Respect in Political Discussion

More specifically, what is the appropriate level of it?

Lets say someone says something that you believe to be completely absurd and horrible, that goes against many of your morals. For me, this would be something such as "Gays should not be allowed to marry." Insert whatever view you find despicable. What is your response to this person? Is it calm and logical, or passionate and angered? Do you treat them as someone worth arguing with, or someone that should not be allowed to vote? Please don't just post your reaction, please say WHY you would react in this manner.

For me, I would respond calmly, and argue with them as I would anyone else. I would ask them why they believe this, and try to point out where they I believe they are wrong. I do this because my goal is not to insult them, or prove myself right over them, it is to possibly change their views. Everyone with political views tends to believe that they are right for good, honest, intelligent reasons, and treating them as anything else will just make them not listen to you. No matter how absurd an idea is, I still believe you should work to disprove it, and show to them, on their terms, how absurd it is. Anything else doesn't have a chance of changing their mind.

Any politician worth their salt can say the most hateful or controversial of things while coming off as polite.

The appropriate level depends on a host of circumstances.

Giving the wrong person too much respect is just as perilous as giving too little respect to another.

You believe they are hateful. They, most likely, don't believe they are hateful. Your point?

edited 16th Jul '11 6:19:58 PM by YoungMachete

Being civil is not exactly an American tradition.

For instance, the GOP is always the first to throw around the "appeasement" label whenever they're asked to be tolerant of others' opinions. Paradoxically, they have an immense persecution complex and constantly whine about how Christianity and moral values are "under attack". Liberals are "diseased" and "ignorant of history". Anybody who disagrees with them is assumed to be fundamentally stupid and malevolent.

For my part, I start out civil and bow out of the debate if I'm dealing with an irrational person. It takes a serious intellectual to be able to alter someone else's views in one conversation.

edited 16th Jul '11 6:22:45 PM by johnnyfog

So should we treat them as stupid and malevolent if that's what we believe they are? I don't think so, considering that there are a large amount of people who agree with them. Treating them like dirt only improves their flawed case.

And yeah, that's pretty much what I do. There's only so much you can change.

edited 16th Jul '11 6:23:25 PM by YoungMachete

I'm just saying that "civility" is no match for passion. And politeness is too often exploited by the reckless and psychotic.

As John Stewart put it once as it related to "media fairness", thats sort of the genius of it. People claim persecution while trying to push through as an extreme an agenda as they can, then the second you call them on it, they call that proof of their victimization.

edited 16th Jul '11 6:24:57 PM by Midgetsnowman

Respect, in my mind, is based no my morality: I give out respect based on what is said and how it matches up with my own morality. For instance:

If someone had said that all human beings are equal in worth of respect, I would respect them a great deal and give them much of my attention.

If someone had said that all human beings, save for those who have killed others, are equal in worth of respect, then that's about the same.

If someone had said that all human beings, save for a small subset of people, EG people who eat apricots or something, are equal, then that's a bit less, but not noticeably.

If someone had said that all human beings, save people who were "different," EG people who are gay, are equal, then a lot less.

If someone had said that most human beings except people who were like them were NOT equal, then such a person would receive no respect from me, and anything they talk about is assumed to be wrong due to the inherent flaws in my mind of their beliefs.

Sometimes, disrespect is the best way to signal status: Argumentum Ad Lapidem. It's easy, it's fun, and it makes you feel really smug. So use with extreme caution.

I do admire the left for its civility in debates. But here's the thing:

..I borrowed that from a FF Tactics review. Surely that doesn't discredit my position?

edited 16th Jul '11 6:36:21 PM by johnnyfog

That is blatantly false. What are agreements, compromise, and balance o forces for? You think you can escape those mechanisms and selfishly change the world to your dream? So do a host of other guys, and there's no reason one emerges victorious.

So, dirty tricks you can use at a debate:

