4 ms·

You are literally part of the phenomena described. This, "I'm right, you're wrong, this is the only lens to look at this through" positioning is really bad. I

by eksu 9y ago

You are literally part of the phenomena described. This, "I'm right, you're wrong, this is the only lens to look at this through" positioning is really bad. In Policy Debate (CEDA, Cross-Examination) it's part of the sport to take mundane issues like creating a tax credit for electric vehicles and both teams try to extrapolate out to the worst possible impacts. Nuclear war, mass famine, extinction, etc. It seems to me that we're adopting this quality for our public discourse, and that's a bad way to go. There is no 'discourse' in debate, that's an activity about winners and losers, not about truth seeking or implementing any real policy. Sure, people can hold animosity toward Trump, just like most trump supporters hold animosity towards Secretary Clinton. But you shouldn't extend this animosity towards the people that support that candidate, and you shouldn't convince yourself that there aren't two sides to every issue, because there are.

the_cat_kittles 9y ago
"you shouldn't convince yourself that there aren't two sides to every issue, because there are" wrong. plain and simple. im anti-murder, i dont need to listen to pro-murder people. im anti-rape, i dont need to listen to pro-rape people. there are issues that have a wrong and a right side, unless you really want to go down some dumb freshman philosophy major rabbit hole. the earth is not flat, yet there is a flat earth society. the list is endless.
strangecasts 9y ago
But you shouldn't extend this animosity towards the people that support that candidate, and you shouldn't convince yourself that there aren't two sides to every issue, because there are. That doesn't mean those sides are equal. Take anti-vaxxing and young-earth creationism: do they offer any truth or useful insights for policy proposals? e: Another point: why should I not hold animosity towards hucksters who hamper efforts to slow climate change, or indirectly cause deaths from preventable diseases?
- BRAlNlAC 9y ago
  No, but those people get to have a say in our government. So in some ways yes, they are equal. If you want that to change, be a missionary and convince them, but to deny them representation is violence upon a class.
  - strangecasts 9y ago
    I'm not "denying representation", I'm saying that there aren't two sides to every issue, there are ideas which have been proven false and offer no gain from discussion.
tzs 9y ago
> Sure, people can hold animosity toward Trump, just like most trump supporters hold animosity towards Secretary Clinton. But you shouldn't extend this animosity towards the people that support that candidate, and you shouldn't convince yourself that there aren't two sides to every issue, because there are. Sure, every issue has at least two sides...but aren't there issues where one side is so wrong that it is reasonable to conclude that those who take that side have something wrong with them? For example, at the risk of having someone who doesn't understand the nuances of Godwin's law trying to incorrectly apply it here, take the issue of whether or not the Nazi attempt to implement an answer to their perceived problems with Jews was a good solution. If someone says the Nazi solution was a good one, am I supposed to just say "Oh well...two sides to every issue! We'll have to agree to disagree!" and just ignore that they support genocide? Or how about someone who believes that the Earth is flat? They dismiss evidence such as the curvature you can see from a high altitude plane, photos from space, and everything else that says it is not as fake that a vast conspiracy of government and academia is forcing upon us. Two sides to every issue, right, so I should not infer that the person is an idiot and so hold their opinion on other matters lower than I normally would? Yes, there may be two sides to every issue, but what side you take does say something about you. On issues of fact, it says something about your ability to understand facts and the reason from them. On more subjective issues which position says something about your morals and ethics.

by eksu 9y ago

the_cat_kittles 9y ago

"you shouldn't convince yourself that there aren't two sides to every issue, because there are" wrong. plain and simple. im anti-murder, i dont need to listen to pro-murder people. im anti-rape, i dont need to listen to pro-rape people. there are issues that have a wrong and a right side, unless you really want to go down some dumb freshman philosophy major rabbit hole. the earth is not flat, yet there is a flat earth society. the list is endless.

strangecasts 9y ago

But you shouldn't extend this animosity towards the people that support that candidate, and you shouldn't convince yourself that there aren't two sides to every issue, because there are. That doesn't mean those sides are equal. Take anti-vaxxing and young-earth creationism: do they offer any truth or useful insights for policy proposals? e: Another point: why should I not hold animosity towards hucksters who hamper efforts to slow climate change, or indirectly cause deaths from preventable diseases?

BRAlNlAC 9y ago
No, but those people get to have a say in our government. So in some ways yes, they are equal. If you want that to change, be a missionary and convince them, but to deny them representation is violence upon a class.
- strangecasts 9y ago
  I'm not "denying representation", I'm saying that there aren't two sides to every issue, there are ideas which have been proven false and offer no gain from discussion.

tzs 9y ago

> Sure, people can hold animosity toward Trump, just like most trump supporters hold animosity towards Secretary Clinton. But you shouldn't extend this animosity towards the people that support that candidate, and you shouldn't convince yourself that there aren't two sides to every issue, because there are. Sure, every issue has at least two sides...but aren't there issues where one side is so wrong that it is reasonable to conclude that those who take that side have something wrong with them? For example, at the risk of having someone who doesn't understand the nuances of Godwin's law trying to incorrectly apply it here, take the issue of whether or not the Nazi attempt to implement an answer to their perceived problems with Jews was a good solution. If someone says the Nazi solution was a good one, am I supposed to just say "Oh well...two sides to every issue! We'll have to agree to disagree!" and just ignore that they support genocide? Or how about someone who believes that the Earth is flat? They dismiss evidence such as the curvature you can see from a high altitude plane, photos from space, and everything else that says it is not as fake that a vast conspiracy of government and academia is forcing upon us. Two sides to every issue, right, so I should not infer that the person is an idiot and so hold their opinion on other matters lower than I normally would? Yes, there may be two sides to every issue, but what side you take does say something about you. On issues of fact, it says something about your ability to understand facts and the reason from them. On more subjective issues which position says something about your morals and ethics.