Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it,
follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given
their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!
Civility in Discourse: Mudslinging, Rhetoric, and the High Road
Posts
But, is this the part where everyone starts to ridicule Giga's suggestion that violent revolution is a good idea? Because that's about as ridiculous as creationism.
Going down to his level would be a democrat senator saying that it's lucky that catholics are allowed to get married or they'd all be raping children.
THAT is the rhetorical equivalent of Santorum's bullshit.
There's no way to rationally engage him in civil discourse on any level once he's said a minority has the same morals as animal rapists.
Of course, mockery of Palin went far, far beyond cracks about abstinence. From a campaign by a then-prominent writer arguing for months that Trig was Sarah's grandson, to look-alike hardcore porn, and dozens of other things in between.
The Republicans have been winning for decades with these tactics actually. The Democrats, and liberals, being polite hasn't got them anywhere near that power and without power you're less than nothing in politics.
I agree that violence shouldn't be answer. We're far from that, thank god.
But you're being reasonable now. Why aren't you ridiculing this ridiculous idea so that he'll feel shame and be silenced?
Well since violent revolution is something that can actually happen, it's not.
No matter how bad of an idea it might be.
When wasn't I reasonable? o_O
I can't be bothered right now.
This is also an important distinction, in my view. I would further add that saying "this idea lacks all support whatsoever" or "this idea is inconsistent with nearly everything we take to be settled fact" does not constitute an instance of ridicule. Sometimes people treat sharp disagreement as itself counting as ridicule, but I think it is important to keep that separate. One can disagree sharply but civilly, and one can disagree sharply without abandoning the discussion of the topic at issue. In my view, for an instance to count as ridicule it has the characteristic of abandoning the topic at issue: when I ridicule you or your view, I no longer argue against it on the merits, but rather, I employ rhetorical tools to attempt to make either you or it appear as laughable as possible. It's this distinct way in which we sometimes argue which I think has no place in our ideal political culture.
It seems like the dividing line here is "do I maybe agree a little bit with this idea?". I would like to hear the leftists offer up an idea their side of the political divide believes but deserves to be ridiculed into oblivion.
It's not a mainstream view. It's not catching on. It's not in any danger of becoming part of the national discourse.
And most importantly, Giga isn't a candidate for a political office.
-edit-
Also, he probably deserves a chance to clarify what he meant by "why indeed" before we simply assume he is an anarchist like you obviously have.
Well, it's the prisoner's dilemma - as soon as someone starts being disingenuous with their rhetoric and begins to eschew reasoned debate, the only option is either change the game or adopt the aggressive strategy. The alternative is that everyone loses in another, worse way, in that the crazy side gets to do whatever they want.
I am agreeing that violent revolution is silly at this point (at least, directed toward the republicans, taking over corporate america by force on the other hand...) - I expect that no one is mocking Giga at this point because he might well be susceptible to reasoned argument which is preferred.
SODOMISE INTOLERANCE
Tide goes in. Tide goes out.
Does PETA count as leftwing? We ridicule PETA all the time.
"Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
Wait, are you suggesting that the Democrats had a hand in the pornographic spoof or that it was otherwise politically motivated? Because that is... an unusual idea.
SODOMISE INTOLERANCE
Tide goes in. Tide goes out.
Isn't the best solution to the Prisoner's Dilemma to retaliate once, whenever you're burned, then go back to being nice?
That doesn't seem to be much of a barrier in other situations.
SODOMISE INTOLERANCE
Tide goes in. Tide goes out.
They're left wing.
1) You can say Andrew Sullivan's name.
2) He's still prominent.
3) He never said that. What he said was why didn't anyone ask questions about the total bats story she was offering about Trig's birth.
Which is still dickish and his obsession about it is weird as hell, but the story is indeed totally bats.
The Democrats aren't that creative. I'd be impressed if they had something to do with it, though.
Than, I don't think either idea is deserving of ridicule. it's better to address issues if you want to change minds, not shame people into magnifying echo chambers.
SODOMISE INTOLERANCE
Tide goes in. Tide goes out.
Free, unrestricted, no-barriers immigration for everyone into the United States.
Not a Democratic Party point, but then the Democratic Party is largely centrist, so we don't actually get any of the crazypants liberal ideas as part of our party platform. But that is one, and feel free to mock it until the proponents cry tears of rage into their social justice cereal.
