# Is rational discussion/debate disappearing?



## RackMaster (Mar 10, 2018)

Disclaimer:  This is no way intended as an "attack" on the Left or Progressives. 

We've all seen it, it even happens here occasionally but it seems like the irrational responses are increasingly coming from one side.  Do you think the tide can be turned? 


The Psychology of Progressive Hostility - Quillette


----------



## Poccington (Mar 10, 2018)

I doubt it in all honesty.

With social media, it's become far too easy for people to completely avoid dealing with people who offer different opinions and that carries into how they engage in discussion in the real world. Some of it is nuts.

ETA: I mean I doubt the tide can be turned to stop the madness.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Mar 10, 2018)

It is.  There was a time that I blamed the 'Left' because it seemed like if you disagreed with them in anyway, you were an unenlightened racist.  But I also have very good friends on the "Right" who consider me a Obama/Clinton liberal commie if I dare suggest that they are not fully responsible for the downturn of America.

Recently I've listen to a couple of interviews with Joseph Califano Jr.  He was an editor at Harvard Law Review and  was LBJ's top White House domestic aide.  He has written a number of books about that administration and how politics has changed over the decades. 

The idea of walking across the hall and sitting with your 'enemy' to hammer out a deal is foreign today; compromise has become a sign of weakness.   Personally I blame social media and Pitchfork Nation. People are so quick to be 'outraged' that the decision makers are not really given a chance to consider issues before a microphone is shoved in their face asking what they are going to do about what happened 5 minutes ago.

The knee-jerk reaction on the gun issues is a good example of that.


----------



## Devildoc (Mar 10, 2018)

Yes.  Next question?

When you have people who belong to the NRA called terrorists, when you have a white person get a job and is accused of getting the job because of white privilege, yeah, I think rational discourse is gone.


----------



## AWP (Mar 10, 2018)

It largely has died. My political bias says this is more on the left than the right, but the reality is that both sides have a problem with emotionless discussion, entertaining other views, and the ability to compromise. You still see civil discussions take place, but that's pretty rare in my opinion.


----------



## Topkick (Mar 10, 2018)

Yesterday, a workmate stated that Trump wasnt very smart and has not accomplished anything. When i pointed out that he was a very rich man and gave a couple of examples of his presidential achievements, my workmate said "you've been watching Fox news again" and stormed off like a child. I agree that most discourse is left-handed, but both sides have stopped listening.


----------



## Marauder06 (Mar 10, 2018)

The danger on the left is that some have convinced themselves that "words are violence," the kind of violence that one is justified in protecting oneself against by "any means necessary."  Once you've convinced yourself that any kind of speech you find offensive is a green light to physically assault someone else, it's hard to see how a rational conversation can take place.


----------



## Poccington (Mar 10, 2018)

Marauder06 said:


> The danger on the left is that some have convinced themselves that "words are violence," the kind of violence that one is justified in protecting oneself against by "any means necessary."  Once you've convinced yourself that any kind of speech you find offensive is a green light to physically assault someone else, it's hard to see how a rational conversation can take place.



Thankfully, people can retreat to their safe spaces!


----------



## Marauder06 (Mar 10, 2018)

Poccington said:


> Thankfully, people can retreat to their safe spaces!



Unfortunately that option does not exist if you're conservative, hetero, white, and/or male.


----------



## Devildoc (Mar 10, 2018)

I agree that while moderate and rational debate has largely gone away on both sides, the level of animosity and vitriol is much much higher on the left.  It seems that the left has a much shorter trigger to go from 0 to extreme than anyone else.

Example I noted under gun discussion a couple weeks ago was from an old acquaintance that I've known since the 80s who on Facebook said if you belong to the NRA to just unfriend him and when I tried to just have a conversation he attacked me and accuse me of "loving my guns more than loving the kids in Florida".  I mean, where do you go that?


----------



## Topkick (Mar 10, 2018)

Poccington said:


> Thankfully, people can retreat to their safe spaces!



