Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
"The “Other Side” Is Not Dumb
There’s a fun game I like to play in a group of trusted friends called “Controversial Opinion.” The rules are simple: Don’t talk about what was shared during Controversial Opinion afterward and you aren’t allowed to “argue” — only to ask questions about why that person feels that way. Opinions can rage from “I think James Bond movies are overrated” to “I think Donald Trump would make a excellent president.”
Usually, someone responds to an opinion with, “Oh my god! I had no idea you were one of those people!” Which is really another way of saying “I thought you were on my team!”
In psychology, the idea that everyone is like us is called the “false-consensus bias.” This bias often manifests itself when we see TV ratings (“Who the hell are all these people that watch NCIS?”) or in politics (“Everyone I know is for stricter gun control! Who are these backwards rubes that disagree?!”) or polls (“Who are these people voting for Ben Carson?”).
Online it means we can be blindsided by the opinions of our friends or, more broadly, America. Over time, this morphs into a subconscious belief that we and our friends are the sane ones and that there’s a crazy “Other Side” that must be laughed at — an Other Side that just doesn’t “get it,” and is clearly not as intelligent as “us.” But this holier-than-thou social media behavior is counterproductive, it’s self-aggrandizement at the cost of actual nuanced discourse and if we want to consider online discourse productive, we need to move past this.
The Economist tracks what media is talking about vs. the habits of actual people.
What is emerging is the worst kind of echo chamber, one where those inside are increasingly convinced that everyone shares their world view, that their ranks are growing when they aren’t. It’s like clockwork: an event happens and then your social media circle is shocked when a non-social media peer group public reacts to news in an unexpected way. They then mock the Other Side for being “out of touch” or “dumb.”
Fredrik deBoer, one of my favorite writers around, touched on this in his Essay “Getting Past the Coalition of the Cool.” He writes:
[The Internet] encourages people to collapse any distinction between their work life, their social life, and their political life. “Hey, that person who tweets about the TV shows I like also dislikes injustice,” which over time becomes “I can identify an ally by the TV shows they like.” The fact that you can mine a Rihanna video for political content becomes, in that vague internety way, the sense that people who don’t see political content in Rihanna’s music aren’t on your side.
When someone communicates that they are not “on our side” our first reaction is to run away or dismiss them as stupid. To be sure, there are hateful, racist, people not worthy of the small amount of electricity it takes just one of your synapses to fire. I’m instead referencing those who actually believe in an opposing viewpoint of a complicated issue, and do so for genuine, considered reasons. Or at least, for reasons just as good as yours.
Source: Esquire/NBC News poll
This is not a “political correctness” issue. It’s a fundamental rejection of the possibility to consider that the people who don’t feel the same way you do might be right. It’s a preference to see the Other Side as a cardboard cut out, and not the complicated individual human beings that they actually are.
What happens instead of genuine intellectual curiosity is the sharing of Slate or Onion or Fox News or Red State links. Sites that exist almost solely to produce content to be shared so friends can pat each other on the back and mock the Other Side. Look at the Other Side! So dumb and unable to see this the way I do!
Sharing links that mock a caricature of the Other Side isn’t signaling that we’re somehow more informed. It signals that we’d rather be smug donkey-caves than consider alternative views. It signals that we’d much rather show our friends that we’re like them, than try to understand those who are not.
It’s impossible to consider yourself a curious person and participate in social media in this way. We cannot consider ourselves “empathetic” only to turn around and belittle those that don’t agree with us.
On Twitter and Facebook this means we prioritize by sharing stuff that will garner approval of our peers over stuff that’s actually, you know, true. We share stuff that ignores wider realities, selectively shares information, or is just an outright falsehood. The misinformation is so rampant that the Washington Post stopped publishing its internet fact-checking column because people didn’t seem to care if stuff was true.
Where debunking an Internet fake once involved some research, it’s now often as simple as clicking around for an “about” or “disclaimer” page. And where a willingness to believe hoaxes once seemed to come from a place of honest ignorance or misunderstanding, that’s frequently no longer the case. Headlines like “Casey Anthony found dismembered in truck” go viral via old-fashioned schadenfreude — even hate.
…
Institutional distrust is so high right now, and cognitive bias so strong always, that the people who fall for hoax news stories are frequently only interested in consuming information that conforms with their views — even when it’s demonstrably fake.
The solution, as deBoer says, “You have to be willing to sacrifice your carefully curated social performance and be willing to work with people who are not like you.” In other words you have to recognize that the Other Side is made of actual people.
