5 ms·

IMHO this largely only solves problems caused by Twitter's idiosyncratic design, and does little for the deeper problems that cause debates to be toxic. Much m

IMHO this largely only solves problems caused by Twitter's idiosyncratic design, and does little for the deeper problems that cause debates to be toxic. Much more interesting would be a debate format in two phases: Phase 1: just identify what we agree and disagree about. Are there things we actually agree about but are using different words for? Are we using the same words to mean different things? Are there two competing concerns we accuse each other of denying, when we actually both agree on them and are just valuing them differently? The goal would be to create a document that outlines things we agree on and disagree on, and identifies whether the disagreement is factual/empirical, values, or logic (hopefully there will be zero of these, but it might be possible). We should be able to fully agree on the contents of this document. If there's ever anything you simply can't believe the other side disagrees with you about, try to clarify what the deeper disagreement is. Important rule during Phase 1: no persuading. We're not allowed say anything to try to persuade the other side, we're only allowed to ask clarifying questions about the other side's position, and clarify our own positions, because the goal is not to change anyone's mind, only to understand, identify, and document what we agree and disagree about. Phase 2: persuade away. It should be much easier to have a civil and respectful discussion if we each understand the other's side, their values, and what empirical facts they disagree with the evidence on. (I do really like that Debubble doesn't allow bystanders to "cheer for their side", they can only star the whole debate—I'm stealing that.)

lopmotr 6y ago
How can people be motivated to put the mental effort into understanding the other person's point of view? Participants are still volunteers, not workers, and that's unpleasant work.
- laughinghan 6y ago
  Good point! I have no idea. If someone specifically desires to shout into the void, I don't have any ideas on how to convince them otherwise. However, if they claim they want to actually convince other people to change their mind, maybe they'll both agree that this system will help frame the discussion. After all, people already voluntarily put a lot of effort into heated Internet arguments already, I'm just hoping to nudge that energy in a productive direction. If you have better ideas on how to motivate them, I'm all ears!
- avmich 6y ago
  > Participants are still volunteers, not workers, and that's unpleasant work. For some, learning why world works a certain way is an interesting, even captivating activity. For some others it's an unpleasant work.
washicalendar 6y ago
This is a lot of words, but at the end of the day, people who believe in Q conspiracy bullshit are lost causes and their viewpoint or beliefs are simply not worth the time, effort, energy, or patience to understand because there is nothing to understand and nothing to emphasize with because it is all unsound bullshit. It may be true that there are always two/both sides, but it’s definitely not true that both sides are equal, or both sides are worthwhile. And for me, this is the core problem here with “breaking out of your bubble.” I DONT want to see outside my bubble because it’s just not worth the time. Now, I know this makes me sound like a closed minded bigot. I’d agree that was the case if the people outside of my “bubble” are arguing about sound things and not conspiracy bullshit, but they aren’t. It’s a fact that 5G isn’t causing coronavirus, and I’m not going to leave my bubble to put up with your bullshit. It might as well be a fact that HRC did not run a pedophile pizza ring, and there is no point in me listening to that side because it’s completely nonsense. Both sides are not equal. Both sides are not worth listening to. One more edit: this website looks like a combination of r/changemyview and r/unpopularopinion. The former is full of trolls who have no intention of listening, and the latter which are people posting about positions they don’t agree with in a way to make themselves feel like a victim, all for internet karma.
- concordDance 6y ago
  Even if you disagree with a group, talking to them can still be a fascinating experience. I learnt a lot talking to devote muslims, young earth creationists and race realists.
  - washicalendar 6y ago
    I’m not religious, but I do enjoy talking to Muslims and other religious people to learn their world views. Even though my personal beliefs are incompatible with their concept of a divine power. But people who believe in flat earth theory, a 6000 year old planet, that one skin color is better than the others… I have much better things to do with my life than to even try to understand this level of crazy. Edit: I fully see/understand the irony here, that I’m saying similar things as what people in those groups are saying about my beliefs. Maybe deep down, they really do believe that Obama and Clinton ran a pedophile pizza ring or that Biden flew to China to import SARS-CoV-2. And that’s the problem. They BELIEVE. There is no factual basis. It’s just what they believe because it reinforces their worldview. I don’t want to associate or interact with those types of people because nothing is based in reality.
pjc50 6y ago
The two major problems with this are "values" and "forward looking statements". Coronavirus in particular has brought out a lot of the usual arguments about the value of human life versus economic value. But an even bigger problem is "if we do X, then Y" where the causality is anything less than perfectly individual and clear. Hence a lot of the global warming dispute. A surprising amount of the most vicious arguments are power-relations driven and collapse to "my convenience or freedom is more important than your or someone else's life". You can't rationalise your way out of that one.
- laughinghan 6y ago
  I think a global warming debate could be quite enlightening. I am not a climate scientist, so if I were to discuss global warming with someone else who wasn't a climate scientist, the questions I would be most curious about are: do they acknowledge that there's a scientific consensus? If they don't believe a consensus exists, that's a present-day, non-forward-looking fact that someone could be convinced of. If they believe they know better than the consensus, I'd at least be interested in learning why in more detail than just "they're irrational". I don't believe for a second anyone would actually admit to believing that "my convenience is more important than the certain loss of your life". There are situations where I would agree my freedom is more important than your life, self-defense being the obvious example. Even if that's logically what they're saying and don't realize it, I believe that for the overwhelming majority of people, if delivered in the right context, in the right tone, by the right person, they could be lead to empathize and see why that's not right.
  - pjc50 6y ago
    I may regret this, but the gold standard of intellectual coherent denialism is https://wattsupwiththat.com/ https://wattsupwiththat.com/ ; I see they're still obsessed with Michael Mann and the hockey stick.
Sohcahtoa82 6y ago
> Are we using the same words to mean different things? This is a big one when it comes to talking about "socialism". Bernie Sanders's brand of socialism does not match the textbook definition of socialism. It's still capitalist, but with wealth distribution through government assistance programs and services. Yet when people on the right are criticizing socialism, they're usually criticizing the textbook definition. It's basically summed up with this meme: https://i.imgur.com/tVB77jV.jpg https://i.imgur.com/tVB77jV.jpg We can't debate socialism until we agree on what we mean by "socialism".
- laughinghan 6y ago
  Let's say it does not match what many Americans think of when they hear "socialism". There's no such thing as a "textbook definition" of socialism.

