Politics Is Bigotry Stifling Debate?

Remove this Banner Ad

I dunno, may be painting in too broad strokes here, but whenever I see people/posters consistently revert to lazy, blanket terms like - bigot, racist, white privilege etc, I instantly think, 'moron'. Funny thing is, I tend to think that quite often on this particular board.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

twotooto said:
I dunno, may be painting in too broad strokes here, but whenever I see people/posters consistently revert to lazy, blanket terms like - bigot, racist, white privilege etc, I instantly think, 'moron'. Funny thing is, I tend to think that quite often on this particular board.
Click to expand...
So it does reduce your desire to debate?

What about terms like "left", "progressive", "PC" etc?
 
CM86 said:
I can't find many discussions that aren't lead by mainstream media. But at the same time... I can't find many discussions that aren't informed/initiated by MSM.

With such an abundance of information, profit is made by reaching the largest market. And the largest market is people who enjoy drama, and clickbait.

It's so consumer orientated.

False information is free and abundant. Research papers with evidence are often on subscription or individual payment.
Would you rather read a salacious article, or pay for something you are unaware of? Vast majority would chase the free clickbait.
Click to expand...

While I acknowledge and generally embrace most of changing landscapes and agenda's in society across all topics and spectrum's, the MSM are sadly becoming a necessary evil.

1. Only 20 years ago the core values of journalism were based around producing reports based on facts, integrity, decency, impartiality and above all upholding professional standards to maintain the image and public trust of the media industry.
However today (mainly thanks to the proliferation of online digital media and social media platforms) in stark comparison if journalists don't produce articles or stories that create further opinion, debate and outrage then they are simply told to pursue another profession!

2. The fact that most people are simply too busy these days to look beyond 'headlines' also seems to be a very successful strategy for MSM. This is just not an occasional phenomenon it happens nearly every hour of every day.
While we are all used the sensational headlines that often include; 'Horrific', 'Shocking', Terrifying' etc. it's the increasing amount of misdirection in headlines that is the real issue and some of it is simply borderline fraud.
This is a soft example but refer below from several hours ago. If you have no context and/or weren't following the cricket, then from the headline and sub text you could easily assume this poor bastard has been involved in a horrific car accident or similar!
The 'fact' is, he simply suffered a calf muscle strain and will not play any further part in the current match and perhaps a few future matches...

3. It's also obvious the majority of MSM are often using 'freedom of the press' as their right to fabricate and misdirect in support of their specific narratives. This is mainly in relation to the evolving shift towards 'opinion' based content vs actual news/facts, which is there for all the see, even when it is cleverly disguised as 'news'.
Not so long ago the 'opinion' page in most newspapers was just that, one page usually next to the 'Letters to the editor'.
Whereas today, opinion pieces and related articles are nearly the entire newspaper which you'll find is mostly about some form of identity politics and/or with victim-hood narratives, and/or usually involving minority groups.

4. One final point is - I find it hard to believe the amount of exposure and coverage these predominately insignificant extreme left and right wing 'minority groups' get from MSM, but then I guess the various media outlets have determined it successfully attracts online clicks and views while promoting debate and outrage and must also sell newspapers...?

End of rant.

p.s. understand this was/is a bit off topic but the media does often influence peoples various views and beliefs.


Cricket star rushed to hospital.png
 
Last edited:
Rob said:
But I reckon that's mostly a social media thing more than real life. Unfortunately the media now takes it's cues from social media so it appears that's what everyone is like.
Click to expand...
Too true. I'm friends with someone at work precisely because he is such a Trump/Abbott/Bernadi fan, and I am highly critical of all three.

We argue, take the piss out of each other then have a beer and laugh about it. The SRP board doesn't lend itself to the third step, and hardly even the second.
 
Mofra said:
Too true. I'm friends with someone at work precisely because he is such a Trump/Abbott/Bernadi fan, and I am highly critical of all three.

We argue, take the piss out of each other then have a beer and laugh about it. The SRP board doesn't lend itself to the third step, and hardly even the second.
Click to expand...
It's difficult to pick up the "tone" of many posts, written words tend to be black or white and it's a murky grey world.
 
This Is Anfield said:
It's difficult to pick up the "tone" of many posts, written words tend to be black or white and it's a murky grey world.
Click to expand...
We need a sarcasm font. Bill Gates has really dropped the ball on this one.
 
CM86 said:
It doesn't seem to matter what the conversation is. It's always turned into a 'left' vs 'right' confrontation.

And it always seems to turn when there is a obvious/unprovable post that is bigoted.

There seems to be, at most, 10 conversational topics. And they quickly get whittled down to 2-3.

It doesn't matter how the thread starts, it doesn't take long until it becomes a team vs team situation.
This isn't discussion, this is manipulation.


I don't think I can find a topic of SRP that isn't a 'left vs right' avalanche of s**t posting.




There was a thread about an Australian police officer who deliberately harmed an innocent animal. And like many police officers, an excuse was found to excuse him.
And instead of an interesting conversation about positions of power, abuse of power, manipulation of social justice, et al... It became a conversation of people defending Aboriginal culture and Aboriginal people, vs cognisant points infiltrated by bigots who create a side vs side battle.

Suddenly instead of everyone agreeing that mistreatment of animals is bad... We have some people trying to defend and justify the terrible actions, and the rest pointing out that the actions can't be justified.
It's no longer a substantive debate... but a refresh of 1 of the 10 conversations that are made on the SRP board.
Click to expand...


I agree totally with what you have said.

I have little respect for the media.

Now, let me clarify. I have respect for the "real" journos. The ones who go to the war zone, or stand in front of a bushfire while reporting on it.

This is real news. Facts. There is a bushfire. You can see it. Eyewitnesses are interviewed. There is no debate about whether it exists or not.

But there is a second type of "news" that have crept in. I call it "opinion" news. It mainly involves gossip, supposition, perception and opinion pieces.

I have little respect for those types of journos. Why? Well they are being "paid" for their opinion.

I have no problem with someone being paid for doing something not everyone can do. You are paying for "expertise".

But there is no "expertise" in opinions. Everyone has opinions.

The saying goes "Opinions are like assholes. Everyone has one".

My response to that is :- "True. However, opinions don't have assholes, but there are plenty of assholes who have opinions".

I don't see the Susie O'Briens or Andrew Bolts of this world as real journos. They are just opinion mongers who take something that actually happened in the news, and tell you how to think about it, like you are too dumb to form your own opinion. Now, they are entitled to their opinion, but once they get paid for it, they are then looked on as "smarter than the rest of us, so we should listen to them".

Social media is even worse. A pack of losers going on Facebook or Twitter, thinking that we care what you think. Debate is fine, but it often descends into name-calling (and it is easy to do, as I do it too).

Twitter is full of Twits.

