Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
User Journal

Journal Ethelred Unraed's Journal: Food for thought for lib'ruls (and everyone else) 72

Journal by Ethelred Unraed

I started composing this as an answer to sulli's post in CyranoVR's journal, linking to an interesting article from Esquire entitled Greetings from "Idiot America".

And once again I ended up being more long-winded and decided it was worth distributing this to a wider audience...

sulli stated simply "Pudge's creationist Fans should read this / That is all". My reply:

You realize, of course, that such persons would latch onto the passages about Iraq, and the barrage of insults, get huffy and ignore the rest of what was written, no matter how accurate.

Vitriol plays well when preaching to the choir, but it will do nothing to actually convince people on the 'other' side of the debate. And yes, there is a debate, no matter what the author wishes. On a purely scientific level, there shouldn't be a debate about teaching Creationism or ID vs. evolution, but there is -- whether we like it or not. Winning the debate takes skill and a cool head, and pounding the other guy into the dirt with rhetorical smackdowns doesn't do it.

This is why TMP was so entertaining. He was glorious at writing vitriol, one of the best on Slashdot. I loved to read him just for the sheer entertainment value, and I have to say I miss him already. But in terms of winning the battle but losing the war, he was Exhibit A. (Not to say I'm much better, but I hope I've learned a bit from experience.)

Think of it this way. Suppose your science teacher, way back when, had constantly addressed you as an idiot cockgobbling nutscratcher while teaching Newton's laws. Would you have paid much attention to Newton? Would you have been able to weigh the factual evidence supporting Newton's conclusions? Or would you have just been insulted and sat there and steamed, maybe even taking the opposite conclusion out of sheer obstinacy? Most people would do the latter. It's a natural reaction. You too have a Gut, even if you don't like to admit it.

The reason people like pudge tie others in knots is not because of their superior grasp of the material. It's because they are both unflappable and stubborn. Constancy is more convincing than shrieking.

That's the reason, for example, the Bush Administration "won" the argument leading up to Iraq. It wasn't based on fact. It was based in large part on the hysterical reaction of the Democrats, who got bulldozed by the hard-headed straightforward unremitting rhetoric of Cheney and Rumsfeld. When people say that Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld are thus "leaders", it's true: people naturally rally to shows of strength and constancy. Those leaders might be leading us over the edge of a cliff, but they're still leaders.

Which is not to say that facts and argument don't enter into it. But on the other hand, even the best set of facts and arguments can be destroyed just by acting like a dick.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Food for thought for lib'ruls (and everyone else) More

Food for thought for lib'ruls (and everyone else)

Comments Filter:

  • WOULD READ AGAIN!!!! AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA+++++++++++++++++++++

    That's the reason, for example, the Bush Administration "won" the argument leading up to Iraq. It wasn't based on fact. It was based in large part on the hysterical reaction of the Democrats, who got bulldozed by the hard-headed straightforward unremitting rhetoric of Cheney and Rumsfeld. When people say that Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld are thus "leaders", it's true: people naturally rally to shows of strength and constancy. Those leaders might

    • This is really an excellent paragraph that sums up the last few years of politics quite nicely. I really wish we'd see some sane and balanced criticism against the administration followed by suggestions and ideas, not just incessant whining.

      Unfortunately I have to admit that, back when it mattered, I was also in my phase of ridiculing the "other guys" rather than taking them seriously. Sometimes I still lapse into that, though I regret it later because I know I only shot myself in the foot. (Comes from m

  • of either side is that they argue points neither side is willing to give up. It's funny. Kinda like when religious folks and atheists getting into religious arguements.

    Why bother? You aren't going to sway someone's opinion. Rhetoric and arguements for the sake of argueing is retarded.

    That's why I'll just quietly go on my way, ignoring the political posters and religious/athiest debates.

    • I dunno, obviously no one's going to change their views immediately and publically. That'd mean admitting error and losing face. But often when pushing someone to defend their views they have to research to find support for their position. That research might just sow a seed to some self-evaluation of beliefs and conceptions.

      Besides, your opinion is wrong, arguing is fun.

      • Besides, your opinion is wrong, arguing is fun.

        No it isn't. And may I just say that the fact of the matter is* that you're an idiot for saying so.

