Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > The Apprentice: Presidential Producer-This argument is stupid-Your FACE is stupid!!

The Apprentice: Presidential Producer-This argument is stupid-Your FACE is stupid!! (Page 2)
Thread Tools
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 20, 2016, 10:06 AM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
To me there is a subtle, but very important difference between saying that a particular argument is misogynist vs. saying that the person making the argument is themselves misogynist. Many people can't get away with making this argument without making the other person defensive.
People can't get away with this because it's a cop-out. It makes people defensive for the same reason getting punched in the face makes people defensive.

Either own the punch, and expect one in return, or don't throw it in the first place.
     
Paco500
Professional Poster
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 20, 2016, 11:36 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Comcast directly gave Hillary close to a half-mil.

Should I be less or more worried about that?
I would say without question the answer is less.

She lost the election you know.
     
Paco500
Professional Poster
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 20, 2016, 11:48 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I said she was speaking to women because "women go to hell" is addressed towards women.

I said they were young because of the age disparity between people voting for Bernie vs. Hillary.

Here's one of Madeleine's post-speech responses,

"I said that I think that people need to understand who has been really fighting on their behalf on issues that are of interest to women and clearly Hillary Clinton has and I have said there’s a special place in hell for women who don’t help other women a lot—it’s so famous that it ended up on a Starbucks cup—because I do think that just generally, we are very judgmental of each other."

A/K/A sorry I'm not sorry. Women should vote for the Democrat who's been really fighting on their behalf.

I feel this is an excellent example, not only because it precisely fits the definition, it's almost absurdly disingenuous. Yes... the important distinction between the most bleeding heart contender there has been in my lifetime, and the candidate so far to the right of him she pings as Republican, is how one really fights for women.

Shameful.
Sorry for the late reply. I've been travelling.

It precisely fits the definition if you remove context. Add to that conforms with your pre-conceived ideas. You don't like Hillary and you never did during the election cycle. I'm not arguing that you should have. But she was speaking at a Hillary campaign rally- she wanted Hillary to win. Would you really expect her to say that Bernie is the better candidate?

During the election you were always one of the first to jump to the defence of Trump on issue such as racism (there is no real documented history of Trump's racism), misogyny/sexual violence (he was saying they wanted him to grab them by the pussy), and contempt for PSTD sufferers (in context, he didn't call them cowards). It's noble of you to try to find the truth, but confusing that you are willing to give Trump the benefit of the doubt but would not afford the same courtesy to Albright.

The whole notion of calling out libs for 'identity politics' is getting odd. Does it serve to divide? Of course. But how is the end result any different from the other side get up to? Dems are stereotyped as saying 'you are like me, vote this way," whereas the GOP say 'they are different than you, vote this way.'

Why do you seem to argue that one is more noble than the other?
     
besson3c  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 20, 2016, 12:41 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
People can't get away with this because it's a cop-out. It makes people defensive for the same reason getting punched in the face makes people defensive.

Either own the punch, and expect one in return, or don't throw it in the first place.

This doesn't make sense at all.

If you make an argument I disagree with and think is stupid and say "that is a stupid argument", does this mean "because you made that argument you are stupid"?

Everybody is capable of at least temporarily being misogynist or racist, it is what we do about this and how long this state persists before we get into labeling territory.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 20, 2016, 03:39 PM
 
Originally Posted by Paco500 View Post
Sorry for the late reply. I've been travelling.

It precisely fits the definition if you remove context. Add to that conforms with your pre-conceived ideas. You don't like Hillary and you never did during the election cycle. I'm not arguing that you should have. But she was speaking at a Hillary campaign rally- she wanted Hillary to win. Would you really expect her to say that Bernie is the better candidate?

During the election you were always one of the first to jump to the defence of Trump on issue such as racism (there is no real documented history of Trump's racism), misogyny/sexual violence (he was saying they wanted him to grab them by the pussy), and contempt for PSTD sufferers (in context, he didn't call them cowards). It's noble of you to try to find the truth, but confusing that you are willing to give Trump the benefit of the doubt but would not afford the same courtesy to Albright.

