|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On April 19 2019 23:47 Nouar wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2019 22:12 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On April 19 2019 21:26 Plansix wrote:
It will take time to see how the public views the report. When even "The failing New York Times" is running articles titled "Barr Is Right About Everything. Admit You Were Wrong." I've got an idea of where public opinion is heading. Personally i think it's time for the Dems to forget about impeachment.It's only 18 months to the election, maybe put up a decent candidate and push out some positive policies that people like.Thats a better way to win swing voters because serious fatigue is hitting in.Too negative right now. I've got a feeling by doing that they're also diverting attention away from how divided their own party is as well though so not sure if they even can stop anymore. not an article, but an opinion piece. Disregard those from all networks.There was never going to be impeachment in only 4 years barring a huge smoking gun. It's too short to conduct a full investigation, and then the elections end up too close (not even counting the political risk, and the GOP disregarding threats to national security for their survival).
I would not disregard all opinion pieces, but it is very important to know who is writing them and think about why they should be listened to on a given subject. They require more effort on the read than a news article.
|
On April 19 2019 23:46 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2019 23:40 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 19 2019 23:36 Plansix wrote:
The discussion around the meaning of “exonerated” in the legal vs political vs colloquial sense is a good one to have. The problem with IgnE’s efforts is his fondles for the Socratic style of discussion where he always asks questions. Although Socrates was an amazing mind of his time, most people who study him agree the man would have been very irritating to have a conversation with if you were not on board with his style of discussion. One side of that discussion has to put in a lot more effort than the other, which works in a mentor to student relationship. Less so in a discussion among peers on the internet. And recent trends of trolls using bad faith rhetorical questions has only increased the tension around that discussion style.
To be clear, I don’t think IgnE style of discussion is rooted in some form of malice or trolling. It is just the way he prefers to discuss things. But it does make some posters wonder if they are entering a good faith discussion, which is a tension that can lead to some irritation or misunderstanding.
I think he prefers it for good reason, because people's preferred style leads to people expressing their opinions at each other somewhat endlessly without ever arriving at a better understanding of each others' positions or the situation at hand. I think, as has been pointed out by others before, the main reason people don't like it isn't the workload (though your point about trolls is legit), it's that it forces people to actually examine their views rather than simply assert their reliability. Honestly, I don’t like it because it requires me to write and express more than the other person and I get very little out of it. I’m happy to examine my views and do so regularly, but it is going to be on my time and when I am ready to put in the effort to do so. I understand that he and others may prefer this style, but that doesn’t mean anyone is required to indulge that preference in a discussion. Especially since we are all peers here.
It can go both ways. You needn't only respond unquestioningly? The experience you're describing sounds like one of your own making to me.
The only people who can require people to indulge in a particular style of discussion are the mods, what I and IgnE (I think, as well as others) are pointing out is which of the two primary preferences is more conducive to productive dialogue as opposed to what we witnessed between xDaunt and most of the thread in our opinion (which we believe to be supported by the available evidence I presume).
On April 19 2019 23:54 Wombat_NI wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2019 22:58 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 19 2019 22:54 Wombat_NI wrote:On April 19 2019 22:36 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 19 2019 22:29 Wombat_NI wrote:On April 19 2019 22:23 GreenHorizons wrote:2 more Virginia cops were pressured out of their job by anti-fascists for their links to white supremacist groups. This comes after learning the Black churches in Louisiana were burned down by a local sheriff's son. Two Virginia police officers who worked for different agencies were fired this week after an anti-fascist group linked them to white nationalist organizations.
The first case involved Sgt. Robert A. Stamm of the Virginia Division of Capitol Police, who had been assigned to protests calling on Gov. Ralph Northam to resign over a racist yearbook photo that surfaced in February.
Anti-Fascists of the Seven Hills, which said it was based in Richmond, Va., wrote online in February that Sergeant Stamm came to its attention because he had a large Band-Aid covering his neck while patrolling. The group found photos on social media of Sergeant Stamm with tattoos, flags and banners that used white supremacist symbols and images, it said in a blog post.
It also said he was linked to the Asatru Folk Assembly, which the Southern Poverty Law Center has described as an extremist group that invokes pre-Christian Nordic spirituality. In 2015, the F.B.I. foiled a plot by men it described as followers of an extremist variant of the Asatru faith to attack black churches and synagogues in the Chesterfield area.
Sergeant Stamm was suspended after the group published its post. On Wednesday, Col. Anthony S. Pike, the Capitol Police chief, announced in a statement that Sergeant Stamm had been “separated from his employment.” He did not explain what had led to the firing.
In the second case, Daniel Morley, a school resource officer with the Chesterfield County Police Department, was fired Thursday following an investigation into allegations that he was affiliated with the group Identity Evropa, also known as the American Identity Movement. Members of that group helped plan the 2017 “Unite the Right” rally in Charlottesville, Va., according to the Southern Poverty Law Center.
Antifa Seven Hills had identified Mr. Morley as a “pledge coordinator” for the group, which recruits on college campuses and elsewhere. Antifa said that Mr. Morley was responsible “for guiding new applicants through the vetting process” and had been a member since 2017. www.nytimes.com But, but their freedom of speech, or something. They most definitely tried that, didn't work, but they tried. ANTIFA out here doing the tough work the FBI refuses to is a mild comfort though. Yeah I was being mildly facetious, and by mildly I mean extremely, more towards the ‘Antifa are the real fascists’ crows. Another mild comfort is seeing Antifa types restrict their activities to folks who clearly are ones to be concerned about. I’ve has misgivings myself in the past on too broad a brush being used, although my bigger concern would be alienating further people as well in an optics sense. Considering MLK jr was declared by the FBI to be "the most dangerous negro in the country" and his polling (he had higher unfavorables in 1966 than Trump does now) the idea that there's a way to court those people without alienating them is largely a myth imo. It's sorta like addiction in that it doesn't really matter how many people confront them, or in what ways, only the addict can choose to get clean. Which only happens when they hit rock bottom. White supremacy and fascism is too far from rock bottom for it's addicts to get clean imo. I don't think that lacks truth, certainly the realities of the time go against the generally held perception that MLK and the Civil Rights movement just asked nicely as they're supposed to and things change, so yeah I'm in agreement there. My position is somewhat biased by having encountered a lot of people sucked into a vortex whereupon they actually emerge with worse views, specifically on women and race primarily, and their initial entry is usually via the excesses, perceived or real of the groups who are acting on behalf of redressing problems that pertain to said groups. Thus 'it's political correctness' morphs into 'I'm just asking questions' into eventual full-blown bigotry as I conceive it. I mean it's a crude framing of a phenomenon, just one I've observed rather a lot, my personal take on that. For Antifa I don't think they should drop what they do at all, especially when other relevant bodies aren't doing their jobs, just stick to some kind of reasonable remit as per what kind of target falls within it. Trump only says 'there were good people on both sides' or whatever the quote was if there are a sufficient amount of people with those kind of views for him to be able to get away with saying it. As per your addict example I think it's apt, equally that requires a self-reflection which is difficult to get people to do, and way, way more difficult if the walls are up and people retrench into a defensive shell where their views can become even stronger.
I know that vortex of which you speak and from my experience those people thought those things before they just didn't have the courage of their convictions imo.
On ANTIFA, in the US it's largely constructed of angsty trust-fund millennials and marginalized people with white identities. That, and the lack of centralized leadership (and a host of other factors) leads to their less than perfect strategizing imo. In a society where police routinely get away with lying to protect their own and we're relying on randoms on the internet to do the FBI's job there's going to be some broken eggs making this omelette imo.
On April 20 2019 00:06 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2019 23:40 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 19 2019 23:36 Plansix wrote:
The discussion around the meaning of “exonerated” in the legal vs political vs colloquial sense is a good one to have. The problem with IgnE’s efforts is his fondles for the Socratic style of discussion where he always asks questions. Although Socrates was an amazing mind of his time, most people who study him agree the man would have been very irritating to have a conversation with if you were not on board with his style of discussion. One side of that discussion has to put in a lot more effort than the other, which works in a mentor to student relationship. Less so in a discussion among peers on the internet. And recent trends of trolls using bad faith rhetorical questions has only increased the tension around that discussion style.
To be clear, I don’t think IgnE style of discussion is rooted in some form of malice or trolling. It is just the way he prefers to discuss things. But it does make some posters wonder if they are entering a good faith discussion, which is a tension that can lead to some irritation or misunderstanding.
