It’s Easy to Make Enemies of People We Only Read About
nautil.us
nautil.us
Although it seems super rare in internet conversation, a good way to practice is to keep in mind all the ways the Other Team misrepresents My Team and generalize this when the Other Team says something dreadful on the surface.
But in the absence of the charity, concise, effective communication becomes all the more crucial.
I feel the true meaning of a discussion has been lost. It has warped from "lets share our opinions to achieve a greater understanding" to "Let me show you how I'm right and try to dismiss all your opinions in every way possible".
And, in reality, what happens is "let me say my opinions to the air so the ones who already agree with me agree even more".
What a wonderfully astute observation. Conversations have become a competition where each side feels they need to "win", often at any cost. I grew up on the internet, having first gotten a connection in '93. I remember a time when online conversations were "let's share..." and have watched them transform into their current state. I suspect a lot of the current deteriorated state of in-person conversations came from the deterioration of the online conversation, which agrees with this articles premise. Can any older members comment on whether this was happening so much before the internet was commonly used?
>And, in reality, what happens is "let me say my opinions to the air so the ones who already agree with me agree even more".
I would add that it's also a lot of virtual signaling[0]. Making statements you know your in-group agrees with in order to increase your social standing.
What use is the phrase if it follows your definition?
Say I say "Thing X is good" or "Thing Y is bad" in a public forum. How can I avoid that being called virtue signalling?
Am I only allowed to say things that annoy my in-group? Wouldn't this apply to all sorts of things e.g. the speeches of Adolf Hitler or Donald Trump's tweets? Why aren't they accused of virtue signalling?
Political speeches, and specifically political debates are indeed full of virtue signalling. The only reason it doesn't come up is that 1. it's not a term nearly anyone is familiar with; and 2. it's so universal in politics that accusing someone of it would be like accusing a bird of laying eggs. You can't find a politician who doesn't use virtue signalling (or any of a host of other rhetorical devices), so why bother calling out the 100% who do?
It's pointed out more often outside of politics, where effectively it's a way of saying "this person is playing dirty with the audience's emotions, like a politician."
"Virtue signalling" as a debate tactic is effectively a kind of "applause light" (http://lesswrong.com/lw/jb/applause_lights/), which I find a more useful general term for the kind of problematic rhetorical effect it has.
"Virtue signalling" outside of debates is isn't really a thing people care much about, though; everyone does it all the time and nobody pays it any mind (unless you're an anthropologist trying to break down why a given seemingly-useless verbal exchange occurs frequently in a culture.)
For example, all of the people suddenly support for illegal immigration because Donald Trump is against it, even though every 'progressive' country in the world deports illegal immigrants.
Or the "Women's March", which was basically an anti-Trump protest, and had nothing to do with women's rights (if it did, it wouldn't have used a hijab as a symbol of women's rights, as women in Islamic countries generally protest the use of the hijab as a tool of oppression).
There appears to be a logical hole here.
There is social value in disagreeing with someone who claims to have the objective truth. It's not so much about being right as it's claiming to have the truth which socially, emotionally and culturally is related to power.
If you don't want a person to have power it doesn't matter if they're right or not. All that matters is the fact that having the truth means having power.
Personally I think this is not a direct consequence of the internet but just a better understanding of advertising and manipulation. the parties just have become smarter positioning themselves on some issues in a way that the other side is totally unacceptable. By throwing around accusations of racism, baby killing or socialism they make any kind of compromise impossible.
> By throwing around accusations of racism, baby killing or socialism they make any kind of compromise impossible.
Agreed.
"The problem with this way of thinking is..."
Maybe people should rephrase so that they say what is right about your way of thinking first. By always framing the problem first you dismiss all the good parts as well.
And, "conversation" now means "shut up, I'm talking"
Given that "rhetoric" was already a subject of study in ancient rome (and its politicians were skilled in using persuasion and propaganda to manipulate public opinion), I'm not sure there was ever a time where discussion was solely about sharing opinions and archieving a greater understanding.
But it's of course important to keep the ideal of discussion in mind and not go too far down the dark side.
Put another way, these people were politicians. They argued professionally, and were trained to do so, or made their living training others to do so. I don't think their existence can be used to inform how every day people had conversations at the time.
More interestingly, maybe the problem is that everyone now thinks they're an amateur politician.
In a debate on a public forum, "the air" (really, the silent majority of people reading the debate, who aren't debating themselves) are often the true target of any rhetoric deployed. If you see person A saying things that obviously wouldn't convince their interlocutor B, maybe they're just trying to make the audience think B is not worth listening to.
Mind you, getting everyone who reads a debate to understand that the other guy is not worth listening to can be a moral good—if B is giving bad legal/medical advice, A might drop convincing B or "winning" the debate as goals, to focus instead on making sure people don't come away with the perception that B's statements are factual/trustworthy, even if it means their statements aren't seen as factual/trustworthy either.
