[Politics] The state of political debate on both the Escapist and the internet

[Izanagi009_v1legacy]

I will be frank about the purpose of this forum: it's mostly for me to vent about how i feel the state of political debate on both this site and the internet at large is degrading.

To explain further. I feel that the dialectic, the core principles of debate, are being forgotten and tossed aside on some level for overly emotive or overly fallacious argumentation. Yes, I acknowledge that arguments can't be purely logical and that to use fallacies to discredit someone is an inherent fallacy. However, I feel that there is still a lack of properly constructed arguments of both constructing and rebuttal nature.

Ultimately, I would love for debate on the internet to reach the ideal of what the Roman Orators or the Greek forums were believed to be: logically constructed arguments that weave both personal belief and rational arguments into compelling constructing and rebuttal statements. I admit that, as much as i want to make a solution as to not be empty and vacuous venting, any solution i can think of would be far too rigid for the way the internet and this site works.

What do others believe on this topic?

 

[Baffle]

Ultimately, I would love for debate on the internet to reach the ideal of what the Roman Orators or the Greek forums were believed to be: logically constructed arguments that weave both personal belief and rational arguments into compelling constructing and rebuttal statements.

Funnily enough, this is something I've been reading about lately, and it wasn't necessarily like that at all. Winning, e.g. a court case, came down pretty much to ridiculing your opponent and making everyone laugh. So, you know, we're most of the way there, just not enough laughs.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Ultimately, I would love for debate on the internet to reach the ideal of what the Roman Orators or the Greek forums were believed to be

Believed to by who? I considered taking a translation of Cicero's speech attacking Cataline and swap your name in, but that'd be accusing someone of trying to overthrow the Roman Republic (based on about as much evidence as Cicero provided about Cataline) and that might be against the Code of Conduct.

Anyway, yes the state of political debate isn't great, because it can't be. You cannot have a reasoned and rational debate unless everyone involved wants one. Some 60 million+ US citizens voted for Trump based on a campaign of blatant hate and lies. You cannot have a reasoned and rational debate with someone that wants to take away fundamental rights from women, minorities, LGBT people, the poor etc. Just doesn't work.

In Britain, the current hot-topic debate is whether or not Brexit would be a disaster. It's not a reasoned and rational debate, because the answer is "obviously and totally yes".

 

[Izanagi009_v1legacy]

Ultimately, I would love for debate on the internet to reach the ideal of what the Roman Orators or the Greek forums were believed to be

Believed to by who? I considered taking a translation of Cicero's speech attacking Cataline and swap your name in, but that'd be accusing someone of trying to overthrow the Roman Republic (based on about as much evidence as Cicero provided about Cataline) and that might be against the Code of Conduct.

Anyway, yes the state of political debate isn't great, because it can't be. You cannot have a reasoned and rational debate unless everyone involved wants one. Some 60 million+ US citizens voted for Trump based on a campaign of blatant hate and lies. You cannot have a reasoned and rational debate with someone that wants to take away fundamental rights from women, minorities, LGBT people, the poor etc. Just doesn't work.

In Britain, the current hot-topic debate is whether or not Brexit would be a disaster. It's not a reasoned and rational debate, because the answer is "obviously and totally yes".

I admit that i have an overly romantic ideal of Greek and Roman debate. For that, I apologize

As for the state of debate, i was thinking of a method at least on the escapist where AI or a large number of Moderators are trained to maintain the dialectic and come down hard on any diversion from it. Granted, i acknowledge the logistical and ethical nightmare of that but I'm tired of the absurd lack of debate ethics and procedures on this site at least and on the internet at most.

 

[Baffle]

In Britain, the current hot-topic debate is whether or not Brexit would be a disaster. It's not a reasoned and rational debate, because the answer is "obviously and totally yes".

It's more nuanced than that - there's also people that want it even though they know it's going to be a disaster.

