|
There is a neurotic cycle of people debating the right for the wrong reasons. Debating them to share ideas or reach their audience is stupid. You debate them to prove them wrong and defeat their ideology in a non-violent way. Their audience isn't ignorant to the left's points and needing to be engaged. They didn't reason their way into their beliefs and you won't reason them out of being willfully ignorant. Debate them to avoid shooting them later. The left or centrist sorta believe the fallacy of civil debate that the right uses when the right has no intention on civility or openmindness. For whatever reason, centrists are afraid of confrontation and they agonize over stating their world view as correct and to be defended. Contra (I'm assuming) thinks she needs to open to the door to the right but really it doesn't matter. The openminded or rational ones will reach a point (like she did) regardless. Being confrontational doesn't prohibit people for hearing her points. This whole catering to the lost sheep is just providing cover for the right to present their ideas as valid. Its allowing them to teach the controversy.
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2017 15:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 05:44 |
|
|
It's not a video game where if you get enough debate points an announcer shouts ANTIFA WINS and the nazis have to wait until the next round to try again. There is no defeating an ideology in debate except by convincing people that they're wrong, thereby starving them of support. And "you can't reason some one out of a position they didn't reason themselves into" is just dumb self aggrandizing poo poo. No, right wing ideas are not based on sound logic, but there are still reasons people believe in them. They're humans, not chaos elementals, and that "can't reason" adage is just a way to explain why your super cool rational logic isn't winning the day like Socrates while exempting you from actually trying to understand how people get to that point. I'm not saying you can win them over with good civil debates. Most people who stake out a public position aren't going to get swayed by that, and most people don't really care what some rando says, but there is a legitimate need to understand how people fall into stupid garbage beliefs other than "well they're just crazy and irrational."
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2017 16:36
|
|
|
you debate them to clown on them.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2017 16:40
|
|
|
I mean, you give them enough time they'll just put the diapers on themselves. edit: Seriously though, I think the way western cultures, and especially white culture and nerdy culture, have enshrined spite, anger, and dominance are big reasons why debate with alt right types tends to fail. TGLT fucked around with this message at 16:56 on Nov 25, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2017 16:46
|
|
|
I think what pisses me off the most is I see so many people ready to throw CoNtra overboard for this. I keep seeing other trans activists shouted at for far less. Contra isn’t god drat perfect. And if your expecting YouTube people to be paragons of leftism, then your life is going to be full of disappointment.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2017 16:57
|
|
|
An unironic "So much for the tolerant left!" scenario. I, for one, embrace using the same exclusionary tactics as my opponents.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2017 17:03
|
|
|
TGLT posted:It's not a video game where if you get enough debate points an announcer shouts ANTIFA WINS and the nazis have to wait until the next round to try again. There is no defeating an ideology in debate except by convincing people that they're wrong, thereby starving them of support. And "you can't reason some one out of a position they didn't reason themselves into" is just dumb self aggrandizing poo poo. No, right wing ideas are not based on sound logic, but there are still reasons people believe in them. They're humans, not chaos elementals, and that "can't reason" adage is just a way to explain why your super cool rational logic isn't winning the day like Socrates while exempting you from actually trying to understand how people get to that point.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2017 17:08
|
|
|
temple posted:You aren't going to defeat ideology with a debate, its a substitute for violence. Its a confrontation. I mean you're the one that said it was a non-violent way to "defeat their ideology". But if you're not flipping anyone then you're not actually defeating anything you're just doing it to feel good, and at that point masturbation's a lot easier.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2017 17:20
|
|
|
BigRed0427 posted:Contra isn’t god drat perfect. Neither are fans which plenty of Youtubers have realized before and adjusted to like TB a lifetime ago and Lindsay last year when a select number of posters in the Critic Discussion thread veritably drove her off these forums. You can't be both a people-pleaser and do your own thing at the same time. Once you get popular enough a small contingent will always be disappointed. If you diverge at that point you either have to backpedal and accommodate, or, you stick to your position and start filtering out the opinions which are not helpful. Contra is doing neither of these and instead seems to be paralyzed by the possibility of pissing people off. She needs to commit to a course and let this go.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2017 17:22
|
|
|
Pretty sure the policy of not engaging except to mock got us Trump so perhaps at least attempting discourse is a good idea. This notion of "Listening to someone must mean you agree with them!" is not helpful. Dialogue is good and for every single person in the shitlord's corner, there will be more going "Wow I had no idea they believed that." if the audience is willing to listen.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2017 17:23
