“Relatively more useful?” The standard here is fighting ignorance. Being wrong, but being a sweetheart about it, doesn’t make you more ANY more useful than ANYONE. It makes you wrong.
D’oh!
Thanks
Perfectly valid. I disagree with many of their rulings too. And these are professional fact checkers. They, like any umpire, can make a bad call. SDMB posters I assume, are not any better. actually, I know none of us are better. Yet we make sweeping rulings about arguments as being 100% right and the opponent’s arguments as completely malarkey.
Problem is, you’re not fighting ignorance. You’re fighting what you see as ignorant people. Not even close to the same thing, and actually counterproductive. Civility is an important part of getting to the truth. It’s why lawyers aren’t allowed to call each other(or the judge) morons. It’s why debate teams don’t attack each other personally. Because once the dispassionate arguments get replaced by vitriol, people divide up into teams based on visceral reactions and the search for truth goes out the window.
Those of you who defend this practice of attacking posters are contributing to ignorance, not fighting it.
BTW, this is even better advice than what I’ve gotten so far:
I’m sure that will be news to many of you, this idea that in Great Debates there’s rarely a “correct answer”. And that personal insults aren’t necessary. Even if they do manage to skirt the letter of the law and avoid mod action.
Also:
Assuming this is a debate, it looks like I just won it.
Then maybe what you mean to say is “Being right, but being an asshole about it, makes you relatively **less **useful.” Because there’s no way in hell that being wrong but nice makes you “relatively more useful” around here.
That being said, attorneys and debate teams that consistently spout shit that’s provably wrong, and get publicly called out on it-- and then don’t have the wherewithal to stop doing that-- won’t be attorneys or on the debate team for long. Unfortunately, the ptb at the SDMB won’t ban someone for being brazenly ignorant, even if that person repeatedly posts stuff that’s provably and laughably wrong, and that’s why we have the Pit.
This doesn’t even make a lick of sense. Not one fucking lick.
They’re not attacking you because you’re wrong. We’re all wrong sometimes. I was wrong yesterday, and I wasn’t attacked, I was corrected. You know what happens to me when it’s pointed out that I’m wrong? I feel awful. I get an awful burning hole in my stomach, and my face gets red and I feel like my ears are going to burn off. I feel shame, and embarrassment, and none of those are nice things to feel. But you know what? He was right, I was wrong, and no amount of ignoring his well researched fact is going to make me right. No amount of continuing to insist that I’m really right in some alternate interpretation is going to make me right. (Although I see today that my ego did get in my way yesterday and I kinda sorta did try to do that a little in my reply; ah well, I’m not perfect, and that’s okay, too.) And, most importantly, he didn’t mean to make me feel any of that. I felt that because I felt that, not because he was attacking me.
And so then I post a small mea culpa to acknowledge that I made a mistake…and that feeling of shame and burning goes away. The embarrassment lingers a little bit, I do admit it. But it’s an embarrassment that serves to teach me to check my facts before I post next time.
People don’t attack you because you’re wrong…they attack you because you have a pattern of behavior *around *being wrong (ignoring it, fighting it) that they feel makes you dishonest and not debating in good faith. “Wrong” has just become the shorthand for all that stuff that’s really what gets under people’s skin, and “wrong” on a factual level is easier to prove than emotional state or motivation. But “wrong” isn’t really the problem. It’s what you do after it’s been shown your wrong.
Pointing to a single example isn’t really helpful, because the judgement, and yes, I’ll admit I see it - the meanness - other posters have towards you is not due to a single example of error, it’s due to a pattern of behavior. You can change that if you want, but it’s going to take some time and motivation on your part, if that’s really what you want to do.
While there may not be one correct answer to a philosophical/ethical question, there are substantiated and unsubstantiated positions. There are many wrong positions based on incorrect information. One can still be factually right or wrong in supporting their personal position.
Someone who is habitually wrong, thinks that’s no big deal, doesn’t acknowledge their errors and seems to not make the effort to try to get it right does not earn my respect or gets me as a “follower”.
I’m not asking for respect. Those who feel I have a pattern of behavior that puts me in a bad light are free to ignore me, not take me seriously, or pit me. But I don’t think it’s unreasonable to expect civility on the non-pit discussion boards. And the rules back me up.
If take the criticisms a lot more seriously if I didn’t get the same response whether I’m right or wrong. As far as I can see, I’m mainly guilty of being a conservative on a liberal dominated board. The vast majority of the time my facts are not even directly disputed. A poster just cites something sorta related that calls my contention into question and then spikes the ball thinking they scored a touchdown wjen all they did was pick up three yards.
I have no idea who you are, apparently since I generally stay in GQ and CS. So I’ll just answer the question in the OP.
If someone, in my opinion, is regularly wrong when presenting factual information (and “regularly” would be way lower than 50%) then yes, I will take them less seriously. I will view any information they present in support of an argument as needing a higher level of independent verification before I’d be willing to rely on it.