So now, people can lose jobs and have their lives destroyed for simply having an opinion others don't agree with.

It makes me think that the saying rings true:- "Ignorance is bliss". We were a better world when we were kept in the dark, and not told so much how to think.
 
This is a very odd thread, can I ask how did you come to the conclusion that possibly bigotry of all things somehow stifles debate? CM86

If anything certainly in msm bigotry is rightly called out immediately or condemned shortly after.

As far as a "left v right" on these pages and to a lesser extent in the real world, well that is not new is it. How that relates to bigotry stifling debate I don't know.

If anything good reasoned debate stifles bigotry (thank *!) very much so in msm. Any whiff of bigotry on msm is quickly condemned. Even here out and out insulting is met with bans and suspensions if reported (generally).

I think to find your answer you need to ask the question what is bigotry? You'll find very varying degrees on that one, and probably should have put this question in your op.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Carringbush2010 said:
This is a very odd thread, can I ask how did you come to the conclusion that possibly bigotry of all things somehow stifles debate? CM86

If anything certainly in msm bigotry is rightly called out immediately or condemned shortly after.

As far as a "left v right" on these pages and to a lesser extent in the real world, well that is not new is it. How that relates to bigotry stifling debate I don't know.

If anything good reasoned debate stifles bigotry (thank *!) very much so in msm. Any whiff of bigotry on msm is quickly condemned. Even here out and out insulting is met with bans and suspensions if reported (generally).

I think to find your answer you need to ask the question what is bigotry? You'll find very varying degrees on that one, and probably should have put this question in your op.
Click to expand...
Could you do me a favour?
Could you read the opening post, and the two pages of this thread? It won't take long.

Cheers.
 
CM86 said:
It doesn't seem to matter what the conversation is. It's always turned into a 'left' vs 'right' confrontation.

And it always seems to turn when there is a obvious/unprovable post that is bigoted.

There seems to be, at most, 10 conversational topics. And they quickly get whittled down to 2-3.

It doesn't matter how the thread starts, it doesn't take long until it becomes a team vs team situation.
This isn't discussion, this is manipulation.


I don't think I can find a topic of SRP that isn't a 'left vs right' avalanche of s**t posting.




There was a thread about an Australian police officer who deliberately harmed an innocent animal. And like many police officers, an excuse was found to excuse him.
And instead of an interesting conversation about positions of power, abuse of power, manipulation of social justice, et al... It became a conversation of people defending Aboriginal culture and Aboriginal people, vs cognisant points infiltrated by bigots who create a side vs side battle.

Suddenly instead of everyone agreeing that mistreatment of animals is bad... We have some people trying to defend and justify the terrible actions, and the d or imply how they are aboverest pointing out that the actions can't be justified.
It's no longer a substantive debate... but a refresh of 1 of the 10 conversations that are made on the SRP board.
Click to expand...
LOL
 
A great thread, CM86. I posted much of the stuff below in a different thread and only discovered this one today; it is far better placed here. If you read that other one, don't bother with this one although I have made some edits.

I read a book that was published this year about this exact problem about a month ago. It provided lots of great, easy, and practical tips for improving the discourse regarding hot topics like the standard SRP fare. Alas, one tip was to (a) don't bother trying to have discussions on social media and (b) especially not Twitter. That said, the second author of the book tweets multiple times a day, mostly to troll the identitarian left as he seems to hold them in contempt.
The book: www.amazon.com/How-Have-Impossible-Conversations-Practical/dp/0738285323

Here is a longish, but still relatively short summary of about half of their tips:

The main thing to do is to think about a big change in strategy when having conversations about topics like this. As a tool for mapping some of what I mean out, I'll set up a hypothetical discussion between you and "Pop", and the discussion will be about bushfires and climate change. In this situation, we can pretend that it's a discussion you have decided to initiate, so you've had the chance to plan a few things out first. I'm also assuming you believe that climate change is a major factor in the current bushfire crisis.

1. Be certain about what falls within the bounds of the discussion and what does not.
To start with, I'd spend a bit of time working out what the actual argument is about. In the example of bushfires, the argument is NOT whether bushfires were not happening in the past, but now they are happening. This will probably come up e.g., "There have always been bushfires!" Of course there have always been bushfires and only a fool would try to argue otherwise. The argument is that there is something meaningfully different about the bushfires that are happening now compared to the ones that were happening before. What is that something exactly? In other words, what is the point you are hoping to prosecute? Once you narrow that down, you can make it clear in the discussion early so that you both can agree on what you're talking about and what you're not talking about.

2. Establish a shared understanding about key terms and the topic itself before talking about that topic.
It's worth spending some time early on in the discussion building a shared understanding on what different words mean. An example I've seen where this has gone wrong on BigFooty includes the thread on political correctness - people arguing about the effects of political correctness without first agreeing on what PC is exactly. In these cases, two people might actually agree with each other, but for the fact they have different working definitions of political correctness. Another example is the "Corbyn is anti-semite"/"no he isn't" discussion. In that thread, people are busy arguing about Corbyn, when they've not yet agreed on what anti-semite actually means. Maybe on Bigfooty, if you're starting a thread, define any terms that might be misconstrued.

3a. Try to work out people's motives (i.e. reasons they are arguing for a position)
3b. and their epistemology (i.e., where they get their understanding from, and their level of certainty about that understanding)
Next, I'd want to invest as much time as possible in the discussion to understanding why your partner's pop thinks the way he thinks, and less on what he thinks. It is useful to start with what he thinks or believes, otherwise there can be no real discussion, but when you do, resist the urge to quickly correct or rebut his beliefs, and instead try to learn where he has got those beliefs from and what motives drive those. There are many paths that lead to a particular belief, and you want to learn what path your counterpart has taken.

Achieve this by asking questions, and NEVER fill in the gaps yourself! That is a fast way to straw-man somebody, or accuse somebody of dog-whistling prematurely. Instead, ask if you can steel-man their position. Steel-manning is where you state your understanding of their position back to them and ask them to confirm that you have it right, or correct any misgivings.

E.g.,
You: So, with these bushfires, do you think they're worse than the ones we had 20 years ago?
Pop: No, of course not! Australia is a hot country. We've always had fires! This is no different.
You: Okay, to be clear, you think these fires are just like any of the other major ones? (shared understanding / steel-manning)
Pop: Yes
You: Thanks for clarifying that. So, if that is true, why do you think that so much is being made of these particular fires? (this might make him stop and think)
Pop: Well, the left-wing media is always looking for a story. Also, Australia has more people than it used to, and so more people today can be threatened by fire of the same size, and so it probably attracts more attention. (the first one is way more complex than the second one, so maybe focus on the second)
You: You're right - there are more people in Aus than ever before. That is an interesting perspective I've not thought of before. Can you tell me why you think that there are more people living in fire prone areas? Like, if I wanted to learn more about this, where should I go to find out?
Pop: Hmm, well, good question. I remember reading about this in the SMH one day and someone on the radio mentioned it.

