4 ms·

Debates should be in person, I don't think the Internet is the best medium for it. Feel free to disagree with me, but it's a lot harder to lose your cool in pe

Debates should be in person, I don't think the Internet is the best medium for it. Feel free to disagree with me, but it's a lot harder to lose your cool in person compared to online

mod 6y ago
I agree that it's a lot harder to lose your cool or offend someone. But it's also much harder to argue about truths. People in my circles say things like "I did a lot of research and this new mRNA vaccine is dangerous." And there's absolutely no way to disagree with that, because they can't present the research and you can't read for yourself what it was. You can't critique the author/organization, you can't dispute any "facts" in the article, etc. I think in-person can be good for very high level arguments, like "I believe in personal responsibility," and figuring out "I like this person even though I disagree with them." And terrible for intricate arguments like "gun restrictions will save lives," covid policy, etc etc. I would like to see a shift back to previous times, where nobody was outing their political beliefs, and everyone didn't pretend to be an expert on domestic policies, covid, foreign policy, minimum wage, inflation, and everything else that they feel inclined to chime in about. My grandmother (RIP) said in her youth (1930s), they didn't know how their neighbor voted, how their teachers voted, and they might not even know how their spouse voted. I like that.
- debator 6y ago
  Yep, its always "you need to read this to understand", or here is a statistic that proves my point. > I think in-person can be good for very high level arguments, Its good for exploration. But there needs to be trust between the parties in that no-one is trying to one-up the other or win some argument - this makes people defensive. Also arguing in front of others can cause this defensive effect as well. > My grandmother (RIP) said in her youth (1930s), they didn't know how their neighbor voted, how their teachers voted, and they might not even know how their spouse voted. I like that. 100%. You want to maximize as many opportunities for people to get along with each other as much as possible despite their differences. People's views will change and evolve over time and very rarely from intimidation or pressure.
debator 6y ago
Wouldn't it be great though if there was such a platform where you could lose your cool with someone without having to be banned, moderated, etc. The ad-hominem part of the argument would be simply flagged as such. Kind of like Westminster parlimentary debate - insults fly all the time, but no one can be cancelled or banned.
- metiscus 6y ago
  You can be asked to leave for the remainder of the day under the standing rules if you violate certain points of etiquette.
  - debator 6y ago
    But you'll be back the next day. Can you be banned without the chamber voting on it in some way?
    - metiscus 6y ago
      See standing rules 42 through 46 but in particular 44 (2) which reads If any Member be suspended under paragraph (1) of this order, his suspension on the first occasion shall continue for five sitting days, and on the second occasion for twenty sitting days, including in either case the day on which he was suspended, but, on any subsequent occasion, until the House shall resolve that the suspension of such Member do terminate. I believe this can only be done in response to a motion and vote. The authority to unilaterally order a member to withdraw is only for one day see 43. So you are correct. https://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/commons/standing-orders-public11/ https://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/commons/stan...
- goldenManatee 6y ago
  No. Unmoderated and anonymous dialog has a way of straying into mudslinging on subjects of political expression. From your suggestion: flagging the “ad hominem part” is moderation and could be open to interpretation if flagged statements are or not. Thus brings to mind Burke, “The majority of the citizens is capable of exercising the most cruel oppressions upon the minority.” True as that is, though, there’s been a growing popularization across groups for adopting a victimhood complex to feel justified in claiming oppression. So, no - ironic to post here, but actually cogent debate requires a base degree of mutual respect - which requires a shared (global) “culture” - and less anonymity.

Debates should be in person, I don't think the Internet is the best medium for it. Feel free to disagree with me, but it's a lot harder to lose your cool in person compared to online

mod 6y ago

I agree that it's a lot harder to lose your cool or offend someone. But it's also much harder to argue about truths. People in my circles say things like "I did a lot of research and this new mRNA vaccine is dangerous." And there's absolutely no way to disagree with that, because they can't present the research and you can't read for yourself what it was. You can't critique the author/organization, you can't dispute any "facts" in the article, etc. I think in-person can be good for very high level arguments, like "I believe in personal responsibility," and figuring out "I like this person even though I disagree with them." And terrible for intricate arguments like "gun restrictions will save lives," covid policy, etc etc. I would like to see a shift back to previous times, where nobody was outing their political beliefs, and everyone didn't pretend to be an expert on domestic policies, covid, foreign policy, minimum wage, inflation, and everything else that they feel inclined to chime in about. My grandmother (RIP) said in her youth (1930s), they didn't know how their neighbor voted, how their teachers voted, and they might not even know how their spouse voted. I like that.

debator 6y ago
Yep, its always "you need to read this to understand", or here is a statistic that proves my point. > I think in-person can be good for very high level arguments, Its good for exploration. But there needs to be trust between the parties in that no-one is trying to one-up the other or win some argument - this makes people defensive. Also arguing in front of others can cause this defensive effect as well. > My grandmother (RIP) said in her youth (1930s), they didn't know how their neighbor voted, how their teachers voted, and they might not even know how their spouse voted. I like that. 100%. You want to maximize as many opportunities for people to get along with each other as much as possible despite their differences. People's views will change and evolve over time and very rarely from intimidation or pressure.

debator 6y ago

Wouldn't it be great though if there was such a platform where you could lose your cool with someone without having to be banned, moderated, etc. The ad-hominem part of the argument would be simply flagged as such. Kind of like Westminster parlimentary debate - insults fly all the time, but no one can be cancelled or banned.

metiscus 6y ago
You can be asked to leave for the remainder of the day under the standing rules if you violate certain points of etiquette.
- debator 6y ago
  But you'll be back the next day. Can you be banned without the chamber voting on it in some way?
  - metiscus 6y ago
    See standing rules 42 through 46 but in particular 44 (2) which reads If any Member be suspended under paragraph (1) of this order, his suspension on the first occasion shall continue for five sitting days, and on the second occasion for twenty sitting days, including in either case the day on which he was suspended, but, on any subsequent occasion, until the House shall resolve that the suspension of such Member do terminate. I believe this can only be done in response to a motion and vote. The authority to unilaterally order a member to withdraw is only for one day see 43. So you are correct. https://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/commons/standing-orders-public11/ https://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/commons/stan...
goldenManatee 6y ago
No. Unmoderated and anonymous dialog has a way of straying into mudslinging on subjects of political expression. From your suggestion: flagging the “ad hominem part” is moderation and could be open to interpretation if flagged statements are or not. Thus brings to mind Burke, “The majority of the citizens is capable of exercising the most cruel oppressions upon the minority.” True as that is, though, there’s been a growing popularization across groups for adopting a victimhood complex to feel justified in claiming oppression. So, no - ironic to post here, but actually cogent debate requires a base degree of mutual respect - which requires a shared (global) “culture” - and less anonymity.