4 ms·

Would you feel more comfortable in a company that openly encouraged / enforced political debate within a civil framework? Is the problem (in your company and t

Would you feel more comfortable in a company that openly encouraged / enforced political debate within a civil framework? Is the problem (in your company and the world at large) that open respectful political debate has not got a common set of rules / words? If there was a phrase "I respectfully disagree - I understand that ..." was a phrase used by every TV host, Politician and Facebook poster, would prefacing your words with that make others more open to receiving it?

secondcoming 6y ago
Political debate used to have rules. Take this [0] debate between William F Buckley and Noam Chomsky about the Vietman War, for example. The two clearly detested each other but the debate was mostly civil. Christopher Hitchens' debate are others worth watching. Does these even happen any more in MSM? [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9DvmLMUfGss https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9DvmLMUfGss
- amalcon 6y ago
  Western society seems to have gotten the idea that "debate" is either talking heads trying to shout over each other, presenting prepared arguments to random unprepared people and claiming victory when it takes time to respond, or simply presenting opinions back and forth without trying to justify them. This is tied to the (independent but both incorrect) notions that whoever has the last word in a debate is the winner, and whoever wins the debate is necessarily right. I think it would be valuable to somehow expose ordinary people to structured competitive debate, if only because it makes many of these falsehoods evident. This kind of debate uses the rules to select the positions of the parties and when they get to speak. Obviously the last speaker doesn't necessarily win, and the winner doesn't necessarily even believe their own position (so the debate doesn't prove that position right). Yet still, it's much better at educating people on the issues than any "debate" that most people have ever watched.
  - Digory 6y ago
    Unfortunately, structured competitive debate these days has gone off the rails. At least, college debate in the US has become ridiculous. Moot court and mock trial retain some semblance of argumentation. But you would have to reinvent the kind of formal debate you’re imagining.
    - amalcon 6y ago
      You may be right; I've been out of that loop for a rather long time now.
    - mensetmanusman 6y ago
      It’s hilarious. Robots talking as quickly as possible to gain points.
      - sixstringtheory 6y ago
        Strathern’s generalization of Goodhart’s Law at work. Once a measure becomes a target it ceases to function as a good measure.
krageon 6y ago
> in a company No, because companies have absolutely 0 incentive to stand by you if doing so becomes difficult. They are amoral, when they throw you under the bus it's like a lion killing a gazelle. Just something they do. You should not ever trust any company in any way.
- milkytron 6y ago
  > You should not ever trust any company in any way. Idk if I agree with this. There needs to be some level of trust. I trust them to pay my paycheck, I trust them to respect the contract I signed when hired. I trust them to give me my tax information in a timely manner. Now, those are some examples that are backed by law or contracts, but if you don't trust any company in any way, then you could be missing out on some of the benefits of said company. I'm also highly skeptical of all companies and make sure boundaries exist that when crossed will result in my departure. But there is definitely a balance, and some level of trust needs to exist.
  - curryst 6y ago
    > I trust them to pay my paycheck, I trust them to respect the contract I signed when hired. I trust them to give me my tax information in a timely manner. Now, those are some examples that are backed by law or contracts, but if you don't trust any company in any way, then you could be missing out on some of the benefits of said company. You don't need trust for any of those. Those are mutually beneficial; the companies benefit in actually having workers and not having the IRS crawling all over them. True trust occurs when you believe another party will not harm you in situations where it would benefit them to harm you, or would at the very least have no negative repercussions for them. Telling a friend a deep secret and then asking them not to tell anyone is trust. Telling them a secret and then making them sign an NDA with financial penalties is a sure sign of a lack of trust.
  - sixstringtheory 6y ago
    > Now, those are some examples that are backed by law or contracts exactly what i was thinking when i read your examples. this isn’t trust in the company, it’s trust in societal infrastructure. > if you don't trust any company in any way, then you could be missing out on some of the benefits of said company maybe, but you haven’t shown that in your arguments. i would love to be convinced otherwise but have seen too much evidence to support the idea that companies should always be held at arm’s length. individuals in the company can be great. but even they will stand by while you are put through the ringer because, understandably, they have their own problems (kids, mortgage, medicine etc) and you won’t be able to help them if they quit out of solidarity with you.

