Why I Don't Engage in Political Talk on Lit (usually)

Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement (plus a 3-point rant from me)

Pre-script: My original intention with this post was to just share Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement. What are your thoughts on it? I think it's a helpful reminder in discussions. That shared, here's why I generally--and I say generally, because I love me a political chat or thoughtful fight--try to refrain from political talk on boards (blood pressure, mainly):

1. Thoughtful comments get lost in a quickly moving train of posts; rationalism loses to dickishness; there's no way for visitors to vote on comments (as one does on Reddit - so at least there's a kind of vetting process there).

2. Arguments turn ad hominem pretty quickly & slip into the lower levels of Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement: http://i.imgur.com/2wIgSot.png

3. Discussions often lack quotations/citations, context, and especially cohesiveness--wouldn't it be great it threads could just rationally splinter off and we could envision them in a new way like a bubble graph? But I ironically digress...

Thoughts? Please keep all name-calling to a strictly ironic basis.

I think you should sit and spin on that uppity pyramid thingy ya smug sum' bitch.
http://static.ddmcdn.com/gif/streaker-australia-big-670x440.jpg

BotanyBoy said:

I think you should sit and spin on that uppity pyramid thingy ya smug sum' bitch.
http://static.ddmcdn.com/gif/streaker-australia-big-670x440.jpg

Click to expand...

Ha! I couldn't have asked for a better "you're an ass hat" comment.

I think the pink on the bottom is the prettiest color and should be moved to the top

The reason for the above and the reason it's shaped like a pyramid is because very very few people read up on any given subject to even have a discussion about it.

I don't have it handy to link but there's an article about the idea that the less a person knows about a subject the more there apt to think they have expert level of understanding. The problem is it is impossible to know what your level of competence is because you don't ever know what it is that you don't know. Couple that with the ability now to Google for confirmation bias and you have a disaster in the way of perpetuating mass stupidity.

I agree but still post here, to try to have a discussion despite the "Ass Hats". Lots of days I just up date "Your Helpful Police" and on to other things.

Graf_Severin said:

....., here's why I generally--and I say generally, because I love me a political chat or thoughtful fight--try to refrain from political talk on boards (blood pressure, mainly):

Click to expand...

Well, in an ordinary politics board, I'd have left long ago because of the things you've mentioned. There's no real discussion here, the trolls are proud to be trolls and to get the Golden Stupidity award, and the halfway smart people answer them because of that feeling of superiority beyond them.

And that's it. This is a sex board, and discussions are kind of a S/M game. I'm a dom, and Botanyboy is my sub. He gets off on kicks in his nuts.


The thing that bothers me more is the lack of variation about the topics. I get that this is mostly an American board, talking about American topics in the main, but I'm somewhat astonished how much both, topics and arguments, just fit the cliche people outside the US got about America: just shootings, brutality, arrogance, name-calling, problems made out of this self-responsibility bullshit, and people competing in outrivaling their stupidity.

All the things and people that makes America great are quiet, you have to look for them.

PoppingTom said:

Well, in an ordinary politics board, I'd have left long ago because of the things you've mentioned. There's no real discussion here, the trolls are proud to be trolls and to get the Golden Stupidity award, and the halfway smart people answer them because of that feeling of superiority beyond them.

And that's it. This is a sex board, and discussions are kind of a S/M game. I'm a dom, and Botanyboy is my sub. He gets off on kicks in his nuts.


The thing that bothers me more is the lack of variation about the topics. I get that this is mostly an American board, talking about American topics in the main, but I'm somewhat astonished how much both, topics and arguments, just fit the cliche people outside the US got about America: just shootings, brutality, arrogance, name-calling, problems made out of this self-responsibility bullshit, and people competing in outrivaling their stupidity.

All the things and people that makes America great are quiet, you have to look for them.

Click to expand...

I agree that this board is full of "comfortable" topics that people can respond to on autopilot. The gun debate and Obama...there is a thread from 2013 that pretty much has the same people arguing the same thing as now.

Maybe you should recognize that the trolls are not here because they disagree or dislike what you say, but they can see how everyone has their nice comfy chair, their own place, people they respond to and things are very orderly here. Politics has become complacent, like the GB with cliques and outsiders dismissed. You guys will never get rid of the old boys network by just replacing it with another one.

It's human nature to fall back to what you know, you don't need to change it (make your own choices) but at least recognize it.


I still want Pink on top

Graf_Severin said:

Pre-script: My original intention with this post was to just share Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement. What are your thoughts on it? I think it's a helpful reminder in discussions. That shared, here's why I generally--and I say generally, because I love me a political chat or thoughtful fight--try to refrain from political talk on boards (blood pressure, mainly):

1. Thoughtful comments get lost in a quickly moving train of posts; rationalism loses to dickishness; there's no way for visitors to vote on comments (as one does on Reddit - so at least there's a kind of vetting process there).