Many on the left would like to see that. Meh..I'll pass on that option.


----------



## Frank S. (Mar 10, 2018)

There's a lot of common sense wisdom in there:
Important - mod note- professionalism reminder

That said, quoting Mara: "overly-emotional arguments, false "facts"", I've seen many discussions derailed before they really got off the station because the sources cited came under attack. Years ago, the Left called Fox News "Faux News" and today, CNN, NYT, ABC et al are "Fake News".

As Groucho Marx reportedly quipped "who're you gonna believe, me or your lying eyes..?"


----------



## Poccington (Mar 10, 2018)

Marauder06 said:


> Unfortunately that option does not exist if you're conservative, hetero, white, and/or male.



Well, obviously... Any combination of the above and you suddenly become the proud owner of "privilege", which you must be reminded to keep in check at all times!

Safe spaces, privilege... It's all madness.


----------



## Bypass (Mar 10, 2018)




----------



## DocIllinois (Mar 10, 2018)

I think the fact that so many folks now assume from the outset that everyone _must_ hold a far leaning political position or opinion on an issue also tends to poison discussion.  IME, most folks's positions are somewhere in between.

I attended the grand opening of a new business by the local Chamber here and struck up a conversation with a woman in attendance who is also a local business owner, who I'd spoken to before at a similar event.  In conversation, she seems to be as left leaning as I.  This was shortly after the Stoneman Douglas shooting, so the subject turned to opinions on that, then gun control.  I told her about my views that differ from folks who think that citizens should be able to own ANY kind gun they want as a right, but that gun ownership shouldn't go away completely.

"So you're one of those who thinks that government will take over and everyone's out to get you and all that?"  was her serious reply, and she took further discussion from that point.

  What has caused this sort of thinking, I don't know.  Perhaps the venom spewing and impersonality of the internet has conditioned folks to imagine its just easier to assume that everyone falls in line with an oversimplified image?


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Mar 10, 2018)

.


----------



## Frank S. (Mar 10, 2018)

Hank and Jim


----------



## 256 (Mar 10, 2018)

The 


AWP said:


> It largely has died. My political bias says this is more on the left than the right, but the reality is that both sides have a problem with emotionless discussion, entertaining other views, and the ability to compromise.



I think you’re absolutely correct. People make decisions based strictly on emotions and make no effort to base their arguments with fact (my wife doesn’t do this at all...). There’s another key issue playing a hand, self-deception. It’s crazy how much people preclude themselves from the problem to make their argument fit. 

I’ve never seen it more than being a Policeman. As an example: We have a new underpass in the town I serve, people complain about how dangerous it is to us all the time. So we enforce the laws and when we do they complain about it. The underpass is only dangerous because people operate their vehicles dangerously. It has zero to do with the underpass, I haven’t gotten into an accident there and I drive through it more than anyone else in town. 

Another example: We have “mostly” set schedules at work. We rotate shifts every two months (it sucks) but it’s so you can plan things for your family throughout the year. But, it is Police work and your schedule could change a little. So I make the schedule then print/scan/email it to each Officer on 15th of the month for the next month. One of my guys complained to me that he was late for work because the schedule changed and I didn’t make him aware of it. I told him I made him aware of the schedule change on the 15th, when everyone else gets the schedule. It’s not my fault you didn’t look at it and assumed what was on it...self-deception at its best.

Just a long way of saying, people take themselves out of the “problem equation” so they can argue for their behalf. Crazy stuff.


----------



## Dame (Mar 10, 2018)

Problem with facts: People don't like them. They ruin their opinions.


----------



## Kheenbish (Mar 10, 2018)

I believe not only have people lost the concept of a respectable debate on certain topics that mainly include politics, but also to be even to talk it out in person. The age of trash talking over a computer has nullified people's ability to converse in person. 