Here you might also consider asking him how sure he is about a statement or about the knowledge that has led to that understanding he has, e.g.:
You: Could you give me a sense of how sure you are that this would be a factor? I think we're both 100% sure the sun will rise tomorrow, and we honestly probably have no idea who will with the next AFL grand final, as much as we wish otherwise. Along that spectrum, how sure are you?
If pop says anything other than absolute certainty, you could ask him why he isn't absolutely certain.

There are a few things going on, and all of them are helpful to the discussion:
1. You're not arguing with your counterpart, you're learning from him/her. Learning and teaching are a lot more fun and interesting than arguing. Also, in going through this process your counterpart is learning about their own position too. We take a lot of what we believe for granted, by asking these questions, your counterpart really has to think through their reasoning.

2. In particular, you're learning about the way your counterpart thinks about the issue. Where (s)he gets his info from, how sure he is about it. If you can learn enough about how and why he thinks the way he does, it unlocks many new avenues.

A recent example appeared in the thread on what must the left do to win again. One poster said something like, "I don't understand why people are more fearful of unions than of [authoritian bodies like corporations, rich people]."
I remember thinking, "yeah that is really strange, and yet it's true", so I clicked 'Like'
Then another person replied "Well, I work in construction, and here is a bunch of stuff I've seen our union do. [description of some pretty dodgy union antics]"

In that moment, a lot of things made sense to me. If I had experienced what the second poster had experienced, then I am also likely to dislike unions too. It seemed completely reasonable, and not strange. It didn't make me start hating unions, but it did make me realise that if I want people to like unions more, then I have to consider perspectives like this one.

It's never a bad idea to try to understand the other person's motivation. Many fall into the trap of assuming that people who disagree with us are motivated by the 'wrong' things, and so we don't bother asking.

3. Just by asking about the source of his knowledge, you're sowing some seeds of doubt into the validity of knowledge he has assumed as being true. Hmmm, did I really pay close attention to that radio show? I can't even remember when it was. Is it possible that I might have missed something? You don't even need to ask these questions as he might be asking them of himself already. This is a good thing, too, because often we over-rely on our memory, which is hugely flawed.

I think too that it's a good idea to ask the same sorts of questions about your own knowledge. E.g., why is it that you are so sure that bushfires are worse than before? What have you read or seen that is so convincing? Can you trust those sources? If so, why? Are there any other potential explanations for what's going on than climate change? This will allow you to test the limits of your own certainty.

Try doing the above for a bit and see how it goes. It takes patience and a lot of self control not to jump right in there, but instead of approaching it as an opportunity to put forward your point of view and "win the argument!!!", approach it as an opportunity to learn how other people think about things. The key to changing minds is to understanding the mind that you want to change, not spammin that mind again and again with your own thoughts.


A couple of other smaller tips:
1. Just forget about bringing up facts, except in certain situations. Facts are only useful when they are wanted. E.g., you and pop might agree that you neither of you know whether a particular claim is true or false. A quick Google could resolve it, and might be welcome as this point. But before hitting up Google, spend a bit of time working out with pop reaching an agreement on what is a good source of information (e.g., wikipedia, Quora, the first hit from a search).

Most people think facts will be persuasive, but more often than not, unsolicited facts are just interpreted as signals of elitism. If you truly think pop is factually wrong about something, then rather than just showing him the fact, you want to set things up so that, one day, he will discover for himself that he was wrong. If you have planted seeds of doubt about his knowledge (as per above), then this is likely to happen naturally at some point. Be patient, and if it does happen, don't "I told you so!" him; it's a dick move designed to make you feel superior for a brief moment.

2. Always assume that your counterpart is a good person, who wants many of the same things as you want. It's almost certainly a valid assumption because most people fundamentally want to do the right thing. Your pop wants you and your partner to have good productive, healthy, happy lives. He probably doesn't hate all black people, doesn't want Australia to burn down, probably wants fewer people to be unemployed or homeless, and so forth. If your counterpart says something that seems to contradict this assumption, rather than biting back, try to think of a way to explain how both things can be true (e.g., what could possibly explain how a good person who believes in equality of opportunity, also believes that transgender M-->F should not have access the ladies' bathroom?). Ask questions that get at understanding the motive, rather than getting outraged and making moral arguments (as often happens here). Give them the benefit of any doubt - there aren't that many total dickheads around, and they're not likely to all be on BigFooty. More likely, the person you're disagreeing with just has a different set of motives, but still good motives.

3. You can also test the boundaries of the motive by throwing hypotheticals at him (e.g., what an M-->F person, who is dressed like a woman, but it's clear that she is transgender, was making a pit stop in a very conservative country town. The only toilets nearby are at the pub, and this person doesn't feel safe going into the men's room. Should she still have to use the men's room here?). Don't judge his responses; just use them to work out what he thinks is okay and not okay. From doing this, you can often get a better sense of what a person's guiding principle or motive is. From there, it's far easier to have better discussions.

4. Avoid discussing the person (you think, I think) and instead talk about the statements, positions, and arguments ("The statement you made was XXXX").

5. Never use value-laden labels like 'sexist', 'racist', 'snowflake', 'cuck', 'incel', 'SJW', 'Marxist', 'Nazi', 'troll'. It's hard to come back from that in a conversation. If one is used on you, decide whether you want to continue the conversation. If so, take a deep breath, and maybe some time away, and try again later. If no, then walk away, don't fight back.

6. If you think somebody is a troll, just block them and walk away from them. You don't owe anyone here a reply to anything.

I'd be interested in learning how people go with this. There are plenty more pointers in the book.
(For those wondering, I have not financial stake in the book whatsoever!)
 
CM86 said:
Could you do me a favour?
Could you read the opening post, and the two pages of this thread? It won't take long.

Cheers.
Click to expand...

Did that before I posted cm, there's no logic to link bigotry stifling debate. If anything it's the other way around.

Could you do me a favour? Please tell us all how you came to this theoretical possibility.
 
Patrick Bullet said:
1. Be certain about what falls within the bounds of the discussion and what does not.
Click to expand...

Hey PB,

On this point it is pretty much an end thread, unless of course you could come up with a reasonable argument to suggest that somehow bigotry does actually stifle debate.

As I've pointed out earlier bigotry is readily condemned by all varying degrees of left and right, it's not really up for dispute.

This thread is underpinned by a left v right mantra, that's all it is.

Your whole post has boiled downed and dissected the whole left v right debate, not whether or not bigotry does actually stifle debate.

Not having a go at you or the op, I just think the thought of bigotry stifling debate is somewhat not possible because anyone but anyone who is not a bigot calls it out however that anyone views what bigotry is. Even inadvertent bigots themselves would call out bigotry however they see it.
 
