|
I include, for your consideration, the text of this Aeon article about the self-examination of one's own intellectual vices and virtues:quote:Meet Oliver. Like many of his friends, Oliver thinks he is an expert on 9/11. He spends much of his spare time looking at conspiracist websites and his research has convinced him that the terrorist attacks on New York and Washington, DC, of 11 September 2001 were an inside job. The aircraft impacts and resulting fires couldn’t have caused the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center to collapse. The only viable explanation, he maintains, is that government agents planted explosives in advance. He realises, of course, that the government blames Al-Qaeda for 9/11 but his predictable response is pure Mandy Rice-Davies: they would say that, wouldn’t they? So, I'll take a cue from the author and start by admitting my failures, and trying to begin from a point of humility: I believe people have good reason to be pissed off at some of the posts I've been making in DnD. I have a tendency to reach for extreme solutions without considering the consequences. I often zero in on small problems while missing the big picture. I admit that my beliefs that we have a limited time left in which to make major changes in how we live, govern, and consume are based on climate, finance, and resource evidence that's still controversial. Still, I offer this post and my opening mea culpa in the hopes of inspiring others not to simply dismiss the questions raised in this article, but to really dig into the nature of our dialogue in DnD and ask if we might unwittingly be contributing to an institutionalized set of intellectual vices. Now, you can simply dismiss me and the article. I'm not sure what that says if you choose to do so. I think in particular about a lot of posts and messages I have been seeing where people are upset about the balance of force between the Democratic and Republican parties in America. I and a few others contend that the liberals and progressives of this country should be acting more radically and with more intensity in the face of very strong Republican offense. Others say we are deluded. In particular, I, almost alone, have advocated for accelerationism. This reading has really made me rake and winnow my thoughts and try to understand why I'm inclined to believe the things I do. I went back and read previous things I had written for DnD. Eleven years ago, I wrote a thread called "Faith, Reason, and the Millennial Party Shift," in which I claimed that the GOP had figured out a way around rational argument by simply substituting the methods of Christian faith for the methods of rational inquiry, and would learn how to create an entire GOP base completely immune to reason. Three years ago, in the RNC convention thread, I posted this screed and it provides more evidence about where my weird accelerationism might come from. By 2012, I was getting angry and frustrated not just at the tribalism that felt like it was separating America into two halves: the responsible, compassionate type, which I associated with DnD posters, and the FYGM conservatives, but especially at the apathy and lethargy I believed I saw in America's political middle. I can see myself, three years ago, getting crazy about how in the hell we would ever create real change. Did I overstate how severe the problem of political apathy was? Am I still way too worried about what happens if we just continue with business as usual? Am I REALLY willing to commit myself to being killed by angry Republicans if I WERE to be part of a push to let Republicans win? Am I unduly panicking about how much danger this country and the entire world is in right now? Well, I'd definitely be committing the intellectual vice of hypocrisy if I didn't ask myself those hard questions first before asking you to do the same yourself. When I go back and look, I can see the flaws in my thinking. What REALLY pisses me off though, is an internal thought loop I can't seem to break myself of: I cannot convince myself that the liberals and progressives of this country have an honest and clear view of the existential danger they are in, and I do not believe that they have a sufficiently solid or actionable plan to counteract Republican advances. I can't tell if this is an intellectual failing of my own or a thing I should be rationally concerned about. I've been butthurt about being taunted and mocked, but I'm done with that poo poo. Someone challenged me to put my views out in the open and really check myself for intellectual vices. So, in humility, I submit this post, in the hopes that it might open (EDIT: not just my eyes, but) even one other person's eyes to their own intellectual vices, so that we all might have better and more virtuous discussion in DnD. Quidam Viator fucked around with this message at 17:24 on Mar 17, 2015 |
# ¿ Mar 17, 2015 17:20 |
|
|
# ¿ May 10, 2024 16:19 |
|