• Attacks to the opponent's morale:
  • being an openly unfair and insolent prick just to piss them off.
  • claiming vicotry in an authoritative, assertive voice, despite the argument going against you
  • interruptions and diversions, derailing
  • if they're angry about some particular argument, rub it against their faces until they lose it: it's probably a weak point in their defense. Same thing if they are being evasive.
  • invoking arguments that use obscure sources and are hard to check
  • appeal to consequences: show them that defending their argument means going against their own interests in a way they didn't think of. They'll drop it like a hot potato.
  • confuse the hell out of your opponent through nonsensical pompous speech that sounds authoritative
  • the last, lowest, most dangerous method: personal attacks and insults
• Strawmanning (making the opponent say something they didn't actually say, amking their position look worse than it actually is): then attacking the strawman. Also, making your position look better than it is.
  • By overgeneralization and slippery slopes
  • Exploiting double meanings, homonyms, unclear definitions
  • Using loaded words, buzzwords, and guilt by association.
  • Using false dichotomies ("with us or against us") and other false syllogisms to extract outrageous things from your opponent's proposition that weren't even there in the first place
• Checkmate: the cleaner sort of tactic, and the most humiliating, they rely on making the opponent sabotage themselves. The favored type of method of the Ace Attorney games as well as the more heroic court drama.
  • Getting the opponent to admit to your premises (or even the premises of your premises) one after the other, without letting them know that they lead to your conclusion all along. Then draw it. It's safer to draw it yourself, but it's more fun to make *them* draw it and then watch their expressions as the absolute horror of what they've just done dawns on them. Mwa ha ha. One way of doing this is by using questions, Socrates-style, possibly in disorder so they stay off-balance. An especially fun way to do this is getting them to say no to propositions you fake needing him to agree on, then submitting the antithesis of what they just negated, which they'll have no choice but to admit.
  • Using one counterexample to blow up an entire generalization, which crumbles like a house of cards. Especially effective if the counterexample is a Black Swan your opponent isn't familiar with.
  • Using their very arguments against their thesis, mostly by pointing out implications they missed. Especially fun if the argument is false in the first place, but is part of the core dogma of whatever cult, party, or group the opponent pledges allegiance to.
  • Angering the opponent into strawmanning their own position through exaggeration by way of exasperated reaction to your incessant bugging. ("YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH")
• Jumping to conclusions (according to Near, the way all investigations should be conducted: if you're wrong you just apologize after and that's it):
  • Making the opponent admit to the premises, then making the conclusion yourself, sometimes by generalizing his admissions to specific cases as admissions to a general truth
  • Begging the question
  • Using a faulty proof to reject the wole proposition
• Just plain make do with bullshit:
  • Your opponent uses a sophistic nonsense argument. Instead of taking the time of exposing it for what it is, you just counter it with bullshit of your own
  • Appeal to authority rather than reason.
  • "It applies in theory, but not in practice". If the theory does not apply, it means it is wrong, period.
• Escapes and getaways, sometimes of the cowardly sort:
  • Petitio Principi: refusing to admit an argument that would immediately lead to the opponent's desired conclusion by exploiting the fact that your opponent and audience didn't notice that little step and confused the premise with the conclusion and claiming it begs the question. One of the more subtle of the bunch.
  • Defense by subtle distinction: if your opponent has blasted part of your proposition, claim to have been misunderstood, and squeeze and narrow the original proposition down to something your opponent didn't get to disprove. Save face, salvage what you can.

What's the difference between a Sophist and a Pseudointellectual?

edited 16th Jul '11 7:28:30 PM by Shichibukai

What the hell is a Huffle-a Pseudointellectual?

edited 16th Jul '11 7:33:26 PM by GoodGuyGreg

Meh, I prefer this:

edited 16th Jul '11 7:36:10 PM by Shichibukai

That is entirely othrogonal to whether you're a sophist or not. A sophist talks out of his ass for money, but he can be a perfectly legitimate intellectual. A pseudointellectual might be entirely sincere and even be truthful in what they say, but act like a scholar when they're not.

First of all, there are no people that should not be allowed to vote.

As for respect - there are topics that can get this one quite passionate, but she tries her best to deal with people respectfully nonetheless. Even though there are opinions that make this one think less of the people endorsing them.

If one cannot demonstrate basic respect, how can one expect others to take their own thoughts seriously, much less claim any "moral high ground"? Not to mention that it is not unusual for people to think of those with opposing viewpoints as of lacking in decency. There is no need to prove them right.

Note that being polite and respectful in no way prevents being direct.

Or completely dismissive.

I think convicted felons should not be allowed to vote. They have already violated the most fundamental laws of their communities, why should they have a say in how things gets run?

I believe that once they're out of prison they should have the right to vote, but that's it. If you're in prison, you can wait until you're out to vote.

butohhaiofftopic.

And I disagree that getting your way fundamentally requires harm to people who disagree with you. Compromise can often be the first step to great things.

1) Because there are innocent people among convicted felons 2) Because forbidding a group of people to vote sets a rather dangerous precedent that those in power can and will use to further increase their chances. Thy do so anyway, of course, but why help them? 3) Because not all crimes are equal, and do not automatically mean that the person committing them should have no say in all matters.

To me, people need to calm themselves on how "political" it is and look at the issues as what they are. That is, if you're talking about issues and not actual politics.

In serious discussions, there should be sense of restraint against lashing out and be civil. Try to keep the debate on the issue itself and not resort to ad hominem, for instance.

It's just that when someone mentions the word political, people are more tempted to take sides and not react fairly or intelligently.

It tends to be a good deal easier to debate these things in person — a level tone and facial expressions go a long way to keeping a potential conversational minefield under control.

But then, if you're in person, you're more intimidated and pressured to "win". Others look at how the person presents himself or herself more when you're visible.

Indeed. It becomes more important to avoid "losing face" in person.