|
If you're genuinely asking how to understand the people you describe in the original post, and are not simply trying to point out how crazy and goddamn stupid they are, then here's an attempt at explanation: I believe it comes down to whether you have a basically reductionistic or holistic view of the world, life, and how things work. Of course, very few people live exclusively in one view or the other. Reductionism is the realm of science, of taking things apart, looking at them separately, and establishing theories based on evidence. If you hate new-age people, you probably fall in this camp. It's a viewpoint that is congenial to atheism, libertarianism, scientism, etc. Of course, it has incredible explanatory and even eliminative power, which is why it is so popular for young people on the internet. Holism, of course, says that you lose something very important when you take things apart, and since all things are interconnected, true understanding can only be taken from the big picture. For humans, it seems that this viewpoint has had a much longer track record. If you want to understand the people you are talking to, you might try thinking of it this way: Monsanto represents a concept. It's not even the specific company, the exact crop, or technique that is opposed, and I know that this lack of specificity and exactness just winds every reductionist's spergy undies right into a twist. I believe that the concepts these holists most oppose are the science that outpaces our wisdom to use it, and the concept of the health of the entire ecosystem. You can just hold them to some scientific standard of evidence and utterly trash them on YOUR playing field, or you can try to connect to them on their own terms and see that they have some valid points. Industrial, petrochemical-based, monoculture agriculture is as new as Norman Borlaug, basically, and the degree to which it has changed our entire system is shocking to those who think on the large scale. Holists look at lots of trends and get this intuitive feel that they are somehow connected: global warming, peak oil and water, privatization and deregulation of chemical and energy production, increased daily exposure to pollutants and toxins, genetically modified food, unsustainable population growth, devastation by the spread of non-native species, and diseases of affluence and poverty. Most of the people I know who are worried about GMOs are worried because in the long term, there have been some seriously hosed up "approved by science" products that have made it onto the market, from thalidomide to Agent Orange that we learned were harmful only in the aftermath. They point out that we've lived in an environment of engendered trust that our food will be safe to eat, but that GMOs aren't even labeled to let them make a choice, if it WERE a problem. And of course, all of the other ethical problems with Monsanto are just more grist for the mill. I am trying to represent these viewpoints in the most charitable light so you can understand, but I'm not saying I agree with them. If you want to talk to people who think like this, try to start with the parts of what they say that have some validity.
|
#
¿
Jun 27, 2013 14:46
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 10:52 |
|
|
d3c0y2 posted:It's pretty much impossible to argue with them while using holistic principles, either. I'd argue I'm probably closer to a Holistic person than a deductive person under your definitions, but I still find it impossible to discuss with these people. The issue isn't simply that they "see" connections everywhere, because even if you point them in the direction of theories and methodology such as Orthodox Marxism, World-System Analysis and Structuralism that go much further in adequately explaining the inter-connectivity of the world the nuances of it will still seem to go completely past them. But even holistic theories in History and Politics rely partially on either empiricism or some-other method of analysis. Marxism doesn't just attest blankly that "This is how it is" it uses pretty rigorous methodology to achieve it's results; even if you disagree with Marxism's conclusions a lot of political theorists and historians have respect for the Historical Materialism as a methodology. That's why I started my post the way I did: Are we really trying to "argue" or "debate" with these people? The FEELING I get from all of these posts is that we're all just so grossed out that they're so... irrational. I mean, they haven't even read Poulantzas, the idiots! When we try to reason with them and just talk to them about something simple like "Orthodox Marxism, World-System Analysis and Structuralism", they just keep going on about Lizardmen and the Illuminati. I'm not straight-up telling you and the OP (or Dr Creflo for his accurate, but still eye-rollingly spergy correction) that you're dismissive, talking over these people's heads, or deep-down that you think they're sheeple, but I am implying it. Look, I love reasoned debate, and certainly didn't offer my broad generalization about holism and reductionism to be a complete answer to the OP's question. I just think that if you DO have such contempt for these people who fear GMOs, who aren't properly educated, and who believe in comic book corporate villains, you should stop talking to them. You certainly aren't actually trying to understand their perspective. You are too inflexible to "stoop" to the level you'd have to to actually change their mind, or, if it feels better to you, you can just say that they are too indoctrinated and stupid to change their minds. If this thread is evidence of how you try to talk to people with "irrational" ideas, then yes OP, your time and mental effort is totally wasted in trying to convince these people. You will never succeed. Fake Edit: I don't understand your motivation in wanting to talk to these people who think so differently than you do. What happened to writing people off? If someone posts on Freep, you write them off. If you're a Christian, and someone is an atheist, is it really the right thing to try to debunk their ideas, debate them, or argue with them? I don't understand why you have any faith in your current methodology to actually change someone's belief system. Just write them off. Quidam Viator fucked around with this message at 17:48 on Jun 27, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Jun 27, 2013 17:42
|
|
|
FRINGE posted:
I think we're talking to the walls here. This is a perfect example of how a bunch of people can be totally right, and simultaneously be complete assholes. The whole attitude of "combating ignorance" is what's on display. If anyone here had an ounce of compassion instead of contempt for those who disagree with them there might ACTUALLY be a chance of convincing people that they should listen to all these wonderful (and completely respectable!) facts and figures. Seriously, nobody in this thread actually cares about educating others by speaking to them on their own terms. So why clothe the thread in the garb of some concern trolling and act like you want to learn how to preach your truth to the benighted masses? Just change the title to "GMO-HATING HIPPIES ARE DUMB AND SO GODDAMN STUPID". It's ok to do this. This is Something Awful, and this is how we talk about people on Freep, because we've written them off and we have contempt for them. We don't genuinely believe that talking sense to them will change their minds, so the Freep thread is not titled "Combating Conservative Ignorance: How to Change the Minds of Freepers". So now I'm getting all hyperbolic and feeling like the art of compromise and cross-pollination of ideas is truly dead, if it ever was alive in the first place. We don't have any cultural examples of people from ideological viewpoints REALLY reaching out to each other and meeting peacefully on common ground, do we? It's all just circlejerks of people talking about how stupid the other side is. I really wish that the OP and everyone else in this thread would actually be willing to stop and really think about how someone ends up feeling that Monsanto is "evil", get into their worldview, and not just roll their eyes at them, so that there was actually a real chance of people becoming more educated about the issue. I guess that will happen the same time we convince Freepers that Obama isn't a Marxist Kenyan Communist Fascist, right?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 29, 2013 18:15
|
|