Radbot posted:I don't really understand the ultimate point of that article. It seems to handwave away a lot of the problems with accusing others of closed-mindedness, etc. - Oliver "turning the tables" on you isn't valid because there are "good reasons" to believe that 9/11 happened the way the Commission said it did. I believe that the author is trying to get to the philosophical roots of why modern political discourse is so fractured and unworkable. His contention is that despite other theories about situationalism, what mood people are in, or any other factors, that we now live in a time where people are freer than ever before to develop really, REALLY bad intellectual habits, and have those confirmed by internet echo chambers. Whereas political commentary was once led by public intellectuals, and people who had made it over all the hurdles to be acclaimed as authorities through peer review, now, any idiot can go pick and choose a set of data that justifies pre-arranged conclusions and use a circular defense to ward off any reasonable attempts to change his mind. I've talked about my issues. In DnD, I think that you addressed a particular problem that I tend to agree with: namely, that whenever someone expresses a sense of urgency or a desire for faster change, we get an orthodox answer that we should just join in politics on a local level, and all just work our way up until everything is perfect. You and I seem to agree that this is a ridiculously dismissive response: we have limited time left before things blow up, and there is a fully-integrated, top-to-bottom system in this country specifically designed to quell dissent and crush rising opposition before any impact can be made. So, you say there's SO much evidence that 9/11 wasn't an inside job. We also know that there is abundant evidence that Obama, despite his flaws, is not a Muslim, was born in Hawaii, legitimately won both of his elections, and is not going to run for a third term. THE POINT of this article is to look at the VERY LARGE number of Americans who believe every one of these false things religiously, and get to the bottom of HOW they are able to believe them and resist all reasonable efforts to change their mind, and finally turn the tables and accuse YOU of being the rear end in a top hat for thinking differently. The current state of American politics is strongly determined by this very practice! You see, MY POINT is that this specific quest, the quest to understand how and why your opposition believes and acts as it does is utterly essential to fighting it, and that I don't think we're doing a good enough job. DnD is dismissive as poo poo of non-orthodox views, and aren't willing to step back and understand that the people they're arguing with have something they believe is evidence too! Now, being able to sort through poo poo like "jet fuel can't melt steel beams" and dismiss it is one thing. On the other hand, when they claim the GOP is incompetent, and I respond by saying they own 70% of state legislatures and 38 out of 50 governorships, that's a different piece of evidence. And it means that I may actually have good reason in that case to contend that that's not like Obama winning the last election by a few percentage points; the GOP is eating the DNCs lunch on the state and federal level. We exist in an almost rules-free environment when it comes to expressing and justifying beliefs on the internet. This article is about trying to really dig into ways to create legitimacy and discover our own intellectual vices and correct them.
|
# ¿ Mar 17, 2015 20:13 |
|
Nation posted:This is just another propaganda piece in the suppression of free thinking freemen strong enough to see past the illusion. *sigh* kaynorr posted:This is going to possibly sound weird (and may very well be wrong), but I'm going to throw out there that if you want people to be more open-minded, they have to be more economically secure. No, I think you're absolutely right. Stressors can push people into intellectual vices, despite their best intents. I think the current state of the economy, with 35 years of stagnant wages, is the proverbial slow heating of the boiling frog, and that it will take a lot of really difficult introspection to break the habits that pressure has formed. Sinnlos posted:I think you're a Bad Thinker OP Well, I tried to come out with humility and acknowledge my own issues. You could be constructive and help point out specifics to me. Or you could just keep on with being a non-contributing shitposter. site posted:Is there a teal deer for your op? What's a teal deer? TL;DR? Basically that it's a valid thing to examine a person's intellectual habits and identify bad ideas coming from bad habits. Moreover, that every one of us should be engaged in an active questioning of our own politics, our choice of forums, and the evidence we believe is "incontrovertible", because we can become better, more virtuous thinkers that way. I would like to get better, and I would hope to find others who take that mission seriously. How's that?
