This site is supported by Nobility Studios.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

Diversity of political views - please read

21 posts in this topic

Posted

I agree 100%. My take on the issue is that if you bring opinions and perspective about certain things, then you need to provide argmentation and evidence.

But this seems less of a requisite when it comes to hot button subjects like politics or religion. It seems like we already made up our minds about these stuff long before we reasoned about them, much less ever heard of philosophy. So we're more likely to flock to those who agree, then form a mob mentality whenever some brave lad wanders in with contrary views, and mercilessly rip him till we've satiated our bloodlust.

I myself try to avoid them because I neither have the interest in squabbling about superficial subjects nor the patience to deal with dogmatics. But when I do weigh in, it'll be from a carefully considered viewpoint that tries to not import excessive ideological baggage, or demonize a certain group, and add to the discussion with new information.

PoL, Your views of the site is what it should aspire for, and what we all should aspire for too.

In the chatroom, some of us like to carry over feuds or disagreement, and that poisons the conversational air. Maybe we're better off without a chatroom?

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

It shouldn't matter what you believe, but why you believe it...

Indeed, and the reason I went through the trouble of starting a thread on libertarianism with a long, thoughtful essay accompanied by a fair amount of reading (no one else started such a thread!), was because I was interested in drawing out the reasons why the person of Libertarian persuasion to whom you allude believes as he does. And the thread that I started, with a long, thoughtful, involved essay and with the intention of more to come was completely ignored by the person in question, with the exception of a single short response to me, after all my effort; and others who participated in the thread received rote one-liners as responses, culminating in a sarcastic, "Wiki is your friend."

:blink:

And someone recently stated in chat that it would be possible to have judicial systems that were privatized, and in chat that person was repeatedly asked (in chat sessions you never saw) in a reasonable way to explain how that would work; and said person not only refused to respond, he repeatedly mischaracterized the question and attributed to others things that they did not say.

:blink:

ETA: So, when I start a thread on a subject in good ffaith and get ignored or subject to one liners, is that OK? Or is it that people who start threads that are effectively thoughtful essays in the hope of generating meaningful dialogue not themselves to benefit from the principle of charity?

Edited by davidm
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I can't give people rep points, but if I could I'd give Davidm a rep point for his post.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I have already said a fair bit in the chatroom.

I will state here that I think there is some one-sidedness going on. The OP implies that it is the Libertarians that are being bullied. I think, however, that some people on the opposite side of the fence would argue that the Libertarians are resorting to troll tactics.

Of course, one could riposte that the trolling is a defence mechanism against the bullying, but I see that as a simplistic rationalisation.

Rather than pointing fingers at either party, or hoping it all stops, we need to discuss this properly, with ALL sides weighing in, and without fear of reprisal.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I can't give people rep points, but if I could I'd give Davidm a rep point for his post.

Why can't you give people rep points?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

My licence to give rep points and chat privately has been revoked. Speaking of chat, why aren't you in there?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I have already said a fair bit in the chatroom.

I will state here that I think there is some one-sidedness going on. The OP implies that it is the Libertarians that are being bullied. I think, however, that some people on the opposite side of the fence would argue that the Libertarians are resorting to troll tactics.

Thank you very much, Beast.

The OP is essentially a call-out thread against me. It passes understanding why frank, non-public talk in chat is now going to be monitored by Net Nannies, but here we are.

I am being accused of bullying and of inhumanity. I have never bullied anyone here, nor been inhumane to anyone.

I expect that the author of the OP will either support these disgusting claims, or withdraw them and apologize.

I would also like to point out to the author of the OP that he apparently does not understand the Principle of Charity. This principle does not mean that one lavishes the milk of human kindness on every idiot who comes down the pike. It means that one strives to give the strongest possible interpretation of an opponent's argument. As such, it is the antidote to the Strawman fallacy. The motive behind the Principle of Charity is that in bolstering an argument with which one might disagree, one either makes one's rebuttals of the argument better, or sees that the opponent's argument is a good one after all.

I'd be happy to extend the Principle of Charity to people who don't write "Wiki is your friend" to long and thoughtful essays on Libertarianism, and also to people who, when asked in chat to justify their claims that "the judicial system should be privatized," write, "Rothbard is God! All hail Rothbard!"

Unfortunately, as the author of the OP seems to miss, the Principle of Charity extends both ways. And the most grievous violation of the principle may be found in the opening post of this very thread.