A lot of friends from my home town lean left, and we keep a group chat with about ten of us. They constantly argue about politics with me, mainly foreign politics even though none have lived outside of our home state. These "debates" usually turn ugly and I'm just told of too much of a capitalist and Patriot which I guess is an insult nowadays ? But the real kicker is I go home and no one says a word about politics or wants to talk about it, even though almost daily over text we mention politics.


----------



## amlove21 (Mar 10, 2018)

So I agree with all said so far. The one thing I would love to see more of is, "I disagree. I think you're wrong; but ok."

Where did THAT shit go? What if I told you we can talk about stuff, I can say, "I think you're wrong and I don't agree, and we don't need to agree" and just go on with life? I don't need to see your point of view, I can totally use facts to support my position even thought you don't like those facts, and just because you hold an opinion doesn't mean that opinion isn't open to straight up assault. 

It's both sides of the fence at this point. The right has learned very weird lessons from the left on whining any time someone dares question them, and the left has just perfected the victim process throughout the years. 

In short, yea, rational discussion and honest debate is breathing it's agonal respirations at this point.


----------



## digrar (Mar 10, 2018)

Marauder06 said:


> Unfortunately that option does not exist if you're conservative, hetero, white, and/or male.



Obviously the whole world is your safe place if you fit into that category...


----------



## AWP (Mar 10, 2018)

A debating trend I've noticed:

Someone makes a statement or argument. The other then does one of two things: they twist Person A's words or they ignore the statement go off on their own tangent. You ask a Yes or No question, but receive anything but one of those options. Wash, rinse, repeat ad nauseam. They eventually "win" because you walk away and by never acknowledging your point of view.

I do believe the Left triggers far easier than the Right, but this is anecdotal. I see it on both sides, but I notice it more from the Left. Even just Left of center has a problem with debate. I find debating problems with the far Right much more than I do with Right of center.

I'm not a huge fan of Reagan, but I long for the days of he and Tip O'Neill hashing out issues.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Mar 10, 2018)

AWP said:


> I'm not a huge fan of Reagan, but I long for the days of he and Tip O'Neill hashing out issues.


Yep.


----------



## medicchick (Mar 10, 2018)

AWP said:


> A debating trend I've noticed:
> 
> Someone makes a statement or argument. The other then does one of two things: they twist Person A's words or they ignore the statement go off on their own tangent. You ask a Yes or No question, but receive anything but one of those options. Wash, rinse, repeat ad nauseam. *They eventually "win" because you walk away and by never acknowledging your point of view.*
> 
> ...



So much this.  You can only beat your head against a wall trying to explain before you just give up.  If I want a non answer to a simple question I'll ask my (almost) 8 year old if she's hungry.


----------



## CQB (Mar 11, 2018)

The Lefts solution:


----------



## Muppet (Mar 11, 2018)

Agreed with all mentioned here. I have lost many "friends" from social media over my views. I see it more on the left but I have a few bros from my Bragg days that are right wing, Christian wackadoodles that have gone on the attack when a "good conversation" was being had. I think, things are so emotional these days, media is at fault, folks have their opinions and are deeply rooted in that. I recently had a discussion last week, with Maria's sister, a liberal. She posted a meme about gun control, something to do with lesbians and gun owners needing guns to make up for lack of dick.

I brought up the 2A and right to defend myself and those I love, all of that jazz, including our inalienable, inherent rights, quoting the Bill of Rights, our creator, all that stuff. Some liberal shill / one of her friends gets on and says, "where does God come into this". Again, I break it down, add a link to the Bill of Rights, the ladies husband gets on and acts like a total jack ass and I know the guy, he acted real tool baggish. So, from there, I said, "it's not my fault that you are a beta male that has his balls in his wife's purse, needing to defend her on a perfectly fine conversation. I even added that we can link up to talk about it man to man over lunch. No matter what, some folks cannot hear the truth.

M.


