Seems like debate and people changing their minds when presented with new information is something that died around 9/11, if it ever even existed. Even the most mild vocal disagreement just further entrenches people in their feelings.
There’s just no point.
As a junior middle aged (40yo) person, I can confirm with the caveat that the number of things that are considered common sense rather than completely subjective matters of opinion has changed a shitload since the turn of the millennium, with 9/11 being one of the major catalysts.
When I was growing up in the 80s and 90s, outlandish conspiracy theories were rightly considered fringe lunacy and being a nazi or any other kind of fascist was a shameful thing that you had to hide to be accepted, not a resurgent movement across most North America and Europe.
Just to name two of the worst examples of thousands of ways that discourse has worsened since the “good old days” when other things were much worse.
As a young person (18yo), I feel like this is mostly true for the internet but not so much in real life. Most people I know don’t believe stupid shit like this, even though there are of course some people that do, at least when it comes to conspiracy theories. Being a nazi, especially here in germany, will make most people, by far, dislike you and there’s a good chance you’ll just get a punch in the face if you tell that to someone. But at the same time, the internet has made people able to communicate with others that share the same stupid opinions so maybe it did increase because they don’t feel like they’re alone in that believe anymore. I can’t really compare it to how it was before the internet tho because I grew up with the internet already being a thing.
I think the only thing that really changed is the internet removed the gatekeeping role of centralized information sources. When you were a kid, was CNN still the end-all-be-all oracle and arbiter of concrete truth? In my mom’s generation, it was Walter Cronkite, of course. And if you were one of those people who got your information from Coast to Coast AM or other AM radio shows, you were considered a weirdo because if any of that stuff was really true, then Ted Koppel would have reported on it.
But also, looking back now, how fucking bizarre was it that they televised the invasion of Iraq twice? That’s some serious colonial behavior and I had no idea at the time. Now I can see it for what it was.
But also, I really wish we had had one centralized authority to give us information and advice about how to handle Covid. So I think there’s good and bad things about the change.
Both sides are right. Every argument comes from a true emotional desire. Every exchange of arguments can be ‘won’ by recognizing the need of the other person and finding common ground.
Default male identity surpresses pain and desire to be reliable. (roughly, please don’t get lost in the details.)
Gay culture is about accepting and expressing deep desires. It’s just coincidentally sexuality because that desire is so strong that it drives the change to accept desires. It’s in the name, gays are gay.
If you are on a diet and you are hungry and you have to sit next to somebody who eats cake, it brings the will for self-control to its limit.
The middle ground is protection of the self. The haters hate to not be vulnerable, to be able to fight and endure pain and suffering.
Show them how they can protect without suffering. Remove the need for them to hide their emotions. Make the world safe. Remove the need to hate.
Or accept that we need to fight and surpressing sexuality is a price to pay to win against the enemy.
Or have both sides look at it together and discover social norms for coexistence together.
If people are rational you can convince them with arguments. But if they are not then they don’t care about what they say and walk back on their words. What good is winning those arguments?
It happens, it just never comes to a satisfying synthesis. I changed my opinion a few times after one of those big 25 reply arguments, though I never admitted to it in the moment.
It’s always been a thing to not really want to admit you’re wrong. Half of debate is just realizing you’re not ever going to change your opponent’s mind real-time. Ego gets in the way way too hard, particularly on a public platform. Debating on a public platform is more to try to convince people in the audience that are more moderate.
Sometimes, your good argument can also actually change the other person’s mind, even slightly, but you’ll probably never SEE it. That doesn’t mean it’s pointless, just that if you’re expecting to get something out of the act of debating, it has to be something other than changing your oppo mind.
Seems like debate and people changing their minds when presented with new information is something that died around 9/11, if it ever even existed. Even the most mild vocal disagreement just further entrenches people in their feelings.
There’s just no point.
As an old person, can confirm it never existed. People have always been like this.
As a junior middle aged (40yo) person, I can confirm with the caveat that the number of things that are considered common sense rather than completely subjective matters of opinion has changed a shitload since the turn of the millennium, with 9/11 being one of the major catalysts.
When I was growing up in the 80s and 90s, outlandish conspiracy theories were rightly considered fringe lunacy and being a nazi or any other kind of fascist was a shameful thing that you had to hide to be accepted, not a resurgent movement across most North America and Europe.
Just to name two of the worst examples of thousands of ways that discourse has worsened since the “good old days” when other things were much worse.
As a young person (18yo), I feel like this is mostly true for the internet but not so much in real life. Most people I know don’t believe stupid shit like this, even though there are of course some people that do, at least when it comes to conspiracy theories. Being a nazi, especially here in germany, will make most people, by far, dislike you and there’s a good chance you’ll just get a punch in the face if you tell that to someone. But at the same time, the internet has made people able to communicate with others that share the same stupid opinions so maybe it did increase because they don’t feel like they’re alone in that believe anymore. I can’t really compare it to how it was before the internet tho because I grew up with the internet already being a thing.
I think the only thing that really changed is the internet removed the gatekeeping role of centralized information sources. When you were a kid, was CNN still the end-all-be-all oracle and arbiter of concrete truth? In my mom’s generation, it was Walter Cronkite, of course. And if you were one of those people who got your information from Coast to Coast AM or other AM radio shows, you were considered a weirdo because if any of that stuff was really true, then Ted Koppel would have reported on it.
But also, looking back now, how fucking bizarre was it that they televised the invasion of Iraq twice? That’s some serious colonial behavior and I had no idea at the time. Now I can see it for what it was.
But also, I really wish we had had one centralized authority to give us information and advice about how to handle Covid. So I think there’s good and bad things about the change.
deleted by creator
Both sides are right. Every argument comes from a true emotional desire. Every exchange of arguments can be ‘won’ by recognizing the need of the other person and finding common ground.
Ok so “Gay people deserve the right to live and be happy” and “Gay people are abominations who deserve death”
Tell me exactly where the middleground is please.
Default male identity surpresses pain and desire to be reliable. (roughly, please don’t get lost in the details.)
Gay culture is about accepting and expressing deep desires. It’s just coincidentally sexuality because that desire is so strong that it drives the change to accept desires. It’s in the name, gays are gay.
If you are on a diet and you are hungry and you have to sit next to somebody who eats cake, it brings the will for self-control to its limit.
The middle ground is protection of the self. The haters hate to not be vulnerable, to be able to fight and endure pain and suffering.
Show them how they can protect without suffering. Remove the need for them to hide their emotions. Make the world safe. Remove the need to hate.
Or accept that we need to fight and surpressing sexuality is a price to pay to win against the enemy.
Or have both sides look at it together and discover social norms for coexistence together.
What I’m seeing is that I should murder people who eat cake?
It worked for France, hasn’t it?
There is often no common ground depending on the argument
You have to look at the underlying desires.
If people are rational you can convince them with arguments. But if they are not then they don’t care about what they say and walk back on their words. What good is winning those arguments?
It happens, it just never comes to a satisfying synthesis. I changed my opinion a few times after one of those big 25 reply arguments, though I never admitted to it in the moment.
It’s always been a thing to not really want to admit you’re wrong. Half of debate is just realizing you’re not ever going to change your opponent’s mind real-time. Ego gets in the way way too hard, particularly on a public platform. Debating on a public platform is more to try to convince people in the audience that are more moderate.
Sometimes, your good argument can also actually change the other person’s mind, even slightly, but you’ll probably never SEE it. That doesn’t mean it’s pointless, just that if you’re expecting to get something out of the act of debating, it has to be something other than changing your oppo mind.