The whole notion of calling out libs for 'identity politics' is getting odd. Does it serve to divide? Of course. But how is the end result any different from the other side get up to? Dems are stereotyped as saying 'you are like me, vote this way," whereas the GOP say 'they are different than you, vote this way.'

Why do you seem to argue that one is more noble than the other?
No worries!

I'm not sure I understand what the "truth seeking" interpretation of Albright's comment is supposed to be. I don't expect her to say Bernie is the better candidate, I expect her to use an argument better than women who vote for Bernie are trash.

It is unfair to hold the person who coined a phrase about how shitty it is to throw women under the bus accountable... when she throws women under the bus?
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 20, 2016, 04:08 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
This doesn't make sense at all.

If you make an argument I disagree with and think is stupid and say "that is a stupid argument", does this mean "because you made that argument you are stupid"?
The extent to which it would be interpreted this way is so overwhelming, there is no reason to make the claim unless said interpretation is the desired result.

Either that, or the person making the argument is pretending they still stand upon moral high-ground.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 20, 2016, 04:18 PM
 
Originally Posted by Paco500 View Post
I would say without question the answer is less.

She lost the election you know.
To make the implied hypothetical explicit, had Hillary won, would not Comcast having paid her precipitate a conflict of interest?
     
besson3c  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 20, 2016, 08:43 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
The extent to which it would be interpreted this way is so overwhelming, there is no reason to make the claim unless said interpretation is the desired result.

Either that, or the person making the argument is pretending they still stand upon moral high-ground.

I think you are reaching.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 20, 2016, 09:08 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
To make the implied hypothetical explicit, had Hillary won, would not Comcast having paid her precipitate a conflict of interest?
I don't think it would amount to a conflict of interest, campaign contributions have more subtle influence on politicians than the naïve quid pro quo. But it'd be better if the influence of money could be reduced significantly in US elections, and Comcast's campaign contribution to Clinton is a definite symptom. According to National Review, Comcast has spent $33 million on political campaigns, of which $18 million (about 55 %) went to Democrats. (In case you are skeptical about the article, have a look at the headline.) Since the article is from 2014, it doesn't include contributions made during the 2016 election cycle, though. I'm quite sure that for the most part you'll find a slant towards candidates who are expected to win.

However, I don't think you can view all of this in isolation. Moreover, if reducing conflicts of interests as much as possible is the goal, then I would say we would have done better by electing Clinton than Trump. Clinton gave speeches for Goldman-Sachs, but Trump hired 3 alumni outright. That gives the interests of the banks a much bigger voice than money given for speeches.

Edit: I should have been more clear about my stance here, I'm not a Clinton apologist, I agree that the influence of money on politics should be reduced significantly. I'm merely saying that not hiring someone because she is corrupt, but getting someone more corrupt in her place is not the right way to improve the situation.
( Last edited by OreoCookie; Dec 20, 2016 at 11:43 PM. )
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 20, 2016, 10:53 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
I think you are reaching.
How often does "this idea is stupid" accomplish the goal of convincing the idea holder?
     
besson3c  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 21, 2016, 09:47 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
How often does "this idea is stupid" accomplish the goal of convincing the idea holder?
How does this argument relate?
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 21, 2016, 12:13 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
How does this argument relate?
It's questioning the success rate of the gambit.

Will not its success or failure factor into whether one can justify pursuing it?
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 21, 2016, 12:47 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
I don't think it would amount to a conflict of interest, campaign contributions have more subtle influence on politicians than the naïve quid pro quo. But it'd be better if the influence of money could be reduced significantly in US elections, and Comcast's campaign contribution to Clinton is a definite symptom. According to National Review, Comcast has spent $33 million on political campaigns, of which $18 million (about 55 %) went to Democrats. (In case you are skeptical about the article, have a look at the headline.) Since the article is from 2014, it doesn't include contributions made during the 2016 election cycle, though. I'm quite sure that for the most part you'll find a slant towards candidates who are expected to win.