----------



## Stretcher Jockey (Mar 11, 2018)

One of the tings I've noticed with my generation (sorry everyone) is that people almost have an interest in being offended. It would appear that the more offended you are, the more valid your point is. Its like there is some "offended hierarchy" and obviously if you're a straight white male you're at the bottom and no matter how factual your opinion is, its invalid when talking to anyone else. Ad hominem attacks have taken over almost every single discussion I've tried to have with coworkers with a small few exceptions over the past few years. Its gotten to the point where either I avoid political discussions completely, or start all of them out saying if you invalidate my facts because I'm a white guy, the talk is over. I've got no interest in talking to people who dont want facts and just want to stir the pot.


----------



## Dame (Mar 11, 2018)

Paramagician said:


> ...if you invalidate my facts because I'm a white guy, the talk is over.


OMG, fucking priceless.


----------



## Marauder06 (Mar 11, 2018)

digrar said:


> Obviously the whole world is your safe place if you fit into that category...


Obvi. :)


----------



## AWP (Mar 11, 2018)

Marauder06 said:


> Obvi. :)



SJW's are the new Nightstalkers. Outrage anywhere in the world, +/- 30 seconds. SJWDQ!


----------



## Devildoc (Mar 12, 2018)

amlove21 said:


> So I agree with all said so far. *The one thing I would love to see more of is, "I disagree. I think you're wrong; but ok."*
> 
> Where did THAT shit go? What if I told you we can talk about stuff, I can say, "I think you're wrong and I don't agree, and we don't need to agree" and just go on with life? I don't need to see your point of view, I can totally use facts to support my position even thought you don't like those facts, and just because you hold an opinion doesn't mean that opinion isn't open to straight up assault.
> 
> ...



Hard agree.  One of my favorite Latin phrases is _modus vivendi_:  agree to disagree.


----------



## Devildoc (Mar 12, 2018)

AWP said:


> A debating trend I've noticed:
> 
> Someone makes a statement or argument. The other then does one of two things: they twist Person A's words or they ignore the statement go off on their own tangent. You ask a Yes or No question, but receive anything but one of those options. Wash, rinse, repeat ad nauseam. They eventually "win" because you walk away and by never acknowledging your point of view.
> 
> ...



_Ad hominem_ argument:  Attack the person rather than the argument.  Straw man fallacy (also,_ ignoratio elenchi_):  create the illusion of winning an argument by changing the subject of the argument.  

Debate, for-real, true debate has rules, and the rules are predicated that you are using facts that you can substantiate.  Also a rule is it is incumbent upon the person "calling out a fact" to prove it wrong, rather than force the originator to "back it up."

As for Reagan and Tip O'Neill, they were political enemies, but personal friends.  Reagan had a lot of friends who were democrats, and often invited them to the White House in the evening to talk over drinks.  Civility has died.


----------



## DC (Mar 12, 2018)

What happened to when your wrong you it own and move on? I think it starts there in this case of discussion.


----------



## Topkick (Mar 12, 2018)

At one time, Reagan was a democrat. His belief in a strong national defense and a distrust in communism played a major role in his switching parties. He was able to maintain a relationship with his democrat friends, evident by their part in protecting him during the Iran-Contra affairs.


----------



## SaintKP (Mar 12, 2018)

DC said:


> What happened to when your wrong you it own and move on? I think it starts there in this case of discussion.



It's easier to keep fighting and not accept the fact that you may be wrong and let your pride be hurt. No one wants to be embarrassed or seem like they don't know what they're talking about, so the natural reaction is anger. 

I think part of the reason why we've reached this point is due to our over reliance on electronic communication and how more often than not we communicate almost anonymously now. While being anonymous gives you more freedom to express your desires and feelings, it also removes the social dynamic of having a face to face discussion with a good bottle of whiskey as support. 

I can't count how many times I've been out with family or friends and seen groups of young adults and teenagers absorbed entirely into their phones, with zero conversation taking place. When everything can be told through a snap, tweet, or a tag, why should you have to learn how to effectively communicate through listening and understanding?

