DJK, what is even the point of this? You outright say that Trump supporters aren't rational. But when I come in saying that they're irrational, you take an issue with it?
Because right now, you're coming off as a person who just wants to get the last word in, but has nothing except quibbling over words to offer. You may have an argument, but you're not demonstrating it.
The majority of Trump supporter's beliefs are entirely factual things that almost every mentally healthy adult understands.
Their beliefs are not entirely uncorrelated with truth, that's absurd.
When things are accepted by everyone, it does not signal critical thinking to also accept them. Such basic facts aren't a relevant indicator.
You said Trump's supporters beliefs are entirely uncorrelated with the truth. They aren't, as my argument supports.
You aren't interested in being productive about it, but you still want to say something. Don't.
I've already been productive about it. What I'm not interested in is seeing such drivel go unchallenged.
But you aren't doing it productively so what's the point?
DJK, what is even the point of this? You outright say that Trump supporters aren't rational. But when I come in saying that they're irrational, you take an issue with it?
Because right now, you're coming off as a person who just wants to get the last word in, but has nothing except quibbling over words to offer. You may have an argument, but you're not demonstrating it.
I take issue with you saying they don't think critically, not that they are being irrational, just as I wouldn't take issue if you had instead said they are bad at critical thinking. It was the specifics that I objected to, as I thought I made clear.
I take issue with you saying they don't think critically, not that they are being irrational,
Critical thinking: "the objective analysis and evaluation of an issue in order to form a judgment."
Yeah, it does kind of sound like you're saying they're not exercising critical thinking skills, doesn't it?
just as I wouldn't take issue if you had instead said they are bad at critical thinking. It was the specifics that I objected to, as I thought I made clear.
So, in other words, it really is just quibbling over language usage?
Ok, well, thank you for that contribution to the thread. You have a Happy New Year, man.
I take issue with you saying they don't think critically, not that they are being irrational,
Critical thinking: "the objective analysis and evaluation of an issue in order to form a judgment."
Yeah, it does kind of sound like you're saying they're not exercising critical thinking skills, doesn't it?
Maybe to you.
You don't need to follow the above definition perfectly to be critically thinking, otherwise nobody would be capable of doing it regularly.
You can apply some amount of objective logical anslysis without only evaluating something logically and objectively.
just as I wouldn't take issue if you had instead said they are bad at critical thinking. It was the specifics that I objected to, as I thought I made clear.
So, in other words, it really is just quibbling over language usage?
Ok, well, thank you for that contribution to the thread. You have a Happy New Year, man.
Talking of specifics is not quibbling over language.
There is a significant difference between being bad at something and not doing it at all.
You said Trump's supporters beliefs are entirely uncorrelated with the truth. They aren't, as my argument supports.
I think you know what I meant. You're just continuing the trend of nit-picking rather than addressing any substance.
I'm not nitpicking, I strongly disagree with what you said. If you actually mean what I am saying, you can't pin that on me for calling you on it, that's on you for being so far off.
But you aren't doing it productively so what's the point?
If you let it go unchallenged, it can look like you've tacitly acknowledged it as valid, or at least unobjectionable.
So you literally only want everyone to know you disagree?
Don't be so dismissive then and just say you aren't going to bother with it. You are being provocative this way.
-I also believe (per another thread) that hitting people with the racist or bigot stick on every topic or repeatedly demonizing white people simply shuts down the conversation.
-In this very thread alone there's many negative comments demonizing white people - that's acceptable racism.
Specifically? I'm asking for a citation here because while there were certainly posts demonizing white supremacists, it's not clear where these comments demonizing white people as a whole are.
My reference to MTGS is because its not really that different. There's a long list of things (or views) you dare not express because you know exactly whats going to happen (say, immigration, abortion or... CLIMATE CHANGE ROFL!) Its either going to be the racist bat, the bigot stick or the dunce hat. And once anyone retaining the last of conservative views is gone, what's left? A group of people just nodding in agreement - like an echo chamber. How much is really achieved?
I wouldn't put it the way that Blinking Spirit did, but I actually would actively support someone expressing a view here that I might otherwise disagree with, as long as it is not in an inflammatory manner. I would be very interested to hear their reasoning behind their view, and see them defend it in a well-reasoned manner. On the moderator side of things, there are many users who mods will actively defend despite disagreeing with them or finding their opinion objectionable, or infract despite agreeing with them, due to the manner in which they posted. This has certainly been the case for me in this forum, not that I will publicly identify usernames.
