The Rules of Debate

[KingsGambit]

Did you really need to lead with that? :/

I appreciate you being willing to speak, truly, don't get me wrong

Not meant as a slight against you; I meant the preface in the sense that "I hate that it's this way".

[Jaecp]

That's rather harsh. I'm only saying that I disagree with his argument. I'm not in the habit of name calling. I've also studied enough PS classes that I'm comfortable with my understanding of American politics. That's not a double standard.

I intended to be more direct than harsh. Be that as it may, this double standard exists. People have, on occasion, simply cut out the insults in a single post from various members of the mod team, even, containing numerous gratuitous insults to people writing thoughtful posts and when it's pointed out we are told to roll with the punches with some seriously spurious reasoning. This? This was Demi-Conservative! He's an obvious troll with bad grammar to the point of looking like one of those Russian trolls that the news talks about. Is there a single person more deserving of that word, regardless of tact, that it could go to here? I don't think so.

[Starlight]

Upsetting both sides is a sign they're probably onto the right track if you ask me.

This logic amuses me. It would be valid if both sides were equally filled with competent, intelligent, educated, thoughtful, open-minded, evidenced-based, scientific-minded, critical-thinking, rational people. But in the real world, chances are pretty good that that describes one side better than the other, and that the other side is heavily filled with uneducated, propaganda-believing, closed-minded, science-deniers... etc.

In such a situation it would likely be the case that one side is right about everything across the board, or close to it. And that the other side is wrong about everything across the board, or close to it. Because the same methodological flaws that lead one side to a wrong position in one instance, will likely lead them to a wrong position in another instance too. And the same competency and methodology that leads a side to a right position in one instance, will likely be in play in other instances. So we should reasonably expect that one side is 90% or more right, and the other side is 90% or more wrong, because the same underlying factors will be in play during each argument between them.

Splitting the difference between the sides is only a good heuristic if you've got good reason to think that the underlying methodologies being used by the sides are equally sound, and that both sides are in positions to get as much right as each other. That might be a reasonable tactic to use to think about a debate between two university professors arguing about their field of expertise, but in the area of public politics it makes little sense because the sides are very demographically disparate and approach the topics with very different methodologies from very different backgrounds. In that instance splitting the difference is essentially saying "well intelligence and stupidity are equally valid ways of finding truth, so I'm going to be wise and split the difference between the two sides, because that's the smart thing to do, and it makes me holier than them because I'm above the fray and not bickering."

[Jaecp]

Aka: how do you compromise with people who think banning a race or religion with people who want a thorough, fair immigration system? How do you compromise with someone who thinks vaccines cause autism or the people that believe global warming is a myth?

Too much of mainstream republican views are articles of faith, to say nothing of Trump, to hope for compromise on quite a few issues and even on those issues that could be, in theory, the base doesn't want it. Republicans are still afraid of tea party types primarying them on account of all these safe districts. Democrats leave most of our crazies in Portland and San Fran. We don't elect them and that led to a moderate like Obama being accused of being on the fringe. Ridiculous

[Starlight]

How do you compromise with... people that believe global warming is a myth?

You admit that climate change is man-made, but suggest we should do nothing because in a billion years the sun will swallow the earth and thus global warming is in our future. It's called the Gary Johnson compromise.

[Jaecp]

Ugh, he is such a tool. I'm happy Bernie is finally directly telling people that Johnson's policies are the opposite of his revolution.

[KingsGambit]

This logic amuses me. It would be valid if both sides were equally filled with competent, intelligent, educated, thoughtful, open-minded, evidenced-based, scientific-minded, critical-thinking, rational people. But in the real world, chances are pretty good that that describes one side better than the other, and that the other side is heavily filled with uneducated, propaganda-believing, closed-minded, science-deniers... etc.

There is some strong logic here but I'm not convinced that the "left" and "right", broadly speaking, are as monolithic and as intellectually consistent as this would assume. Consider the American right; a pastiche of social conservatives, libertarians, and military hawks. These stances in their purest forms actually conflict with one another so I see a series of uneasy alliances. Thus, the concept of this monolith being uniformly right or uniformly wrong doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me.

