In the “So Will The Sky Fall If The UN Declare Palestine a State?” thread, in Great Debates, I find myself actually in agreement with much of what Brazil84 says.
Yet I very strongly disagree with how he says it, which is usually far more contentious and aggressive than I can favor. And I have experience, here in the Pit, that guides me to believe the guy is a reeking horse’s ass.
So…what the hell do I do when I find myself in agreement with a jerk? Do I have to reverse my opinions? I’m not prepared to do that: I’m pro-Israel, and pretty strongly so. Yet this gleaming spittle-toad is also pro-Israel. It makes me feel filthy.
Personally? My preference is to tend to stay out of it unless there is a very compelling reason. I share a number of opinions with jerks* - I’m sure just about everybody does. Just because someone is an asshole they can’t often be right and just because someone is usually wrong, doesn’t mean they can’t occasionally be right. I just try and not make a habit of arguing in support of jerks…because, well…they’re jerks. They can fight their own jerkish battles.
I’m not consistent about it. I’ll make occasional exceptions when I think the jerk’s debate opponent is unfairly or really ignorantly barking up the wrong tree. But most of the time I think it is better to avoid the pig pen.
For example the cite you gave above is arguably factual, but IMHO I could give an equally factual rebuttal. In that case as a hypothetical observer I might not bother getting involved helping el jerko even if I disagreed with the counter-argument, because it at least would be a reasonable counter-argument. That and of course the fact that Israel-Palestine threads are of the devil and one should never get involved in them anyway under any circumstances** :).
This is assuming I’M not the jerk - I suppose it’s all relative ;).
Morgenstern and John Mace: The temptation to despair is sometimes all but overpowering.
Tamerlane: Some very good points – including the footnotes, which are both telling. A wise person always has to be aware of the risk of being the one who’s a jerk, although the openness one has to the possibility seems to be in inverse proportion to the actual likelihood. Real jerks tend not to worry too much about whether they’re being jerks.
And, yeah, Israel/Palestine threads are dreary and forlorn killing grounds, littered with the dry bones of the fools who wandered there.
Many seem surprised when they take the Who Do I Agreee With? quiz and find that Donald Trump scores high. What’s to be surprised at? The reason a Trump Presidency is laughable is NOT his postitions on the issues (unless you think “should we elect an asshole or idiot?” is one of the issues).
I often find myself agreeing with Shodan or Ralph-whathisnumber. This doesn’t make me think their disgusting positions are less disgusting (though it suggests they’re not as stupid as they pretend to be).
I personally am an asshole, and I think many Dopers root for me to be wrong. On many topics, however, my opinions are correct (:D) and I can almost hear them gnashing their teeth, wishing I’d wrtten something stupid. (One Doper even had to criticise me for embedding parentheses (like this) instead of the correct brackets [like this]. :rolleyes: )
Way I see it, you don’t share any responsibility for other posters’ opinions, so it doesn’t matter if an asshole like brazil agrees with you on one thing.
Not about opinions, but:
I was, for a little while, personally conflicted about participating in Smapti’s cafe music polls, because the guy is crazy when it comes to cops. Then I realized it really doesn’t matter, I like the polls and hey, people are large, they contain multitudes.
brazil can be the racist jerk he definitely otherwise is, and yet still be on the right side on Israel debates. Especially Israel debates, which are one area where Left and Right don’t always align with the sides in the conflict - I’m far, far Left, and I’m generally pro-Israel. So I feel your pain, Trinopus.
A phrase to remember:
Even a blind hog can find a nut once in a while.*
You are not agreeing with him; he has stumbled on one point in which he came closer to the truth than he usually does.
Yes, I am aware that they seek out nuts with their noses rather than their eyes. I am not responsible for coining adages; I am simply quoting one.
On occasion, a fuckhead will agree with me. This is a direct result of the brilliance of my analysis and the probity of my insight. Regrettably, this is not always the case, nor even the most common result. Because they are fuckheads. Can I get a “Duh!”?
I don’t care much who I agree with or who agrees with me but it is still disconcerting to occasionally find myself in agreement with certain people. But then there’s a stopped clock and all that, and that person I find myself uncomfortably in agreement with is likely to soon demonstrate that we have nothing but a random intersection of ideas. It’s not something to worry about, don’t fall for the fallacy of ‘denial of authority’.
Who believes something has nothing to do with whether it’s true. The character of the speaker is not relevant. Heck, it’s one of the most common logical fallacies to assert such: argumentum ad hominem.
It’s also not impossible for you to have the same conclusion but think the premises or priors of the other person are completely wrong.
brazil84 is a functioning human being. He can go out into the social world. He’s not in jail. That means he already agrees with probably 90% of the things we believe. The differences are on the margins.
And those margins are where we vote. I’ve often pointed out that Trump is the most liberal Republican running. I still would rather shoot him in the head than vote for him.
In the leaked power point from Jeb Bush his team declares that Marco Rubio “is a GOP Obama” (Ouch! )
Thing is that even if I’m a Hispanic I will not vote for Rubio and not for Bush either, even after nothing that I do agree with Bush’s assessment of the weaknesses that Rubio has.
)