The majority of Trump supporter's beliefs are entirely factual things that almost every mentally healthy adult understands.
Their beliefs are not entirely uncorrelated with truth, that's absurd.
I don't know if I would say "majority"; that seems like a bit of a sweeping generalization. But saying "a lot" could be reasonable. That said, that is admittedly rather clearly quibbling about language for a marginal improvement in meaning, which is not the point. That said, I think I would also agree that there is some degree of hair-splitting going on in your point. Would you agree that it does not appear that Trump supporters are exercising their critical thinking skills well in a worryingly large fraction of what they declare, or even in voting for Trump? (Perfectly reasonable to take that as two separate points.)
On to an actual substantive debate: Obama is pursuing sanctions against Russia. How do we think the transition of power will affect this?
Obama has attempted to put Trump in a lose/lose situation. Making Trump either face down either his own party or Putin very early on in his presidency.
Either Trump is going to ignore what his own intelligence people are telling him is what happened during the election and will reinstate the diplomatic missions which is going to upset the Republicans in congress who are disappointed that Obama hasn't taken any more substantial actions against Russia.
Or he is going to maintain the sanctions which is going to make his plan to ease some of the tensions with Russia a lot harder to do.
This does presume that the republicans do not turn into 2 faced *****s the instant that Trump takes office and start supporting everything he does.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag and start slitting throats.
- H.L Mencken
I Became insane with long Intervals of horrible Sanity
All Religion, my friend is simply evolved out of fraud, fear, greed, imagination and poetry.
- Edgar Allan Poe
The majority of Trump supporter's beliefs are entirely factual things that almost every mentally healthy adult understands.
Their beliefs are not entirely uncorrelated with truth, that's absurd.
I don't know if I would say "majority"; that seems like a bit of a sweeping generalization. But saying "a lot" could be reasonable.
Well a lot of belief is just basic things of your self, logic and the world.
That said, that is admittedly rather clearly quibbling about language for a marginal improvement in meaning, which is not the point.
I don't think 'Trump supporters beliefs are entirely uncorrelated with truth' versus what I am saying which is basically 'there are typically bad at critical thinking/ are often irrational' is a marginal difference.
And a difference here is quite significant because my larger thesis here is that Trump supporters continued to exist largely because they felt they were not being listened to, they where being dismissed. So what I am saying here is that continuing to basically just dismiss them is going to get us nowhere, and that therefore we should be careful about giving them a chance to prove themselves, at least in so far as their basic intelligence and some amount of basic decency.
Would you agree that it does not appear that Trump supporters are exercising their critical thinking skills well in a worryingly large fraction of what they declare, or even in voting for Trump? (Perfectly reasonable to take that as two separate points.)
Firmly yes on both counts, but again those are both quite different statements from 'their beliefs are entirely uncorrelated with the truth'.
And a difference here is quite significant because my larger thesis here is that Trump supporters continued to exist largely because they felt they were not being listened to, they where being dismissed.
Except their actual grievance isn't that they're not being listened to, it's that people aren't agreeing with them.
The complaint that they're being dismissed is merely an extension of that. They see widespread disagreement with their opinions, and, because they don't perceive themselves as being incorrect (which they might if they *thought critically*), they see the widespread disagreement against their arguments as illogical reactions by people who are either blinded by their own biases or groupthink or what-have-you.
The problem is...
we aren't dealing with a group of perfectly rational people, far from it.
Correct, we aren't. Because these people aren't making arguments that are rooted in logic, reason, and facts. They're making arguments backed by bull*****.
So, the correct response is to dismiss these arguments. Arguments backed by nothing factual can be dismissed.
See, this is why *thinking critically* is so important. These people will jump up and down about how their arguments are being dismissed unfairly. They aren't. An argument backed by nothing, with a plethora of evidence against it, can be dismissed, and such dismissal is perfectly fair. They're being dismissed because they are factually incorrect. But, since these people do not perceive themselves as factually incorrect, they will jump to other conclusions as to why they're arguments are being dismissed, namely that people are meanie-heads who are deciding that they're wrong without ever actually listening to them. Because what would be the alternative? Why the alternative would be considering the possibility that...
we aren't dealing with a group of perfectly rational people, far from it.
