6 ms·

I'm not sure if you're addressing me, OP, Damore, or just yelling into the aether. I certainly haven't said anything TO address regarding the content of Damore

I'm not sure if you're addressing me, OP, Damore, or just yelling into the aether. I certainly haven't said anything TO address regarding the content of Damore's original paper. For the record, I found Damore's reasoning to be terribly flawed. However, I happen to also believe that squashing all public discussion in its wake is foolish, cowardly, and entirely counterproductive from a practical standpoint. If you're afraid to pull bad reasoning out in the open and cleanse it with the sunshine of better reasoning, then it just festers and grows in the shadows.

aaron-lebo 9y ago
My point is that downvoting and flagging a dead horse based off of a months old discussion isn't evidence of cowardice. Maybe there's just not much useful there?
- StevePerkins 9y ago
  The "dead horse" argument is disingenuous, as discussing this subject has been verboten here since it first came out. Besides, come on. Half of this website is dead horses ("Rust vs. Go"... "JavaScript framework X vs. Y"... "Haskell and/or Lisp is awesome"... etc).
pdkl95 9y ago
The problem is you're implicitly assuming this (and other recent "culture war topics" is actually about reasoning and legitimate attempt at debate. It isn't. This is about controlling narratives and reframing offensive goals so they become a legitimate political opinion. Most of these calls for a "debate" are not trying to actually debate anything. They are trying to make enough confusing noise and repeat their talking points as often as possible. For a much better explanation of how this works - and why it's a trap which educated, well meaning, politically-interested people seem to be particularly vulnerable - see this short video essay: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CaPgDQkmqqM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CaPgDQkmqqM
- StevePerkins 9y ago
  The problem is you're implicitly saying that ANY discussion is a pointless waste. As there will always be people on one more sides who see any other views as illegitimate per se. And there will always be people on all sides using "clickbait"-style tactics to sway people who lack critical thinking skills. I refuse to accept this premise. Even if some (or even most) discussion is disingenuous or low-quality, I refuse to believe that anything positive can come from declaring any discussion topic forbidden in the public square.
- ThrowawayR2 9y ago
  > It isn't. That's not something that you may simply unilaterally declare. I don't recall anyone appointing you final judge of what peoples' motivations are. Remember "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."? Authoritarian liberals are trying to grab the authority to dictate what we may and may not discuss and we mainstream liberals must prevent that at all costs, lest we lose the soul of the liberal movement itself.
  - pdkl95 9y ago
    I didn't "simply unilaterally declare" my point - I included a link to a video that provides a much better explanation than I can give in a short post. > appointing you final judge of what peoples' motivations are. I not claiming such authority. I'm a stranger on the side of the road who thought it would be a good idea to offer warn you the bridge you are about to9 drive over is unstable. You have the freedom to heed my warning and find another route, or you can ignore me and drive over the bridge. Maybe it's time to use Bayes' Theorem if you like that kind of inference? > [general appeal to emotion using platitudes about free speech] Is someone's speech being banned? Free speech does not mean you are guaranteed an audience. This is a nice example of the reframing technique I was talking about. Nobody's speech is being restricted, but countering your points would mean arguing about the subtleties of free speech doctrine, instead of what my post was actually about: the current tactic of endlessly calling for "debate" that never actually becomes a debate. No, I don't have a lot of evidence on hand at the moment. All I can offer right now is the conclusions from my firsthand observations of this technique over the last ~20 year. You have the freedom to use this information as you wish.

aaron-lebo 9y ago

My point is that downvoting and flagging a dead horse based off of a months old discussion isn't evidence of cowardice. Maybe there's just not much useful there?

StevePerkins 9y ago
The "dead horse" argument is disingenuous, as discussing this subject has been verboten here since it first came out. Besides, come on. Half of this website is dead horses ("Rust vs. Go"... "JavaScript framework X vs. Y"... "Haskell and/or Lisp is awesome"... etc).

pdkl95 9y ago

The problem is you're implicitly assuming this (and other recent "culture war topics" is actually about reasoning and legitimate attempt at debate. It isn't. This is about controlling narratives and reframing offensive goals so they become a legitimate political opinion. Most of these calls for a "debate" are not trying to actually debate anything. They are trying to make enough confusing noise and repeat their talking points as often as possible. For a much better explanation of how this works - and why it's a trap which educated, well meaning, politically-interested people seem to be particularly vulnerable - see this short video essay: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CaPgDQkmqqM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CaPgDQkmqqM

StevePerkins 9y ago
The problem is you're implicitly saying that ANY discussion is a pointless waste. As there will always be people on one more sides who see any other views as illegitimate per se. And there will always be people on all sides using "clickbait"-style tactics to sway people who lack critical thinking skills. I refuse to accept this premise. Even if some (or even most) discussion is disingenuous or low-quality, I refuse to believe that anything positive can come from declaring any discussion topic forbidden in the public square.
ThrowawayR2 9y ago
> It isn't. That's not something that you may simply unilaterally declare. I don't recall anyone appointing you final judge of what peoples' motivations are. Remember "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."? Authoritarian liberals are trying to grab the authority to dictate what we may and may not discuss and we mainstream liberals must prevent that at all costs, lest we lose the soul of the liberal movement itself.
- pdkl95 9y ago
  I didn't "simply unilaterally declare" my point - I included a link to a video that provides a much better explanation than I can give in a short post. > appointing you final judge of what peoples' motivations are. I not claiming such authority. I'm a stranger on the side of the road who thought it would be a good idea to offer warn you the bridge you are about to9 drive over is unstable. You have the freedom to heed my warning and find another route, or you can ignore me and drive over the bridge. Maybe it's time to use Bayes' Theorem if you like that kind of inference? > [general appeal to emotion using platitudes about free speech] Is someone's speech being banned? Free speech does not mean you are guaranteed an audience. This is a nice example of the reframing technique I was talking about. Nobody's speech is being restricted, but countering your points would mean arguing about the subtleties of free speech doctrine, instead of what my post was actually about: the current tactic of endlessly calling for "debate" that never actually becomes a debate. No, I don't have a lot of evidence on hand at the moment. All I can offer right now is the conclusions from my firsthand observations of this technique over the last ~20 year. You have the freedom to use this information as you wish.