Last edited:
Patrick Bullet said:
A great thread, CM86. I posted much of the stuff below in a different thread and only discovered this one today; it is far better placed here. If you read that other one, don't bother with this one although I have made some edits.

I read a book that was published this year about this exact problem about a month ago. It provided lots of great, easy, and practical tips for improving the discourse regarding hot topics like the standard SRP fare. Alas, one tip was to (a) don't bother trying to have discussions on social media and (b) especially not Twitter. That said, the second author of the book tweets multiple times a day, mostly to troll the identitarian left as he seems to hold them in contempt.
The book: www.amazon.com/How-Have-Impossible-Conversations-Practical/dp/0738285323

Here is a longish, but still relatively short summary of about half of their tips:

The main thing to do is to think about a big change in strategy when having conversations about topics like this. As a tool for mapping some of what I mean out, I'll set up a hypothetical discussion between you and "Pop", and the discussion will be about bushfires and climate change. In this situation, we can pretend that it's a discussion you have decided to initiate, so you've had the chance to plan a few things out first. I'm also assuming you believe that climate change is a major factor in the current bushfire crisis.

1. Be certain about what falls within the bounds of the discussion and what does not.
To start with, I'd spend a bit of time working out what the actual argument is about. In the example of bushfires, the argument is NOT whether bushfires were not happening in the past, but now they are happening. This will probably come up e.g., "There have always been bushfires!" Of course there have always been bushfires and only a fool would try to argue otherwise. The argument is that there is something meaningfully different about the bushfires that are happening now compared to the ones that were happening before. What is that something exactly? In other words, what is the point you are hoping to prosecute? Once you narrow that down, you can make it clear in the discussion early so that you both can agree on what you're talking about and what you're not talking about.

2. Establish a shared understanding about key terms and the topic itself before talking about that topic.
It's worth spending some time early on in the discussion building a shared understanding on what different words mean. An example I've seen where this has gone wrong on BigFooty includes the thread on political correctness - people arguing about the effects of political correctness without first agreeing on what PC is exactly. In these cases, two people might actually agree with each other, but for the fact they have different working definitions of political correctness. Another example is the "Corbyn is anti-semite"/"no he isn't" discussion. In that thread, people are busy arguing about Corbyn, when they've not yet agreed on what anti-semite actually means. Maybe on Bigfooty, if you're starting a thread, define any terms that might be misconstrued.

3a. Try to work out people's motives (i.e. reasons they are arguing for a position)
3b. and their epistemology (i.e., where they get their understanding from, and their level of certainty about that understanding)
Next, I'd want to invest as much time as possible in the discussion to understanding why your partner's pop thinks the way he thinks, and less on what he thinks. It is useful to start with what he thinks or believes, otherwise there can be no real discussion, but when you do, resist the urge to quickly correct or rebut his beliefs, and instead try to learn where he has got those beliefs from and what motives drive those. There are many paths that lead to a particular belief, and you want to learn what path your counterpart has taken.

Achieve this by asking questions, and NEVER fill in the gaps yourself! That is a fast way to straw-man somebody, or accuse somebody of dog-whistling prematurely. Instead, ask if you can steel-man their position. Steel-manning is where you state your understanding of their position back to them and ask them to confirm that you have it right, or correct any misgivings.

E.g.,
You: So, with these bushfires, do you think they're worse than the ones we had 20 years ago?
Pop: No, of course not! Australia is a hot country. We've always had fires! This is no different.
You: Okay, to be clear, you think these fires are just like any of the other major ones? (shared understanding / steel-manning)
Pop: Yes
You: Thanks for clarifying that. So, if that is true, why do you think that so much is being made of these particular fires? (this might make him stop and think)
Pop: Well, the left-wing media is always looking for a story. Also, Australia has more people than it used to, and so more people today can be threatened by fire of the same size, and so it probably attracts more attention. (the first one is way more complex than the second one, so maybe focus on the second)
You: You're right - there are more people in Aus than ever before. That is an interesting perspective I've not thought of before. Can you tell me why you think that there are more people living in fire prone areas? Like, if I wanted to learn more about this, where should I go to find out?
Pop: Hmm, well, good question. I remember reading about this in the SMH one day and someone on the radio mentioned it.

Here you might also consider asking him how sure he is about a statement or about the knowledge that has led to that understanding he has, e.g.:
You: Could you give me a sense of how sure you are that this would be a factor? I think we're both 100% sure the sun will rise tomorrow, and we honestly probably have no idea who will with the next AFL grand final, as much as we wish otherwise. Along that spectrum, how sure are you?
If pop says anything other than absolute certainty, you could ask him why he isn't absolutely certain.

There are a few things going on, and all of them are helpful to the discussion:
1. You're not arguing with your counterpart, you're learning from him/her. Learning and teaching are a lot more fun and interesting than arguing. Also, in going through this process your counterpart is learning about their own position too. We take a lot of what we believe for granted, by asking these questions, your counterpart really has to think through their reasoning.

2. In particular, you're learning about the way your counterpart thinks about the issue. Where (s)he gets his info from, how sure he is about it. If you can learn enough about how and why he thinks the way he does, it unlocks many new avenues.

A recent example appeared in the thread on what must the left do to win again. One poster said something like, "I don't understand why people are more fearful of unions than of [authoritian bodies like corporations, rich people]."
I remember thinking, "yeah that is really strange, and yet it's true", so I clicked 'Like'
Then another person replied "Well, I work in construction, and here is a bunch of stuff I've seen our union do. [description of some pretty dodgy union antics]"

In that moment, a lot of things made sense to me. If I had experienced what the second poster had experienced, then I am also likely to dislike unions too. It seemed completely reasonable, and not strange. It didn't make me start hating unions, but it did make me realise that if I want people to like unions more, then I have to consider perspectives like this one.

It's never a bad idea to try to understand the other person's motivation. Many fall into the trap of assuming that people who disagree with us are motivated by the 'wrong' things, and so we don't bother asking.

3. Just by asking about the source of his knowledge, you're sowing some seeds of doubt into the validity of knowledge he has assumed as being true. Hmmm, did I really pay close attention to that radio show? I can't even remember when it was. Is it possible that I might have missed something? You don't even need to ask these questions as he might be asking them of himself already. This is a good thing, too, because often we over-rely on our memory, which is hugely flawed.

I think too that it's a good idea to ask the same sorts of questions about your own knowledge. E.g., why is it that you are so sure that bushfires are worse than before? What have you read or seen that is so convincing? Can you trust those sources? If so, why? Are there any other potential explanations for what's going on than climate change? This will allow you to test the limits of your own certainty.