 

[CaitSeith]

snip

Seeing that the one person at the White House made it there without the so-called principles of debate, the later are no longer useful tools in the current political discussions.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CaPgDQkmqqM

"The aim of argument, or of discussion, should not be victory, but progress." - Joseph Joubert

 

[Izanagi009_v1legacy]

snip

Seeing that the one person at the White House made it there without the so-called principles of debate, the later are no longer useful tools in the current political discussions.


"The aim of argument, or of discussion, should not be victory, but progress." - Joseph Joubert

Sad but true

I suppose my idealism is pointless or not useful anymore?

 

[Saelune]

It is literally good vs evil. People are literally defending Nazis, genocide, child murder, child torture, child rape, human abductions, mass shootings, terrorism, etc. But if you criticize it for how horrible it is 'You just hate people with different opinions'. Fuck that shit.

 

[Thaluikhain]

As for the state of debate, i was thinking of a method at least on the escapist where AI or a large number of Moderators are trained to maintain the dialectic and come down hard on any diversion from it. Granted, i acknowledge the logistical and ethical nightmare of that but I'm tired of the absurd lack of debate ethics and procedures on this site at least and on the internet at most.

I sympathise, I really do, but at best something like that won't work, and at worst it's used to legitimise illegitimate arguments. Quite often it's the latter.

In Britain, the current hot-topic debate is whether or not Brexit would be a disaster. It's not a reasoned and rational debate, because the answer is "obviously and totally yes".

It's more nuanced than that - there's also people that want it even though they know it's going to be a disaster.

True, though I meant the debate is simply absurd, there is of course a lot going on behind the scenes which is far from simple.

 

[Smithnikov_v1legacy]

Debate is extremely rare. What we have on the internet are fights. We even unironically call them bloodsports at time. "Internet Kumite" is a thing. Shitposting is considered a positive thing.

Only come to the internet if you expect fights. Go somewhere organized if you want debate.

 

[CrazyGirl17]

Debate is extremely rare. What we have on the internet are fights. We even unironically call them bloodsports at time. "Internet Kumite" is a thing. Shitposting is considered a positive thing.

Only come to the internet if you expect fights. Go somewhere organized if you want debate.

Pretty much this, people can't agree on a damn thing anymore, all they want to do is argue.

Nothing ever gets done, and nothing changes.

 

[Saelune]

Debate is extremely rare. What we have on the internet are fights. We even unironically call them bloodsports at time. "Internet Kumite" is a thing. Shitposting is considered a positive thing.

Only come to the internet if you expect fights. Go somewhere organized if you want debate.

Pretty much this, people can't agree on a damn thing anymore, all they want to do is argue.

Nothing ever gets done, and nothing changes.

Nothing gets better if you don't complain about it. You see arguing leading to nothing changing, but doing nothing leads to nothing changing.

For women to get the right to vote, they had to complain. For gays to get the right to marry, they had to complain. Segretation wouldnt have ended if everyone just accepted their lot in life.

The real problem with the arguing is having to pretend white supremacy is 'just a different opinion' that deserves a place at the conversation table. The only conversation about things like that to be had is how to destroy it once and for all.

 

[CrazyGirl17]

Debate is extremely rare. What we have on the internet are fights. We even unironically call them bloodsports at time. "Internet Kumite" is a thing. Shitposting is considered a positive thing.

Only come to the internet if you expect fights. Go somewhere organized if you want debate.

Pretty much this, people can't agree on a damn thing anymore, all they want to do is argue.

Nothing ever gets done, and nothing changes.

Nothing gets better if you don't complain about it. You see arguing leading to nothing changing, but doing nothing leads to nothing changing.

For women to get the right to vote, they had to complain. For gays to get the right to marry, they had to complain. Segretation wouldnt have ended if everyone just accepted their lot in life.

The real problem with the arguing is having to pretend white supremacy is 'just a different opinion' that deserves a place at the conversation table. The only conversation about things like that to be had is how to destroy it once and for all.