I think he prefers it for good reason, because people's preferred style leads to people expressing their opinions at each other somewhat endlessly without ever arriving at a better understanding of each others' positions or the situation at hand. I think, as has been pointed out by others before, the main reason people don't like it isn't the workload (though your point about trolls is legit), it's that it forces people to actually examine their views rather than simply assert their reliability. It only works if either there is the respect there because he has shown himself to be so knowledgeable that someone would want to participate. Or if he also participates and answers others questions. When he does it how he does it, with no tone, mistakes in definitions and the unwillingness to respond to others questions. You just come off like a guy trying way to hard to look smart and failing. Not my cup of tea, I prefer people who say what they mean not where you have to try to guess what they are thinking.
You're entitled to your interpretation, I just disagree for the reasons I explained.
Edit: it would also be preferable if Inge answered for Inge instead of you for him, as your presumptions may be accurate and may not be.
Which is why I tried to make clear I was making my own argument and merely presumed based on his posts that IgnE agreed and was making the same one more or less.
|
|
|
On April 19 2019 23:55 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2019 23:46 Plansix wrote:On April 19 2019 23:40 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 19 2019 23:36 Plansix wrote:
The discussion around the meaning of “exonerated” in the legal vs political vs colloquial sense is a good one to have. The problem with IgnE’s efforts is his fondles for the Socratic style of discussion where he always asks questions. Although Socrates was an amazing mind of his time, most people who study him agree the man would have been very irritating to have a conversation with if you were not on board with his style of discussion. One side of that discussion has to put in a lot more effort than the other, which works in a mentor to student relationship. Less so in a discussion among peers on the internet. And recent trends of trolls using bad faith rhetorical questions has only increased the tension around that discussion style.
To be clear, I don’t think IgnE style of discussion is rooted in some form of malice or trolling. It is just the way he prefers to discuss things. But it does make some posters wonder if they are entering a good faith discussion, which is a tension that can lead to some irritation or misunderstanding.
I think he prefers it for good reason, because people's preferred style leads to people expressing their opinions at each other somewhat endlessly without ever arriving at a better understanding of each others' positions or the situation at hand. I think, as has been pointed out by others before, the main reason people don't like it isn't the workload (though your point about trolls is legit), it's that it forces people to actually examine their views rather than simply assert their reliability. Honestly, I don’t like it because it requires me to write and express more than the other person and I get very little out of it. I’m happy to examine my views and do so regularly, but it is going to be on my time and when I am ready to put in the effort to do so. I understand that he and others may prefer this style, but that doesn’t mean anyone is required to indulge that preference in a discussion. Especially since we are all peers here. It can go both ways. You needn't only respond unquestioningly? The experience you're describing sounds like one of your own making to me. The only people who can require people to indulge in a particular style of discussion are the mods, what I and IgnE (I think, as well as others) are pointing out is which of the two primary preferences is more conducive to productive dialogue as opposed to what we witnessed between xDaunt and most of the thread.
Honestly, it is a matter of understanding and consent/agreement. I’m happy to engage with the Socratic style of discussion if I know up front that is what is happening and I think the other person isn’t trying to waste my time(and I have the time). The problem is that people in this thread who like to challenge people’s views often don’t make the assessments if the other party is into the discussion. If the views are any benefit that is created by challenging entrenched viewpoints is tempered by a negative experience rooted in frustration.
Now, in the past you have said that the negative experience is a positive because people should be uncomfortable when their views are challenged. Although I agree in principle, this view cannot applied without nuance and acceptance of reasonability by the questioner. There clear line because discomfort and completely negative interaction. And the burden is on the questioner to assess that and realize when they are no longer just making someone uncomfortable, but out right antagonizing them in an unproductive manner that can be viewed as malicious.
Which comes back to my original point, the Socratic style is effective and useful if both parties are on board for that style of discussion. But that agreement needs to exist either through the questioner being overt with their intent or long standing good faith agreement. It cannot be implied or assumed.
And finally, there can’t be any ill feelings if someone is not interested in engaging with that type of discussion. The classic “guess you are uncomfortable having your views challenged” is a completely dick move and shows a lack of respect for the other person’s time and agency. If we accept that challenging someone’s views makes them uncomfortable, there is an obligation to respect when someone does not want to engage with that discomfort.
|
On April 19 2019 11:01 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2019 10:59 m4ini wrote:On April 19 2019 10:46 xDaunt wrote:On April 19 2019 10:29 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:On April 19 2019 09:25 xDaunt wrote:On April 19 2019 09:01 JimmiC wrote:On April 19 2019 08:59 xDaunt wrote:On April 19 2019 08:53 NewSunshine wrote:On April 19 2019 08:45 xDaunt wrote:On April 19 2019 08:38 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
No it isn't.
I'm gonna hit up NPR over the weekend and try to get through the report as quickly and understanding...ly, as possible. But from the excerpts I've read posted here...2020 is indeed, gonna be lit. To quote P6 This is a little premature. You should wait for Trump's counter punch. You mean like the one he gave before everyone got to see the report, on account of him and his team having access to it before everyone else? That's a sucker punch, in my book. He hasn't responded at all yet. With regards to Trump's people seeing the report before anyone else, did you listen at all to Barr's explanation for why that happened? The idea that there was some impropriety there is utterly absurd. Do you believe what in the report to be true. Specifically in regards to the requests he made that were not followed through on? Also on how he wanted to fire people but was unwilling to do it himself? Also, what parts of the report do you believe to be untrue? I don't know. I haven't read the report yet. I plan to tomorrow while traveling. I doubt that there will be any particular reported fact that is untrue. For example, if the report says "Mr. X said Y," I probably won't have any reason to doubt that. Like I said before, my larger concern with the Mueller report is the extent to which certain facts have been omitted and downplayed, thereby creating a situation where readers will digest harmful information out of context that really isn't harmful. We already see this happening with selecting quoting of certain elements of the report. This is why the underlying conclusions of the report -- that there was no collusion and that the Mueller team did not exercise their prosecutorial judgment to find that there's probable cause that Trump obstructed justice -- are so important. Every fact should be scrutinized through those lenses. The problem with you not having read it is that these are not at all the conclusions in the report. In fact the report immediately notes that it didnt look at collusion since its not a legal term. It looked at tacit or explicit agreement between Trump campaign and the russian government and for this it didnt establish evidence beyond readonable doubt. Theres plenty of things that regular folk would call collusion in there. Barr spouting the no collusion keyword while the report says it didnt look at collusion is just another example of him toting propaganda lines. And in obstruction Mueller didnt indict because he followed guidelines that presidents cant be. There is plenty of cause. The idea that Trump did all this because of his emotions and it is therefore not acting with intent is absurd. Yes, Mueller discusses the technical conspiracy charge and notes that “collusion” isn’t really a thing. But everyone understands that collusion refers to criminal conspiracy. And like I said, the bottom line is that Mueller did not charge Trump with a crime or recommend that he be so charged. Everything else is just noise. Quite the different song to what you sang a week ago, innit? Weren't we supposed to be blown away by how squeaky clean Trump is? Remember, "fully exonerated", all that jazz? Now we're down to "well he didn't charge him, the fact that he tried and is crooked as shit is just noise"? It feels a bit like the slope republicans went down when it came to emails about HRC. No, never met them, well, did meet them but didn't get anything, and Trump didn't know anything, well he did know something, well yeah they met and trump knew but it's not illegal. You haven't read it, but you're drawing definitive conclusions. Even if you just go from soundbytes or excerpts, isn't it in your best interests to withhold commenting on it until you have read it?
He had those definitive conclusions long before it was released already. We were supposed to be astonished by the report, and how dare we doubt the "Trump is fully exonerated" claim by Barr, no reason to lie or conceal facts. Nothing changed. No criminal charge = fully exonerated. There is no middle ground here, despite Mueller’s best attempts to create the appearance of impropriety out of whole cloth.
Well I'm glad you finally agreed that Hillary is fully exonerated of all the stupid crap repubs have tried to pin on her.
|
Northern Ireland25875 Posts
On April 19 2019 23:46 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2019 23:40 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 19 2019 23:36 Plansix wrote:
The discussion around the meaning of “exonerated” in the legal vs political vs colloquial sense is a good one to have. The problem with IgnE’s efforts is his fondles for the Socratic style of discussion where he always asks questions. Although Socrates was an amazing mind of his time, most people who study him agree the man would have been very irritating to have a conversation with if you were not on board with his style of discussion. One side of that discussion has to put in a lot more effort than the other, which works in a mentor to student relationship. Less so in a discussion among peers on the internet. And recent trends of trolls using bad faith rhetorical questions has only increased the tension around that discussion style.
