Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us $3,400 per month for bandwidth bills alone, and since we don't believe in shoving popup ads to our registered users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
  • Locked thread
evilweasel
Aug 24, 2002



Just fyi, per that link a football game has cheerleaders for 0.45% of the time they have "football action" (three seconds as opposed to 11 minutes) so that description is a little off.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

evilweasel
Aug 24, 2002


ReidRansom posted:

Way back when we tried to make a wiki of this sort of thing in LF, but you know, LF, so that didn't work at all. This was kind of the idea though, a repository for all the informative kind of poo poo that gets posted but not everyone keeps up with. One stop argument shop.

A wiki is a bad idea because it's going to be nothing but trying to win the wiki. I.e. edit wars over "Israel is a modern Third Reich" vs "Israel is the lone democratic nation in a sea of monsters" and the like, or trying to fill it with "This position is wrong, see:" and the like.

evilweasel
Aug 24, 2002


Bruce Leroy posted:

It's useful because it points out the rank hypocrisy of the anti-abortion movement.

Nobody undecided is ever actually convinced by the argument "the other side are hypocrites" nor should they be. Its not actually an effective argument and only resonates with people already on the other side.

evilweasel
Aug 24, 2002


Helsing posted:

How often do you think rationally convincing someone in an argument actually sways a modern political debate?

I mean its not convincing to anyone except the convinced. Emotionally or logically. It's one of those arguments people think is a lot more effective than it actually is. It's not an effective method for convincing undecided people.

evilweasel
Aug 24, 2002


Zeitgueist posted:

Every time I talk about wages being stagnant over the past few decades, the counter-argument I get is "technology explains the disassociation of productivity from wage".

I'm embarrassed to say that I don't readily have a good counterargument to this.

The fundamental problem is you two are making different types of arguments. You are, presumably, saying that the disassociation between the two is a bad thing, for various reasons: why it happened isn't important to those reasons.

It would matter if it was a flaw in the data (i.e. productivity per worker went up, but so did capital costs to employ those workers, or the like) but without that the specific reasons for the disconnect shouldn't matter to the overall argument you're making.

evilweasel
Aug 24, 2002


Zeitgueist posted:

The assumption being made by my opponent, I believe, is that productivity gains should only be linked to wages when the laborer is actually working harder, as opposed to "unearned"(in his eyes) gains from being able to do things on PC that previously would have required a team of engineers.

What does he think previously drove productivity gains? It's always been technology, or education, or something else that has nothing to do with working harder.

evilweasel
Aug 24, 2002


Zeitgueist posted:

I offered one liners because I've never seen anyone back down from that position. If you're response to horrific acts is "stop caring" there's really nothing I'm going to say that will change your mind.

Your one-liners are not only going to convince the other person they're correct, they're also going to convince everyone in earshot that you're nuts.

evilweasel
Aug 24, 2002


Zeitgueist posted:

I already said I don't expect them to convince anyone.

However, I don't know why they would convince anyone I'm nuts other than "Evilweasel would do it different". Care to elaborate?

They're terribly ineffective holier-than-thou sermonizing that makes it readily apparent your goal isn't to convince someone. It validates the implied criticism that you're trying to attack. This is just basic human interaction: its clear your goal is "winning" the discussion and being an abrasive twit. You are clearly unreasonable not because of whatever position you were trying to argue, but because you're "that guy" that's an unpleasant sermonizing jerk to talk to.

People who are actually effective at convincing people don't turn it into a me vs you worth judgment competition, they do it by deflecting attacks like that and being reasonable, warm people that give off the vibe "I am a reasonable person and we can have a reasonable discussion about this and maybe we'll both learn things", and give off the vibe they actually care about the other person's opinion and will take it into account.

If you just can't resist insulting someone because you really just gotta get it out there's plenty of ways to do it subtly that don't discredit you as an annoying loon to everyone else around.

Like take priests for example - it's sort of their job to convince people to abandon deeply held beliefs for other ones so they're great case studies. When you think of priests who are effective at getting through to people (instead of just preaching to the choir, to use an apt expression) they're not firebrand jerks telling you you're going to hell and chanting god hates fags outside funerals. They're the warm, pleasant priests who people feel comfortable with and steer people slowly, rather than telling them the instant they meet them they're going to hell and here are reasons one through eighty-one.

evilweasel
Aug 24, 2002


Zeitgueist posted:

This is hilariously ironic coming from someone who has a habit of calling people "morons", "idiots", and "twits".

You're entire discussion style centers around neutered and marginally polite but still insulting dismissals of points that disagree with you.

I don't need to be credible to you. My point stands on its own; your response is essentially to try to relitigate various times I've been dismissive of various dumb arguments from you. There's not really a response in there besides "well you're right but stop being mean to me" and that's hardly a stellar response.

But I'm glad we agree: "snappy" one liners (they're never actually snappy) are completely ineffective and serve only to temporarially make yourself feel good. So they're probably not what you should recommend to someone who is seeking an effective response.

Zeitgueist posted:

Purely as an abstract, there's a massive history firebrands being just as effective as warm and welcoming preachers. I've personally been to mega churches where hellfire and brimstone was on the menu.

Of course: and you see those in the bible belt where you're preaching to the choir as I said: their job is essentially to rally the faithful and use social exclusion and pressure to force people to conform (on the outside).

evilweasel
Aug 24, 2002


I believe, though I can't find the link, oil shale has less energy density than a potato.

evilweasel
Aug 24, 2002


As a reminder the way you voice a complaint about moderating is via pm or email: doing it in a thread will always get you probated or banned.

evilweasel
Aug 24, 2002


I.W.W. ATTITUDE posted:

Ok, we've all seen plenty of articles documenting the collusion between the Federal Reserve and Financial institutions, but one of the most common reactions from people that I've seen is to call for the complete abolition of the Fed, with a rider that the US should return to hard currency. I know the Fed uses interest rate adjustments and cash-on-hand requirements to counteract cyclical slumps in economic activity, but what else can I say that would dissuade people from wanting to abolish the Fed entirely?

I'm really hoping to get some examples of what kind of economic chaos we could expect if the Fed's institutional function was no longer carried out by any government agency, and the dollar was returned to a gold (or any commodity) backing. What would happen to government bonds? The stock market? Would there be occasional runs on banks? Would US companies be able to trade internationally with the same ease that they do now?

It's not possible. The fed, and the things it does, are extremely loving complex; someone who just wants to abolish the fed up with gold wants simple answers and you're not going to be able to give simple answers.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

evilweasel
Aug 24, 2002


Books about how people are nothing close to rational are good starts. It's solid science you can't handwave away as political disagreement.

  • Locked thread