This is open-mindedness and self-criticism?

We've got some very, very fine people on this board. I enjoy talking to them so much, you would never believe it.

The implication here is, all viewpoints have validity, and unless you're in an echo chamber then you can't have any opinions yourself.

Logic in their context is a buzzword. I'm not making any conscious effort to "use logic", I'm using conscious effort to make my sentences meaningful and thoughtful.



There's more to it than just "citing a source". You also have to evaluate the source. You have to understand the source, why it's making its opinion known, where it gets its resources, how to read an interpret the sorts of data they publish, consider counter-evidence and weight differing opinions and biases against each other.

This takes time, deep consideration, and effort. In debate this more or less becomes people repeating "facts" without investigating any of this going on below - well, sometimes that happens, but that sort of deep analysis - which I believe is far more convincing than debate, rarely happens as a result of debate. It's mostly just people who don't understand how various phrases are operationalized, or what the statistical data means - quoting things that sound nice without understanding.

I would say that /r/NeutralPolitics is more of a social experiment in discourse rules that we badly need to propogate, than a place to arrive at the most pressing points that speak to the heart of the matter as quickly as possible.

This is elitist. Most people won't pass your bar of depth.

Look, I'd never heard of this reddit group before Jones mentioned it. And I didn't spend more than 7 seconds looking at it. So I have no idea what people in this group think, what the rules are, or how well they're enforced. But this point you're making is hardly an insurmountable philosophical problem. I suspect that all they're getting at is be charitable when considering certain views. You can say "anyone who is a libertarian could only be an immoral capitalist racist who wants to enslave laborers". That would be biased. You can also try to get into the head of someone who you disagree with, assume that they aren't driven by malign intentions, and try to figure out why they think the way they do. You can think other people's thoughts, and even try the make a strong case for them, without agreeing with them or finding them convincing. I think that kind of open mindedness is what they have in mind.

I'm sorry Eversor

So what counts as correct political discourse: a bunch of people without proper education, making short quips and questions back and forth, citing statistics they don't really understand, without any passion or tangible involvement in the issues?

Out of [url="[URL]https://www.reddit.com/r/NeutralPolitics/comments/7bxr6y/is_universal_healthcare_effective/[/URL]"]this entire[/url] thread, most posts are effectively useless, people discussing semantics or asking opinions which are answered with little attention to detail. The few posts that are worth reading could have been compiled into one article and been much easier to parse and read than to slog through the various viewpoints to get to something which matters.

I think you're missing the intention behind their use of the word. It's pretty straightforward. I think they just mean "make your sentences meaningful and thoughtful". What do you think they're trying to accomplish by rallying behind a word which you claim is a buzzword?



So you're saying it's really hard to cite a fact that is demonstrably true, therefore, don't bother with facts. Nothing wrong with that argument.

Your characterization of how I view libertarians feels so wrong I don't know where to begin. I don't think libertarians are driven by malign intentions, and I do try to figure out why they think the way they do. I've also concluded after all of this that libertarianism is a really poor belief system. It seems the point you're making is that, if only I had truly been open-minded, then I couldn't possibly have such strong opinions against libertarianism.

The only way what you're saying to me makes sense is if I interpret you as saying I should be more sensitive to other people about my views. Well, take this forum. Twice now I wrote out what I felt were polite, non-condescending posts to Wookie both asking about his views, and presenting my own on a topic. Neither time did he give a reply, or indicate in any way that he read my post. If he had, then we could have maybe had a nice discussion. I don't think my discourse affected his willingness to learn, so why should it matter?

BTW Reid, I have nothing against you. I just like to provoke people more knowledgeable about their own point of view than myself into a larger brawl with minimal effort.

I don't think it reflects any sort of intentional malignity, it reflects unconscious but problematic cultural attitudes towards politics. Politeness doesn't just serve the role you think it does in politics, politeness can also stifle and suppress justified anger. When you demand people not act out in any sort of dramatic way, and idolizing "polite" discourse, you limit important and real aspects of the political process.



No, I'm saying, "factuality" is a tricky topic and requires contextualization and understanding of the limitations. Most people want to cite statistics as absolute truth. Simply going back and forth with these statistics, but never unraveling the deeper aspects of the statistics, simply flusters people in a sea of contradictions but doesn't help create a useful narrative. If people would spend more time investigating topics, they could help create a mutual narrative of understanding.

I actually have two long time friends, brothers, who have libertarian views IRL, and I get along fantastic with them, and it's because we'll sit down with a few beers and share long narratives about our world views. That's the operative word, though, narrative, I tell a story about how I believe the United States has arranged itself into the geohell we live in today, which I attempt to justify with facts. If I was to sit down and dispute taxes with them by repeating statistics our time wouldn't be nearly as civil.

IOW we learn best by creating narratives and images, and when we personally evaluate facts ourselves with honesty. Simply coming at other people with "facts" is an ineffective way to approach the political process.

Woah there, Tex. I wasn't attributing that view to you. It was hypothetical.

But your response misses the gist of what I was getting at. Which is that a rule in a subreddit about not favoring certain political opinions is coherent. What does it look like? It means creating an environment where people aren't shunned for making certain arguments because they aren't of a certain ideological bent.

I bet if you posted there as a fascist, you would be shunned. But that's besides the point. The point is, sure, it's in some sense coherent, the same way libertarianism is like, intelligible, it's something I can grasp, but that doesn't mean I think it's the right way of going about political talks.

