I haven't been around as much as I used to but I still keep an eye on this forum, in particular the big picture.
Since the elections are looming large, it'd be topical for me to talk about the state of politics on AG. In particular what's in the title.
Believe it or not, there are archetypal styles of communication that may actually be endemic to groups and alignments. Right now I'm going to point out something that may offend some people but I do want everybody to think about it.
Basically, I notice that the thread titles that employ terms such as "the truth" and "let's set the record straight" that, basically, purport to "tell the truth and the whole truth" or be some kind of authority on the topic...are:
a) written by conservatives. b) full of content that is largely dependent on emotive language and statements.
Let's be clear. The prevalent view is that the aims of the writing and what I've said in b) simply don't mix. Which is why the general pattern goes "conservative writes a big long post about how bad Obama is/how good McCain is compared to Obama", followed by a massive round of ridicule from everybody else.
Of course conservatives aren't the only culprit. I've seen most people here from all backgrounds use the occasional spurious argument and emotive term in order to emphasise their point, but to see this the main feature of a thread starter is somewhat depressing.
So please, think really hard about what you're posting?
Well a lot of us have evidence to back up what we say.
We could debate about the value of evidence till the cows come home, and this is precisely the point of the forum so I have no objections here. My quibble lies elsewhere.
I would like you to look for examples of where people who do not align as socially conservative use scare tactics in order to appear more convincing. I believe that for the most part, on this forum, such would come from radical pro-vegetarianists.
This isn't to single out any particular group for denouncement but nonetheless there are trends, and I am merely pointing them out. It is a little more subtle than what you are reacting to, as well. I'm going to start with agent_86's response as an example:
FlagDelete
Well, I'm sorry, but I'll say it again: The truth doesn't have to be defended.
What does this mean and more importantly how does it reflect upon how you post in the forums? If taken at face value, I would say you've shot yourself in the foot because this signals your intention to say what you will and refuse to be engaged on the point thereafter.
In a world where nobody can be sure that they know the truth thanks to information overload, it is simply not enough to say "I have this as evidence therefore it is true". It is also unacceptable to selectively edit any evidence in order to prove a point, or to distort evidence to reject somebody else's point. And the way I have been talking about above is masking such with superfluous "this is the truth" and "I would be very scared if I'd known this earlier" and "would you consider voting for such a man given his (spurious) links to terrorism" and (to be fair) "If you eat meat you'll get cancer (then insert graphic and inaccurate description of what cancer is like)!?"
Ultimately you are posting in an environment where most people will believe what they want to believe, and those who will take you seriously and consider and revise their own views are rare. You are more likely to be successful if you can present your views in as neutral a manner as possible, so that the thinking person does not get irritated with unnecessary sophistry.
Is it here I make a note about open mind discussion? No? Okay.
There is no truth, every detail in science are relative and temporary. Meaning that something is only a fact until a new and more "right" fact finds its way to the public. And the "I have evidence therefore it is true" thing. Reminds me of the flaming wars in the homosexuality thread. It might be your oppinion, but not other's. OPen mind discussion, yadda yadda, back to Strop.
"The truth doesn't have to be defended." HAH That is hilarious! The truth absolutely has to be defended. You have to provide evidence and reason against new evidence and reasons, or else it is disproved. I'm not sure what truth you are talking about, but I just also want to make sure everyone knows the difference between a TRUTH and OPINION. I'm not going to explain it. Heres a good website to find out.
Great post Strop. I know I've caught myself (and sometimes not caught myself) doing likewise in responding to threads that contain topics I feel passionate about. I, personally, will try to do better.
I get pretty annoyed when I see these threads, especially when the are written by a group I consider myself a member of. But what really gets me is when they flame other users about there beliefs, and you know who you are. So please, post reasonably, cut back on the hate, debate what you think is right, don't flame other users, and then you too can conserve responsibly.
Most people are predisposed to disregard any facts for which they have no use, especially when those facts prove contradictory to what they desperately want to believe.
Politicians tend to reinforce precisely what their supporters want to hear and call it: "truth."
The first law of propaganda: repeat the same thing over and over again until people accept it as the truth.
Question everything. Don't let anyone tell you what to believe, or think. Check and recheck the facts, and try hard to be as objective as possible.
I know that I did single out the conservative-leaning users in this post but I don't wish to politically align myself too much in the forums, so I kept the message a little more diffuse.
The other take home message would probably be "just because it makes you feel good saying it doesn't mean it's reasonable".
