|
Cingulate posted:Question for anyone in this thread: have you recently, or ever, at all, been convinced of something in a political debate? No. Cingulate posted:Or have you undergone a longer process that resulted in you changing a previously-held assumption? Sometimes. Cingulate posted:What was it, and how did it go down - what argument convinced you? I had been arguing against Chile's criminal anti-defamation laws (summary: If you make a criminal accusation you can't back up you can end up in jail) in favor of American-style robust protection of free speech. Then in the Veronica Mars thread a bunch of people were like "It's fine to ruin someone's life with an accusation that may not be true and can't be proven because something something JUSTICE" and I was like "Oh. Thaaaaaaat's what it's for." Probably not what they were going for, but I find that is mostly how D&D affects me.
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2015 13:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 20, 2024 01:23 |
|
|
Cingulate posted:Question for anyone in this thread: have you recently, or ever, at all, been convinced of something in a political debate? Or have you undergone a longer process that resulted in you changing a previously-held assumption? D&D got me to be a lot more anti-Iraq-war a lot more quickly than I would have been otherwise, though helps that I was super wrong in being "ambivalent" about it in 2003. I'm sure there are a lot of other things but that sticks out. In general though reading things I agree with and mostly-dumb things I disagree with has caused "attitude polarization", though.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2015 17:05
|
|
|
Dr. Arbitrary posted:The neat thing about Libertarianism is that frequently, once their philosophy butts heads with reality, they can swing around to the full blown Socialism. Guilty. I was hardcore anarcho-capitalist for a decade, but then the right events happened that caused me to re-evaluate things and, bam, now I'm pretty socialist. A combination of realizing how horrible the American system of private health insurance is, and realizing the fundamental flaw of a philosophy that proclaims liberty and equality for all but enforces a two-class system of landowners and renters.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2015 21:28
|
|
|
How do I deal with people grilling me on where I get my information? I got a full cross-examination by a really good family friend that just outed themselves as a "Sandy-Hook was a False Flag, global warming is happening but it's not because of what Al Gore told us, my niece is a welfare queen and covered with tattoos" conservative. Normally I feel like I could handle it, as we've got a pretty healthy of mutual respect over the years, but I had three additional republicans grilling me on the "oh you don't have practical experience, can't believe everything you read, you're being brainwashed by professors, where did you hear that, have you talked to these people" on and on doing everything to dismiss my opinion out of hand. How do I deal with that? Is there a handy way or site to have information at a moments notice?
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 02:23
|
|
Triskelli posted:How do I deal with people grilling me on where I get my information? I got a full cross-examination by a really good family friend that just outed themselves as a "Sandy-Hook was a False Flag, global warming is happening but it's not because of what Al Gore told us, my niece is a welfare queen and covered with tattoos" conservative. Normally I feel like I could handle it, as we've got a pretty healthy of mutual respect over the years, but I had three additional republicans grilling me on the "oh you don't have practical experience, can't believe everything you read, you're being brainwashed by professors, where did you hear that, have you talked to these people" on and on doing everything to dismiss my opinion out of hand. How do I deal with that? Is there a handy way or site to have information at a moments notice? Can't you just say google and wikipedia like every other person in the world?