Try doing the above for a bit and see how it goes. It takes patience and a lot of self control not to jump right in there, but instead of approaching it as an opportunity to put forward your point of view and "win the argument!!!", approach it as an opportunity to learn how other people think about things. The key to changing minds is to understanding the mind that you want to change, not spammin that mind again and again with your own thoughts.


A couple of other smaller tips:
1. Just forget about bringing up facts, except in certain situations. Facts are only useful when they are wanted. E.g., you and pop might agree that you neither of you know whether a particular claim is true or false. A quick Google could resolve it, and might be welcome as this point. But before hitting up Google, spend a bit of time working out with pop reaching an agreement on what is a good source of information (e.g., wikipedia, Quora, the first hit from a search).

Most people think facts will be persuasive, but more often than not, unsolicited facts are just interpreted as signals of elitism. If you truly think pop is factually wrong about something, then rather than just showing him the fact, you want to set things up so that, one day, he will discover for himself that he was wrong. If you have planted seeds of doubt about his knowledge (as per above), then this is likely to happen naturally at some point. Be patient, and if it does happen, don't "I told you so!" him; it's a dick move designed to make you feel superior for a brief moment.

2. Always assume that your counterpart is a good person, who wants many of the same things as you want. It's almost certainly a valid assumption because most people fundamentally want to do the right thing. Your pop wants you and your partner to have good productive, healthy, happy lives. He probably doesn't hate all black people, doesn't want Australia to burn down, probably wants fewer people to be unemployed or homeless, and so forth. If your counterpart says something that seems to contradict this assumption, rather than biting back, try to think of a way to explain how both things can be true (e.g., what could possibly explain how a good person who believes in equality of opportunity, also believes that transgender M-->F should not have access the ladies' bathroom?). Ask questions that get at understanding the motive, rather than getting outraged and making moral arguments (as often happens here). Give them the benefit of any doubt - there aren't that many total dickheads around, and they're not likely to all be on BigFooty. More likely, the person you're disagreeing with just has a different set of motives, but still good motives.

3. You can also test the boundaries of the motive by throwing hypotheticals at him (e.g., what an M-->F person, who is dressed like a woman, but it's clear that she is transgender, was making a pit stop in a very conservative country town. The only toilets nearby are at the pub, and this person doesn't feel safe going into the men's room. Should she still have to use the men's room here?). Don't judge his responses; just use them to work out what he thinks is okay and not okay. From doing this, you can often get a better sense of what a person's guiding principle or motive is. From there, it's far easier to have better discussions.

4. Avoid discussing the person (you think, I think) and instead talk about the statements, positions, and arguments ("The statement you made was XXXX").

5. Never use value-laden labels like 'sexist', 'racist', 'snowflake', 'cuck', 'incel', 'SJW', 'Marxist', 'Nazi', 'troll'. It's hard to come back from that in a conversation. If one is used on you, decide whether you want to continue the conversation. If so, take a deep breath, and maybe some time away, and try again later. If no, then walk away, don't fight back.

6. If you think somebody is a troll, just block them and walk away from them. You don't owe anyone here a reply to anything.

I'd be interested in learning how people go with this. There are plenty more pointers in the book.
(For those wondering, I have not financial stake in the book whatsoever!)
Click to expand...
Thanks Patrick Bullet, a really good read.
I think a lot of posters believe they do that to some degree. I've noticed that there are posters who become frustrated with being questioned and made to think about and explain their position.

I've tried it a few times with negative results.
But, I've also been assuming their motivations, and I've been posting with an agenda. So it will be interesting to see if I can engage in more meaningful discussion with the above advice.

I really enjoyed the discussion you developed in the political mojo thread.
 
Carringbush2010 said:
Hey PB,

On this point it is pretty much an end thread, unless of course you could come up with a reasonable argument to suggest that somehow bigotry does actually stifle debate.

As I've pointed out earlier bigotry is readily condemned by all varying degrees of left and right, it's not really up for dispute.

This thread is underpinned by a left v right mantra, that's all it is.

Your whole post has boiled downed and dissected the whole left v right debate, not whether or not bigotry does actually stifle debate.

Not having a go at you or the op, I just think the thought of bigotry stifling debate is somewhat not possible because anyone but anyone who is not a bigot calls it out however that anyone views what bigotry is. Even inadvertent bigots themselves would call out bigotry however they see it.
Click to expand...
Oh my goodness; I read "BigFooty" not "Bigotry" in the title. Oops!! Sorry CM86
 
Patrick Bullet said:
A great thread, CM86. I posted much of the stuff below in a different thread and only discovered this one today; it is far better placed here. If you read that other one, don't bother with this one although I have made some edits.

I read a book that was published this year about this exact problem about a month ago. It provided lots of great, easy, and practical tips for improving the discourse regarding hot topics like the standard SRP fare. Alas, one tip was to (a) don't bother trying to have discussions on social media and (b) especially not Twitter. That said, the second author of the book tweets multiple times a day, mostly to troll the identitarian left as he seems to hold them in contempt.
The book: www.amazon.com/How-Have-Impossible-Conversations-Practical/dp/0738285323

Here is a longish, but still relatively short summary of about half of their tips:

The main thing to do is to think about a big change in strategy when having conversations about topics like this. As a tool for mapping some of what I mean out, I'll set up a hypothetical discussion between you and "Pop", and the discussion will be about bushfires and climate change. In this situation, we can pretend that it's a discussion you have decided to initiate, so you've had the chance to plan a few things out first. I'm also assuming you believe that climate change is a major factor in the current bushfire crisis.

1. Be certain about what falls within the bounds of the discussion and what does not.
To start with, I'd spend a bit of time working out what the actual argument is about. In the example of bushfires, the argument is NOT whether bushfires were not happening in the past, but now they are happening. This will probably come up e.g., "There have always been bushfires!" Of course there have always been bushfires and only a fool would try to argue otherwise. The argument is that there is something meaningfully different about the bushfires that are happening now compared to the ones that were happening before. What is that something exactly? In other words, what is the point you are hoping to prosecute? Once you narrow that down, you can make it clear in the discussion early so that you both can agree on what you're talking about and what you're not talking about.

2. Establish a shared understanding about key terms and the topic itself before talking about that topic.
It's worth spending some time early on in the discussion building a shared understanding on what different words mean. An example I've seen where this has gone wrong on BigFooty includes the thread on political correctness - people arguing about the effects of political correctness without first agreeing on what PC is exactly. In these cases, two people might actually agree with each other, but for the fact they have different working definitions of political correctness. Another example is the "Corbyn is anti-semite"/"no he isn't" discussion. In that thread, people are busy arguing about Corbyn, when they've not yet agreed on what anti-semite actually means. Maybe on Bigfooty, if you're starting a thread, define any terms that might be misconstrued.

