Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

A discussion on the rules.

1…2425272930…89

Comments

  • #782
    nesf
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,644 ✭✭✭✭nesf


    We've thought long and hard about these "Us vs Them" threads. The core issue is how do we turn ideologues into regular posters. If you have any suggestions I'd love to hear them.


  • #783
    KyussBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,797 ✭✭✭KyussBishop


    Hehe; ya, can't change peoples underlying beliefs :) With these ideological debates though, they are usually full of small low-level personal attacks, which are subtle enough to avoid getting hit by the "attack the post, not the poster" rule, even though they breach it.

    Effectively what seems to happen, is there are a number of tactics used which try to throw the debate off in various ways, and usually when they occur, they are accompanied with these subtle personal attacks.

    Some common ones are:
    1: Take someones argument, distort their argument or put words in their mouth, and use that to avoid answering the argument/question (I guess that's a straw man), usually accompanied with low-level personal attacks.

    2: Like above, but distort their argument or put words in their mouth so they are portrayed as 100% statist or some such, forcing it into a black/white "Us vs Them" discussion.

    3: Not even bothering to address someones argument, just engaging in personal attacks "anti-libertarian" etc., putting words in someones mouth (not backed up with quotes or anything), and then using that as a basis to dismiss all of their arguments.
    This in particular, adds no substance to the debate, and is one of the things that comes closest to just outright attacking poster rather than his arguments.


    I guess one of the first most obvious things, may be to try and punish posters for misrepresenting others in the most obviously dishonest ways; leaving room for honest mistakes, but clamping down on the most egregious stuff would help.

    The next thing after that, would be to try and clamp down on the more subtle/low-level personal attacks, even if just to keep the atmosphere in the thread from spiraling down.
    This is obviously difficult though, because often a lot of this is naturally not so clear cut.


    Past that, there are a lot of other generally dishonest methods used to avoid addressing peoples arguments or questions, which I'm not sure are even possible to clamp down on.
    You can't force people to answer stuff obviously, just it would be useful if there were methods to curb the worst of this; I think clamping down on misrepresenting others like mentioned above, would help a bit at least.

    I'm not sure how enforceable much of the above is, but it would be good to at least see the worst of that curbed; right now it is really almost impossible to have a debate on Libertarian topics, without it descending into increasingly dirty ideological arguments, where you get maligned so your arguments can be discarded.


  • #784
    benway
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,061 ✭✭✭benway


    I'm unconcerned by these personal attacks, aside from the fact that they drag down the threads. I take them as vindication of my position, especially where there's a notable silence on the substantive argument ... I take this to be a tacit concession of the point, and move on. And I'm sure that most impartial observers would agree with me.

    Honestly, I don't think that these kinds of tactics do anyone any favours, but particularly those deploying them - I'm open to persuasion on libertarian principles, but the more I engage and ask difficult questions, and the more I am condescended to and subjected to ad hominem attacks when I raise difficult questions or apparent inconsistencies, the more this confirms to me that there are gaping holes in the libertarian ideology.

    I would suggest that people try not to take out their frustration with evasive discursive techniques in attacks on the posters, it only lowers you to their level. Easier said than done, granted. Simply take it for what it is, either they don't have the answers, or the answers are unpalatable for public consumption, so remain unsaid.

    What does bug me is that the "Political Theory" forum, an area I have great interest in, is so dominated by vociferous libertarian posters and threads that it may as well be renamed the Libertarianism Forum. I'd really like to have a discussion without it descending in to Deregulate Fúcking Everything, Privatize Fúcking Everything, absolute market freedom is the One True Answer™, all others being false, whatever the question may be, and to raise the level of debate above, "I'm right and you're not only wrong, but incapable of critical thinking".

    But hey, they're entitled to their opinion. They just need to realise that mutual reinforcement and a dismissive attitude towards other views does not a persuasive argument make.


  • #785
    KyussBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,797 ✭✭✭KyussBishop


    Ya the low-level personal attacks alone aren't the main problem, it's the combination of them and dishonest arguments aimed at throwing off the topic and avoiding other peoples arguments/questions.

    Coming down on the low-level personal attacks, seems to be one of the better ways of both stopping the atmosphere in a thread descending and (more importantly) forcing people to enage in honest arguments, because they won't be able to shield false arguments as personal attacks/dismissals.