To be clear, I don’t think IgnE style of discussion is rooted in some form of malice or trolling. It is just the way he prefers to discuss things. But it does make some posters wonder if they are entering a good faith discussion, which is a tension that can lead to some irritation or misunderstanding.
I think he prefers it for good reason, because people's preferred style leads to people expressing their opinions at each other somewhat endlessly without ever arriving at a better understanding of each others' positions or the situation at hand. I think, as has been pointed out by others before, the main reason people don't like it isn't the workload (though your point about trolls is legit), it's that it forces people to actually examine their views rather than simply assert their reliability. Honestly, I don’t like it because it requires me to write and express more than the other person and I get very little out of it. I’m happy to examine my views and do so regularly, but it is going to be on my time and when I am ready to put in the effort to do so. I understand that he and others may prefer this style, but that doesn’t mean anyone is required to indulge that preference in a discussion. Especially since we are all peers here.
It's absolutely two-way street in employing that style. Myself and my best friend basically just indulge our love of thought experiments, or play devil's advocate for positions because we both enjoy the process, and in his case he's so exasperated having discussions about certain topics with a lot of people, as am I. As a consequence I do enjoy future discussions more with honest interlocutors as even just by relentlessly playing devil's advocate I have better understandings of both things that aren't my views, or criticisms of my own views.
I personally prefer dealing with someone who employs such tactics if they're earnest, and way, way less like dealing with someone who does so dishonestly. It's more workload vs maybe getting something interesting back that might change your opinions, vs all the same workload but for no reason whatsoever.
I too don't see any such intent with IgnE in this regard at all, so don't want to come across that way.
|
On April 20 2019 00:18 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2019 23:55 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 19 2019 23:46 Plansix wrote:On April 19 2019 23:40 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 19 2019 23:36 Plansix wrote:
The discussion around the meaning of “exonerated” in the legal vs political vs colloquial sense is a good one to have. The problem with IgnE’s efforts is his fondles for the Socratic style of discussion where he always asks questions. Although Socrates was an amazing mind of his time, most people who study him agree the man would have been very irritating to have a conversation with if you were not on board with his style of discussion. One side of that discussion has to put in a lot more effort than the other, which works in a mentor to student relationship. Less so in a discussion among peers on the internet. And recent trends of trolls using bad faith rhetorical questions has only increased the tension around that discussion style.
To be clear, I don’t think IgnE style of discussion is rooted in some form of malice or trolling. It is just the way he prefers to discuss things. But it does make some posters wonder if they are entering a good faith discussion, which is a tension that can lead to some irritation or misunderstanding.
I think he prefers it for good reason, because people's preferred style leads to people expressing their opinions at each other somewhat endlessly without ever arriving at a better understanding of each others' positions or the situation at hand. I think, as has been pointed out by others before, the main reason people don't like it isn't the workload (though your point about trolls is legit), it's that it forces people to actually examine their views rather than simply assert their reliability. Honestly, I don’t like it because it requires me to write and express more than the other person and I get very little out of it. I’m happy to examine my views and do so regularly, but it is going to be on my time and when I am ready to put in the effort to do so. I understand that he and others may prefer this style, but that doesn’t mean anyone is required to indulge that preference in a discussion. Especially since we are all peers here. It can go both ways. You needn't only respond unquestioningly? The experience you're describing sounds like one of your own making to me. The only people who can require people to indulge in a particular style of discussion are the mods, what I and IgnE (I think, as well as others) are pointing out is which of the two primary preferences is more conducive to productive dialogue as opposed to what we witnessed between xDaunt and most of the thread. Honestly, it is a matter of understanding and consent/agreement. I’m happy to engage with the Socratic style of discussion if I know up front that is what is happening and I think the other person isn’t trying to waste my time(and I have the time). The problem is that people in this thread who like to challenge people’s views often don’t make the assessments if the other party is into the discussion. If the views are any benefit that is created by challenging entrenched viewpoints is tempered by a negative experience rooted in frustration. Now, in the past you have said that the negative experience is a positive because people should be uncomfortable when their views are challenged. Although I agree in principle, this view cannot applied without nuance and acceptance of reasonability by the questioner. There clear line because discomfort and completely negative interaction. And the burden is on the questioner to assess that and realize when they are no longer just making someone uncomfortable, but out right antagonizing them in an unproductive manner that can be viewed as malicious. Which comes back to my original point, the Socratic style is effective and useful if both parties are on board for that style of discussion. But that agreement needs to exist either through the questioner being overt with their intent or long standing good faith agreement. It cannot be implied or assumed. And finally, there can’t be any ill feelings if someone is not interested in engaging with that type of discussion. The classic “guess you are uncomfortable having your views challenged” is a completely dick move and shows a lack of respect for the other person’s time and agency. If we accept that challenging someone’s views makes them uncomfortable, there is an obligation to respect when someone does not want to engage with that discomfort.
I don't disagree with most of that, the point I'm making (and believe others are to one degree or another) is that we've (as a community) settled on alternatives to the Socratic method (not quite what I think I or IgnE do but that's less important) that, imo, aren't better in any way other than offering the comfort you describe.
That essentially your plea is to trade dialogical interaction for comfort. I get that I'm in the minority thinking that's a bad trade but I don't think there's a very coherent argument that it's not a trade your arguing for and has popular support.
For example:
On April 20 2019 00:20 hunts wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2019 11:01 xDaunt wrote:On April 19 2019 10:59 m4ini wrote:On April 19 2019 10:46 xDaunt wrote:On April 19 2019 10:29 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:On April 19 2019 09:25 xDaunt wrote:On April 19 2019 09:01 JimmiC wrote:On April 19 2019 08:59 xDaunt wrote:On April 19 2019 08:53 NewSunshine wrote:On April 19 2019 08:45 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
This is a little premature. You should wait for Trump's counter punch. You mean like the one he gave before everyone got to see the report, on account of him and his team having access to it before everyone else? That's a sucker punch, in my book. He hasn't responded at all yet. With regards to Trump's people seeing the report before anyone else, did you listen at all to Barr's explanation for why that happened? The idea that there was some impropriety there is utterly absurd. Do you believe what in the report to be true. Specifically in regards to the requests he made that were not followed through on? Also on how he wanted to fire people but was unwilling to do it himself? Also, what parts of the report do you believe to be untrue? I don't know. I haven't read the report yet. I plan to tomorrow while traveling. I doubt that there will be any particular reported fact that is untrue. For example, if the report says "Mr. X said Y," I probably won't have any reason to doubt that. Like I said before, my larger concern with the Mueller report is the extent to which certain facts have been omitted and downplayed, thereby creating a situation where readers will digest harmful information out of context that really isn't harmful. We already see this happening with selecting quoting of certain elements of the report. This is why the underlying conclusions of the report -- that there was no collusion and that the Mueller team did not exercise their prosecutorial judgment to find that there's probable cause that Trump obstructed justice -- are so important. Every fact should be scrutinized through those lenses. The problem with you not having read it is that these are not at all the conclusions in the report. In fact the report immediately notes that it didnt look at collusion since its not a legal term. It looked at tacit or explicit agreement between Trump campaign and the russian government and for this it didnt establish evidence beyond readonable doubt. Theres plenty of things that regular folk would call collusion in there. Barr spouting the no collusion keyword while the report says it didnt look at collusion is just another example of him toting propaganda lines. And in obstruction Mueller didnt indict because he followed guidelines that presidents cant be. There is plenty of cause. The idea that Trump did all this because of his emotions and it is therefore not acting with intent is absurd. Yes, Mueller discusses the technical conspiracy charge and notes that “collusion” isn’t really a thing. But everyone understands that collusion refers to criminal conspiracy. And like I said, the bottom line is that Mueller did not charge Trump with a crime or recommend that he be so charged. Everything else is just noise. Quite the different song to what you sang a week ago, innit? Weren't we supposed to be blown away by how squeaky clean Trump is? Remember, "fully exonerated", all that jazz? Now we're down to "well he didn't charge him, the fact that he tried and is crooked as shit is just noise"? It feels a bit like the slope republicans went down when it came to emails about HRC. No, never met them, well, did meet them but didn't get anything, and Trump didn't know anything, well he did know something, well yeah they met and trump knew but it's not illegal. You haven't read it, but you're drawing definitive conclusions. Even if you just go from soundbytes or excerpts, isn't it in your best interests to withhold commenting on it until you have read it?