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 02:26
|
|
|
Triskelli posted:How do I deal with people grilling me on where I get my information? I got a full cross-examination by a really good family friend that just outed themselves as a "Sandy-Hook was a False Flag, global warming is happening but it's not because of what Al Gore told us, my niece is a welfare queen and covered with tattoos" conservative. Normally I feel like I could handle it, as we've got a pretty healthy of mutual respect over the years, but I had three additional republicans grilling me on the "oh you don't have practical experience, can't believe everything you read, you're being brainwashed by professors, where did you hear that, have you talked to these people" on and on doing everything to dismiss my opinion out of hand. How do I deal with that? Is there a handy way or site to have information at a moments notice? That kind of person is not going to be convinced by your sources or links, they already stated that they want practical experience and dislike academia/reading. You need to just debate them, which is more of a back them into a logical corner type of game, and probably an unwinnable one. Depends on how much you care to convince this person, it might not be worth it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 02:42
|
|
|
Zeitgueist posted:which is more of a back them into a logical corner type of game, and probably an unwinnable one. If it's just a game, sure, but the poster says they respect this person and are friends with them. When someone makes a statement, I just ask them why they believe that and continue to go that route. Either they display an ignorance about whatever it is that they claimed (and have to own up to it), or they actually know what they are talking about and you learn something. Although I'm not sure how far you can go with someone who thinks that Sandy Hook was a false flag operation. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 03:01
|
|
|
spacetoaster posted:If it's just a game, sure, but the poster says they respect this person and are friends with them. 'game' metaphorically, not really a game if you care about the person But yeah that's kind of a dead end and either you stop talking to the person or stop talking to them about politics.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 03:08
|
|
|
Triskelli posted:How do I deal with people grilling me on where I get my information? I got a full cross-examination by a really good family friend that just outed themselves as a "Sandy-Hook was a False Flag, global warming is happening but it's not because of what Al Gore told us, my niece is a welfare queen and covered with tattoos" conservative. Normally I feel like I could handle it, as we've got a pretty healthy of mutual respect over the years, but I had three additional republicans grilling me on the "oh you don't have practical experience, can't believe everything you read, you're being brainwashed by professors, where did you hear that, have you talked to these people" on and on doing everything to dismiss my opinion out of hand. How do I deal with that? Is there a handy way or site to have information at a moments notice?
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 03:22
|
|
|
Zeitgueist posted:'game' metaphorically, not really a game if you care about the person I get it. My best conversations are with a Roman Catholic who knows his stuff and isn't offended by different views. We can go back in forth in a friendly manner for hours. If you honestly want to bring someone around to seeing your point of view do not try to "get them". Instead honestly show interest in their statement/belief and ask them to explain it to you. Hopefully they might, in the process of explaining it to you, see the errors. At the least they can let you voice your belief later because you were respectful and listened to their side.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 03:22
|
|
|
spacetoaster posted:I get it. My best conversations are with a Roman Catholic who knows his stuff and isn't offended by different views. We can go back in forth in a friendly manner for hours. Yeah, but that doesn't sound like the situation in question.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 07:51
|
|
|
spacetoaster posted:
This, 110% of the way. The worst case if you're polite and they can't actually explain why they're right, they go ahead and switch the subject. Which is nice at a family event when you're not out for blood.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 07:58
|
|
|
Ya know, I actually misread that post, after reading your guys advice and it didn't jibe. I didn't see the part where it was 3 other people grilling him with "oh you don't have practical experience, can't believe everything you read, you're being brainwashed by professors, where did you hear that, have you talked to these people" and instead read it as the same friend saying all of those things. My bad.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 08:03
|
|
|
I think with people who are firmly anti-intellectual and/or don't want to be reasoned with, you really have to decide ahead of time how much you really give a poo poo before you argue with them.
