Skeptcism can be good, but not in excess. If you decided to respond by saying "In your opinion(s), what led them to close shop?", folks would have responded more kindly.
Being a skeptic means you are someone who is skeptical. It does not come with a membership to a club. Just because you dislike some other people who are skeptical, does not mean skeptics are bad and you need to stop being one. I am sure you dislike some people who wear pants too, but you continue to wear pants anyways.
All that said, his assessment of the people he dislikes is incredibly superficial and childish. What exactly was the point that you hoped to make by posting it?
If there is a belief that is backed up by evidence (and in this case there is) then the first response should always be to provide that evidence.
Just because someone sincerely believes that others are subhuman doesn't mean the conversation ends immediately. We could try providing evidence and clarifying whether they are dead-centre wrong or just dealing with a technical detail before turning to exclusionary tactics.
I mean, seriously. If the choices are (1) end the conversation, try and get someone to resign and (2) try and convince someone to take a different view through conversation over a few days then (2) is far superior. We have a lot of people working in, eg, law and the upper echelons of business who are fantastic contributors to the general good despite having extremely questionable moral stances.
Why bother? I don’t hold any belief strongly enough to merit such a reaction, though I might react negatively for other reasons. For example, past experience showing the insincerity of their own debate tactics and a lack of patience for rehashing it all yet again.
Eh, I tried to take that view but then I started hearing those wrong pithy responses reflected back at me via my real life friends, which showed that their campaign worked.
Now I don't argue to try to change the person's mind, but rather to plant the seed of critical thinking that may help an onlooker find the truth.
Talking to people who disagreed with you made you have a bad day? Maybe it could have been an interesting day if you put your ego aside and focused on trying to understand them. What makes you so certain your beliefs are correct anyway? Have you reviewed the evidence on both sides?
You are mixing up skeptics and blockers, this coming from a deeply, fundamentally sceptical person. Blockers block any new idea, and there is no way to move or convince them. Skeptics will doubt everything you do - very much like a blocker does - but good arguments can move a skeptic. Basically, I'll just block and doubt everything you say until you fought me and convinced me enough... at which point I will become your best ally.
I haven't seen anyone trying to prevent you from voicing a contrary opinion, only people politely trying to explain to you that they feel you are missing an essential point of understanding. (OK, I was a bit snarky, but it was on point)
I more or less cut off contact with several people I used to consider intelligent and open to facts, but they were so blinded by their politics it became pointless to argue with them. I doubt anything will change their minds at this point, which is sad. It's one thing to debate the most appropriate response to this, it is another to deny the underlying physics exist.
Sure, you should try to pause and understand someone's opinion. But equally important is not doing that ad infinitum. Some people are just wrong. Rejecting someone's arguments entirely should be done very sparingly, but sometimes it's a valid option.
if holding the wrong opinion in a conversation is morally wrong, one ought to converse in a way that welcomes and seeks being refuted.
I see some echoes of this in the advice about steelmanning friends and family who are in to conspiracies. But it's hard to imagine going into a conversation with say a flat earth theory believer and really want to be proven wrong about the sphere..
It's okay, that's one of the many responses that I would expect from this type of discussion. Often times it sheds an interesting light on a person that thinks stating their opinion gives them the right to prevent another from stating their own opinion, but at the same time claim that someone is attempting to stifle their opinion that they've already stated.
Apologies if I'm misunderstanding, but I think you're saying that you'd condemn them for admitting to hold that viewpoint. I think many of us would as well.
It seems to me a downside to that approach, though, is that we'd never learn why they had those views, and probably never get a chance to reason with them about why they should believe otherwise.
Perhaps I'm too optimistic about the possibility of talking things out. It's hard to tell.
If you read the conversation I did stop having discussion with them and told them to stop having a discussion with me.
Facts don't always tell a story or explain the "why". Often times you have to form an opinion based on the facts and that is what you're bringing to the table when discussing stuff. I don't see why I need to explain this concept on a site like this.
I feel the same in general. I was naive enough trying to convince them but it turned out in most of the cases I was wasting my time: they either deliberately took it wrong or simply could not comprehend it at all. In neither case there wouldn't be any point trying to discuss. So virtually I stopped reading or replying on most sites, HN is one of the few I haven't stopped yet, but I feel it won't last long too.
When people think something is bad and keep encountering other people saying it is good, they respond. There's no reason why anyone should get "involved in the space" before expressing their opinion.
reply