        Cheers,

        Ethelred

        * - Have you noticed that on TV debates these days, every other phrase seems to be "the fact of the matter is...", even if it isn't a fact?

        • No it isn't.

          Faith-based studies unanimously and conclusively prove that it is fun!

          Besides, this this isn't an argument, it's contradiction. An argument isn't just contradiction. An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition.

          • Faith-based studies unanimously and conclusively prove that it is fun!

            I've heard that stupid Intelligent Debater argument over and over, and I don't believe it for a second. Intelligent Debate is not science.

            Besides, this this isn't an argument, it's contradiction. An argument isn't just contradiction. An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition.

            *DING* That's it. Good morning.

            Cheers,

            Ethelred

        • "Oh look, this isn't an argument...It's just contradiction."
    • Why bother? You aren't going to sway someone's opinion.

      Actually, you can sway someone -- though sometimes it takes time. It won't be immediate and it won't be complete, but if you can at least get the other guy to see your point of view, that in and of itself is a small victory.

      A debate also doesn't have to be a win/lose thing. It can be just sharing ideas. Even some of my arguments with atheists have borne a lot of fruit, just because both sides were patient and eventually accepted that the other had

      • from my first post:

        of either side is that they argue points neither side is willing to give up.

        I'm talking specific things. Either you are pro-choice or anti-abortion, that's what I was talking about.
        • I'm talking specific things. Either you are pro-choice or anti-abortion, that's what I was talking about.

          But even that isn't true, I don't think. You may be surprised to hear that, once upon a time, I thought of abortion in almost the exact terms TMP was arguing recently: that the definition of "life" should be when a child is self-sufficient (thus allowing for abortion right up until the moment of birth). Eventually after a lot of arguing and debate, I changed my mind. Nowadays I'm still pro-choice, but

  • Although I would say the waters are even deeper than you suggest - underneath general ideas like "strength" and "constancy" are volumes of cognitive psychology, linguistics, neurobiology, and the assorted tradecraft of the advertising and marketing industries.

    The battle for the hearts and minds of Americans is fought by scientists [mollyivins.com], people who plan the thoughts and beliefs of people like pudge and ellem and elgamkowski using relatively straightforward, proven techniques for affecting human behavior.

    Which is
    • Still, it begs the question - how did we ever progress at all, if this is the case?

      I don't buy that "framing" or "context" or "spin" or whatever works in the long term. Eventually people start to notice. It's a classic short-term strategy that will come back to haunt you.

      Political debate hasn't even really changed that much. The jargon does, the technology does too, but the actual tactics aren't much different from what Madison or Jefferson or Jackson or Lincoln would have been familiar with. "The only

      • "True, their marketing campaign helps them sell so much, and it's brilliant, but at the end of the day if they were selling swamp sludge in a bottle, no amount of marketing would save them, at least not for long."

        Then explain Budmilloors, doodyhead.
        • Then explain Budmilloors, doodyhead.

          Egads. I concede everything.

          Well, no I don't. ;-)

          Bud, Miller, Coors and the others are cheap, have a consistent taste and people like it (at least they like it for the price they pay). Same goes for McD's. When you get down to it, Budmilloors is quite drinkable. No, it's not a gourmet experience, and yes, I'll take a good pint of Newcastle over that any day. But I also have to pay for the privilege.

          Bud sells because it's reliable and cheap, and they know it. Reme

          • Never mention "New Coke" again. It was horrible. It tasted like Pepsi. *spit*

            Besides that, Bud is not so cheap any longer. My visual cortex normally filters out that whole section of the beer area, but it doesn't always work in the border areas, so sometimes bits of bad beer filter into my consciousness. The other day I was shocked to see that a 6-pack of Buttweiper was going for maybe a dollar less than some excellent microbrews and even Harp/Bass/Guinness class imports. It's all in the brainwashin
            • Besides that, Bud is not so cheap any longer.

              But it's still cheaper, which is really all that matters. If Bud charged more than, say, Grolsch, then Bud's sales would no doubt plummet and Grolsch's would soar (relatively speaking).