But often it's just done for the sake of playing social power games: to "get the other guy downvoted."
Most arguments, particularly online, aren't dictated by logical formalism. They're not even dictated by more ductile probabilism or game theory - They're done almost entirely on emotions. Saying "Let us assume all of X is Y, which would help your point by removing the need to deal with Z" only offends people, because then you're ignoring their opinion. Nobody's looking to find workable solutions or compromises, they're looking to express their feelings.
For my whole life I've observed that a lot of "conversation" is simply waiting for the other person's mouth to stop moving and then opening yours. The listening part rarely happens.
The easiest way to convince someone to view new data is for them to explain their position to you. Either they provide enough data for you (being so enlightened) to change your mind or they may realize they are being internally inconsistent and then they change their own mind. Then you don't have to waste any effort trying to chip at their position. Trying to do so generally results in obstinance from them.
Well, probably not, given what Rubio actually said:
http://www.rubio.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2017/2/senate-f...
The context of the speech was regarding the vote to prevent Elizabeth Warren from reading Coretta Scott King's letter opposing Jeff Sessions.
>These are the continuing rules of the Senate that have been in existence previous to this time and have carried over into this session, is that correct?
>I imagine many people were not excited about the fact that [Hillary Clinton] would be secretary of state, to my recollection, and perhaps I’m incorrect, not a single one of those horrible things that have been written said about her, some of which actually did accuse her of wrongdoing, were ever uttered on the floor of the Senate.
I lose track of the ironies here. There's the irony of Rubio lamenting we are "becoming a society incapable of having debate anymore" while in the very process of shutting down debate. There's also the irony of an article with the quote "The less we know about the mind of another, the more we use our own to fill in the blanks", that filled in blanks of Rubio's speech that didn't actually exist.
As for regret, I haven't seen anything about Coretta Scott King changing her opinion, and if you're talking about whoever found that letter and spread it around, I don't see how that would be relevant. I don't know where you're getting this info.
I do believe we should go back to the old rule that neither religion nor politics should be discussed in polite company.
I really don't care about what sexuality or gender you identify as. It's completely irrelevant in working together as a team to build software.
I find it hypocritical that you're a bigot to people today if you hold the same opinions they did 10 years ago. Were they bigots then? How many of us are horrible bigots for something we think is bad today, but will be just fine in another decade or two?
2. “Never go outside the expertise of your people.” It results in confusion, fear and retreat. Feeling secure adds to the backbone of anyone. 3. “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions. 13. “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions.
The illegal immigrants obviously understood it was a risk when they came, and any country is entitled to enforce its border security.
Practically every single other country in the world heavily enforces its border, and will also deport illegal immigrants.
And deporting illegal immigrants doesn't bar you from trying again to enter as a legal immigrant.
True fact: When I moved to Norway, there wasn't a customs guard on duty when I got off the plane here. The passport was quickly stamped at the layover in Copenhagen, and that is the single stamp in it. I'm sure there are electronic records of my other travels within Europe: Only once have I had any checks getting into a country, and that was more because I was flying back from Amsterdam and they picked me to search for drugs.
It would have been somewhat easy for me to just come here, honestly. I didn't and went through immigration instead.
People within the EU can pretty freely find work in any country and live there as well, and outside the refugee crisis, I think this likely cuts down on illegal immigration.
https://www.google.com/search?sclient=psy-ab&site=&source=hp...
And I can't speak for your one example, because that could have been a case of negligent border security. I could just as easily give an example of a person traveling to another country and having a lot of difficulty at customs, with them questioning why you are there, and forcing you to provide justification.
And also, if you happened to go to Norway as you say, staying there illegally, would you have felt justified to just live there indefinitely? Or do you agree the country has a right to deport you because you are illegally there and abusing the systems in that country.
I never actually considered it for myself, honestly. If I'm not working, yet not needing unnecessary assistance (except through trauma, nature's wrath, and so forth), I'm not sure there is an issue. It isn't about being justified or not, just that you don't have the level of interaction to really require much formality.
I'm not sure I can answer your question to your satisfaction, however. I'm a supporter of open borders, with minimal requirements to live somewhere legally (without getting all rights as citizens). I think health care, for example, is a human right and everyone should have it. Same with shelter and food. Beyond that, it is hard to "abuse" a system. Deportation should generally be used as a last resort (violent crime - first resort). Some other things are hard to abuse, and other things - consuming, paying taxes assuming quasi-legal work - contribute to society. To me, the proper response for most folks is to get them legal in a simple manner.