secondcoming 6y ago

Political debate used to have rules. Take this [0] debate between William F Buckley and Noam Chomsky about the Vietman War, for example. The two clearly detested each other but the debate was mostly civil. Christopher Hitchens' debate are others worth watching. Does these even happen any more in MSM? [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9DvmLMUfGss https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9DvmLMUfGss

amalcon 6y ago
Western society seems to have gotten the idea that "debate" is either talking heads trying to shout over each other, presenting prepared arguments to random unprepared people and claiming victory when it takes time to respond, or simply presenting opinions back and forth without trying to justify them. This is tied to the (independent but both incorrect) notions that whoever has the last word in a debate is the winner, and whoever wins the debate is necessarily right. I think it would be valuable to somehow expose ordinary people to structured competitive debate, if only because it makes many of these falsehoods evident. This kind of debate uses the rules to select the positions of the parties and when they get to speak. Obviously the last speaker doesn't necessarily win, and the winner doesn't necessarily even believe their own position (so the debate doesn't prove that position right). Yet still, it's much better at educating people on the issues than any "debate" that most people have ever watched.
- Digory 6y ago
  Unfortunately, structured competitive debate these days has gone off the rails. At least, college debate in the US has become ridiculous. Moot court and mock trial retain some semblance of argumentation. But you would have to reinvent the kind of formal debate you’re imagining.
  - amalcon 6y ago
    You may be right; I've been out of that loop for a rather long time now.
  - mensetmanusman 6y ago
    It’s hilarious. Robots talking as quickly as possible to gain points.
    - sixstringtheory 6y ago
      Strathern’s generalization of Goodhart’s Law at work. Once a measure becomes a target it ceases to function as a good measure.

krageon 6y ago

> in a company No, because companies have absolutely 0 incentive to stand by you if doing so becomes difficult. They are amoral, when they throw you under the bus it's like a lion killing a gazelle. Just something they do. You should not ever trust any company in any way.

milkytron 6y ago
> You should not ever trust any company in any way. Idk if I agree with this. There needs to be some level of trust. I trust them to pay my paycheck, I trust them to respect the contract I signed when hired. I trust them to give me my tax information in a timely manner. Now, those are some examples that are backed by law or contracts, but if you don't trust any company in any way, then you could be missing out on some of the benefits of said company. I'm also highly skeptical of all companies and make sure boundaries exist that when crossed will result in my departure. But there is definitely a balance, and some level of trust needs to exist.
- curryst 6y ago
  > I trust them to pay my paycheck, I trust them to respect the contract I signed when hired. I trust them to give me my tax information in a timely manner. Now, those are some examples that are backed by law or contracts, but if you don't trust any company in any way, then you could be missing out on some of the benefits of said company. You don't need trust for any of those. Those are mutually beneficial; the companies benefit in actually having workers and not having the IRS crawling all over them. True trust occurs when you believe another party will not harm you in situations where it would benefit them to harm you, or would at the very least have no negative repercussions for them. Telling a friend a deep secret and then asking them not to tell anyone is trust. Telling them a secret and then making them sign an NDA with financial penalties is a sure sign of a lack of trust.
- sixstringtheory 6y ago
  > Now, those are some examples that are backed by law or contracts exactly what i was thinking when i read your examples. this isn’t trust in the company, it’s trust in societal infrastructure. > if you don't trust any company in any way, then you could be missing out on some of the benefits of said company maybe, but you haven’t shown that in your arguments. i would love to be convinced otherwise but have seen too much evidence to support the idea that companies should always be held at arm’s length. individuals in the company can be great. but even they will stand by while you are put through the ringer because, understandably, they have their own problems (kids, mortgage, medicine etc) and you won’t be able to help them if they quit out of solidarity with you.