4 ms·

Citation needed for where I actually endorsed these views or asserted their validity. Re-read my post: you're yelling at a strawman. Conjecture: seeing the seq

by gfodor 8y ago

Citation needed for where I actually endorsed these views or asserted their validity. Re-read my post: you're yelling at a strawman. Conjecture: seeing the sequence of words "most wealth in America is earned through hard work and sacrifice" immediately blinded you to the context they were written in (namely: my observation that this is a belief of a large part of America and their actions are a logical induction from those beliefs) and you flipped the bit and went right into attack mode. Reflect on that, and realize that this kind of blinded reaction lies at the core of why lots of things are being said but no actual communication is occurring between people around these subjects.

hobls 8y ago
I'd characterize my response as "mildly sarcastic" rather than "attack mode." Other than the tone of the first three words, my reply was in response to the idea, and not you as the poster. edit: I'd also like to suggest that uncritically parroting false assertations like the one you posted is a poor way to advance discourse.
- gfodor 8y ago
  I'd argue that being unable to talk about ideas themselves and the dynamics of their belief without being derailed into arguing about the merits of the ideas themselves is a sign that someone has not managed to form a coherent, defensible worldview. When on solid ground you can always argue both sides convincingly, but have clear reasoning why you support the side you do, and talking about the opposing view does not immediately spur a desire to argue against it since you are confident in your beliefs despite empathy for the opposition. This is an impossible thing to get if you are unable to talk about and explore opposing beliefs without immediately having to defend your final conclusions.
  - hobls 8y ago
    I see that you were trying to discuss what conservatives found upsetting about the "rich are too rich" narrative, and that you think my response was off-topic. I do (of course) disagree with your numerous assumptions about the coherence of my worldview and my ability to explore opposing beliefs, but I see how you got there. The place that I think we might disagree is in the value of neutrally presenting positions in the way that you did. Have you ever listened to an NPR piece on climate change? NPR tries very hard (too hard, in my opinion) to present "both sides" of an argument. The impact is that they tend to do something like, "today we have a leading scientist, and Joe who works in the local coal mine." Joe's opinion is simply not as valuable as the leading scientist, and by uncritically presenting them as equal they muddy the issue and ultimately spread disinformation. The whole "both sides" thing is just not as valuable as we tend to act like it is, in my opinion. Yes, it is valuable to understand where people are coming from. It is more valuable to be correct.

by gfodor 8y ago

hobls 8y ago

I'd characterize my response as "mildly sarcastic" rather than "attack mode." Other than the tone of the first three words, my reply was in response to the idea, and not you as the poster. edit: I'd also like to suggest that uncritically parroting false assertations like the one you posted is a poor way to advance discourse.

gfodor 8y ago
I'd argue that being unable to talk about ideas themselves and the dynamics of their belief without being derailed into arguing about the merits of the ideas themselves is a sign that someone has not managed to form a coherent, defensible worldview. When on solid ground you can always argue both sides convincingly, but have clear reasoning why you support the side you do, and talking about the opposing view does not immediately spur a desire to argue against it since you are confident in your beliefs despite empathy for the opposition. This is an impossible thing to get if you are unable to talk about and explore opposing beliefs without immediately having to defend your final conclusions.
- hobls 8y ago
  I see that you were trying to discuss what conservatives found upsetting about the "rich are too rich" narrative, and that you think my response was off-topic. I do (of course) disagree with your numerous assumptions about the coherence of my worldview and my ability to explore opposing beliefs, but I see how you got there. The place that I think we might disagree is in the value of neutrally presenting positions in the way that you did. Have you ever listened to an NPR piece on climate change? NPR tries very hard (too hard, in my opinion) to present "both sides" of an argument. The impact is that they tend to do something like, "today we have a leading scientist, and Joe who works in the local coal mine." Joe's opinion is simply not as valuable as the leading scientist, and by uncritically presenting them as equal they muddy the issue and ultimately spread disinformation. The whole "both sides" thing is just not as valuable as we tend to act like it is, in my opinion. Yes, it is valuable to understand where people are coming from. It is more valuable to be correct.