              They are also probably tinkering with the price to maximize profits, but there's only so much that they can raise the price before the market reacts and punishes them accordingly. "Charging what the market will bear" and all that. If Bud ever gets to be more expensive than, sa

      • Thank you, that was a refreshingly nuanced response and I really like the way you put it. I basically agree, but with a caveat.

        For people concerned with reason, only reason matters. Facts, logic. Winning the political debate is not the goal. Finding the truth (or as close as we can come today) is the goal. This is what so many people fail to understand. Those who approach the browser like a warior, girding their loins for battle, marshalling their mental resources so that their side does not lose... amusing
      • ...at my own expense:

        So is "ask not what you can do for your country"

        Ya, that got a bit...garbled.

        Or maybe that's what Kennedy meant to say.

        Cheers,

        Ethelred

    • Wow... instead of contradicting yourself over the course of several posts, you manage to do it all in one post.

      The battle for the hearts and minds of Americans is fought by scientists, people who plan the thoughts and beliefs of people like pudge and ellem and elgamkowski using relatively straightforward, proven techniques for affecting human behavior.

      Nice slam against pudge, ellem, and eglamkowski, and I am disappointed I wasn't lumped in with them. And it is a slam - you're asserting that they, well w

      • Nice slam against pudge, ellem, and eglamkowski, and I am disappointed I wasn't lumped in with them .

        I don't want anybody to feel excluded in my journal. Therefore, to borrow dubiousdave's jargon, you're a doodyhead like pudge, ellem and eglamkowski.

        You could learn a lot from Ethelred

        I don't want him to learn from me, as this could hamper my efforts at global domination. I mean, when teaching a kid chess, do you teach him the four-move checkmate? Hell no! You use it mercilessly on him!

        Oh, and...S

        • I don't want anybody to feel excluded in my journal. Therefore, to borrow dubiousdave's jargon, you're a doodyhead like pudge, ellem and eglamkowski.

          oooooooooh just for that I may have to add Some Woman to my friends list.

          You now, whenever you bust out the "SILENCE!" - it makes me think of Adam Corolla's (very funny, IMO) bit on The Man Show where'd he's go on about when he is king and what he'd do - It'd usually go something like this:

          SILENCE! When I am king, midget porn will be available for sale at

        • Ooh! Ooh! Me TOO! Me TOO!

          I want my "I receive direct brain wave downloads from the Rovian master." t-shirt. :-D
          • I receive direct brain wave downloads from the Rovian master.

            I...am...so...tempted...to...use...that...as...m y...sig...

            Except that this hole in my tinfoil hat seems to be URK URK URK PRESIDENT BUSH IS JESUS CHRIST INCARNATE causing problems.

            Cheers,

            Ethelred

        • That's called the "ad hominem" fallacy, in case you weren't sure.

      • I am disappointed I wasn't lumped in with them.

        I wanted to use better examples of the genre.

        we actually, have the beliefs we do because we've somehow been manipulated

        Yes...

        because we're mind numbed robots who get our marching orders from talk radio...

        No.

        And then you turn right around 180 degrees and agree with Ethelred's point about NOT engaging in pointless ad hominem attacks.

        Actually it was neither an attack, nor pointless, nor ad-hominem. But to warriors, there is no truth (or the search for it), only "
        • Just so you're clear what as ad hominem actually is, here's the link to the Wikipedia Entry [wikipedia.org], because you start off reiterating a blatant example of an ad hominem attack.

          You reiterate that you think Conservatives hold their beliefs because we've been manipulated, which is not only incorrect, but is extremely condescending.

          For example: Many conservatives believe that life begins at conception. Many liberals do as well. From Biology: At conception a life is created that has a full human DNA sequence that i

          • You reiterate that you think Conservatives hold their beliefs because we've been manipulated, which is not only incorrect, but is extremely condescending.

            Or it would be, if I ever said it.

            There's the crux of the issue with you. You don't read. You just look for a line of attack.

            People can be conservative or liberal. They can also arrive at that position by reason or faith. My issue here is with the latter, not the former. Which you probably even know, since I've already explained it once and you just ignore
            • Or it would be, if I ever said it.

              Right here, you wrote: [slashdot.org]

              we actually, have the beliefs we do because we've somehow been manipulated

              Yes...

