Earlier quoted context omitted.
I miss bash.org so much
irc died and was replaced with nothing
irc isn't dead, come join us on Libera! (and there's tons of other networks too, i just feel disingenuous inviting you to ones im not on)
Anatomy of an internet argument
11–20 of 125 posts
Re: Anatomy of an internet argument
#12Why does winning matter? Isn’t it emotionally more work and less gratifying than insulting? I think that’s why things are the way they are. People know this stuff, they just choose to press the insult button.
Re: Anatomy of an internet argument
#13This approach seems to presume you're not trying to talk to a programmed bot whose job is to amplify a prepared set of talking points (an approach pioneered by I believe the Edelman PR firm in the 1990s internet era, when all the bots were human). If someone's willing to pay a PR firm to run a bot farm of any kind, this has to be taken into account. Such issues include fossil-fueled global warming, the efficacy of th…
[flagged]
I'm somewhat confused; I thought there were many self-professed Christians who also believed in evolution. Also, given that the Bible is read in a very different cultural context today from the ones it was authored in, I assume one also needs faith in which interpretive lens (not quite the same as denomination, but not unrelated) to use? I see what you are saying about needing to take something as axiomatic, I just don't understand why you think the evolutionists have so many axioms and your axioms are altogether fewer?
(I would also maybe take issue with your view on falsifying scientific theory but I think that's a distraction from more interesting issues maybe?)
Re: Anatomy of an internet argument
#14This is a great way to win battles and lose wars. I came to this realization after getting good at climate science arguments. I could take a denialist "did you consider" argument, go to the IPCC reports, find labs, find papers, and return with summaries and citations in relatively short order, and after delivering them with kid gloves I could move people off one denialist argument... and onto another. If I repeated t…
And your goal is to win the war instead of having a good faith discussion?
Maybe you didn't read the article. They didn't suggest putting on kids gloves and siting your references. In fact, that was explicitly rejected as a good approach X) "Telling them their wrong" and X) "Telling them not to be rude".
So here I am, telling you you're wrong and that you're rude. The irony isn't lost on me, but I really don't have any idea how I'm supposed to "signal that I'm genuinely interested" in your argument here.
> There’s a misconception that good faith discussion only happens in close-knit communities like LessWrong or HackerNews.
I'll have to look at LessWrong, but I think it's a misconception that good faith discussion is common on Hacker News... Many (most?) comments here seem to be about inflating ones ego by showing how smart or virtuous one is.
Re: Anatomy of an internet argument
#15Why does winning matter? Isn’t it emotionally more work and less gratifying than insulting? I think that’s why things are the way they are. People know this stuff, they just choose to press the insult button.
Your honesty is refreshing, but the result is depressing.
It sure would be nice to have a place where you could discuss ideas without it being an argument, or to offer helpful suggestions to people without them treating it like you insulted their intelligence.
Re: Anatomy of an internet argument
#16This is a great way to win battles and lose wars. I came to this realization after getting good at climate science arguments. I could take a denialist "did you consider" argument, go to the IPCC reports, find labs, find papers, and return with summaries and citations in relatively short order, and after delivering them with kid gloves I could move people off one denialist argument... and onto another. If I repeated t…
And your goal is to win the war instead of having a good faith discussion? Maybe you didn't read the article. They didn't suggest putting on kids gloves and siting your references. In fact, that was explicitly rejected as a good approach X) "Telling them their wrong" and X) "Telling them not to be rude". So here I am, telling you you're wrong and that you're rude. The irony isn't lost on me, but I really don't have a…
> And your goal is to win the war instead of having a good faith discussion?
I'd hope so? If the war is some subject worth arguing about, anyway. The fetish people have for polite discourse is itself bad-faith.
Re: Anatomy of an internet argument
#17This approach seems to presume you're not trying to talk to a programmed bot whose job is to amplify a prepared set of talking points (an approach pioneered by I believe the Edelman PR firm in the 1990s internet era, when all the bots were human). If someone's willing to pay a PR firm to run a bot farm of any kind, this has to be taken into account. Such issues include fossil-fueled global warming, the efficacy of th…
[flagged]
Not going to discuss with you about evolution, but about your last "dissent is not allowed" I would like to remind you that evolution theory was born from dissent, rejected at first and then slowly being accepted as the most probable scientific explanation for the pool of evidence available.
The same is true for another theory like the continental drift.
Dissent is not only allowed, but one of the main drivers of scientific advance. A lot of times we find some solidifying evidence a posteriori (e.g. when common fossils were found in Africa and South America after hypothesizing they were once together) for a dissenting hipothesis.
Re: Anatomy of an internet argument
#18This is a great way to win battles and lose wars. I came to this realization after getting good at climate science arguments. I could take a denialist "did you consider" argument, go to the IPCC reports, find labs, find papers, and return with summaries and citations in relatively short order, and after delivering them with kid gloves I could move people off one denialist argument... and onto another. If I repeated t…
You are never going to win the war.
Re: Anatomy of an internet argument
#19Earlier quoted context omitted.
And your goal is to win the war instead of having a good faith discussion? Maybe you didn't read the article. They didn't suggest putting on kids gloves and siting your references. In fact, that was explicitly rejected as a good approach X) "Telling them their wrong" and X) "Telling them not to be rude". So here I am, telling you you're wrong and that you're rude. The irony isn't lost on me, but I really don't have a…
> And your goal is to win the war instead of having a good faith discussion? I'd hope so? If the war is some subject worth arguing about, anyway. The fetish people have for polite discourse is itself bad-faith.
Whatever war is worth fighting, I sincerely doubt it will be won on an internet forum. In fact you'll just make your enemy more resolved to oppose you.
> The fetish people have for polite discourse is itself bad-faith.
Ok then, here goes: Your opinion on this is fucking childish. How'd I do?
Re: Anatomy of an internet argument
#20This is a great way to win battles and lose wars. I came to this realization after getting good at climate science arguments. I could take a denialist "did you consider" argument, go to the IPCC reports, find labs, find papers, and return with summaries and citations in relatively short order, and after delivering them with kid gloves I could move people off one denialist argument... and onto another. If I repeated t…
Can you even win a war without winning some battles? I joke there… but keys assume you have the research on the topic, then how do you answer if you want to fight a battle and give out an answer?
The way I read the article it doesn’t talk about producing a better argument. It talks about being a better listener/reader such that the other party is more killed to listen to the argument you already have.
I do see it worth spending the 1000x effort at times, but not to convince someone else about topic A. I would spend that if I’m unsure of my standing on topic A.