    While I agree with you that impartial observers of the discussion, who are actually taking the effort to follow the thread, will see through these dishonest arguments, the greater trouble is that these arguments contribute to obfuscating the entire discussion (meaning many posters won't see through them), and sometimes you really have to pay attention to notice these subtle attacks.

    So there are a number of associated problems here:
    1: On a basic level, people get away with engaging in personal attacks

    2: People also get away with completely misrepresenting what others say (often using this to launch personal attacks)

    3: People get away with derailing and shutting down discussion in the thread

    4: People watching the discussion, may not see through the obfuscation, and this allows discredited arguments to maintain credibility

    5: These methods are easily used to avoid conceding any point, which means that sometimes people are not actually participating in the discussion


    What to me is most striking about this, is that often these tactics seem to be deliberate; I'm not sure personally, whether to put that down to some cognitive bias or flared tempers, or to be more cynical and ascribe a motive to it.
    benway wrote:
    I would suggest that people try not to take out their frustration with evasive discursive techniques in attacks on the posters, it only lowers you to their level.
    Ya that's another danger in allowing the above tactics, that it actually drags others into the same methods of argument, which helps pull down the thread into "Us vs Them" arguments.

    I try to remain as fair and reasoned as I can in threads, and when I make a mistake or am unfair in my arguments, and someone calls me out on that, I try to come clean and move on; when faced with (or seeing others faced with) frequent low-level personal attacks though, it's frustrating and becomes increasingly hard to stay reasonable and have an honest debate.


  • #786
    benway
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,061 ✭✭✭benway


    KyussBishop wrote: »
    Coming down on the low-level personal attacks, seems to be one of the better ways of both stopping the atmosphere in a thread descending and (more importantly) forcing people to enage in honest arguments, because they won't be able to shield false arguments as personal attacks/dismissals.

    It's basically bullying. You get three or four posters rounding on one about how "laughable" the argument is, how "you couldn't make it up" ... bellowing self-congratulatory platitudes, without explaining their argument, providing persuasive evidence, or attempting to refute the substantive point, and that's the end of the discussion. Only it isn't. Far from being intimidating, I find it pathetic.
    KyussBishop wrote: »
    1: On a basic level, people get away with engaging in personal attacks

    This is undoubtedly true. It's very easy to pick up a cheap infraction ... some justified, mind ... taking a sceptical view or libertarian positions, but there doesn't seem to be the same standard of scrutiny for the proponents.
    KyussBishop wrote: »
    2: People also get away with completely misrepresenting what others say (often using this to launch personal attacks)

    Nothing that can be done about misrepresentation - this is the internet, after all - other than further explanation, standing one's ground, and not getting dragged in to petty name-calling.
    KyussBishop wrote: »
    3: People get away with derailing and shutting down discussion in the thread

    Only if they're let.

    Again, there are enough open minded people posting in the forum to allow for reasoned discussion. Also, these tactics tend to get my back up, which motivates me to do my research and come back with counterarguments, so I guess it's in some way productive for me ... I will have to admit that I'm only becoming more firm in my scepticism of the applicability of market-based approaches, though. Admittedly, also, I was pretty far down that road before I ever started posting here.
    KyussBishop wrote: »
    4: People watching the discussion, may not see through the obfuscation, and this allows discredited arguments to maintain credibility

    What you and I think of as discredited might be an article of faith to someone else ... even if it's in the face of the evidence, as you see it. Of course, they might see the evidence differently, or produce their own evidence. If they don't engage in a meaningful way, then it raises a reasonable assumption that their position is more a case of faith than reason - but, again, what's white to me could easily be black to someone else.

    If someone holds an implacable ideological position, ignoring countervailing arguments and evidence, that's their choice - I wouldn't go on the Christianity forum and expect to leave a shoal of atheists in my wake, or on a Marxist forum and leave a herd of convinced neoliberal capitalists. But I would take it as evidence of an irrational, cultish aspect to the mode of thought.
    KyussBishop wrote: »
    5: These methods are easily used to avoid conceding any point, which means that sometimes people are not actually participating in the discussion

    That's their loss. There's a wider world out there, and lots of interesting ideas on political theory, economics, etc., but if people want to limit themselves to one small subset, let them at it. It allows us to test and develop our own ideas, their strengths and weaknesses, with a consistently hostile opponent, looking to pick holes. Not like I amn't doing the same, mind you ... Socratic learning, innit ... if you want to learn.
    KyussBishop wrote: »
    What to me is most striking about this, is that often these tactics seem to be deliberate; I'm not sure personally, whether to put that down to some cognitive bias or flared tempers, or to be more cynical and ascribe a motive to it.