However, I don't think you can view all of this in isolation. Moreover, if reducing conflicts of interests as much as possible is the goal, then I would say we would have done better by electing Clinton than Trump. Clinton gave speeches for Goldman-Sachs, but Trump hired 3 alumni outright. That gives the interests of the banks a much bigger voice than money given for speeches.

Edit: I should have been more clear about my stance here, I'm not a Clinton apologist, I agree that the influence of money on politics should be reduced significantly. I'm merely saying that not hiring someone because she is corrupt, but getting someone more corrupt in her place is not the right way to improve the situation.
Upon what basis is the comparison between campaign contributions and quid pro quo being made?
     
Paco500
Professional Poster
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 21, 2016, 02:58 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
No worries!

I'm not sure I understand what the "truth seeking" interpretation of Albright's comment is supposed to be. I don't expect her to say Bernie is the better candidate, I expect her to use an argument better than women who vote for Bernie are trash.

It is unfair to hold the person who coined a phrase about how shitty it is to throw women under the bus accountable... when she throws women under the bus?
Again, this only works if you ignore the obvious from the video of the event that it was an (arguably tasteless and unfunny) attempt at humour. You gave it as an example of identity politics- not bad political stand-up. The commentary you added (said to young, female, Sanders supporters) was not accurate- maybe there were some there, but she said it to a very mixed audience of Hillary supporters at a Hillary campaign rally.

I'm not defending her, I'm defending reality.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 21, 2016, 04:06 PM
 
Originally Posted by Paco500 View Post
Again, this only works if you ignore the obvious from the video of the event that it was an (arguably tasteless and unfunny) attempt at humour. You gave it as an example of identity politics- not bad political stand-up. The commentary you added (said to young, female, Sanders supporters) was not accurate- maybe there were some there, but she said it to a very mixed audience of Hillary supporters at a Hillary campaign rally.

I'm not defending her, I'm defending reality.
I'll attempt to address the meat of this post in a bit, but I want to address my commentary. I think communicated my point poorly.

My claim isn't Albright said it to a room full of young, female, Sanders supporters. I'm saying those are the people she's metaphorically sending to hell with the comment.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 21, 2016, 08:26 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Upon what basis is the comparison between campaign contributions and quid pro quo being made?
I don't understand your question. I didn't compare campaign contributions to quid pro quo, I wrote that campaign contributions do not imply a naïve quid pro quo, “$100,000 for a vote”. Campaign contributions by access, i. e. that politicians will pick up the phone when donors call them.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
besson3c  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 22, 2016, 02:36 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
It's questioning the success rate of the gambit.

Will not its success or failure factor into whether one can justify pursuing it?

You have a way of making things very complicated and confusing to my poor brain sometimes. This is one of those times
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 22, 2016, 10:28 AM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
You have a way of making things very complicated and confusing to my poor brain sometimes. This is one of those times
How often does calling someone's argument stupid succeed in convincing them it's stupid?

For me, the answer is "never".

If labels like that are such a hot idea, one should be able to easily provide examples of it succeeding.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 22, 2016, 11:10 AM
 
Originally Posted by Paco500 View Post
Again, this only works if you ignore the obvious from the video of the event that it was an (arguably tasteless and unfunny) attempt at humour. You gave it as an example of identity politics- not bad political stand-up. The commentary you added (said to young, female, Sanders supporters) was not accurate- maybe there were some there, but she said it to a very mixed audience of Hillary supporters at a Hillary campaign rally.

I'm not defending her, I'm defending reality.
I reviewed the tape. I'm totally lost what the argument is.

The sentiment Albright expressed is a woman not voting for Hillary isn't doing right by her gender. She does this seriously (note her tone on the phrase "it's not done"), and she does it "comically" by using a callback to her catchphrase.