Disinterested fucked around with this message at 20:16 on Jan 22, 2015 |
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 11:25
|
|
|
spacetoaster posted:Instead honestly show interest in their statement/belief and ask them to explain it to you. Hopefully they might, in the process of explaining it to you, see the errors.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 15:21
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:I think with people who are firmly intellectual and/or don't want to be reasoned with, you really have to decide ahead of time how much you really give a poo poo before you argue with them. This is pretty much why my family gatherings are so focused on food and sports.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 15:52
|
|
|
spacetoaster posted:I get it. My best conversations are with a Roman Catholic who knows his stuff and isn't offended by different views. We can go back in forth in a friendly manner for hours. Yeah, I did try to do this specifically. But again, had an entire cadre of people that wanted to get their opinion in. The Sandy Hook thing was kinda a parting shot, and I'm sure if the conversation went too much further the peanut gallery would have turned against him, his wife was already rolling her eyes when he brought it up.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 15:52
|
|
|
Triskelli posted:Yeah, I did try to do this specifically. But again, had an entire cadre of people that wanted to get their opinion in. The Sandy Hook thing was kinda a parting shot, and I'm sure if the conversation went too much further the peanut gallery would have turned against him, his wife was already rolling her eyes when he brought it up. Yeah, if I'm actually going to go full on debate mode with a friend I make sure we're pretty much alone, or somewhere where we'll be left alone. We live in a FB/twitter/snapchat/etc/etc world where everyone wants to be involved in all the conversations occurring around them all the time, and think that their views on everything are super important.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 16:17
|
|
|
I mean if the person is nuts then yeah, disengage, but otherwise I'm kind of opposite. I'll usually only bother to wade in if there are other people around or it's on FB (or here) or something. I keep it brief and stay more polite/understated when it's in person or on FB, but since you're not going to convince the other person you might as well do it in a place where third parties can be informed/convinced. Climate change, vaccines, nuclear power and maybe the bankrupt nature of American conservatism/libertarianism are the ones I've engaged on enough times that I feel like I can "win" against any non-pro (helps to be right in the first place, of course). You want to spend most of your time being a normal human being so you're not "that guy", though, and unless the guy is comfortable with conflict the confrontation will loom large in the relationship with the person you engaged going forward.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 16:33
|
|
|
Does this person spend a lot of time in 4chan's gun nut section? Because they're the only ones I've seen seriously pushing that sandy hook was a false flag besides fringe conspiracy nuts. If the answer is "yes" then sever and seek therapy.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 18:00
|
|
|
Parallel Paraplegic posted:Does this person spend a lot of time in 4chan's gun nut section? Because they're the only ones I've seen seriously pushing that sandy hook was a false flag besides fringe conspiracy nuts. It's actually quite common among InfoWars-brand libertarians, who pop up pretty often these days.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 19:00
|
|
|
Parallel Paraplegic posted:Does this person spend a lot of time in 4chan's gun nut section? Because they're the only ones I've seen seriously pushing that sandy hook was a false flag besides fringe conspiracy nuts. Dude's a cabinet maker in his 50s, I highly doubt it. I probably should've used the term "family friend" a little more strongly. I might broach the topic again next time we meet, he never struck me as a conspiracy nut until last night. I would peg him as being misinformed and prejudiced by the fact we live in a pretty white-trash area. To elaborate, politics came up because a phone survey called in from Nevada asking about Climate Change and I was dumb enough to go through the whole thing. I mention I'm Democratic but I'm just ready to get back to dinner and the shitshow started when he asked me "why?" Biggest thing that kept things going was my sister wasn't there and while she's fairly conservative too she really hates hearing people talk about politics. When she got home a few "oh my god"s and "are you still talking about this"s helped end the discussion.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 19:06
|
|
|
Anyone have a good quote or link explaining that a bit of media needs some kind of point or narrative to be critique? I was talking about American Sniper being nationalist propaganda and a mutual friend claims it's a critique of war and the affect on the sniper character. Without some kind of actual commentary, that would make snuff films anti violence.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2015 13:50
|
|
|
poopinmymouth posted:Anyone have a good quote or link explaining that a bit of media needs some kind of point or narrative to be critique? I was talking about American Sniper being nationalist propaganda and a mutual friend claims it's a critique of war and the affect on the sniper character. I thought Clint Eastwood went out and made a more modern day cowboy movie. Tell your friend to quit forcing some deep meaning on a fun weekend movie.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2015 19:42
|
|
|
Posting a series of examinations of various protestant denominations in the US, cross posting here to ensure they are not lost. Sinnlos posted:Baptists are the largest protestant denomination is the US, however, the Baptist belief in a personal relationship with God has lead to a dizzying array of factions all claiming to be the TRUE Baptists.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2015 22:10
|
|
|
Sinnlos posted:Posting a series of examinations of various protestant denominations in the US, cross posting here to ensure they are not lost. This is helpful, please keep going and thanks 
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2015 22:15
|
|
|
More cross posting from chat thread.Sinnlos posted:Methodists are the second largest protestant denomination in the US. They split off from the Church of England because they didn't do enough to help the poor and were generally a bunch of stuffy old dudes who took the wrongs things too seriously. The Wesley Bros founded the Methodist movement, but the split didn't occur until the Methodists started ordaining their own priests in America, rather than waiting around for the Anglicans to do it. This makes Methodists the second most American group after the Mormons. Because they inherited their organizational structure from the Anglicans, Methodists are far more organized than Baptists. There are about 40 Methodist denominations in the US, and they all associate with each other, rather than being petty dicks (Baptists).