    Who's to say? It's not really all that relevant, other than to raise questions as to the cultish nature of "ism" thinking.
    KyussBishop wrote: »
    I try to remain as fair and reasoned as I can in threads, and when I make a mistake or am unfair in my arguments, and someone calls me out on that, I try to come clean and move on; when faced with (or seeing others faced with) frequent low-level personal attacks though, it's frustrating and becomes increasingly hard to stay reasonable and have an honest debate.

    I'd like to say I do the same, but I can be pretty stubborn when I get going, equally. I agree, it's frustrating, all you can do is call them out on it. But, again, if you go in looking to take away an enhanced and expanded understanding of your own positions and biases, as well as working on your ability to form an argument and assess evidence, then it's all good.

    I'll say one thing for the libertarians, they make great sparring partners.

    Bottom line: this is why there's a no-politics, no-religion rule in a lot of rural pubs.


  • Advertisement
  • #787
    KyussBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,797 ✭✭✭KyussBishop


    benway wrote:
    What you and I think of as discredited might be an article of faith to someone else ... even if it's in the face of the evidence, as you see it. Of course, they might see the evidence differently, or produce their own evidence. If they don't engage in a meaningful way, then it raises a reasonable assumption that their position is more a case of faith than reason - but, again, what's white to me could easily be black to someone else.

    If someone holds an implacable ideological position, ignoring countervailing arguments and evidence, that's their choice - I wouldn't go on the Christianity forum and expect to leave a shoal of atheists in my wake, or on a Marxist forum and leave a herd of convinced neoliberal capitalists. But I would take it as evidence of an irrational, cultish aspect to the mode of thought.
    Well see that's the thing, I'm not trying to convert people with my arguments or anything, I just can't help but wonder about the motive when I see all these dishonest methods of arguing come out.
    If people don't want to address my arguments or questions or anything, that's fine; when they do it by maligning me though, with dishonest arguments, then I start examining the reasons behind that reaction.

    As I said before, I don't know whether to put it down to some cognitive bias, or to something with a motive behind it. The thought that there might be a motive to it though (especially when it's consistent), does get my back up a bit I have to admit.

    I suppose examining and questioning motive is a bit like the "no politics" rule you mention though, heh :) That is probably considered "too personal".
    I've learned and gained an interest in quite a of stuff participating in the arguments so far anyway, so plenty to take from it even if all things can't be explored; just hope future discussions don't devolve and become as 'dirty' as they can now.


  • #788
    Silas Salmon Buckle
    Posts: 81,310 CMod ✭✭✭✭ Silas Salmon Buckle


    Most libertarian threads get trolled into oblivion until they have to be locked and you're complaining you're being picked on...?

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056605246
    This thread was proceeding just fine until someone came in and declared "oh let's make this more interesting" and snippy remarks about "oh libertarian answer to everything".
    Or another thread with "I find this libertarian attitude sickening".
    Another attempt at discussion of a piece of text was quickly dragged off topic.

    If you want more moderation and less trench warfare, you can have it, but it will be coming down on all sides.


  • #789
    benway
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,061 ✭✭✭benway


    bluewolf wrote: »
    Most libertarian threads get trolled into oblivion until they have to be locked and you're complaining you're being picked on...?

    Trolling? Come on, asking legitimate questions, pointing to obvious inconsistencies, and testing the theory in general is hardly trolling. That's a totally unfair accusation / implication.

    This goes without saying, but I'll say it anyway - I'm not doing it to wind people up, or to have some kind of "I win, you lose" zero sum argument. I'm genuinely interested in political theory of all stripes, and in learning about ideas generally.

    If you have an open, general "Political Theory" forum, then why should libertarianism get some kind of privileged, sacred cow status? If I opened a "why Marx was right about everything" thread, or a "nationalise all industry" thread, I'd expect some pretty withering responses, why should it be any different in a soapbox Objectivism or libertarianism thread?

    Protip: being dismissive and borderline abusive towards those who hold differing views is a sure way of alienating the middle ground. Maybe try persuasion rather than browbeating.

    ***

    "oh let's make this more interesting"

    It was all pretty much softball up until that point. I raised legitimate issues, as to the right to education, and inequality as a logical consequence of market based education.

    Are you accusing me of trolling here?