The problem is you seem to think there's like, the right combination of facts, and if you state those facts in order, it will somehow, like, topple another person's worldview? Or something? Something I call "The West Wing myth", where one person just delivers a devastating rhetorical blow and the professor storms out of the room crying crocodile tears, the professor lost his tenure and was fired the next day. He died from refusing his right to free healthcare and realized on his death bed that he had wasted his whole life worshiping an obviously fake religion. Or whatever you seem to think is the result of debate.

And yes, shunning is a totally valid response to extremely vulgar, repulsive views. If someone is going to take away your health care to make a rich person richer, shunning that person is not, like, some weird, extramoral thing to do. We shun rapists, we shun criminals, we shun people who violate the solidarity of the tribe. The fact that you somehow think this is alienable from politics is just astounding.

Thanks, that's flattering. If I'm entertaining then that's something satisfying too.

Not sure how far you'd get posting as a fascist while also following the other rules. You should try it.



Nope, I don't think that "debate", as you keep calling it, is some kind of irresistible ability that produces persuasion in people who don't want to be persuaded. I've already indicated in the past that I don't think that, so if it seems that way to you it's because you're mistaken.



That would be an astounding thing for me to believe, if I believed anything like that.

Debate seems then to mostly be a bunch of people wanking off and doing nothing important with their time.

What do you think this place is?

Damn, Jones beat me to it. :p

https://www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/news/post-politics/wp/2017/11/10/trump-says-u-s-wont-be-taken-advantage-of-anymore-and-hours-later-pacific-rim-nations-reach-deal-on-trade-without-u-s-buy-in/

I'd really really like everyone to know that I think Trump is the dumbest world leader by a yuge margin.

Also Hillary Clinton will be here Monday, just a year and some change after I saw her at my undergrad. I swear this woman is stalking me.

eh.

So are the other states that signed the treaty just waiting for Trump to leave office, implementing the treaty in their countries anyway so that the next US president can later agree to it?

Preparing for her 2020 run

He is, although it’s important to note that the situation isn’t exactly like what the WP describes in that article.

They might wish for that, but it won’t happen. The US was by far the largest market in the original negotiation, and they used their size in order to extract concessions on many issues including labor standards. Since the US has withdrawn, many of those provisions have been changed to the detriment of the US if it ever did sign in the future.

You wouldn’t want to agree to TPP. I’ll be somewhat surprised if Canada ever agrees to it, either, although at least we’re at the table.

Not literally, of course. Our prime minister was literally not at the table.

oh god no

If she runs in 2020 expect her campaign slogan to be like "She deserved it" or some other huge flub.

From September 06, 2017: https://www.politico.com/story/2017/09/06/trump-public-opinion-better-than-hillary-clinton-242398

“Don’t make the same mistake twice”, unironically.

So yeah, we should mention how there's a whole bunch of crazy **** going on that nobody talks about.

https://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/there-was-terrorist-attack-colorado-walmart-last-week-and-no-one-talking-about-it

http://www.ocregister.com/2017/11/05/multiple-victims-reported-in-texas-church-shooting/

http://www.citizen-times.com/story/news/local/2017/10/10/bomb-airport-ammonium-nitrate-fuel-oil-mix-suspect-make-first-appearance/749394001/

Also on the whole squabble with the semantics of terrorism: the whole thing is ****ing annoying. But yeah, the amount of white dudes attacking a whole bunch of people seems to be especially bad this year? And I think it would be hard to not correlate that with the rise of Trump.

You disagree with Mounk?

Who?

Yascha Mounk? The guy who wrote the Slate article you posted?

Oh no, I agree with him. I more mean I'm annoyed by the sorts of people who, any time a white person does any sort of violence, says "if they're white they aren't a terrorist, but you can bet if they're brown they'd be called one!" or like after the NYC attack insisted the guy who shouted Allahu ackbar while using the same attack vector as ISIS has many times in Europe was "a lone wolf".

It comes across really petty and insincere.

Yeah. It's irritating how quickly people identifying some on the assumptions behind our discourse produces cliches that in turn become part of our discourse.

The lone wolf thing is especially preposterous. Some have tried to suggest that there is a double-standard, and that we say whites who commit acts of mass violence are "lone wolfs", and Muslims who do we call terrorists. (As if the terms "lone wolf" and "terrorist" are mutually exclusive, and we call whites "lone wolves" instead of calling them "terrorists", because apparently "terrorist" is a harsher condemnation and we want to shield them from it because of their privledge). For example, in this article: https://theintercept.com/2017/10/02/lone-wolf-white-privlege-las-vegas-stephen-paddock/



That's complete nonsense. Look at the stabbing attacks that occurred in Israel and the occupied territories (starting in October 2015) and you'll see the term "lone wolf" is used in coverage of every incident where it was relevant. Or even look back at coverage from the San Bernardino shootings. A person can clearly be a "lone wolf" and a "terrorist" at the same time. They describe qualitatively different things. The thing that differentiates them isn't the severity of the condemnation.

From Dec. 2015: http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/la-na-obama-terror-address-20151205-story.html

In fact, I'm skeptical that someone can be a "lone wolf" without being a terrorist. I think calling Stephen Paddock a "lone wolf" is actually incorrect.