4 ms·

Wow. I do not agree with this at all. When I've heard this sentiment before it's from people who, despite the fact that they think they are hyperlogical and des

• moonchrome 15y ago
  >Wow. I do not agree with this at all. When I've heard this sentiment before it's from people who, despite the fact that they think they are hyperlogical and despite the fact that I think I'm hyperlogical, don't in fact agree with me on all public policy issues. Logic operates on premises - and because there is no universal/objective value system we all argue from different/subjective viewpoints - so it's likely that the person you disagree with doesn't start with the same premises. You can have a perfectly logical argument but if it's arguing for a different outcome or from a different viewpoint you aren't going to agree with the other person.
  • dmor 15y ago
    I agree, and this is why I think you can start the argument by framing it in first principles. If you have fundamentally different premises, you at least need to create doubt in the opponent and hopefully get them to (eventually, possibly after dozens of encounters/debates) to check their premises. Fundamentally, can an entire industry that makes art and music be rotten to the core. Probably not, it is full of people like us would are making things and doing things and building careers, and a lot of them are probably also concerned about thxe future of the Internet with SOPA. So we have to respect our audience and opponent's attention span and intelligence, and get some simple effective messages distributed before we miss the window of opportunity.
• gfodor 15y ago
  You'll notice I didn't say we have to be dishonest. The problem is that in the quest to be unequivocally, unquestionably correct, the message ends up getting diluted and ultimately destroyed. The reasons the Republicans control the debate is because they come to a decision on an issue, and focus on getting their message and viewpoint across in the simplest way possible. They do not play devil's advocate, do not focus on arguments against their point, because it's an ineffective use of their time when being listened to. They frame issues in a way that people can understand them, and, in their own perverse way, respect their audience for the fact they often are not very interested in the details and would like someone to sum up their views succinctly and in a way that makes a value judgement possible quickly. Where they cross the line is where they outright lie. But it's not their responsibility to point out the flaws in their own argument, nor is it their responsibility to avoid logical fallacies in making their case if those appeals to emotion make the issue more 'real' for their audience. Meanwhile, Democrats trying to do the right thing end up in-fighting over the most minute detail of how to frame their argument in a way that is both pure and honest. They acknowledge the argument of the other side, and always posit themselves as a refutation to the primary mover, the Republicans (or in this case, the big media industry.) They do not frame the argument. They do not set the grounds for discussion. They do not assert their power. A lot can be learned by watching the way the right-wing spin machine works. It is a tool that can be used for good or evil, and used in a way that is ethically sound. Of course, it is important to avoid the trap of going too far, and we can see clearly the result of doing so. But this doesn't mean that we can't channel the power of messaging, framing, and so on in order to bring about progress. For example, we've already lost this debate in so many ways. The response to this shouldn't just be "block this bill" it should be "block this bill", and: - Here is a concise message that summarizes our position: "Don't break our Internet," "Get your hands off our Internet", "Leave the Internet alone," "Stop trying to break the Internet" (Edit: Right now, Google's position is "Please don't censor the web!" Say that in the voice of a little girl and you might understand why this messaging sucks. Don't say please. Don't use the word censor. Tell them to fuck off without using profanity.) - Here is a pledge that you as a representative must sign about passing Internet legislation or else you will not receive any votes from this consitutency. - Here is a bill we would like you to pass (pushed by lobbyists from Google/Facebook/etc) that prevents future legislation from tampering with the free flow of information on the Internet. - We now refer to the companies pushing SOPA as the "Old Media", "Content Monopolies", "Pre-Internet Media", "Legacy Content Providers", "Anti-Artist Media", or "Copyright Law Abusers". We refer to sites like Spotify and Youtube as "Modern Media", "Open Media", "Pro-Artist Media", or "Modern Content Providers." - "Copyright infringement" is not "piracy" but is "missharing." "Net Neutrality" is "Free Internet" or "Web Freedom". DRM is on "Chained Content" or "Locked Content". Etc. It's not dishonest. It's controlling the debate from a position of power and righteousness.
• wladimir 15y ago
  Logic is not the only, or even the most important, factor which undermines productive debate. Logic is only a means to an end. With the advent of computer technology it is too easy to think that logic is what runs (or should run) the world, or that some political positions are "logical" and others are not. But logic, like technology, can be used for any end. The important debate is one of ethics, intuition, (future) human values, and cost/externalities. And should indeed be framed as such. I am not advocating dishonesty, as it is easily called out and used against you.