My licence to give rep points and chat privately has been revoked. Speaking of chat, why aren't you in there?

I sugget it be unrevoked.

I can't be in teh chat, because I am in transit right now and in a few minutes, about to watch the second half of the intriguing Jets game. :wave:

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Actually the opposite of the strawman fallacy is the superman fallacy: instead of reducing your opponent's position to a caricature that's easily refuted, the superman fallacy endows a set of exceedingly idealistic traits to a character or a concept that makes it much stronger or more potent than it really is - i.e., capable of solving difficult problems or overcoming thousands of years of history. this happens when idealists in politics attribute unrealistic traits to a body of people, that they will go above and beyond their typical behavior, and bring about a utopia or somesuch. :doh:

More later.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

The problem, it seems to me, with the notion that "what" it is that someone believes is irrelevant is that the beliefs of others sometimes, perhaps even often, have very real effects that spill over into one's own world. Of course, one might reasonably ask, how much can come out of internet discussion/debate, but battles, cultural mores, hell, civilizational changes have to start somewhere. And, let us make no mistake, the kind of world(s) being proposed by anarcho-capitalists, libertarian socialists, communitarians, etc, are different, at times mutually exclusive, and threaten one another. People feel strongly about political first principles, and, as Camp once memorably contended, to paraphrase, it is no realm for the "gentlemanly." Do affections have no place in philosophic discussion?And, just because one may feel strongly about a particular subject, I do not think it fair to equate this with bigotry, at least in that, in principle, such feelings do not necessitate a preclusion of honest discussion, even if a certain level of aggression has its manifestation therein.

I've contended before that YouTube is really an arena of sublimated warfare, instead of socialists and capitalists utilizing violence to further their own ends, or to ensure that their longed for world is brought to fruition, they can hash it out non-violently on the information super-highway, though in certain contexts, the internet could reasonably be called: the front line. Indeed, I once posted a video defending agonistic democracy as against libertarianism, for this very reason: voting can be seen as a kind of participation in warfare, except without the violence, and Chantal Mouffe contends that, when agonism declines, when rigorous lines of political and ideological demarcation are not drawn, and the two sides of the multiple binaries mold into one another, this is most unfortunate for the society involved.

But, then again, TGL was always more like one of those old fashioned cigar stores where gentlemen could peacefully and fashionably discuss whatever was on their minds (from Plato to how they hate when their wives yap about when they leave the toilet seat up) than a place of warfare.

I remember my protests, given my conservative existential disposition, when Hugo was in the process of reformatting TGL, I didn't want my Platonic heaven to change dammit! Perhaps Heraclitus was right, conflict is father of all, even as against Plato's Forms.

Can TGL survive? I certainly hope so.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

davidm, I'm just going to say, I didn't call you out. No one's name was written in my OP, and that was deliberate and by design.

Similarly, I'm not going to go through the process of litigating past actions, because there's no point to it. If you needed one, this thread is a wake up call about some bullying that I see going on in the forum, and about the direction I see the site going into if we don't self-consciously deter it from that path. Here we are, none of us have "normal" political views, yet I see what looks like pretty conformist behavior.

There are political forums you can go to and you'll see the same thing, only a hundred times worse. People are pushed off of the forum for having unpopular views. This is what is happening now. I don't think this has built much momentum, we can stop if from snowballing, before it becomes the sort of forum that I no longer want to be a part of.

In defense of Selfless Egoist, he corrected many of his early mistakes, and he should be given credit for that. You've just ignored that in your post. DeadCanDance told me that he came from YouTube. The low standards of discourse on YouTube are notorious, and it should be expected that new people who come from such an environment will take some time to be acquainted with the standards of this community.

And so you know, I only know what is said in chat when I'm logged in, and that isn't all that often. I don't know what you mean by Net Nannies, but I think we should have a discussion on what the standards in the chat room ought to be. You apparently feel that assertions in made in the chat room need to be justified, which is the standard on the forum. I guess I was under the impression that the standards should be looser. Maybe we should also question whether or not we should even have a chat room.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

davidm, why can't I send you private messages?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

The problem, it seems to me, with the notion that "what" it is that someone believes is irrelevant is that the beliefs of others sometimes, perhaps even often, have very real effects that spill over into one's own world. Of course, one might reasonably ask, how much can come out of internet discussion/debate, but battles, cultural mores, hell, civilizational changes have to start somewhere. And, let us make no mistake, the kind of world(s) being proposed by anarcho-capitalists, libertarian socialists, communitarians, etc, are different, at times mutually exclusive, and threaten one another.