The humor does not, nor is it intended to dilute the message, which is "women should vote for Hillary because she fights for women". Is this not identity politics?
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 22, 2016, 11:12 AM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
I don't understand your question. I didn't compare campaign contributions to quid pro quo, I wrote that campaign contributions do not imply a naïve quid pro quo, “$100,000 for a vote”. Campaign contributions by access, i. e. that politicians will pick up the phone when donors call them.
That wasn't what I got from the OP. Thanks for the clarification.
     
besson3c  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 22, 2016, 12:47 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
How often does calling someone's argument stupid succeed in convincing them it's stupid?

For me, the answer is "never".

If labels like that are such a hot idea, one should be able to easily provide examples of it succeeding.
Where did I say that it is an effective thing to say?
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 22, 2016, 01:18 PM
 
Okay... is not one of the reasons it's ineffective because people take it personally, even though "that's a stupid idea" technically isn't personal?

If someone knows this will be the result, but does it anyway, then that's personal.
     
besson3c  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 22, 2016, 01:37 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Okay... is not one of the reasons it's ineffective because people take it personally, even though "that's a stupid idea" technically isn't personal?

If someone knows this will be the result, but does it anyway, then that's personal.

It's not effective because it is lacking any sort of diplomacy and subtlety, but I still don't know why you are focused on this.

The question is, if you say "I think that idea is stupid" to somebody, do they honestly walk away thinking "that person thinks I'm a stupid person" consistently? I think it would be a stretch to say so. We disagree strongly with people constantly while questioning their perspective rather than their intellect.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 27, 2016, 09:01 AM
 
I'm lost.

The question is whether "this argument is stupid" is effective.

It is stated in the above post the tactic is ineffective (due to lack of diplomacy and tact), and then it's claimed that's a stretch because disagreement based on perspective exists.

I'm focusing on this because I desire good arguments to be argued convincingly, rather than in a manner which causes the audience to reject it in retaliation for the "discussion" the claim "this is stupid" supposedly fosters.
     
besson3c  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 27, 2016, 10:00 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I'm lost.

The question is whether "this argument is stupid" is effective.

That was not my question or interest.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 27, 2016, 10:17 AM
 
Yet here we are.
     
besson3c  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 27, 2016, 10:31 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I'm lost.

I recommend your asking more open ended questions.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 27, 2016, 10:53 AM
 
I'm more than flexible enough to take the discussion somewhere else, but seeing as all the attempts on my part to direct the conversation have failed, perhaps a less vague directive is in order.
     
besson3c  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 27, 2016, 11:10 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I'm more than flexible enough to take the discussion somewhere else, but seeing as all the attempts on my part to direct the conversation have failed, perhaps a less vague directive is in order.
I'm flexible too, but it isn't nice to feel like you have to defend or be the seed for a conversation that was never a central aspect to what was said originally.

If you want to change the topic, maybe just change the way you attach people to your topic change? If you feel like your comments are on topic, maybe ask open-ended questions to clarify what the other person was saying before leaping into new territory?

I've noticed these sort of patterns on multiple occasions, and my attempt here is simply to make you aware of them assuming you are interested in my perspective here. You know I love you.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 27, 2016, 11:44 AM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
I'm flexible too, but it isn't nice to feel like you have to defend or be the seed for a conversation that was never a central aspect to what was said originally.

If you want to change the topic, maybe just change the way you attach people to your topic change? If you feel like your comments are on topic, maybe ask open-ended questions to clarify what the other person was saying before leaping into new territory?

I've noticed these sort of patterns on multiple occasions, and my attempt here is simply to make you aware of them assuming you are interested in my perspective here. You know I love you.
What was asserted was the importance of the distinction between "this argument is misogynist" vs. "you're a misogynist".

All I've done is change the qualifier to "stupid" because it's a more general purpose term, but I am otherwise discussing the same concept.