He had those definitive conclusions long before it was released already. We were supposed to be astonished by the report, and how dare we doubt the "Trump is fully exonerated" claim by Barr, no reason to lie or conceal facts. Nothing changed. No criminal charge = fully exonerated. There is no middle ground here, despite Mueller’s best attempts to create the appearance of impropriety out of whole cloth. Well I'm glad you finally agreed that Hillary is fully exonerated of all the stupid crap repubs have tried to pin on her.
This is an opportunity for dialogical engagement from hunts but instead he goes for the jab and none of the people complaining about the socratic method are going to object to it. When it comes to better understanding and expressing our opinions put me on the side that's willing to do more work and screen trolls than encourage engagement at the level displayed by this argument about a point that very much deserves real scrutiny.
|
Northern Ireland25875 Posts
On April 19 2019 23:55 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2019 23:46 Plansix wrote:On April 19 2019 23:40 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 19 2019 23:36 Plansix wrote:
The discussion around the meaning of “exonerated” in the legal vs political vs colloquial sense is a good one to have. The problem with IgnE’s efforts is his fondles for the Socratic style of discussion where he always asks questions. Although Socrates was an amazing mind of his time, most people who study him agree the man would have been very irritating to have a conversation with if you were not on board with his style of discussion. One side of that discussion has to put in a lot more effort than the other, which works in a mentor to student relationship. Less so in a discussion among peers on the internet. And recent trends of trolls using bad faith rhetorical questions has only increased the tension around that discussion style.
To be clear, I don’t think IgnE style of discussion is rooted in some form of malice or trolling. It is just the way he prefers to discuss things. But it does make some posters wonder if they are entering a good faith discussion, which is a tension that can lead to some irritation or misunderstanding.
I think he prefers it for good reason, because people's preferred style leads to people expressing their opinions at each other somewhat endlessly without ever arriving at a better understanding of each others' positions or the situation at hand. I think, as has been pointed out by others before, the main reason people don't like it isn't the workload (though your point about trolls is legit), it's that it forces people to actually examine their views rather than simply assert their reliability. Honestly, I don’t like it because it requires me to write and express more than the other person and I get very little out of it. I’m happy to examine my views and do so regularly, but it is going to be on my time and when I am ready to put in the effort to do so. I understand that he and others may prefer this style, but that doesn’t mean anyone is required to indulge that preference in a discussion. Especially since we are all peers here. It can go both ways. You needn't only respond unquestioningly? The experience you're describing sounds like one of your own making to me. The only people who can require people to indulge in a particular style of discussion are the mods, what I and IgnE (I think, as well as others) are pointing out is which of the two primary preferences is more conducive to productive dialogue as opposed to what we witnessed between xDaunt and most of the thread in our opinion (which we believe to be supported by the available evidence I presume). Show nested quote +On April 19 2019 23:54 Wombat_NI wrote:On April 19 2019 22:58 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 19 2019 22:54 Wombat_NI wrote:On April 19 2019 22:36 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 19 2019 22:29 Wombat_NI wrote:On April 19 2019 22:23 GreenHorizons wrote:2 more Virginia cops were pressured out of their job by anti-fascists for their links to white supremacist groups. This comes after learning the Black churches in Louisiana were burned down by a local sheriff's son. Two Virginia police officers who worked for different agencies were fired this week after an anti-fascist group linked them to white nationalist organizations.
The first case involved Sgt. Robert A. Stamm of the Virginia Division of Capitol Police, who had been assigned to protests calling on Gov. Ralph Northam to resign over a racist yearbook photo that surfaced in February.
Anti-Fascists of the Seven Hills, which said it was based in Richmond, Va., wrote online in February that Sergeant Stamm came to its attention because he had a large Band-Aid covering his neck while patrolling. The group found photos on social media of Sergeant Stamm with tattoos, flags and banners that used white supremacist symbols and images, it said in a blog post.
It also said he was linked to the Asatru Folk Assembly, which the Southern Poverty Law Center has described as an extremist group that invokes pre-Christian Nordic spirituality. In 2015, the F.B.I. foiled a plot by men it described as followers of an extremist variant of the Asatru faith to attack black churches and synagogues in the Chesterfield area.
Sergeant Stamm was suspended after the group published its post. On Wednesday, Col. Anthony S. Pike, the Capitol Police chief, announced in a statement that Sergeant Stamm had been “separated from his employment.” He did not explain what had led to the firing.
In the second case, Daniel Morley, a school resource officer with the Chesterfield County Police Department, was fired Thursday following an investigation into allegations that he was affiliated with the group Identity Evropa, also known as the American Identity Movement. Members of that group helped plan the 2017 “Unite the Right” rally in Charlottesville, Va., according to the Southern Poverty Law Center.
Antifa Seven Hills had identified Mr. Morley as a “pledge coordinator” for the group, which recruits on college campuses and elsewhere. Antifa said that Mr. Morley was responsible “for guiding new applicants through the vetting process” and had been a member since 2017. www.nytimes.com But, but their freedom of speech, or something. They most definitely tried that, didn't work, but they tried. ANTIFA out here doing the tough work the FBI refuses to is a mild comfort though. Yeah I was being mildly facetious, and by mildly I mean extremely, more towards the ‘Antifa are the real fascists’ crows. Another mild comfort is seeing Antifa types restrict their activities to folks who clearly are ones to be concerned about. I’ve has misgivings myself in the past on too broad a brush being used, although my bigger concern would be alienating further people as well in an optics sense. Considering MLK jr was declared by the FBI to be "the most dangerous negro in the country" and his polling (he had higher unfavorables in 1966 than Trump does now) the idea that there's a way to court those people without alienating them is largely a myth imo. It's sorta like addiction in that it doesn't really matter how many people confront them, or in what ways, only the addict can choose to get clean. Which only happens when they hit rock bottom. White supremacy and fascism is too far from rock bottom for it's addicts to get clean imo. I don't think that lacks truth, certainly the realities of the time go against the generally held perception that MLK and the Civil Rights movement just asked nicely as they're supposed to and things change, so yeah I'm in agreement there. My position is somewhat biased by having encountered a lot of people sucked into a vortex whereupon they actually emerge with worse views, specifically on women and race primarily, and their initial entry is usually via the excesses, perceived or real of the groups who are acting on behalf of redressing problems that pertain to said groups. Thus 'it's political correctness' morphs into 'I'm just asking questions' into eventual full-blown bigotry as I conceive it. I mean it's a crude framing of a phenomenon, just one I've observed rather a lot, my personal take on that. For Antifa I don't think they should drop what they do at all, especially when other relevant bodies aren't doing their jobs, just stick to some kind of reasonable remit as per what kind of target falls within it. Trump only says 'there were good people on both sides' or whatever the quote was if there are a sufficient amount of people with those kind of views for him to be able to get away with saying it. As per your addict example I think it's apt, equally that requires a self-reflection which is difficult to get people to do, and way, way more difficult if the walls are up and people retrench into a defensive shell where their views can become even stronger. I know that vortex of which you speak and from my experience those people thought those things before they just didn't have the courage of their convictions imo. On ANTIFA, in the US it's largely constructed of angsty trust-fund millennials and marginalized people with white identities. That, and the lack of centralized leadership (and a host of other factors) leads to their less than perfect strategizing imo. In a society where police routinely get away with lying to protect their own and we're relying on randoms on the internet to do the FBI's job there's going to be some broken eggs making this omelette imo. Show nested quote +On April 20 2019 00:06 JimmiC wrote:On April 19 2019 23:40 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 19 2019 23:36 Plansix wrote:
The discussion around the meaning of “exonerated” in the legal vs political vs colloquial sense is a good one to have. The problem with IgnE’s efforts is his fondles for the Socratic style of discussion where he always asks questions. Although Socrates was an amazing mind of his time, most people who study him agree the man would have been very irritating to have a conversation with if you were not on board with his style of discussion. One side of that discussion has to put in a lot more effort than the other, which works in a mentor to student relationship. Less so in a discussion among peers on the internet. And recent trends of trolls using bad faith rhetorical questions has only increased the tension around that discussion style.
