How to have better arguments online
theguardian.com
How to have better arguments online
1–10 of 97 posts
Re: How to have better arguments online
#2What is needed is a discussion system, that works like a Shipyard, with the preordained goal that consent must be found. The various threads/sub-threads of the discussion which hold substance form the ribs of the ship, meanwhile elements that are valued as "relevant" to all, are auto-marked as a floor-contribution and back listed.
The set of a society topic, that interests all and all can contribute - is not a topic by definition.
I felt a great disturbance in the Add-Force. As if millions of voices cried out in terror, and were suddenly silenced. I fear something terrible has happened.
Re: How to have better arguments online
#3What is needed is a discussion system, that works like a Shipyard, with the preordained goal that consent must be found. The various threads/sub-threads of the discussion which hold substance form the ribs of the ship, meanwhile elements that are valued as "relevant" to all, are auto-marked as a floor-contribution and back listed. The set of a society topic, that interests all and all can contribute - is not a topic…
I think you could kinda get there with Arguman, maybe with some small UI modifications ? e.g. see how https://en.arguman.org/following-a-rule-is-a-practice-ground... works
Re: How to have better arguments online
#4This (good article) from The Guardian, who in their ludicrously-titled "Comment is Free" section and others ban discussions on any articles and opinion pieces they fear dissent on.
In keeping with that - I note there is no comment section on this piece...
Re: How to have better arguments online
#5One rule that I have is that if I need to repeat or rephrase a previous comment without adding anything new, I need to stop the conversation.
1. Comment by me.
2. Response by someone else.
If my reaction to 2 is to reiterate 1, that's a sign that the conversation isn't going anywhere and it's better if I don't participate further.
Also, if you're on twitter, facebook or reddit, you need to heavily restrict your input and output and not take part in arguments altogether. Or just not be on those platforms in their current form.
Re: How to have better arguments online
#6One rule that I have is that if I need to repeat or rephrase a previous comment without adding anything new, I need to stop the conversation. 1. Comment by me. 2. Response by someone else. If my reaction to 2 is to reiterate 1, that's a sign that the conversation isn't going anywhere and it's better if I don't participate further. Also, if you're on twitter, facebook or reddit, you need to heavily restrict your input…
I sometimes comment to show a bit of effort, when I agree with someone, like yours superbcarrot, something more than an easy upvote. Not everything has to be a discussion.
Re: How to have better arguments online
#7One rule that I have is that if I need to repeat or rephrase a previous comment without adding anything new, I need to stop the conversation. 1. Comment by me. 2. Response by someone else. If my reaction to 2 is to reiterate 1, that's a sign that the conversation isn't going anywhere and it's better if I don't participate further. Also, if you're on twitter, facebook or reddit, you need to heavily restrict your input…
I sometimes comment to show a bit of effort, when I agree with someone, like yours superbcarrot, something more than an easy upvote. Not everything has to be a discussion.
There's a fine line between appreciative agreement and something that just decreases the signal to noise ratio though.
Re: How to have better arguments online
#8This (good article) from The Guardian, who in their ludicrously-titled "Comment is Free" section and others ban discussions on any articles and opinion pieces they fear dissent on. In keeping with that - I note there is no comment section on this piece...
> I note there is no comment section on this piece...
The absence of a comment section may be consistent with one of the author's pieces of advice: "have the disagreement away from an audience."
Re: How to have better arguments online
#9What is needed is a discussion system, that works like a Shipyard, with the preordained goal that consent must be found. The various threads/sub-threads of the discussion which hold substance form the ribs of the ship, meanwhile elements that are valued as "relevant" to all, are auto-marked as a floor-contribution and back listed. The set of a society topic, that interests all and all can contribute - is not a topic…
I agree with you about the "preordained goal that consent must be found" but I'm not convinced that a technical aspects, like Arguman, can help here. You need the humans in board.
Re: How to have better arguments online
#10What is needed is a discussion system, that works like a Shipyard, with the preordained goal that consent must be found. The various threads/sub-threads of the discussion which hold substance form the ribs of the ship, meanwhile elements that are valued as "relevant" to all, are auto-marked as a floor-contribution and back listed. The set of a society topic, that interests all and all can contribute - is not a topic…
I think you could kinda get there with Arguman, maybe with some small UI modifications ? e.g. see how https://en.arguman.org/following-a-rule-is-a-practice-ground... works
The problem with following a system bound by the logical rules of modern philosophy is that modern philosophy itself is an ineffective tool for making real-world, moral decisions.
It's no accident that the most respected public intellectuals are all economists, linguists, (former) politicians, activists, authors, Canadian clinical psychologists, or even gay, bipolar quiz show hosts...