Hacker Read top | best | new | newcomments | leaders | about | bookmarklet login

The problem is that, historically, intellectuals in the Spanish-speaking world love excluding average people from participation.

So the most interesting discussions happen in closed circles not in the open.

It is a shitty way of building a society that has its roots in colonial times.



sort by: page size:

Yeah, it's a fascinating area to talk about if you're with genuinely curious people - for example I think there are some really interesting discussions going on about the changing notion of being "British" in the context of second- and third-generation immigrants - but the quality of the debate is so often terrible that I'm very wary of starting conversations as people can get worked up very quickly.

Discussion is paramount to both ideation and understanding. Why don't we see more public discussions among academics?

It's not open discussion though. All avenues are closed except ones that can lead to figuring out a piece of trivia about someone who isn't there!

I guess it works if everyone is equally into a subject but that's pretty rare and by this point I've been put out by it so many times even if I am interested, I'm not interested.


A lot of people can't discuss things in a very matter of fact nature.

You bring up the really good point that this type of dry conversation to obtain answers only is a terrible environment for curiosity and learning. Relating interest, abstract Concepts and gasp opinions not necessarily specific to the problem at hand is an important Avenue towards growth.

You thought the Europeans were the dry ones?


But doesn't this discourage discussion?

Why is that the case? What bothers me about these discussions is that rarely does anyone present an argument for their own opinion.

OK, but i wouldn't participate in such discussion. i believe most people like to keep their minds open to ideas

But isn’t the quality of discussions a different problem?

Discussion? I haven't seen discussion come out of the US on a number of topics for decades. Discussions might start, but someone comes along and starts incoherently screaming.

By regular definition of "rational discussion", subjects not amendable to it are, frankly, not worth discussing. Because the opposite of the "restricted format" of rational discussion is just talking out of one's ass and using one's emotions as arguments. Which, I guess, may be a fine social activity for some, but is otherwise not very useful for the society as a whole.

Uh no? I think it’s better to have open and free discussions.

To emphasize the point, you end up needing to listen to other people instead of having other people listen to you. This is a big problem with discussions, the need to show your own worth easily overrides the value in having an actual discussion.

True, the restricted length makes it a terrible format for any sort of nuanced discussion on complex issues. Way too easy for folks to talk past each other.

It doesn't make much sense to try and have a general discussion about a topic that is very context dependent.

It doesn't mean they can't participate in the discussion. It does mean that if they're the only people in the discussion, there's probably going to be some things wrong with the outcome.

The discussions are sometimes more interesting than the submission itself.

I agree. We have access to five complex discussions, and unfortunately, the ones with simple topics are not available to public.

English is my mother tongue, and this just reads like an invitation to the community. "Lively discussions" is sometimes a euphemism for a heated debate but I didnt get that feeling from this
next

Legal | privacy