But I’d like to go a step further. We should all enter every issue with the very real possibility that we might be wrong this time.
Isn’t it possible that you, reader of Medium and Twitter power user, like me, suffer from this from time to time? Isn’t it possible that we’re not right about everything? That those who live in places not where you live, watch shows that you don’t watch, and read books that you don’t read, have opinions and belief systems just as valid as yours? That maybe you don’t see the entire picture?
Think political correctness has gotten out of control? Follow the many great social activists on Twitter. Think America’s stance on guns is puzzling? Read the stories of the 31% of Americans that own a firearm. This is not to say the Other Side is “right” but that they likely have real reasons to feel that way. And only after understanding those reasons can a real discussion take place.
Source
As any debate club veteran knows, if you can’t make your opponent’s point for them, you don’t truly grasp the issue. We can bemoan political gridlock and a divisive media all we want. But we won’t truly progress as individuals until we make an honest effort to understand those that are not like us. And you won’t convince anyone to feel the way you do if you don’t respect their position and opinions.
A dare for the next time you’re in discussion with someone you disagree with: Don’t try to “win.” Don’t try to “convince” anyone of your viewpoint. Don’t score points by mocking them to your peers. Instead try to “lose.” Hear them out. Ask them to convince you and mean it. No one is going to tell your environmentalist friends that you merely asked follow up questions after your brother made his pro-fracking case.
Or, the next time you feel compelled to share a link on social media about current events, ask yourself why you are doing it. Is it because that link brings to light information you hadn’t considered? Or does it confirm your world view, reminding your circle of intellectual teammates that you’re not on the Other Side?
I implore you to seek out your opposite. When you hear someone cite “facts” that don’t support your viewpoint don’t think “that can’t be true!” Instead consider, “Hm, maybe that person is right? I should look into this.”
Because refusing to truly understand those who disagree with you is intellectual laziness and worse, is usually worse than what you’re accusing the Other Side of doing.
[Thanks for reading! Get a heads up every time I publish something new by subscribing to my newsletter. Sent every other month or so.]"
I think this is something worth keeping in mind, but it's a bad idea to take it to extremes. Some people really are just horrible people and there's no point in trying to understand things from their perspective. All you can do is attempt to mitigate the damage they want to cause.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
I've seen so many people, myself included, decide to really try to be respectful, and learn from 'the other side'. Whatever the issue. It never lasts long, they burn out because they're only so long that you can pretend to be respectful for people who are just spouting slogans back at you.
This is because the other side really is stupid. It doesn't matter what the issue is. It doesn't even matter what side of the issue you've decided on. The other side actually is almost entirely stupid people.
The really important realisation is that your side is also stupid. And not just the other people on your side, you, me and everyone else. We're all quite stupid on almost every issue.
We don't need more respect for the other side. We need less respect for our own side, and less respect for our own opinions.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/01/11 04:48:35
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
sebster wrote: I've seen so many people, myself included, decide to really try to be respectful, and learn from 'the other side'. Whatever the issue. It never lasts long, they burn out because they're only so long that you can pretend to be respectful for people who are just spouting slogans back at you.
This is because the other side really is stupid. It doesn't matter what the issue is. It doesn't even matter what side of the issue you've decided on. The other side actually is almost entirely stupid people.
The really important realisation is that your side is also stupid. And not just the other people on your side, you, me and everyone else. We're all quite stupid on almost every issue.
We don't need more respect for the other side. We need less respect for our own side, and less respect for our own opinions.
How many pages do we think we will get theough before a mod locks this?
H.B.M.C.- The end hath come! From now on armies will only consist of Astorath, Land Speeder Storms and Soul Grinders!
War Kitten- Vanden, you just taunted the Dank Lord Ezra. Prepare for seven years of fighting reality...
koooaei- Emperor: I envy your nipplehorns. <Magnus goes red. Permanently>
Neronoxx- If our Dreadnought doesn't have sick scuplted abs, we riot.
Frazzled- I don't generally call anyone by a term other than "sir" "maam" "youn g lady" "young man" or " HEY bag!"
Ruin- It's official, we've ran out of things to talk about on Dakka. Close the site. We're done.
mrhappyface- "They're more what you'd call guidlines than actual rules" - Captain Roboute Barbosa
Steve steveson- To be clear, I'd sell you all out for a bottle of scotch and a mid priced hooker.
