|
I don’t know why anyone would think that a public debate, including here, implies that either debater is willing to change their position. It’s almost always been about convincing bystanders.
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2023 20:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 07:13 |
|
|
Yeah if you're gonna use an example of something happening for reasons other than a debate, pointing to a bad thing that literally only happened because the other side lost the debate is... odd. But yes in some of these anti-trans states, it is happening specifically because we lost the debate in those places - and there's a real risk we will lose it in more, giving the people who want that outcome exactly the political and practical power they need to implement those rules. And in the states Republicans dominate that still weren't able to pass the abortion restrictions they wanted, it was because we won that debate.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2023 20:52
|
|
|
Fork of Unknown Origins posted:I don’t know why anyone would think that a public debate, including here, implies that either debater is willing to change their position. It’s almost always been about convincing bystanders. The Lincoln-Douglas debates actually famously ended with Douglas renouncing the idea of popular sovereignty, resigning from the Senate, and endorsing Lincoln.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2023 20:57
|
|
|
Honestly, if we're going to continue this conversation, I'd really like to hear the other side's definition of what "debate" actually is. Because like I said, it seems to be extremely broad and not very consistent from post to post. I already gave my definition, I'd appreciate if folks could respond in kind.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2023 21:00
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:The Lincoln-Douglas debates actually famously ended with Douglas renouncing the idea of popular sovereignty, resigning from the Senate, and endorsing Lincoln. The fact that a debater changing their mind as a result of the debate is famous would go toward my point that it isn’t common.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2023 21:04
|
|
|
Fister Roboto posted:Honestly, if we're going to continue this conversation, I'd really like to hear the other side's definition of what "debate" actually is. Because like I said, it seems to be extremely broad and not very consistent from post to post. I already gave my definition, I'd appreciate if folks could respond in kind. Your definition also clearly has nothing to do with what anyone here has been talking about, since no one has argued you should be open to bigotry, so... you know, its nice you have your own personal definition, but the standard dictionary definition of "a particular topic on which opposing arguments are put forward" is probably a better baseline to work from. I don't think anyone here has suggested anything outside that, even if there are least two different instantiations (personal arguments with individual people in their life, and the "public debate" which is decided by things like elections and political referendums)
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2023 21:09
|
|
|
Fister Roboto posted:Honestly, if we're going to continue this conversation, I'd really like to hear the other side's definition of what "debate" actually is. Because like I said, it seems to be extremely broad and not very consistent from post to post. I already gave my definition, I'd appreciate if folks could respond in kind. I thought you didn't want to debate on the meaning of debate.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2023 21:11
|
|
|
Fork of Unknown Origins posted:The fact that a debater changing their mind as a result of the debate is famous would go toward my point that it isn’t common. The reason you have these conversations is that you have to counter misinformation narratives that form. Most people don't think about these issues, let alone why they believe what they believe so when they start speaking about trans kids in sports, they are just repeating some scare narrative from the right. If you let bigoted statements slide in front of the crowd it doesn't make the crowd think differently, it just validates other people statements ultimately. Usually you have argue the statements impact and logic to lead people to realize why what they say is problematic. And also, again, lets be honest how many people actually understand why they are against trans rights.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2023 21:13
|
|
|
donald trump literally: five years ago you didnt even know transgenders exist now look how crazy you go when i say it
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2023 21:15
|
|
|
I think it's pretty clear that only one poster, who has already been removed from the discussion, was treating the anti-trans "side" as valid. As per usual in DND, I think the bigger issue causing the contention is "should vs is."