Which is why we need to think critically about what they're saying. You're saying, "We shouldn't dismiss these people unfairly," but what is your basis for thinking that they are being dismissed unfairly? Because they said so? Well, part of thinking critically is not just taking someone saying something as fact, but instead really looking into whether or not they are actually being dismissed unfairly or do they simply think they are due to irrational reasons. And it's really important to look into that, especially when you yourself seem to think that...
we aren't dealing with a group of perfectly rational people, far from it.
Rrrright.
Nobody wants to be told that they're wrong. No one likes the idea that they might be completely wrong, especially in a way that can cause a lot of harm to a lot of people. That is, in fact, why it's so ******* important to confront people when they're being wrong and tell them why they're wrong.
Also,
and that therefore we should be careful about giving them a chance to prove themselves, at least in so far as their basic intelligence and some amount of basic decency.
This is quite a bit of "pot calling the kettle black," Mr. "we aren't dealing with a group of perfectly rational people, far from it."
You're basically admitting that these people are irrational and wrong. Yet, you object to anyone telling the irrational and wrong people that they're irrational and wrong, even though you not only believe they're irrational and wrong, but also you're SAYING they're irrational and wrong in a public forum where they can clearly read what you are saying.
So it's wrong to confront someone in a debate forum about the lack of objective judgment and rationality exercised in the ideas they're expressing, but it's perfectly fine to say that person has a lack of objective judgment and rationality exercised in the ideas they're expressing behind their back, but also in a manner in which you know they can still hear you? No, that doesn't make sense.
And a difference here is quite significant because my larger thesis here is that Trump supporters continued to exist largely because they felt they were not being listened to, they where being dismissed.
Except their actual grievance isn't that they're not being listened to, it's that people aren't agreeing with them.
The complaint that they're being dismissed is merely an extension of that. They see widespread disagreement with their opinions, and, because they don't perceive themselves as being incorrect (which they might if they *thought critically*), they see the widespread disagreement against their arguments as illogical reactions by people who are either blinded by their own biases or groupthink or what-have-you.
It wouldn't be a problem if they didn't feel they were dismissed. That's what stops them listening to opposition.
The problem is...
we aren't dealing with a group of perfectly rational people, far from it.
Correct, we aren't. Because these people aren't making arguments that are rooted in logic, reason, and facts. They're making arguments backed by bull*****.
So, the correct response is to dismiss these arguments. Arguments backed by nothing factual can be dismissed.
Yes, dismiss their arguments. But not by dismissing the superficial points, but by making an effort to find underlying preconceptions first, and by making an effort to appeal to them so they will listen to you.
See, this is why *thinking critically* is so important. These people will jump up and down about how their arguments are being dismissed unfairly. They aren't. An argument backed by nothing, with a plethora of evidence against it, can be dismissed, and such dismissal is perfectly fair. They're being dismissed because they are factually incorrect. But, since these people do not perceive themselves as factually incorrect, they will jump to other conclusions as to why they're arguments are being dismissed, namely that people are meanie-heads who are deciding that they're wrong without ever actually listening to them. Because what would be the alternative? Why the alternative would be considering the possibility that...
we aren't dealing with a group of perfectly rational people, far from it.
Which is why we need to think critically about what they're saying. You're saying, "We shouldn't dismiss these people unfairly," but what is your basis for thinking that they are being dismissed unfairly?
I never said such a thing, other than with reference to specific statements you and Tiax made.
What I am saying is if people think they are being dismissed unfairly, dismissing them can very easily lead to them not listening to you because, to them, you are validating their narrative.
So I am suggesting we should be very careful about being dismissive, not for the sake of whether it's fair, but whether it's productive.
This isn't about fairness, this is about strategy.
Also,
and that therefore we should be careful about giving them a chance to prove themselves, at least in so far as their basic intelligence and some amount of basic decency.
This is quite a bit of "pot calling the kettle black," Mr. "we aren't dealing with a group of perfectly rational people, far from it."
You're basically admitting that these people are irrational and wrong. Yet, you object to anyone telling the irrational and wrong people that they're irrational and wrong, even though you not only believe they're irrational and wrong, but also you're SAYING they're irrational and wrong in a public forum where they can clearly read what you are saying.