Does labeling an idea as misogynist, racist, homophobic, and/or stupid convince the holder of the idea that is the case?

I'm arguing for all intents and purposes, it fails this mission. It's interpreted as a personal attack, it's seen as dismissive, and the vast majority of the time it causes the audience to dismiss the argument in turn.
     
besson3c  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 27, 2016, 12:05 PM
 
I understand your point, and I agree with you.

Do you understand mine?
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 27, 2016, 12:56 PM
 
I'm not really sure, so clarification would be welcomed.

A link to a post or a requote of what I should be focusing on is more than acceptable.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 29, 2016, 01:46 PM
 
I didn't realize that would be such a zinger.
     
besson3c  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 29, 2016, 02:55 PM
 
Sorry, out of town and busy right now.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 29, 2016, 03:02 PM
 
All good!

I'm serous though... when you have the time, just point me at the post which exemplifies the point. You've put in your effort. I don't want to ask you to repeat it.
     
besson3c  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 29, 2016, 03:32 PM
 
I think another take at explaining this would serve this conversation better.

The main point is that we can be empathetic while challenging perspectives that we feel are non-empathetic to others. One way is a very direct way, which is what we've been discussing, where we just say "that argument is stupid". My original point is that that doesn't necessarily mean that that person is stupid, where you countered that this is rarely effective. True enough, but there are so many variations on this approach that are not as direct, we don't need to confine ourselves to this approach.

For example, you can infer that the argument is stupid with how emphatic/vehement you are in how you challenge the argument (and what you say to challenge it). You can infer the argument is stupid by asking the right question the right way that really takes the steam out of the argument. You can choose to validate the argument and then challenge it, or not validate it at all.

If you are lucky, artful, and careful about this you can shut down an argument like this fairly easily - the ease of which will make the original argument seem stupid without necessarily assigning it a direct label as we were getting a little stuck on.

Returning to my earlier point, Carrie Fisher's death ties nicely into the concept of empathy in how she outed herself as being bipolar and encouraged other people to do the same to destigmatize mental illness. I think neurodiversity is yet another way we can segment and drive wedges in the population to go along with race, gender, sexual orientation, etc. This can range from being bipolar to depression, PTSD, autism/aspergers, OCD, etc.

When you think about it, there are a LOT of things we can be that are not white Christian male. I think the US is very empathy deficient right now, which results in us being very afraid of each other (which is a big reason why the population loves their guns). The government and collusion with corporate America has helped create these conditions by gutting the middle class.

Preaching tolerance is maybe a way to encourage empathy, but I don't know if it is enough. I don't think an election is enough either.

So there, you have my entire explanation from the lowest level concepts to the highest level/big picture concepts, giving you a more complete picture into how I see things.

Make sense?
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 29, 2016, 03:37 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
I think another take at explaining this would serve this conversation better.
Oh... no question! I just didn't want you to have to expend extra effort.

I'm of course pleased as punch you did, and shall digest it presently!
     
besson3c  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 29, 2016, 03:53 PM
 
One more thing to add:

As much as people tease Canada as being America Jr., this is one area where I feel Canada’s culture (at least in the Toronto area) is much different. I don’t know exactly why this is, but it has taught me that human beings are capable of being much better, and America should not settle for its current empathy deprivation.
     
besson3c  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 29, 2016, 04:03 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Oh... no question! I just didn't want you to have to expend extra effort.

I'm of course pleased as punch you did, and shall digest it presently!
At your leisure!
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 29, 2016, 08:55 PM
 
I'm finding quite a few are currently counselling that "That argument is stupid" with no further explanation or judgement is precisely the most effective argument against a post-truther. Its exactly what Trump did throughout. He simply yelled "Wrong!" over the top of anything he didn't like. People are calling this a form of 'Nudge' debate/persuasion/whatever. I'm not really sure this is correct though. Typically nudging involves the presentation of multiple options with a clear nudge in favour of only one of them. As I understand it at least.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 30, 2016, 01:42 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
One more thing to add:

As much as people tease Canada as being America Jr., this is one area where I feel Canada’s culture (at least in the Toronto area) is much different. I don’t know exactly why this is, but it has taught me that human beings are capable of being much better, and America should not settle for its current empathy deprivation.
Let's consider ourselves even when it comes to stretchy analogies.