              And then you claim that, despite this matchinig the definition of an ad hominem attack, that it wasn't one when you wrote:

              Actually it was neither an attack, nor pointless, nor ad-hominem. But to warriors, there is no truth (or the search for it), only "attacks," "defenses..." who knows, perhaps you really can't tell the difference?

              and look - you insult me by cla

              • As big of a dumbass as I think that Railgunner is, and despite my preference that he go outside and play in traffic in order to better the gene pool... on this point, on whether or not Concern is using an ad hominem attack, Railgunner is correct.

                Concern, you're the bigger dumbass for letting Railgunner stomp you like that. Just admit you ad hominem attack people - hell, I insult the knuckledraggers all the time. It's fun - get's them all riled up.

                What you should have done, instead of denying that you at

                • Concern, you're the bigger dumbass for letting Railgunner stomp you like that.

                  Oh, not you again. ...sigh... He didn't "let" me do anything.

                  Instead, you come off looking like a complete jackass, and the fact that Railgunner's probably off having a laugh at a fllow liberals' expense royally pisses me off.

                  awwwww..... I upset the widdle troll? How awful of me to do dat to dee poor widdle troll.

                  And Railgunner - fuck you.

                  Sorry Red, I only putt from one side of the green, if ya smell what the rock is coo

                  • *chuckle* I think this is the first time I actually laughed at an RF post. C'mon, it was funny. :-)

                    Laugh wid' 'em if you can't laugh at 'em. Or something like that.

                    I am a dumbass.*

                    Cheers,

                    Ethelred

                    * - Pre-emptive "dumbass" to inoculate myself against RF

                • Wow. He actually fooled you.

                  Points for railgunner!

                  But seriously, you are incorrect. You probably don't want to discuss it, but I am happy to explain if you like.
                  • You're right, dumbass - I don't want to discuss it. You got drummed, plain and simple, and I couldn't give a flying fuck about how you want to spin it to convince me or anyone else that you didn't lose, dumbass. Besides - who are you trying to convince that you didn't lose, me? or yourself?
                    You lost. Learn from your mistake, and grow from it. Or don't, and remain a dumbass. I won't care either way, dumbass.
                    And honestly, you should be embarassed for letting a complete piece of shit like Railgunner do that
                    • Haha.

                      About what I thought, for an idiot that could get conned by a guy like Rail.

                      Nothing in your repertoire but ass-kissing for conservatives and insults for others.
              • And then you claim that, despite this matchinig the definition of an ad hominem attack,

                How, exactly?

                In each case, with each person I mentioned, I can point to an occasion where they argued irrationally. Usually a pretty egregious one. I go further to say that people who don't use reason find their beliefs by caprice - they are manipulated by whoever can "Frame" an issue better.

                Let me be charitable for a minute and really pretend you don't know what Ad Hominem is, despite knowing how to link to it.

                Ad Hominem
      • Nice slam against pudge, ellem, and eglamkowski, and I am disappointed I wasn't lumped in with them.

        Fine, fine, fine. RailGunner, you are *also* a wholly created tool of the vast right wing conspiracy.

  • but there is -- whether we like it or not.

    Linguistics is not always the friendliest of subjects. I just felt the need to point out that this clause refers back to the concept of the "scientific debate". Alas, there is no scientific debate on evolution vs. creationism. There is popular debate, which is as valid and interesting to science as Beavis and Butthead is to accomplished film critics.

    Otherwise, excellent entry. I agree whole-heartedly that simply pounding out one's beliefs and sticking to the honest
    • Alas, there is no scientific debate on evolution vs. creationism. There is popular debate, which is as valid and interesting to science as Beavis and Butthead is to accomplished film critics.

      But it is relevant to science. I know what you mean: ID isn't science. I agree. But the debate is still relevant to science as an institution because it will potentially have a profound effect on science -- if supporters of "pure" science aren't careful.

      Deliberately carrying the notion to its extreme, just to illus

      • I absolutely agree that the idea of unqualified equality is a problem in American society, but I don't necessarily agree that treating people who take it to the extreme should not lapse into contempt or that it's necessarily unfair that these people be treated with such contempt.