3a. Try to work out people's motives (i.e. reasons they are arguing for a position)
3b. and their epistemology (i.e., where they get their understanding from, and their level of certainty about that understanding)
Next, I'd want to invest as much time as possible in the discussion to understanding why your partner's pop thinks the way he thinks, and less on what he thinks. It is useful to start with what he thinks or believes, otherwise there can be no real discussion, but when you do, resist the urge to quickly correct or rebut his beliefs, and instead try to learn where he has got those beliefs from and what motives drive those. There are many paths that lead to a particular belief, and you want to learn what path your counterpart has taken.

Achieve this by asking questions, and NEVER fill in the gaps yourself! That is a fast way to straw-man somebody, or accuse somebody of dog-whistling prematurely. Instead, ask if you can steel-man their position. Steel-manning is where you state your understanding of their position back to them and ask them to confirm that you have it right, or correct any misgivings.

E.g.,
You: So, with these bushfires, do you think they're worse than the ones we had 20 years ago?
Pop: No, of course not! Australia is a hot country. We've always had fires! This is no different.
You: Okay, to be clear, you think these fires are just like any of the other major ones? (shared understanding / steel-manning)
Pop: Yes
You: Thanks for clarifying that. So, if that is true, why do you think that so much is being made of these particular fires? (this might make him stop and think)
Pop: Well, the left-wing media is always looking for a story. Also, Australia has more people than it used to, and so more people today can be threatened by fire of the same size, and so it probably attracts more attention. (the first one is way more complex than the second one, so maybe focus on the second)
You: You're right - there are more people in Aus than ever before. That is an interesting perspective I've not thought of before. Can you tell me why you think that there are more people living in fire prone areas? Like, if I wanted to learn more about this, where should I go to find out?
Pop: Hmm, well, good question. I remember reading about this in the SMH one day and someone on the radio mentioned it.

Here you might also consider asking him how sure he is about a statement or about the knowledge that has led to that understanding he has, e.g.:
You: Could you give me a sense of how sure you are that this would be a factor? I think we're both 100% sure the sun will rise tomorrow, and we honestly probably have no idea who will with the next AFL grand final, as much as we wish otherwise. Along that spectrum, how sure are you?
If pop says anything other than absolute certainty, you could ask him why he isn't absolutely certain.

There are a few things going on, and all of them are helpful to the discussion:
1. You're not arguing with your counterpart, you're learning from him/her. Learning and teaching are a lot more fun and interesting than arguing. Also, in going through this process your counterpart is learning about their own position too. We take a lot of what we believe for granted, by asking these questions, your counterpart really has to think through their reasoning.

2. In particular, you're learning about the way your counterpart thinks about the issue. Where (s)he gets his info from, how sure he is about it. If you can learn enough about how and why he thinks the way he does, it unlocks many new avenues.

A recent example appeared in the thread on what must the left do to win again. One poster said something like, "I don't understand why people are more fearful of unions than of [authoritian bodies like corporations, rich people]."
I remember thinking, "yeah that is really strange, and yet it's true", so I clicked 'Like'
Then another person replied "Well, I work in construction, and here is a bunch of stuff I've seen our union do. [description of some pretty dodgy union antics]"

In that moment, a lot of things made sense to me. If I had experienced what the second poster had experienced, then I am also likely to dislike unions too. It seemed completely reasonable, and not strange. It didn't make me start hating unions, but it did make me realise that if I want people to like unions more, then I have to consider perspectives like this one.

It's never a bad idea to try to understand the other person's motivation. Many fall into the trap of assuming that people who disagree with us are motivated by the 'wrong' things, and so we don't bother asking.

3. Just by asking about the source of his knowledge, you're sowing some seeds of doubt into the validity of knowledge he has assumed as being true. Hmmm, did I really pay close attention to that radio show? I can't even remember when it was. Is it possible that I might have missed something? You don't even need to ask these questions as he might be asking them of himself already. This is a good thing, too, because often we over-rely on our memory, which is hugely flawed.

I think too that it's a good idea to ask the same sorts of questions about your own knowledge. E.g., why is it that you are so sure that bushfires are worse than before? What have you read or seen that is so convincing? Can you trust those sources? If so, why? Are there any other potential explanations for what's going on than climate change? This will allow you to test the limits of your own certainty.

Try doing the above for a bit and see how it goes. It takes patience and a lot of self control not to jump right in there, but instead of approaching it as an opportunity to put forward your point of view and "win the argument!!!", approach it as an opportunity to learn how other people think about things. The key to changing minds is to understanding the mind that you want to change, not spammin that mind again and again with your own thoughts.


A couple of other smaller tips:
1. Just forget about bringing up facts, except in certain situations. Facts are only useful when they are wanted. E.g., you and pop might agree that you neither of you know whether a particular claim is true or false. A quick Google could resolve it, and might be welcome as this point. But before hitting up Google, spend a bit of time working out with pop reaching an agreement on what is a good source of information (e.g., wikipedia, Quora, the first hit from a search).

Most people think facts will be persuasive, but more often than not, unsolicited facts are just interpreted as signals of elitism. If you truly think pop is factually wrong about something, then rather than just showing him the fact, you want to set things up so that, one day, he will discover for himself that he was wrong. If you have planted seeds of doubt about his knowledge (as per above), then this is likely to happen naturally at some point. Be patient, and if it does happen, don't "I told you so!" him; it's a dick move designed to make you feel superior for a brief moment.

2. Always assume that your counterpart is a good person, who wants many of the same things as you want. It's almost certainly a valid assumption because most people fundamentally want to do the right thing. Your pop wants you and your partner to have good productive, healthy, happy lives. He probably doesn't hate all black people, doesn't want Australia to burn down, probably wants fewer people to be unemployed or homeless, and so forth. If your counterpart says something that seems to contradict this assumption, rather than biting back, try to think of a way to explain how both things can be true (e.g., what could possibly explain how a good person who believes in equality of opportunity, also believes that transgender M-->F should not have access the ladies' bathroom?). Ask questions that get at understanding the motive, rather than getting outraged and making moral arguments (as often happens here). Give them the benefit of any doubt - there aren't that many total dickheads around, and they're not likely to all be on BigFooty. More likely, the person you're disagreeing with just has a different set of motives, but still good motives.

3. You can also test the boundaries of the motive by throwing hypotheticals at him (e.g., what an M-->F person, who is dressed like a woman, but it's clear that she is transgender, was making a pit stop in a very conservative country town. The only toilets nearby are at the pub, and this person doesn't feel safe going into the men's room. Should she still have to use the men's room here?). Don't judge his responses; just use them to work out what he thinks is okay and not okay. From doing this, you can often get a better sense of what a person's guiding principle or motive is. From there, it's far easier to have better discussions.

4. Avoid discussing the person (you think, I think) and instead talk about the statements, positions, and arguments ("The statement you made was XXXX").

