There are two comments here on the Motte that have, for the past month or so, been sitting amidst the 71 tabs I've got opened in my browser.
The two comments are fairly different;
The first is a more personal meditation on the human desire to 'be a good person', and how that may or may not align with the equally-human desires to 'fit in', and 'pursue Truth'.
The second is a political argument over whether Democrats/progressives/libs are the real hypocrites, and whether or not they were the ones to 'defect first' in the game of American partisan politics; pretty standard stuff around here, really.
The thing they have in common is that I've been intending to respond to them.
And yet, I haven't.
Part of this is due to a dynamic that ought to be familiar to anyone with a maladaptive relationship with deadlines- if you're late turning something in, the longer you wait afterwards to get around to it, the harder it becomes to ever actually do it; it's easy to put it off for a day or two or three, and before you know it, a week's gone by, and length of the delay in your response might raise some eyebrows when you eventually do respond. Repeat this cycle a few times, and eventually a month or two has passed you by- at which point, you might as well just not bother to respond at all- assuming you're even still in the same headspace necessary to give a coherent response, and that events in the meantime haven't made your response irrelevant, the other person's really going to wondering about your penchant for necro-ing old threads.
A larger part, however, comes down to a much simpler -and much less easily overcome- barrier:
Why bother?
In my very first comment on this site, I noted that the 'two screens' effect is very real, and that the picture that the screen the self-identified 'Red Tribers' on this site are watching is showing a very different picture than the one the few self-identified 'Blue Tribers' still active on this site are watching.
This isn't particularly surprising. For decades, Americans have been slowly but steadily self-segregating along 'tribal' lines; fewer and fewer of us spend much time interacting with other Americans radically different from ourselves. We might live in the same neighborhoods, frequent the same shops and restaurants, and be theoretically 'close' to each other (or not; the same self-segregating dynamic increasingly applies to physical locations as well), but it's increasingly rare for us to ever actually interact with our Others to any real extent.
Combined with the general shifts in how people interact with and perceive what are 'their' communities (triply so in the online age!), the balkanization of 'common' hobbies & interests, the fracturing of the media landscape, and the overall decline in common cultural touchstones and trusted authorities, the end is result is that nowadays its easier than ever for all of us to live in our own Bespoke Realities™. It isn't just that political polarization & disagreements are tenser & higher-profile then they've been in decades (though they are!); now, we no longer even need to have similar conceptions of what it is we're even arguing over in the first place!
I can rage over how Republicans are trying to destroy the government and intentionally harm millions of the worst-off Americans with their new tariff, tax, & budget idiocies- and you can scoff and dispute my entire framing, say how I'm being absurdly hyperbolic and hysterical.
You can denounce the large-scale concerted push by progressives to trans the nations youth; to turn them into Marxist-indoctrinated eunuchs conscripted as soldiers in the frontlines of the culture wars. I can roll my eyes and say there is no such phenomenon, and it's all a conservative bogeyman.
Etc, etc.
So in light of this situation, where we not only argue endlessly about the most basic facts of any given political disagreement, without either side ever having to concede to either the opposition's arguments, or even their basic worldview and underlying framing of the situation...
Why bother?
Why bother continuing to argue (and especially why bother continuing to argue online- an exercise in futility if I ever heard one!) when doing so is unlikely to change the other person's mind?
Why bother continuing to argue when the people I'm disagreeing with seem to have beliefs & experiences so wildly opposite of my own that I have to wonder if we're even living in the same country?
Why bother continuing to argue when people I disagree with just seem like they fundamentally can't be reasoned with at all?
And especially why bother continuing to argue when doing so is only likely to be """rewarded""" with mass-downvotes and distributed dogpiles by commentators on a forum you don't even really like, and only stick around on out of some sort of... IDK, perverse masochism, I guess?
Seems kinda pointless to me, tbh.
Despite my faint hopes, the dysfunction in this country appears to be acclerating.
We seem to be waiting on the precipice, holding our breath to see if the next few days heralds the opening salvos of the beginning of true, active civil conflict.
So I ask again- why bother? Is the time for talking over?