        At the end of the day, there are just some people who will, after seeing all the facts, either refuse to take the steps necessary to educate themselves on them or who will simply choose to roundly reject them even if all available c
        • I absolutely agree that the idea of unqualified equality is a problem in American society, but I don't necessarily agree that treating people who take it to the extreme should not lapse into contempt or that it's necessarily unfair that these people be treated with such contempt.

          That's a surprisingly cowardly argument. In effect you're saying you're so unable to convince another person that you're going to throw in the towel and just call them an idiot. YHBT, YHL, HAND.

          Look, on our side we have the grea

  • That's the reason, for example, the Bush Administration "won" the argument leading up to Iraq. It wasn't based on fact.

    Whose fault is that? Not the Bushies - they exploited the wilful ignorance of the average voter, who was more interested in "feel-good" than in facts.

    Only in A-mer-ika. The rest of the world was going "WTF is wrong with you people?" We watched Colin Powell get up in the UN and lie; we knew he was intentionally lying, having already seen the news stories debunking his "facts", and couldn

    • A "6-month war, tops" is now forseen as 10 years or more, and people aren't protesting in the streets - Bush says he's "on a mission from God" Holy fucking Blues Brothers flashback!?!

      I don't think too many people took the "six months" seriously to begin with. The occupation of Germany and Japan took decades. Mind you, I'll happily criticize the Bush Administration for being so naïve as to suggest we'd be out in six months and for not doing the job properly, but I doubt you'll find many people who bel

      • eople want reliability, constancy and sanity

        Not the people who voted for Bush. They want their Jerry Springer, their Oprah, and their feel-good lies. By making the mistake that they think the same way that we do, we're just perpetuating the problem.

        You can't talk to a mule the same way you talk to a horse.

        Same with Bush supporters - they need to be hit with a 2x4 between the eyes - and even then, they'll continually try to avoid thinking it all the way through. They've bought into the idea that they d

        • The people who bought into the Bush lies were thnking "Oh, goodie - Nintendo War II" - just another replay of Desert Storm. They really DID believe it would be over in 6 months - hell, I know people who thought it would be over in 6 WEEKS. They've engaged in a lot of revisionist history since then, which is a tactic the neocons use all the time.

          I happen to know quite a few Bush supporters, particularly in my own family. No one I know even remotely held the positions you ascribe to them. Yes, there is a h

          • There is a large hard core that will never listen to logic, just like there is a growing population that are functionally semi-literate.

            I'm not talking about knuckle-draggers - I'm talking about the dumbing down of what would have been intelligent people a generation ago. And I'm not talking about the upcoming generation - I'm talking about those between 40 and 60 who have stopped learning anything new, haven't picked up a book in 20 years, have the attention span of a 1-year-old, can't bring themselves to

            • Both you and squiggleslash seem to have completely missed the point of what I'm saying:

              The only way I've been able to get any of THEM to change their opinion on Bush was to drop the "nice-nice discussion" and let them know that only an idiot would support Bush, and only a fool and an asshole would do it twice, and keep it up for MONTHS. And make it personal. They have to fight back, over and over, and eventually they've got nothing to fight with, and one day you hear THEM telling someone else that Bush

              • It all sounds so true, except... it's not how Bush & Rove did it.

                They used arguments. Insults. Threats. They never apologized. Never cozied up. Never compromised. You are with them or against them.

                It garnered them success. It gave them a tough guy image. A kind of veneer of moral authority - since so many people apparently can judge how an argument is going without speaking the language.

                Why did it work so well for them?
                • Why did it work so well for them?

                  Their weak campaign 'worked' because the other camp was even weaker. Yeah, they never apologized, never wavered, etc. etc. etc. -- in other words, they showed leadership qualities that people rally to. Like I said in the JE, I think they're leading us right over a cliff and straight to hell in a handbasket, but they are still leading.

                  Kerry never answered a question without a laundry list of qualifications. Yeah, that might be more accurate, but it doesn't play well. The

              • To borrow a term - market segmentation. Different tactics depending on what your audience is receptive to.

                A lot of them have voluntarily suspended critical judgment when it comes to their current political views; in such cases you will never be able to use a logical argument to change their minds - htere are too many emotional berriers (perhaps because of the psychological investment they've already made, the "buy-in", if you will) preventing them from going down that road.