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2015 01:49
|
|
|
I'll put those in the OP, thanks. If you have more, feel free to post them. Also, just a reminder that I once again have the time to update the OP so if there are things you want added or updated, just post them here.
Cognac McCarthy fucked around with this message at 11:39 on Feb 9, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2015 11:33
|
|
|
Cognac McCarthy posted:I'll put those in the OP, thanks. If you have more, feel free to post them. Also, just a reminder that I once again have the time to update the OP so if there are things you want added or updated, just post them here. Oh I'm sure I got some poo poo to put in there, but to start I've found this one useful in climate change discussions: https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php it's a massive list of canards that the climate deniers/skeptics trot out, with explanations why they are wrong and links to the evidence it's similar to the famous Talk Origins list of creationist claims, though arguing with creationists isn't very common these days http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2015 19:20
|
|
|
Added, thanks!
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2015 10:49
|
|
|
A large, recent metastudy(February 2013) detailing how raising the minimum wage appears to have no effect on unemployment Almost any study that folks will trot out to cry about job-killing minimum wage hikes is covered.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2015 23:50
|
|
|
The Ferguson Masterpost In case you get stuck in any sort of time warp arguing with racists about Mike Brown
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2015 23:54
|
|
|
IMF paper(April 2014) Detailing how wealth inequality is bad for job growth.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2015 23:56
|
|
|
Sinnlos posted:The Pentecostals are the new kids on the block, arising in the early 1900s through a bunch of really charismatic folks that sincerely believed that the world was going to end any day now. They are big on the bible and don't like adding to it, so they just forget or strech interpretations instead. They cite four main passages of the gospels and the cornerstone of their doctrine, Jesus saves according to John 3:16; baptizes with the Holy Spirit according to Acts 2:4; heals bodily according to James 5:15; and is coming again to receive those who are saved according to 1 Thessalonians 4:16–17.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 05:29
|
|
|
Does anyone have a good deconstruction of the whole "SJW" idea? I have a friend who's trans and as a result is severely marginalized by society in very real ways, yet is convinced that "SJW's are ruining it for the rest of us" and that SJW's are actually very narrowly defined as "people who take advantage of social justice to attention whore" which is clearly not what pretty much everyone else, especially gamer gators, mean by it. Here's my write-up on it, please tell me if I'm on the wrong trail: The term SJW, even in its original state, only exists to de-legitimize and "other" social justice advocates. While there are actually tumblr people who think they're multiple-headmate-animal-otherkin or whatever, those people are exceedingly rare and 14 year olds with imaginary problems is not really an issue social justice movements need to address in the first place. The term has expanded from that original fairly limited usage to now mean anyone who advocates for something too far from the status quo and does so in a setting normally dominated by "traditional" ideas - most obviously talking about women and videogames, trying to get people to not use the word human being as a perjorative, things like that. To these people social justice has a "time and place" and if it steps outside it's bounds it's obviously just doing it to be annoying and get attention, I mean "that woman criticizing our videogames even said she doesn't like videogames" after all! It's packaged bigotry into a catchy, easy-to-use label that instantly demotes and other-izes any idea the user doesn't find comfortable. Even if it were 100% true that annoying internet activists who are only doing it for attention were the primary driver in social justice circles, it still wouldn't change the core arguments being made, nor would it change the fact that the term SJW is mostly used outside of this narrow definition to the point where using it at all is simply backing the cultural idea that social justice advocates are all annoying busybodies who don't know their own place. Armchair Psychology Time: I think the