EPTUS Politics Feedback Thread - Page 32
| Forum Index > Website Feedback |
|
Kickstart
United States1941 Posts
| ||
tofucake
Hyrule19210 Posts
So woman are helpless creatures and men need to be held to a higher standard of acting responsibly when out drinking in public? + Show Spoiler + Also, you should get some gay friends! + Show Spoiler + Not that all of them try to make a pass on their drunk straight buds+ Show Spoiler + But if you are drunk and they are drunk maybe something could happen, would it be rape? ^ that is a terrible post | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
On November 24 2016 04:53 tofucake wrote: Can everyone stop posting terribly? You were all doing so well for a while there. If I were a mod I'd warn this post for being low content. Social issues discussions always go kind of crazy in this thread. It's a characteristic of what they are. | ||
|
Kickstart
United States1941 Posts
On November 24 2016 04:40 Kickstart wrote: This is getting retarded. Neb starts with saying woman have to worry about things men don't. To which I reply "so woman are helpless and men are held to a different standard" followed by Neb saying that no it isn't a higher standard: So he says men are out getting women drunk and raping them a lot. So I respond again, doubling down that he is painting woman as helpless and now men as predatory (in perhaps the wrong tone for an actual discussion but anyways): Which, he was. How is saying "men are out getting woman drunk and raping them" not saying that woman are in danger whenever they go drinking in public and that men are predatory. Then I get accused of posting in bad faith. K, fine. But the annoying part of all of this, is that he(?) then says "you are correct there is a double standard", and then says that I am being hyperbolic in saying woman are helpless and men predators when he(?) was the one who said men are out raping woman. You don't get to start off by saying that woman are in danger of being raped by men whenever they go out drinking and then say I am being hyperbolic when I say you are painting woman as helpless and men as predators. to get across a point that can be said in a sentence. | ||
|
tofucake
Hyrule19210 Posts
| ||
|
Kickstart
United States1941 Posts
Who was insulting anyone? (Not me I hope :S) | ||
|
tofucake
Hyrule19210 Posts
| ||
|
oBlade
United States6118 Posts
| ||
|
tofucake
Hyrule19210 Posts
| ||
BigFan
TLADT24920 Posts
| ||
|
Kickstart
United States1941 Posts
On November 23 2016 10:27 sertas wrote: Well scientist on the global warming subject all dissagree with eachoter. So i do think its fair to question how much mankind effects global warming. User was warned for this post at least doodsmacks martyr made me giggle. Though I can understand just not giving a shit anymore after a couple dozen pages of that discussion D: On November 24 2016 05:27 Doodsmack wrote: This looks like a prime opportunity to talk about how our new president is a rapist. User was temp banned for this post. | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
| ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
| ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
It's well-acknowledged that "here's a 2 hour video that proves everything you said wrong" *mic drop* is not a good quality for the thread to have. Yet I'm curious why "read ten 200+ page PhD dissertations that prove everything you said wrong" *mic drop* is any different. Or "here's a blog by an academic that says everything that I wanted to say in a style that doesn't really lend itself to a forum-based counterargument to an academic in absentia" *mic drop*. Or John Oliver whose opinion is quite literally a joke. The result of all of them is basically the same: information overload. People don't really read through what is given with any degree of critical thinking. If they are inclined to believe the position, then they automatically assume its correctness whether or not they actually read/watch it. If they are disinclined to do so, then they automatically don't. These kinds of posts give the impression of being well-sourced and well-argued but they often aren't, and there generally isn't any way to confirm whether or not it is that fits well into the scope of forum posts (a response to a 2 hour video / ten dissertations / an academic's diatribe always looks really ugly and unpleasant). That basically just instantly means "if it sounds smart and I like what it says, I uncritically accept it as true." And is that really the kind of sourcing we want? I made plenty of long posts, on matters that fall into my area of academic expertise or that I just happen to know about. Yet if you look back at them, you might notice that, even if I do use/link sources, it's more of a "for further reading" feature than something that you have to read to understand the core of the argument being made. This is not for lack of sources but out of an understanding that it's not very honest to simply give the perception of being "academic" instead of actually fleshing out your own argument yourself. Frankly, the "this academic said" "that academic said otherwise" game is a pointless show of pseudo-intellectualism that leads to people hiding behind someone else's pedigree rather than making their own arguments. It only seems high-quality until and unless you realize that that is basically a game of confirmation bias. A good third to half of the thread seems to revel in making these types of confirmation-bias-laden pseudo-academic non-arguments and I really do object to their popularity. I think that my philosophy on the issue can be summarized quite simply: if your point cannot be made in your own words and stand on its own, using sources as only a complement or "for further reading" feature that are not essential to the argument, then you're not actually making a real argument. You're hiding behind a perception of being well-sourced to push a point that you're not really making yourself and using someone else's pedigree to give it an undeserved level of credibility that results in little more than confirmation bias. | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12460 Posts
I think academics are people. When you think they're wrong, you get to show that. It's certainly harder to show that someone like Chomsky is wrong than someone like me, but hey, it's also harder to show that Harris is wrong than any of his followers online. Doesn't mean it shouldn't be done. The goal is to find the truth, not to have our side be right. Also, in what way could that possibly be pseudo-intellectualism?... | ||
Falling
Canada11510 Posts