|
|
|
Rugoberta Munchu posted:Pretty sure the policy of not engaging except to mock got us Trump so perhaps at least attempting discourse is a good idea. This notion of "Listening to someone must mean you agree with them!" is not helpful. Dialogue is good and for every single person in the shitlord's corner, there will be more going "Wow I had no idea they believed that." if the audience is willing to listen. Also before someone else jumps down your throat what we're talking about here is actually confronting their ideas. Not just giving them a platform and letting them say whatever uncontested like Dave Rubin (and increasingly mainstream journalists) have a tendency to do.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2017 17:27
|
|
|
TGLT posted:I mean you're the one that said it was a non-violent way to "defeat their ideology". But if you're not flipping anyone then you're not actually defeating anything you're just doing it to feel good, and at that point masturbation's a lot easier. edit: And there is no governing body that will declare a victory but the attempt and purpose (my point) was to defeat the ideology. So now, you cant literally do it but you debate in that effort. You don't do it to listen to them or sway them. temple fucked around with this message at 17:30 on Nov 25, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2017 17:28
|
|
|
MiddleOne posted:Also before someone else jumps down your throat what we're talking about here is actually confronting their ideas. Not just giving them a platform and letting them say whatever uncontested like Dave Rubin (and increasingly mainstream journalists) have a tendency to do.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2017 17:30
|
|
|
temple posted:People change themselves. I don't mean defeat literally. Hope this helps. So what you're saying is people do need to be engaged with and that you can convince them to stop being "willfully ignorant"? Okay, this is the problem. If you aren't doing it to sway them, how exactly are you proposing they change? Do you think people just spontaneously become good? Or do you think the only merit to a debate is to an audience who is totally undecided? TGLT fucked around with this message at 17:35 on Nov 25, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2017 17:31
|
|
|
TGLT posted:So what you're saying is people do need to be engaged with and that you can convince them to stop being "willfully ignorant"? People can be convinced of anything. Propaganda works and ignoring it has never achieved anything.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2017 17:32
|
|
|
Rugoberta Munchu posted:Pretty sure the policy of not engaging except to mock got us Trump it isn't.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2017 17:37
|
|
|
Groovelord Neato posted:it isn't. Pretty sure the policy of not engaging except to mock got us your posting
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2017 17:39
|
|
|
Groovelord Neato posted:it isn't.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2017 17:41
|
|
|
mocking dumbasses isn't why trump is president.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2017 17:41
|
|
|
Groovelord Neato posted:mocking dumbasses isn't why trump is president. One might think that "except" is a key word in that sentence. MiddleOne posted:People can be convinced of anything. Propaganda works and ignoring it has never achieved anything. doin a thing reread temple's first post on this page
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2017 17:42
|
|
|
there's no engaging the type of person who voted for trump. i understood the post fine. if all we did was mock them that's fine it wasn't what got us trump. (and they deserve mockery besides).
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2017 17:45
|
|
|
Cool. I'll just say "Drumpf!" or whatever the new hot thing Trevor Noah or John Oliver is doing these days and feel superior for the next 3 years.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2017 17:47
|
|
|
Groovelord Neato posted:it isn't. I think people way overvalue the alt-right movement's contribution to Trump, but there was definitely an undercurrent of "if we ignore this proto-reactionary movement and/or mock people who fall for it, everything will be fine" up to when Trump got elected
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2017 17:48
|
|
|
Rugoberta Munchu posted:Cool. I'll just say "Drumpf!" or whatever the new hot thing Trevor Noah or John Oliver is doing these days and feel superior for the next 3 years. oh boy did you peg me completely wrong holy poo poo lmao Not So Fast posted:I think people way overvalue the alt-right movement's contribution to Trump, but there was definitely an undercurrent of "if we ignore this proto-reactionary movement and/or mock people who fall for it, everything will be fine" up to when Trump got elected trump won because republican voters voted for him. they always fall in line.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2017 17:48
|
|
|
TGLT posted:doin a thing reread temple's first post on this page Temple stated the idea that debating people is meaningful just to confront the ideas even if swaying the crowd might mostly be futile. I supplemented that reasoning by stating that propaganda works best in a vacuum and must be confronted which supports Temple's argument. Assuming I didn't misunderstand him. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2017 17:49
|
|
|
TGLT posted:So what you're saying is people do need to be engaged with and that you can convince them to stop being "willfully ignorant"?