  • #790
    KyussBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,797 ✭✭✭KyussBishop


    bluewolf wrote: »
    Most libertarian threads get trolled into oblivion until they have to be locked and you're complaining you're being picked on...?
    I'm complaining that the threads are allowed to be trolled into oblivion, to the point that it's not possible to have an honest discussion.

    There are a lot of low-level personal attacks, presumably breaching the "attack the post not the poster" rule I got warned for, which don't get warned or dealt with.

    That, in addition to various other dishonest arguments I mention, are what cause these threads to spiral down and get locked; much (though not all) of it I think is avoidable with more mod intervention (methods of which I described in reply to nesf's post).


    EDIT: Also, what are you classifying as trolling? I get the impression that might be directed mainly at anti-Libertarian posters, but am not sure?


  • #791
    Silas Salmon Buckle
    Posts: 81,310 CMod ✭✭✭✭ Silas Salmon Buckle


    I'm not accusing anyone of trolling.
    I am saying that I find it bizarre to come onto this thread and see all these complaints when you have posted in a similar manner and thanked worse posts.

    So as I said, if you want less of it and tighter moderation we can try - but it will probably be coming down on all "sides" from what I've seen.

    benway wrote:
    If you have an open, general "Political Theory" forum, then why should libertarianism get some kind of privileged, sacred cow status? If I opened a "why Marx was right about everything" thread, or a "nationalise all industry" thread, I'd expect some pretty withering responses, why should it be any different in a soapbox Objectivism or libertarianism thread?
    What does bug me is that the "Political Theory" forum, an area I have great interest in, is so dominated by vociferous libertarian posters and threads that it may as well be renamed the Libertarianism Forum. I'd really like to have a discussion without it descending in to Deregulate Fúcking Everything, Privatize Fúcking Everything,

    So why don't you set up a thread about it instead of posting on libertarian threads?
    And if that is one of the main principles of libertarianism - deregulation and privatise everything - why do you expect a discussion on it to go any differently?
    And if libertarians get a little prickly in response, can you expect any different when posters come in with "I find libertarian attitudes sickening" and they can't have a single thread in which to discuss a book?


  • Advertisement
  • #792
    Soldie
    Hosted Moderators Posts: 1,713 ✭✭✭Soldie


    I have to agree with bluewolf here. The two of you repeatedly dragged the thread in question off topic and here you are feeling sorry for yourselves. The reason threads on libertarianism turn into such train wrecks is because many of those who post in them are keen to see the scope of the thread broadened to a point where their mud-slinging can be seen as legitimate. Instead of sticking to the topic, libertarians are often invited to outline "how a libertarian society would look". In other words: "forget child labour - describe how your ideology would take shape and I'll inevitably find some aspect of your post that I can ridicule". One need only look at the last couple of libertarian-themed threads in the Political Theory sub-forum to see how those who are supposedly interested in an "honest" debate try to veer off-topic at every turn. I'll hold my hand up and admit that the tone of some of my posts can be petulant and not conducive to a proper debate, but I'd like to think that I wouldn't be so ratty if I weren't so sick and tired of the endless caricatures that are routinely passed off as though they are indisputable fact.


  • #793
    KyussBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,797 ✭✭✭KyussBishop


    bluewolf wrote: »
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056605246
    This thread was proceeding just fine until someone came in and declared "oh let's make this more interesting" and snippy remarks about "oh libertarian answer to everything".
    Or another thread with "I find this libertarian attitude sickening".
    Another attempt at discussion of a piece of text was quickly dragged off topic.

    If you want more moderation and less trench warfare, you can have it, but it will be coming down on all sides.
    In reply to the edited part:
    I agree with you that there is sniping on both sides, yes, and I think that is counterproductive and these threads would be better with none of that.

    Personally, I try my best not to engage in anything like that, and I really think I stay reasonable and fair in most (I try to make it all) of my arguments.

    I'm sure I'm unintentionally very strong in my arguments sometimes, but I don't think I've been unreasonable in them, and don't think I've done anything to provoke some of the dishonest arguments that are put to me.


  • #794
    KyussBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,797 ✭✭✭KyussBishop


    bluewolf wrote: »
    I'm not accusing anyone of trolling.
    I am saying that I find it bizarre to come onto this thread and see all these complaints when you have posted in a similar manner and thanked worse posts.

    So as I said, if you want less of it and tighter moderation we can try - but it will probably be coming down on all "sides" from what I've seen.
    Okey well, regarding thanking posts, I don't think this is a great way to determine what a posters viewpoint is.