So you don't think you can be irrational and wrong without lacking basic intelligence and decency?
Because I do.
There's a spectrum between perfectly logical and moral and completely irrational and morally reprehensible. Just because someone's on the bad end of the spectrum doesn't mean they are at very bottom.
So it's wrong to confront someone in a debate forum about the lack of objective judgment and rationality exercised in the ideas they're expressing
I'm talking about approaching this issue much more broadly than here on the debate forum.
(Also, my answer to this is no, in case that wasn't already clear from above)
Just seen an interesting article on another matter that had something relevant to the discussion over potential hacking of the voting machines.
Quote from Five things that got broken at the oldest hacking event in the world »
Elections
Voting on paper might seem woefully old-fashioned in the 21st century, but one hour in Chaos Communications Congress will leave you very relieved if your country still votes the old way, and very concerned if it doesn’t.
J Alex Halderman and Matt Bernhard, both of the University of Michigan, discussed attempts to prove that the US election wasn’t hacked, whether by Russia or some other attacker.
Their findings were concerning: not only would it be entirely possible to alter the results reported by a number of electronic voting machines while leaving no obvious trace of your attack, it would be possible to do that at the scale needed to hack an election.
“I’m pretty sure my undergraduate security class could have changed the outcome of the presidential election,” Halderman said. “It really is that bad.”
That wouldn’t be so bad, since every electronic voting machine used in the United States leaves some sort of paper audit trail, either in the form of receipts printed off to mark the vote, or the physical ballot paper scanned in in the first place.
Except no one counts the paper trail, and legal attempts to force them to do so ended in a costly deadlock in December 2016.
The one piece of good news? The abortive recount didn’t find any evidence that a hack had happened; it just also didn’t find evidence that it hadn’t happened.
The rest of the article can be found here if any one is interested in seeing what else we either rely on now or are very likely to rely on in the future got broken but I have snipped out the relevant bit to the thread.
I have to admit that I am concerned that Halderman believes that his undergraduates would have been able to alter the results of the election. And whilst we haven't yet been able to difinetively prove that the election was hacked the old adage abscence of proof is not the same as proof of abscence.
If I were a US citizen I would be petioning my State represnentatives, congress person and senators to get the minimum standards of security on these machines increased. Forget about voter registration this is potentially a far bigger cause of election fraud.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag and start slitting throats.
- H.L Mencken
I Became insane with long Intervals of horrible Sanity
All Religion, my friend is simply evolved out of fraud, fear, greed, imagination and poetry.
- Edgar Allan Poe
The rest of the article can be found here if any one is interested in seeing what else we either rely on now or are very likely to rely on in the future got broken but I have snipped out the relevant bit to the thread.
I have to admit that I am concerned that Halderman believes that his undergraduates would have been able to alter the results of the election. And whilst we haven't yet been able to difinetively prove that the election was hacked the old adage abscence of proof is not the same as proof of abscence.
If I were a US citizen I would be petioning my State represnentatives, congress person and senators to get the minimum standards of security on these machines increased. Forget about voter registration this is potentially a far bigger cause of election fraud.
I hate to say it, but this isn't news. Cybersecurity experts have been saying "Use paper, stupid!" for years.
And many districts do. Including many of the districts that unexpectedly flipped red on Election Day. So while this is a very serious potential avenue of attack, I honestly don't think anything like it happened this year.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Then if everything is above board why do the state legislatures throw so many obstacles in the way of people wanting to do an audit of the election to ensure that nothing odd has happened.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag and start slitting throats.
- H.L Mencken
I Became insane with long Intervals of horrible Sanity
All Religion, my friend is simply evolved out of fraud, fear, greed, imagination and poetry.
- Edgar Allan Poe
There's a difference between an audit and a recount. Audits are performed regularly. They're little random spot-checks aimed at spotting error or malfeasance through statistical anomalies. What you're talking about is a recount, which is an extraordinary and comprehensive process that takes a lot of time, effort, and money.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
I agree with Blinking Spirit, I don't think there's any reason to suspect the US vote has suddenly been hacked. And I also agree that electronic voting is not currently safe, and there should be at least stronger safety requirements like Kahedron suggests.
Maybe one day when (presumably it will happen) quantum computing becomes mainstream, then we could use electronic voting because of how difficult it is to hack quantum computers at all and only using quite unconventional methods.
