|
OwlFancier posted:The same reason you believe anything else, you have no basis for that, either. I think this is why Leftists get so stuck arguing. Because if you believe that your beliefs have "no basis" you start making assumptions that other people don't either and therefore no-one is persuadable.
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2017 19:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 12:29 |
|
|
Josef bugman posted:But you provide no reason for thinking this. You simply say "they have a home team advantage" to which the obvious rejoinder is "So? Do it anyway". Why do they have an advantage, because they do it more? I think it's unwise, and makes you a liability to leftist cause (if that's what you choose to promote). Leftist philosophy often eschews appeals to dualism, free will, natural rights, and the paramount importance of individual freedom; but many opposing philosophies embrace these things and have for a very, very long time. The entire foundation of many religions are based on a god dictating objective morality to its followers, and many forms of objectivism and capitalist libertarianism basically require these constructs (particularly free will and natural rights) to justify their moral framework. I'd prefer to knock out those foundational assumptions than to follow them down that rabbit hole and even give them an inch. Can you tell me what you're expecting me to do here- name drop a bunch of philosophies or philosophers that heavily lean on objective interpretations of rights and morality? Josef bugman posted:"I don't know why I believe this" appears as an inherently weaker position than "I believe this because it is true". That doesn't make the latter's position of claiming to know the truth actually true though? Josef bugman posted:That and, if you have no basis for believing what you believe... why should I believe what you believe? Your mistaking my humility in admitting 'it's complicated' with 'you have no basis to believe in what you believe in'. There are clearly causes and reasons I believe what I believe, but they are very disparate and cumulative. Edit: \/ \/ \/ \/ \/ \/ This PoizenJam fucked around with this message at 19:14 on Nov 29, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2017 19:09
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:I think this is why Leftists get so stuck arguing. Because if you believe that your beliefs have "no basis" you start making assumptions that other people don't either and therefore no-one is persuadable. No as in ultimately there is no basis for your beliefs that cannot be reduced to accepting premises because you like the sound of them, at some point, which is what you appeared to be asking for?
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2017 19:10
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:The fun part is consequentially speaking it's our fault Objectively, it seems like a dumb move to make 
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2017 19:13
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:Objectively, it seems like a dumb move to make Huzanko committed forums seppuku over a philosophical debate? Good lord. That's honestly the first time I've seen that happen in my 10+ years of posting and lurking. Edit: I just checked, and a mod named 'FactsAreUseless' banned him so I am totally ok with this hilarious development.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2017 19:16
|
|
|
Goon Danton posted:Yep! OK fluffs pillow someone wake me when something happens with youtube intellectuals please.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2017 19:18
|
|
|
JVNO posted:Can you tell me what you're expecting me to do here- name drop a bunch of philosophies or philosophers that heavily lean on objective interpretations of rights and morality? I am trying to get you to see that from a tactical point of view it doesn't matter one tin poo poo if you don't think we can make "objective" arguments. What matters is if they work to persuade people not to go down the "Libertarinism -> JVNO posted:That doesn't make the latter's position of claiming to know the truth actually true though? No it doesn't, but it looks that way. "I have no way of knowing the truth" vs "I know the truth and will share". JVNO posted:Your mistaking my humility in admitting 'it's complicated' with 'you have no basis to believe in what you believe in'. There are clearly causes and reasons I believe what I believe, but they are very disparate and cumulative. So lay them out. Explain and defend why you believe what you believe. Don't go "Well I can't know why I believe this" because what I asked you is the obvious rejoinder to that statement. OwlFancier posted:No as in ultimately there is no basis for your beliefs that cannot be reduced to accepting premises because you like the sound of them, at some point, which is what you appeared to be asking for? I know there is no basis for my own beliefs that I can prove. However I am saying that many people may perhaps be less willing to countenance this point and will, probably, think it a foolish one. What I was pointing out was that the "no basis" claim is actively deleterious for persuading people of things. I am discussing tactical persuading things, which I think is what Hazanko was talking about. Josef bugman fucked around with this message at 19:21 on Nov 29, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2017 19:19
|
|
|
If you're arguing from a debate tactics perspective then I think trying to dethrone the existing occupiers of the objective morality citadel just by yelling real loud is going to leave you hoarse and not much better off. You would be better off not engaging with it and trying to get a wedge in the fringes of uncertainty, of subjectivism, present in most people. Not least because in that instance your own subjectivism is a point of unity. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 19:25 on Nov 29, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2017 19:22
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:If you're arguing from a debate tactics perspective then I think trying to dethrone the existing occupiers of the objective morality citadel just by yelling real loud is going to leave you hoarse and not much better off. I am not even arguing debate. I am arguing persuasion and argument in any setting. I am trying to say that if our big ideas for the future have to be prefaced with "well I only believe this because of a range of interlocking factors, and that is also true of your own as well" it won't do particularly well in terms of persuading people to consider leftist ideas. But hey, maybe I am wrong.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2017 19:28
|
|
|
You don't have to preface them with that, but if you start out by saying "OK, first off, X Y and Z are objectively true and if you disagree you're wrong" then the first response you get is going to be "prove it."