[Mountain Man]

There is some strong logic here but I'm not convinced that the "left" and "right", broadly speaking, are as monolithic and as intellectually consistent as this would assume. Consider the American right; a pastiche of social conservatives, libertarians, and military hawks. These stances in their purest forms actually conflict with one another so I see a series of uneasy alliances. Thus, the concept of this monolith being uniformly right or uniformly wrong doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me.

Liberals tend to see the world in rather simplistic black-and-white terms. There's not a lot of nuisance in their thinking.

[KingsGambit]

There's not a lot of nuisance in their thinking.

I know you disagree with this

[Jaecp]

There is some strong logic here but I'm not convinced that the "left" and "right", broadly speaking, are as monolithic and as intellectually consistent as this would assume. Consider the American right; a pastiche of social conservatives, libertarians, and military hawks. These stances in their purest forms actually conflict with one another so I see a series of uneasy alliances. Thus, the concept of this monolith being uniformly right or uniformly wrong doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me.

I think if we restrict his statements to be about the people elected into office and the laws that are pushed then his statement goes from "mostly right, with a few important divets" like the ones you mentioned to being hard to argue against

[KingsGambit]

I think if we restrict his statements to be about the people elected into office and the laws that are pushed then his statement goes from "mostly right, with a few important divets" like the ones you mentioned to being hard to argue against

I still don't really agree. What the 'left' and 'right' can change dramatically just over a period of decades. Consider the 1990s, when the Clinton administration was cracking down hard on immigration and Hillary was railing against black "superpredator" kids. Did anything instrinsically change about liberalism over the years, or did these leaders simply evolve based on political expediency and trends?

[JimL]

Liberals tend to see the world in rather simplistic black-and-white terms. There's not a lot of nuisance in their thinking.

The irony continues. Btw, I agree there is not a lot of nuisance in liberal thinking, but I do consider your thoughts to be a big nuisance to human progress.

[Jaecp]

I still don't really agree. What the 'left' and 'right' can change dramatically just over a period of decades. Consider the 1990s, when the Clinton administration was cracking down hard on immigration and Hillary was railing against black "superpredator" kids. Did anything instrinsically change about liberalism over the years, or did these leaders simply evolve based on political expediency and trends?

Well, actually, Clinton was an intentional step to the right by the Democratic party after losing the presidency 3 times in a row. The Clintons also pioneered what is now referred to as Triangulation Politics which further muddles the waters regarding what they actually wanted, verse what they were willing to give up to get it. That's not excusing them as I think Triangulation Politics contributed greatly to the overton window shifting that Fox has dutifully worked to push fo 20 years, but they have a role there, too. Complaints about the Democrats not being liberal enough really start with them and was pretty much what got Nader all pissed off.

And, while that is very interesting, I don't believe it's directly relates to my statement. I am not claiming anything intrinsic, KG, but claiming that, for example, the Democratic party platform and the laws Democrats try to pass have, for whatever reason, more of a basis in science than the ones that Republicans try to. Could this change? Of course, but until they do? Plus, I still believe in the fierce urgency of now ;)

[Sparko]

Oh, and Star, this is kind of interesting considering that you're most likely the only person significantly to the left of me on this forum, but

http://io9.gizmodo.com/almost-everyo...gin-1787283818

Not only are the people who make Star Trek (where, by the federations standards, we'd be leading the tea party) are not only advocating against Trump but FOR Clinton, saying,



Oh, and before any of you bitch about Hollywood and politics remember that Star Trek has been political the whole time. Having Russians and American's working together in the 60s? Black Female Officers? Not to mention that he took all the right lessons from his experience as a bomber pilot in the second world war. He saw, firsthand, what I saw on video screens. Crazy :-/

BREAKING NEWS!!!! Hollywood is Liberal!! News at 11!!!!

[RumTumTugger]

I hate to say it but Jaecp is right. There is a lot of abject rudeness and childish name calling on the part of a few conservative posters that nobody says a word about, but the moment any non conservative says something, they come under instant fire for their tone.

We need to heed what Jesus said about planks in our eyes.

fair enough but the other side needs to do that as well. Or get thicker skins if they are going to dish it out.