People are stupid. They can be made to believe any lie because either they want to believe it's true or because they are afraid it's true.
Heh
Thing is, I don't think it's about manipulation or about people lacking intelligence. It's just that most topics are really hard to think through entirely. Either because there's loads of technical elements, or because there are complex, non-intuitive elements. People simply don't have the time, let alone the effort to work through all that stuff.
Consider, as an example, the Iranian nuclear deal. Knowing how well that deal worked would require having a reasonable understanding of nuclear science, knowledge of Iran's scientific and infrastructure capabilities, knowledge of international law, and the political aims and ambitions of about dozens of countries. There's not many people across each of those issues in enough detail to form anything more than a guess on the issue. But it didn't stop most of us coming up with an opinion. And our opinions weren't even guesses, they were just tribal following - the left went and accepted what the left was saying about why the deal was good, and the right went and read what the right was saying about why the deal was bad.
I'm not sure what the answer is, here, by the way. It isn't practical for everyone to gain the level of knowledge needed for every single issue. Nor should we just accept ignorance and stop engaging with politics, even though almost all of us are miles out of our depth on almost every issue.
Just, maybe if we all showed some humility, it'd be a nice starting place.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
Tactical_Spam wrote: How many pages do we think we will get theough before a mod locks this?
Fewer than we might if people like you didn't post zero-content spam.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
sebster wrote: Consider, as an example, the Iranian nuclear deal. Knowing how well that deal worked would require having a reasonable understanding of nuclear science, knowledge of Iran's scientific and infrastructure capabilities, knowledge of international law, and the political aims and ambitions of about dozens of countries. There's not many people across each of those issues in enough detail to form anything more than a guess on the issue. But it didn't stop most of us coming up with an opinion. And our opinions weren't even guesses, they were just tribal following - the left went and accepted what the left was saying about why the deal was good, and the right went and read what the right was saying about why the deal was bad.
But I don't think it's an all-or-nothing thing like this example. The fact that the average person can't be expected to become an expert on the subject of the nuclear deal doesn't mean they jump to the opposite extreme and just parrot what "their side" is saying about the issue.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/01/11 05:05:45
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
Tactical_Spam wrote: How many pages do we think we will get theough before a mod locks this?
Fewer than we might if people like you didn't post zero-content spam.
It wasn't spam, it was a valid question. How much debating will occur before this conversation goes into the "My side is better than your side" way of things and it gets locked.
H.B.M.C.- The end hath come! From now on armies will only consist of Astorath, Land Speeder Storms and Soul Grinders!
War Kitten- Vanden, you just taunted the Dank Lord Ezra. Prepare for seven years of fighting reality...
koooaei- Emperor: I envy your nipplehorns. <Magnus goes red. Permanently>
Neronoxx- If our Dreadnought doesn't have sick scuplted abs, we riot.
Frazzled- I don't generally call anyone by a term other than "sir" "maam" "youn g lady" "young man" or " HEY bag!"
Ruin- It's official, we've ran out of things to talk about on Dakka. Close the site. We're done.
mrhappyface- "They're more what you'd call guidlines than actual rules" - Captain Roboute Barbosa
Steve steveson- To be clear, I'd sell you all out for a bottle of scotch and a mid priced hooker.
Just, maybe if we all showed some humility, it'd be a nice starting place.
This... so much this.
While we all can have strong opinions... being open to the other side(s) of the debate is useful in case that your original opinion may change, or be strengthen even further.
Peregrine wrote: But I don't think it's an all-or-nothing thing like this example. The fact that the average person can't be expected to become an expert on the subject of the nuclear deal doesn't mean they jump to the opposite extreme and just parrot what "their side" is saying about the issue.
Sure, it isn’t a binary expert/idiot thing. But on that scale almost everyone is a lot closer to idiot than they are to expert, but they’ll show a lot of confidence in their opinions anyway.
And this isn’t a smart people/dumb people thing. Most people are really knowledgeable on one or two things. But they hold opinions of hundreds of others.
Again, the answer isn’t to just accept our ignorance and let experts decide, we have to be engaged. But instead we should just try and be mindful of how complicated issues are, and keep in mind that we’re probably wrong on a bunch of issues, and at least a little ignorant on a whole lot more. A little more humility.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
whembly wrote: While we all can have strong opinions... being open to the other side(s) of the debate is useful in case that your original opinion may change, or be strengthen even further.