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2017 17:49
|
|
|
MiddleOne posted:Temple stated the idea that debating people is meaningful just to confront the ideas even if swaying the crowd might mostly be futile. I supplemented that reasoning by stating that propaganda works best in a vacuum and has to be confronted which supports Temple's argument. I'm specifically reusing Temple's terms to address the idea that people can't be convinced, since if they can't be convinced I'm not sure how Temple expects them to change anyways. The value of a non-violent confrontation, ie debate, is that it can avoid a violent confrontation later by helping people change. That or intimidation, but there are way better ways to intimidate people than saying "Hey I think you're wrong and here's why." temple posted:You can't convince them, you resist them and their ideas. They will decide where they stand. Fascism, racism, sexism, etc....should be confronted because it hurts people. And debating people who you think will never be convinced amounts to a resistance how? Arguing with people under the assumption that they'll never change isn't some heroic confrontation, it's just intellectual masturbation. If you don't think it works then cool, but be honest and consistent about it. Seriously, how many people on this forum have posted "I used to be a libertarian but then I read X and listened to Y and thought about Z"? That's how Contra describes her own path to where she is now. Shaun as well. There's nothing special about people on this forum that made them good people, and there's nothing about the far right that makes them magical dumb dumbs that are just cursed to forever be poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2017 17:59
|
|
|
TGLT posted:And debating people who you think will never be convinced amounts to a resistance how? Arguing with people under the assumption that they'll never change isn't some heroic confrontation, it's just intellectual masturbation. If you don't think it works then cool, but be honest and consistent about it. debates are always intellectual masturbation. it's why in debate team you get assigned a position - you'll often have to debate a position that is objectively untenable or morally reprehensible. hillary destroyed trump in the debates and what good did it do. pence lied the entire debate against kaine but the media acted like pence won just due to how he acted. shaun isn't debating he makes a video going over a subject and why someone is wrong. that's a good avenue since your opponent can't try to bury you with a gish gallop or engage in bad faith argumentation or get a burn on you. as an example ben shapiro was giving a speech somewhere and a woman during the Q&A asked what was his issue with accepting people by their gender identity. his response was to ask her age and she said 20 something he said why can't you be 60 years old just say you're 60 years old. that's the dumbest poo poo imaginable and his fans still think he's some titan of thought and the nyt even called him a gladiator (i believe the story was even relayed int heir article). people have to be smart enough to realize how dumb/ignorant they are and these people are too stupid to realize how stupid they are. you can't reach those folk. Groovelord Neato fucked around with this message at 18:10 on Nov 25, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2017 18:05
|
|
|
TGLT posted:I mean, you give them enough time they'll just put the diapers on themselves. I still can't believe they did that. It's amazing. MiddleOne posted:and Lindsay last year when a select number of posters in the Critic Discussion thread veritably drove her off these forums. Jesus, really? How did they manage that? bessantj fucked around with this message at 18:16 on Nov 25, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2017 18:06
|
|
|
bessantj posted:I still can't believe they did that. It's amazing. LIke, one or two dude should couldn’t let go of the fact she misquoted Socrates. I don’t even remember what video it was
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2017 18:12
|
|
|
TGLT posted:I'm specifically reusing Temple's terms to address the idea that people can't be convinced, since if they can't be convinced I'm not sure how Temple expects them to change anyways. The value of a non-violent confrontation, ie debate, is that it can avoid a violent confrontation later by helping people change. That or intimidation, but there are way better ways to intimidate people than saying "Hey I think you're wrong and here's why." People can change their ideas, problem is that is something must they do on their own. Debates are team-oriented events and are inherently unsuited for convincing anyone of anything but what they do accomplish is eroding the foundations of arguments by either challenging dominant explanations or providing alternative ones. Propaganda is the art of presenting seemingly reasonable arguments in an environment where the assumptions of the argument can go unopposed. In the current social media climate debates are valuable because they present one of the few avenues for reaching audiences which can otherwise be completely isolated from opposing viewpoints and hopefully planting the seed of doubt before they're too far gone. The poster above me who mentioned the Hillary debate has completely missed that point. The debate was too late, debates can't make people change their mind overnight. Trump had already gone unopposed for months at that point and it was simply to late to start challenging any ideas. That's something mainstream journalists should have been doing every opportunity they had from day one but they were too busy pointing and laughing because at that point he was still not perceived as a real threat. bessantj posted:Jesus, really? How did they manage that? N By being goons.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2017 18:15
|
|
|
it wasn't too late, debates are always useless in an intellectual sense. nobody who could be won over by trump listened to the media about anything. are you guys not americans or something. republicans always vote for the republican. it's a team sport. part of the reason she lost was trying to win over "moderate" republicans.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2017 18:17
|
|
|
BigRed0427 posted:LIke, one or two dude should couldn’t let go of the fact she misquoted Socrates. I don’t even remember what video it was MiddleOne posted:By being goons. Some posters on here can be painful sometimes.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2017 18:17
|
|
|
Groovelord Neato posted:it wasn't too late, debates are always useless in an intellectual sense. Do you really want to get into an argument on the myriad of reasons why Hillary lost the election?