To be clear, I don’t think IgnE style of discussion is rooted in some form of malice or trolling. It is just the way he prefers to discuss things. But it does make some posters wonder if they are entering a good faith discussion, which is a tension that can lead to some irritation or misunderstanding.
I think he prefers it for good reason, because people's preferred style leads to people expressing their opinions at each other somewhat endlessly without ever arriving at a better understanding of each others' positions or the situation at hand. I think, as has been pointed out by others before, the main reason people don't like it isn't the workload (though your point about trolls is legit), it's that it forces people to actually examine their views rather than simply assert their reliability. It only works if either there is the respect there because he has shown himself to be so knowledgeable that someone would want to participate. Or if he also participates and answers others questions. When he does it how he does it, with no tone, mistakes in definitions and the unwillingness to respond to others questions. You just come off like a guy trying way to hard to look smart and failing. Not my cup of tea, I prefer people who say what they mean not where you have to try to guess what they are thinking. You're entitled to your interpretation, I just disagree for the reasons I explained. Show nested quote +Edit: it would also be preferable if Inge answered for Inge instead of you for him, as your presumptions may be accurate and may not be. Which is why I tried to make clear I was making my own argument and merely presumed based on his posts that IgnE agreed and was making the same one more or less.
I mean, yes I suppose sort of. I don't really agree. I think some weren't aware they had them, or actively got worse over a period of time, especially with constant exposure to certain metanarratives
I mean I'm the trifecta of both white, male and straight, none of which I really thought of as identity at all, they were just sort of default mode, and to a degree neutral too. Most norms that damage x minority kind of flourish from this faux neutrality.
It's clear to me that to challenge certain norms the faux neutrality has to be exposed in some sense, so in a sense is necessary at least in my view. The really difficult part is opening people up to that, without them just running to the easier answers provided by reactionary forces, who tend to have a vested interest in misrepresenting things as much as they can to boot.
I'm much more sensitive on things like messaging when they pertain to this vague area because I agree with the message broadly for a start, but also at least in these areas bad messaging doesn't just mean you lose, you can end up galvanising support for the diametric opposite.
|
On April 20 2019 00:26 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2019 00:18 Plansix wrote:On April 19 2019 23:55 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 19 2019 23:46 Plansix wrote:On April 19 2019 23:40 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 19 2019 23:36 Plansix wrote:
The discussion around the meaning of “exonerated” in the legal vs political vs colloquial sense is a good one to have. The problem with IgnE’s efforts is his fondles for the Socratic style of discussion where he always asks questions. Although Socrates was an amazing mind of his time, most people who study him agree the man would have been very irritating to have a conversation with if you were not on board with his style of discussion. One side of that discussion has to put in a lot more effort than the other, which works in a mentor to student relationship. Less so in a discussion among peers on the internet. And recent trends of trolls using bad faith rhetorical questions has only increased the tension around that discussion style.
To be clear, I don’t think IgnE style of discussion is rooted in some form of malice or trolling. It is just the way he prefers to discuss things. But it does make some posters wonder if they are entering a good faith discussion, which is a tension that can lead to some irritation or misunderstanding.
I think he prefers it for good reason, because people's preferred style leads to people expressing their opinions at each other somewhat endlessly without ever arriving at a better understanding of each others' positions or the situation at hand. I think, as has been pointed out by others before, the main reason people don't like it isn't the workload (though your point about trolls is legit), it's that it forces people to actually examine their views rather than simply assert their reliability. Honestly, I don’t like it because it requires me to write and express more than the other person and I get very little out of it. I’m happy to examine my views and do so regularly, but it is going to be on my time and when I am ready to put in the effort to do so. I understand that he and others may prefer this style, but that doesn’t mean anyone is required to indulge that preference in a discussion. Especially since we are all peers here. It can go both ways. You needn't only respond unquestioningly? The experience you're describing sounds like one of your own making to me. The only people who can require people to indulge in a particular style of discussion are the mods, what I and IgnE (I think, as well as others) are pointing out is which of the two primary preferences is more conducive to productive dialogue as opposed to what we witnessed between xDaunt and most of the thread. Honestly, it is a matter of understanding and consent/agreement. I’m happy to engage with the Socratic style of discussion if I know up front that is what is happening and I think the other person isn’t trying to waste my time(and I have the time). The problem is that people in this thread who like to challenge people’s views often don’t make the assessments if the other party is into the discussion. If the views are any benefit that is created by challenging entrenched viewpoints is tempered by a negative experience rooted in frustration. Now, in the past you have said that the negative experience is a positive because people should be uncomfortable when their views are challenged. Although I agree in principle, this view cannot applied without nuance and acceptance of reasonability by the questioner. There clear line because discomfort and completely negative interaction. And the burden is on the questioner to assess that and realize when they are no longer just making someone uncomfortable, but out right antagonizing them in an unproductive manner that can be viewed as malicious. Which comes back to my original point, the Socratic style is effective and useful if both parties are on board for that style of discussion. But that agreement needs to exist either through the questioner being overt with their intent or long standing good faith agreement. It cannot be implied or assumed. And finally, there can’t be any ill feelings if someone is not interested in engaging with that type of discussion. The classic “guess you are uncomfortable having your views challenged” is a completely dick move and shows a lack of respect for the other person’s time and agency. If we accept that challenging someone’s views makes them uncomfortable, there is an obligation to respect when someone does not want to engage with that discomfort. I don't disagree with most of that, the point I'm making (and believe others are to one degree or another) is that we've (as a community) settled on alternatives to the Socratic method (not quite what I think I or IgnE do but that's less important) that, imo, aren't better in any way other than offering the comfort you describe. That essentially your plea is to trade dialogical interaction for comfort. I get that I'm in the minority thinking that's a bad trade but I don't think there's a very coherent argument that it's not a trade your arguing for and has popular support.
No. My plea is for parties to respect each other enough to know that this discussion style cannot be the default in the setting of an online forum. It can be engaged with on a regular basis, but only when the parties are willing to do it. Posters engaged with this thread willingly for a number of reasons, but we all live full lives and sometimes folks are not up for that type of discussion for real world reasons.
|
On April 19 2019 23:55 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2019 23:46 Plansix wrote:On April 19 2019 23:40 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 19 2019 23:36 Plansix wrote:
The discussion around the meaning of “exonerated” in the legal vs political vs colloquial sense is a good one to have. The problem with IgnE’s efforts is his fondles for the Socratic style of discussion where he always asks questions. Although Socrates was an amazing mind of his time, most people who study him agree the man would have been very irritating to have a conversation with if you were not on board with his style of discussion. One side of that discussion has to put in a lot more effort than the other, which works in a mentor to student relationship. Less so in a discussion among peers on the internet. And recent trends of trolls using bad faith rhetorical questions has only increased the tension around that discussion style.
To be clear, I don’t think IgnE style of discussion is rooted in some form of malice or trolling. It is just the way he prefers to discuss things. But it does make some posters wonder if they are entering a good faith discussion, which is a tension that can lead to some irritation or misunderstanding.
I think he prefers it for good reason, because people's preferred style leads to people expressing their opinions at each other somewhat endlessly without ever arriving at a better understanding of each others' positions or the situation at hand. I think, as has been pointed out by others before, the main reason people don't like it isn't the workload (though your point about trolls is legit), it's that it forces people to actually examine their views rather than simply assert their reliability. Honestly, I don’t like it because it requires me to write and express more than the other person and I get very little out of it. I’m happy to examine my views and do so regularly, but it is going to be on my time and when I am ready to put in the effort to do so. I understand that he and others may prefer this style, but that doesn’t mean anyone is required to indulge that preference in a discussion. Especially since we are all peers here. It can go both ways. You needn't only respond unquestioningly? The experience you're describing sounds like one of your own making to me. The only people who can require people to indulge in a particular style of discussion are the mods, what I and IgnE (I think, as well as others) are pointing out is which of the two primary preferences is more conducive to productive dialogue as opposed to what we witnessed between xDaunt and most of the thread in our opinion (which we believe to be supported by the available evidence I presume).
As someone that has argued with Igne plenty of times in the past, his technique has the same flaws as xDaunts. They both prioritize leaving a gate open for 'that's not what I meant' for any imaginable interpretation of their roundabout arguments rather than clarity. And they both snap in low stakes discussions where they sacrificed leaving that gate open in favor of a rushed quip.
I wish this was as obvious to you personally GH, because on many occasions you have praised an accidental strawman of his posts as a direct consequence of that technique.