Except, as I said, there are times when the other side is simply wrong and there's nothing left to be open to. Being open-minded in general is a virtue, but blind obedience to a "be open-minded" rule regardless of the situation is not.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
whembly wrote: While we all can have strong opinions... being open to the other side(s) of the debate is useful in case that your original opinion may change, or be strengthen even further.
Except, as I said, there are times when the other side is simply wrong and there's nothing left to be open to. Being open-minded in general is a virtue, but blind obedience to a "be open-minded" rule regardless of the situation is not.
I think those times where the other side is simply wrong is a situation where whembly mentions your own opinion being strengthened? I mean, if you were to get into an argument regarding the shape of the earth, and you use current scientific models to demonstrate how it is actually round, etc. and the person you are arguing with insisted on their "science" and firmly believed that the earth was in fact flat.
Now, obviously, your own opinion isn't going to change, being based on numerous facts based on hundreds of years of scientific progress, technological achievements, etc. However, your opinion/knowledge will be further "cemented" on the idea of a round earth after having this discussion. Perhaps though, while you didn't instantly change your opposition's opinion, you planted a seed in their mind, and over time they may come around to the "proper" way of thinking.
whembly wrote: While we all can have strong opinions... being open to the other side(s) of the debate is useful in case that your original opinion may change, or be strengthen even further.
Except, as I said, there are times when the other side is simply wrong and there's nothing left to be open to. Being open-minded in general is a virtue, but blind obedience to a "be open-minded" rule regardless of the situation is not.
It is interesting for me to see each of your opinions on this, for different reasons. From where I stand, I see Whembly supporting the idea of being open to the other sides of an argument when he repeatedly remains closed to that in the political thread. And I see Peregrine posting examples of the closed-minded thinking that the original article warns against.
This comment is just my opinion with no more backing than your posts in the political thread, and probably is going to be met with immediate hate, but maybe given the context we can stop and consider the situation. This is noting that you are quite likely the furthest right and furthest left, respectively. I have a lot more respect for a person that is willing to be convinced than one who will doggedly stand by their argument to any end.
NinthMusketeer wrote: And I see Peregrine posting examples of the closed-minded thinking that the original article warns against.
That's because I disagree with the article. If someone says "the white race is superior in every way and the only thing wrong with Hitler is that he didn't go far enough in protecting racial purity" there's nothing left to be open-minded to. That position has nothing worth considering, and all we should do is attempt to prevent them from hurting anyone. We should not in any way decide that they must have something worth considering and work hard to understand where they're coming from.
This is noting that you are quite likely the furthest right and furthest left, respectively.
No, I don't think that's true at all. Whembly isn't the furthest right, and I'm pretty sure I'm not the furthest left.
I have a lot more respect for a person that is willing to be convinced than one who will doggedly stand by their argument to any end.
And this is exactly what I'm talking about. Why is the mere fact that someone is willing to be convinced automatically a virtue? It's only praise-worthy if they were wrong. If they were right and gave in to pressure to adopt the majority view then we should criticize their weakness!
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
sebster wrote: I'm not sure what the answer is, here, by the way. It isn't practical for everyone to gain the level of knowledge needed for every single issue. Nor should we just accept ignorance and stop engaging with politics, even though almost all of us are miles out of our depth on almost every issue.
Sometimes just getting involved in the discussion can be a good way of learning things in itself. Even if you are just bouncing slogans, you might eventually arrive at what appears to be an informed opinion through a process of evolution (like the Chinese room). There will certainly be no shortage of people happy to browbeat you into enlightenment if you are wrong about something.
Personally, I'm very suspicious (perhaps even frightened) about anyone jumping to conclusions. I tend to look for something contradictory out of habit, especially when things sound sensible. Really, this is just good "science", reflective scepticism etc, but I've noticed it is rarely appreciated online. I find myself playing devils advocate a lot, which can occasionally be very rewarding if you can get someone to reconsider his/her view, but it can also often make you an object of contempt. It can be frustrating when you try to suggest a different angle on something, and you just get a load of condescending rhetoric back, often from people who didn't fully grasp (or perhaps even read) what you said, they just paint you as "the other side". An awful lot of "rebuttals" on here seem to follow the pattern of: "By your logic, [insert strawman], [insert ridiculous conclusion], [insert thinly veiled insult]", which tends to break down any structured debate, to just repeating myself and dodging bad analogies.