And yes, that includes essentially all politicians, even the ones I agree with on policy positions.
And when I see someone (and I have no idea if you’re in this boat) who consistently uses incorrect information because they show absolutely no curiosity about their own sources and why they continuously lead one astray, then I just start to ignore them completely because if they don’t have time to care about their position, I certainly don’t.
Adaher, you are exhibiting classic psychological projection when you make statements like, “everyone here is wrong a lot of the time.” That is just simply not true. It is contrary to consensual reality. All of us have made mistakes, but only a few select individuals are clearly unable to accept and admit it when they are wrong. You appear to be in this small subset and are treated with disdain because of it. Not because you make mistakes but because you appear to be unable to learn from your mistakes. This is a critical difference between you and those who disagree with you.
You treat governance as a team sport that is supported by fans. In your mind, whenever ‘your team’ wins, it is a good thing, even when ‘winning’ means that the functionality of government is reduced. You bring few, if any, functional ideas for governance to the table, and when those ideas that you relay from right-wing pundits are shown to be fundamentally flawed, you either ignore the rebuttal or engage in some sort of argumentative fallacy.
I wish these things weren’t true, as it is somewhat frustrating watching you spin in the wind with no clue as to how genuine research into a topic is conducted. I wish you well, but I also wish you would act in a more sane and rational manner on this board.
Let me get this straight-are you actually Pitting the President because he is wrong even more than you are? What do you suppose your score would be on Politifact’s Truth-O-Meter if we ran all your statements of “fact” through it?
This…
I hadn’t noticed your special trademarked brand of ignorance until that other Pit thread. I don’t take anyone too seriously, and I don’t come to the SDMB to be serious. I come to see the wrong, the deliberate obfuscating, the propaganda, the astroturfing. And of course, cat pictures in threads about cats. I arrive and drive by and post awful jokes, and occasionally answer a factual question so I don’t get banned. You sir, are a credit to the SDMB. You are just like Bricker, but stupid and cowardly, not intellectually dishonest and foolhardy. Hold your head high. One of us!
Either I’ve done a terrible job getting my point across, of you missed it entirely. At least one of those is true, possibly both.
I apologize for confusing you, but I’m pretty sure those words don’t mean what you think they mean…you’ve completely mis-read what I wrote, and I accept that it might be my fault.
People don’t like pigheadedly wrong people. Presenting incorrect information as though it were incontrovertible fact is generally an awful experience for the person who knows the facts. Nails on a chalkboard, with a side of douchebag, topped with arrogance sauce. I’m betting people are disagreeing with your incorrect presentation of opinion as fact, and you take it all personally.
Re-read my post, and try to identify the cause of your butthurt, so you can avoid it going forward.
Suppose you started a new job, and you had to learn that job from another employee. Suppose that person was factually incorrect well over half the time (and it is much more than that with adaher), how long would it take you to completely disregard whatever that person said about anything, and start asking their manager or someone else?
Now throw in that the person constantly moves the goal posts, claims he said something completely different from what he demonstrably said, and accuses you of being a big meanie head for pointing out he’s wrong when he still refuses to admit it?
How long before that person has ZERO credibility?
This is a board where people come to get factual information. Being the completely dead wrong guy who won’t admit it is in no way an asset to this community. That sort of person is a liability who actually detracts from the community.
I fuck up an awful lot. I say things that I thought were true, to find out they weren’t. I have picked up a lot of chewing gum on the soles of my shoes. I should have been more careful where I walked. But… When I’m called on an error, I say, “Oops!” (I say “Oops!” a lot.) I apologize, thank the lady or gent who corrected me, and don’t make the same mistake again.
And, yeah, sometimes I continue to disagree. Somebody says, “You’re wrong,” and I happen to think not. Then we go to full debate mode. I give my reasons, he gives his, and, usually, exhaustion sets and and we let it drop. There isn’t going to be any final “right answer” or “wrong answer” on some matters.
The key is to learn which kind of rebuttal is which.
I agree with obfusciatrist
If I come across a poster who is wrong very frequently, I will then tend to discount what they have to say in the future.
This would be especially true if they admit that they do not check any facts before posting, but rather rely on their memory of “facts”.
This would be triply true, if they (when presented with the actual truth of the matter, with cites from reputable sources) then proceed to argue and argue and argue that their misinterpretation is really the correct one.
Quadruple true if they also go on and on and on, splitting hairs and making really crappy arguments full of errors and obvious logical misstatements.
Unfortunately, some posters, by virtue of their posting history, have (for me) fallen into the “quadruple true” category above, and I pretty much discount anything they now say right off the bat.
adaher falls into a unique category all by him/herself: I now assume that when they post about anything, in fact, the opposite is true.
“But even if I blithely ignore that advice, it’s no call for a beatdown.”
Sure it is. Every time.
You never admit to being wrong.
that’s not debate, or even argument.
That’s contradiction.
Waste of time, you are.