SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
I saw this the other day and found it quite interesting, given a lot of the 'arguments' being put forward here on SN.
what strikes me about the reaction to this growing backlash is not just its vileness, but its lameness. Trump’s response to Parkland — let’s arm teachers! — wasn’t just stupid, it was cowardly, an attempt to duck the issue, and I think many people realized that. Or consider how the Missouri G.O.P. has responded to the indictment of Gov. Eric Greitens, accused of trying to blackmail his lover with nude photos: by blaming … George Soros. I am not making this up.
Or consider the growing wildness of speeches by right-wing luminaries like Wayne LaPierre of the N.R.A. They’ve pretty much given up on making any substantive case for their ideas in favor of rants about socialists trying to take away your freedom. It’s scary stuff, but it’s also kind of whiny; it’s what people sound like when they know they’re losing the argument.
(Source: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/26/opinion/the-force-of-decency-awakens.html )
I see it over and over again here. Something's going on? It's George Soros' fault, of course! Don't like the argument someone makes, they're "socialists" who hate America, want to take away all your rights, and are worse (or at least as bad) as Stalin.
Care about your fellow humans or sick of crony capitalists, regulatory capture or xenophobic trashing of anything that's different? You're a Marxist who hates capitalism and pines for a land of gulags, collectivized everything and iron-fisted suppression of speech and expression.
It's pretty sad. If there's an argument to be made for/against stuff like municipal FTTP, single-payer healthcare, civil rights for all, gun control, women having control of their bodies, etc., etc., etc., then make a relevant argument.
"You're a socialist/marxist/anti-capitalist/SJW who wants to destroy $X and are just like Stalin." and other semantically null bullshit aren't arguments. It's just posturing and value-free (although apparently quite satisfying) name calling.
I'm not suggesting that folks not be allowed to spew whatever crap they wish to spew, rather I'm wondering aloud if there aren't more folks who, if they think about it (or at all), might opt for actual arguments rooted in logic and evidence rather than semantically valueless name calling.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 28 2018, @12:02AM (15 children)
You're not guilty of this? You think some of these criticisms are unjustified? [dailycaller.com]
Think there's a debate to be had about Israel [youtube.com] before we have a debate about gun control?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 28 2018, @12:13AM (5 children)
George Soros funded parent comment!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 28 2018, @12:34AM (4 children)
He may have well funded my comment, he funded everything else including the DNC, [politico.com] BLM, [kerrybolton.com] Ukranian Nazi's, [mintpressnews.com] illegal immigration into Europe [halseynews.com] and Antifa. [frontpagemag.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 28 2018, @12:57AM (3 children)
Little known facts: Georg Solos also funded Drudge, Bush Limberger, Faux News, Brietbarf, and little Green Footballs. All part of the plan to bring down America by covertly funding craziness, and the NRA, but I repeat myself.
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Wednesday February 28 2018, @03:38AM (2 children)
Well yeah, nothing contains the narrative better than working both sides, don't want any loose ends.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 3, Funny) by DeathMonkey on Wednesday February 28 2018, @07:45PM (1 child)
Good lord that guy's busy! When does he even have time to breathe?
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Monday March 19 2018, @02:59AM
I'm sure his secretary does all the legwork...
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 5, Insightful) by NotSanguine on Wednesday February 28 2018, @01:43AM (7 children)
You make no argument or criticism. Rather you post links.
If I was interested in watching youtube videos or consuming content, I'd be doing that. I wouldnt be on a *discussion* site. So how about some actual discussion?
Or are you so inarticulate that you can't make and defend an argument of your own?
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 0, Disagree) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 28 2018, @09:28AM (6 children)
There's discussion and there's informed discussion. In fact here's Brendan O'neill [youtube.com] talking about exactly the points you raise; Alas you're not interested in consuming content. That is the problem, some people do not listen. Instead they assume their position is inalienable and, when challenged, fall back to using retorts to maintain their sense of intellectual superiority. People who are familiar with the debate then do likewise, they short-out the discussion by undercutting it or blowing the frame apart because the assumption becomes that the opponent knows the on the ground facts and is being disingenuous.
Is that articulate enough for you?
(Score: 4, Insightful) by NotSanguine on Wednesday February 28 2018, @10:40AM (3 children)
Yes. There are folks who attempt to short-circuit rational discourse. Whether that's because they are inarticulate, wish to derail such discussion or are unable to do more than just parrot the talking points of their "side", it's unfortunate and lowers the quality of discourse for us all.
However, that's one of the prices associated with having freedom of expression.
