Convincing people takes time • Hacker News Board

Re: Convincing people takes time

#21

Post by fao_ » Sat, Aug 12, 2017, 8:11 PM UTC

backpropaganda wrote: post #7

kristianc wrote: post #2

The OP kind of moves toward the conclusion, but doesn't really reach it. Etiquette and an open mind are necessary but not sufficient conditions to convincing someone. Far more effective is realizing that the arguments that may convince you (in the case of the manifesto, perhaps, appeals to natural justice / rights), may not be the arguments that work for someone else. In the equal marriage debate in Ireland for examp…

But what if one side has decided that even talking about a certain topic is denial of their humanity and right to exist? Which arguments can one use when even intention to talk about the topic is going to make them physically attack you? Moreover such a physical attack has been socially approved. It's okay to punch a Nazi. And you're free to define Nazi whichever way you want. Quite convenient.

On this topic:

These people do not decide. They have seen the effects first-hand.

Perhaps seeing it from the other point of view, what point is there arguing with someone whose inherent philosophy is a denial of the rights of others?

An example of this is the one that you used. The "alt-right": people who follow the words of leaders who have clearly and openly called for the extermination and sterilization of PoCs (Richard Spencer, for example), people who openly use Nazi imagery, and who are backed by the American Nazi Party. [Evidence for these claims are in the bottom section].

In such a case, with the sides, quite literally, being:

I wish to live and have a productive and happy life

I wish for people like you, including you, to no longer exist

What kind of meaningful debate do you expect between such groups? The core principles are, by their very nature, severely opposed to each other.

[Citations for the equivalence of the Nazis and the Alt-right]:

Firstly, Richard Spencer, the person who started the alt-right:

""Instead of asking how we can make reparations for slavery, colonialism, and Apartheid or how we can equalize academic scores and incomes, we should instead be asking questions like, "Does human civilization actually need the Black race?" "Is Black genocide right?" and, if it is, "What would be the best and easiest way to dispose of them?" With starting points like this, wisdom is sure to flourish, enlightenment to dawn. ""

https://web.archive.org/web/20120216183528/http:/www.alterna...

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Richard_Spencer

https://twitter.com/IGD_News/status/890979293009895424

Re: Convincing people takes time

#22

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Aug 12, 2017, 8:12 PM UTC

backpropaganda wrote: post #7

kristianc wrote: post #2

The OP kind of moves toward the conclusion, but doesn't really reach it. Etiquette and an open mind are necessary but not sufficient conditions to convincing someone. Far more effective is realizing that the arguments that may convince you (in the case of the manifesto, perhaps, appeals to natural justice / rights), may not be the arguments that work for someone else. In the equal marriage debate in Ireland for examp…

But what if one side has decided that even talking about a certain topic is denial of their humanity and right to exist? Which arguments can one use when even intention to talk about the topic is going to make them physically attack you? Moreover such a physical attack has been socially approved. It's okay to punch a Nazi. And you're free to define Nazi whichever way you want. Quite convenient.

[deleted]

Re: Convincing people takes time

#23

Post by yedava » Sat, Aug 12, 2017, 8:13 PM UTC

sinxoveretothex wrote: post #19

yedava wrote: post #5

Being polite seems like a good idea until you realize that people having arguing against gender stereotypes, politely, for several decades at the least. But even after all that, people find it far easier to believe that men are more inclined to work with things. (One has to wonder then why women don't form the majority in leadership positions, given that being a leader is all about working with people and not things)…

> Historically, the biggest social changes happened by force. Like the civil rights movement. The threat of civil disobedience forced the government to enact laws. That's one point of view. Another might argue that MLK sent a letter from a certain jail in Birmingham rather than oppose the arrest, say. Yet another might invoke Gandhi or Mandela. Is civil disobedience a form of force? Yes, I suppose it is one of the po…

One way to counter gender stereotypes is to show that they aren't welcome in an organization. I hope you would agree that this is a non-violent act. And yet, we see Google being equated with the Gulag. My use of the word 'force' is in that context.

Re: Convincing people takes time

#24

Post by generic_user » Sat, Aug 12, 2017, 8:15 PM UTC

The bigger problem now is that some of the platforms themselves have chosen to take sides on contentious debates and engage in unfair treatment of the other side. This has the effect of emboldening the most radical players on both sides and drowning out moderate voices and any chance of dialog.

On the side they choose to support the radical voices adopt a zero tolerance policy for the other side and seek to eliminate any decent. The opposing side has proof that the platforms has a bias against them and will try to subvert the debate so thoughtful opinions do not bother under those circumstances.

You can not change anyone's opinion by refusing them a platform to express themselves. Or allowing engagement but employing a double standard where one side gets to be abusive but the other gets punished for the same behaviour.

If we look at the recent case of James Damore he was fired for his views. How many people at Google who support him are going to change there minds on the issue just because The management decided to take a side and silence any opposing views?

Re: Convincing people takes time

#25

Post by yedava » Sat, Aug 12, 2017, 8:21 PM UTC

skybrian wrote: post #16

yedava wrote: post #5

Being polite seems like a good idea until you realize that people having arguing against gender stereotypes, politely, for several decades at the least. But even after all that, people find it far easier to believe that men are more inclined to work with things. (One has to wonder then why women don't form the majority in leadership positions, given that being a leader is all about working with people and not things)…

It's certainly true that you don't have to convince everyone. However, winning court cases requires convincing judges, and winning elections requires convincing a majority. The civil rights movement included winning court cases, getting laws passed, and convincing politicians that they should support it. It didn't happen at a barrel of a gun. More recently, same-sex marriage happened by winning court cases and a lot…

Well, MLK did say that a riot is the language of the unheard. And he deemed the white moderate is the greatest obstacle to freedom. How does that square with your understanding of the civil rights movement? We'd like to wishfully think that social change can be achieved without any fuss. It can't. Firing someone isn't thuggery. Or the barrel end of a gun. It is just an organization walking the talk.

