Most people don't change their minds about more than just a few things after some early age - barring some life-changing even. I think it's rare that any number of [books, movies, conversations], or amount of time exposed to same, causes change.
Convincing people takes time
41–50 of 66 posts
Re: Convincing people takes time
#42Being 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)…
"Dragging people, kicking and screaming," sounds like the antithesis of democracy. Not sure if that's what you meant...
At least in the US, the civil rights movement was characterized (primarily) by peaceful, non-violent protests, demonstrations, and speeches. A social movement characterized by force and violence cannot effect positive social change, as far as I know.
Re: Convincing people takes time
#43Earlier 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.
Operate from a position of excruciating reasonableness. Put a firewall between your beliefs and your words. Approach sensitive topics delicately and obliquely. Acknowledge both "sides" of the debate in a patient and compassionate manner, whilst also signalling that you clearly recognise the edges of the Overton window. Never argue for any particular position; present a series of facts and ideas, then allow your audie…
> Operate from a position of excruciating reasonableness. Put a firewall between your beliefs and your words. Approach sensitive topics delicately and obliquely. Acknowledge both "sides" of the debate in a patient and compassionate manner, whilst also signalling that you clearly recognise the edges of the Overton window.
This is probably somewhere where the left could take lessons from rationalist YouTube. Many of the arguments are presented in this way, always taking pains to express their logical credentials and remaining reasonable. Of course the evidence is heavily selected, but that is not mentioned. Then, when 'progressives' shout at them, it is progressives who seem shrill and absurd.
Re: Convincing people takes time
#44Earlier quoted context omitted.
Operate from a position of excruciating reasonableness. Put a firewall between your beliefs and your words. Approach sensitive topics delicately and obliquely. Acknowledge both "sides" of the debate in a patient and compassionate manner, whilst also signalling that you clearly recognise the edges of the Overton window. Never argue for any particular position; present a series of facts and ideas, then allow your audie…
> Operate from a position of excruciating reasonableness. Put a firewall between your beliefs and your words. Approach sensitive topics delicately and obliquely. Acknowledge both "sides" of the debate in a patient and compassionate manner, whilst also signalling that you clearly recognise the edges of the Overton window. This is probably somewhere where the left could take lessons from rationalist YouTube. Many of th…
What's a logical credential?
Re: Convincing people takes time
#45Being 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)…
"Dragging people, kicking and screaming," sounds like the antithesis of democracy. Not sure if that's what you meant... At least in the US, the civil rights movement was characterized (primarily) by peaceful, non-violent protests, demonstrations, and speeches. A social movement characterized by force and violence cannot effect positive social change, as far as I know.
The movement wasn't especially violent.
The Civil Rights Act and enforcement of said act tended to be backed up with guns and such. You know, state police escorting little kids to their schools.
Re: Convincing people takes time
#46Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
The Google memo made a number of points on why women might be less likely to pursue leadership positions. Women prefer lower stress jobs and more social-work balance. Men are more competitive than women and may have more of a natural drive to "reach the top". But the biggest effect I think is that our culture values men based on their job a lot more than women. Men have a lot more pressure to get a high status job.
Note that all of this is purely a "interests based" argument. No one is saying women would make worse leaders than men. As you mention, there might even be some good arguments that they would be better at it. I'm just saying there are good reasons why they might be less interested in pursuing that. As opposed to it all being because of sexism.
Re: Convincing people takes time
#47Earlier 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.
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 (R…
Your reply misses the point of the OP:
> ... 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.
How many Americans actually self-identify with the alt-right? Less than .001%?
How many, on the other hand, are accused of being alt-right to dismiss their arguments and concerns?
If your first move in a potential discussion is to label your opponent with a philosophy you hate (and refuse to entertain,) then it's likely you're interested in things other than discussion.
Re: Convincing people takes time
#48Earlier quoted context omitted.
Operate from a position of excruciating reasonableness. Put a firewall between your beliefs and your words. Approach sensitive topics delicately and obliquely. Acknowledge both "sides" of the debate in a patient and compassionate manner, whilst also signalling that you clearly recognise the edges of the Overton window. Never argue for any particular position; present a series of facts and ideas, then allow your audie…
> Operate from a position of excruciating reasonableness. Put a firewall between your beliefs and your words. Approach sensitive topics delicately and obliquely. Acknowledge both "sides" of the debate in a patient and compassionate manner, whilst also signalling that you clearly recognise the edges of the Overton window. This is probably somewhere where the left could take lessons from rationalist YouTube. Many of th…
That... that's really not the case for most of "rationalist" youtube. Examples of rebuttals:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sAmM872874A
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rc24YtUslCU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vYQo6LI3Y7c
Re: Convincing people takes time
#49Being 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…
Thanks for this excellent comment.
Re: Convincing people takes time
#50Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Operate from a position of excruciating reasonableness. Put a firewall between your beliefs and your words. Approach sensitive topics delicately and obliquely. Acknowledge both "sides" of the debate in a patient and compassionate manner, whilst also signalling that you clearly recognise the edges of the Overton window. This is probably somewhere where the left could take lessons from rationalist YouTube. Many of th…
That... that's really not the case for most of "rationalist" youtube. Examples of rebuttals: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sAmM872874A https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rc24YtUslCU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vYQo6LI3Y7c https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ahuj1B0ow4U https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SpgBkpb7xlU
All five of those videos are from one person. How is that "most of rationalist youtube"?