Strong disagree. I am willing to engage in a conversation with anyone that wants to bring an evidence based, reasoned point of view. Anyone that brings nothing at all but unsubstantiated claims isn’t actually debating, and NO ONE call “win a debate” with someone that is not actually debating. Go ahead and try and see how far you get.
4 Likes
Just to drive the point home - you asked what the point of having a politics forum is. In addition to the social element, this quote here is the point of having a politics forum. Anyone that is actually asking for meaningful debate needs to pay the ante (a poker reference!) and actually bring an informed point of view based on facts and reality.
I agree with this in principle but it does perhaps sound like a loaded standard designed to give you an out to disengage whenever you are annoyed with the direction it’s going. Which you have every right to do so. And maybe one of 50 other people could pick up the slack in that case. Or not and his posts will get lost in the thread by the next day (to distinguish from the shitting on the table analogy).
From what I remember of Kelhus on 2p2 and so far on here, while I disagree with everything he says, the amount of evidence and reasoning he presents in his posts is not out of line with the expectations here. We just don’t like the content.
Again, this is a common thing that wide swaths of people believe. If someone comes up to me on the street and says that, and I can’t explain to him succinctly why that’s wrong, then I truly do think I’ve failed in some way and should self-reflect on my contribution to leftism.
45% of the country does not share that opinion. A massive amount of them wishcast what they’d like to believe conservative politics are, knowing reality has none of that.
They vote for a story in their head. It’s why convincing them is impossible, they’re not looking for anything other than to comfort themselves.
I conceed I may be citing a difference that doesn’t functionally matter.
Kelhus OTOH just likes to make people dance.
Disagree.
3 Likes
You’re not going to convince them or get them to change their mind on the spot. You can definitely put ideas into people’s head though.
This just sounds like nonsense. For example plenty of people who were religious because of their parents or upbringing later became atheists through reason and logic.
If someone comes up to you on the street in a MAGA hat, with a Make America Florida shirt and a Back the Blue sticker, American flag pants, and a Let’s Go Brandon sign, and says “Democrat cities are hellholes,” are you really going to respond succinctly in good faith expecting a chance of changing his mind?
I agree with most of what you posted on this issue except for bolded. He’s not bad faith. At least not mostly. He actually believes most of the dumb shit he posts. Sometimes in the heat of the moment he’s reach into the bad faith toolbox, but he’s at least 90% true believer.
The best way to argue with someone that believes nonsense Fox News assertions in good faith is to just ask them to do the work of proving these nonsense assertions by examining the facts themselves and making the case. If they try to do that, then they will eventually find out that the world is not what Fox News tells them it is, and if they refuse to do that then we know that they aren’t really believing Fox News in good faith, they’re just accepting it because they actually kind of like the idea of ethnofascism and it’s convenient to accept lies to support that outcome.
But he’s not accepting of new information that should/could change his point of view. If his ultimate arbiter of facts is what he hears from Tucker, or whatever, then while his motives may be good faith (ie he is a true believer), he has to be argued with as a de facto bad faith debater, perhaps with a touch more sympathy.
I’ve definitely seen him attempt to do this. Admittedly, I haven’t read any of his posts since he came in with his piping hot takes on that whole spying on Trump nonsense, but IIRC he did make some rudimentary attempts to look at some evidence on that topic and when he was presented with other evidence he read it and folded.
If he was arguing in good faith, he would do this with all his views, see they’re bullshit, and then become a liberal.
Did he truly fold or did he slink away silently, only to argue the same exact nonsense points again days/weeks in the future? That’s what the right wing 2p2ers tended to do.
Well Kelhus will be the first to tell you that he voted for Clinton. I actually believed that. Maybe I’m the gullible dumbass. I realize that doesn’t make him “a liberal” even if true.
As I said, I didn’t read any of his posts after the first few, so you’re going to have to tell me. I’ll take your word for it. If he persisted on that issue related to the Durham report or came back to it, then you’re right. If he went on to different bullshit, then that’s something else.
I don’t know either, and I’m more interested in broad patterns then isolated incidents. I’m also more interested in policy views than the Durham stuff.
You won’t win an arguments, but you would potentially qualify for a Neville Chamberlain Memorial Award. Report to your nearest internment camp to check if you are a winner.
I don’t know, I mean I have friends who wouldn’t wear that outfit of course but are anti-defund, pro-USA#1 status, think Florida is elite, and get down with LGB (don’t we all though). I can and do engage with them in political discussions.
I’ll ask here what the alternative to engagement is. It sure seems like the other options are squeaking by with 51-49 victories in a rigged system and the NotBruceZ method.
Right, I’m hoping there’s another option besides appeasement and WW3.
Wasting time trying to change minds that can’t be changed is very -EV to the cause. You’re better off trying to motivate like-minded people to do more, turn out like-minded people that don’t vote, and/or making a Plan B for when we lose to the rigged system.
Like, if you accepted right now that we were nearly guaranteed to make no progress on left-wing economic issues for at least 15-20 years, what would you do to survive in this deteriorating system and help others? Maybe it’s move to another country, maybe it’s make as much money as you can and donate some, maybe it’s accept being broke and at-risk and volunteer a lot of time.
Any of those seems better than spending a lot of time arguing with bad-faith right wingers, and/or denying the reality of our situation.
IMO the main value of political debating is it forces you to flush out and examine your own arguments, and hopefully re-examine and refine them.