Yet I'm curious why "read ten 200+ page PhD dissertations that prove everything you said wrong" *mic drop* is any different. It is more or less the same thing. Well, with the one exception that the PhD dissertions would be a better source (supposing the dissertation was related to the topic) than random youtuber with an opinion. But aside from a better source, it doesn't add that much to the discussion unless the poster synthesizes the information. I'm not sure who you are arguing exactly.I think it's interesting to bring in what smarter people have to say. I've been listening to a lot of Jordan Peterson lectures recently, but there's little reason to bring it into any thread as of yet. But I am fascinated with his thinking, and it's possible that the thread can broaden discussion by use of different credible sources. We certainly aren't going to discourage bringing in good outside sources, but even good sources are only as good for discussion as the poster makes use of it. | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
On November 27 2016 12:53 Nebuchad wrote: It doesn't have to be a mic drop. I mean, more precisely, it's obvious when it's a mic drop and when it's not. It's kwizach's preferred method of arguing and it's a good part of the reason why we know not to argue with kwizach. I don't really think it's the case of anyone else in the thread. Dissertation spamming isn't. But everything else is real examples of other people from the thread who do things that are ultimately equivalent to a mic drop. On November 27 2016 12:53 Nebuchad wrote: I think academics are people. When you think they're wrong, you get to show that. It's certainly harder to show that someone like Chomsky is wrong than someone like me, but hey, it's also harder to show that Harris is wrong than any of his followers online. Doesn't mean it shouldn't be done. The goal is to find the truth, not to have our side be right. Academics are people. But they're also not the people who post in the thread, and not the people to whom a response would be addressed. The format of a response to a John Oliver or Stefan Molyneux video or a Paul Krugman blog post is not one suitable to the thread. Nor is their opinion as posted suitable as an argument within the thread since it's much more verbose and much less on topic. People should have to make the argument themselves because otherwise the response is not one that can be reasonably made. It's that combination of off-topic and tedious that will lead any sane person to instantly nope out of having anything to do with it. The latter case is particularly insidious. If I give a partial rebuttal, the response is easily going to be, "why should I listen to some random guy on the internet instead of to a Nobel Memorial Prize winner?" And that's just not good discussion. Academics are people, but they aren't immune from criticism. Especially outside their area of expertise. Frankly, Noam Chomsky is a guy who is often cited for being "this really smart intellectual who talks about politics and history." And if you listen to him, he sounds like he knows what he's talking about. But I'd be interested in seeing how many people are interested in critiquing him - because that's a really, really obnoxious and unpleasant game. I absolutely value his contributions in linguistics, and I think he is a valuable thinker; I just am not willing to give him a free pass to say whatever he wants. And especially I'm not thrilled with the idea of having to respond to him in absentia because somebody posted a link. On November 27 2016 12:53 Nebuchad wrote: Also, in what way could that possibly be pseudo-intellectualism?... Academic style is valuable for one purpose: to quickly and concisely exchange a substantial depth of information between well-versed experts in a field. When it's used in a public discourse, it has a different purpose: to appear well-versed and to be able to cite sources and expect people to just take your word for it because the amount of effort it takes to actually address it is ridiculous. That is pseudo-intellectualism, pure and simple. Whenever I talk about topics that has a lot of academic depth to it, I specifically seek to simplify it to make sure it's accessible. Doing anything else is trying to appear smart by adopting an academic style where it simply is not appropriate. | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
On November 27 2016 13:32 Falling wrote: It is more or less the same thing. Well, with the one exception that the PhD dissertions would be a better source (supposing the dissertation was related to the topic) than random youtuber with an opinion. But aside from a better source, it doesn't add that much to the discussion unless the poster synthesizes the information. I'm not sure who you are arguing exactly. Now the bolded part is something that really gets at the problem. How do you know whether it does or does not relate to the topic? How do you know that the person said what the poster said he said? How do you know that the PhD dissertation is a credible source, not an idea that fell out of favor or that was proven to be based on faulty data? By going into a deep dive that simply is not reasonable for any discussion. And I don't mean that in a "I'm too lazy so I'll concede the point," I mean that in a "this point was deliberately made to be hard to address so that it is unfeasible to respond to it in any reasonable time frame." That is an underappreciated poison for the discussion. On November 27 2016 13:32 Falling wrote: I think it's interesting to bring in what smarter people have to say. I've been listening to a lot of Jordan Peterson lectures recently, but there's little reason to bring it into any thread as of yet. But I am fascinated with his thinking, and it's possible that the thread can broaden discussion by use of different credible sources. We certainly aren't going to discourage bringing in good outside sources, but even good sources are only as good for discussion as the poster makes use of it. If you bring it in, my thought is that you should say it yourself, not rely on some "smarter people" (don't like that term, but whatever) to say it for you. If the argument consists of just linking it, or not much better, a long form argument that relies critically upon that (secondary and derivative, though perhaps useful) source to make the point, then it's absolutely problematic. | ||
|
Falling
Canada11510 Posts
I think it's useful to bring in sources as supporting evidence for your argument, but it is your argument. I for sure agree with this: If the argument consists of just linking it, or not much better, a long form argument that relies critically upon that (secondary and derivative, though perhaps useful) source to make the point, then it's absolutely problematic. | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
| ||
| ||
