6 ms·

Your comment reminds me of an HN article that was recently posted: "Study of “moral grandstanding” helps explain why social media is so toxic". More seriously,

Your comment reminds me of an HN article that was recently posted: "Study of “moral grandstanding” helps explain why social media is so toxic". More seriously, your comment screams of tribalism. I think that you will find that most people, across all political aisles, are decent humans who genuinely mean no ill-will towards others. I would be surprised if any political comment posted online has ever changed the mind of someone else. What does change the minds of others, though, is face-to-face, compassionate, honest dialogue.

blix 7y ago
I think it's possible to change the minds of others through online posting. It has happened to me and I think I've effected change in others. However, all online posts are not equal. Posts like GP I think are likely to have the opposite effect. Bad faith argument tends to let people dismiss any valid content and reinforce existing views and groups. I find the key is to be respectful and to make an effort to understand where the other person is coming from. This unfornately appears to be a less and less common tactic.
pell 7y ago
Did the poster say anything that was _untrue_? Your comment isn't nuanced in the slightest. Tribalism it might be, that does not make the assessment incorrect. Where is the proof for both sides being equal?
- blix 7y ago
  Have you been in an argument recently about whether women deserve the right to own property? If so, do you happen to live in one of the deeply repressive states that recieves bipartisan support from the USA due to economic convenience? Perhaps the one that the USA helps with the drone strikes? The way partisans exaggerate the crimes of the other team while ignoring those perpetrated by their own is not so far from the way people talk about sports teams. There are real arguments to be made, real strategies to convince people to see another point of view, but this is not it. This is proving that you are on the team of pure good fighting against the team of pure evil. Neither of those teams exist.
  - pell 7y ago
    > Have you been in an argument recently about whether women deserve the right to own property? I have been in plenty of arguments about abortion rights, rights of asylum seekers, rights of minorities, etc. The list goes on. A point being partisan doesn't mean it is untrue or necessarily biased to bend the truth. >The way partisans exaggerate the crimes of the other team while ignoring those perpetrated by their own is not so far from the way people talk about sports teams. It is your untrue assessment that anyone criticizing a party like the US Republican party automatically would not criticize their opposition. This assertion - without any context whatsoever here - is pretty tribal in itself.
    - blix 7y ago
      Those arguments are not property rights. Referring to them as property rights is an intentionally misleading exaggeration. I can't think of how this isn't "biased to bend the truth". Surely not all statements do this, but a lot do. I never made the generalization that the word "necessarily" implies. I also never made the generalization that anyone making a partisan point would never criticise their own team. But the post in question, and many posts like it, define an all-or-nothing, good-vs-evil struggle that leaves no room for that nuance, and hinders an empathetic discourse with anyone on the "evil" team. It's not limited to any specific flavor of partisan, and the polarization this engenders has had some significant consequences. To me, your argument kinda feels like a #NotAllMen or "You are racist for pointing out I benefit from and perpetuate racism." I am challenging a specific type of discourse, and you are inventing generalized, absolute extrapolations to declare untrue. Exaggerating to make your opponents position seem untenable doesn't change minds, it entrenches existing positions.
      - pell 7y ago
        >To me, your argument kinda feels like a #NotAllMen or "You are racist for pointing out I benefit from and perpetuate racism." I am challenging a specific type of discourse, and you are inventing generalized, absolute extrapolations to declare untrue. Exaggerating to make your opponents position seem untenable doesn't change minds, it entrenches existing positions. I am very confused how you think my comment is in any way an example of this type of line of thinking. >I also never made the generalization that anyone making a partisan point would never criticise their own team. But the post in question, and many posts like it, define an all-or-nothing, good-vs-evil struggle that leaves no room for that nuance, and hinders an empathetic discourse with anyone on the "evil" team. You absolutely did make such an assertion just a comment ago. And the whole discussion here started off through a very vague "all sides are the same" calendar motto. They're obviously not.

blix 7y ago

I think it's possible to change the minds of others through online posting. It has happened to me and I think I've effected change in others. However, all online posts are not equal. Posts like GP I think are likely to have the opposite effect. Bad faith argument tends to let people dismiss any valid content and reinforce existing views and groups. I find the key is to be respectful and to make an effort to understand where the other person is coming from. This unfornately appears to be a less and less common tactic.

pell 7y ago

Did the poster say anything that was _untrue_? Your comment isn't nuanced in the slightest. Tribalism it might be, that does not make the assessment incorrect. Where is the proof for both sides being equal?

blix 7y ago
Have you been in an argument recently about whether women deserve the right to own property? If so, do you happen to live in one of the deeply repressive states that recieves bipartisan support from the USA due to economic convenience? Perhaps the one that the USA helps with the drone strikes? The way partisans exaggerate the crimes of the other team while ignoring those perpetrated by their own is not so far from the way people talk about sports teams. There are real arguments to be made, real strategies to convince people to see another point of view, but this is not it. This is proving that you are on the team of pure good fighting against the team of pure evil. Neither of those teams exist.
- pell 7y ago
  > Have you been in an argument recently about whether women deserve the right to own property? I have been in plenty of arguments about abortion rights, rights of asylum seekers, rights of minorities, etc. The list goes on. A point being partisan doesn't mean it is untrue or necessarily biased to bend the truth. >The way partisans exaggerate the crimes of the other team while ignoring those perpetrated by their own is not so far from the way people talk about sports teams. It is your untrue assessment that anyone criticizing a party like the US Republican party automatically would not criticize their opposition. This assertion - without any context whatsoever here - is pretty tribal in itself.
  - blix 7y ago
    Those arguments are not property rights. Referring to them as property rights is an intentionally misleading exaggeration. I can't think of how this isn't "biased to bend the truth". Surely not all statements do this, but a lot do. I never made the generalization that the word "necessarily" implies. I also never made the generalization that anyone making a partisan point would never criticise their own team. But the post in question, and many posts like it, define an all-or-nothing, good-vs-evil struggle that leaves no room for that nuance, and hinders an empathetic discourse with anyone on the "evil" team. It's not limited to any specific flavor of partisan, and the polarization this engenders has had some significant consequences. To me, your argument kinda feels like a #NotAllMen or "You are racist for pointing out I benefit from and perpetuate racism." I am challenging a specific type of discourse, and you are inventing generalized, absolute extrapolations to declare untrue. Exaggerating to make your opponents position seem untenable doesn't change minds, it entrenches existing positions.
    - pell 7y ago
      >To me, your argument kinda feels like a #NotAllMen or "You are racist for pointing out I benefit from and perpetuate racism." I am challenging a specific type of discourse, and you are inventing generalized, absolute extrapolations to declare untrue. Exaggerating to make your opponents position seem untenable doesn't change minds, it entrenches existing positions. I am very confused how you think my comment is in any way an example of this type of line of thinking. >I also never made the generalization that anyone making a partisan point would never criticise their own team. But the post in question, and many posts like it, define an all-or-nothing, good-vs-evil struggle that leaves no room for that nuance, and hinders an empathetic discourse with anyone on the "evil" team. You absolutely did make such an assertion just a comment ago. And the whole discussion here started off through a very vague "all sides are the same" calendar motto. They're obviously not.