111–120 of 386 posts
[flagged]
In modern western society, adultery, one of the worse possible civilization destroying crimes, is hardly even regarded as truly evil and is glorified in media. Especially when women do it.
> The sex worker explains why she loves her job. I'm not going to comment on the other stuff, but we should stop with the sociopathic neo-liberal glorification of "sex work", which in the majority of cases is just human trafficking. I come from a town in Eastern Europe where one of the local mob guys has been caught with trafficking hundreds of (I guess mostly local) girls in Spain. I'm pretty sure many of those girl…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’d like to offer an alternative framing: don’t debate at all, just listen. There are two wanys of looking at this. Doing nothing means you lose the opportunity to possibly correct an innocent mistake or to set the record. But it's also possible you may have no clue what you are talking about.
Listening doesn't mean you say nothing, otherwise the other side will (eventually) just stop. Listening means asking the right questions. Imagine someone has an out-there idea. Listening means you go along with them and have them explain it to you. And you play the nice, slightly curious, but not too curious person that has an open mind and ask the doubting questions. You know more Judo, less boxing, instead of punch…
>Imagine someone has an out-there idea
How would one know the idea is out-there until one has listened and understood what someone else is saying?
>And you play the nice, slightly curious, but not too curious person that has an open mind...
I don't have to "play" this part, unless I were someone who isn't naturally nice and curious.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Fracking is textbook comic evil. Say there's a comic book where fossil fuel co's worked to permanently ruin the groundwater and increase earthquakes in a region - bribing lawmakers and fucking over the people who lived there, gagging scientists, etc - all just for a resource that is literally burning the planet... So they can upgrade their megayacht/private jet... I'd find it hard to believe that others could allow i…
Fracking happens, because we need energy not because fossil fuel CEOs are moustache twirling comic book villains.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I recently read a similar point phrased in a way that really resonated: “if you’re right, you’ll still be right in five minutes” (so you might as well listen carefully in case you’re wrong).
While this is good advice, it is still in a debate-mindset where, ultimately, it is about "winning" a conversation. But if you argue with someone who holds factually wrong opinions is it truly winning "if you showed them" and they think "what an asshole" and move on? That type of person is practised at brushing off a debate loss. That means if you enjoy winning such a debate it tells more about you than about the per…
This is all fun until you talk to someone who is absolutely brainwashed or alien to a peaceful behavior. Do you really want to lose the debate to flat earth advocate? Do you want to lose a debate to a war aggressor supporter? Do you want to lose a debate to a serial killer? I bet you don't. PS. Maybe I didn't get something right, but I suffered a lot in conversations with close relatives who are denying that killing…
Nobody, except people with legitimate mental health issues, thinks killing is a "good" thing.
Your close relatives believe Russia is on defense. Kind of like how the US was on defense in Iraq. So, from their perspective, the way to save lives is to negotiate an end to the war where Russia takes that tiny bit of land, and Ukraine stops being considered for the UN.
Come to the discussion using human life as the topic. Figure out where solutions exist that save the most lives. Talk about how many die and what is gained or lost as a result.
Moving the conversation from nations to humans will not only help the argument make more sense, it will have you coming away with far superior respect for your incredibly important family unit.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
When someone tries explaining something to me, I try to summarize what this person said when they are finished. E.g., "So you're saying that " or "It seems like ". This forces me to actively listen and remember what the other person has said. Afterwards, I'm looking for a response in the lines of "That's correct!" or "That's right!", or a correction and explanation that I haven't heard it correctly. Even if I don't a…
Reminds me of the interview with Jordan Peterson, where the interviewer said "so you're saying that ". So I agree with you as long as you don't fall into that trap of putting false words in the other mouth.
In that instance, doing that actually exposed it quite well. Jordan Peterson is able to respond off the cuff, so a reasonable percentage of the audience didn't walk away having assimilated the interviewer's version of his position.
The subsequent Joe Rogan interview of Jordan Peterson was illuminating. Joe Rogan is, against the odds, a good interviewer, because he listens and engages, and only occasionally challenges.
I’d like to offer an alternative framing: don’t debate at all, just listen. While high school debate did teach me many positive lessons and I am thankful that I spent four years of my life doing it, many years later I have come to understand that it also taught me something truly negative: that the point of a conversation is to win. I have put a lot of time in my adult life unlearning that trait, and reflecting on th…
There is nothing more tedious in adult life than some debate club weenie trying to turn every random fucking conversation into a debate. I strongly suspect debate club has a net negative impact on peoples social skills. It teaches a bunch of anti patterns to successful social interactions. Like, you will be shooting the shit with the lads down pub the once or twice you see them per year when this dickhead (and every…
Years later, still puzzling over Thomas Jefferson's passivity at Philadelphia, John Adams would claim that "during the whole time I sat with him in Congress, I never heard him utter three sentence together" Jefferson, himself would one day advise a grandson, "when I hear another express an opinion which is not mine, I say to myself, he has a right to his opinion, as I to mine." And "Why should I question it. His erro…
Isn't that an incredibly dangerous behavior especially in political debates ? I mean, wrong political opinions do injure people. Maybe not the other people in the room but the people who elected them.
Do I miss something ?