5 ms·

> If Stallman's position is wrong, we should be able to rationally come to that conclusion as a society. He should be allowed to be wrong. I share this frustra

> If Stallman's position is wrong, we should be able to rationally come to that conclusion as a society. He should be allowed to be wrong. I share this frustration, unfortunately with many HN discussions as well. When someone states a position that the majority finds repugnant, IMHO the most productive (long-term) approach is this: Step 1. Identify where the minority and majority views diverge in terms of logical justification. With majority-repugnant views, this may require going back to very basic assumptions. E.g., rape is morally wrong, it's appropriate public policy to prevent moral wrongs, etc. Step 2. Starting from there, try to understand why the views diverge, and debate which side (if either) has better justification. I think this approach fails at least half the times I try it, though. A few guesses why: - During Step 1, people jump to the assumption that I'm advocating the majority-repugnant position, rather than working within this two-step process. Once my character / motives are impugned, reasoned discussion seems to end. - Many people are unable to engage in logical debate regarding ethics. And in frustration, or to subconsciously avoid having to accept that gaps exist in their ability to logically debate some topics, they are unwilling to engage in proper debate. - Something in my mannerism is off-putting, or I'm in a forum where few people are willing to engage in a debate lasting more than several minutes :(

rjf72 7y ago
I've also observed this. It seems to me that politics (which I'll use as a reasonable proxy for controversial views) has increasingly become more like a sport than an exercise in civic responsibility. As I like data I think one way to measure this is split ticket results. In 2016 34 states had senatorial elections. Each and every state voted the exact same way for senate and the presidency. This is hardly surprising in today's world, but this hadn't happened in more than a century. [1] The point of this is that as people start to integrate political views into themselves (as opposed to just a view - something that's subject to change as the evidence does) it makes debate difficult. In many ways we're becoming more akin to religious nations. You're unlikely to find a nice healthy debate about the value, worth, and viability of Islam in most Islamic Nations. It is because such values have been integrated into the individuals themselves instead of being kept at arm's length. And as a tangent one thing I would add is that it obviously was not always this way. During the Islamic Golden Age Islamic nations were world leaders in learning, education, and the collection of wisdom. We still retain fragments of this time in our language today. For instance Algebra, from the title of Ilm al-jabr wa'l-muḳābala by al-Khwarizmi around 800AD. During this time of growth and learning all things were open to question, including Islam itself. And then along came a lovely man by the name of Al-Ghazali [2]. In response to religious skepticism, which Al-Ghazali was unable to effectively combat on direct logical grounds, he chose to develop a new philosophy. And in his new philosophy he preempted skepticism by suggesting that there were no natural laws at all. When a leaf catches fire it is not because it was exposed to a fire or because it reached a certain level of heat but because, and only because, God willed it happen at that exact moment. And so the study of 'natural laws' is nonsensical, as detailed in his work 'The Incoherence of the Philosophers.' And that idea, enabling one to revoke all logic and criticism and simply adopt the dogma without question or concern, was met with resounding praise and endorsement. That was 900 years ago, but this ideology remains a key component of Islam to this day. At the same time this was happening a lust for learning was just starting to take off in Europe... Kind of interesting to imagine that we could be on another precipice of change when 200 years from now e.g. China has become the world leader in education and people ponder the decline of the anglosphere. Or this could be little more than the regular waxing and waning of insanity that in 20 years, perhaps sooner, will feel as distant as parachute pants. [1] - https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/11/17/is-split-ticket-voting-officially-dead/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/11/17/is... [2] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Ghazali https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Ghazali
noobermin 7y ago
This isn't a seminar, so this isn't the forum where one can help change minds or come to a conclusion logically. The best you can hope for is to plant seeds and expose people to perspectives they might not be aware of. I've read of some studies where people generally clam up when presented with contradicting information (which sucks). Who knows though, at the very least you will change one or two minds, which can help if not a little.

rjf72 7y ago

I've also observed this. It seems to me that politics (which I'll use as a reasonable proxy for controversial views) has increasingly become more like a sport than an exercise in civic responsibility. As I like data I think one way to measure this is split ticket results. In 2016 34 states had senatorial elections. Each and every state voted the exact same way for senate and the presidency. This is hardly surprising in today's world, but this hadn't happened in more than a century. [1] The point of this is that as people start to integrate political views into themselves (as opposed to just a view - something that's subject to change as the evidence does) it makes debate difficult. In many ways we're becoming more akin to religious nations. You're unlikely to find a nice healthy debate about the value, worth, and viability of Islam in most Islamic Nations. It is because such values have been integrated into the individuals themselves instead of being kept at arm's length. And as a tangent one thing I would add is that it obviously was not always this way. During the Islamic Golden Age Islamic nations were world leaders in learning, education, and the collection of wisdom. We still retain fragments of this time in our language today. For instance Algebra, from the title of Ilm al-jabr wa'l-muḳābala by al-Khwarizmi around 800AD. During this time of growth and learning all things were open to question, including Islam itself. And then along came a lovely man by the name of Al-Ghazali [2]. In response to religious skepticism, which Al-Ghazali was unable to effectively combat on direct logical grounds, he chose to develop a new philosophy. And in his new philosophy he preempted skepticism by suggesting that there were no natural laws at all. When a leaf catches fire it is not because it was exposed to a fire or because it reached a certain level of heat but because, and only because, God willed it happen at that exact moment. And so the study of 'natural laws' is nonsensical, as detailed in his work 'The Incoherence of the Philosophers.' And that idea, enabling one to revoke all logic and criticism and simply adopt the dogma without question or concern, was met with resounding praise and endorsement. That was 900 years ago, but this ideology remains a key component of Islam to this day. At the same time this was happening a lust for learning was just starting to take off in Europe... Kind of interesting to imagine that we could be on another precipice of change when 200 years from now e.g. China has become the world leader in education and people ponder the decline of the anglosphere. Or this could be little more than the regular waxing and waning of insanity that in 20 years, perhaps sooner, will feel as distant as parachute pants. [1] - https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/11/17/is-split-ticket-voting-officially-dead/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/11/17/is... [2] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Ghazali https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Ghazali

noobermin 7y ago

This isn't a seminar, so this isn't the forum where one can help change minds or come to a conclusion logically. The best you can hope for is to plant seeds and expose people to perspectives they might not be aware of. I've read of some studies where people generally clam up when presented with contradicting information (which sucks). Who knows though, at the very least you will change one or two minds, which can help if not a little.