I would also add that issues rarely boil down to any single right or wrong outcome. People disagree because they have different needs and want different outcomes. I've also noticed that people argue about one thing, but think of it in terms of another. For example, in the topics about girls in combat roles, a lot of the posters who were against the idea were really against the lowering of standards, and saw the two things as indivisible, they were arguing with people who were concerned about discrimination. It wasn't long before the insults and appeals to "authority" started flying. The funny thing is, I think both sides were probably right. The military really shouldn't discriminate in principle, but in practice, being a big unwieldy bureaucracy they probably will balls it up and lower standards.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2016/01/11 08:37:05
A thing to keep in mind maybe is I don't think this came out of nowhere? I think it is actively encouraged by people who see it as serving their ends, whether that's politicians who want electoral support, media companies who want a show that resonates with people even at the expense of accuracy, or whatever. We should probably consider what sort of society we want, with that sort of deliberate manipulation in mind and a keen understanding that human beings (including ourselves) are actually not particularly rational at all and quite vulnerable to that manipulation.
I think what sebster says about not trusting ourselves too much is a good place to start. A lot of the worst entrenched positions seem to come from e.g. a lack of experience with another person's viewpoint, and not being too sure of yourself can avoid that.
It's easier to form an opinion based on existing biases and disregard points that contradict it, than actually to engage intellectually with issues.
Also, many people have very limited understanding of subjects like research and statistics, that are important for forming an objective analysis, and therefore are ill equipped for contributing in a constructive way to a debate.
I laugh think of the times I have given what I thought were well constructed, non refutable points, only to see that they were actually quite goofy when someone with more information than me shredded them.
Aye it is important not to categorize people, at the same there is a convienience there that sometimes is the faster way to convey your platform, or recognize anothers.
Furthermore, matters of real wisdom is not something invented along the way but something established on a faith - which is an immutable association ... axiomatic I suppose.
Being absolutely open minded, especially to something that you logically understand to be garbage, is actually violating the logic of the proposed wisdom of the absolutely 'open minded'. The considerate person should then engage the irrational with the rational then.
You need barriers - wisdom - to discern things from & to. There are cretain laws in logic that are fixtures - that other constructs of the mind should hold up to when tested.
The commonly unqualified, idiom 'open mind' is often too open, and synthesises principles. This is called corruption or delusion.
Age of Sigmar - It's sorta like a clogged toilet, where the muck crests over the rim and onto the floor. Somehow 'ground marines' were created from this...
Something to remember is that no matter who you are and what your opinions are, you are partly right and partly wrong. There is no getting away from this, which can be tricky since it is a bit paradoxical to simultaneously accept that yet still argue in favor of your own opinions. But it comes down to the portions; an opinion can be 95% wrong and 5% right, or the reverse.
That's because I disagree with the article. If someone says "the white race is superior in every way and the only thing wrong with Hitler is that he didn't go far enough in protecting racial purity" there's nothing left to be open-minded to. That position has nothing worth considering, and all we should do is attempt to prevent them from hurting anyone. We should not in any way decide that they must have something worth considering and work hard to understand where they're coming from.
Quite the straw man there. But that is exactly the point, you have not tried to understand the other side's argument (in this case, that of the article) and in doing so have ironically provided evidence to support it.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/01/11 14:40:13
sebster wrote: I've seen so many people, myself included, decide to really try to be respectful, and learn from 'the other side'. Whatever the issue. It never lasts long, they burn out because they're only so long that you can pretend to be respectful for people who are just spouting slogans back at you.
This is because the other side really is stupid. It doesn't matter what the issue is. It doesn't even matter what side of the issue you've decided on. The other side actually is almost entirely stupid people.
The really important realisation is that your side is also stupid. And not just the other people on your side, you, me and everyone else. We're all quite stupid on almost every issue.
We don't need more respect for the other side. We need less respect for our own side, and less respect for our own opinions.
I didn't get the idea from the article that we should engage every slack jawed yokel and ask their 2 cents. But with people I know, I have found some value in listening to why they see things the way they do. It's not always horribly illuminating, for example my father-in-law like Trump because he thinks having a business run the country would be good. OTOH, he felt that all the candidates, from either party, would be a good president. So while he has an odd preference, he has a really nuanced view. He also admitted that as a restaurant owner, he does better business under democrats!
I think one thing that a person that wants to be knowledgeable needs to do is to be familiar with the arguments against your position, the real arguments. Read things from serious thinkers. Get past the rhetoric, and read the ideas.