|
# ¿ Mar 17, 2015 21:22 |
|
Vermain posted:Which particular time period was this? What was different about the political situation and public beliefs of that time period versus today's time period? I'm thinking Walter Cronkite times. You had a three-channel media, and people still read the same newspapers. Vetted, legitimate information was stored in libraries. Access to non-mainstream ideas took real work, and people with weird, out-there ideas were isolated, rather than connected by the internet. The media consolidation created more unified opinions and for better or for worse, tended to limit the diversity of opinions on world events. The fracturing caused by the explosion of options near the end of Vietnam, Nixon and Watergate, and finally, 24 hour news and the advent of the internet have massively democratized the information ecosystem. I think it took away a comforting (if possibly misguided) sense that Americans had that old Walter Cronkite was delivering them news they could trust, and not feel fooled or lied to. I could be wrong, but that's the impression I have gotted of the period.
|
# ¿ Mar 17, 2015 21:59 |
|
Sophian posted:Interesting article. For my two cents, I would say that the key to challenging closed-minded thinking is to not engage it rationally but rather through building rapport and trust with the individual in question. Humanities' tribal nature that helped us band together as hunters and gatherers is what now holds us back as we stubbornly pick Right/Left, Republican/Democrat, etc. Any direct confrontation with the closed-minded will be viewed as an antagonistic action regardless of intent because they will view such interactions as being from an "Other". By engaging the social parts of a person's mind first, you are taking a backdoor past their mental defenses and moving from being seen as "Other" to being seen as "One of the Tribe". It is at that point that open and honest discussion can be had with the close-minded. Thank you for a reasonable response. Here's to hoping that more people actively seek out common ground, and that those they move toward are willing to do what those KKK members did.
|
# ¿ Mar 17, 2015 22:02 |
|
Volkerball posted:i didn't read that wall of text, but i heard it's bad op. thoughts? I guess I'm a loving relic from the old days when people would post whole articles in DnD, along with commentary, and debate and discussion would ensue. The snarky responses I'm getting seem to indicate that not only is the article that I found utter poo poo, but my writing is poo poo too. I mean, out of the responses, how many are one-liners? If you read the whole thing, and feel no impulse to reflect on your own positions, the evidence you believe in, and your own intellectual habits, then I guess I underestimated the seriousness of this forum anymore. I found, in reading it, that I have been making some pretty serious intellectual errors, which were in that "wall of text", submitted in earnest to a forum I'd like to still respect. Quidam Viator fucked around with this message at 22:10 on Mar 17, 2015 |
# ¿ Mar 17, 2015 22:07 |
|
So, Vermain asked me a question about my thoughts about media in the 50s and 60s. I answered. Everyone isn't just telling me I'm wrong, they're getting nasty about it. Is this just about making GBS threads on me at this point? Seriously, I have like one person willing to comment on the possibility of finding common ground with others and helping them to overcome their intellectual vices, and everyone else just wants to drop one-liners and attack the messenger?
|
# ¿ Mar 17, 2015 22:17 |
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:if you're bludgeoning d&d with giant articles that say very little out of respect to a romanticised past discussion forum uh well there's your problem Yeah, I guess I really don't fit in here anymore. It's ok, I get the picture, people. I don't know that there's anything else for me to address here, even, then.
|
# ¿ Mar 17, 2015 22:21 |
|
|
# ¿ May 10, 2024 16:19 |
|
Sophian posted:
I didn't think I took an rear end in a top hat's aggressive tone here, and I appreciate that you were willing not to just be nasty to me. I think the point everyone else is trying to prove is that I don't deserve that sort of dignity or something? So, since the consensus is that my attempt to post something is poo poo, I am poo poo, and all I'm getting is a bunch of abuse, I'm just going to close it and mark it a failure on my part. Mods, if that violates the rules, please feel free to re-open it so all this can continue.
|
# ¿ Mar 17, 2015 22:25 |