Yet all the hacks from China draws the stridulating of crickets.
Maybe if you're not paying any attention? The Obama administration has been cracking down on Chinese hacking over the last few years. They even took the unprecedented step of naming and charging in absentia five members of the Chinese military:
Since mid-2014, we have seen a notable decline in China-based groups’ overall intrusion
activity against entities in the U.S. and 25 other countries. We suspect that this shift
in operations reflects the influence of ongoing military reforms, widespread exposure
of Chinese cyber operations, and actions taken by the U.S. government.
Stopped them from staling an underwater drone to...
My point was that the coverage was not even close to the 'Russian' hacks.
That's because there isn't an idiot president-elect out there trying to claim that China isn't behind the hacks. If there were, then it'd be a controversy, and it'd get more coverage.
Stopped them from staling an underwater drone to...
China reliably does something like this whenever an American president takes office, to test his resolve or show strength or some such dick-measuring nonsense. In 2009, they surrounded USNS Impeccable in international waters and tried to grab its towed listening array. In 2001, they sent fighters to buzz an EP-3 resulting in a midair collision and a major diplomatic incident. It's their way of saying "hello, new guy".
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Looks like the Republicans just want to roll over and get the transition done as fast as possible, ethics and conflicts of interest be damned
Quote from Many of Trump"s cabinet nominees have not been through ethics review »
Several of Donald Trump’s cabinet nominees have not completed a full review to avoid conflicts of interest, the government’s ethics office has said, even as Republican senators move quickly to hold at least nine confirmation hearings next week.
'He'll take a chainsaw to it': is Obama's legacy strong enough to survive Trump?
Read more
In a letter to Senate leaders, the director of the Office of Government Ethics (OGE) described the current status of several nominees, some of whom are billionaires and millionaires, in the ethics process and expressed concern about the lack of ethics reviews just days from committee hearings.
The Associated Press obtained a copy of Walter Shaub’s letter.
“During this presidential transition, not all of the nominees presently scheduled for hearings have completed the ethics review process,” he wrote, to Senate minority leader Chuck Schumer and Senator Elizabeth Warren, both Democrats.
“In fact, OGE has not received even initial draft financial disclosure reports for some of the nominees scheduled for hearings.”
A copy of the letter also was provided to Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell.
Republicans are intent on getting as many of the president-elect’s choices through the arduous confirmation process as quickly as possible so his team will be in place soon after Trump takes the oath of office on 20 January. Democrats have complained that the GOP is moving too fast and that they lack information about some of the wealthiest Americans ever to serve a president.
Because right now, you're coming off as a person who just wants to get the last word in, but has nothing except quibbling over words to offer. You may have an argument, but you're not demonstrating it.
You said Trump's supporters beliefs are entirely uncorrelated with the truth. They aren't, as my argument supports.
But you aren't doing it productively so what's the point?
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
I think you know what I meant. You're just continuing the trend of nit-picking rather than addressing any substance.
If you let it go unchallenged, it can look like you've tacitly acknowledged it as valid, or at least unobjectionable.
I take issue with you saying they don't think critically, not that they are being irrational, just as I wouldn't take issue if you had instead said they are bad at critical thinking. It was the specifics that I objected to, as I thought I made clear.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
Yeah, it does kind of sound like you're saying they're not exercising critical thinking skills, doesn't it?
So, in other words, it really is just quibbling over language usage?
Ok, well, thank you for that contribution to the thread. You have a Happy New Year, man.
Maybe to you.
You don't need to follow the above definition perfectly to be critically thinking, otherwise nobody would be capable of doing it regularly.
You can apply some amount of objective logical anslysis without only evaluating something logically and objectively.
Talking of specifics is not quibbling over language.
There is a significant difference between being bad at something and not doing it at all.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
I'm not nitpicking, I strongly disagree with what you said. If you actually mean what I am saying, you can't pin that on me for calling you on it, that's on you for being so far off.
So you literally only want everyone to know you disagree?
Don't be so dismissive then and just say you aren't going to bother with it. You are being provocative this way.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
Specifically? I'm asking for a citation here because while there were certainly posts demonizing white supremacists, it's not clear where these comments demonizing white people as a whole are.
