Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The “Other Side” Is Not Dumb

medium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–127 of 127 posts

Re: The “Other Side” Is Not Dumb

#121

Post by JackFr »

foxhedgehog wrote: post #65
rtpg wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't this kind of the reasoning the article is talking about? I mean, I assume you think your positions are reasonably thought out. Perhaps other people also think their positions are reasonably thought out? My takeaway from this article is to give people this benefit of the doubt. Sometimes this means acknowledging that _I_ am the one who is parroting something I heard from someone I agree with generally. On a prac…

I think that it's useful to distinguish between arguments that are, and are not, put forth in good faith.

But I think the point is to assume good faith on the other's part -- that there should be a very high bar before you can assume an argument is not made in good faith.

Re: The “Other Side” Is Not Dumb

#122

Post by FeepingCreature »

gpsx wrote: post #18

Having grown up in West Virginia and now living Silicon Valley, I see extremes from both sides. And they both _really_ think the other side is dumb. And that the president (Obama or Bush) is purposely trying to destroy the country. It is like two people in a marriage that has gone bad. Is there any way to fix it? My two cents is that a place to start is to try to make a single news source that both sides can read, to…

Can somebody please start "Useful News"?

Tagline: "Useful News. We optimize for your outcomes, not your outrage."

Joke aside: "News for your benefit" would be something I'd actually buy.

Every article has an annotation listing the chance that the topic will affect you if you're [list of population groups]. Every cite is sourced, every paragraph optimized for how you can make use of this information. If there's nothing important to say, we'll leave the page blank.

God damn I want this.

Re: The “Other Side” Is Not Dumb

#123

Post by nadagast »

tamana wrote: post #98
nadagast wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This attitude ignores the other 90+% of people who read your replies: people who aren't actually engaging, just reading and considering. I think the meme of 'debate online is pointless' is wrong because the vast majority of people who read anything you write publicly will be able to read from a position where they could have their mind changed, maybe. Write for those people.

This is explained in Thank You For Smoking, and illustrated every day on C-SPAN

Interesting, I didn't know that--is it worth watching?

Re: The “Other Side” Is Not Dumb

#124

Post by danieltillett »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #112
danieltillett wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unreliable agents do not make something false. If you are lucky enough to have great grandparents go and ask them about the time before the polio vaccine. I asked mine and it was a nightmare.

Unfortunately, I'm not lucky enough. I'm not defending anti-vaccination beliefs. All I'm saying is that with all the moral bankruptcy of our governments, corporations and journalists, it's no surprise movements like anti-vaccination started to appear. I believe the core issue has nothing to do with facts, or people being "dumb" or uneducated - that it's mostly about lack of trust in authorities. And so we won't solve…

I have to say I am not too sure why people become anti-vaxers, but I do agree with you that trying to convince them with science is not likely to succeed.

Anti-vax is worse than child abuse. If you don’t vaccinate your children you are not only putting them at risk (child abuse), but you are putting my children at risk through lowering the herd immunity. I have zero tolerance for crazy ideas that risk the health of my children.

The way we have tackled this problem in Australia is by tying the welfare system to vaccination - no vaccination, no child payments from the government. It is amazing how most anti-vaxers change their tune when it is going to cost them money.

Re: The “Other Side” Is Not Dumb

#125

Post by [deleted] »

djur wrote: post #93
DrScump wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Defunding Planned Parenthood would cut aid from millions of young women." No, the "defunding Planned Parenthood" amendment would have simply removed their status as a preferred (and overpaid) provider of abortion services. Overall funding of family planning ( including abortion ) would not have been reduced, and Planned Parenthood could have still competed for such patients on level ground with all other providers.…

> No, the "defunding Planned Parenthood" amendment would have simply removed their status as a preferred (and overpaid) provider of abortion services. Overall funding of family planning (including abortion)... Are you saying that the federal government is funding abortion services in violation of the Hyde Amendment?

[deleted]

Re: The “Other Side” Is Not Dumb

#126

Post by TeMPOraL »

wutbrodo wrote: post #119
TeMPOraL wrote: post #32

Another observation about the "Other side" (that is, really, about all of us) to add to excellent points made by others here. Most disagreements happen around things that have no direct impact on day-to-day life. People can hold widely different opinions about politics because... it's politics. Most of it is bullshit, and rest doesn't affect your daily life anyway, at least not immediately or directly. Take two peopl…

> People are pragmatic. We tend to invest in knowing the actual truth proportionally to how the issue is actually important to us. Hence most disagreements are about things that actually cost us nothing when we get them wrong. This is even worse! You're substituting malice for stupidity. Someone who doesn't bother learning or even thinking about a topic but then takes actions that affect other people (like voting) sh…

> I've pretty firmly condemned lack of intellectual rigor for a long time, and by far the most common response I've gotten is "not everyone has the time or will to try to become informed on every issue".

Yeah. A lot of people don't seem to realize that not having an opinion is also a viable, and in those cases the right, option. But it ties to:

> The only reason I can imagine is wanting to feel and seem informed without putting in any of the time to become so.

I'll give you another one - signaling. Especially in debates that have some audience, it's a way for people to show their allegiance. The argument doesn't even have to convince anyone. It seems that most arguments on social media go like this.

Re: The “Other Side” Is Not Dumb

#127

Post by dawnbreez »

nikdaheratik wrote: post #51

As a former card carrying Debate Club member, I suppose this article may be helpful for people who aren't used to having these arguments. But I don't believe it is very helpful for most interactions on anything really controversial right now. Most people making arguments for "the other side" haven't actually had to defend them against real criticism. They also are usually not the originators of their position, they'r…

Protip: It's spelled 4chan, no hyphen, and if they're memeing at you then you've already lost their interest. As a banner on 4chan once explained, "post things we like and we'll post things we think you'll like; post things we don't like and we insult you with image macros."
Post reply on HN