    If a post has a certain part I agree with and think was worded quite well, I will likely thank it, even if it might contain a jab that I deem not so helpful; it's not meant to mean I support the negative parts of the post.

    In this regard (and others), the 'thank' feature has some drawbacks and can be counterproductive.


  • #795
    Silas Salmon Buckle
    Posts: 81,310 CMod ✭✭✭✭ Silas Salmon Buckle


    KyussBishop wrote: »
    Okey well, regarding thanking posts, I don't think this is a great way to determine what a posters viewpoint is.

    If a post has a certain part I agree with and think was worded quite well, I will likely thank it, even if it might contain a jab that I deem not so helpful; it's not meant to mean I support the negative parts of the post.

    In this regard (and others), the 'thank' feature has some drawbacks and can be counterproductive.

    I wouldn't have brought it up except that I was looking at one snippy one-liner. No bits & pieces there.


  • #796
    KyussBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,797 ✭✭✭KyussBishop


    Soldie wrote: »
    I have to agree with bluewolf here. The two of you repeatedly dragged the thread in question off topic and here you are feeling sorry for yourselves.
    How was I dragging it off topic? (please quote, for sake of clarity)
    If this is the child labour thread, and you mean my posts on economics, then it should be noted that economics was a central part of the topic on how to tackle child labour.
    Soldie wrote: »
    The reason threads on libertarianism turn into such train wrecks is because many of those who post in them are keen to see the scope of the thread broadened to a point where their mud-slinging can be seen as legitimate.
    I don't sling mud in my posts; if you want to attribute that to me, please quote me.


  • #797
    KyussBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,797 ✭✭✭KyussBishop


    bluewolf wrote: »
    I wouldn't have brought it up except that I was looking at one snippy one-liner. No bits & pieces there.
    Okey, can you quote it though? If it was out of place I'll be happy to admit as much.


  • #798
    benway
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,061 ✭✭✭benway


    You've thanked a few dubious posts yourself, if I remember.
    bluewolf wrote: »
    So as I said, if you want less of it and tighter moderation we can try - but it will probably be coming down on all "sides" from what I've seen.

    I've actually said that it's pretty much fine, that this kind of heated debate is to be expected. But I'm more thick-skinned than most when it comes to personal abuse on the internet.

    Personally, I think the problem is that there are too many "why libertarianism is the answer to all that ails us", and a few "why it isn't" OPs. What do you expect from that other than "yes it is", "no it isn't" type discussion? It would be better imho, to deal with more abstract, philosophical issues, get down to the fundamentals.

    Of course, that would take high quality OPs, you can't expect to just lump in some pamphlet or paper and have people read it before commenting - this isn't a tutorial - takes time and effort to explain the position such that anyone reading the OP can grasp what's going on and get involved. This is why I haven't started any, but I will. Well, that and the fact that as soon as one libertarianism thread dies, another one pops up, and I can't resist but to ask the obvious questions that occur to me.
    soldie wrote:
    The two of you repeatedly dragged the thread in question off topic

    This is not true. It went into a general discussion about the benefits of open markets in the developing world, which is an obvious corollary to the issue of child labour, and an area in which I have a particular personal interest.


  • #799
    Silas Salmon Buckle
    Posts: 81,310 CMod ✭✭✭✭ Silas Salmon Buckle


    benway wrote: »
    It's basically bullying. You get three or four posters rounding on one about how "laughable" the argument is, how "you couldn't make it up" ... bellowing self-congratulatory platitudes, without explaining their argument, providing persuasive evidence, or attempting to refute the substantive point, and that's the end of the discussion. Only it isn't. Far from being intimidating, I find it pathetic.
    benway wrote: »
    I've actually said that it's pretty much fine, that this kind of heated debate is to be expected. But I'm more thick-skinned than most when it comes to personal abuse on the internet.


    You were calling it pathetic bullying a short while ago.
    Do you have a problem with the current debates or not, and if not what is your issue that you're posting about here? That you just don't like libertarianism and don't want to discuss it?


  • #800
    benway
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,061 ✭✭✭benway


    bluewolf wrote: »
    You were calling it pathetic bullying a short while ago.
    Do you have a problem with the current debates or not, and if not what is your issue that you're posting about here? That you just don't like libertarianism and don't want to discuss it?

    I do definitely think that there's an element of bullying to it, in terms of an attempt to browbeat "difficult" posters, but far from being intimidating, I find it pathetic, so it doesn't bother me.

