Topic: Really makes you think
+Anonymous A — 9.6 years ago #46,054
I'm absolutely floored by such an erudite display of razor sharp wit. It inspires critical thinking, doesn't it?
> The phrase "post-factual" is both confusing and frightening, particularly because that road leads straight to "post-accountability." Ugly portents.
> The media may want to reconsider their headlines. "Donald Trump A Lying Sack" titling by a well-researched, but casually written article might actually get some traction. In a way, adopting some of the tactics of the enemy might be a viable strategy. We're also "post-argument." The impulsive, cowardly darts populating Twitter are probably more effective in reinforcing opinions than well-wraught arguments carefully laying out a case entirely because those darts aren't trying to be smart. There's an elemental appeal to them. Elevator pitches, even, are too long.
> I'm reminded of Nightgaunt writing to some dim wit, "Dissolve yourself in acid." That is an unmistakable sentence. It provides a quick, immediate image and conveys all the contempt imaginable. Not only that, it's sound advice for anyone who would happily attend a lynching. The logical fallacy memes that are populating social media are over the head of the target audience. As accurate as they are sometimes, they're ultimately no more useful than the self-congratulatory chortling of people found at a liberal-leaning night at the theater. I don't see them as particularly effective because they're playing to an audience that's insulated by an interpretation air gap. The work that has a chance of effectively redirecting the spuds won't show any signs of an educated dialect, or use tools (e.g., logic, appeals to empathy) that the target audience isn't capable of using to begin with; it's going to talk to them in their own language. In short, it will lower itself to their level.
> To elaborate, lots of parents are concerned that television inadvertently teaches their children destructive things, but there's research evidence showing that television content is only learned by the children if it's presented in an ability-appropriate way. For instance, if kids don't really know yet how to interpret symbolism, symbolic programming isn't going to stick around long in their brains. Kids pick up a lot, but it's not like they pick up every scrap and assimilate it automatically, so parents should default to the Luddite Jihad. It isn't a stretch to presume that learning occurs similarly in adults. A plausible option is to accept the presentation of Trump supporters as genuine, not as a cult-like brainwashing that the browbeating of progressive philosophy will eventually undo. If we take them at face value and stop expecting them to grow up faster than they're able to, we can essentially try to teach them the same way we would really stubborn, foolish, and destructive children.
> Simplifying the level of conversation to incorporate the lowest common denominator actually shows flexible thinking. Banging away with logic and appeals to their "higher selves" is futile, and doesn't show a great deal of intelligence or savvy on the part of the person doing it. The educated progressive is not going to find academia or debate particularly effective in penetrating that ideological bunker. The Socratic method of asking methodical questions is a lot closer to the heart of it, but even that's only going to go so far because while rationalization is king, the permission granted by the mob is all the justification required to never change at all.
> In other words, "How would Homer say it" isn't a bad place to start. Common sense with just enough of a wall-eyed approach could be surprisingly undermining to the spuds.
(Edited 5 minutes later.)
| Poll option | Votes | Percentage | Graph |
|---|---|---|---|
| Yeah | 1 | 25% | |
| No | 1 | 25% | |
| Dude, what? | 2 | 50% |
+Nugget Syntaxroll !Uvm54ORbmo — 9.6 years ago, 2 minutes later[T] [B] #501,452
Write in: TL;DR
+The Last Black Man — 9.6 years ago, 2 minutes later, 4 minutes after the original post[T] [B] #501,453
@OP
Is this what you call "winning an argument through wall of text"?
Is this what you call "winning an argument through wall of text"?
+Bat Nugget is !GrateABlug — 9.6 years ago, 8 hours later, 9 hours after the original post[T] [B] #501,474
> Write in: TL;DR·The Last Black Man — 9.6 years ago, 16 minutes later, 9 hours after the original post[T] [B] #501,477
·Bat Nugget is !GrateABlug — 9.6 years ago, 1 minute later, 9 hours after the original post[T] [B] #501,478
+Anonymous E — 9.6 years ago, 21 minutes later, 9 hours after the original post[T] [B] #501,480
+Anonymous F — 9.6 years ago, 10 minutes later, 9 hours after the original post[T] [B] #501,483
Jesus, what a dillhole.
+Anonymous G — 8.9 years ago, 8 months later, 8 months after the original post[T] [B] #528,253
It does.
+Anonymous H — 8.9 years ago, 12 minutes later, 8 months after the original post[T] [B] #528,259
+Syntax — 8.9 years ago, 2 hours later, 8 months after the original post[T] [B] #528,283
Start a new topic to continue this conversation.
Or browse the latest topics.