. That is, I try not to say or think "the guy driving in front of me was drunk so I made sure not to drive close to him" but instead "the guy driving in front of me was swerving a lot and it appeared he might be drunk, so I made sure not to drive close to him." To some it seems like a small difference, but keeping your assumptions classified as assumptions in your head can be hard. 1: Of course this is with respect to how possible it is to misinterpret. "Kill the Jews!" is unlikely to result in a different interpretation on examination that results in a different action on your part.
brightball 9y ago
Yep. That's why labeling is one of the most active tactics in political marketing. If you CREATE a definition for a subset of view points and pound it into the general public enough, if a person hears a piece of it from somebody they'll tend to assume the entire label. This is how people end up arguing with things that other people have never said. They're arguing with the label, not the person.

indubitable 9y ago

What does it matter if somebody genuinely holds heinous views? So long as they are willing to discuss things logically, cool-headedly, and coherently --- I'd be happy to discuss anything with anybody. In making this distinction, it seems you are implicitly providing evidence of argument you're replying against. Today there is an increasing tendency of labeling people a certain way and then using that as a justification to completely avoid any and all discussion. I wish people could imagine others doing this in a similar situation. For instance in most Mideastern nations apostasy and heresy/blasphemy are still crimes. In a number of nations they're among the most grievous of crimes imaginable, carrying the death penalty. And the majority of people support this. Can you imagine how ridiculous it is that many of these people would thusly refuse to even consider discussing the possibility that these acts ought not be criminalized, if they felt the person discussing it genuinely believed that? After all the person suggesting such thing must be some sort of subhuman deviant incapable of basic moral and ethical comprehension. We're doing the exact same thing. And the only reason it seems less ridiculous is because of our cultural values. To believe that all of our beliefs that are taboo to go against are somehow objectively true and just is, in my opinion, the height of arrogance. Even if, somehow, it is true - it certainly will not always be. And we risk ending up in this same sort of silly cycle these countries are left in where religion holds them back, yet it is simultaneously impossible for them to ever actually discuss such a thing as words would be met with sticks and stones. And that behavior is something that I think, more than any other, is the epitome of cultural regression.

throwaway613834 9y ago
> What does it matter if somebody genuinely holds heinous views? So long as they are willing to discuss things logically, cool-headedly, and coherently --- I'd be happy to discuss anything with anybody. Sadly that's not how the world works. People end up on lists for discussing "anything" or having "any" heinous views, and sometimes have their lives via this. And so far as I can see, the vast majority are okay with this.
pjc50 9y ago
> What does it matter if somebody genuinely holds heinous views? "I think you should be murdered. Don't worry, that's just my opinion. But I'll be voting for the 'murder people like you' candidate at the midterms. Do you like my 'Death To The Inferior' lawn sign?" (OK, so that's the extreme version, but "I think you should be denied a particular kind of medical treatment even if it results in your death" is practically mainstream policy, as is "some kinds of humans are intrinsically inferior" and "people should be deported to countries which will murder them") Edit: I literally tabbed out to twitter and found another example immediately, https://stv.tv/news/international/1399390-model-targeted-by-rape-threats-after-posing-with-hairy-legs/ https://stv.tv/news/international/1399390-model-targeted-by-...

jshevek 9y ago

While trust can be helpful, I don't see that trust is in any way a "prerequisite." One can apply the principle of charity, without developing trust with another. One can strive for objectivity, without trust. One can allow that they might be wrong, without trust. One can be aware of their biological responses to their own thoughts and feelings, and the consequences these have, without trusting another. Edit: Trust may (?) be a sufficient condition, but is not a necessary condition.