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2017 19:29
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:What matters is if they work to persuade people not to go down the "Libertarinism -> And I think this is best done by knocking down the pillars on which they base their beliefs- hence why I have no interest in utilizing the same fallacies inherent in their philosophies to prop up my own. That lends them credibility. I'll have to again agree with OwlFancier and say, at that point, you're just better off not engaging. Or alternatively, take a different approach- you can make decent utilitarian and/or consequentialist counterarguments to plenty far right arguments that would appeal to many observers. I just don't believe in sacrificing rigour and honesty to make my position sound better. And I don't think it's correct to suggest forsaking claims of absolute truth means forsaking the ability to mount an effective counterargument to opponents. PoizenJam fucked around with this message at 19:40 on Nov 29, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2017 19:32
|
|
|
Yeah, unless you think you can win the objective morality argument your best bet is to not get into it, which means not engaging on those terms. Which would appear to be precisely the opposite of what huznako was suggesting.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2017 19:34
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:You don't have to preface them with that, but if you start out by saying "OK, first off, X Y and Z are objectively true and if you disagree you're wrong" then the first response you get is going to be "prove it." "People starving to death in the street is wrong because it is a moral duty to care for those who are less fortunate and if you disagree you are wrong". "Prove it". "It doesn't need proof" You deal with it in the same way Objectivists deal with it, you ignore it and make it the other persons problem.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2017 19:38
|
|
|
I don't know if immediately devolving into a "nuh uh, you're wrong" fight is really the best practical advocacy for the left that can be mustered against the right.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2017 19:39
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:"People starving to death in the street is wrong because it is a moral duty to care for those who are less fortunate and if you disagree you are wrong". "People starving to the death in the street is wrong because you might end up being one of those people" is a better argument without bringing in weird concepts of morality. Like, a society can only be judged by how it treats its weakest members kind of thing.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2017 19:40
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:"People starving to death in the street is wrong because it is a moral duty to care for those who are less fortunate and if you disagree you are wrong". "Prove it". "It doesn't need proof" Sure you can go down that road if you want to give up every pretence about the right wing being the anti-intellectual ones.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2017 19:41
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:"People starving to the death in the street is wrong because you might end up being one of those people" is a better argument without bringing in weird concepts of morality. Or even working through the statement to get the audience to visualize it. Go into detail and get them to really emote with the idea of starving to death in the street, try and trip the other person into coming off as callous. It's wishy washy subjectivist silliness and if it come down to it the people you're temporarily convincing probably don't actually believe it and will immediately suppress that emotiveness when it's helpful for them, but it works in the moment.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2017 19:43
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I don't know if immediately devolving into a "nuh uh, you're wrong" fight is really the best practical advocacy for the left that can be mustered against the right. Why not? It's worked. Bear in mind that I understand what you are all saying, but I am trying to look at the problem from a materialist pov only.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2017 19:50
|
|
|
How... has it worked?
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2017 19:51
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:How... has it worked? Because the right wing "objective meaning" people are in charge across large areas of the world and it apparently hasn't mattered a tin poo poo how bad their arguments are.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2017 19:53
|
|
|
That doesn't at all imply the same strategy would work for the left.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2017 19:55
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:Because the right wing "objective meaning" people are in charge across large areas of the world and it apparently hasn't mattered a tin poo poo how bad their arguments are. the problem with going full blown nativist as a left winger is that the only thing that matters is how nativist you are, and you will be ditched for the first unrepentant fascist as soon as they appear because criticism is not something the right can tolerate anyway e; it is really important here to seperate the traditional left and right from nativist/full blown fash because believing stupid economic bullshit and having terrible morals doesn't make you a nativist; but the only right-wing parties in power are nativists because that's all they have left
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2017 19:56
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:Because the right wing "objective meaning" people are in charge across large areas of the world and it apparently hasn't mattered a tin poo poo how bad their arguments are. That's where the "home field advantage" thing comes in. That works to occupy a position but you don't retake that position by smashing your head against your opponent's strongest entrenchments.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2017 20:00
|
|
|
Spangly A posted:the problem with going full blown nativist as a left winger is that the only thing that matters is how nativist you are, and you will be ditched for the first unrepentant fascist as soon as they appear because criticism is not something the right can tolerate anyway Not nativist, just saying things are "objectively true". Though I do get what you are meaning here about going full nativist. JVNO posted:That doesn't at all imply the same strategy would work for the left. Why not? Co-opting things and re-using them to better effect is something that the right does to the left, why not return the favour. OwlFancier posted:That's where the "home field advantage" thing comes in. That works to occupy a position but you don't retake that position by smashing your head against your opponent's strongest entrenchments. Well in which case present some times that it has previously been attempted and has not had a good effect. Josef bugman fucked around with this message at 20:12 on Nov 29, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2017 20:08
|
|
|
I'm not a fan of devil's advocacy but can we get someone in here to pretend to be a lovely right winger? A lot of people have been saying "hypothetically, lovely right wingers already have a good response worked out to that" and for the most part I agree but a lot of people seem super skeptical about that. (I would consider doing it, but it's super corrosive to the soul. Also, you'd have to pretend there's ten of me and one of you.)
