Also, your Global Warming Pit thread, FXMastermind, does not follow the rules you say that are so important. Can we assume this means you do not want to actually convince anyone, or that your incivility indicates your own ignorance?
That isn’t completely fair. That’s a Pit Thread, and the discussion of this thread is about an exchange in Great Debates.
FXMastermind and I may gnaw each other’s vitals like weasels in a barrel…in the Pit, but in GD, we are constrained to a higher level of civility and correctness. And the cartoon was a good one.
The problem is, you guys refuse to directly spell out what is and is not acceptable. So you constantly have these cases that are on the line where you think they are obviously wrong and the poster should have known better, yet the poster very clearly did not know better, and sees his comments as no different than several other comments.
I would have less of a problem with that type of ruling if you always mod noted first and then went to a Warning, but you don’t.
And the idea of not going near the line is just not possible, for the reasons I stated above. Granting someone else a rhetorical device that you can’t use is a great way to lose a debate. You have to figure out how far you can go to debate effectively in that forum. If only how far you could go was actually spelled out.
Your mistake is thinking just saying somebody is “out of touch or dishonest” makes it true. If you use sources, facts and logic to explain why you believe it to be so, then you are effective in countering ignorance. But just saying so is character assassination, and only matters to people who already believe as you do. It’s exactly why “calling somebody a liar is wrong” had to be spelled out for the slow kids.
My posts follow the rules. If it was in great debates, my posts would follow the rules there. Even when the rules are impossible to actually understand.
The strip illustrates quite well a common tactic online, common enough that most people grasp that “Dick” is so ever present, he is famous.
This previous look at Dickis also relevant to this topic.
I came across it a couple of months ago within a discussion of science communication.
Wiki: Motivated reasoning - Wikipedia
Spotted in the wild: [INDENT][INDENT]Not that it really matters at this point, but this is as good an indicator as any of how the entire King v. Burwell case rested on cynical, bad-faith argumentation. Cannon’s position is that it doesn’t really matter how the Court ruled. If they’d struck down the subsidies, Michael Cannon and friends would have emerged victorious. The Court didn’t do that, and Cannon is still claiming victory. Score one for motivated reasoning. [/INDENT][/INDENT]
The practice is confusingly ubiquitous. Wiki refers to it as an emotion based decision making process - but IIRC emotions actually play a key role in empirical cognition. Later they refer to the clinging to beliefs despite overwhelming evidence and the active search for evidence to prop one’s beliefs. Cognitive dissonance is a common driver, but pecuniary interest might be involved as well. It’s hard to avoid motivated reasoning entirely -and probably not desirable- but certain forms can appear rather pathetic. In my own thinking, I’m not reluctant to run an emotionally driven argument through its paces - but I try to apply critical thinking (including alternative perspectives) before I give it voice.
ETA: See also derp, the constant repetitive repetition of strong priors. Noahpinion: What is "derp"? The answer is technical.
I have never, and never will, gnawed on anyone’s vitals, much less like a weasel.
It’s a metaphor, dude-o.
(Oops, it’s a simile. Ah, rhetoric!)
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=18547384&postcount=26
So it really is a thing and this time there’s no ambiguity. Unlike with my warning, BrightnShiny was talking directly to the ooster who "doesn’t know what they’re talking about " and no explicit expression that the poster should be ignored. So "you don’t know what you’re talking about " now gets moderated. Kind of silly I still think.
Well at least there is sort of an answer at last.
Usually you can’t know if you are speeding until you get pulled over, receive a summons, and then get roughed up on the side of the road.
In theory, that’s great. In practice, it’s sometimes difficult to separate what was said and what you think was said. Unfortunately, people are primed to attack rather than confirm.
However, you don’t have to say, “so if you think that, you must also think ___.” Instead, you could say, “but the logical consequence seems to be ___, and I disagree with that”.
Extending a person’s argument or position beyond what they’ve said is a form of strawmanning. One person’s logical consequences is another person’s strawman.
It actually appears like mind reading at times. The reaction is to what “you are thinking and believe” rather than what is on the page.
Agreed. One thing that the debate format tricks a lot of people into thinking is, “If I prove him wrong, then that proves me right.” This overlooks the possibility that both sides are wrong! The reasoning encourages attacking the other viewpoint, rather than promoting one’s own viewpoint. (In many cases it actually is a zero-sum game, but far from always.)
This is more courteous, too, as it doesn’t point a finger. It avoids “You” language.
Agreed. And you’re right that this moves things a step away from confrontation, to a mere statement of opinion again. The implication isn’t “Your logical consequences are…” but, rather, “As I see it, the logical consequences are…”
When people say, “I believe XYZ,” that’s very difficult to rebut. When they say, “You believe XYZ,” it’s dead trivial to rebut (if it happens not to be true.) So the straw man is also a very weak form of argument.
No, it isn’t, because I didn’t say that. Truth has nothing to do with it. People are not perfectly rational creatures, and if you can persuade them with their emotions, the fact that the other person is actually correct doesn’t matter.
And here you are using the fallacy of equivocation. I referred to your rules, not the rules of this message board or “arena.” Maybe I should have quoted what I was talking about:
You can’t say that and then use the rules of the Pit that allow you to be uncivil. Your incivility would be you admitting ignorance or saying you don’t wish to convince anyone.
Fortunately, it’s wrong. Civility and intelligence really aren’t all that correlated. Most of the nicest people I know are not all that intelligent. on the other hand, intelligent people often get by without learning the social graces. While this can leave them nice by default, it often makes them jerks.
And how nice a person you are does definitely correlate with how civil you are.
You tell’m BigT.