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2023 21:17
|
|
|
I don't want to read past the lovely discussion again. What's the source of the title right now? I need to know about the beautiful mind paper boxes, just the best and greatest mind paper.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2023 21:19
|
|
|
Fork of Unknown Origins posted:The fact that a debater changing their mind as a result of the debate is famous would go toward my point that it isn’t common. It's a "joke" in that it's untrue and probably funny to someone. Lincoln was not elected senator after the debates and loss the election, Douglas was a senator until he died in office in 1861. Also for context they had multiple debates and each was 3 hours long with one of them being given time to give an hour long speech, then a 90 minute rebuttal and then a 30 minute response from the first speaker. Gumball Gumption fucked around with this message at 21:29 on Jun 13, 2023 |
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2023 21:20
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:Your definition also clearly has nothing to do with what anyone here has been talking about, since no one has argued you should be open to bigotry, so... you know, its nice you have your own personal definition, but the standard dictionary definition of "a particular topic on which opposing arguments are put forward" is probably a better baseline to work from. I don't think anyone here has suggested anything outside that, even if there are least two different instantiations (personal arguments with individual people in their life, and the "public debate" which is decided by things like elections and political referendums) OK thanks, and I think I understand now. I'm talking about a debate on a more personal level (like what you and I are doing right now), and not a broad societal debate that is decided by an election. On the personal level, I don't think that debating trans rights is a good idea, for the many reasons that I've already pointed out. Yes, attempting to reach people who are open to being educated is very important. But trying to engage with someone who is clearly Just Asking Questions is a fool's errand. I understand that there is value in demonstrating your points to an outside audience, but I think it's just as likely that your opponent makes you look like an rear end with some Ben Shapiro style bullshit. There's also value in just telling people to gently caress off. We saw it right here in this thread. Maybe we could have had a reasonable debate with the person who dropped a bunch of easily disproven transphobic bullshit in here. Maybe it would have sharpened our rhetoric, and convinced some lurkers that we were in the right. But instead, people told them to gently caress off and they got probated. That also sends a very powerful message to an outside audience: if you want to be part of this community, you can't post like that. No debate necessary. On the societal level, that's not really something that any of us as individuals has much control over. I don't really have much to argue about that so I guess I'll concede 
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2023 21:25
|
|
|
Fister Roboto posted:Honestly, if we're going to continue this conversation, I'd really like to hear the other side's definition of what "debate" actually is. Because like I said, it seems to be extremely broad and not very consistent from post to post. I already gave my definition, I'd appreciate if folks could respond in kind. "argue about (a subject), especially in a formal manner" Your definition is coherent, but I feel the people who aren't defining debate are probably using the dictionary definition, which was also my understanding of the word. Debate to me has connotations of formality, but not connotations that positions have to be open to being changed. To me the phrase, "This isn't up for debate" doesn't mean, "We can discuss this but I'm not changing my mind," it means, "we are not going to discuss this." Sorry to butt in, but I think the wider discussion has been very helpful to witness and I hope it doesn't get derailed too much by (legitimate) semantic confusion.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2023 21:25
|
|
|
Fister Roboto posted:Yes, attempting to reach people who are open to being educated is very important. But trying to engage with someone who is clearly Just Asking Questions is a fool's errand. Sure, but there are a hell of a lot more folks that are genuinely ignorant about the issue than there are people facetiously "Just Asking Questions" in, I would hope, most of our personal lives. Like all personal disagreements there are people that aren't worth getting into it with unless there's an audience, at which point it becomes vital someone do it if its a situation where you don't have the power to oust them (or where ousting them within the right framework is vital for keeping the audience sympathetic), and when that happens its important to have quick, straightforward, hard to assail arguments you can use to shut them down and cut off their ability to influence people - but there are also plenty of sympathetic but ignorant people on this particular issue, and a lot of those in any potential audience. So... personal debates are important too, imo.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2023 21:33
|
|
|
Fork of Unknown Origins posted:The fact that a debater changing their mind as a result of the debate is famous would go toward my point that it isn’t common. (He didn't actually resign and endorse Lincoln. It was a joke. Lincoln famously "won" the debates and it propelled him to fame, but Senators were still selected by the state legislatures at that time and they still backed Douglas. Lincoln is still the only person to become President after serving just a single term in the House.)