I wouldn't put it the way that Blinking Spirit did, but I actually would actively support someone expressing a view here that I might otherwise disagree with, as long as it is not in an inflammatory manner. I would be very interested to hear their reasoning behind their view, and see them defend it in a well-reasoned manner. On the moderator side of things, there are many users who mods will actively defend despite disagreeing with them or finding their opinion objectionable, or infract despite agreeing with them, due to the manner in which they posted. This has certainly been the case for me in this forum, not that I will publicly identify usernames.
I don't know if I would say "majority"; that seems like a bit of a sweeping generalization. But saying "a lot" could be reasonable. That said, that is admittedly rather clearly quibbling about language for a marginal improvement in meaning, which is not the point. That said, I think I would also agree that there is some degree of hair-splitting going on in your point. Would you agree that it does not appear that Trump supporters are exercising their critical thinking skills well in a worryingly large fraction of what they declare, or even in voting for Trump? (Perfectly reasonable to take that as two separate points.)
We're done here.
------
On to an actual substantive debate: Obama is pursuing sanctions against Russia. How do we think the transition of power will affect this?
Obama has attempted to put Trump in a lose/lose situation. Making Trump either face down either his own party or Putin very early on in his presidency.
Either Trump is going to ignore what his own intelligence people are telling him is what happened during the election and will reinstate the diplomatic missions which is going to upset the Republicans in congress who are disappointed that Obama hasn't taken any more substantial actions against Russia.
Or he is going to maintain the sanctions which is going to make his plan to ease some of the tensions with Russia a lot harder to do.
This does presume that the republicans do not turn into 2 faced *****s the instant that Trump takes office and start supporting everything he does.
- H.L Mencken
I Became insane with long Intervals of horrible Sanity
All Religion, my friend is simply evolved out of fraud, fear, greed, imagination and poetry.
- Edgar Allan Poe
The Crafters' Rules Guru
Well a lot of belief is just basic things of your self, logic and the world.
I don't think 'Trump supporters beliefs are entirely uncorrelated with truth' versus what I am saying which is basically 'there are typically bad at critical thinking/ are often irrational' is a marginal difference.
And a difference here is quite significant because my larger thesis here is that Trump supporters continued to exist largely because they felt they were not being listened to, they where being dismissed. So what I am saying here is that continuing to basically just dismiss them is going to get us nowhere, and that therefore we should be careful about giving them a chance to prove themselves, at least in so far as their basic intelligence and some amount of basic decency.
Firmly yes on both counts, but again those are both quite different statements from 'their beliefs are entirely uncorrelated with the truth'.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
The complaint that they're being dismissed is merely an extension of that. They see widespread disagreement with their opinions, and, because they don't perceive themselves as being incorrect (which they might if they *thought critically*), they see the widespread disagreement against their arguments as illogical reactions by people who are either blinded by their own biases or groupthink or what-have-you.
The problem is...
Correct, we aren't. Because these people aren't making arguments that are rooted in logic, reason, and facts. They're making arguments backed by bull*****.
So, the correct response is to dismiss these arguments. Arguments backed by nothing factual can be dismissed.
See, this is why *thinking critically* is so important. These people will jump up and down about how their arguments are being dismissed unfairly. They aren't. An argument backed by nothing, with a plethora of evidence against it, can be dismissed, and such dismissal is perfectly fair. They're being dismissed because they are factually incorrect. But, since these people do not perceive themselves as factually incorrect, they will jump to other conclusions as to why they're arguments are being dismissed, namely that people are meanie-heads who are deciding that they're wrong without ever actually listening to them. Because what would be the alternative? Why the alternative would be considering the possibility that...
Which is why we need to think critically about what they're saying. You're saying, "We shouldn't dismiss these people unfairly," but what is your basis for thinking that they are being dismissed unfairly? Because they said so? Well, part of thinking critically is not just taking someone saying something as fact, but instead really looking into whether or not they are actually being dismissed unfairly or do they simply think they are due to irrational reasons. And it's really important to look into that, especially when you yourself seem to think that...
Rrrright.
Nobody wants to be told that they're wrong. No one likes the idea that they might be completely wrong, especially in a way that can cause a lot of harm to a lot of people. That is, in fact, why it's so ******* important to confront people when they're being wrong and tell them why they're wrong.
Also,
This is quite a bit of "pot calling the kettle black," Mr. "we aren't dealing with a group of perfectly rational people, far from it."