The least productive discussions you can have are with people primarily concerned with insulating themselves and that poorly handle being wrong about the most insignificant things that no one would hold against them.
|
On April 20 2019 00:36 Wombat_NI wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2019 23:55 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 19 2019 23:46 Plansix wrote:On April 19 2019 23:40 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 19 2019 23:36 Plansix wrote:
The discussion around the meaning of “exonerated” in the legal vs political vs colloquial sense is a good one to have. The problem with IgnE’s efforts is his fondles for the Socratic style of discussion where he always asks questions. Although Socrates was an amazing mind of his time, most people who study him agree the man would have been very irritating to have a conversation with if you were not on board with his style of discussion. One side of that discussion has to put in a lot more effort than the other, which works in a mentor to student relationship. Less so in a discussion among peers on the internet. And recent trends of trolls using bad faith rhetorical questions has only increased the tension around that discussion style.
To be clear, I don’t think IgnE style of discussion is rooted in some form of malice or trolling. It is just the way he prefers to discuss things. But it does make some posters wonder if they are entering a good faith discussion, which is a tension that can lead to some irritation or misunderstanding.
I think he prefers it for good reason, because people's preferred style leads to people expressing their opinions at each other somewhat endlessly without ever arriving at a better understanding of each others' positions or the situation at hand. I think, as has been pointed out by others before, the main reason people don't like it isn't the workload (though your point about trolls is legit), it's that it forces people to actually examine their views rather than simply assert their reliability. Honestly, I don’t like it because it requires me to write and express more than the other person and I get very little out of it. I’m happy to examine my views and do so regularly, but it is going to be on my time and when I am ready to put in the effort to do so. I understand that he and others may prefer this style, but that doesn’t mean anyone is required to indulge that preference in a discussion. Especially since we are all peers here. It can go both ways. You needn't only respond unquestioningly? The experience you're describing sounds like one of your own making to me. The only people who can require people to indulge in a particular style of discussion are the mods, what I and IgnE (I think, as well as others) are pointing out is which of the two primary preferences is more conducive to productive dialogue as opposed to what we witnessed between xDaunt and most of the thread in our opinion (which we believe to be supported by the available evidence I presume). On April 19 2019 23:54 Wombat_NI wrote:On April 19 2019 22:58 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 19 2019 22:54 Wombat_NI wrote:On April 19 2019 22:36 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 19 2019 22:29 Wombat_NI wrote:On April 19 2019 22:23 GreenHorizons wrote:2 more Virginia cops were pressured out of their job by anti-fascists for their links to white supremacist groups. This comes after learning the Black churches in Louisiana were burned down by a local sheriff's son. Two Virginia police officers who worked for different agencies were fired this week after an anti-fascist group linked them to white nationalist organizations.
The first case involved Sgt. Robert A. Stamm of the Virginia Division of Capitol Police, who had been assigned to protests calling on Gov. Ralph Northam to resign over a racist yearbook photo that surfaced in February.
Anti-Fascists of the Seven Hills, which said it was based in Richmond, Va., wrote online in February that Sergeant Stamm came to its attention because he had a large Band-Aid covering his neck while patrolling. The group found photos on social media of Sergeant Stamm with tattoos, flags and banners that used white supremacist symbols and images, it said in a blog post.
It also said he was linked to the Asatru Folk Assembly, which the Southern Poverty Law Center has described as an extremist group that invokes pre-Christian Nordic spirituality. In 2015, the F.B.I. foiled a plot by men it described as followers of an extremist variant of the Asatru faith to attack black churches and synagogues in the Chesterfield area.
Sergeant Stamm was suspended after the group published its post. On Wednesday, Col. Anthony S. Pike, the Capitol Police chief, announced in a statement that Sergeant Stamm had been “separated from his employment.” He did not explain what had led to the firing.
In the second case, Daniel Morley, a school resource officer with the Chesterfield County Police Department, was fired Thursday following an investigation into allegations that he was affiliated with the group Identity Evropa, also known as the American Identity Movement. Members of that group helped plan the 2017 “Unite the Right” rally in Charlottesville, Va., according to the Southern Poverty Law Center.
Antifa Seven Hills had identified Mr. Morley as a “pledge coordinator” for the group, which recruits on college campuses and elsewhere. Antifa said that Mr. Morley was responsible “for guiding new applicants through the vetting process” and had been a member since 2017. www.nytimes.com But, but their freedom of speech, or something. They most definitely tried that, didn't work, but they tried. ANTIFA out here doing the tough work the FBI refuses to is a mild comfort though. Yeah I was being mildly facetious, and by mildly I mean extremely, more towards the ‘Antifa are the real fascists’ crows. Another mild comfort is seeing Antifa types restrict their activities to folks who clearly are ones to be concerned about. I’ve has misgivings myself in the past on too broad a brush being used, although my bigger concern would be alienating further people as well in an optics sense. Considering MLK jr was declared by the FBI to be "the most dangerous negro in the country" and his polling (he had higher unfavorables in 1966 than Trump does now) the idea that there's a way to court those people without alienating them is largely a myth imo. It's sorta like addiction in that it doesn't really matter how many people confront them, or in what ways, only the addict can choose to get clean. Which only happens when they hit rock bottom. White supremacy and fascism is too far from rock bottom for it's addicts to get clean imo. I don't think that lacks truth, certainly the realities of the time go against the generally held perception that MLK and the Civil Rights movement just asked nicely as they're supposed to and things change, so yeah I'm in agreement there. My position is somewhat biased by having encountered a lot of people sucked into a vortex whereupon they actually emerge with worse views, specifically on women and race primarily, and their initial entry is usually via the excesses, perceived or real of the groups who are acting on behalf of redressing problems that pertain to said groups. Thus 'it's political correctness' morphs into 'I'm just asking questions' into eventual full-blown bigotry as I conceive it. I mean it's a crude framing of a phenomenon, just one I've observed rather a lot, my personal take on that. For Antifa I don't think they should drop what they do at all, especially when other relevant bodies aren't doing their jobs, just stick to some kind of reasonable remit as per what kind of target falls within it. Trump only says 'there were good people on both sides' or whatever the quote was if there are a sufficient amount of people with those kind of views for him to be able to get away with saying it. As per your addict example I think it's apt, equally that requires a self-reflection which is difficult to get people to do, and way, way more difficult if the walls are up and people retrench into a defensive shell where their views can become even stronger. I know that vortex of which you speak and from my experience those people thought those things before they just didn't have the courage of their convictions imo. On ANTIFA, in the US it's largely constructed of angsty trust-fund millennials and marginalized people with white identities. That, and the lack of centralized leadership (and a host of other factors) leads to their less than perfect strategizing imo. In a society where police routinely get away with lying to protect their own and we're relying on randoms on the internet to do the FBI's job there's going to be some broken eggs making this omelette imo. On April 20 2019 00:06 JimmiC wrote:On April 19 2019 23:40 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 19 2019 23:36 Plansix wrote:
The discussion around the meaning of “exonerated” in the legal vs political vs colloquial sense is a good one to have. The problem with IgnE’s efforts is his fondles for the Socratic style of discussion where he always asks questions. Although Socrates was an amazing mind of his time, most people who study him agree the man would have been very irritating to have a conversation with if you were not on board with his style of discussion. One side of that discussion has to put in a lot more effort than the other, which works in a mentor to student relationship. Less so in a discussion among peers on the internet. And recent trends of trolls using bad faith rhetorical questions has only increased the tension around that discussion style.
To be clear, I don’t think IgnE style of discussion is rooted in some form of malice or trolling. It is just the way he prefers to discuss things. But it does make some posters wonder if they are entering a good faith discussion, which is a tension that can lead to some irritation or misunderstanding.