2. Arguments turn ad hominem pretty quickly & slip into the lower levels of Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement: http://i.imgur.com/2wIgSot.png

3. Discussions often lack quotations/citations, context, and especially cohesiveness--wouldn't it be great it threads could just rationally splinter off and we could envision them in a new way like a bubble graph? But I ironically digress...

Thoughts? Please keep all name-calling to a strictly ironic basis.

Click to expand...

AWESOME!!! And God bless you!

One of if not THE biggest problem in this country is when you get below the level of "counter argument" (which is constantly) you've basically abandoned the concept of rational discussion completely.

And few people really give a shit.

Colonel Hogan said:

One of if not THE biggest problem in this country is when you get below the level of "counter argument" (which is constantly) you've basically abandoned the concept of rational discussion completely.

Click to expand...

Yes, agree. I do think some people slip into "Contradiction" tier for lack of time in person--but if it's online, I expect people to invest time and at least to cite (and I'm old school that way--maybe the immediacy of information over the past decade has led our brains to process and react more quickly and drop logic?).

That line between the Counterargument v. Contradiction tiers is where most of my day-to-day "rational discourse" is situated with others. I think I can deal fine if there's an intention to move up into the evidence. I can appreciate a "Contradiction/Counteragument" discussion if it's at the water cooler at work.

Maybe it's because so many of us want to be heard, want our stories heard, and thus at best we reach the tier of Contradiction: e.g., "Well, that's not been MY experience," and someone goes on telling you their experience. And maybe if we just listen more, we can help people get out of themselves and into the abstract discourse, a real look at statistics, and away from reactive emotions.

You know, the way Cornel West sweetens up Sean Hannity.
Call it Therapeutic Rationalism.

Graf_Severin said:

Yes, agree. I do think some people slip into "Contradiction" tier for lack of time in person--but if it's online, I expect people to invest time and at least to cite (and I'm old school that way--maybe the immediacy of information over the past decade has led our brains to process and react more quickly and drop logic?).

That line between the Counterargument v. Contradiction tiers is where most of my day-to-day "rational discourse" is situated with others. I think I can deal fine if there's an intention to move up into the evidence. I can appreciate a "Contradiction/Counteragument" discussion if it's at the water cooler at work.

Maybe it's because so many of us want to be heard, want our stories heard, and thus at best we reach the tier of Contradiction: e.g., "Well, that's not been MY experience," and someone goes on telling you their experience. And maybe if we just listen more, we can help people get out of themselves and into the abstract discourse, a real look at statistics, and away from reactive emotions.

You know, the way Cornel West sweetens up Sean Hannity.
Call it Therapeutic Rationalism.

Click to expand...

Well, "that's not been MY experience."

My experience has been that most people DON'T express the desire or intent to "move up into evidence." Their experience, and the reactive emotions stemming from it, seem more than sufficient to form their opinions.

I am happy that your experience is different and that you still retain the generosity to give your co-workers and others the benefit of the doubt as to their tendency to bring discussions to a higher plane.

The best discussion style I ever faced was on a German board where the admin wrote in the forum rules "This is a dictature. Get used to it, or you'll be kicked." Ordinarily I leave such sites, as such admins become biased, megalomaniac or extraordinary picky (the German Lit is a good example), but this one was tolerant, he just wanted to keep people decent and reasonable, and they did, people rarely discussed below contradiction, though some were diehard enemies to each other.

Thing is that it wasn't as boring as more free sites (in German language) were. I think that real free speech is good for venting, but not that good for going deeper to whatever.

(Responding to your quotation below here.) Interesting point: "I think that real free speech is good for venting, but not that good for going deeper to whatever." So I take it that that "dictature" was truly enforced and provided sufficient negative reinforcement to whip everybody up the higher levels of the Hierarchy of Disagreement? I'm in favor of that. "Free speech" can only be related to noninterference by government; the rest is the discretion of commerce/the "speech" of the forum admin.

PoppingTom said:

The best discussion style I ever faced was on a German board where the admin wrote in the forum rules "This is a dictature. Get used to it, or you'll be kicked." Ordinarily I leave such sites, as such admins become biased, megalomaniac or extraordinary picky (the German Lit is a good example), but this one was tolerant, he just wanted to keep people decent and reasonable, and they did, people rarely discussed below contradiction, though some were diehard enemies to each other.

Thing is that it wasn't as boring as more free sites (in German language) were. I think that real free speech is good for venting, but not that good for going deeper to whatever.

Click to expand...

I too rarely enter into political discussions. The reason isn't so much the rabid dog fighting that goes on, but the fact that I've been taught to listen instead of talk. My daddy always said you can't hear what the other fella's saying if you got your damned mouth open. And you never ever learn anything if you're always trying to formulate a response instead of thinking about what was said. Leastwise that's my take on it.


Comshaw

What we have here is a failure to communicate.