5. Never use value-laden labels like 'sexist', 'racist', 'snowflake', 'cuck', 'incel', 'SJW', 'Marxist', 'Nazi', 'troll'. It's hard to come back from that in a conversation. If one is used on you, decide whether you want to continue the conversation. If so, take a deep breath, and maybe some time away, and try again later. If no, then walk away, don't fight back.

6. If you think somebody is a troll, just block them and walk away from them. You don't owe anyone here a reply to anything.

I'd be interested in learning how people go with this. There are plenty more pointers in the book.
(For those wondering, I have not financial stake in the book whatsoever!)
Click to expand...


In response to each point,

1. If you are talking about a situation TODAY, say that in your discussion. How are people to know what you mean, if you say "bushfires" and don't clarify.

It is up to YOU to explain what you are arguing, not up to others to guess.

Besides, history does matter, and what happened in the past does have relevency to the present. "Those who ignore history.....".

2. People have different thoughts on what something means. One person saying someone is anti-Semite may be talking about Nazis or hate-groups, the other person sees any criticism of Jewish people whatsoever as "anti-Semite". So who determines which meaning is right?

3. Ask the other person why they think the way they do, but you need to also ask yourself why YOU hold a certain position as well.

Look at yourself first, and your own biases before asking why someone doesn't think like you do.

I think 90% of opinions held are based on past experience, and also peer pressure, as most people just go along with the crowd, because they want to please people. If they had to die for that belief, they wouldn't.

4. Most importantly, don't assume that you are right, and the other person needs to be understood. If something is important to you, you are the one who needs to do the work convincing. You can't just push an issue, and if someone isn't as passionate, don't just write them off as stupid.
 
Carringbush2010 said:
Hey PB,

On this point it is pretty much an end thread, unless of course you could come up with a reasonable argument to suggest that somehow bigotry does actually stifle debate.

As I've pointed out earlier bigotry is readily condemned by all varying degrees of left and right, it's not really up for dispute.

This thread is underpinned by a left v right mantra, that's all it is.

Your whole post has boiled downed and dissected the whole left v right debate, not whether or not bigotry does actually stifle debate.

Not having a go at you or the op, I just think the thought of bigotry stifling debate is somewhat not possible because anyone but anyone who is not a bigot calls it out however that anyone views what bigotry is. Even inadvertent bigots themselves would call out bigotry however they see it.
Click to expand...
Bigotry certainly stifles good debate.

Consider that debate is a means to learning. If you are bigoted, you hold fast to your own viewpoints and refuse to consider others, regardless of how compelling they are. If that's the case, any debate, discussion or argument a bigot engages in will likely be extremely limited in scope, lacking critical thinking and is self-serving rather than seeking truth or understanding.
 
Patrick Bullet said:
A great thread, CM86. I posted much of the stuff below in a different thread and only discovered this one today; it is far better placed here. If you read that other one, don't bother with this one although I have made some edits.

I read a book that was published this year about this exact problem about a month ago. It provided lots of great, easy, and practical tips for improving the discourse regarding hot topics like the standard SRP fare. Alas, one tip was to (a) don't bother trying to have discussions on social media and (b) especially not Twitter. That said, the second author of the book tweets multiple times a day, mostly to troll the identitarian left as he seems to hold them in contempt.
The book: www.amazon.com/How-Have-Impossible-Conversations-Practical/dp/0738285323

Here is a longish, but still relatively short summary of about half of their tips:

The main thing to do is to think about a big change in strategy when having conversations about topics like this. As a tool for mapping some of what I mean out, I'll set up a hypothetical discussion between you and "Pop", and the discussion will be about bushfires and climate change. In this situation, we can pretend that it's a discussion you have decided to initiate, so you've had the chance to plan a few things out first. I'm also assuming you believe that climate change is a major factor in the current bushfire crisis.

1. Be certain about what falls within the bounds of the discussion and what does not.
To start with, I'd spend a bit of time working out what the actual argument is about. In the example of bushfires, the argument is NOT whether bushfires were not happening in the past, but now they are happening. This will probably come up e.g., "There have always been bushfires!" Of course there have always been bushfires and only a fool would try to argue otherwise. The argument is that there is something meaningfully different about the bushfires that are happening now compared to the ones that were happening before. What is that something exactly? In other words, what is the point you are hoping to prosecute? Once you narrow that down, you can make it clear in the discussion early so that you both can agree on what you're talking about and what you're not talking about.

2. Establish a shared understanding about key terms and the topic itself before talking about that topic.
It's worth spending some time early on in the discussion building a shared understanding on what different words mean. An example I've seen where this has gone wrong on BigFooty includes the thread on political correctness - people arguing about the effects of political correctness without first agreeing on what PC is exactly. In these cases, two people might actually agree with each other, but for the fact they have different working definitions of political correctness. Another example is the "Corbyn is anti-semite"/"no he isn't" discussion. In that thread, people are busy arguing about Corbyn, when they've not yet agreed on what anti-semite actually means. Maybe on Bigfooty, if you're starting a thread, define any terms that might be misconstrued.

3a. Try to work out people's motives (i.e. reasons they are arguing for a position)
3b. and their epistemology (i.e., where they get their understanding from, and their level of certainty about that understanding)
Next, I'd want to invest as much time as possible in the discussion to understanding why your partner's pop thinks the way he thinks, and less on what he thinks. It is useful to start with what he thinks or believes, otherwise there can be no real discussion, but when you do, resist the urge to quickly correct or rebut his beliefs, and instead try to learn where he has got those beliefs from and what motives drive those. There are many paths that lead to a particular belief, and you want to learn what path your counterpart has taken.

Achieve this by asking questions, and NEVER fill in the gaps yourself! That is a fast way to straw-man somebody, or accuse somebody of dog-whistling prematurely. Instead, ask if you can steel-man their position. Steel-manning is where you state your understanding of their position back to them and ask them to confirm that you have it right, or correct any misgivings.

E.g.,
You: So, with these bushfires, do you think they're worse than the ones we had 20 years ago?
Pop: No, of course not! Australia is a hot country. We've always had fires! This is no different.
You: Okay, to be clear, you think these fires are just like any of the other major ones? (shared understanding / steel-manning)
Pop: Yes
You: Thanks for clarifying that. So, if that is true, why do you think that so much is being made of these particular fires? (this might make him stop and think)
Pop: Well, the left-wing media is always looking for a story. Also, Australia has more people than it used to, and so more people today can be threatened by fire of the same size, and so it probably attracts more attention. (the first one is way more complex than the second one, so maybe focus on the second)
You: You're right - there are more people in Aus than ever before. That is an interesting perspective I've not thought of before. Can you tell me why you think that there are more people living in fire prone areas? Like, if I wanted to learn more about this, where should I go to find out?
Pop: Hmm, well, good question. I remember reading about this in the SMH one day and someone on the radio mentioned it.

Here you might also consider asking him how sure he is about a statement or about the knowledge that has led to that understanding he has, e.g.:
You: Could you give me a sense of how sure you are that this would be a factor? I think we're both 100% sure the sun will rise tomorrow, and we honestly probably have no idea who will with the next AFL grand final, as much as we wish otherwise. Along that spectrum, how sure are you?
If pop says anything other than absolute certainty, you could ask him why he isn't absolutely certain.

There are a few things going on, and all of them are helpful to the discussion:
1. You're not arguing with your counterpart, you're learning from him/her. Learning and teaching are a lot more fun and interesting than arguing. Also, in going through this process your counterpart is learning about their own position too. We take a lot of what we believe for granted, by asking these questions, your counterpart really has to think through their reasoning.

2. In particular, you're learning about the way your counterpart thinks about the issue. Where (s)he gets his info from, how sure he is about it. If you can learn enough about how and why he thinks the way he does, it unlocks many new avenues.

A recent example appeared in the thread on what must the left do to win again. One poster said something like, "I don't understand why people are more fearful of unions than of [authoritian bodies like corporations, rich people]."
I remember thinking, "yeah that is really strange, and yet it's true", so I clicked 'Like'
Then another person replied "Well, I work in construction, and here is a bunch of stuff I've seen our union do. [description of some pretty dodgy union antics]"

In that moment, a lot of things made sense to me. If I had experienced what the second poster had experienced, then I am also likely to dislike unions too. It seemed completely reasonable, and not strange. It didn't make me start hating unions, but it did make me realise that if I want people to like unions more, then I have to consider perspectives like this one.

It's never a bad idea to try to understand the other person's motivation. Many fall into the trap of assuming that people who disagree with us are motivated by the 'wrong' things, and so we don't bother asking.

3. Just by asking about the source of his knowledge, you're sowing some seeds of doubt into the validity of knowledge he has assumed as being true. Hmmm, did I really pay close attention to that radio show? I can't even remember when it was. Is it possible that I might have missed something? You don't even need to ask these questions as he might be asking them of himself already. This is a good thing, too, because often we over-rely on our memory, which is hugely flawed.

I think too that it's a good idea to ask the same sorts of questions about your own knowledge. E.g., why is it that you are so sure that bushfires are worse than before? What have you read or seen that is so convincing? Can you trust those sources? If so, why? Are there any other potential explanations for what's going on than climate change? This will allow you to test the limits of your own certainty.

Try doing the above for a bit and see how it goes. It takes patience and a lot of self control not to jump right in there, but instead of approaching it as an opportunity to put forward your point of view and "win the argument!!!", approach it as an opportunity to learn how other people think about things. The key to changing minds is to understanding the mind that you want to change, not spammin that mind again and again with your own thoughts.


A couple of other smaller tips:
1. Just forget about bringing up facts, except in certain situations. Facts are only useful when they are wanted. E.g., you and pop might agree that you neither of you know whether a particular claim is true or false. A quick Google could resolve it, and might be welcome as this point. But before hitting up Google, spend a bit of time working out with pop reaching an agreement on what is a good source of information (e.g., wikipedia, Quora, the first hit from a search).

Most people think facts will be persuasive, but more often than not, unsolicited facts are just interpreted as signals of elitism. If you truly think pop is factually wrong about something, then rather than just showing him the fact, you want to set things up so that, one day, he will discover for himself that he was wrong. If you have planted seeds of doubt about his knowledge (as per above), then this is likely to happen naturally at some point. Be patient, and if it does happen, don't "I told you so!" him; it's a dick move designed to make you feel superior for a brief moment.

2. Always assume that your counterpart is a good person, who wants many of the same things as you want. It's almost certainly a valid assumption because most people fundamentally want to do the right thing. Your pop wants you and your partner to have good productive, healthy, happy lives. He probably doesn't hate all black people, doesn't want Australia to burn down, probably wants fewer people to be unemployed or homeless, and so forth. If your counterpart says something that seems to contradict this assumption, rather than biting back, try to think of a way to explain how both things can be true (e.g., what could possibly explain how a good person who believes in equality of opportunity, also believes that transgender M-->F should not have access the ladies' bathroom?). Ask questions that get at understanding the motive, rather than getting outraged and making moral arguments (as often happens here). Give them the benefit of any doubt - there aren't that many total dickheads around, and they're not likely to all be on BigFooty. More likely, the person you're disagreeing with just has a different set of motives, but still good motives.

3. You can also test the boundaries of the motive by throwing hypotheticals at him (e.g., what an M-->F person, who is dressed like a woman, but it's clear that she is transgender, was making a pit stop in a very conservative country town. The only toilets nearby are at the pub, and this person doesn't feel safe going into the men's room. Should she still have to use the men's room here?). Don't judge his responses; just use them to work out what he thinks is okay and not okay. From doing this, you can often get a better sense of what a person's guiding principle or motive is. From there, it's far easier to have better discussions.

4. Avoid discussing the person (you think, I think) and instead talk about the statements, positions, and arguments ("The statement you made was XXXX").

5. Never use value-laden labels like 'sexist', 'racist', 'snowflake', 'cuck', 'incel', 'SJW', 'Marxist', 'Nazi', 'troll'. It's hard to come back from that in a conversation. If one is used on you, decide whether you want to continue the conversation. If so, take a deep breath, and maybe some time away, and try again later. If no, then walk away, don't fight back.

6. If you think somebody is a troll, just block them and walk away from them. You don't owe anyone here a reply to anything.

I'd be interested in learning how people go with this. There are plenty more pointers in the book.
(For those wondering, I have not financial stake in the book whatsoever!)
Click to expand...
I've been keen to buy the same book for a little while now. Great post and thanks for the effort. I will likely attach this to the stickied posting quality thread and update it for the new year shortly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

nut
The Nuclear debate
2 3
Replies
58
Views
2K
Cap
Cap
darth_timon
  • Poll
Politics Is Education better off Privatised?
Replies
19
Views
546
Rusty Brookes
R
Gethelred
Society/Culture "Grifting" versus ethics: Is it anything goes?
Replies
8
Views
496
demondavey
demondavey
STPer18
Politics Donald Trump's terrific tangerine tan - is it achievable natty?
Replies
17
Views
900
the_interloper
the_interloper
Crankyhawk
Society/Culture "Triggering" and whose responsibility is it
2
Replies
43
Views
2K
mr bagcroft
mr bagcroft
Chief
Society/Culture School Old Boys clubs - what is the obsession?
Replies
14
Views
1K
Blue1980
Blue1980
S
Society/Culture Which is the best unbiased media outlet in Australia?
2 3
Replies
52
Views
3K
ElectricG
ElectricG

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top