Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

Jinn · 05-12-2006, 01:03 PM

I was reading through the "armed overthrow" post for the first time, and somehow ended up here. So I decided to chip in for clarity's purpose, perhaps revive an ideal of improving conversation.

And... I agree with just about everyone in this post.

At first glance, I thought Ustwo's point was perhaps too pessimistic. Is there really a time when your "frame" for viewing the world is so different than someone else's that you can't argue with them in a civil manner?

Are there truly viewpoints or opinions that you immediately think "BATSHIT INSANE" when you hear them? I think after enough time, even the most accepting of readers will admit that there are just some positions that are just "BATSHIT INSANE" when you hear them. Think about it, right now. What positions are so trite or false to you that you think "BATSHIT INSANE" immediately?

For me personally, it's Intelligent Design. For you, it could be President Bush. Or 911. Or Michael Moore. Jesse Jackson. Oprah. Jerry Fallwell. Rush Limbaugh. Whomever or whoever it is, keep that subject in mind. I'll offer you my own interpration of ID:

When I first heard of it, I was willing to discuss the argument on it's merits and discuss why I felt historical anthropology offered a better discussion. After about 15 or so "discussions," I'm to the point where I should not discuss it with someone who truly believes in it. The mature action for me would be to not post in a thread about it.

What I detailed above I believe to be THE problem present in Politics.

A great deal of posters in Politics could benefit from this viewpoint upgrade; there ARE things you are going to 100% disagree with someone about, and you will NOT be able to convince them of the validity of your opinion.

Consequently, there ARE posts that you should not participate in. Degrading the poster's intelligence, reasoning skills, or even unfavorably linking them to an extremist group on either side will NOT convince them, and it'll just make you look like an asshole.

Why then, do I still feel compelled to post in a thread regarding something I feel so strongly opposed to? I think the explanation of this is a very interesting part of human pyschology--

We know from emprical proof of living that we can convince other people things. We also know that we CAN sway those who disagree with us completely.

What's my point? Consensus CAN arise from civility, but if potential posters so vehemently disagree at the outset that they can't be civil - don't post. When you see a post about something that you included in your "BATSHIT INSANE" post above, don't even try. You know at your core that you won't be able to convince them. If you feel the need to post, merely to contribute to the other contributors, then address them directly and let the opinion of someone you consider to be BATSHIT INSANE unaddressed. If they egg you on, I propose a shorthand of sorts to indicate your unwilligness to address that specific poster anymore regarding that given issue;

ATD. Agree to disagree..

In short, this means "I think we'd never come to an agreement no matter how much we hashed it out, and I'd prefer to address the other contributors to this thread in a civil matter. Thanks."

Yes?

05-12-2006, 01:03 PM	#37 (permalink)
Jinn Lover - Protector - Teacher Location: Seattle, WA	I was reading through the "armed overthrow" post for the first time, and somehow ended up here. So I decided to chip in for clarity's purpose, perhaps revive an ideal of improving conversation. And... I agree with just about everyone in this post. At first glance, I thought Ustwo's point was perhaps too pessimistic. Is there really a time when your "frame" for viewing the world is so different than someone else's that you can't argue with them in a civil manner? Are there truly viewpoints or opinions that you immediately think "BATSHIT INSANE" when you hear them? I think after enough time, even the most accepting of readers will admit that there are just some positions that are just "BATSHIT INSANE" when you hear them. Think about it, right now. What positions are so trite or false to you that you think "BATSHIT INSANE" immediately? For me personally, it's Intelligent Design. For you, it could be President Bush. Or 911. Or Michael Moore. Jesse Jackson. Oprah. Jerry Fallwell. Rush Limbaugh. Whomever or whoever it is, keep that subject in mind. I'll offer you my own interpration of ID: When I first heard of it, I was willing to discuss the argument on it's merits and discuss why I felt historical anthropology offered a better discussion. After about 15 or so "discussions," I'm to the point where I should not discuss it with someone who truly believes in it. The mature action for me would be to not post in a thread about it. What I detailed above I believe to be THE problem present in Politics. A great deal of posters in Politics could benefit from this viewpoint upgrade; there ARE things you are going to 100% disagree with someone about, and you will NOT be able to convince them of the validity of your opinion. Consequently, there ARE posts that you should not participate in. Degrading the poster's intelligence, reasoning skills, or even unfavorably linking them to an extremist group on either side will NOT convince them, and it'll just make you look like an asshole. Why then, do I still feel compelled to post in a thread regarding something I feel so strongly opposed to? I think the explanation of this is a very interesting part of human pyschology-- We know from emprical proof of living that we can convince other people things. We also know that we CAN sway those who disagree with us completely. What's my point? Consensus CAN arise from civility, but if potential posters so vehemently disagree at the outset that they can't be civil - don't post. When you see a post about something that you included in your "BATSHIT INSANE" post above, don't even try. You know at your core that you won't be able to convince them. If you feel the need to post, merely to contribute to the other contributors, then address them directly and let the opinion of someone you consider to be BATSHIT INSANE unaddressed. If they egg you on, I propose a shorthand of sorts to indicate your unwilligness to address that specific poster anymore regarding that given issue; ATD. Agree to disagree.. In short, this means "I think we'd never come to an agreement no matter how much we hashed it out, and I'd prefer to address the other contributors to this thread in a civil matter. Thanks." Yes? __________________ "I'm typing on a computer of science, which is being sent by science wires to a little science server where you can access it. I'm not typing on a computer of philosophy or religion or whatever other thing you think can be used to understand the universe because they're a poor substitute in the role of understanding the universe which exists independent from ourselves." - Willravel Last edited by Jinn; 05-12-2006 at 01:08 PM..