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2017 20:17
|
|
|
Krotera posted:I'm not a fan of devil's advocacy but can we get someone in here to pretend to be a lovely right winger? I can try if you want. I promise no commitment but if it'll help illustrate the point.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2017 20:19
|
|
|
I'm sorry, I just wanted some examples. If not that's fine.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2017 20:21
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:I'm sorry, I just wanted some examples. If not that's fine. i like you, please don't feel singled out =( EDIT: Hold up a sec, my next post will contain a statement of the "objective right and wrong" version of the left-wing case.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2017 20:21
|
|
|
Examples would probably work better as a dialogue cos I feel really loving weird writing made up scripts arguing against myself and I avoid right wingers cos they just make me angry. I guess, like, stuff like the idea that social stratification is good because it's only correct that some people are better than others, have worked harder and deserve more and they give to others by virtue of being rich and owning stuff. You don't attack that idea by just yelling NO YOU'RE WRONG at it. Cos a lot of people are really dug in with that idea, they identify with it and believe in it. You gotta unpick it by digging away at the periphery with emotive arguments I think. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 20:25 on Nov 29, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2017 20:22
|
|
|
If I try to boil this down as simply as I can muster, I come up with this: Many popular right-leaning philosophies (religious or otherwise) require constructs like dualism, free will, and natural rights/morality to justify. Many popular, left-leaning philosophies require no such pretences about the existence of those constructs. By accepting their premise about the existence of these constructs, you can only weaken your own position (if you are a leftist), because your arguments do not and should not require appeals to those constructs. You are ceding ground you do not need to cede for no reason other than to embolden and legitimize your opponent's position. PoizenJam fucked around with this message at 20:34 on Nov 29, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2017 20:32
|
|
|
Yeah I like that explanation, there's a reason I don't fully understand those ideas and that's cos I have no need for them, but it's not an obstacle at all for believing in the value of left politics. I think I see, and what I think I see is injustice, and I feel moved to remedy that.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2017 20:38
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:Do you have any clue as to how to be kind to people? Uh, there's pretty obviously no one to blame but Huzanko for him requesting the permaban. Speaking of which, where did that occur? I don't see any posts where he requests one. Regarding the whole "claiming a moral high ground as a tactic for debating with right-wingers or other ideologies," that's a pretty dumb idea. At best, you just end up with a "he said she said" situation where the other person can just say "nuh uh, what I believe is actually the most moral!" If you're arguing with someone who only cares about bold, unproven claims of moral superiority, you're just wasting your time because there's nothing you can do in the first place. Your perspective sorta reminds me of when I was a teenager and thought it was the most clever thing ever to bring up Bible passages that supported liberal ideas. Those arguments aren't wrong, but they're also completely useless against the sort of conservative who doesn't care about material evidence in the first place. edit: In the first place, this argument was Huzanko's fault because he was the one who chose to repeatedly focus on and defend the use of "objective," and most of his earlier posts seemed to all the world like he was actually arguing that his morality was objectively true (as opposed to arguing about debate tactics against right-wingers). If he had just said "I don't mean it's literally objectively true, but I think saying it is would be a good idea when arguing with right-wingers," this whole argument would have never taken place. OwlFancier posted:I have a hunch that a society without a lot of modern things that increase material quality of life yet possessing a durable ideological commitment to cooperation over domination, might be much better in the long run than one that never addressed that problem. This isn't just turning back the clock, mind you. We've had hierarchy in one form or another for a lot longer than we've had capitalism. This is something different. I disagree with this, though. I feel like this sort of perspective is extremely naive regarding the level of suffering human beings are capable of that can result from not meeting the sorts of material needs modern society allows us to easily meet. I agree with the greater point about a focus on power relationships being necessary for any sort of leftist critique of a society, but that needs to be weighed against the resulting material situation. Basically it's not enough to only focus on how well peoples' material needs are met, but it's also not enough to only focus on power relationships. Ytlaya fucked around with this message at 20:54 on Nov 29, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2017 20:51