primary users of the term are 4channers, and they're used to 4chan being a place ruled by "anarchy", where anyone can just yell friend of the family DICK BONER HITLER at each other and have it not even phase them at all, since "that's just how 4chan works." I think they got used to communicating that way, especially back in the early to mid 2000's when the internet was far whiter and male-r than it is now. In their minds they don't associate it with malice or bigotry at all because "hey it's the internet, it's just for shock value, that's just how we talk" or whatever. The internet since ~2008 has changed in many ways, mostly due to a lot more people being on it than before, and so a lot of parts of the web aren't nearly as conductive to casual racism as they used to be. But of course, this push-back must be from annoying busybodies with nothing better to do, because "hey it's the internet, that's just how people talk on the internet!" has been a fact of life for a long time. "SJW" is just this concept distilled into an easy-to-use meme.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 21:59
|
|
|
Parallel Paraplegic posted:Does anyone have a good deconstruction of the whole "SJW" idea? I have a friend who's trans and as a result is severely marginalized by society in very real ways, yet is convinced that "SJW's are ruining it for the rest of us" and that SJW's are actually very narrowly defined as "people who take advantage of social justice to attention whore" which is clearly not what pretty much everyone else, especially gamer gators, mean by it. Not a bad writeup. It's simply the new version of the term "PC Police" or "Hippies" as a reaction to the criticism of conservative social thought. I don't know that there's a good article as it's largely an internet phenomenon and shibboleth at this point.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 22:02
|
|
|
Parallel Paraplegic posted:Does anyone have a good deconstruction of the whole "SJW" idea? About 5 years ago it was what a few people who actually cared about other people called those who didn't seem to care but instead just wanted to yell at people (they were also the people who would rarely help out in running support organizations, refused to donate to things etc). It meant people were both belligerent and frankly insincere in beliefs. Now it's about "literally anyone I don't like if I have a conservative viewpoint on something". And everyone who used it originally has stopped using it because of that. See for example the claim that GBS has ever been "full of sjws" because you weren't allowed to type racial slurs. You don't need to go further than that. Nintendo Kid fucked around with this message at 22:08 on Feb 11, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 22:03
|
|
|
It's somewhat of an intentionally obfuscatory term, similar to "Feminazi" Feminazi was coined by Limbaugh to poo poo on any form of feminist, but many use it to also mean a strawman of feminism that largely doesn't exist. These terms tend to be used in the sense that you use them against anyone to the left of you, but when questioned you don't say "I'm not against social justice, I'm against those people, you know the ones" implying a deranged edge case, but in practice you are not using it for that.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 22:07
|
|
|
Absolutely the core thing with SJW is to realise that it went from being a loose pejorative about people who advocated social justice in a grandstanding way on the internet to being a dogwhistle for calling someone something like a cultural Marxist. A few people on SA still use it in the former sense very occasionally because there's no good term for that other than poseur. I've noticed that it has also been appropriated by some of its targets, on occasion.
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 22:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 20, 2024 01:23 |
|
|
Parallel Paraplegic posted:Does anyone have a good deconstruction of the whole "SJW" idea? I have a friend who's trans and as a result is severely marginalized by society in very real ways, yet is convinced that "SJW's are ruining it for the rest of us" and that SJW's are actually very narrowly defined as "people who take advantage of social justice to attention whore" which is clearly not what pretty much everyone else, especially gamer gators, mean by it. Yeah I remember in the ancient PYF mock thread and tumblr threads from like 2011-2012 SJW exclusively referred to the "transethnic" and otherkin and transfat and headmate folks.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 22:10
|
|