Fair points. Now if everyone could just agree on what to do about it...

(Probably made should have made that point clearer.)

 

[Xprimentyl]

Debate is extremely rare. What we have on the internet are fights. We even unironically call them bloodsports at time. "Internet Kumite" is a thing. Shitposting is considered a positive thing.

Only come to the internet if you expect fights. Go somewhere organized if you want debate.

Pretty much this, people can't agree on a damn thing anymore, all they want to do is argue.

Nothing ever gets done, and nothing changes.

Thirding this. People on the internet have their opinions, and as ?any opinion that?s not mine is against mine,? 99% of time spent discussing those opinions is going to be spent defending them, inevitably to the death of rational discourse. I can be guilty of it, but remind myself constantly that if I?m not being heard, it?s rarely because I?m not shouting loud enough; of all the hills to die on, ?being right on the internet? isn?t one worth my time. [small](Unless anyone wants to defend Halo 5. I will fight you, die and bury myself on THAT damned hill, and the weeds that sprout from the earth where my decaying corpse lies will ensnare you by the ankles and drag you to hell with me where I can tell you how wrong you are for all eternity.)[/small] I kid, I kid?

 

[Terminal Blue]

Ultimately, I would love for debate on the internet to reach the ideal of what the Roman Orators or the Greek forums were believed to be: logically constructed arguments that weave both personal belief and rational arguments into compelling constructing and rebuttal statements.

Meanwhile, in actual Roman oratory:

"Your argument is invalid because you are a massive fag!"
"No U!"
"Mate, your belt is so loose. You are basically a woman. Get on my belt-tightness level."[footnote]God, why were Romans so fucking obsessed with belts[/footnote]
"You use fancy words to try and persuade people of things.. That is mad gay bro! You are basically a male prostitute."
"Once there was this guy who wore perfume, and you are so like him! Do you even wear a belt?"

 

[Baffle]

"You use fancy words to try and persuade people of things.

To which the correct response would have been: 'You mean "to try to persuade people of things". Where did you get that belt? At the toilet store?'

 

[Saelune]

Debate is extremely rare. What we have on the internet are fights. We even unironically call them bloodsports at time. "Internet Kumite" is a thing. Shitposting is considered a positive thing.

Only come to the internet if you expect fights. Go somewhere organized if you want debate.

Pretty much this, people can't agree on a damn thing anymore, all they want to do is argue.

Nothing ever gets done, and nothing changes.

Thirding this. People on the internet have their opinions, and as ?any opinion that?s not mine is against mine,? 99% of time spent discussing those opinions is going to be spent defending them, inevitably to the death of rational discourse. I can be guilty of it, but remind myself constantly that if I?m not being heard, it?s rarely because I?m not shouting loud enough; of all the hills to die on, ?being right on the internet? isn?t one worth my time. [small](Unless anyone wants to defend Halo 5. I will fight you, die and bury myself on THAT damned hill, and the weeds that sprout from the earth where my decaying corpse lies will ensnare you by the ankles and drag you to hell with me where I can tell you how wrong you are for all eternity.)[/small] I kid, I kid?

Why is the internet treated as if it is lesser than reality? It isn't. We are real people behind these words and screens. The internet is more reality than anything at this point. Most of the world is now connected into a world-wide internet culture, and though it has highlighted some disturbing shit and allowed terrible people to come together, it has also let good people come together, it has made the world smaller in a good way. I talk to people daily across the world, from across my country, to Europe, to Asia and Australia! That is amazing and beautiful!

I think this notion that 'the internet doesn't matter/isn't real people' is a dangerous one that far too many people have.

 

[Saelune]

Debate is extremely rare. What we have on the internet are fights. We even unironically call them bloodsports at time. "Internet Kumite" is a thing. Shitposting is considered a positive thing.