Even though that's inevitable, there's no reason not to rail against it (as I'm attempting to do with this journal), and encourage folks to be more willing to engage. Some won't for the reasons I mention above and, I'm sure, others as well.
For me, I generally attempt to state my position/opinion in an organized, logical fashion.
Often, I try to include evidence as well. If such evidence is relevant and presented in a way that's readily understood, it can be quite powerful.
I'm honestly not so interested in playing "gotcha" or even convincing others to change their minds or accept my arguments. At the same time, I find that vigorous, respectful discussion usually has positive effects.
Most importantly, if such discussion is done properly, it forces all the participants to examine their opinions/positions in order to better express themselves. Often, this can lead to a better understanding of the topic at hand, as well as an opportunity to hone one's arguments and rhetorical skills.
You're absolutely right, those who are unwilling to engage as equals, (and to me, this is the important bit and another reason I wrote this particular journal entry) and see the individual who is engaging with them not as an enemy or an opponent, but rather as a person who, while they may disagree with you, is still a human whose thoughts and ideas have value.
One of the things that is becoming disturbingly more common is to paint those with whom you disagree with a broad brush (SJW, RWNJ, commie, Nazi, etc.) when, in all likelihood, they're just another person who believes/thinks differently than they do.
If one treats people as "the enemy" or dismisses them as stupid/evil/crazy/lazy/whatever because they express an idea with which you disagree, one does oneself a bigger disservice than it does the person being dismissed. Because while there certainly are people out there with crazy/stupid/hateful beliefs and agendas, the vast majority of us are moving through our lives and trying to figure things out as best we can.
When we reject, out-of-hand, that which is different/scary/uncomfortable, we lose an opportunity to understand the world, and ourselves, a bit better.
As you can tell, I feel pretty strongly about this. I honestly believe that a marketplace of ideas [wikipedia.org] where expression is freely exchanged and all manner of ideas are expressed, discussed and examined, gives us the best opportunity to learn and grow as thinking beings.
Does that make sense to you? I'd welcome your thoughts.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 3, Insightful) by acid andy on Friday March 02 2018, @03:19PM
Yes, I'm starting to see it as a dangerous and powerful form of brain-washing. It's everywhere and supposedly intelligent people are falling for it (see this site). It exploits natural human tendencies for tribalism and also the fact that on some level, human language and thought itself depends heavily upon grouping concepts under semantic labels (words!). A broad brush is used to completely delegitimize opponents and even, over time, completely redefine the terms to mean something utterly different and toxic which can make it almost impossible for an impartial observer to discuss them without being misunderstood and even eventually discourage potential new recruits from joining that philosophy. It's just like Orwellian Newspeak.
Of course, the few critical thinkers that can see through this propaganda are irrelevant to politicians. The message only has to affect the masses.
The antidote to it is, as far as possible, making a real effort mentally to put yourself in the shoes of others and remember above all that beneath the memories of upbringing, environment and some very, very minor genetic differences, we are all identical.
Master of the science of the art of the science of art.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by khallow on Sunday March 18 2018, @02:59PM (1 child)
Note that the official categories mentioned above all exhibit broad brush painting. For example:
While these categories are frequently used inappropriately, it is interesting that the broad brush painting is of people into broad brush categories. I think a lot of that is fallout from a century of broad brush propaganda. The rest is a bunch of people who've made up their minds and are now shoe-horning everyone else into convenient pigeon-holes.
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Monday March 19 2018, @12:30AM
That does make it easier not to think and to reinforce one's prejudices.
More's the pity.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 28 2018, @04:26PM
Video is a horrible medium. I would much rather read the transcript, put listen to audio only. I also don't want to enable JavaScript, use youtubedl, or any of that. It's occasionally worthwhile for hands-on how-to stuff, but too much work for politics.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday March 18 2018, @02:47PM
Let's review the many problems with video:
(Score: 3, Informative) by DeathMonkey on Wednesday February 28 2018, @07:41PM
You're not guilty of this?
Is he? If he was, seems like some links to some of his own comments would be a bit more appropriate.
Even though we're both fairly liberal I tend to disagree with NotSanguine quite a bit. He's never resorted to argument by acronym or petty name-calling with me.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 28 2018, @05:33AM
That wealth won't be "destroyed".
What will happen is that it won't be concentrated in the hands of some entity who already has more money than god but won't spend it into the economy of the land where he lives.
...AKA less hoarding.
...and we don't end up like Indonesia. [googleusercontent.com] (orig) [dissidentvoice.org]
Instead, that wealth will be more broadly distributed and we get an actual economy, with people actually circulating money by buying stuff.
That's call the fiscal multiplier effect.
