I’m right, and you’re an evil monster

[stvdv]

I've noticed this trend myself, where people on one or the other side can't simply agree to disagree

Great OP

I've noticed this on RF a lot. Not even willing to agree to disagree. I think these make good dictators

 

[stvdv]

They feel the need to go further, to denigrate, ridicule, mock, shame, and essentially condemn their opposition

They only exhibit and prove to the world, how miserable they are themselves, totally no love, compassion nor empathy, except maybe some twisted "egoistic lovegratification for themselves"

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

It depends on the premises.
By premises I mean that if someone believes in absolute truths, and that anything that defies the absolute truth is to be destroyed, censored, eliminated.

The absolutist thought is fundamentalism. Religious fundamentalism has always been caused death and destruction.
Scientific fundamentalism is the one that made Galileo withdraw his thesis. And killed Giordano Bruno on the stake.

I do not believe in absolute truths.
I think everyone is entitled to have their own truth.
Also because...I am so confident about my own certainties.

Well, as long as you understand when they are yours and not about the rest of the world, it is okay. But that is not unique to you or me.

 

[Revoltingest]

I think you're evil - EVIL!

Well....finally, you got something right.

 

[Ella S.]

Political debate is pointless unless the interlocutors agree on common values, which is almost never the case.

I always had a hunch about that, but my recent dip into more political discourse has sort of solidified it for me.

There's also the general issue for me, as a Utilitarian, that we genuinely don't know whether certain policy changes will increase or decrease Utility. Much of it is speculation that is made difficult because most policies are not straightforwardly harmful or helpful, which is also something I have realized fairly recently.

Thus, even with people who share my values, it can be difficult or impossible to come to an agreement about particular policies.

So, instead of talking politics, I'm going to focus more on charity and volunteer work to help the needy, because it's the most straightforwardly helpful action I can make.

 

[Revoltingest]

Great OP

I've noticed this on RF a lot. Not even willing to agree to disagree. I think these make good dictators

Some here have even taken great offense at my
agreeing to disagree. They refused to agree.
What does that even mean?

 

[Stevicus]

The way I see it, this sad state of things is the fault of the alt-right. Its ethos are contagious, toxic and deeply dysfunctional.

Of particular relevance is the practice of the "never play defense" principle and its close friend, the love of unashamed false equivalences.

One thing that the narrator said which chimed with me was the statement "this is how teenagers argue," where the goal isn't really to learn or persuade, but just to one-up each other and think of themselves as "better."

I have to admit that there are times when I see internet discussions and am sometimes reminded of junior high school.

 

[Estro Felino]

Well, as long as you understand when they are yours and not about the rest of the world, it is okay. But that is not unique to you or me.

ditto

 

[Stevicus]

Well....finally, you got something right.

I'm always right about everything I say. I'm 100% certain of that.

Edit: That was a joke, by the way.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Some here have even taken great offense at my
agreeing to disagree. They refused to agree.
What does that even mean?

I refuse to disagree.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Political debate is pointless unless the interlocutors agree on common values, which is almost never the case.

I always had a hunch about that, but my recent dip into more political discourse has sort of solidified it for me.

There's also the general issue for me, as a Utilitarian, that we genuinely don't know whether certain policy changes will increase or decrease Utility. Much of it is speculation that is made difficult because most policies are not straightforwardly harmful or helpful, which is also something I have realized fairly recently.

Thus, even with people who share my values, it can be difficult or impossible to come to an agreement about particular policies.

So, instead of talking politics, I'm going to focus more on charity and volunteer work to help the needy, because it's the most straightforwardly helpful action I can make.

As long as you look out for not projecting what it is helpful to you onto others without checking if it is helpful to them, then it is a good idea.

 

[Ella S.]

As long as you look out for not projecting what it is helpful to you onto others without checking if it is helpful to them, then it is a good idea.