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2023 21:33
|
|
|
Haha that one whooshed over my head. I’m very weak on early-mid American history.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2023 21:34
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:I'll add to my previous post that the needle on gay rights didn't get moved because the bigots changed their mind. It got moved because the people who weren't engaged came to understand the bigots were full of poo poo. The needle also got moved bc of influential politicians like Barack Obama realizing that there was no political expediency to Democrats continuing to be bigots (which is maybe the same thing as understanding that the bigots were full of poo poo).
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2023 21:57
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:Sure, but there are a hell of a lot more folks that are genuinely ignorant about the issue than there are people facetiously "Just Asking Questions" in, I would hope, most of our personal lives. I wish I had as much faith in my ability to "shut people down" with my words as you do. I'll share a story from a while back that I think is relevant: Fister Roboto posted:A couple weeks ago, a guy in a class I'm taking started saying some pretty transphobic things during a break. It started with him complaining that a job application asked him for his pronouns, and it quickly led to him saying that "I heard all the gays and lesbians don't want to sleep with trans people (he did not use this term), unless they're freaks who like kids". Maybe that's just me and I suck at arguing in public. I mean, you've seen my posts, now imagine what I'd be like if I didn't have all the time in the world to write a response.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2023 22:02
|
|
|
As far as convincing people, it's worth noting that debating on the internet(even and especially here) will seldom change anyone's opinion. Cognitive research indicates and I'll dig up the study later, that people presented with facts which disagree with their opinion will often cling even more tightly to their beliefs. I get that argument that you're working on the potential allies in the bystanders, and that is something and worth doing, but you'll never change the person you're directly debating with. In order to truly help change a person's mind, you need to have some sort of real relationship with that person. Without that, you're almost never going to be able to. I've taken several courses on how to talk to people and deep canvassing, but I seldom use that here or in comment sections online. But in person, I take entirely different tactics, including empathizing and using examples that are meaningful for that person based on what I know of them. Another thing to keep in mind, especially about transgender 'debates', is that this isn't coming from a rational place. Anyone who's ever tried to use the science to convince a person who's saying that they don't believe transgender people exist because of 'science' has found this out. Almost instantly you discover the science never mattered to them at all. Most will not even remotely get into a science based discussion with you. It's entirely based on feelings. I've tried over and over to engage them. It won't work.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2023 22:05
|
|
|
Gumball Gumption posted:It's a "joke" in that it's untrue and probably funny to someone. Lincoln was not elected senator after the debates and loss the election, Douglas was a senator until he died in office in 1861. One of the weirder aspects of modern political debates is how they're given no longer than 120 seconds to rebut their opponents, and often times they're given half of that.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2023 22:05
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:As far as convincing people, it's worth noting that debating on the internet(even and especially here) will seldom change anyone's opinion. Cognitive research indicates and I'll dig up the study later, that people presented with facts which disagree with their opinion will often cling even more tightly to their beliefs. A lot of that is short-term though. A good debater/arguer on an issue, when arguing with someone that is actually in good faith, will leave them with things that cause the person to question things internally later, which may help them change their minds over time. In the moment, people's first reaction is often to win, which is what that is based on - but people that do actually care about "the facts" can tell when they're being presented with an actual good argument and will look into that argument in more detail later. You might not change someone's mind right away only to find out two years later they're even further along on the issue than you at that point. A lot of posters here have changed all kinds of stances over the years even when not backing down in the slightest in the initial argument. It's just that you often never realize you were pivotal in changing their minds. Might not work on your uncle ranting on Facebook, but it could work on your cousin who is genuinely interested in an issue and just *currently* thinks they're right, which is also why you pick your battles.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2023 22:15
|
|
|