    And it's not that I "just don't like" libertarianism, it's that, in my opinion, it's quite a limited worldview, and that there are some fundamental flaws in its philosophical basis. I'm open to persuasion, but, as I've said, I don't find myself being persuaded. In fact, no effort is being made to persuade, only to shout down and browbeat.


  • #801
    KyussBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,797 ✭✭✭KyussBishop


    benway wrote: »
    I do definitely think that there's an element of bullying to it, in terms of an attempt to browbeat "difficult" posters, but far from being intimidating, I find it pathetic, so it doesn't bother me.
    Ya what bothers me about it, is how it drags the threads down; I'm fairly thick-skinned when it comes to online debating, take enjoyment in the more controversial topics, but this stuff just prevents an honest argument and prevents the topic actually being discussed.

    EDIT:
    benway wrote:
    And it's not that I "just don't like" libertarianism, it's that, in my opinion, it's quite a limited worldview, and that there are some fundamental flaws in its philosophical basis. I'm open to persuasion, but, as I've said, I don't find myself being persuaded. In fact, no effort is being made to persuade, only to shout down and browbeat.
    Ya I'd echo that as well; I'm open to being persuaded on several topics, I see the merit (albeit with skepticism) in the future of privatized education (which there is a topic on now), which is a big part of Libertarian views.

    Some areas of discussion though, do become untouchable; I've noticed particularly, that economics (which I deem to be at the core of where Libertarian principals display faults), really does seem to illicit a lot of the heated and sometimes dishonest debate I'm posting about.


  • Advertisement
  • #802
    Soldie
    Hosted Moderators Posts: 1,713 ✭✭✭Soldie


    KyussBishop wrote: »
    How was I dragging it off topic? (please quote, for sake of clarity)
    If this is the child labour thread, and you mean my posts on economics, then it should be noted that economics was a central part of the topic on how to tackle child labour.

    We reached the third page in this thread before you had anything to say about the thread's topic. Judging by your earlier posts in that thread, it was clear that you wanted to talk about the empirical testing of libertarian principles. I don't accept the implication that the thread was somehow led in that direction. Your very first post in the thread was a clear attempt (deliberate or otherwise) to shift the goalposts.
    I don't sling mud in my posts; if you want to attribute that to me, please quote me.

    I should have been more specific in my previous post. I am not accusing you personally of mudslinging. If anything you're infinitely more reasonable than most critics of libertarianism.


  • #803
    Silas Salmon Buckle
    Posts: 81,310 CMod ✭✭✭✭ Silas Salmon Buckle


    benway wrote: »
    I do definitely think that there's an element of bullying to it, in terms of an attempt to browbeat "difficult" posters, but far from being intimidating, I find it pathetic, so it doesn't bother me.

    And it's not that I "just don't like" libertarianism, it's that, in my opinion, it's quite a limited worldview, and that there are some fundamental flaws in its philosophical basis. I'm open to persuasion, but, as I've said, I don't find myself being persuaded. In fact, no effort is being made to persuade, only to shout down and browbeat.

    Do you think "stop bandying about soundbites" is a good discussion? Dismissing someone's views because they haven't travelled around Kenya? "Why are you people justifying child labour"? "These threads are frustrating"? "you clearly don't know much about the world"? "Killer post, brah"? "you need to rethink, sonny"? "you're making such lame arguments you must be stuck"?

    You think all that is constructive debate?

    Please bear in mind I wouldn't be quoting all this if you weren't complaining of the same thing yourself.

    Since you do in fact seem to have a problem with the posters doing the same thing as you, fine. No more of it from anyone.


  • #804
    benway
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,061 ✭✭✭benway


    bluewolf wrote: »
    they can't have a single thread in which to discuss a book?

    To be fair, that one got way off topic for a while, and it's 100% proper that it was curtailed.

    But I actually made the effort to read a substantial portion of that book, and would have been quite keen to discuss it, particularly in terms of a legal system based on incentives rather than the "monopoly on force", in line with Chicago School of Economics law and economics type approaches, which I have more than a passing familiarity with. But, there had been quite a few other legitimate questions left hanging, one in particular, that I wanted to see addressed before embarking upon that.

    It's not much of a discussion if the only views that are acknowledged are, "well, I think the authors are totally right" or "well, I think they're only partially right", and it's quite disrespectful to those who take an interest and make the effort to engage fully, to not at least get a "yes, I see that as a problem in the work" or "no, this is justified because" response. That's what killed that thread, above all else.