                Logical arguments, to them, a

        • When the house is on fire, you don't go, erm, excuse me for bothering ... you might want to know why its getting hotter ..." - you SHOUT FIRE!!!!

          Another point I forgot to mention.

          If there is a fire, what is the better thing to do?

          Shout FIRE FIRE FIRE and run around freaking out?

          Or calmly sound the alarm, and lead people to the exits without them getting trampled?

          I'm asking you to calmly lead people to the exits, not sit there and be roasted -- or worse, get trampled in the panicked attempt to esca

          • Problem is, there is a portion of the population that will not listen to calm calls to evacuate (or have we forgotten already about Katrina? I'm not referring to the people who couldn't leave - a lot of people who could leave just flat-out refused. They were not going to "give in" to "mother nature").

            They won't even BEGIN to respond unless you go "over the top", and force a response.

            This is not to say they're stupid - you can be intelligent AND dumb at the same time. Look how many geeks, who are undeniabl

  • Comment removed based on user account deletion
    • What was Kerry if not statesman-like, sticking to the points, and saying what needed to be said?

      "I voted for it before voting against it" was sticking to the points? Kerry was anything but statesmanlike -- that was the whole problem. He tried to act statesmanlike, but that was the whole problem. It came across as a sham, just like Bush piloting a jet onto a carrier came across as a sham. (And don't get me started on Edwards. I still wince thinking about the veep debate.)

      For all of Bush's faults, he an

      • Comment removed based on user account deletion
        • You see? Insults and abuse do end up being effective. You've just repeated, wholesale, a Republican talking point from the last election

          No, I didn't. I repeated a statement that Kerry made that was stupid. It was also an unintended gift to the Republicans. Just because he handed them the bat to beat him with isn't their fault. It was a classic case of Kerry taking mushy, wishy-washy positions and then being unable to explain them in a clear, concise way.

          Kerry spent most of his time trying to explain aw

          • Comment removed based on user account deletion
            • It was a Republican talking point. The origin doesn't matter because in terms of the talking point

              What? The origin doesn't matter, even if Kerry himself was the origin?

              it was out of context, used to imply - by you and the right - something that was clearly false and to bolster a principle that is utterly dishonourable

              No, I'm doing nothing of the sort. Kerry took a position that was so muddled that he couldn't communicate it clearly, and tied himself in knots doing so. I'm not talking about the fact

              • Comment removed based on user account deletion
                • That's why you quoted it as an example of the kind of poor statesman (huh?) Kerry was. It's not even relevent! "People need to stop insulting each other." "Kerry didn't, and look what happened to him!" "Sure he did, listen to this: "I voted for it before I voted against it." Was Gore's problem that he ignored the environment, the evidence being his famous line "I invented the Internet"?

                  *sigh* Once again you're mischaracterizing what it was that I wrote. I don't much see the point in rebutting you point-fo

            • Re:Meh (Score:2)

              by pudge ( 3605 ) *
              You think Pudge, you know, the guy who calls everyone a liar if they disagree with them, or a hypocrite, y'know, without actually backing up the argument or anything, is the model of reasoned debate.

              Nice technique: state a clear lie, so that when I rightfully call you a liar for stating this, you can say, "see?"

              But there's actually no example of me doing this. Go ahead, try to find one. You won't.

            • Re:Meh (Score:2)

              by pudge ( 3605 ) *
              I mean, c'mon. Seriously. Here's the fact. At the last election, there was one side that played according to your rules. They didn't respond to the insults. They didn't engage in the insults themselves (hell, on the odd occasion Kerry briefly covered something that might pertain in a vague way to a possible absense of a certain current President on past battlefields, the press were all over him)

              Dude. Kerry insulted Bush every other day. And Dean did it every day. What campaign were YOU watching?

              Now don't

            • Oddly, I flew over this sentence, but since pudge brought it up and caught my attention:

              You think Pudge, you know, the guy who calls everyone a liar if they disagree with them, or a hypocrite, y'know, without actually backing up the argument or anything, is the model of reasoned debate.

              No, I don't think pudge is a "model of reasoned debate". I disapprove of a lot of things he tends to do (not that it really matters to him or you, but hey). I also disagree with his politics, often quite strongly. But o

Slashdot Top Deals

"Engineering without management is art." -- Jeff Johnson

Close