Willa Rogers posted:The needle also got moved bc of influential politicians like Barack Obama realizing that there was no political expediency to Democrats continuing to be bigots (which is maybe the same thing as understanding that the bigots were full of poo poo). Surprising poster + post combo. Obama was "okay" with gay marriage in 2012 (after most of the lawsuits that led to the Supreme Court decision had already been filed) after Biden essentially forced the issue (and apologized to Obama lmao) Of all the things to hand to Obama, this is near the bottom of the list IMO If anything, Obama's conservatism led to Democrats withholding support long past the point where the party at large embraced it. I can't imagine Obama had much of any effect considering the court cases largely ended the issue and the Supreme Court was arguably swayed by the public largely moving on the issue in the years leading up to the initial lawsuits, which were prior to Obama's support koolkal fucked around with this message at 22:19 on Jun 13, 2023 |
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2023 22:15
|
|
|
Darko posted:Might not work on your uncle ranting on Facebook, but it could work on your cousin who is genuinely interested in an issue and just *currently* thinks they're right, which is also why you pick your battles. It's the pre-existing relationship that is relevent there. People you're debating on Facebook or twitter don't see you as a real person. You're going to have little to no affect on them.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2023 22:21
|
|
|
koolkal posted:Surprising poster + post combo. Obama was "okay" with gay marriage in 2012 (after most of the lawsuits that led to the Supreme Court decision had already been filed) after Biden essentially forced the issue (and apologized to Obama lmao) I wasn't "handing it to Obama"; I was pointing out how swiftly the political zeitgeist changed from bigotry being something taken for granted among political Democrats to "of course gay marriage a human right." Whether it was due to Log Cabin Republicans or "the public" it no longer became politically necessary to publicly pretend to wrestle with one's conscience, just as it no longer became necessary to condition approval of women's autonomy on abortion being "safe, legal & rare" at some point during a similar timeframe. Politicians are followers, not leaders, when it comes to social change in this country, but when Obama (even grudgingly) "changed his mind" it became more acceptable for other liberals to change their minds (no air quotes), too.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2023 22:33
|
|
|
Fister Roboto posted:But there is no debate in the anti-trans states. They're just using their political power to crush trans people. And even if there was, what's the solution? Debate harder? What specific messages should people be saying to convince the anti-trans state legislators to stop? You're making a big attribution mistake here. It wasn't "the southern states" who used their political, economic, and physical power to intimidate and crush black people. It was people who did that. People who honestly believed in white supremacist rhetoric, who quite honestly and sincerely thought that black people were truly inferior. Although the slaveholding aristocracy had been crushed by military force, the people continued to believe that what they had thought was the undeniable truth, and they believed that abolitionists talking about freedom and equality were dangerous crazies who didn't know what the hell they were talking about. And they continued to hold those beliefs and pass them down to their children for generations, perpetuating them through the education system, entertainment media, and every other form of cultural transmission, creating a legacy of continued discrimination that lasts to this very day. That's why there is absolutely no substitute for changing people's minds. Even Northern interventions against Southern discrimination were the result of active advocacy and changing people's minds, because the North had plenty of white supremacists too, and plenty more people who didn't really care about slavery or segregation until they were convinced to.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2023 22:38
|
|
|
So what do you do if you can't change people's minds? You said yourself that this is all happening because "the pro-trans side lost the debate", and that says to me that that's not a very effective strategy. Especially when you consider all the dirty tricks like gerrymandering that the other side is willing to pull to fix the debate in their favor. And of course abolishing slavery wasn't just a matter of changing peoples' minds either. Unless you count shooting them with muskets and cannons as a frank exchange of views, which I suppose is fair. Fister Roboto fucked around with this message at 22:52 on Jun 13, 2023 |
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2023 22:49
|
|
|
Fister Roboto posted:So what do you do if you can't change people's minds? You said yourself that this is all happening because "the pro-trans side lost the debate", and that says to me that that's not a very effective strategy. Especially when you consider all the dirty tricks like gerrymandering that the other side is willing to pull to fix the debate in their favor. I know this isn't a reply to me, but I don't at all think the pro-trans side has lost any debate. It's just harder because there's a ton of organized pressure to scapegoat a tiny powerless group. That's why we as allies need to be more active and louder and try harder. If you're only an active ally when it's not hard, then you're not a very good ally.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2023 22:56
|
|
|