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
At this point, the main reason why I write about politics online isn't to change other people's minds necessarily, although I do enjoy that when it happens. I have too many more directly pressing personal concerns around money, personal relationships, and so on to dedicate any substantial amount of energy to attempting political change. I think at this point the main reason why I write about politics online is to get feedback that makes me feel less like an outlier. I equally dislike the left and the right, so it is affirming for me to discuss politics in places where not everyone is totally a fervent supporter of one political side or another. Places like Reddit and X generally disgust me, I dislike both the "everyone to the right of Bernie Sanders is an evil fascist and it is our duty to punch them" vibe and the "I am a based trad-wife-seeking Aryan and we should literally kill the libs" vibe. I wish I could find more places online with more of a detached, looking-at-politics-objectively vibe that avoids ideological dogmatism and that kind of simple "my political opponents are evil and we should kill them" moralism that is so common online. /r/moderatepolitics can be good sometimes. TheMotte is definitely more right-leaning than I am, but you can have decent interesting discussion here so I appreciate it. rdrama.net has a few sociopathic ghouls on it, but the politics discussion generally mocks both the fanatic left and the fanatic right so I appreciate that places as well. I can't really think of any other places, which really surprises me. One would think that, with hundreds of millions of people online, it should be easy to find many forums that avoid virtue/vice signaling, empty moralizing that treats the opponent as ontologicaly evil while saying nothing interesting about politics, or just general chimpanzee-like shit-flinging at others. But I haven't been able to find many.
More options
Context Copy link
Don't. I mean don't argue. Are arguments with angry drivers worthwhile? They are unproductive at best. At worst, they end with a bullet in your gut. Unless arguments are with someone I trust to reconcile, then I consider arguments as unproductive affairs. Cathartic release at best. Don't argue.
From what I've observed, minority (or majority) opinion havers that come here primarily to defend the honor of their tribe burn out quickly. They crumble from their own hatred, or they generate too much heat to follow the rules. More interested in locking horns or drive-by shooting than discussion.
The few (bless them) minority opinion havers the forum retains seem to manage their engagement. They set limitations for themselves. They understand they aren't compelled to reply to every disagreement or grievance. They probably find a way to enjoy themselves or glean other value while they provide a minority opinion. This is a recreational activity. You should enjoy contributing. I know I appreciate the minorities who are willing to contribute honestly.
If it is impossible to enjoy or find value here because you are committed to conflict, then there's not a good reason to spend time here arguing or not. Not even if you're committed to pyramids due to other fading principles. If you're committed to conflict, then it'd be more productive to prepare. If you're interested in an exchange of ideas -- with all that comes with it -- this isn't the worst place to practice.
More options
Context Copy link
You should bother for people like me! I went from a standard progressive to far more conservative from reading rationalist forums/the Motte.
Then after a while, reading some of the more moderated takes on here, I came back from the far end of the conservative positions and am back closer in the middle. I no longer even support Trump, hah. There are people out there who have their minds changed, even if we aren't always the loudest.
More options
Context Copy link
If your goal is to convince a right-winger to not be a right-winger, you will fail. If your goal is to convince a left-winger to not be a left-winger, you will fail. If your goal is to convince a strange person through hostile interrogation that their values, opinions, or beliefs are wrong, you will fail.
You're arguing for the crowd, or yourself, never your opponent.
More options
Context Copy link
I'm not here to change people's minds. I'm here because this is the online equivalent of an Enlightenment-era coffee shop with a rotating cast of brilliant and eccentric characters with whom to play word games and perhaps learn a thing or two about the world. Like its 18th-century antecedants, it may spit out some future revolutionaries, philosophers, or reformers who will go on to change the world, but that will happen out in the real world, not in this training ground.
Here, the bold may sharpen their rhetorical knives in combat against ideological demons modern and ancient that have been banished from polite society; some of us are just around for the thrill of the fight and don't have any grand vision for remaking the world, while others may discover that they had no stomach for it to begin with.
As to what may happen down the line, I suppose I'm just a high enough decoupler that the fact that in some future conflict I may need to take up arms against the majority of my fellow posters here doesn't bother me too much. If that ends up being the case, then it was fun while it lasted and I wish you all good fortune in the civil wars to come.
A shame. Positive Mottezen identification should confer basic gentlemanly prisoner of war treatment. Ideally it would include a parole d'honneur standard of defeat that allows Mottezans to go home and post about it. We should make patches.
More options
Context Copy link
You could not have formulated it better for me.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
To be honest you should probably stop, then, and this isn't meant in an antagonistic way; rather it's an acknowledgement of the practical futility of such an exercise. The idea that you ever end up changing anything by participating in forums like this one is laughable. Even if you somehow do manage to convert everyone here to your point of view the overall effect of such a thing would be hilariously tiny, tantamount to a drop in the bucket. You would have spent countless hours to ultimately achieve nothing.