In an economy that's functioning properly (e.g. USA in the 1950s and 1960s), it gets a chance to work.
You get a broad middle that continues to broaden.
...rather than a Precariat [google.com] where 60 percent of the population can't handle a $400 emergency without getting a loan or selling something.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by shortscreen on Wednesday February 28 2018, @05:56AM (8 children)
1) start off by mocking people you disagree with
2) claim to be waiting for constructive debate
3) ???
4) PROFIT!
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Wednesday February 28 2018, @06:32AM (7 children)
There's no profit in it for me.
I'm just a guy looking for some intelligent discussion. And sadly, I'm not finding too much of it here recently. I've only had two reasoned discussions with someone who disagreed with me in several weeks. I'll let you judge whether or not my arguments are reasoned -- not whether you agree with me -- that's not the point:
https://soylentnews.org/comments.pl?sid=24259&cid=643783 [soylentnews.org]
https://soylentnews.org/comments.pl?sid=24203&cid=641510 [soylentnews.org]
A reasoned, reasonable discussion twice in a couple of weeks? That seems a pretty low S/N ratio on a site that supposed to be about discussion, don't you think?
I don't need *anyone* (and I call out sundry nastiness/sloppy logic on all "sides" when it's necessary) to agree with me. But this is a *discussion* site. So let's discuss.
With just a little logic, evidence and rhetorical skill, anyone can make a reasoned argument. If you don't, what's the point except name-calling?
If you think the the examples above are "mocking," you're right. But I'm not mocking anyone because I disagree with them. I'm mocking them because they appear not to be able to muster an actual argument about whatever the topic at hand might be.
That's an important difference, IMHO.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 3, Insightful) by aristarchus on Wednesday February 28 2018, @09:30AM (6 children)
hello, NotSanguine. Sorry I cannot debate you, since I usually agree with you. But if you really need an advocatus diaboli, I could channel the TMB or the khallow, if need be. Can't do the jmorris, as I see no arguments there, nor a Runaway2000, for similar reasons.
For example:
"All these libtards that are against Trump are just like that because he is white! Opposition to the Trump presidency is just racist! I mean, I mean, this is the first white president we have had, ever, since the last one, that wasn't so white. I mean, it is the "White" house, not "Melania's" house . . . OMG, I just realized, do you know what "Melania" means in Chinese?"
Best I can do on such short notice. Later.
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Wednesday February 28 2018, @10:50AM (5 children)
Actually, there are a few points about which we can debate. The most important of which is that you quite often use exactly the tactics which I decry in the journal entry.
While there are many policy positions on which we agree, I find that you often spew ad hominem, fact-free, vitriolic attacks (of which you've just provided a sample) on others. I find that lacking in intellectual rigor, simple human respect and serves mostly just to annoy everyone, not just those you are attempting to skewer.
You do have useful and interesting things to say at times. As such, perhaps it might be more constructive to put your 2,400 years of experience to better use than saying mean things about those with whom you disagree.
Your thoughts?
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 28 2018, @02:23PM (4 children)
Sometimes the alt-stupid need a taste of their own medicine, to make a point, to hold up a mirror to them. Who knows one day they might even take notice?
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Wednesday February 28 2018, @04:28PM (3 children)
Using reasoned, logical arguments, especially with actual facts, is usually the best way to show up those who are talking out of their asses.
You don't need to suffer fools gladly. What's more, you don't need to be an asshole doing it.
There are fools of every political stripe.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Wednesday February 28 2018, @07:49PM
Using reasoned, logical arguments, especially with actual facts, is usually the best way to show up those who are talking out of their asses.
I'm never trying to convince those folks of anything, anyway.
It's the people on the fence who may be reading the thread I'm trying to convince.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 28 2018, @08:59PM
When you are continually hounded by the gibberings of the alt-idiots, interrupted and DoS'd sometimes you have to fight straight back at their level if only to slow them down in return.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by aristarchus on Wednesday February 28 2018, @10:35PM
I never use ad hominems! How dare you make such an accusation, NotSanguine! You must be doing that because you feel threatened by my superior arguing skills!
I find that the odd insult and non sequitur can be useful when dealing with the alt-right, and the right in general. One thing you must be careful of is tacitly giving status to what is actually an indefensible position. This is why all the alt-right provocateurs want so badly to speak on college campuses, it makes them seem legitimate, and furthers their claim that there is some, as TMB puts is, "difference of ideas". There is no difference of ideas, in many cases, just ideas on one side, and memes and veiled racism on the other. So there is, and can be, no debate. Best just to hit 'em upside the head with a clue stick, and see if you can jar them out of the bubble they fester in.