You keep trying, in new and different ways, for as long as it takes. When the abolitionists lost the debate during the country's founding, they didn't give up - they kept finding new ways to push and get the public on their side because they believed in their cause, and eventually chattel slavery was ended. As monstrous as they are, when the conservatives solidly and completely lost the economic debate earlier in the century, they didn't give up - they kept working at it in new and different ways until they found a way to change people's mind and convert the majority of the country towards their insanity in the 80s. Historically, the only major alternative to changing people's minds has been genocide or extreme subjugation, or running away, which I don't think any of us are going to argue for. Also worth noting you don't need to change everyone's mind - depending on the issue and what your enemy is doing and the structures that have been set up, you might not even need to change most people's minds, just the right people's. Fister Roboto posted:And of course abolishing slavery wasn't just a matter of changing peoples' minds either. Unless you count shooting them with muskets and cannons as a frank exchange of views, which I suppose is fair. The reason the south started the civil war was because they had become convinced they had lost the debate. And with Lincoln's election, they kind of had. They picked the running away with violence option, and still got trounced for it. Winning the debate wasn't enough, but it was where people had to start in order for emancipation to become possible. If they had won the debate, there wouldn't have been a civil war because there wouldn't have been any risk to slavery as institution, which was the whole point. Although I should specify - I don't think the pro-trans side has lost the debate, not yet, not really - but the study that started this conversation makes it clear we are losing ground, that we've certainly taken a beating from some of the new rounds of Republican focus and propaganda. My argument has consistently been that it needs to be aggressively countered and not dismissed, because we can't afford to lose it. GlyphGryph fucked around with this message at 23:16 on Jun 13, 2023 |
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2023 23:08
|
|
|
Fister Roboto posted:So what do you do if you can't change people's minds? You said yourself that this is all happening because "the pro-trans side lost the debate", and that says to me that that's not a very effective strategy. Especially when you consider all the dirty tricks like gerrymandering that the other side is willing to pull to fix the debate in their favor. You can change people's minds. You just can't change everyone's mind, and when you do it's not usually because you beat them personally in a back-and-forth. If you're like most people, think of the times you've changed your mind on a topic you weren't really set on. Whether it was something where you leaned one direction then changed, or one where you felt you had no strong opinion since both sides were equally reasonable (or unreasaonable.) If it really shifted, it likely involved hearing other people discuss the issue and realizing that the "other side" was making some good points, or that the people whose judgement you'd looked to before weren't backing up their reasoning very well. If you didn't have a strong opinion, it might be because the terms and language of the debate shifted so what seemed like a "reasonable middle" changed, so even if you didn't become more invested in the topic your idea of a default solution changed. It might have even been that people you trusted and admired were going one direction, while people you distrusted or were embarrassed to be associated with were going the other. Whether by "logic" or group consensus, your own thinking shifts. What previously seems unreasonable becomes natural, or vice-versa. The right definitely understands all of these dynamics and they work it hard and deliberately. They try to couch extremist arguments in reasonable speech, and they try to control the language of the debate so a "neutral" stance is closer to them. They try to sound moral and principled about extreme ideas too, whether the "fiscally responsible" serious adult thing or the hardcore Christian patriot social conservatism stance. The idea with that being that the squishy middle will say "Well, I don't agree with all of it but they're sincere people so we should respect them enough to hear them out." That's also why refusing to call out hypocrisy is just ceding ground for no reason: making them look like the liars and crooks they are to third parties is powerful. Fister Roboto posted:And of course abolishing slavery wasn't just a matter of changing peoples' minds either. Unless you count shooting them with muskets and cannons as a frank exchange of views, which I suppose is fair. Remember that the Confederates started shooting first, and only did so once the zeitgeist of the country among non-slave-owners was that slavery either had to be abolished in the short term or strangled in the long term, and where the various legal mechanisms they had used to enshrine slavery despite their shrinking minority were approaching a breaking point. If they saw a future where the slave economy was still safe, they wouldn't have seceded.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2023 23:13
|
|
|
i think i've changed a lot more minds by agreeing with people about about common principles and proceeding from there, than by disagreeing with people about specific facts
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2023 23:14
|
|
|