I'm just going to use my roommate as an example here, he is almost 5 years younger than me, but he is almost reliant on social media. When it comes to talking about life, bills, or just general shooting the shit he is almost non existent conversationally speaking. Am I cherry picking an example? Yeah, sort of, but I still feel like it's emblematic of the problems that are facing currently. 

I think it has less to do with party lines, and more to do with how we interact as human beings.


----------



## Isiah6:8 (Mar 12, 2018)

DC said:


> What happened to when your wrong you it own and move on? I think it starts there in this case of discussion.



I would add, what happened to learning from someone with a different viewpoint.  If people viewed discussions as an opportunity to learn, and not an opportunity to give themselves a sense of worth for attempting to "win", things could be a lot different.  

I think things would benefit from backing off a bit from confrontational conversation.  But everyone's thoughts are so precious these days...


----------



## x SF med (Mar 12, 2018)

Ok...  my take on this discussion...

Discussion based on offense has taken the place of discussion/debate based on facts.  The failure to teach, at an early age, the art and science of debate, rhetorical analysis, and use of language to forward one's studied opinion is lost. Not that opinion based on belief/faith is wrong, but it is merely that, faith or belief based, religion/spirituality is fully dependent on this. But wholly factual debate, requires study and analysis of both sides of an issue, forming an opinion based on facts in evidence coupled with an individual's belief system and moral/ethical code.  An argument based on, my generation believes, or the left/the right says, or any other non-researched outside 'correct view' is fallacious because it is somebody else's dictate. Look at how well that's worked for dictatorships of the past and present.

Again, just my .02, let the debate/argument of my statement begin.


----------



## DC (Mar 12, 2018)

Nowadays it’s social media all caps or screaming at each other(ie antifi). Hard to discuss when you don’t want to listen. A lot to do with education as well. An example is socialism is better than democracy. These kids actually believe it’s a better way of governing. None of which know spit about che guvera and Castro’s war on humanity.


----------



## DocIllinois (Mar 12, 2018)

x SF med said:


> Ok...  my take on this discussion...
> 
> Discussion based on offense has taken the place of discussion/debate based on facts.  The failure to teach, at an early age, the art and science of debate, rhetorical analysis, and use of language to forward one's studied opinion is lost. Not that opinion based on belief/faith is wrong, but it is merely that, faith or belief based, religion/spirituality is fully dependent on this. But wholly factual debate, requires study and analysis of both sides of an issue, forming an opinion based on facts in evidence coupled with an individual's belief system and moral/ethical code.  An argument based on, my generation believes, or the left/the right says, or any other non-researched outside 'correct view' is fallacious because it is somebody else's dictate. Look at how well that's worked for dictatorships of the past and present.
> 
> Again, just my .02, let the debate/argument of my statement begin.



I agree with all of the above.


My basic method of debate or discussion. 

Online, things very often seem to just keep rolling along anyway after the process derails into a "No", IME, so I don't use it much there.


----------



## Devildoc (Mar 12, 2018)

I think there is a difference between discussion and debate (at least classically), and I don't have a problem if you come in prepositioned that you aren't going to change your mind.  Just be rational about it, argue your position, and let's have the give-and-take.  I think he schematic/algorithm is too rigid.  I mean, I have had conversations with people over a decade that finally started swaying my opinion (or theirs).


----------



## Gunz (Mar 12, 2018)

1. People don't read enough fucking books anymore. 
2. They fuck around on the internet all day and get their opinions from idiots. 
3. There are a lot of stupid people in the world...now, because we're all electronically connected, we get to hear them whether we want to or not.


----------



## DC (Mar 12, 2018)

Ocoka said:


> 1. People don't read enough fucking books anymore.
> 2. They fuck around on the internet all day and get their opinions from idiots.
> 3. There are a lot of stupid people in the world...now, because we're all electronically connected, we get to hear them whether we want to or not.



Says it all.