It's really not that rare.
Shunning and shaming and ridicule are effective techniques when used appropriately, and I really see no reason why they should be an arrow in the Republican quiver, but not in ours. Like I've said many times before, I'm tired of feeling good about how we lost; I'd much rather feel bad about how we won.
1) Young candidate for Senator attracts national attention by saying this:
He wins his race.
2) Said new Senator runs for President. His main opponent is Hillary Clinton. There is not a lot of policy difference between the two (most substansive is a support for a health insurance mandate from Sen. Clinton). The major difference is the approach. Sen. Obama says politics doesn't have to be bloodsport. Sen. Clinton says essentially "that's nice, the Republicans will make it bloodsport regardless of our approach, I can deal with their shit better than you." This forum overwhelmingly supports Obama.
3) The Obama Administration happens.
4) The forum is less interested in civility.
That was a man who knew how to surrender before war had even been declared.
And often the end does justify the means. That phrase has been far too vilified. Every end has a means to achieve it.
Yeah it turns out we were the only ones being civil, and it worked out extremely poorly.
I'm not the only one who wishes it had been HRC instead of Obama. Especially after Obama descended into the sort of cronyism that, while far better than what we got under Bush the Lesser, was no better at all than what we would have seen in a Clinton White House v 1.02
And it might be wishful thinking, but I'd at least like to think that Clinton wouldn't have been stupid enough to hire the people responsible for the economic crash to oversee the recovery. That was the moment where I really lost any faith that Obama's intellect would work as well at running the country as it did at making everyone believe he'd run it intelligently.
5) Obama ridicules birthers.
I don't think those things are okay.
I'm not arguing that any ridicule is okay any time, but rather that it's strong medicine that can be wielded beneficially in situations where one side is being particularly extreme.
I'm sorry I don't have a really clear litmus test to define when it is useful and when it is not.
Ridicule is absolutely toxic to real discourse, and is nearly always a sign of failure. It means you've given up trying to understand the other person's ideas or where they're coming from. People always have reasons that they believe the things they do, and if you don't give up, and try to understand more (and more effectively), and explain more (and more effectively) there is always common ground to be had. And then you can investigate and find where that common ground branches off. And you can investigate that place, and find out if there's a way to bring them around there so you both agree. And if you can't, then you know where the difference lies and you can part with greater knowledge for the both of you. And maybe later you can find a better approach that will change someone's mind.
Instead of just going, "Jeez, look at this guy that thinks something I disagree with. What a moron he is, huh?"
There is some exception in this process for people who are arguing in bad faith. But first of all if you put legitimate effort into the process you can even draw a lot of those people into real conversations. And the more you do that, the better you get at it. Second of all, if someone is going to really argue in bad faith and refuse to stray from their talking points or whatever it is they're doing, your ridicule probably isn't going to embarrass them or shut them up anyway. And third as soon as you do give in to ridicule you've often ceded the opportunity to have any real conversation from that point forward.
Now, that doesn't necessarily apply to the public arena. TV is TV, and politics is politics, and taking an entirely intellectual approach rarely if ever works. But we're not on CNN around here, we're on a forum explicitly dedicated to debate and discourse. So if you don't want to engage in it reasonably you're a stupid head that no one should listen to, and your hairy armpits smell.
--LeVar Burton
I used to mostly believe that until I tried to convince someone who had been successfully indoctrinated by the Kent Hovind series of creationist videos of reality.
Now, I didn't start ridiculing him after I gave up, because he was just some guy who I stopped being friends with after it became clear he was on a non-stop course for crazyland.
But a politician who believes those things? Ridicule them, because they cannot be dissuaded. But if made to look bad enough, we could at least spare some people who see it and think "Huh, no one respects that person, perhaps there is a reason for that."
I can provide a decent litmus; when you realize your opponent will never concede any point, never admit to any flaw, and continues to project onto you to appear superior in the discussion. At this point it can safely be determined they are not interested in debating with you and are instead interested in talking past you or trying to silence you. Then I'd say it's quite safe to unload on them, not directly, but tie them up in a nice contradiction that reveals their own lack of substance on what they're saying and/or failure to really think hard about what the hell they're talking about. Then top it off with a closing statement that implies the only person who could be so inconsistent/incoherent is an X/Y. (Insert your own ridicule here! ;p)