You're basically admitting that these people are irrational and wrong. Yet, you object to anyone telling the irrational and wrong people that they're irrational and wrong, even though you not only believe they're irrational and wrong, but also you're SAYING they're irrational and wrong in a public forum where they can clearly read what you are saying.
So it's wrong to confront someone in a debate forum about the lack of objective judgment and rationality exercised in the ideas they're expressing, but it's perfectly fine to say that person has a lack of objective judgment and rationality exercised in the ideas they're expressing behind their back, but also in a manner in which you know they can still hear you?
It wouldn't be a problem if they didn't feel they were dismissed. That's what stops them listening to opposition.
Yes, dismiss their arguments. But not by dismissing the superficial points, but by making an effort to find underlying preconceptions first, and by making an effort to appeal to them so they will listen to you.
I never said such a thing, other than with reference to specific statements you and Tiax made.
What I am saying is if people think they are being dismissed unfairly, dismissing them can very easily lead to them not listening to you because, to them, you are validating their narrative.
So I am suggesting we should be very careful about being dismissive, not for the sake of whether it's fair, but whether it's productive.
This isn't about fairness, this is about strategy.
So you don't think you can be irrational and wrong without lacking basic intelligence and decency?
Because I do.
There's a spectrum between perfectly logical and moral and completely irrational and morally reprehensible. Just because someone's on the bad end of the spectrum doesn't mean they are at very bottom.
I'm talking about approaching this issue much more broadly than here on the debate forum.
(Also, my answer to this is no, in case that wasn't already clear from above)
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
The rest of the article can be found here if any one is interested in seeing what else we either rely on now or are very likely to rely on in the future got broken but I have snipped out the relevant bit to the thread.
I have to admit that I am concerned that Halderman believes that his undergraduates would have been able to alter the results of the election. And whilst we haven't yet been able to difinetively prove that the election was hacked the old adage abscence of proof is not the same as proof of abscence.
If I were a US citizen I would be petioning my State represnentatives, congress person and senators to get the minimum standards of security on these machines increased. Forget about voter registration this is potentially a far bigger cause of election fraud.
- H.L Mencken
I Became insane with long Intervals of horrible Sanity
All Religion, my friend is simply evolved out of fraud, fear, greed, imagination and poetry.
- Edgar Allan Poe
The Crafters' Rules Guru
And many districts do. Including many of the districts that unexpectedly flipped red on Election Day. So while this is a very serious potential avenue of attack, I honestly don't think anything like it happened this year.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
- H.L Mencken
I Became insane with long Intervals of horrible Sanity
All Religion, my friend is simply evolved out of fraud, fear, greed, imagination and poetry.
- Edgar Allan Poe
The Crafters' Rules Guru
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Maybe one day when (presumably it will happen) quantum computing becomes mainstream, then we could use electronic voting because of how difficult it is to hack quantum computers at all and only using quite unconventional methods.
I think it's more important to continue to investigate government leaks like from the DNC and the Russian connection to them, especially given the head of US intelligence has recently outright said he believes more than ever that the Russian government was responsible for the DNC leaks and other interferences to intentionally affect the election result, that he will be pushing for more evidence to be made public, and that Julian Assange is not really trustworthy.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
Maybe if you're not paying any attention? The Obama administration has been cracking down on Chinese hacking over the last few years. They even took the unprecedented step of naming and charging in absentia five members of the Chinese military:
https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/us-charges-five-chinese-military-hackers-cyber-espionage-against-us-corporations-and-labor
They further threatened China with trade sanctions unless China stopped hacking the US private sector:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2015/09/16/obama-china-cyber-security-hacking-internet-warfare/32498869/
And it worked:
https://www.fireeye.com/content/dam/fireeye-www/current-threats/pdfs/rpt-china-espionage.pdf
But sure, crickets.
My point was that the coverage was not even close to the 'Russian' hacks.
The Russian hacking has been linked to the election, that's gonna make it pretty big in the news.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
That's because there isn't an idiot president-elect out there trying to claim that China isn't behind the hacks. If there were, then it'd be a controversy, and it'd get more coverage.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
More at the link.
- H.L Mencken
I Became insane with long Intervals of horrible Sanity
All Religion, my friend is simply evolved out of fraud, fear, greed, imagination and poetry.
- Edgar Allan Poe
The Crafters' Rules Guru