Re: Convincing people takes time

#26

Post by the_cat_kittles » Sat, Aug 12, 2017, 8:29 PM UTC

backpropaganda wrote: post #7

kristianc wrote: post #2

The OP kind of moves toward the conclusion, but doesn't really reach it. Etiquette and an open mind are necessary but not sufficient conditions to convincing someone. Far more effective is realizing that the arguments that may convince you (in the case of the manifesto, perhaps, appeals to natural justice / rights), may not be the arguments that work for someone else. In the equal marriage debate in Ireland for examp…

But what if one side has decided that even talking about a certain topic is denial of their humanity and right to exist? Which arguments can one use when even intention to talk about the topic is going to make them physically attack you? Moreover such a physical attack has been socially approved. It's okay to punch a Nazi. And you're free to define Nazi whichever way you want. Quite convenient.

here we are in 2017, with many many crucial things to argue about. this is your priority? good luck!

Re: Convincing people takes time

#27

Post by yedava » Sat, Aug 12, 2017, 8:29 PM UTC

backpropaganda wrote: post #9

yedava wrote: post #5

Being polite seems like a good idea until you realize that people having arguing against gender stereotypes, politely, for several decades at the least. But even after all that, people find it far easier to believe that men are more inclined to work with things. (One has to wonder then why women don't form the majority in leadership positions, given that being a leader is all about working with people and not things)…

The problem with the "social change by force" approach is that it's easy to find yourself in the wrong side of history. Hitler also wanted social change, and decided to do it by force since it was such a good social change. Just because what you're doing "seems" like a good thing doesn't mean that it actually is. You might try the forced social change, and years later, get revolted against, and go down in history as…

No need to invoke Godwin's law. There are different degrees of force. Even the staunchest libertarian will concede that some amount of force is warranted to protect rights. The question here is the nature and degree of the force. I'd say firing someone is warranted especially if an organization has committed to fighting gender stereotypes amongst its workforce.

People vs things is just one example. The cited science also says that men are more prone to anger and aggressiveness. So in net, leadership positions should be held by women if one were to make an 'ought to' argument based on the science.

Re: Convincing people takes time

#28

Post by generic_user » Sat, Aug 12, 2017, 8:40 PM UTC

the_cat_kittles wrote: post #26

backpropaganda wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But what if one side has decided that even talking about a certain topic is denial of their humanity and right to exist? Which arguments can one use when even intention to talk about the topic is going to make them physically attack you? Moreover such a physical attack has been socially approved. It's okay to punch a Nazi. And you're free to define Nazi whichever way you want. Quite convenient.

here we are in 2017, with many many crucial things to argue about. this is your priority? good luck!

Simply stating that 'its the current year' you can not have those opinions, is not addressing the issue or argument. Its an attempt to shut down debate and silence people.

The article was about techniques you can try to engage people and ideas you disagree with in a more friendly and respectful way. You might want to be more thoughtful of your own posts in that respect.

Re: Convincing people takes time

#29

Post by slackingoff2017 » Sat, Aug 12, 2017, 8:40 PM UTC

cjcenizal wrote: post #15

slackingoff2017 wrote: post #4

What I've learned after a lot of pain is that you can't convince anyone of anything. I've poured years of my life into shitty organizations to try to "fix" them and gotten nowhere. The people that disagree with you will find ways to slowly peel back all your achievements. In a badly run organization the problem isn't the outdated machines and processes or the shitty products. Those are symptoms of shitty people and m…

You sound disillusioned, and I can empathize. Based on similar experiences, I've come to the understand that we're not trying to change individuals, we're trying to change culture . And cultures have inertia. All we can do to change a culture is to simply exist within it. It's not reasonable to have any expectations because we're just single points of influence among hundreds -- too many factors beyond our control. B…

Definitely jaded. I have been in charge of a couple smaller organizations and worked with some smart people for years to turn them around. In the most memorable case there were simply too many of the "old guard" left when I departed victorious and within a year they had it running just as badly as before. My biggest mistake was not getting rid of all the people that made it bad in the first place. I promoted and shifted them into places where they couldn't screw anything up but they stepped out of the caves the day I left town.

Even years of increasing membership, better benefits, virtually every metric increasing steadily was not enough to convince these people that the changes happening were positive. They wanted to do things "their way".

When I came back a year later I saw our shiny new equipment collecting dust in the corner. A few of the old guard were in the middle of a demonstration on how to pretend that it's still the 17th century. The smart new managers I brought in were gone.

Watching that place boomerang so fast struck a chord in me. The only time I'll agree to run anything now is when I have total control of what happens beneath me. Build little slices of heaven surrounded by towers of corporate bullshit. My long term goal is to build my own company but meager attempts so far haven't worked out.

I couldn't change people's opinions even with years of bulletproof evidence that they were wrong. Maybe a few of them individually, but a very small percentage of the group. They simply went along with things until they had an opportunity to change then back to how they liked them. I now 100% understand why management is gutted when a company changes hands.

Re: Convincing people takes time

#30

Post by innocentoldguy » Sat, Aug 12, 2017, 8:43 PM UTC

kris-s wrote: post #3

I wonder if we can sort of trick ourselves into more reasoned discussions. For example: before a debate have the participants (maybe the audience too) say something to the effect of "I am willing to change my position on this topic."

I'd be content for people to say, "I will not resort to logical fallacies and ad hominem attacks."