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Mar 12, 2018)

Ocoka said:


> 1. People don't read enough fucking books anymore.
> 2. They fuck around on the internet all day and get their opinions from idiots.
> 3. There are a lot of stupid people in the world...now, because we're all electronically connected, we get to hear them whether we want to or not.


----------



## Topkick (Mar 12, 2018)

Red Flag 1 said:


> There is another subset who has a, not, "a couple" just "A" 24/7 news channel on telling them how to think. Individual and reasoned thought has left much of the planet.



Agree. Often, when I have political disagreements, the preferred news channel actually becomes part of the conversation.


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Mar 12, 2018)

Ir


----------



## Marine0311 (Mar 12, 2018)

It is but it can be fixed. I don'the know how I do believe if this continues to slide downward we are in serious trouble.


----------



## DC (Mar 12, 2018)

Red Flag 1 said:


> IMHO, the nation would benefit if there was a return to the news at the 1700 to 1800 for local then national news, the same at whta was it 2200 or 2300. You got news then. Examined vetted, for the most part, and the reported on. We will never see those days again. The “news cycle seems to be about an hour or so then tha rest of the day is shaping and spinning the news to fit a particular enf. We have moved away from news to a 24/7 political advertizement.


Watch OAN. 30 min. no opinion just facts. Like old time news. If you do want opinion they have a couple shows on. But majority is news only. Fox,CNN etc are the same but different.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Mar 12, 2018)

DC said:


> Watch OAN. 30 min. no opinion just facts. Like old time news. If you do want opinion they have a couple shows on. But majority is news only. Fox,CNN etc are the same but different.



I've not watched the vids yet, but OAN is the only site I get my regular news from anymore.

To add - well and Daily Mail of course!


----------



## DC (Mar 12, 2018)

Check out the Daily Wire👍🏽


----------



## Grunt (Mar 12, 2018)

It's up to us - the viewers - to change what the "news" presents to us. If a large majority of us quit watching the vomit and turn to OAN, their ratings would show and they would eventually take some sort of action. Even if it made them report with a 30-40% accuracy rating...that would be a change for the better.


----------



## SaintKP (Mar 12, 2018)

Personally I like BBC, NPR, Reuturs, AP, and I'll go to NYT for their in depth articles. I'll have to take a look at OAN though.


----------



## RackMaster (Mar 13, 2018)

Thank you all for proving that perhaps our communities are some of the last bastions of rational discussion.  It's one of the reasons I have enjoyed this place since I first was introduced to it.


----------



## DocIllinois (Mar 17, 2018)

SaintKP said:


> Personally I like BBC, NPR, Reuturs, AP, and I'll go to NYT for their in depth articles. I'll have to take a look at OAN though.



Minus BBC, NPR, and NYT, the above are among the news sources I also use to inform discussion.   Consulting these can minimize the one sided views from things like mere-exposure effect, using loaded words, or appealing to emotion, IME.

  Among other sources I use for this reason:

The Economist

The Atlantic Council

Foreign Policy


I also consult this website for identifying sites which publish misleading or outright fake news.

Fake News Codex


----------



## SpitfireV (Mar 17, 2018)

It's not a left/right thing. It's a people thing. Observing your lot on the internet both "sides" are equally fuckwittery when it comes to rational discussion. 

I think it's more to do with confirmation bias and echo chambers than anything else.


----------



## Topkick (Mar 17, 2018)

SpitfireV said:


> It's not a left/right thing. It's a people thing. Observing your lot on the internet both "sides" are equally fuckwittery when it comes to rational discussion.
> 
> I think it's more to do with confirmation bias and echo chambers than anything else.



I am probably biased but I think its pretty evident that the left is less likely to engage in reasonable conversation. Did you watch the State of the Union address? IMO, the way the lefties sat scowl faced. rolling their eyes, even when the President mentioned progress which favored their agenda was a pretty good example. That's not to say that conservatives are as passive as they have been. The President has seemingly empowered right- thinking people to fight back and now a debate usually ends in both sides being pissed off.