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:I disagree with this, though. I feel like this sort of perspective is extremely naive regarding the level of suffering human beings are capable of that can result from not meeting the sorts of material needs modern society allows us to easily meet. I agree with the greater point about a focus on power relationships being necessary for any sort of leftist critique of a society, but that needs to be weighed against the resulting material situation. Basically it's not enough to only focus on how well peoples' material needs are met, but it's also not enough to only focus on power relationships. I also sort of agree in that I'm not a primitivist, but I would suggest that if you offered me the chance of one thing to magically fix; power relationships or material conditions, I would pick power relationships. Because I think a society could reinvent material advances under other modes of production, but changing material conditions without changing power dynamics would probably not do much at all in the long run. Which is why I place much more emphasis on addressing power. I think that power dynamics cause material inequality.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2017 20:55
|
|
|
I woke up to see this thread had a 150 new posts and I was hoping it was cause Sargon got hit by a bus. Alas, that was not the case. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2017 21:08
|
|
|
At least it’s 150 posts of dunking on right wing logic and not some derail about the best way to serve loving waffles or something. We have a ways to go before we hit a Trump thread level derail.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2017 21:24
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I also sort of agree in that I'm not a primitivist, but I would suggest that if you offered me the chance of one thing to magically fix; power relationships or material conditions, I would pick power relationships. Because I think a society could reinvent material advances under other modes of production, but changing material conditions without changing power dynamics would probably not do much at all in the long run. I would agree (about picking power relationships to fix), but only in the context of our current society (where material conditions being bad is usually the result of inequality in power relationships). If you asked me if I would fix power relationship at the cost of material conditions, it would be a tougher question that would require details about how much material conditions would decrease. But generally speaking I definitely think that a lack of focus on power relationships is probably the biggest difference in liberal and leftist* ideology (the second biggest difference would be a lack of urgency or conviction towards addressing material inequality). Liberals seem to mostly just focus on material conditions (in their own extremely insufficient way), and when they do focus on power inequalities it's usually in a very limited way and only with the goal of decreasing their severity, rather than eliminating them entirely. They're fine with some people having wildly disproportionate power, as long as they wield it in a way that isn't too objectionable (though they're also often lax on that front - see liberal views towards companies like Google or people like Bill Gates). * in the sense of some strain of socialist/communist/anarchist/etc
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2017 21:44
|
|
|
A forums play in one act. (about why debating nazis is ineffective) (sorry, I hated writing this, but i'm trying to convey my experiences making any assertion in a room that contains nazis)     
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2017 22:11
|
|
|
Haunting.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2017 22:13
|
|
|
Christ, were the forums always this bad....was I just to young/dumb to recognize this poo poo?
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2017 22:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 12:29 |
|
|
Ytlaya posted:Uh, there's pretty obviously no one to blame but Huzanko for him requesting the permaban. Speaking of which, where did that occur? I don't see any posts where he requests one. I don't mean to sound blasé but I think that if someone feels the need to get away from a debate so strongly that they have to ask to be permabanned then think we might need a bit more kindness in talking to people. It costs us all nothing and I think that it'd just be nicer in general. Ytlaya posted:Regarding the whole "claiming a moral high ground as a tactic for debating with right-wingers or other ideologies," that's a pretty dumb idea. At best, you just end up with a "he said she said" situation where the other person can just say "nuh uh, what I believe is actually the most moral!" If you're arguing with someone who only cares about bold, unproven claims of moral superiority, you're just wasting your time because there's nothing you can do in the first place. I do get that, but again in this instance a lot of the basis for the talking points are that they are based on this, but there must be a way to approach this that doesn't cede a fairly good argument to the Right Wing. I.e. "My view is more moral". Because it means that it is the right wing that are making moral arguments about this sort of thing. It gives them the easy out of claiming morality whilst we "have to" stick to the facts. Ytlaya posted:edit: In the first place, this argument was Huzanko's fault because he was the one who chose to repeatedly focus on and defend the use of "objective," and most of his earlier posts seemed to all the world like he was actually arguing that his morality was objectively true (as opposed to arguing about debate tactics against right-wingers). If he had just said "I don't mean it's literally objectively true, but I think saying it is would be a good idea when arguing with right-wingers," this whole argument would have never taken place. Probably, but I think that it'd be a nicer world all round if we just tried to offer a critique that doesn't make people permaban themselves. I dunno it just makes me feel cruel. Madmarker posted:Christ, were the forums always this bad....was I just to young/dumb to recognize this poo poo? It's made up mate, the people all have facist registration dates. Josef bugman fucked around with this message at 22:17 on Nov 29, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2017 22:14
|
|