Peregrine wrote: But I don't think it's an all-or-nothing thing like this example. The fact that the average person can't be expected to become an expert on the subject of the nuclear deal doesn't mean they jump to the opposite extreme and just parrot what "their side" is saying about the issue.
Sure, it isn’t a binary expert/idiot thing. But on that scale almost everyone is a lot closer to idiot than they are to expert, but they’ll show a lot of confidence in their opinions anyway.
And this isn’t a smart people/dumb people thing. Most people are really knowledgeable on one or two things. But they hold opinions of hundreds of others.
Again, the answer isn’t to just accept our ignorance and let experts decide, we have to be engaged. But instead we should just try and be mindful of how complicated issues are, and keep in mind that we’re probably wrong on a bunch of issues, and at least a little ignorant on a whole lot more. A little more humility.
Indeed... it's like, everyone thinks they're the expert because they stayed at the Holiday Inn Express last night:
And to your point, one of the worst thing one can do, is to disengage themselves from the process.
I think one thing that a person that wants to be knowledgeable needs to do is to be familiar with the arguments against your position, the real arguments. Read things from serious thinkers. Get past the rhetoric, and read the ideas.
I think that's true, but I also know that's a statement made by a fellow intellectual: someone who enjoys reading through arguments made by other intellectuals.
But most people are not intellectuals, and going from "not intellectual" to "intellectual" is a difficult thing; especially when you've already acquired responsibilities that are more important to you.
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
I like the sentiment, but then I read some posts in the Oregon Standoff Thread (or even the classic Bundy Standoff thread) and remember that yes. Sometimes the other side really is just dumb.
I think Sebster has the nail. Politics is lowest common denominator rules, and I don't really see how that will ever change. The other side is dumb. So is the other other side. So much of what goes on in daily discourse in the US is just stupid political grand standing with little if any substance behind it. Who was the guy that said "the greatest argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter?" Not a nice sentiment, but there was substance to it.
Look, my life is short and I have enough things to think about already. With limited time and energy I have in this world, I'm going to enjoy the warmth and comfort of my echo chamber tyvm. Now who wants to sarcastically exaggerate the positions of gun rights advocates while doing Yosemite Sam voice?
LordofHats wrote: I like the sentiment, but then I read some posts in the Oregon Standoff Thread (or even the classic Bundy Standoff thread) and remember that yes. Sometimes the other side really is just dumb.
I think Sebster has the nail. Politics is lowest common denominator rules, and I don't really see how that will ever change. The other side is dumb. So is the other other side. So much of what goes on in daily discourse in the US is just stupid political grand standing with little if any substance behind it. Who was the guy that said "the greatest argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter?" Not a nice sentiment, but there was substance to it.
I remember having an extremely sharp argument with you a long while ago and you diffused it by posting a spoiler end picture of some old guy in a kinky outfit. I started laughing so hard, I was tearing up and started thinking of you in a whole different light.
Ah yes. I do remember I told you it was gonna get weird
There are posters here like BaronIvagh, Relapse, Iron Captain, Ketara, Melissa, Whembly, and others I've disagreed with (sometimes very hotly) but I don't think any of them are dumb. Some of them are blatantly smarter than me. I think a better sentiment is "Don't assume someone is dumb just because they're on the other side. At least hear them out first, then call them dumb (but keep it to yourself cause saying it out loud is against the rules )"
Even when the other side seems dumb, it is worth understanding their position. Then if it really is dumb you can be justified in discarding that opinions as such. But people have an uncanny ability to become what they are treated as. Engaging in an intellectual discussion with everyone will never get intelligence out of the real idiots, but a surprising number if otherwise reasonable people become the "dumb other side" because they are treated as the dumb other side. Approach them with a genuine intent to understand their reasoning (even if you think it is bad reasoning) and a large portion of people that seemed like idiots actually turn out to just be misinformed or have a perspective you didn't think of.
I think one thing that a person that wants to be knowledgeable needs to do is to be familiar with the arguments against your position, the real arguments. Read things from serious thinkers. Get past the rhetoric, and read the ideas.
I think that's true, but I also know that's a statement made by a fellow intellectual: someone who enjoys reading through arguments made by other intellectuals.
But most people are not intellectuals, and going from "not intellectual" to "intellectual" is a difficult thing; especially when you've already acquired responsibilities that are more important to you.
True, and there's plenty of evidence that shows that most people are somewhere between highly unlikely and utterly incapable of changing their positions.
Still, the broader point against demonizing people that have different views is probably a good one.
bag!"