Only come to the internet if you expect fights. Go somewhere organized if you want debate.

Pretty much this, people can't agree on a damn thing anymore, all they want to do is argue.

Nothing ever gets done, and nothing changes.

Nothing gets better if you don't complain about it. You see arguing leading to nothing changing, but doing nothing leads to nothing changing.

For women to get the right to vote, they had to complain. For gays to get the right to marry, they had to complain. Segretation wouldnt have ended if everyone just accepted their lot in life.

The real problem with the arguing is having to pretend white supremacy is 'just a different opinion' that deserves a place at the conversation table. The only conversation about things like that to be had is how to destroy it once and for all.

Fair points. Now if everyone could just agree on what to do about it...

(Probably made should have made that point clearer.)

The least people can do is atleast be concerned. This is why I am so critical of people trying to be 'anti-political', cause that is trying to do less than nothing.

Yes, these 'discussions' can get heated and hostile, but they need to be allowed to happen, and people need to stop turning away from them, or even opposing them happening. And people need to be willing to see past the BS instead of just writing off 'both sides as the same' or whatever.

I am not asking for people to march on Washington or anything, just asking them to care, even if it is just about their immediate surroundings, but bad things happen in front of all of us every day and most of us do nothing. Its easier said than done, I know, for even I fail this far too many than I care to admit, but we need to atleast try.

If we don't even try to be better, we wont be.

 

[Xprimentyl]

Debate is extremely rare. What we have on the internet are fights. We even unironically call them bloodsports at time. "Internet Kumite" is a thing. Shitposting is considered a positive thing.

Only come to the internet if you expect fights. Go somewhere organized if you want debate.

Pretty much this, people can't agree on a damn thing anymore, all they want to do is argue.

Nothing ever gets done, and nothing changes.

Thirding this. People on the internet have their opinions, and as ?any opinion that?s not mine is against mine,? 99% of time spent discussing those opinions is going to be spent defending them, inevitably to the death of rational discourse. I can be guilty of it, but remind myself constantly that if I?m not being heard, it?s rarely because I?m not shouting loud enough; of all the hills to die on, ?being right on the internet? isn?t one worth my time. [small](Unless anyone wants to defend Halo 5. I will fight you, die and bury myself on THAT damned hill, and the weeds that sprout from the earth where my decaying corpse lies will ensnare you by the ankles and drag you to hell with me where I can tell you how wrong you are for all eternity.)[/small] I kid, I kid?

Why is the internet treated as if it is lesser than reality? It isn't. We are real people behind these words and screens. The internet is more reality than anything at this point. Most of the world is now connected into a world-wide internet culture, and though it has highlighted some disturbing shit and allowed terrible people to come together, it has also let good people come together, it has made the world smaller in a good way. I talk to people daily across the world, from across my country, to Europe, to Asia and Australia! That is amazing and beautiful!

I think this notion that 'the internet doesn't matter/isn't real people' is a dangerous one that far too many people have.

I never said the internet doesn?t matter or that it doesn?t entail real people; in the spirit of the thread (i.e.: the volatile nature of online debating,) I was trying to make the point that arguing with people on the internet isn?t effective. If anything, it?s the very arguing that dehumanizes people. Few people like being yelled at for their beliefs, stances or opinions (meaning those things objectively; not debating the right or wrongness of said beliefs fewer still like being yelled at by anonymous strangers to whom they need not answer, likely will never see, and least of all hold themselves accountable to. You BECOME just words on a screen that an incited person can freely flail at until they?re blue in the fac? er? ?fingers.? It becomes a battle of right and wrong where both sides ?know? they?re right and rules of civility be damned.

And let?s not conflate ?arguing? with ?complaining.? Complaining is a start, an acknowledgment and statement of dissatisfaction; from there, civil discord, understanding and change can occur as long as both sides are willing to listen and be heard. Arguing is a failure; it means the lines of communication have broken down and any discussion has digressed into a fight. I have never changed someone?s mind on a subjective matter by arguing, telling another person not only what they should think, do or feel, but personally attacking them; it just doesn?t happen. It?s the difference between a ?peaceful protest? and a ?riot;? one is constructive, the other? Very much not so.