For the record, however, I've drained more resources than I've contributed at this point. Language classes were provided free of charge as was the civics class. I have health care on par with a Norwegian due to my immigration status. These things aren't actually drains on the system, though, they actually help folks adjust and a healthy population is a benefit for the government. I've not yet worked to contribute more.
My friend pointed out that U.S. immigration law - and its history - is basically institutionalized racism. Take a look at the countries in the Visa Waiver Program:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visa_Waiver_Program
Notice a pattern? Basically, if you're white (or Japanese or South Korean), we have no problem with you being in the country. If you're any other ethnicity, fuck you. Canada gets completely visa-free entry, but Mexico gets nothing.
If you look at the history of immigration laws, almost all of them had an explicit racial bias to them:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalization_Act_of_1790 ("free white persons of good character")
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_Exclusion_Act
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_Act_of_1924 ("aimed at further restricting immigration of Southern Europeans and Eastern Europeans, especially Italians and Eastern European Jews, and severely restricted the immigration of Africans and outright banned the immigration of Arabs and Asians")
It did get somewhat better with the acts of 1952 and 1965, which set up the current occupation/skills-based system instead of blanket national bans, but even they had some clauses that are pretty embarrassing in hindsight (eg. the 1952 McCarran act banned anyone suspected of associating with Communist, which among others included Michel Foucault, Gabriel Garcia Marquez, Pablo Neruda, and Pierre Trudeau).
It's very hard to argue for these from a framework of justice and individual liberty, because they all operate under the assumption that incidental characteristics like where someone is born and what color their skin is are more important than motivational characteristics like do they want to be in the U.S, do they agree with American values, and will they be a contributing citizen here. If you believe in judging people based on what they do rather than who they are, it's a pretty tough argument that the illegal Mexican immigrant who works 14 hours a day cleaning toilets so she can give a better life to her children is less deserving of being an American than the guy who runs a website spreading hate.
Also, let's suppose our immigration system limits permanent residence intake to N people per year. Because all people are equal, why is it any better to accept N people from all nations instead of N people from fewer nations? Either way you're still depriving the same number of people the ability to live here. Unless you think people from country X are more worthy than country Y, you should regard substituting a Y person with an X as a morally neutral act. It makes practical sense to invite people we like the most, which for example might mean people that are not interested in enslaving humanity or who associate with that crowd.
If you had to leave the US forever, which of these places would you most and least want to move to? What would be your ranking of desirability? Canada, Mexico, Australia, Hong Kong, Lagos, Costa Rica, Belize.
For me, I would most want to move to Canada and least Lagos. I'd also prefer Costa Rica over Belize. And Australia over Hong Kong over Belize over Lagos.
What makes Australia and Hong Kong more desirable than Lagos and Belize? What makes Canada more desirable than Mexico? Why do all the liberals who hate Trump threaten to move to Canada and not Mexico? It's not the geography. It's not like Canada has better weather. It's the people. (People will say it is things like the government dysfunction or the culture or the language, but of course, those are just properties of a group of people, not the land).
We're more likely to have liberal immigration policies with regards from countries that we see as desirable places to live. That is because 1) being desirable places, most people in those countries won't want to leave, and thus we won't be overwhelmed by their numbers. 2) since those people have made their country a desirable place, if large numbers of those people move here, it won't decrease our quality of life. I won't fear a decrease in government quality or cultural alienation if a large number of Canadians move to the United States.
In other words, country of origin is heuristic that will correlate with do they agree with American values, and will they be a contributing citizen here. Could we find a better heuristic? Maybe. Do you have any ideas?
Not really. It's true that a position left of the center established by the balance of the parties in government is mainstream in the population, but that's because the parties in government have moved right relative to the population (the Republican party consistently, the Democratic Party merely on average as a result of the big rightward jump of the Clintonian "third way", from which there has been some subsequent minor movement back toward the left, with some ambiguous signalling that bigger moves in that direction are possible in the near future.)
The left isn't what it used to be: Ronald Reagan would be considered on the left today with his EPA-loving ways.
Sort of like how time and again I keep hearing "This bill is about the protection of Young Boys and Girls!" regarding the Gender Identity Restroom bill, when statistically speaking, Young Boys or Girls are more at risk from abuse by their close family. Journalists aren't, in theory, supposed to point out the hollow, rather ludicrous assault on intelligence the "Think of the children!" argument is in this regard - that's for the public, you and me, to figure out. Unfortunately, I guess, considering the state of things.
(one example I can think of is believing hearsay personality portrayals of Joe Lonsdale online. I've never met the guy so who knows what he's actually like!)
Still looking for the best ways to counteract this flinch reaction I seem to have of hearing hearsay about a person.
People watch videos of political opponents all the time and don't relate to them better afterwards. How does Jon Stewart exist if that's the case? How does Hannity?
What's missing?