Fister Roboto posted:And of course abolishing slavery wasn't just a matter of changing peoples' minds either. Unless you count shooting them with muskets and cannons as a frank exchange of views, which I suppose is fair. The core part of the history you keep missing is that the debate wasn't between slaveholders and abolitionists. It was an internal debate within the North as to what the war was worth, and what they hoped to accomplish by fighting it. Was maintaining the Union worth the cost of sending thousands of men to die? Was freeing the slaves worth the millions of dollars spent in guns, ships, and forts? You seem to believe debate is about one half of society arguing with the other half of society until they come to an agreement. That is not, and never has been, how it works. It's about different groups within society fighting for power until they have enough power — political, military, or a combination — that they can impose their views by force. That means finding persuadable allies that can be convinced to support your position, and countering arguments from the opposing factions — not because you think you can convince them, but because others who would otherwise support you might be.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2023 23:19
|
|
|
Acebuckeye13 posted:You seem to believe debate is about one half of society arguing with the other half of society until they come to an agreement. That is not, and never has been, how it works. It's about different groups within society fighting for power until they have enough power — political, military, or a combination — that they can impose their views by force. That means finding persuadable allies that can be convinced to support your position, and countering arguments from the opposing factions — not because you think you can convince them, but because others who would otherwise support you might be. Thank you for agreeing with me, because this is literally what I started out saying: Fister Roboto posted:This is not something that can be won in the realm of polite debate. People don't change their minds because someone presented a reasonable persuasive argument, at least not in any numbers significant to effect real societal change. You resolve this by using political power to (politically) crush the opposition. You do that by getting as many people on your side as possible, and you do that by showing them that you're not willing to cede any ground whatsoever to the right wing psychos, and NOT by showing them that you're willing to debate with the psychos over whether they should be considered human beings or not. Yes, of course you need to persuade people to join your cause. I've never said otherwise. Where I disagreed was with the idea that you have to debate the idea of trans rights itself, which to me means giving the anti-trans side more legitimacy than they deserve. Again, you wouldn't debate a flat earther or an anti vaxer, and not doing so wouldn't mean ceding ground to them. Maybe that was a bad interpretation of the original posts, my bad if so. But this conversation is genuinely getting too confusing for me, as I seem to have completely flipped sides at some point.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2023 23:30
|
|
|
OctaMurk posted:i think i've changed a lot more minds by agreeing with people about about common principles and proceeding from there, than by disagreeing with people about specific facts Asking leading questions and leaving people with them instead of something direct is normally the most effective tactic. Asking a question and just saying "think about this" typically doesn't put someone on the defensive and almost forces them to think about it. This doesn't work as well when you get to cult level because they start coming to the answer, cognitive dissonance kicks in, and they start feeling really negative and start avoiding it. But it's also one of the only ways to get around that kind of thinking, outside as you said, personal relation and common principles. I grew up in a conversion/preaching based high control religion (aka a cult thats just not seen as one by the public) so I've seen the extreme side of all of this, as well as have done a lot of study as to how to overcome that kind of thinking.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2023 23:42
|
|
|
The problem I've run into isn't so much changing people's minds - its the loving right wing propaganda machine changing them back through sheer relentless repetition a month later. Telling them I thought we'd worked through it and they're like "yeah, but... people keep saying this stuff so I started to doubt myself, maybe they're right? I don't think I want to talk about it anymore." and its just, fuuuuck.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2023 23:46
|
|
|
Fister Roboto posted:There's also value in just telling people to gently caress off. We saw it right here in this thread. Maybe we could have had a reasonable debate with the person who dropped a bunch of easily disproven transphobic bullshit in here. Man, it was clear that poster had put a lot of thought into how to be lovely about trans people. So gross. Fister Roboto posted:On the societal level, that's not really something that any of us as individuals has much control over. I don't really have much to argue about that so I guess I'll concede e: Hell the mediasphere is so bad at persuasion (rather than reinforcing previous beliefs) that I bet there is at least one really popular, charismatic person somewhere who has changed more people's minds about things than sitting congressional reps or TV hosts. I'm going to go ahead and guess that that person does not post on Something Awful though. 