I think he prefers it for good reason, because people's preferred style leads to people expressing their opinions at each other somewhat endlessly without ever arriving at a better understanding of each others' positions or the situation at hand. I think, as has been pointed out by others before, the main reason people don't like it isn't the workload (though your point about trolls is legit), it's that it forces people to actually examine their views rather than simply assert their reliability. It only works if either there is the respect there because he has shown himself to be so knowledgeable that someone would want to participate. Or if he also participates and answers others questions. When he does it how he does it, with no tone, mistakes in definitions and the unwillingness to respond to others questions. You just come off like a guy trying way to hard to look smart and failing. Not my cup of tea, I prefer people who say what they mean not where you have to try to guess what they are thinking. You're entitled to your interpretation, I just disagree for the reasons I explained. Edit: it would also be preferable if Inge answered for Inge instead of you for him, as your presumptions may be accurate and may not be. Which is why I tried to make clear I was making my own argument and merely presumed based on his posts that IgnE agreed and was making the same one more or less. I mean, yes I suppose sort of. I don't really agree. I think some weren't aware they had them, or actively got worse over a period of time, especially with constant exposure to certain metanarratives I mean I'm the trifecta of both white, male and straight, none of which I really thought of as identity at all, they were just sort of default mode, and to a degree neutral too. Most norms that damage x minority kind of flourish from this faux neutrality. It's clear to me that to challenge certain norms the faux neutrality has to be exposed in some sense, so in a sense is necessary at least in my view. The really difficult part is opening people up to that, without them just running to the easier answers provided by reactionary forces, who tend to have a vested interest in misrepresenting things as much as they can to boot. I'm much more sensitive on things like messaging when they pertain to this vague area because I agree with the message broadly for a start, but also at least in these areas bad messaging doesn't just mean you lose, you can end up galvanising support for the diametric opposite.
The best demonstration to refute this I first saw from Jane Elliot. She suggests, they know, it's just then it becomes a question of why they allow it.
+ Show Spoiler +
On April 20 2019 00:37 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2019 00:26 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 20 2019 00:18 Plansix wrote:On April 19 2019 23:55 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 19 2019 23:46 Plansix wrote:On April 19 2019 23:40 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 19 2019 23:36 Plansix wrote:
The discussion around the meaning of “exonerated” in the legal vs political vs colloquial sense is a good one to have. The problem with IgnE’s efforts is his fondles for the Socratic style of discussion where he always asks questions. Although Socrates was an amazing mind of his time, most people who study him agree the man would have been very irritating to have a conversation with if you were not on board with his style of discussion. One side of that discussion has to put in a lot more effort than the other, which works in a mentor to student relationship. Less so in a discussion among peers on the internet. And recent trends of trolls using bad faith rhetorical questions has only increased the tension around that discussion style.
To be clear, I don’t think IgnE style of discussion is rooted in some form of malice or trolling. It is just the way he prefers to discuss things. But it does make some posters wonder if they are entering a good faith discussion, which is a tension that can lead to some irritation or misunderstanding.
I think he prefers it for good reason, because people's preferred style leads to people expressing their opinions at each other somewhat endlessly without ever arriving at a better understanding of each others' positions or the situation at hand. I think, as has been pointed out by others before, the main reason people don't like it isn't the workload (though your point about trolls is legit), it's that it forces people to actually examine their views rather than simply assert their reliability. Honestly, I don’t like it because it requires me to write and express more than the other person and I get very little out of it. I’m happy to examine my views and do so regularly, but it is going to be on my time and when I am ready to put in the effort to do so. I understand that he and others may prefer this style, but that doesn’t mean anyone is required to indulge that preference in a discussion. Especially since we are all peers here. It can go both ways. You needn't only respond unquestioningly? The experience you're describing sounds like one of your own making to me. The only people who can require people to indulge in a particular style of discussion are the mods, what I and IgnE (I think, as well as others) are pointing out is which of the two primary preferences is more conducive to productive dialogue as opposed to what we witnessed between xDaunt and most of the thread. Honestly, it is a matter of understanding and consent/agreement. I’m happy to engage with the Socratic style of discussion if I know up front that is what is happening and I think the other person isn’t trying to waste my time(and I have the time). The problem is that people in this thread who like to challenge people’s views often don’t make the assessments if the other party is into the discussion. If the views are any benefit that is created by challenging entrenched viewpoints is tempered by a negative experience rooted in frustration. Now, in the past you have said that the negative experience is a positive because people should be uncomfortable when their views are challenged. Although I agree in principle, this view cannot applied without nuance and acceptance of reasonability by the questioner. There clear line because discomfort and completely negative interaction. And the burden is on the questioner to assess that and realize when they are no longer just making someone uncomfortable, but out right antagonizing them in an unproductive manner that can be viewed as malicious. Which comes back to my original point, the Socratic style is effective and useful if both parties are on board for that style of discussion. But that agreement needs to exist either through the questioner being overt with their intent or long standing good faith agreement. It cannot be implied or assumed. And finally, there can’t be any ill feelings if someone is not interested in engaging with that type of discussion. The classic “guess you are uncomfortable having your views challenged” is a completely dick move and shows a lack of respect for the other person’s time and agency. If we accept that challenging someone’s views makes them uncomfortable, there is an obligation to respect when someone does not want to engage with that discomfort. I don't disagree with most of that, the point I'm making (and believe others are to one degree or another) is that we've (as a community) settled on alternatives to the Socratic method (not quite what I think I or IgnE do but that's less important) that, imo, aren't better in any way other than offering the comfort you describe. That essentially your plea is to trade dialogical interaction for comfort. I get that I'm in the minority thinking that's a bad trade but I don't think there's a very coherent argument that it's not a trade your arguing for and has popular support. No. My plea is for parties to respect each other enough to know that this discussion style cannot be the default in the setting of an online forum. It can be engaged with on a regular basis, but only when the parties are willing to do it. Posters engaged with this thread willingly for a number of reasons, but we all live full lives and sometimes folks are not up for that type of discussion for real world reasons.
That doesn't seem to refute my claim. It's an explanation of my claim, but not a refutation from where I sit. I suppose it does argue a notion of impracticability which I mostly agree with though. It's just undermined when it's clear a lack of dialogical engagement isn't a matter of time but preference.
On April 20 2019 00:40 Dan HH wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2019 23:55 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 19 2019 23:46 Plansix wrote:On April 19 2019 23:40 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 19 2019 23:36 Plansix wrote:
The discussion around the meaning of “exonerated” in the legal vs political vs colloquial sense is a good one to have. The problem with IgnE’s efforts is his fondles for the Socratic style of discussion where he always asks questions. Although Socrates was an amazing mind of his time, most people who study him agree the man would have been very irritating to have a conversation with if you were not on board with his style of discussion. One side of that discussion has to put in a lot more effort than the other, which works in a mentor to student relationship. Less so in a discussion among peers on the internet. And recent trends of trolls using bad faith rhetorical questions has only increased the tension around that discussion style.
To be clear, I don’t think IgnE style of discussion is rooted in some form of malice or trolling. It is just the way he prefers to discuss things. But it does make some posters wonder if they are entering a good faith discussion, which is a tension that can lead to some irritation or misunderstanding.
I think he prefers it for good reason, because people's preferred style leads to people expressing their opinions at each other somewhat endlessly without ever arriving at a better understanding of each others' positions or the situation at hand. I think, as has been pointed out by others before, the main reason people don't like it isn't the workload (though your point about trolls is legit), it's that it forces people to actually examine their views rather than simply assert their reliability. Honestly, I don’t like it because it requires me to write and express more than the other person and I get very little out of it. I’m happy to examine my views and do so regularly, but it is going to be on my time and when I am ready to put in the effort to do so. I understand that he and others may prefer this style, but that doesn’t mean anyone is required to indulge that preference in a discussion. Especially since we are all peers here. It can go both ways. You needn't only respond unquestioningly? The experience you're describing sounds like one of your own making to me. The only people who can require people to indulge in a particular style of discussion are the mods, what I and IgnE (I think, as well as others) are pointing out is which of the two primary preferences is more conducive to productive dialogue as opposed to what we witnessed between xDaunt and most of the thread in our opinion (which we believe to be supported by the available evidence I presume). As someone that has argued with Igne plenty of times in the past, his technique has the same flaws as xDaunts. They both prioritize leaving a gate open for 'that's not what I meant' for any imaginable interpretation of their roundabout arguments rather than clarity. And they both snap in low stakes discussions where they sacrificed leaving that gate open in favor of a rushed quip. I wish this was as obvious to you personally GH, because on many occasions you have praised an accidental strawman of his posts as a direct consequence of that technique. The least productive discussions you can have are with people primarily concerned with insulating themselves and that poorly handle being wrong about the most insignificant things that no one would hold against them.
