Hacker News Reader

Comment by zopa | Hacker News Reader

Debates are about convincing onlookers, not the person you're arguing with. Online, in the pub, everywhere.

Debates are about checking that your own views are indeed correct.

Both are correct. If you indeed know your views are correct, dangerous ones _need_ to be challenged, onlookers need to see that bad ideas have opposition and there are other ways of approaching an issue.

At the same time, you also need to acknowledge if someone has a point and have honest discussion. If you always debate and never ever think... "Huh, this guy has a point" then you most likely are not intellectually honest.

I fundamentally don’t agree that ideas can be dangerous (Ironically, I guess this is an argument). However actions are dangerous and people should be held to account by their actions. If you disagree with someone’s ideas you should debate them, or articulate your point of view, not challenge them.

I do agree that ideas can be dangerous, most of those revolve around bigotry and hatred. I don’t know the best solution, but I understand how the ideas are dangerous to others in a very direct way.

I think fascism and racism and a lot of other ideas are dangerous and corrosive for society. Some ideas have been guilty of millions of deaths. By the time you try punishing actions, it will have been too late.

Now, the countering I advocate does not imply lack of discussion, or denial of the existance of these ideas, but unchallenged discussion, where these dangerous ideas are the only thing "right" is, IMO, very dangerous. You need people to be able to tackle with them, not protectem them like they are a shriveling violet, but this need to happen in a good frame.

I used to believe in a sort of laissez-faire internet community environment, no censorship, but just immunization by exposure. But then I saw my dad get seduced over the internet by a group of deeply illogical individuals and I do not believe this is the right course anymore.

> articulate your point of view, not challenge them.

I see debating ideas as synonymous with challenging them. How is it different in your perception?

Debates are about saying ridiculous things to make people on the internet really mad /s

They're not, because they're framed as zero-sum games. Both parties are attempting to convince the other (more likely, onlookers), and have no incentive to concede.

I disagree, you can win debates regardless of whether or not your views are correct. A good debater with a wrong view will "win" against a bad debater with a correct view.

Sure, but I don't think many people are really looking for debates. I think most people are more interested in getting something off their chest and indicating in-group status (we're social animals after all).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com