  • #805
    Silas Salmon Buckle
    Posts: 81,310 CMod ✭✭✭✭ Silas Salmon Buckle


    benway wrote: »

    It's not much of a discussion if the only views that are acknowledged are, "well, I think the authors are totally right"

    It seems to me that they didn't actually agree with the book and decided it wasn't a great one themselves. So I don't think this is true either.

    Anyway I think I am done on this discussion now that I've cleared up a few things.


  • #806
    KyussBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,797 ✭✭✭KyussBishop


    Soldie wrote: »
    We reached the third page in this thread before you had anything to say about the thread's topic. Judging by your earlier posts in that thread, it was clear that you wanted to talk about the empirical testing of libertarian principles. I don't accept the implication that the thread was somehow led in that direction. Your very first post in the thread was a clear attempt (deliberate or otherwise) to shift the goalposts.
    Okey, I admit the first half of my first post in that thread was mainly venting (primarily about the issues I brought up in this thread), due to the previous thread having been locked.

    The other half of my first post, trying to draw discussion about the economics; the original poster of the thread did seem to post economics as a central part of the post?
    SupaNova wrote:
    It is increased production that increases wages and phases out child labor, not government legislation. All it takes is the most basic of critical thinking to understand this. If a family requires both parents and children to work to survive, preventing the children from working will end in malnourishment and death. The only way a society phases out child labor is when the adults within a society have the productive capacity to produce enough for both parent and child’s survival. It is the same force, rising productivity, which raises wages. If it was by government decree that wages rose, what is government waiting for? Why not raise minimum wage by a factor of 100 tomorrow?

    If the usual anti libertarian brigade criticising “libertarian economics” whatever that is, had so much as looked at a Wikipedia page they would see that from Sachs to Krugman there is agreement. Some are obviously aware of this as it has come up on numerous threads, but still it is thrash out to spoil and divert threads, in a recent one whilst simultaneously accusing libertarian posters for dishonest debating.
    I admit that my initial discussion on economics didn't directly relate to child labour (I've unsuccessfully tried to get that discussed on 3 separate threads thus far), it didn't seem out of bounds of the discussion though.
    Soldie wrote:
    I should have been more specific in my previous post. I am not accusing you personally of mudslinging. If anything you're infinitely more reasonable than most critics of libertarianism.
    Okey so, no worries.


  • #807
    benway
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,061 ✭✭✭benway


    bluewolf wrote: »
    Do you think "stop bandying about soundbites" is a good discussion?

    It was a soundbite. The reality was much more interesting, as was the report it was derived from ... I don't think anyone had actually read the report in question until I brought that up.
    bluewolf wrote: »
    Dismissing someone's views because they haven't travelled around Kenya?

    Did not dismiss his/her views, he/she dismissed mine, if you remember? "Uninformed opinions"? Oh, and I worked in development in Kenya, rather than travelling around, I think it's pertinent.
    bluewolf wrote: »
    "Why are you people justifying child labour"?

    "You people aren't really trying to justify child labour, are you?"
    bluewolf wrote: »
    "you clearly don't know much about the world"?

    "No offence, but this would seem to suggest that you don't know much about the developing world, or haven't spent any significant time there."

    Sorry, but the point that was made was that the burgeoning middle class was evidence that economic growth was raising all boats - I got the opposite impression the last time I was, y'know, actually in the developing world. Was open to correction, obviously - should have put that as a question, typo that it's a stop rather than question mark.
    bluewolf wrote: »
    "Killer post, brah"? "you need to rethink, sonny"? "you're making such lame arguments you must be stuck"?

    Fair enough on these. As I've said all along, things get heated, and I don't think that heavy-handed moderation is the way to go.
    benway wrote:
    It's not much of a discussion if the only views that are acknowledged are, "well, I think the authors are totally right" or "well, I think they're only partially right", and it's quite disrespectful to those who take an interest and make the effort to engage fully, to not at least get a "yes, I see that as a problem in the work" or "no, this is justified because" response. That's what killed that thread, above all else.
    bluewolf wrote: »
    benway wrote:
    It's not much of a discussion if the only views that are acknowledged are, "well, I think the authors are totally right"
    It seems to me that they didn't actually agree with the book and decided it wasn't a great one themselves. So I don't think this is true either.