lopmotr 6y ago

How can people be motivated to put the mental effort into understanding the other person's point of view? Participants are still volunteers, not workers, and that's unpleasant work.

laughinghan 6y ago
Good point! I have no idea. If someone specifically desires to shout into the void, I don't have any ideas on how to convince them otherwise. However, if they claim they want to actually convince other people to change their mind, maybe they'll both agree that this system will help frame the discussion. After all, people already voluntarily put a lot of effort into heated Internet arguments already, I'm just hoping to nudge that energy in a productive direction. If you have better ideas on how to motivate them, I'm all ears!
avmich 6y ago
> Participants are still volunteers, not workers, and that's unpleasant work. For some, learning why world works a certain way is an interesting, even captivating activity. For some others it's an unpleasant work.

washicalendar 6y ago

This is a lot of words, but at the end of the day, people who believe in Q conspiracy bullshit are lost causes and their viewpoint or beliefs are simply not worth the time, effort, energy, or patience to understand because there is nothing to understand and nothing to emphasize with because it is all unsound bullshit. It may be true that there are always two/both sides, but it’s definitely not true that both sides are equal, or both sides are worthwhile. And for me, this is the core problem here with “breaking out of your bubble.” I DONT want to see outside my bubble because it’s just not worth the time. Now, I know this makes me sound like a closed minded bigot. I’d agree that was the case if the people outside of my “bubble” are arguing about sound things and not conspiracy bullshit, but they aren’t. It’s a fact that 5G isn’t causing coronavirus, and I’m not going to leave my bubble to put up with your bullshit. It might as well be a fact that HRC did not run a pedophile pizza ring, and there is no point in me listening to that side because it’s completely nonsense. Both sides are not equal. Both sides are not worth listening to. One more edit: this website looks like a combination of r/changemyview and r/unpopularopinion. The former is full of trolls who have no intention of listening, and the latter which are people posting about positions they don’t agree with in a way to make themselves feel like a victim, all for internet karma.

concordDance 6y ago
Even if you disagree with a group, talking to them can still be a fascinating experience. I learnt a lot talking to devote muslims, young earth creationists and race realists.
- washicalendar 6y ago
  I’m not religious, but I do enjoy talking to Muslims and other religious people to learn their world views. Even though my personal beliefs are incompatible with their concept of a divine power. But people who believe in flat earth theory, a 6000 year old planet, that one skin color is better than the others… I have much better things to do with my life than to even try to understand this level of crazy. Edit: I fully see/understand the irony here, that I’m saying similar things as what people in those groups are saying about my beliefs. Maybe deep down, they really do believe that Obama and Clinton ran a pedophile pizza ring or that Biden flew to China to import SARS-CoV-2. And that’s the problem. They BELIEVE. There is no factual basis. It’s just what they believe because it reinforces their worldview. I don’t want to associate or interact with those types of people because nothing is based in reality.

pjc50 6y ago

The two major problems with this are "values" and "forward looking statements". Coronavirus in particular has brought out a lot of the usual arguments about the value of human life versus economic value. But an even bigger problem is "if we do X, then Y" where the causality is anything less than perfectly individual and clear. Hence a lot of the global warming dispute. A surprising amount of the most vicious arguments are power-relations driven and collapse to "my convenience or freedom is more important than your or someone else's life". You can't rationalise your way out of that one.

laughinghan 6y ago
I think a global warming debate could be quite enlightening. I am not a climate scientist, so if I were to discuss global warming with someone else who wasn't a climate scientist, the questions I would be most curious about are: do they acknowledge that there's a scientific consensus? If they don't believe a consensus exists, that's a present-day, non-forward-looking fact that someone could be convinced of. If they believe they know better than the consensus, I'd at least be interested in learning why in more detail than just "they're irrational". I don't believe for a second anyone would actually admit to believing that "my convenience is more important than the certain loss of your life". There are situations where I would agree my freedom is more important than your life, self-defense being the obvious example. Even if that's logically what they're saying and don't realize it, I believe that for the overwhelming majority of people, if delivered in the right context, in the right tone, by the right person, they could be lead to empathize and see why that's not right.
- pjc50 6y ago
  I may regret this, but the gold standard of intellectual coherent denialism is https://wattsupwiththat.com/ https://wattsupwiththat.com/ ; I see they're still obsessed with Michael Mann and the hockey stick.

Sohcahtoa82 6y ago

> Are we using the same words to mean different things? This is a big one when it comes to talking about "socialism". Bernie Sanders's brand of socialism does not match the textbook definition of socialism. It's still capitalist, but with wealth distribution through government assistance programs and services. Yet when people on the right are criticizing socialism, they're usually criticizing the textbook definition. It's basically summed up with this meme: https://i.imgur.com/tVB77jV.jpg https://i.imgur.com/tVB77jV.jpg We can't debate socialism until we agree on what we mean by "socialism".

laughinghan 6y ago
Let's say it does not match what many Americans think of when they hear "socialism". There's no such thing as a "textbook definition" of socialism.