I meant "helpful" in the Welfarist sense, which implies the promotion of physiological health.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I meant "helpful" in the Welfarist sense, which implies the promotion of physiological health.

Even that can in some cases be in effect unhelpful. But you have to read up on that and I only have the relevant books in Danish.

 

[Stevicus]

Political debate is pointless unless the interlocutors agree on common values, which is almost never the case.

I always had a hunch about that, but my recent dip into more political discourse has sort of solidified it for me.

There's also the general issue for me, as a Utilitarian, that we genuinely don't know whether certain policy changes will increase or decrease Utility. Much of it is speculation that is made difficult because most policies are not straightforwardly harmful or helpful, which is also something I have realized fairly recently.

Thus, even with people who share my values, it can be difficult or impossible to come to an agreement about particular policies.

So, instead of talking politics, I'm going to focus more on charity and volunteer work to help the needy, because it's the most straightforwardly helpful action I can make.

You make some good points, although it occurs to me that many values are shared by people, yet the way they express them or manifest them may be called into question.

For example, I think most adults in the civilized world would share the same value that killing children is wrong. So, if someone proposes something, they might say "I propose something that will save the lives of children, and anyone who disagrees with me obviously wants to kill children." It's an attempt to appeal to a shared value, where most people cherish the lives of children, but then twisting it in a convoluted way.

 

[Ella S.]

You make some good points, although it occurs to me that many values are shared by people, yet the way they express them or manifest them may be called into question.

For example, I think most adults in the civilized world would share the same value that killing children is wrong. So, if someone proposes something, they might say "I propose something that will save the lives of children, and anyone who disagrees with me obviously wants to kill children." It's an attempt to appeal to a shared value, where most people cherish the lives of children, but then twisting it in a convoluted way.

There's also the issue that many people hold multiple contradictory values at once, requiring them to frequently prioritize some value over another.

So, maybe a bill will save the lives of children, but it does so through some sort of eugenics program that most people would oppose on different grounds.

 

[Ella S.]

Even that can in some cases be in effect unhelpful. But you have to read up on that and I only have the relevant books in Danish.

No offense, but I don't really care what you consider to be helpful or unhelpful if it doesn't align with my values.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

No offense, but I don't really care what you consider to be helpful or unhelpful if it doesn't align with my values.

So for the wrong situation for the everyday world you could end up harming another human.

 

[Ella S.]

So for the wrong situation for the everyday world you could end up harming another human.

Sure, depending on your definition of "harm." I support healthy homosexual relationships, for instance, which many Christians condemn as spiritually "harmful."

Hence the point I was making in my original reply, which you have now demonstrated.

 

[Revoltingest]

I refuse to disagree.

Error, error!

 

[SomeRandom]

One thing that the narrator said which chimed with me was the statement "this is how teenagers argue," where the goal isn't really to learn or persuade, but just to one-up each other and think of themselves as "better."

I have to admit that there are times when I see internet discussions and am sometimes reminded of junior high school.

Omg so much this.
I remember back during my actual teen years I thought debating was only used to demonstrate the “superiority of your ideas.” That debate was for “owning your opponent.”
In fairness, this was likely due to following a lot of atheist/skeptic channels on YouTube where that was essentially the goal for a long time.

It was a very juvenile attitude and at best naive. A person who wins a debate is simply better at public speaking and rhetoric. It’s about pageantry really.

I will say that from what I’ve seen in discourse this has gone through a couple of cycles. Creationists were really good at debate tactics and could convince an audience with ease. Hence the so called “four horsemen of the apocalypse.” When that petered out, a lot of “debate me bros” arose online. At first it seemed to come mostly from conservatives, particularly following Trump’s election (just an observation.) Then in response suddenly there were “debate me bros” for the left. No doubt this cycle will repeat in some capacity in the future.
But for a while there did seem to be this idea that the best opinions would come from the so called “marketplace of ideas.”
I’ve honestly seen that flip flop over just the last few years. Speaking of online discourse primarily.