People participate here because they feel like they get something out of it aside from trying to right the political ship, something this forum explicitly isn't meant for. They feel like hashing things out with other people who share their ethos of discourse helps them clarify and sharpen their own thought, even if there is no agreement between the parties (yes you can cherry-pick comments that aren’t high effort, the fact remains the standard of discourse here is far above average). If you don't get that out of it, then I genuinely think it would be better if you left.
More options
Context Copy link
This is so 2010's.
Look, I used to care about these periodic flameout posts, and I used to try to come up with solutions that would make hanging out here a little more enjoyable. I never got much of a response, and when I did it was usually in the form of this womanly exasperation that I haven't yet singlehandedly solved the problem yet.
On top of that, I am yet to here of a single space that gives half as much of a hoot about how rightwingers are comfortable there, as this place cares for the comfort of leftwingers, so it's hard to believe there's something uniquely wrong with this place.
What's the point? A better question is, how come you expect people to drop everything, and try to find one for you?
More options
Context Copy link
In addition to what all the others wrote, and keeping in mind that leftists are an increasingly rare but still essential resource on the motte, why not leave?
You can enjoy living in a bubble where you're right and everyone around you is right, everyone agrees on everything and there needn't be any controversial debates in which, god forbid, there might not be one side that is clearly correct and another side that falls in line after being shown the obvious truth. Instead, if your American bubbles are anything like our German bubbles, you and the well-aligned people around you who already know what is right and what is wrong can heap fire and brimstone on the outgroup with impunity. Not, mind you, that discourse on the motte is always better than that. But it'll feel good. It'll feel good to be right, and among other right-thinking people, and to hate the wrong-thinkers together. You can bond over your shared hatred, and if that ever gets boring, have a little purity spiral and ostracize some of your former own who didn't stand sufficiently far on the right side of history. And when you're done hating, you can go back to educating those around you, teaching them the latest and greatest in sociopolitical innovation.
Leftists do this. Rightists do this. Apolitical people who stumble into political bubbles and just try to fit in do this. Why shouldn't you do it too?
More options
Context Copy link
The majority of people here are willing to engage in reasonably good faith with fairly deep arguments , which you typically will not find on Reddit, Twitter or elsewhere. There is an obvious a rightwing bias, as this site's userbase is primarily composed of members of the right-leaning, abandoned themotte subreddit. Reddit's socialism or democratic subs may be more up your alley though; there are many to choose from, whereas Reddit by comparison has actively censored anything to the right of the mainstream, and is why this site was created.
The thing is, both sides see the country spiraling down the drain or otherwise in decline, but in the opposite direction.
More options
Context Copy link
Why not bother?
By the sounds of it, you've become disillusioned by a sense of your impotence at changing others to your preferred views. Congratulations! You are recognizing a truth that already existed.
Be at ease. You have not become less persuasive over time, nor have humans become more unreasonable. Political tribalism did not begin in the last decades. The internet just brought the filters that already existed into clearer focus, by putting people who were previously behind regional media filters in contact with each other. The nature of connecting people is that you can now disagree with people who you previously never would have known strenuously disagreed with you.
But again, this was already the case. What has changed isn't the circumstances, but your cognition. If you only bothered to talk rather than fight because of a flawed and faulty cognition let you convince yourself that you were cleverer and more persuasive than you actually were, then perhaps you should not bother. (With either, obviously- if you can't trust your judgement on how well you can talk, you certainly shouldn't trust your judgement on whether and when to fight.)
But bothering doesn't require that sort of self-importance. And thanks to that, even if you can't force others to change, you can change your own thinking, and thus your reason to bother.
Why do you believe changing the other person's mind is the point of a public argument, as opposed to shaping the audience's opinion?
An internet forum is called a forum precisely because it involves more than two people. There are the debaters, and there is the audience, and the prize of any public debate has always been the opinion of the people not directly speaking. This is why the public fora have long been the political centers, and why part of rhetoric has been how to manage the appeals to the audience's sensibility.
The audience is almost never the opponent in the exchange. The audience is, by its nature, curious enough to pay attention, but ambivalent enough to not be taking part in the first place. The stage of a forum is for those who show up to speak, but the audience is many times larger. The prize is when successful arguments get echoed by people other than your opponent at the time, and/or when someone else re-iterates your previous rebuttal if the opponent tries that same line of argument again. Or, in a specific argument, when someone else enters with an unexpected concurrence, because you've written in a way that gives them something to build off of rather than focus on a solely personal bickering.
However, it is very hard to sway the audience if you do not bother to show up and try.
Because you live in the same country regardless of what you wonder, and your audience knows it.