    So, how many times is that that you've misrepresented my posts here? Just sayin'.
    soldie wrote:
    the tone of some of my posts can be petulant and not conducive to a proper debate, but I'd like to think that I wouldn't be so ratty if I weren't so sick and tired of the endless caricatures that are routinely passed off as though they are indisputable fact.

    Ditto, as illustrated above.

    One way of getting out of this is to flesh out the caricature and give it a bit more depth. Like, if someone posts, by my understanding, blah, correct me if I'm wrong, then correct them, suggest reading, etc. I think there's a tendency towards attempting prove, defend, and to dismiss criticism, rather than explaining.
    soldie wrote:
    here you are feeling sorry for yourselves.

    Don't think people are feeling sorry for themselves, more so that we're thinking about how discussions on political theory can work without descending in to petty "I'm right", "No, I'm right" wastes of time. I guess that there's always going to be an element of that to it, especially where people are fully committed to their positions.

    Personally, I think that the best way to find common ground is to start from a more general, philosophical viewpoint, so that people can understand the basis for each others' positions, and move forward from there, rather than the "libertarianism is great", "no it isn't" type threads that seem to predominate.


  • #808
    K-9
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 43,313 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    KyussBishop wrote: »
    Ya what bothers me about it, is how it drags the threads down; I'm fairly thick-skinned when it comes to online debating, take enjoyment in the more controversial topics, but this stuff just prevents an honest argument and prevents the topic actually being discussed.

    I do think personable abuse should be given short shrift in Political Theory, anything after a mod warning in particular.

    Needs to be agreed by the mods and the main posters made aware of it, as going on the last week or so, it would be a very, very, very quiet forum.

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



  • #809
    benway
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,061 ✭✭✭benway


    K-9 wrote: »
    Needs to be agreed by the mods and the main posters made aware of it, as going on the last week or so, it would be a very, very, very quiet forum.

    Said it before, will say it again, we need better, less polarising OPs, but unless people have the time to put together a small essay on a particular theoretical topic, and the time and patience to bring anyone who might not be familiar with the theory up to speed, then that will be difficult. I personally don't think it's ok to presume familiarity with the works, or to exclude interested posters who may not be familiar.

    Like, I'd personally love to have a Foucault mega-thread ... don't find too many opportunities to discuss political philosophy IRL, funny enough ... but I'm not sure if many have read him, I don't much fancy trying write a guide to Foucault in 200 words, I'm not sure I'd even be capable of it, and I don't think the likes of:
    "Society Must Be Defended". Discuss.

    is good enough, I would say that the OP should be self-contained.

    Been meaning to try to get one going on Hayek, spontaneous order, and cultural evolution, where at least a lot of the regulars will have a good degree of knowledge to start with, but again there's the danger, and likelihood, that it'll quickly descend in to "us and them" type bickering.

    Overall, again, I really don't think there's any need for more mod intervention, we're big boys and girls, we'll work it out between ourselves. People just need to respect the fact that there isn't one answer and that any cogently (or not so cogently) reasoned stance should be respected, even if it's directly at odds with your own.


  • #810
    K-9
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 43,313 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    benway wrote: »
    Said it before, will say it again, we need better, less polarising OPs, but unless people have the time to put together a small essay on a particular theoretical topic, and the time and patience to bring anyone who might not be familiar with the theory up to speed, then that will be difficult. I personally don't think it's ok to presume familiarity with the works, or to exclude interested posters who may not be familiar.

    A prerequisite should be interested but uninformed posters, willing to inform themselves.
    Overall, again, I really don't think there's any need for more mod intervention, we're big boys and girls, we'll work it out between ourselves. People just need to respect the fact that there isn't one answer and that any cogently (or not so cogently) reasoned stance should be respected, even if it's directly at odds with your own.

    Indeed and if you can name me a political forum or a website that provides this type of debate, with roughly the same level of moderation we do, I'm open to reading it.

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



  • Advertisement
  • #811
    benway
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,061 ✭✭✭benway


    True, but I don't think that posts should turn in to tutorials, won't find too many who are willing to engage with a reading list - think that there should be minimal need to refer to sources unless someone is really interested, I would personally say that the key ideas should be summarised. Of course, that's prone to turn in to caricature and lead to rows.
    K-9 wrote: »
    Indeed and if you can name me a political forum or a website that provides this type of debate, with roughly the same level of moderation we do, I'm open to reading it.

    Touché. Tbh, like I say, I think we're grand ... minimal state, wha?


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement