|
Post by celawson on Jun 14, 2018 11:03:50 GMT -5
If so, maybe we should think about what we can do to change that. To clarify: Robo's idea of a forum for "thoughtful political discussion" is a great one. As is his desire for minimal moderating, and having a place where muliple viewpoints can be discussed freely. Clearly there are thoughtful and intelligent people here at this forum. Yet it hasn't taken off in membership as much as would be optimal. The number of board visitors in the last 24 hours seems to be, whenever I randomly check, well over a hundred. But the number of posters remains just a handful. So why don't more people post? And why don't more people join? My thoughts: 1) Current socio-political discussion in the modern Western world has reached a fever pitch similar to religious fervor. Not only is the other side wrong, they are eeeevil. (I see this more from leftists with regards to those on the right, though I could be biased. IMO, the left is wrong in many respects, well-meaning but naieve, pie-in-the-sky, and very damaging to Western values, but they aren't evil. However, the feeling I get is that the left looks upon the right and anyone in power on the right, especially Trump, as monsters. I don't have to look far for examples for you all, since it's easy enough to find examples of this sort of rhetoric against Trump, Pence, Paul Ryan. The particular brand of animosity against Trump has fed this fervor and continues to feed it. I think this sort of animosity is supremely unhealthy. And it makes people unhappy. (Happiness is a not insignificant thing, IMO) I'm sure you on the left can find examples the other way, and that's too bad. Is TCG a microcosm of that? 2) People take things too personally on this board. Why can't we have more discussions that don't become personal? No matter how many times people say this board was created to be different, freer, with more expression of ideas which may run counter to whatever is PC at the moment, that doesn't seem to be the case a fair amount of the time. 3) People should be able to play devil's advocate without being pounced on like they are in fact, the devil. Most answers to the dilemmas we discuss are not clear-cut, or they would not be dilemmas. And playing devil's advocate in a forum where we are mature intelligent adults is not to troll or incite, but to challenge one side to demonstrate why their side is correct, or to address difficulties with a certain POV, or to problem-solve to best forumulate a solution. 4) One person's experience with something, though it can be valuable, is just that -- one person's experience. It doesn't make it them "right", necessarily. (Though it may ) As a matter of fact, sometimes it can cloud their judgement. Ever heard of the phrase "can't see the forest for the trees"? So in many cases, even when someone has personal experience, a diaologue should still be able to ensue with differing viewpoints. 5) The point of many of our discussions here should not be to "win". I think it's a pretty empty and demoralizing feeling, anyway, to crush someone online. The point should be, IMO, to dialogue, to make people consider something they haven't considered before, to prompt them approach an idea in a new way, to appreciate something they didn't know about before. And possibly to change minds. But a "win the argument at all costs" attitude will likely keep some less aggressive people away from posting. And it certainly isn't fun to engage with someone like that. And shouldn't participating here be fun? 6) It's not healthy to immerse oneself so deeply and emotionally into these discussions to the point that friendships or enjoyable acquaintances are lost. That has happened to me here. Three times here, in the midst of a bloody argument, I have reached out to another poster in a PM after things got heated, and not even received a response. And I've lost a very enjoyable acquaintance. Yet one of the friends I've made has political viewpoints which are the direct opposite of mine. He was (until he was banned) able to argue them passionately but not personally, and we are able to actually like each other. I think that's something participants in discussion boards like this should strive for - being able to appreciate someone despite their political or other viewpoints. And yes, this has been given lip-service here, but it still occurs. Anyway, those are my thoughts. I know not everyone will agree with me, after all they are my thoughts and we are all different. And I welcome differning viewpoints. But it would be nice if the overall interaction would be more patient, welcoming, friendly, for multiple different perspectives. After all, that's what makes the world go 'round. As my mom would always say.
|
|
|
Post by Optimus on Jun 14, 2018 21:49:11 GMT -5
Overall, I think there are a few reasons we don't have more posters. One is that it's often tough to get the word out about one's messageboard, especially when you're just starting out and you're starting small. Other than paying for web ads for this board across the web, there are sometimes few options for spreading the word.
Also, and this is not meant as an insult to Rob, but the name of the board is arguably weird and not a reference most people would get or even know about. It's not catchy and doesn't immediately give the impression to people what the board is about. Naming a website or message board after an obscure historical reference is going to severely hamper the odds that the site shows up in web searches. So, in that sense, the name of the board also shoots it in the foot when it comes to being easily found by people searching for communities like this. It might do better with a more catchy, clever, or even on-the-nose name. Currently, it's not a very marketable name.
On the other hand, Rob might not want the board to get much bigger because I imagine that managing/moderating a large message board takes up a lot of one's time, and Rob doesn't get paid for this and likely has other ways he enjoys spending his free time.
As to your other points:
1) No. I feel that people here tend to be pretty even-handed overall. We have several people close to the middle and a few people that skew farther on either side of the political spectrum. However, it also may be the case that one or two posters here who are closer to the political poles also tend to be quite intransigent in their views, fervent in defense of those intransigent views, denialist in evidence against those views, and then do this to an seemingly intentional, frustrating level that they then act like they get their feelings hurt when their own obdurate actions start to grind on the nerves of people who are trying to have intellectually honest discussions.
2) See #1.
3) When people "play devil's advocate" and are doing so honestly, then they usually state up front that they are playing devil's advocate (that's the entire point of it). However, a person cannot argue an unmoving, extreme position to the exhaustion of other posters' patience and then ad hoc claim "But I was just playing devil's advocate!" in a false attempt to claim moral high ground after they've pissed off other posters. That's intellectually weak and intellectually dishonest.
4) Matthew 7:4, "How can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' while there is still a beam in your own eye?"
5) The other side of that coin is that one must be open to and willing to have their mind changed. If a person enters a discussion - here or anywhere - with the mindset that they are right and no one can convince them otherwise, then they are wasting everyone's time. I have seen that here, but mainly from a few posters who tend to fall closer to the poles than the middle.
6) See #'s 1 through 5.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 15, 2018 9:19:45 GMT -5
I wasn't going to respond, but, well... Yes. People are avoiding the flagrant partisan emotionalism and rage on this site to embrace the rationality, cordiality, and intellectual rigor of Facebook, Twitter, and the Yahoo and Fox News comments sections. Actually, the quickest way these days to build a large audience seems to be the OPPOSITE of what you suggest -- people flock towards inflammatory highly partisan shit shows. And for the record? I happen to know that some people who initially signed up here and then wandered away did so because they were appalled that we don't restrain people from making the kind of "non-PC" "devils advocate" arguments you want to make, not because they were clutching their pearls that people responded strongly to them. But whatever. I believe the site has remained small because it isn't advertised or fancy or tailored to a particular faction, because not everyone actually WANTS to participate in discussions like these (as opposed to shoot off a 280 character rant now and then), because we don't have another hook (e.g., writing discussions, etc.) to bring in participants, and because there are a jillion other sites out there in cyberspace competing for the limited pool of people who want to participate in political discussions where you're expected to support your arguments and not just rant. Ever tried starting your own site and building an audience, c.e.? It's actually not all that easy and it takes a lot of work. As to your critique of other forum members: Our rules allow you and others to make "non-PC" "devil's advocate" arguments. I invite you to find an example of you or anyone being prevented from making them. But they also allow people to respond pretty freely. Freedom to make an argument does not mean freedom from people's reactions to it. If you are going to make a potentially controversial or "non-PC" argument, you need to be prepared that others are going to disagree, and hard. If you can't handle that, start your own blog and close the comments, or find a forum where the other members all share your views. While you seem to be putting yourself out there as a model of rational, friendly argument, I must point out that you've lost your shit on more than one occasion here when people made arguments that upset you (e.g., relating to religion or criticizing Trump and/or the right), so you really don't have the high ground you think you do. I went searching for a well-remembered post where you went off on me and told me how I'd completely changed personalities, etc., and cannot find it. I don't know whether you deleted it or I just can't find it, but I assure you -- that was a highly personal, none-too-rational post. And yet you were free to make it because that's how it works. I will note that your perception of whether people are getting too emotional, personal, angry, etc. seems pretty highly colored by whether they happen to be on your side of the argument or getting in your face as opposed to someone else's. Fine, it's your prerogative to have whatever reaction you're going to have, but puh-leaze -- stop lecturing the rest of the forum. I won't get into your allusion to the temp-banned member you place on a pedestal of rationality and cordiality, unless that person chooses to enter the conversation and wants to get into it. It isn't fair. Also, the reason for the temp-ban is between that member and Rob (yes, it's a temp ban, to the best of my knowledge, despite your implication that it's permanent). I will say, however, that IMO however pissed off that member might get at other members' arguments at times, that particular member would be quite unlikely to enjoy your beau-ideal of a discussion climate where people are not permitted to respond with strong reactions to non-PC arguments. As to your "I send personal messages to people in the middle of heated arguments and they haven't responded!" -- Well. Private messages are private, and should remain so. But I'll say this: it's just possible, c.e., that members on the receiving end of those messages: (1) are still upset at one of your "non-PC" "devil's advocate" arguments and/or an argument in the thread and are not ready and/or in the mood to have a personal behind-the-scenes chat with you about them. They may never want to have those discussions, or they might just want to step back a bit before answering. Either way, it's their call. (2) perceive your messages as attempts to impose your own idea of what the forum rules should be, and/or (3) perceive your messages as behind-the-scene attempts to stop them from effectively countering an argument in a thread via guilt, cajoling, etc., and they would prefer to keep thread arguments in the thread. In any event, here are the facts: no one here owes it to you to have a private, personal discussion on your demand. No one is obligated to follow your version of what the forum rules should be. No one owes it to you to tone down their argument because YOU don't like it. For that matter, no one needs to respond to your forum posts if they choose not to do so, and nor need you respond to theirs. (And of course, either way, the rest of us are free to draw our own conclusions when an argument remains unanswered.) The only obligation members of this forum have is to obey the rules of this forum. Period. It's Rob's call on whether he wants to change the forum rules.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 15, 2018 11:53:50 GMT -5
Also, by the way -- I am guessing that the impetus for this thread was the suicide thread, in which you advocated less compassion and more tough love for severe depression sufferers who have suicidal thoughts. Several of us with personal experience of depression and suicidal thoughts (whether our own or a loved one's) and/or who had some actual knowledge of what experts say about depression and suicidal thoughts, had some strong personal reactions to your views, because, as noted in the thread, we think--actually, we KNOW--they'd be potentially harmful, even devastating, to sufferers of those conditions. And I'm guessing you didn't like that. Well, yanno, tough beans. You're perfectly free to air your views. No one is stopping you. But if you seriously expect to put forward that issue, one that many of us have devastating, painful personal experience with, blithely dismiss our thoughts as "PC", advocate a response we are certain is dead fucking harmful (whether to be "devil's advocate" or not), and expect us all to respond with "Oh, that is a very interesting point, c.e. Thank you for sharing it! "...um, yeah, no. Not happening. Put forward thoughts like that on a hot button issue if you wish--no one is censoring you--but expect strong responses (because no one is censoring them, either). If you have responses to what people said in the thread, you should air them in the thread. If you instead choose to walk away from the thread, send private messages, then start threads to lecture other members not to take things so personally, well, fine, but you're going to get responses like these.
|
|
|
Post by celawson on Jun 15, 2018 14:37:39 GMT -5
Optimus, thank you for responding. I agree with a lot of what you say. I do, however, see you as someone who is closer to the middle of the political spectrum, reasonable in all sorts of ways, and contributing lots of interesting stuff in your area of expertise, which makes you a fascinating contributor whom we all enjoy. I don't think you've been on the receiving end of the rancor some of us skewed further out on the political spectrum have. And I probably have to learn from that and stay away from some of the discussions I attempt to participate in. But that's not what I thought the purpose of this forum is.
Cassandra, I challenge you to find any post where I've "lost my shit". I haven't deleted anything from this site, and I remember what you were referencing. I will try to find it, but basically it was because you were so upset at what I was saying (which in the real world was perfectly reasonable to discuss) that you said something like "I can't even..." and then left the thread very upset. Which is a not uncommon response when I argue from the conservative side of the political spectrum And the message to me is...I'm so stupid or my arguments are so irrational (they are not) that it's not even worth discussing. That's one of the points I'm making up there. If "you can't" then don't. But why say that and insult the person who is earnestly trying to discuss something? And that is exactly what I mean by mirroring our current socio-political climate.
Another tactic I've experienced is the "You cut and paste from Brietbart" or Townhall. I don't even read Breitbart and Townhall. And I certainly don't cut and paste. Or..."you use the excuse of having to go to work to step out of discussions". Well, why is my job an excuse and not a reason? Why can YOU say you will be stepping out for work, but I can't? And I can only assume it's because my POV isn't popular here, or that I'm not a trained lawyer and so don't have the skill others here have for arguing their points.
Another thing that frequently happens is that my posts are misinterpreted. Now I'm sure much of that has to be on me for not being clear, but some of that is on people here who are so strongly biased by their own views that they can't read mine for what they are. I NEVER said we needed to give "tough love" to severely depressed suicidal people. I said loving and well-meaning folks who say things to depressed people like "You have a lot to live for" or "Your kids need you" shouldn't be lumped into the asshole category. How is "Your kids need you" tough love, anyway? Amadan can say "You need to eat" to his friend, but it's wrong to say "Your kids need you"? I'm not talking about treating someone by saying that. Of COURSE as a friend or family member of a severely depressed person, my first goal would be for them to get professional help. And of COURSE that's not the only thing I would say. (I care about you, I'm here for you. etc.) You think I don't have any experience with depression? No, I've never been depressed. But 1) my brother's best friend shot himself in the head and left three kids. 2) And my twin sister's boyfriend's close friend hung himself when we were all friends in high school together. 3) And I spent 6 weeks, at least 8-10 hours a day in a county inpatient mental health facility during my psychiatry rotation in med school where I was exposed to the treatment and care of severely depressed, bipolar, psychotic, and other people very ill with mental illness. 4) And in medical school and internship and residency training, we are taught how to evaluate suicide risk in our patients. It's actually part of our training. 5) And I've diagnosed and treated people with depression. I have referred them to therapy (psychology and/or psychiatry) and prescribed the anti-depressant. That's actually part of our training as well. I'm not ignorant, by any means. I'm not coming at this with no prior knowledge. I was talking about societal stigma. When Bourdain and Spade killed themselves, there should be some societal response beyond sadness. We should be angry that two people with young kids killed themselves. There should be a societal stigma against the act of suicide, from a moral standpoint. Not against the suicidal, and not against depressed people. People should be thinking more about why life is precious and what they have to be grateful for than why life isn't worth living. As a society, many of us have lost that. That's what I was talking about. There are altered thinking patterns that contribute to the cycle of depression. I will probably discuss this in more detail pertaining to Bourdain on the other thread. If I wasn't clear, I'm sorry about that, but I could have clarified further. And I would be happy to in the other thread.
As far as the "devil's advocate" stuff, I used that when talking about arming teachers in schools and got reamed for it. And I clearly stated I was exploring this issue using devil's advocate, had not decided anything, but was not convinced that it was as terrible an idea as several of you were 100 percent sure it was. That was a good use for being devil's advocate, IMO, but I was ripped a new hole anyway.
I came over here because I liked and respected the people, and I thought you and I were friends, Cass. I'm not the only one who thinks the way I do about the tone of arguments here. I know this because I've spoken to other members about it. And I've experienced that winning an argument here is more important to some people than continuing a friendship. I think that's terribly sad. If my "pearl clutching" is seen as that ridiculous, and my PMs are not taken for the sincere effort to reach out that they were, and my post above is not taken as a starting point that can be useful in any way to make the forum friendlier, then my two choices are to grow a thicker hide or leave. I have received that message very clearly. Thank you for participating in the discussion.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Jun 15, 2018 15:19:06 GMT -5
Let's start with "growing the board." Let's face it, this board is never going to be huge. I've been a member of other small, private message boards like this that were created by refugees from some other, larger community. They are all essentially water coolers and they may acquire a few members here and there over time, but you're talking about maybe a dozen people who've known each other for a while - what is the inherent interest for strangers to join such a board? Because we're all just so intelligent and witty that we can provide a level of scintillating conversation they can't find anywhere else on the Internet? I mean, I am all for attracting new members, but let's be realistic, this place is always going to be tiny and somewhat clicquish, at least to an outsider's perspective. (Incidentally, when you see there were a hundred visitors in the last 24 hours, you can probably assume most of them were bots.) As for political discourse - yes, I'm sure you think the blame for hyper-polarization and demonization of the other side falls more on the left than on the right. What a surprise! Almost as surprising, no doubt, as it will be to learn that people who identify more as liberals tend to think the opposite. But we don't really need to settle who's to blame in the world at large for "the way things are." Yes, in times of political turmoil, things get heated and opinions tend to be very polarized, and that's true here as well. But as Cassandra pointed out, as heated and inflammatory as things get here, I still think we do a better job than most larger communities. Go read any political thread on Reddit if you doubt me. What exactly do you want, for no one to ever disagree with you without getting pissed off and (occasionally) mean? I'll grant that not being mean is a thing to strive for, and I don't always succeed, but as much as I hate SJW terminology like "tone policing," you are providing a good example of why it's a thing. Your premise is that if you say inflammatory things with polite language and someone responds by saying "Fuck you," that person is the one at fault. In general, I agree that the ideal to strive for is polite and rational discourse no matter the topic. If you said "I really think atheists should be stripped of voting rights," I might find that opinion offensive, but I'd try to engage you civilly while explaining why I think you're full of shit. NT (who, by the way, I did not know was banned) has repeatedly responded to discussions about topics that piss him off - like Charles Murray, for example - by snarling and spewing vitriol at people, and that annoyed me, but I do understand why it hits close to home for him. That doesn't mean I'm cool with being called a racist for disagreeing with him, but I wouldn't try to have him banned just because he responds angrily and emotively. In the most recent brouhaha, you hit a lot of nerves with several people. I think you should be allowed to express the opinion that people who are feeling suicidal should be made to feel ashamed, and that the proper response to depression and mental illness is to wag our fingers at them and stigmatize people who commit suicide. But when you say something like that, you should expect that people who know suicidally depressed people (or are have been suicidally depressed), might just be upset enough to tell you to go fuck yourself. Note that while you did piss several people off (including me), we also gave you perfectly rational arguments why we thought your opinion is terrible and wrong - it wasn't just "Fuck you." So stop crying about the fact that when you very politely offend people, they might not-politely offend you back. I don't think you are using the term "Devil's Advocate" correctly. As Opty said, usually when one is playing Devil's Advocate, you declare that you are doing so. "Devil's Advocate" does not mean "Troll people with an inflammatory opinion just to see how they react." It means "Argue a position from a viewpoint you do not necessarily hold, in order to demonstrate the holes in the argument and/or counterarguments." A good Devil's Advocate argument is a Steel Man. That's not what you're doing. Now, pardon me for making this personal, but honestly, I think this thread is mostly about you and how you're feeling bruised by recent discussions, so I am going to talk about that. I can't speak for anyone else, but I don't hate you and I'm not out to get you. But I think you make really weak arguments, you consistently use double standards (if liberals do it, it's terrible; if conservatives do it, it's defensible or no big deal), you tend to straw man the other side, and then you get hurt and offended when people are none-too-gentle in pointing out the deficiencies in your arguments. I know you feel like you get ganged up on and it hurts your feelings, but if you want a forum where you can be the resident conservative but all the liberals are going to treat you with kid gloves, good luck finding it. You aren't being persecuted because you're a Trump supporter. You've been allowed to present your defenses of Trump and no one here tells you you're an evil person because you voted for Trump. I don't know how far backwards you expect people to bend, though, in disagreeing with you without making you feel bad. And this is hardly a hotbed of liberal thought, or an echo chamber.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 15, 2018 15:21:29 GMT -5
In my opinion, we all face the particular choice c.e. cites at the end of her last post, if we want to participate: either have a thick skin for responses that are within the rules of the forum, or stay out of a conversation or the forum. What we don't get to do is try to make everyone else try to play by the rules WE want instead of the forum rules. Unless Rob has changed his mind, his intent was never to set up a genteel tea room. (Certainly it wasn't mine.) ETA: I'll also note that there was never an intent (at least not on my part, and as far as I know, not on Rob's) to provide an extra special safe space to coddle views on either side of the political spectrum. To be clear -- the fact that you hold a minority viewpoint on this forum (whether on left or right) doesn't net you any special protections or insulation from criticism from other members. What you DO get is the opportunity to express and argue those substantive views without us censoring them just because we may not like them.It is sometimes a hard call to say when something has crossed over from legit (albeit harsh and heated) critique and argument into personal attack. Rob and I have seriously done our level best to not over-mod. Personally, I try not to cut things off unless IMO the personal vitriol has totally overwhelmed the actual substantial discussion. Even then, I start with a warning to step it back before I swing the mod hammer. That means things get pretty damn heated, and yes, sometimes mean. But I think that's better than trying to constantly monitor people's "tone," which IMO is way more subjective and prone to misinterpretation. (As illustrated by the fact that c.e. clearly perceives my tone as far angrier/more hysterical than I think it sounds, and according to her, I'm misperceiving hers the same way) ETA: It's also the case, by the way, that I don't regard it as an obligation of friendship to be all nicey-nicey when engaging in a political forum/argument. To use Rob as an example, I actually like and respect Rob a hell of a lot. Part of the respect, from my point of view, is that we can give and take some heat, possibly seethe at each other for a bit , and then get over it. I cannot imagine pulling a punch in an argument with him, nor do I think he'd ever want me to do so, or would ever dream of doing so with me. Just watch us argue, FFS. If I have to walk on tippy-tippy-toes and pull punches when I think your argument is half-assed lest I hurt your tender feelings, I'm not going to enjoy debating things with you much.
|
|
|
Post by celawson on Jun 15, 2018 15:54:34 GMT -5
Let's start with "growing the board." Let's face it, this board is never going to be huge. I've been a member of other small, private message boards like this that were created by refugees from some other, larger community. They are all essentially water coolers and they may acquire a few members here and there over time, but you're talking about maybe a dozen people who've known each other for a while - what is the inherent interest for strangers to join such a board? Because we're all just so intelligent and witty that we can provide a level of scintillating conversation they can't find anywhere else on the Internet? I mean, I am all for attracting new members, but let's be realistic, this place is always going to be tiny and somewhat clicquish, at least to an outsider's perspective. (Incidentally, when you see there were a hundred visitors in the last 24 hours, you can probably assume most of them were bots.) As for political discourse - yes, I'm sure you think the blame for hyper-polarization and demonization of the other side falls more on the left than on the right. What a surprise! Almost as surprising, no doubt, as it will be to learn that people who identify more as liberals tend to think the opposite. But we don't really need to settle who's to blame in the world at large for "the way things are." Yes, in times of political turmoil, things get heated and opinions tend to be very polarized, and that's true here as well. But as Cassandra pointed out, as heated and inflammatory as things get here, I still think we do a better job than most larger communities. Go read any political thread on Reddit if you doubt me. What exactly do you want, for no one to ever disagree with you without getting pissed off and (occasionally) mean? I'll grant that not being mean is a thing to strive for, and I don't always succeed, but as much as I hate SJW terminology like "tone policing," you are providing a good example of why it's a thing. Your premise is that if you say inflammatory things with polite language and someone responds by saying "Fuck you," that person is the one at fault. In general, I agree that the ideal to strive for is polite and rational discourse no matter the topic. If you said "I really think atheists should be stripped of voting rights," I might find that opinion offensive, but I'd try to engage you civilly while explaining why I think you're full of shit. NT (who, by the way, I did not know was banned) has repeatedly responded to discussions about topics that piss him off - like Charles Murray, for example - by snarling and spewing vitriol at people, and that annoyed me, but I do understand why it hits close to home for him. That doesn't mean I'm cool with being called a racist for disagreeing with him, but I wouldn't try to have him banned just because he responds angrily and emotively. In the most recent brouhaha, you hit a lot of nerves with several people. I think you should be allowed to express the opinion that people who are feeling suicidal should be made to feel ashamed, and that the proper response to depression and mental illness is to wag our fingers at them and stigmatize people who commit suicide. But when you say something like that, you should expect that people who know suicidally depressed people (or are have been suicidally depressed), might just be upset enough to tell you to go fuck yourself. Note that while you did piss several people off (including me), we also gave you perfectly rational arguments why we thought your opinion is terrible and wrong - it wasn't just "Fuck you." So stop crying about the fact that when you very politely offend people, they might not-politely offend you back. I don't think you are using the term "Devil's Advocate" correctly. As Opty said, usually when one is playing Devil's Advocate, you declare that you are doing so. "Devil's Advocate" does not mean "Troll people with an inflammatory opinion just to see how they react." It means "Argue a position from a viewpoint you do not necessarily hold, in order to demonstrate the holes in the argument and/or counterarguments." A good Devil's Advocate argument is a Steel Man. That's not what you're doing. Now, pardon me for making this personal, but honestly, I think this thread is mostly about you and how you're feeling bruised by recent discussions, so I am going to talk about that. I can't speak for anyone else, but I don't hate you and I'm not out to get you. But I think you make really weak arguments, you consistently use double standards (if liberals do it, it's terrible; if conservatives do it, it's defensible or no big deal), you tend to straw man the other side, and then you get hurt and offended when people are none-too-gentle in pointing out the deficiencies in your arguments. I know you feel like you get ganged up on and it hurts your feelings, but if you want a forum where you can be the resident conservative but all the liberals are going to treat you with kid gloves, good luck finding it. You aren't being persecuted because you're a Trump supporter. You've been allowed to present your defenses of Trump and no one here tells you you're an evil person because you voted for Trump. I don't know how far backwards you expect people to bend, though, in disagreeing with you without making you feel bad. And this is hardly a hotbed of liberal thought, or an echo chamber. I like this post a lot. I might even love it. Except for one thing -- If we can't see that I'm certainly not the only one who does that, then we do have a problem here. As a matter of fact, I actually saw a few double standards when I was skimming through to find the thread Cass and I were referencing. I can talk about them later. Spent too much time here today already. I also think you again overstated what I said about suicidal people, but I will address that in the other thread at another time. And I've admitted before that I'm not all that skilled at arguing, so that doesn't hurt my feelings and I'm not clutching my pearls right now. I think it's important to also remember that I (or the token conservative) am not the only person who should have an open mind in discussions, or the only person who should ever admit they are wrong about an opinion on a topic. If anyone has a good example of someone going in open minded or admitting they were wrong on a topic, I'd love to see it. Thank you for your thoughts, I'm not being sarcastic at all when I say I appreciate your post.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Jun 15, 2018 16:15:31 GMT -5
If we can't see that I'm certainly not the only one who does that, then we do have a problem here. As a matter of fact, I actually saw a few double standards when I was skimming through to find the thread Cass and I were referencing. I can talk about them later. Spent too much time here today already. I also think you again overstated what I said about suicidal people, but I will address that in the other thread at another time. And I've admitted before that I'm not all that skilled at arguing, so that doesn't hurt my feelings and I'm not clutching my pearls right now. I think it's important to also remember that I (or the token conservative) am not the only person who should have an open mind in discussions, or the only person who should ever admit they are wrong about an opinion on a topic. If anyone has a good example of someone going in open minded or admitting they were wrong on a topic, I'd love to see it. Thank you for your thoughts, I'm not being sarcastic at all when I say I appreciate your post. I don't think anyone can claim to be 100% objective so of course not everyone will pass the intellectually consistency test every time. But as far as double standards go, I honestly have not seen anyone defending behavior from "their" side that they condemn on the "other" side the way you do. You're also not a token conservative. Rob is a conservative, and most of us are not that far to the left. I try to have an open mind (but of course everyone claims that). The issue is not being open-minded, but being willing to take disagreement without feeling like it's a personal attack. Or being able to disagree without personally attacking. (That last point is the one that I would concede is probably my most frequent failing.)
|
|
|
Post by michaelw on Jun 15, 2018 18:10:59 GMT -5
Also, and this is not meant as an insult to Rob, but the name of the board is arguably weird and not a reference most people would get or even know about. I suggest changing the name of the board to Via Appia.
|
|
|
Post by Optimus on Jun 15, 2018 19:15:11 GMT -5
Optimus, thank you for responding. I agree with a lot of what you say. I do, however, see you as someone who is closer to the middle of the political spectrum, reasonable in all sorts of ways, and contributing lots of interesting stuff in your area of expertise, which makes you a fascinating contributor whom we all enjoy. I don't think you've been on the receiving end of the rancor some of us skewed further out on the political spectrum have. I actually have been on the receiving end of it, repeatedly and quite extensively, and the attacks were almost always directed at me personally and not at my arguments, and they've all come from a far-far-left member who apparently no longer posts here.
|
|
|
Post by Christine on Jun 15, 2018 19:36:36 GMT -5
I try to have an open mind (but of course everyone claims that). The issue is not being open-minded, but being willing to take disagreement without feeling like it's a personal attack. Or being able to disagree without personally attacking. (That last point is the one that I would concede is probably my most frequent failing.) I agree with most of what you've said here, but I'll take issue with this bit. I don't see c.e. AT ALL taking disagreement as a personal attack. Furthermore, I'm amazed at her ability to respond in a measured way to shit like--I'll use your recent words as an example--"Church Lady" and "fuck off to another thread." I understand your anger on that topic; I felt it too. I don't think that sort of language should be banned (I'm anti-ban, no matter what; we all have a choice to be here or leave). But you're rephrasing it here as though c.e. is getting personally offended (I don't think she is, btw) and that it's just because people disagree with her. Come on. Personally, I've moved away from posting much here, though I still check in. It's partly because of the cliquishness you referred to earlier. Which is silly, because there are only like six people who post on the political threads here regularly, how the fuck is there a clique? It's ridiculous. I think in a way, TCG mirrors our present socio-political climate, not because we're in our respective left/right corners unwilling to budge, but because some people seem to be more interested in snarking, expressing disdain, and pwning whomever they disagree with than they are in persuasion, let alone in a meeting of the minds. And I've given my fair share of snark so I'm not exempt. One person who is exempt is c.e. I disagree with almost all of her positions, and I get irritated too, but she's the most respectful and patient person here (there are others) and at the end of the day, that means a fucking lot. But yeah, for a less nuanced mirror of the present socio-political climate, see Facebook and Twitter.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Jun 15, 2018 20:42:29 GMT -5
Okay, you're right that I should not have implied that celaw feels personally attacked when people disagree with her. That is not the problem.
The rest of what I started to write was basically more about celaw and why her arguments tend to push my buttons, but you know, an entire thread about interpersonal drama isn't useful, is it?
I don't think this is really about Trump or political polarization, though. All of us have gotten into it with someone else at some point, even people we normally agree with.
|
|
|
Post by Christine on Jun 15, 2018 21:28:10 GMT -5
Agree.
Really, for such a small group, we seem to have a disproportionate amount of interpersonal drama.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 15, 2018 22:19:58 GMT -5
Among other things, I think there are a few carry-over grudges, loyalties, and expectations from another forum. One time rivals and/or buddies are now mods. The rules allow for quite a bit more freedom and combativeness in making points -- too much for some, apparently, and not enough for others.
And yes, I do think it's a factor that the political climate has changed. For many of us, it feels like there's a hell of a lot at stake and that's it's not just an academic discussion.
|
|