I think that's fair to a degree though I'd avoid equating Igne's posting or style to xDaunt's. As to the "least productive discussions" sometimes I feel there'd be none at all if not for them.
|
On April 20 2019 00:40 Dan HH wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2019 23:55 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 19 2019 23:46 Plansix wrote:On April 19 2019 23:40 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 19 2019 23:36 Plansix wrote:
The discussion around the meaning of “exonerated” in the legal vs political vs colloquial sense is a good one to have. The problem with IgnE’s efforts is his fondles for the Socratic style of discussion where he always asks questions. Although Socrates was an amazing mind of his time, most people who study him agree the man would have been very irritating to have a conversation with if you were not on board with his style of discussion. One side of that discussion has to put in a lot more effort than the other, which works in a mentor to student relationship. Less so in a discussion among peers on the internet. And recent trends of trolls using bad faith rhetorical questions has only increased the tension around that discussion style.
To be clear, I don’t think IgnE style of discussion is rooted in some form of malice or trolling. It is just the way he prefers to discuss things. But it does make some posters wonder if they are entering a good faith discussion, which is a tension that can lead to some irritation or misunderstanding.
I think he prefers it for good reason, because people's preferred style leads to people expressing their opinions at each other somewhat endlessly without ever arriving at a better understanding of each others' positions or the situation at hand. I think, as has been pointed out by others before, the main reason people don't like it isn't the workload (though your point about trolls is legit), it's that it forces people to actually examine their views rather than simply assert their reliability. Honestly, I don’t like it because it requires me to write and express more than the other person and I get very little out of it. I’m happy to examine my views and do so regularly, but it is going to be on my time and when I am ready to put in the effort to do so. I understand that he and others may prefer this style, but that doesn’t mean anyone is required to indulge that preference in a discussion. Especially since we are all peers here. It can go both ways. You needn't only respond unquestioningly? The experience you're describing sounds like one of your own making to me. The only people who can require people to indulge in a particular style of discussion are the mods, what I and IgnE (I think, as well as others) are pointing out is which of the two primary preferences is more conducive to productive dialogue as opposed to what we witnessed between xDaunt and most of the thread in our opinion (which we believe to be supported by the available evidence I presume). As someone that has argued with Igne plenty of times in the past, his technique has the same flaws as xDaunts. They both prioritize leaving a gate open for 'that's not what I meant' for any imaginable interpretation of their roundabout arguments rather than clarity. And they both snap in low stakes discussions where they sacrificed leaving that gate open in favor of a rushed quip. I wish this was as obvious to you personally GH, because on many occasions you have praised an accidental strawman of his posts as a direct consequence of that technique. The least productive discussions you can have are with people primarily concerned with insulating themselves and that poorly handle being wrong about the most insignificant things that no one would hold against them.
This can't be a completly honest argument format if you want to find the worst plausible interpretation of what someone says and then apply that to your response. There's leaving a gate open and then there is expecting people to have air tight arguments without any doubt about what they are saying at the drop of a hat.
People read posts in this forum and respond to it usually in the same mental session as they read said posts. If you don't enter these arguments without allowing a rather large margin of error in clarity you arnt arguing in good faith.
|
Armed militia detains immigrants crossing the border. Only a matter of time before violence breaks out in one of these situations. I'm curious of the legality of this as well. Obviously the ACLU claims it was not legal.
Edit: Beat P6 to it! Muahaha!
|
I don't condone it but you could I guess make an argument that its a citizens arrest?
|
In other news, a militia detained 300 asylum seekers at gunpoint in New Mexico. The actions that they are taking are illegal and far more dangerous that the asylum seekers they are stopping. These militias are not trained and put everyone involved at risk by engaging in these vigilante activities. But more troubling is that they are posting these videos to social media and advertising their efforts. If the New Mexico AG doesn't take action in some form, we could see more groups engaging in the same activity.
Also, asylum seekers do not wear signs saying "we are asylum seekers". They are just people. We have seen more than a few instances of US citizens being hassled by border patrol simply due to bias or racial profiling. These militia groups will make the same mistake for the same reasons at some point in the future.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/18/us/new-mexico-militia.html
A right-wing militia group operating in southern New Mexico has begun stopping groups of migrant families and detaining them at gunpoint before handing them over to Border Patrol agents, raising tension over the tactics of armed vigilantes along the border between the United States and Mexico.
Members of the group, which calls itself the United Constitutional Patriots, filmed several of their actions in recent days, including the detention this week of a group of about 200 migrants who had recently crossed the border near Sunland Park, N.M., with the intention of seeking asylum. They uploaded videos to social media of exhausted looking migrant families, blinking in the darkness in the glare of what appeared to be the militia’s spotlights.
Professed militias have long operated along the border with attempts to curb the flow of undocumented migrants into the United States. But targeting the recent influx of families, who are legally allowed to request asylum and often quickly surrender to Border Patrol agents, is raising tension with human rights activists in this part of the West.
On April 20 2019 01:32 Sermokala wrote:
I don't condone it but you could I guess make an argument that its a citizens arrest?
I don't think they can use that as a defense if they are actively seeking out people who break the law to detain them.
|
On April 20 2019 01:26 On_Slaught wrote:Armed militia detains immigrants crossing the border. Only a matter of time before violence breaks out in one of these situations. I'm curious of the legality of this as well. Obviously the ACLU claims it was not legal. https://twitter.com/SamTLevin/status/1119023657764831232Edit: Beat P6 to it! Muahaha!
I'm inclined to go with the ACLU on this one that they are vigilantes kidnapping people. Considering not just the harassment in public, but the treatment of people under custody at the border (and the rest of the US for that matter) by "legitimate officers", I'm inclined to to think it's not long before even more horrific crimes are exposed and we face the same "thin blue line" problem I was pointing out before with white supremacists groups and policing expanded to these vigilante militias.
|
Well yeah but where does "neighborhood watch" end and "vigilante" begin? If they're sitting at the border and witness people coming over the border where there is no crossing point I find it hard to argue that they're seeking out people who break the law. And these people aren't citizens in the first place so the laws can't really protect their rights.
|
On April 20 2019 01:49 Sermokala wrote:
Well yeah but where does "neighborhood watch" end and "vigilante" begin? If they're sitting at the border and witness people coming over the border where there is no crossing point I find it hard to argue that they're seeking out people who break the law. And these people aren't citizens in the first place so the laws can't really protect their rights.
Well first of all, they are asylum seekers. So they are within their rights to enter the country and request asylum. That is the law. Crossing the border at someplace that isn't an entry point is a minor violation of the civil code which does not even merit jail time. And we have many, many laws that protect the rights of non-citizens.
And second, the difference is conduct. If this same group found the asylum seekers, offered them aid and contacted border patrol to pick them up, there would be little problem. But instead the militia pointed weapons at them and detained them as if they were law enforcement. Their behavior dictates what they are. Much like a neighborhood watch that just checks in with people nightly during some sort of crisis isn't the same as a group of armed members of the neighborhood questioning anyone they don't know.
And finally, the militia group detained those asylum seekers, but has no right to hold them. If the asylum seekers refused their commands, the militia group does not have the right to engage physically. Just like they can't detain me if they find me close to the border.
|
On April 20 2019 01:49 Sermokala wrote:
Well yeah but where does "neighborhood watch" end and "vigilante" begin? If they're sitting at the border and witness people coming over the border where there is no crossing point I find it hard to argue that they're seeking out people who break the law. And these people aren't citizens in the first place so the laws can't really protect their rights.
Well there's several factors at play worth exploring.
I think for everyone's safety a policy of retreat and report are best practices. Here's a quick :30 video explaining the general concept (with munitions) which is basically exactly what it sounds like.
+ Show Spoiler +
The obvious next question is "report to whom?" A legitimate question and one without a great answer. Personally I would mind my business and encourage others to do the same. For those that feel obligated to intervene and risk being wrong altogether and causing an unnecessary conflict (too often resulting in death of innocent people) reporting it to the proper authorities and making sure they themselves are in a safe location (or retreat to one) is what I would advise.
As to people's rights I personally subscribe to the concept that the declaration of independence (I know it's not the constitution) and UN declaration of human rights supersede the notion that they, by nature of not being US citizens, aren't entitled to a basic level of rights.
|
On April 20 2019 01:49 Sermokala wrote:
Well yeah but where does "neighborhood watch" end and "vigilante" begin? If they're sitting at the border and witness people coming over the border where there is no crossing point I find it hard to argue that they're seeking out people who break the law. And these people aren't citizens in the first place so the laws can't really protect their rights.
sitting at the border and witnessing people coming over... citizen's arrest...
don't they have jobs? or hobbies? or do they want to become border agents?
and there are human rights. a concept some super powers -and aspiring ones- are not very keen of, but still.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