----------



## Frank S. (Mar 17, 2018)

SpitfireV said:


> It's not a left/right thing. It's a people thing. Observing your lot on the internet both "sides" are equally fuckwittery when it comes to rational discussion.
> 
> I think it's more to do with confirmation bias and echo chambers than anything else.



Maybe so, but my Android, who answers all my questions within 0.038 seconds, detected where you were coming from and immediately popped up with 11 links from Australia and one from Tonga proving that anything coming from NZ on the internet is powered by kitten farts.
That's not only exploitative, it is wrong and neither I nor Ricky Gervais will stand for this.


----------



## Salt USMC (Mar 17, 2018)

Topkick said:


> I am probably biased but I think its pretty evident that the left is less likely to engage in reasonable conversation. Did you watch the State of the Union address? IMO, the way the lefties sat scowl faced. rolling their eyes, even when the President mentioned progress which favored their agenda was a pretty good example. That's not to say that conservatives are as passive as they have been. The President has seemingly empowered right- thinking people to fight back and now a debate usually ends in both sides being pissed off.








The party that's out of power has typically done the sit-down thing for an opposition President.  The only recent one I can think of were some of President GW Bush's early SOTUs when everyone was hopped up on that terrorism sauce.


----------



## Grunt (Mar 17, 2018)

I read a lot of sites and then formulate my own opinions about what is fake or not. I wish more people did that.


----------



## CDG (Mar 17, 2018)

I think rational debate is certainly in its death throes.  I have had people demand I provide evidence/studies/whatever to back things up, and then outright refuse to read them when I have done so.  "I don't need to read that!!!"  So what do you do with that?


----------



## Grunt (Mar 17, 2018)

CDG said:


> I think rational debate is certainly in its death throes.  I have had people demand I provide evidence/studies/whatever to back things up, and then outright refuse to read them when I have done so.  "I don't need to read that!!!"  So what do you do with that?



No worries, Brother! An unteachable person is like the proverbial thirsty horse that you lead to the water and won't drink because it wasn't it's idea to do so or because it didn't find the water on its own terms.

Some people simply don't want to see the light and choose to remain in the darkness.


----------



## Frank S. (Mar 17, 2018)

CDG said:


> I think rational debate is certainly in its death throes.  I have had people demand I provide evidence/studies/whatever to back things up, and then outright refuse to read them when I have done so.  "I don't need to read that!!!"  So what do you do with that?



I don't doubt it's a concern, especially for online communities .
Arguments or postulates are like structures or fortresses in a way. They are assailed for what they rest on (sources), how they're designed (logical or mora stress fractures) or simply for who made them in the first place. It's both art and science to maintain a vibrant community when waves clash and cancel each other out, after which the smart ones leave and say "so long and thanks for all the fish".
In time, these structures end up trampled by tourists in flip flops, leaving gum wrappers and carving graffiti.

For some reason it tends to originate from the catch all of forum's, gen disc...


----------



## Box (Mar 19, 2018)

It is my observation that people are increasingly less interested in having a debate and increasing MORE interested in being recognized for winning an argument.  Even more disturbing is the degree of selective outrage that tends to fill these argumentative discussions.

It isn't enough to discuss what shade of blue we see in the sky.   Some people will just jump on the opportunity to be contrarian about the subject...
"_The sky isn't actually blue you know - light has no color - when it enters our atmosphere it reflects off of the different molecules in the air but since "your" side of the political spectrum doesn't care about facts, you can just keep saying the sky is blue_"

...of course that's just my opinion; I could be wrong


----------



## BloodStripe (May 4, 2018)

Public Lands: the looming catastrophe

Interestingly enough, I had just read this article the other day. The author is soon to be the former head of Blue Ribbon Coalition, which fights for land usage, predominantly for OHV use. He says between professionals it isn't dead, but then you get the nonprofessionals who come in and undo all the progess that has already been made.


----------

