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

Calling bullshit

callingbullshit.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 287 posts

Re: Calling bullshit

#171

Post by [deleted] »

mistermann wrote: post #163
dashundchen wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Scott Adams is also a MRA who equates being a woman with being mentally handicapped. http://comicsalliance.com/scott-adam-sexist-mens-rights/ He is a climate change denier with the senseless circular reasoning, that if he can't understand the science of climate change himself, why should he ever trust climate scientists and other experts in the field, because their models are complicated. https://twitter.com/ScottAda…

I don't think he is a denier, I honestly believe he is poking fun at the supremely confident masses who are absolutely sure climate change is precisely as the scientists say , and that anyone that disagress in the slightest is a denier/idiot/whatever. He also happens to be correct, the general public doesn't understand the intricacies of climate change. I'm no denier either, but you'll have to pardon me if I choose t…

[deleted]

Re: Calling bullshit

#172

Post by ci5er »

mistermann wrote: post #170
ci5er wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's nearly impossible to have a factual debate. You contextualize this as related to politics. But, I've noticed, in certain fora, that it's nigh-on impossible, even for something as measurable as energy production. And that's just inputs and outputs where the units of measurement are already agreed to! :-O What's the difference? What causes some topics to be amenable to rational debate (or even discussion that do…

You forgot: gender, ethnicity/culture

Disagreements about gender and ethnicity/culture? I don't get it. Do people debate about those?

Re: Calling bullshit

#173

Post by linkregister »

ci5er wrote: post #145
acjohnson55 wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why? You just said it almost never helps. Yeah, great question! I didn't really address that part. What I really meant is that I almost never "win" the argument. I've overtly changed someone's mind before, but that's like 10% of the time, at best. So making that my goal wouldn't be a good idea. More often, I can get the other person to expand their point of view, even just a little bit. I can gain some credibility…

That makes a ton of sense. I almost always forget that there is an audience -- and that the audience, because they aren't in participant mode might well be less in their chosen position. Thanks! [ It still baffles me why people would take on a non-rational position on (say) power generation. It's just engineering and physics. Anyone can look up the math in any library - it doesn't really even change that often! ]

Even the most fundamental comparison between two energy production techniques requires hours or days to calculate all relevant aspects: cost, production cycle, transmission, and storage. It isn't that surprising that anything that requires that much work could be considered as an article of faith.

Most people take the analysis provided to them by their trusted authorities: newspapers, magazines, television, public figures, esteemed friends and family; and form their world view based off of that. "Team" membership and identification also are prominent.

Re: Calling bullshit

#174

Post by mistermann »

driverdan wrote: post #76
acjohnson55 wrote: post #67

Admirable, but misguided. Fact-based argument has never been effective. The Greeks knew this. We keep forgetting it at our own peril. We know how to think critically; most of us simply choose not to. The audience who would see this kind of course/site are likely people who pretty much already have their head screwed on the right way. It would be much better to train them in effective rhetoric so they can counter the…

> We know how to think critically Most people don't know how to think critically. You're right about the target audience, people who are already interested will take it.

I'll go even further: not only do most people not know how to think critically, but they are explicitly hostile (often extremely) to the idea of thinking or conversing about a controversial topic. Rarely do I ever see someone say "I don't know", and rarely have I observed anyone changing their mind, or conceding that their "opponent" may have some valid information they hadn't considered.

Re: Calling bullshit

#175

Post by DonHopkins »

mistermann wrote: post #163
dashundchen wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Scott Adams is also a MRA who equates being a woman with being mentally handicapped. http://comicsalliance.com/scott-adam-sexist-mens-rights/ He is a climate change denier with the senseless circular reasoning, that if he can't understand the science of climate change himself, why should he ever trust climate scientists and other experts in the field, because their models are complicated. https://twitter.com/ScottAda…

I don't think he is a denier, I honestly believe he is poking fun at the supremely confident masses who are absolutely sure climate change is precisely as the scientists say , and that anyone that disagress in the slightest is a denier/idiot/whatever. He also happens to be correct, the general public doesn't understand the intricacies of climate change. I'm no denier either, but you'll have to pardon me if I choose t…

>I'm no [...], but [...]. [1]

Also, don't forget that Trump is a reality TV show host, and part of his schtick is to deliberately cause outrage, especially with people who take themselves way too seriously.

[1] http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/I'm_not_prejudiced,_but...

Re: Calling bullshit

#176

Post by DonHopkins »

ue_ wrote: post #168
dashundchen wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Scott Adams is also a MRA who equates being a woman with being mentally handicapped. http://comicsalliance.com/scott-adam-sexist-mens-rights/ He is a climate change denier with the senseless circular reasoning, that if he can't understand the science of climate change himself, why should he ever trust climate scientists and other experts in the field, because their models are complicated. https://twitter.com/ScottAda…

I don't mean to excuse the opinions he has on women, which I agree are deplorable, but I want to ask: what is wrong with being an activist for men's rights?