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2017 18:18
|
|
|
TGLT posted:I'm specifically reusing Temple's terms to address the idea that people can't be convinced, since if they can't be convinced I'm not sure how Temple expects them to change anyways. The value of a non-violent confrontation, ie debate, is that it can avoid a violent confrontation later by helping people change. That or intimidation, but there are way better ways to intimidate people than saying "Hey I think you're wrong and here's why." Because I keep telling you over and over that you don't debate them to change them. gently caress stop responding to me with that same point. You debate them to prove them wrong and confront that their ideas.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2017 18:24
|
|
|
BigRed0427 posted:I think what pisses me off the most is I see so many people ready to throw CoNtra overboard for this. I keep seeing other trans activists shouted at for far less. Very much this. I mean Shaun said "I will disappoint you" a few times, and I think we need to take that on board. I mean it kind of hurts that the "always online twice" people are so loud, but I think at this point making the content is probably better. Expecting anyone to be a perfect paragon of anything is an impossibility, we don't expect it from ourselves so we shouldn't expect it from others. Groovelord Neato posted:are you guys not americans or something. republicans always vote for the republican. it's a team sport. part of the reason she lost was trying to win over "moderate" republicans. So, how does anyone win an election if they didn't win the last election? There is a team sport mentality about a lot of it, but it isn't set in stone. Again we as a collective are deeply loving weird for thinking about this poo poo as much as we do.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2017 18:26
|
|
|
It's just a comforting idea Americans have thought up because then they don't have to do anything.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2017 18:28
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:So, how does anyone win an election if they didn't win the last election? There is a team sport mentality about a lot of it, but it isn't set in stone. Again we as a collective are deeply loving weird for thinking about this poo poo as much as we do. put up a good candidate. i'm sorry i meant it's a team sport for the gop - republicans fall in line, democrats fall in love. a lot of people, myself included, were naive enough to believe a centrist candidate would peel off moderate republicans but gop voters are monsters. there are more democratic voters than republican (only 25 percent of the electorate voted for trump) and the gop is going to be decimated once the boomers die and us crackers become a smaller percentage of the population. gerrymandering is the next battle and there has been positive movement on that front. Groovelord Neato fucked around with this message at 18:34 on Nov 25, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2017 18:30
|
|
|
MiddleOne posted:People can change their ideas, problem is that is something must they do on their own. Debates are team-oriented events and are inherently unsuited for convincing anyone of anything but what they do accomplish is eroding the foundations of arguments by either challenging dominant explanations or providing alternative ones. Propaganda is the art of presenting seemingly reasonable arguments in an environment where the assumptions of the argument can go unopposed. In the current social media climate debates are valuable because they present one of the few avenues for reaching audiences which can otherwise be completely isolated from opposing viewpoints and hopefully planting the seed of doubt before they're too far gone. See, in this case I think we just have a different definition of convince. For me, planting those seeds of doubts and eroding the foundations of an argument is convincing some one. Nor do I see it as an entirely external or internal process. I don't see convincing someone as a binary in the moment sudden flip. I see it as a gradual process that a bunch of people generally contribute to, including oneself. temple posted:Because I keep telling you over and over that you don't debate them to change them. gently caress stop responding to me with that same point. Like I said, if that's how you feel that's fine but you ought to be honest that it's just feel good bullshit then, not some sort of meaningful confrontation or resistance. Groovelord Neato posted:debates are always intellectual masturbation. it's why in debate team you get assigned a position - you'll often have to debate a position that is objectively untenable or morally reprehensible. hillary destroyed trump in the debates and what good did it do. pence lied the entire debate against kaine but the media acted like pence won just due to how he acted. You get assigned a position because it's about your capacity to craft an argument not about actually convincing people at debateathon 2017. I hope. I hope no one is secretly weaponizing debate clubs. But I do agree with you that I think big public debates, particularly ones that get treated as a spectacle like presidential debates, aren't really a great way to convince much of anyone . There needs to be a fundamental willingness to change that people don't tend to bring to big public debates like that. I don't think that means you can't reach people though, I think it just means you need to figure out how they came to their positions instead of just writing them off as wholly irrational. People don't just pluck ideologies like racism and poo poo out of the void, people reached them before. And hey, maybe you personally can't reach them. Maybe some one's ideologies predominantly formed based on the opinions of people they already respect and elevate, and if you're not gonna be able to get into your position that's just how it is.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2017 18:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 05:44 |
|
|
Groovelord Neato posted:put up a good candidate. (i'm sorry i meant it's a team sport for the gop - republicans fall in line, democrats fall in love.) Oh! Sorry I misunderstood! Though saying that I saw the Sargon comment under Contra's latest vid and there was someone in the comments who was very cross at both himself and Sargon for wasting his time and making him believe in being a shithead for a bit. I like to think there are lots of people like that who go "huh, maybe I am an rear end", its a faint hope but I'd like to hope a few people will see it. Also this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5MS0TrsI7rE Is utterly hilarious.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2017 18:36
|
|