Mellow Seas fucked around with this message at 23:56 on Jun 13, 2023 |
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2023 23:52
|
|
|
Fister Roboto posted:Yes, of course you need to persuade people to join your cause. I've never said otherwise. Where I disagreed was with the idea that you have to debate the idea of trans rights itself, which to me means giving the anti-trans side more legitimacy than they deserve. Again, you wouldn't debate a flat earther or an anti vaxer, and not doing so wouldn't mean ceding ground to them. Maybe that was a bad interpretation of the original posts, my bad if so. You don't debate the people saying "coward scientists won't debate me" (creationists are the type species here) because "debate" in that context means something specific that's intentionally set up so that the creationist wins. A trans rights analogy here would be going on the Chaya Raichik podcast to debate whether or not there are actually litter boxes in middle school bathrooms. You very much do communicate scientific findings that refute flat earthers and anti vaxxers to the public, there is an enormous amount of media doing that. edit: for reference, the "debate me cowards" strategy is to memorize a hundred different versions of "evolution can't explain this" from several different fields and then "win" because the paleontologist you debated spends their time memorizing details about rhino pelvises, not memorizing how to respond to creationist arguments. It's not like anything going on in this thread except the one post that immediately got probed. James Garfield fucked around with this message at 00:15 on Jun 14, 2023 |
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2023 00:02
|
|
|
James Garfield posted:edit: for reference, the "debate me cowards" strategy is to memorize a hundred different versions of "evolution can't explain this" from several different fields and then "win" because the paleontologist you debated spends their time memorizing details about rhino pelvises, not memorizing how to respond to creationist arguments. It's not like anything going on in this thread except the one post that immediately got probed. To add, Talkorigins.org has an exhaustive list of creationist claims and data debunking them from back when evolution was a big conservative thing: https://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/ Skeptical Science has the same thing for Climate Change and even has explainers for different levels of science knowledge for most of the debunks: https://skepticalscience.com/argument.php I've never changed a single person's mind with either of those. What happened with evolution was conservative media just stopped talking about it. Climate change continues to be a well of misinformation on conservative sites
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2023 00:44
|
|
|
Gumball Gumption posted:It's a "joke" in that it's untrue and probably funny to someone. Lincoln was not elected senator after the debates and loss the election, Douglas was a senator until he died in office in 1861. Interestingly, Lincoln used the stultifying length of his debates with Douglas to his advantage, as his more languid, relaxed speaking style allowed him to maintain his voice throughout, whereas he knew Douglas spoke forcefully and only got more forceful as he rose to the climax of this or that argument. As a consequence, by the end of the debates Lincoln was still in good shape and Douglas could barely speak at all, having seriously over-strained his vocal cords. Didn't help him win as you note, but one of those things that shows Lincoln was a cannier actor than he is usually given credit for.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2023 00:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 07:13 |
|
|
Professor Beetus posted:I think it's pretty clear that only one poster, who has already been removed from the discussion, was treating the anti-trans "side" as valid. As per usual in DND, I think the bigger issue causing the contention is "should vs is." So I think there’s another side to the “science vs belief” coin, where positions that start out reasonable and fact-based can become inflexible and dogmatic. For example, studies have shown that most gender dysphoria in children abates with the onset of puberty. I don’t think it’s unreasonable to wonder if that means gd can be a natural phase or side effect of development, and if so, are puberty blockers the right course of action. In a (lowercase l) liberal environment, that discussion shouldn’t be considered trans-phobic.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2023 01:22
|
|