4 ms·

That has never been the point of an opinion piece. The point of an opinion piece is to lie, cajole, trick, etc people into accepting your opinion or viewpoint.

That has never been the point of an opinion piece. The point of an opinion piece is to lie, cajole, trick, etc people into accepting your opinion or viewpoint. That's why newspapers separate news from opinion. The point of the opinion piece is opposite of getting people to think. The point of it is to stop people from thinking. It's to get people on your side.

CWuestefeld 8y ago
There are surely some people these days who approach things like this, and they come from both political polarities. But as DanielBMarkham points out nearby, it hasn't always been this way. And even today, there are plenty of people who, I think, strive for finding truth (e.g., Scott Alexander, Megan McArdle)
- ravenscrow 8y ago
  You seem to want to argue with me for some reason, but truth isn't the point of an opinion piece. It never has been and never will be. Opinion pieces were invented as a platform for opinion, not truth, not fact. As I stated earlier, that's why opinion pieces are separated from the news section of a newspaper. If the article was about truth or facts, it wouldn't be called an opinion piece. I don't know how else to convey that to you other than saying opinion isn't truth. It may be your personal "truth" ( your values, your ideas, your feelings ), but that isn't necessarily universal. > strive for finding truth (e.g., Scott Alexander, Megan McArdle) You can't be serious. But thankfully, we live in a free country where we are all entitled to our own opinions.
  - CWuestefeld 8y ago
    We can start from a common set of objective facts, but because we all have our own values, we can get to a broad range of different conclusions from them. A good opinion writer is not, as you assert, lying and tricking people. A good opinion writer is developing from our shared factual foundation through one possible set of values - and hopefully "showing their work" so we know what those assumptions are. Thus, as DBM says, we can learn alot even from someone who reaches a conclusion different from the one driven by our own personal values. At the very least, we should learn that those we disagree with aren't evil monsters, but maybe trying to get to a vision similar to our own but in different ways. I don't even want to read the opinion pieces that you seem to hold up as exemplary. I'm tired of the hatefulness and spite. It really is possible to communicate an opinion that's based entirely on agreed facts, to come to a different conclusion than someone else, and to do so without lying and tricking. That is what we should be striving for. And I maintain that, e.g., Scott Alexander at SlateStarCodex.com is a sterling example of this. If you disagree, I'd love to hear why.
    - ravenscrow 8y ago
      > A good opinion writer is not, as you assert, lying and tricking people. Actually they are. That's the point of the opinion piece. It's why newspapers run competing editorials side by side or the following week. In order to provide a more balanced view of a subject ( especially if it is controversial ). > I don't even want to read the opinion pieces that you seem to hold up as exemplary. I'm talking about all opinion pieces. I'm speaking to the nature and purpose of an opinion piece. > It really is possible to communicate an opinion that's based entirely on agreed facts Did I say it couldn't? But the point of the opinion isn't those facts are they? It's about the author's opinions deriving from the fact. For example, we have an objective fact: Iraq didn't have weapons of mass destruction and the invasion of iraq was illegal. But you could write an opinion piece justifying it and I could write an opinion piece denouncing it. The agreed-to-fact isn't the point of the opinion piece. The opinion is. There is no "truth" to the opinion because opinions are personal by nature. > That is what we should be striving for. That's what news should be striving for. Not opinion. If you write an opinion piece, you should be trying to tell me why your opinion is the one I should stick to. And people should read competing opinions and form their own opinion. > And I maintain that, e.g., Scott Alexander at SlateStarCodex.com is a sterling example of this. If you disagree, I'd love to hear why. What happened to megan? You drop her after a quick google search? I've said everything I need to say. No amount of educating or facts is going to change your opinion. Since you can't even accept the definition of opinion piece. Good day.
carapace 8y ago
If someone reads an opinion piece and changes their mind, is that not thinking? Also, what you're saying is your opinion, are you trying to get people on your side? Is your goal in writing a comment here today is to stop people from thinking?

CWuestefeld 8y ago

There are surely some people these days who approach things like this, and they come from both political polarities. But as DanielBMarkham points out nearby, it hasn't always been this way. And even today, there are plenty of people who, I think, strive for finding truth (e.g., Scott Alexander, Megan McArdle)

ravenscrow 8y ago
You seem to want to argue with me for some reason, but truth isn't the point of an opinion piece. It never has been and never will be. Opinion pieces were invented as a platform for opinion, not truth, not fact. As I stated earlier, that's why opinion pieces are separated from the news section of a newspaper. If the article was about truth or facts, it wouldn't be called an opinion piece. I don't know how else to convey that to you other than saying opinion isn't truth. It may be your personal "truth" ( your values, your ideas, your feelings ), but that isn't necessarily universal. > strive for finding truth (e.g., Scott Alexander, Megan McArdle) You can't be serious. But thankfully, we live in a free country where we are all entitled to our own opinions.
- CWuestefeld 8y ago
  We can start from a common set of objective facts, but because we all have our own values, we can get to a broad range of different conclusions from them. A good opinion writer is not, as you assert, lying and tricking people. A good opinion writer is developing from our shared factual foundation through one possible set of values - and hopefully "showing their work" so we know what those assumptions are. Thus, as DBM says, we can learn alot even from someone who reaches a conclusion different from the one driven by our own personal values. At the very least, we should learn that those we disagree with aren't evil monsters, but maybe trying to get to a vision similar to our own but in different ways. I don't even want to read the opinion pieces that you seem to hold up as exemplary. I'm tired of the hatefulness and spite. It really is possible to communicate an opinion that's based entirely on agreed facts, to come to a different conclusion than someone else, and to do so without lying and tricking. That is what we should be striving for. And I maintain that, e.g., Scott Alexander at SlateStarCodex.com is a sterling example of this. If you disagree, I'd love to hear why.
  - ravenscrow 8y ago
    > A good opinion writer is not, as you assert, lying and tricking people. Actually they are. That's the point of the opinion piece. It's why newspapers run competing editorials side by side or the following week. In order to provide a more balanced view of a subject ( especially if it is controversial ). > I don't even want to read the opinion pieces that you seem to hold up as exemplary. I'm talking about all opinion pieces. I'm speaking to the nature and purpose of an opinion piece. > It really is possible to communicate an opinion that's based entirely on agreed facts Did I say it couldn't? But the point of the opinion isn't those facts are they? It's about the author's opinions deriving from the fact. For example, we have an objective fact: Iraq didn't have weapons of mass destruction and the invasion of iraq was illegal. But you could write an opinion piece justifying it and I could write an opinion piece denouncing it. The agreed-to-fact isn't the point of the opinion piece. The opinion is. There is no "truth" to the opinion because opinions are personal by nature. > That is what we should be striving for. That's what news should be striving for. Not opinion. If you write an opinion piece, you should be trying to tell me why your opinion is the one I should stick to. And people should read competing opinions and form their own opinion. > And I maintain that, e.g., Scott Alexander at SlateStarCodex.com is a sterling example of this. If you disagree, I'd love to hear why. What happened to megan? You drop her after a quick google search? I've said everything I need to say. No amount of educating or facts is going to change your opinion. Since you can't even accept the definition of opinion piece. Good day.

carapace 8y ago

If someone reads an opinion piece and changes their mind, is that not thinking? Also, what you're saying is your opinion, are you trying to get people on your side? Is your goal in writing a comment here today is to stop people from thinking?