Toronto is to Canada as the United States is to the United States doesn't work. It's more Toronto is to Canada like Boston is to the United States.

Is Boston notably empathy deprived?

If I really wanted to overplay my hand, I would have picked San Francisco.
     
andi*pandi
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: inside 128, north of 90
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 30, 2016, 02:20 PM
 
Boston not so much as East Overshoe.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 30, 2016, 02:57 PM
 
East Overshoe is a bad analogue for Toronto, no?

Again, I think there are many lessons the US can learn from Canada, and I think there's a point in there, but the original analogy didn't compare like to like.
     
besson3c  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 30, 2016, 03:26 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Let's consider ourselves even when it comes to stretchy analogies.

Toronto is to Canada as the United States is to the United States doesn't work. It's more Toronto is to Canada like Boston is to the United States.

Is Boston notably empathy deprived?

If I really wanted to overplay my hand, I would have picked San Francisco.

I didn't pin this part of my argument down because I didn't want to fixate on it.

I cannot prove my thesis that the US is empathy deprived with charts and graphs, and I'm sure there are parts that aren't. I'm just saying that on the whole it seems this way to me, and that I have seen first hand that human beings are capable of being much better.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 30, 2016, 03:27 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
I think another take at explaining this would serve this conversation better.

The main point is that we can be empathetic while challenging perspectives that we feel are non-empathetic to others. One way is a very direct way, which is what we've been discussing, where we just say "that argument is stupid". My original point is that that doesn't necessarily mean that that person is stupid, where you countered that this is rarely effective. True enough, but there are so many variations on this approach that are not as direct, we don't need to confine ourselves to this approach.

For example, you can infer that the argument is stupid with how emphatic/vehement you are in how you challenge the argument (and what you say to challenge it). You can infer the argument is stupid by asking the right question the right way that really takes the steam out of the argument. You can choose to validate the argument and then challenge it, or not validate it at all.

If you are lucky, artful, and careful about this you can shut down an argument like this fairly easily - the ease of which will make the original argument seem stupid without necessarily assigning it a direct label as we were getting a little stuck on.

Returning to my earlier point, Carrie Fisher's death ties nicely into the concept of empathy in how she outed herself as being bipolar and encouraged other people to do the same to destigmatize mental illness. I think neurodiversity is yet another way we can segment and drive wedges in the population to go along with race, gender, sexual orientation, etc. This can range from being bipolar to depression, PTSD, autism/aspergers, OCD, etc.

When you think about it, there are a LOT of things we can be that are not white Christian male. I think the US is very empathy deficient right now, which results in us being very afraid of each other (which is a big reason why the population loves their guns). The government and collusion with corporate America has helped create these conditions by gutting the middle class.

Preaching tolerance is maybe a way to encourage empathy, but I don't know if it is enough. I don't think an election is enough either.

So there, you have my entire explanation from the lowest level concepts to the highest level/big picture concepts, giving you a more complete picture into how I see things.

Make sense?
According to the empathy model, I'm supposed to take someone society considers to be trash, like let's say a gangbanger who has countless assaults and a few first degree murders under their belt, and be empathetic.

I'm supposed to account for abject poverty, depending upon the person's race, a culture of institutionalized racism, a likely horrifying home environment growing up, and whatever else we can come up with.

However, as I mentioned, society flat-out says this person should spend their entire life behind bars, if not simply executed.

Personally? I'm on team empathy with this one. I agree one should account for the aggravating factors which put people in this situation. I'm not going to let someone off the hook for a bunch of murders, but I'm generally not going to consider them human trash either.