Kudos for trying to understand someone else.
I showed a clip of him speaking to a bunch of Indians who saw virtually nothing of him except whatever they read in TOI. (TOI and most other Indian English language papers can be thought of as being Indian branches of the cathedral, at least for this purpose.) They started by mocking him, yet they quickly quieted down and watched the video with rapt attention until the end.
After watching this video they were very much against Trump cutting off the rest of the world to Make America Great Again. As in, they were using Trump's language and accepting his premises, in spite of knowing they were wrong.
This is one of the great failings of democracy. People like Trump (or Obama, who had similar abilities) can blatantly lie or just say nothing meaningful, and people will relate to them and follow them.
Supporters hear the (real) problems he describes and a commitment to fix it. The details are where it breaks down.
Many public people who are good at what they do are amazing at flattening complex problems and making people understand and agree. Bill Clinton in his prime was capable of that -- he had a Steve Jobs like magnetic force.
If you look at some of more right-wing political people, many of them lack charisma, but use speech and body language techniques that are taught to evangelical pastors and others and are really effective in those audiences, but come off creepy to others. Kinda like how Mormons are awesome telemarketers because of skills acquired on missionary work.
Combined with the fact he may be suffering from early Alzheimer's/dementia like his father and you have present day Trump.
Trump has what best can be called a serious addiction to praise. It his hard to imagine empathizing a narcissist but from an abstract level it isn't much different from many psychological ailments. When Trump is criticized he may appear to be strong to some but I now imagine based on watching him it is extremely painful for him.
He also tended to flatter powerful people, so the most hostile people were probably the small businesses he randomly refused to pay. Now he's made many powerful enemies during the campaign.
I have to imagine this is wildly more stressful.
Those crazy idiots are up to it again! You won't believe that
you're the same species as these people once you see this.
As all right-thinking people know, the best flibbets are the ones
that gyrate. Of course you know that; everybody around you knows
that, that's why you were taught in school about how important
gyration is in flibbets. I mean, fucking duh, right?
But wait until you get a load of what these doofuses recently vomited
forth on their latest Sunday morning talk show appearance:
[very unflattering picture of the speaker here]
"Gyrating flibbets are... the worst things ever. Everyone
knows that flibbets... should wobble."
And they go on for a while, but as you can imagine they never give
any reason for their crazed beliefs about flibbets! Ha ha! I won't
even dignify their rant with a link. How could you think flibbets
should wobble? What's a flibbet experience without a bit of quality
dizziness brought on by the gyration?
(I don't know if it's just me or what lately, but I've also been seeing a lot of claims lately that "there is no evidence that..." when in fact there is some sort of evidence; simple denial of existence is now substituting for even sneering dismissal. Evidence is actually pretty easy to come by in a complicated world; any time you here that there is no evidence your ears should perk up. The problem that makes the real world such a challenge is that it's too easy to find evidence to support any given position, not that there isn't any.)
This is the Facebook/Snapchat era, scan headlines or memes for 5 seconds of outrage in bite size nuggets and then move on to the next outrage.
Have you seen the movie Idiocracy? Probably some variation of that, but worse.
Also, kudos to the ACLU for supporting Milo's right to free speech. Liberalism is about freedom, not forcing everyone to agree with you.
In unrelated news, I'm currently looking for better social circles.
If so, "rational" isn't really his strongpoint.
When we form our opinions entirely based on individual quotes taken out of context (at worst) instead of actual back-and-forth conversations (at best), we're not going to have an accurate perception of reality. If we then follow-up by labeling a person as not worth talking to, or not "a real human being", then we're gating ourselves off from even the possibility of improving the accuracy of our perceptions.
Arguing about "feminism" is stupid anyway because "feminism" has become a motte-and-bailey concept.
E.g. I thought the guy in the video sounded less likely to be the barer of truth when he mispronounced divisive, compared to when I read the text.
That Rubio quote is completely nonsensical though. Uh, Marco, the 1960s were worse...
Of course, you're still right that the ability to look past that and try to communicate with people regardless is sometimes the only thing that can make a difference...
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/26/opinion/sunday/why-i-left...
1. I worked with an otherwise very bright guy who thought I was insane for wanting to visit Western Europe, because they'd slit my throat for being American. And this was 10 years ago! He's lived a sheltered life but doesn't realize it, and get too much news from one source.
2. My grandmother, one of the sweetest people ever, warned me about "negroes" and staying away from them. She was just a product of her upbringing. Over the years (and after moving out of her small town), she very much changed.
Not that many people really want to be evil. Some do, but not most. I find it's usually ignorance. Talking nicely with them is what changes them. I personally hold a belief, and someone from the opposite side of the issue has engaged with me. I ponder it quite a bit, and see their side more humanely than previously.