Yes, the internet is a very powerful tool and very much a shared ?reality,? but like any tool, it can used for god AND ill; ?arguing? is more often than not the latter.

 

[Saelune]

Debate is extremely rare. What we have on the internet are fights. We even unironically call them bloodsports at time. "Internet Kumite" is a thing. Shitposting is considered a positive thing.

Only come to the internet if you expect fights. Go somewhere organized if you want debate.

Pretty much this, people can't agree on a damn thing anymore, all they want to do is argue.

Nothing ever gets done, and nothing changes.

Thirding this. People on the internet have their opinions, and as ?any opinion that?s not mine is against mine,? 99% of time spent discussing those opinions is going to be spent defending them, inevitably to the death of rational discourse. I can be guilty of it, but remind myself constantly that if I?m not being heard, it?s rarely because I?m not shouting loud enough; of all the hills to die on, ?being right on the internet? isn?t one worth my time. [small](Unless anyone wants to defend Halo 5. I will fight you, die and bury myself on THAT damned hill, and the weeds that sprout from the earth where my decaying corpse lies will ensnare you by the ankles and drag you to hell with me where I can tell you how wrong you are for all eternity.)[/small] I kid, I kid?

Why is the internet treated as if it is lesser than reality? It isn't. We are real people behind these words and screens. The internet is more reality than anything at this point. Most of the world is now connected into a world-wide internet culture, and though it has highlighted some disturbing shit and allowed terrible people to come together, it has also let good people come together, it has made the world smaller in a good way. I talk to people daily across the world, from across my country, to Europe, to Asia and Australia! That is amazing and beautiful!

I think this notion that 'the internet doesn't matter/isn't real people' is a dangerous one that far too many people have.

I never said the internet doesn?t matter or that it doesn?t entail real people; in the spirit of the thread (i.e.: the volatile nature of online debating,) I was trying to make the point that arguing with people on the internet isn?t effective. If anything, it?s the very arguing that dehumanizes people. Few people like being yelled at for their beliefs, stances or opinions (meaning those things objectively; not debating the right or wrongness of said beliefs fewer still like being yelled at by anonymous strangers to whom they need not answer, likely will never see, and least of all hold themselves accountable to. You BECOME just words on a screen that an incited person can freely flail at until they?re blue in the fac? er? ?fingers.? It becomes a battle of right and wrong where both sides ?know? they?re right and rules of civility be damned.

And let?s not conflate ?arguing? with ?complaining.? Complaining is a start, an acknowledgment and statement of dissatisfaction; from there, civil discord, understanding and change can occur as long as both sides are willing to listen and be heard. Arguing is a failure; it means the lines of communication have broken down and any discussion has digressed into a fight. I have never changed someone?s mind on a subjective matter by arguing, telling another person not only what they should think, do or feel, but personally attacking them; it just doesn?t happen. It?s the difference between a ?peaceful protest? and a ?riot;? one is constructive, the other? Very much not so.

Yes, the internet is a very powerful tool and very much a shared ?reality,? but like any tool, it can used for god AND ill; ?arguing? is more often than not the latter.

Are you sure your mind has never been changed via argument? Mine has. Not by people telling me Nazis are ok, but I have had my mind changed before.

Civility is overrated. Civility is a tool of oppression meant to make good people look bad and evil arguments look good cause 'well, he politely asked for all Jews to die, unlike that uncivil jerk who thinks Nazis deserve to be punched'. I wish my Civility Topic wasn't gone.

The difference between a peaceful protest and a non-peaceful protest is 50 years of LGBT rights. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stonewall_riots

I can marry cause people stopped being peaceful about it.