I'm not particularly religious and/or spiritual, but certain religious precepts resonate with me, and one of those is "there but for the grace of God go you and I". If I lived that person's life, who's to say I wouldn't behave the same way. I ultimately have very little to stand on when it comes to judging other people.


Here's the thing though... if I can apply that to a serial murderer, it should be about an order of magnitude easier for me to apply that to someone who's crime is being kinda sorta racist. If I can't manage this, my empathy for the gangbanger rings hollow.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 30, 2016, 03:29 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
I didn't pin this part of my argument down because I didn't want to fixate on it.

I cannot prove my thesis that the US is empathy deprived with charts and graphs, and I'm sure there are parts that aren't. I'm just saying that on the whole it seems this way to me, and that I have seen first hand that human beings are capable of being much better.
Again, I agree.

The underlying theory can be correct even if a given piece of evidence is fallacious.
     
besson3c  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 30, 2016, 03:43 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
According to the empathy model, I'm supposed to take someone society considers to be trash, like let's say a gangbanger who has countless assaults and a few first degree murders under their belt, and be empathetic.

I'm supposed to account for abject poverty, depending upon the person's race, a culture of institutionalized racism, a likely horrifying home environment growing up, and whatever else we can come up with.

However, as I mentioned, society flat-out says this person should spend their entire life behind bars, if not simply executed.

Personally? I'm on team empathy with this one. I agree one should account for the aggravating factors which put people in this situation. I'm not going to let someone off the hook for a bunch of murders, but I'm generally not going to consider them human trash either.

I'm not particularly religious and/or spiritual, but certain religious precepts resonate with me, and one of those is "there but for the grace of God go you and I". If I lived that person's life, who's to say I wouldn't behave the same way. I ultimately have very little to stand on when it comes to judging other people.


Here's the thing though... if I can apply that to a serial murderer, it should be about an order of magnitude easier for me to apply that to someone who's crime is being kinda sorta racist. If I can't manage this, my empathy for the gangbanger rings hollow.


My statement about empathy was very general and non-specific, you seem to be taking it to extremes looking at cases of murder and such. Of course it is human to have a hard time with empathy towards somebody who has committed these sorts of crimes, but we don't need to start with such extreme cases.

Humans are humans, I'm not trying to suggest that Americans are some rare breed of human, but the culture in the country feels very dog eat dog right now. People feel threatened, scared, and fiercely protective of their self-interests (that others often are perceived to threaten). People have to fight tooth and nail for "equality" in various permutations, it is often not always the obvious choice.

We all know somebody that has a learning disability, who is a woman trying to compete in male-dominated areas, a black person, somebody with something worthy of a little "put yourself in their shoes" sort of treatment. All I'm saying is that on the whole, we are generally poor at doing this. We don't need to look beyond Trump and his followers to see this part of our culture reflected back at us, it has existed before him, and will continue to exist if he were to disappear tomorrow - it's much bigger than him.
     
besson3c  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 30, 2016, 03:43 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Again, I agree.

The underlying theory can be correct even if a given piece of evidence is fallacious.

Cool, sorry. I didn't realize that you agreed with the overall gist of what I was saying.
     
el chupacabra
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 31, 2016, 02:27 AM
 
… .
( Last edited by el chupacabra; Jan 5, 2024 at 01:39 AM. )
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 31, 2016, 12:14 PM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
I'm finding quite a few are currently counselling that "That argument is stupid" with no further explanation or judgement is precisely the most effective argument against a post-truther. Its exactly what Trump did throughout. He simply yelled "Wrong!" over the top of anything he didn't like. People are calling this a form of 'Nudge' debate/persuasion/whatever.
This implies Trump's use of "wrong" actually convinced people of something.

No one heard "wrong" and went "oh... I am now compelled to rethink my position".

People who were already convinced were buoyed by the comment, those who were unconvinced remained so.
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:35 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,