"Men's Rights Activist" is a euphemism for these people: https://www.reddit.com/r/TheRedPill/

Described in The Guardian as a "toxic technoculture on a spectrum of digital misogyny": https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/apr/14/the-red-p...

The term "red pill" is also common on 4chan's "politically incorrect" /pol/ board where taking the red pill is usually used to mean embracing conservative political thought and other related ideologies. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_pill_and_blue_pill

Re: Calling bullshit

#177

Post by yongjik »

mistermann wrote: post #163
dashundchen wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Scott Adams is also a MRA who equates being a woman with being mentally handicapped. http://comicsalliance.com/scott-adam-sexist-mens-rights/ He is a climate change denier with the senseless circular reasoning, that if he can't understand the science of climate change himself, why should he ever trust climate scientists and other experts in the field, because their models are complicated. https://twitter.com/ScottAda…

I don't think he is a denier, I honestly believe he is poking fun at the supremely confident masses who are absolutely sure climate change is precisely as the scientists say , and that anyone that disagress in the slightest is a denier/idiot/whatever. He also happens to be correct, the general public doesn't understand the intricacies of climate change. I'm no denier either, but you'll have to pardon me if I choose t…

> There are highly trained scientists who don't fully support the party line, and they are not allowed to speak.

Name one.

Re: Calling bullshit

#178

Post by mistermann »

augustocallejas wrote: post #157
acjohnson55 wrote: post #67

Admirable, but misguided. Fact-based argument has never been effective. The Greeks knew this. We keep forgetting it at our own peril. We know how to think critically; most of us simply choose not to. The audience who would see this kind of course/site are likely people who pretty much already have their head screwed on the right way. It would be much better to train them in effective rhetoric so they can counter the…

> We keep forgetting that people tend to support policies and politicians for largely social and psychological reasons, not because of facts and ideology. The former are where the real battle is fought. Your comment was perfect as a lead up to this story about this Table of Knowledge group in Iowa: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/12/us/donald-trump-iowa-cons... I bet there are a large number of these informal groups…

That's a great article, thanks for posting. I find it deeply saddening that so many people ask "How could people vote for Trump, what are they thinking!", but have less than zero interest (aka hostility) in any answers, and there are many, to that question.

Re: Calling bullshit

#179

Post by ci5er »

linkregister wrote: post #173
ci5er wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That makes a ton of sense. I almost always forget that there is an audience -- and that the audience, because they aren't in participant mode might well be less in their chosen position. Thanks! [ It still baffles me why people would take on a non-rational position on (say) power generation. It's just engineering and physics. Anyone can look up the math in any library - it doesn't really even change that often! ]

Even the most fundamental comparison between two energy production techniques requires hours or days to calculate all relevant aspects: cost, production cycle, transmission, and storage. It isn't that surprising that anything that requires that much work could be considered as an article of faith. Most people take the analysis provided to them by their trusted authorities: newspapers, magazines, television, public fi…

I think "Team" membership is key -- it tells which opinions they are likely to listen to. Any team can rustle up a credentialed opinionator that didn't do the math themselves (or will say anything, just, because) to round arm the rubes with talking points to unleash onto Reddit (or wherever). It would be a quite the dance spectacle, if it didn't make my stomach hurt. And, the worst thing is? My brain is just as broken (for the purpose of thinking rationally) as any of theirs! :-O

Re: Calling bullshit

#180

Post by dashundchen »

ue_ wrote: post #168
dashundchen wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Scott Adams is also a MRA who equates being a woman with being mentally handicapped. http://comicsalliance.com/scott-adam-sexist-mens-rights/ He is a climate change denier with the senseless circular reasoning, that if he can't understand the science of climate change himself, why should he ever trust climate scientists and other experts in the field, because their models are complicated. https://twitter.com/ScottAda…

I don't mean to excuse the opinions he has on women, which I agree are deplorable, but I want to ask: what is wrong with being an activist for men's rights?

To me, there is nothing inherently wrong about people advocating for issues and causes that affect men specifically.

However what I see online is a large, vocal portion of those who claim to be MRAs are more about aggressive and toxic misogyny than anything else. See Scott Adams and sibling comment for more info.

Because of this I don't associate the terms mens' rights with any productive discussion.

There are more nuanced takes on male issues I have seen, such as /r/menslib on reddit. As far as I know they also distance themselves from the term MRA.

Post reply on HN