3 ms·

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 go

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.

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.