Responding to your first sentence, something I've wanted to bring up, perhaps on another thread, is the issue of political correctness (and not directed at this site, but in general). It seems to me that behind the principle of political correctness is the understanding that, just the act of saying something, has consequences and may cause harm in some way. Generally, the more influential you are, and the more weight your comments have on people listening, the more harm your comments may have on other people, and thus it is advisable to be politically correct. But this requirement is particularly burdensome, as the consequences of your remarks doesn't have to match the intention of your remarks, so to be politically correct it is necessary not only to weigh every possible understanding of your comments, but also every possible misunderstanding of those comments.

But, given that none of our comments here have that much weight, we shouldn't burden ourselves with any sort of political correctness. I think often our vanity makes us believe that our remarks, or the remarks of those who we consider our equals, have far more power than they really do, and that's why I think it isn't entirely uncommon to hear people argue the case you're making. When people appeal to political correctness in an argument where it's out of context, it's usually just yet another attempt to control the terms of the debate. But the great thing about this site is that I don't hear a lot of appeals to political correctness, or inverse political correctness ("You're just being politically correct!").

Anyway, I'd just thought I share my view on that matter :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Actually the opposite of the strawman fallacy is the superman fallacy: instead of reducing your opponent's position to a caricature that's easily refuted, the superman fallacy endows a set of exceedingly idealistic traits to a character or a concept that makes it much stronger or more potent than it really is

I've been calling it the Iron Mask fallacy!

Why didn't anyone correct me?!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I've been calling it the Iron Mask fallacy!Why didn't anyone correct me?!

Who could be arsed to read every post you write? :lol:

Maybe that's because your readers thought you were talking about the masked man fallacy?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Who could be arsed to read every post you write?

I only ever skim yours.

:p

Seriously, I haven't the inclination to read such masses of texts.

Even if it were interesting.

:mrgreen:dance.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

As a moderator, I feel like I should be doing something about it, but on the other hand maybe my own judgment is off. I've been wrong before. For instance, I was completely wrong about Chato, who is someone I've come to value on this forum. If anyone deserves a public apology from me, it would be him, and this is it. And since we're doing community moderation on this site, I think this matter needs to be taken up with the community itself. But this also means we need to hear from as many members of the community as possible. Because in my opinion, we're falling far short of our ideals for this site.

I've never gotten the impression that you've been unfair to me. So, I believe you are apologizing for "bad thoughts." And besides, I came to this forum with many misconceptions and there are at least half a dozen members whom I owe an apology...

When I was younger, and faced with serious political disagreements, I lived with the impression that my opponents had a hidden agenda. In cases in which the disagreement was less profound, I really believed their positions, were sincere, but those, such as Right Wing Conservatives, were lying: had a hidden agenda, were really all a bunch of pigs... :)

I think the bullying that you mention is plain and simple a belief, held on some level, that so and so can't really believe that. Not as naive as my earlier views on the matter, nevertheless, that has to be a part of the cause. "Who is this guy kidding? Nothing like that can possibly work." But the members here, across the political and social spectrums, all seem to respond to reason. Of course, I've never been in the chat room... :(

Dave

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Indeed, and the reason I went through the trouble of starting a thread on libertarianism with a long, thoughtful essay accompanied by a fair amount of reading (no one else started such a thread!), was because I was interested in drawing out the reasons why the person of Libertarian persuasion to whom you allude believes as he does.

I notice some threads and miss others. The thread you started has so far gotten 58 replies.

Dave

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

We could discuss politics politely if you would all agree with me. For some reason nobody ever wants to do that, and they are often terribly impolite about declining my wisdom. So since we can't be polite, we have to avoid the subject entirely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

We could discuss politics politely if you would all agree with me. For some reason nobody ever wants to do that, and they are often terribly impolite about declining my wisdom. So since we can't be polite, we have to avoid the subject entirely.

We do not tolerate attempts at humour in this thread. <_<

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

We could discuss politics politely if you would all agree with me. For some reason nobody ever wants to do that, and they are often terribly impolite about declining my wisdom. So since we can't be polite, we have to avoid the subject entirely.

We do not tolerate attempts at humour in this thread. <_<

128840453637503727.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0