If you are posting on this forum, you are part of a continental-scale civilization. There is no 'everyone has the same experience' commonality when some people face burning summers and others freezing winters, let alone more nuanced local institutional effects. Local political machines, dominant themes and trends in schools, different religiosity (let alone which religion), and so on. If you are only able to bother disagreeing with people who you have very similar beliefs and experiences, that is a limitation on your ability to persuade.
This limitation on persuading the audience is best addressed by.... interacting more with people whose beliefs and experiences contrast with your own.
Because the validity of fundamental reasonableness is a judgement for the audience, not the arguer.
To paraphrase a certain book, if a man accuses his fellow of being fundamentally unreasonable, one of them is. If there are specific people you want to write off as being in bad faith, then by all means do so. The ignore feature is there for a reason. But when speaking with categories of people, part of intellectual humility is recognizing that we can stand accused of the same things. You can make any accusation you want, but the merit / weight it has comes from the people needing to be convinced. Namely, you have to convince the audience that you are not the unreasonable one.
Fortunately, the best way to win a challenge of reasonableness, and thus disqualify the other person's influence on the audience, is to publicly and persuasively be a more reasonable person.
Because there is an audience here that will recognize good effort, and good rhetoric.
The Motte is a place of contrarians, not conservatives. It is not hard to be north-of-neutral on even contentious topics if you phrase well. Distributed dogpiles, on the other hand, are consistent indicators of often substantial issues. This could be a lazy pejorative, blatant bias, or letting your personal contempt for others show through.
This is valuable insight to learn about one's self. If one actually wants to become persuasive, then they need to learn to recognize, and mitigate, their bad habits.
Why not?
Are you the sort of person who only bothers to engage people you disagree with when you expect to win?
If the time for talking wasn't over during much larger and more violent political violence years ago, why would it be over now?
I will caution that going there tends to legitimise dishonest debating, flaming, and suchlike. It's a mode I've seen advocated by social justice warriors a decade ago (admittedly, they mostly then moved on to "why even allow the debate?"), and is related to why callout culture became a thing.
This is a fair failure mode to keep in mind!
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Its a good question, although it appears I've come about to it from the opposite direction you have.
The factor that has gotten me to just about throw in the towel on the entire concept of political discourse is watching for four years while one side kept pointing out that Joe Biden was very probably demented in the most medically literal sense of the term, and the other side, the full weight of every mainstream/respectable media and academic outlet claimed this was a nutty conspiracy.
Then the presidential debate happened.
And now, having the exact same parties who maintained that he was just fine and dandy are doing the rounds on book tours and media interviews claiming "SOME (completely unidentifiable) PARTICULAR PERSONS IN THE WHITE HOUSE MISLED EVERYBODY ABOUT BIDEN'S MENTAL ACUITY." No way, really? Somehow they seemed quite eager to be misled in this way.
And now that we've admitted to being misled, are we casting blame anywhere? Why... no. Its all just a completely amorphous conspiracy comprised of nobody in particular. Oh well. What a weird chapter in history that we can now close while suffering no consequences whatsoever.
Just a perfect encapsulation of the problem: an enforced narrative that nobody is permitted to question, a breaking point where the narrative CANNOT be maintained in the face of unavoidable reality. A brief period of panicked denial... then distraction... and finally a very carefully constructed withdrawal that absolves anyone of blame and pretends the whole issue was just an honest mistake with little or no malicious motivation whatsoever.
How does one fight such a keenly evolved, utterly remorseless memetic entity, where its self-preservation is dependent solely on how many skulls it can lodge itself in as deeply as possible.
I admire its purity. Such a perfectly enclosed epistemic environment, policed by the most advanced egregore wranglers that history has ever produced.
Regardless of how logically sound and carefully researched my arguments are (and I really DO spend a lot of time researching my arguments) it cannot compete with an endless stream of repeated thought terminating cliches and carefully curated facts and stats that grant the pretense of knowledge but deny someone any real understanding of cause and effect.
And now we can add sycophantic LLMs to the mix, which can be curated to at least try to maintain a given narrative and write pleasingly-worded missives that either dodge the real question of what is 'true' or can lead you just far enough along the path towards truth to make you feel informed... then pull you off in a different direction, forgetting to take the last few steps and actually change your mind.
As the kids say, "We're fuckin' cooked."
Of course, I'm so rabidly averse to violent conflict as a first, or second, or even third resort that I am (perhaps irrationally so) very willing to seek peaceful, cooperative resolution options right up until the very moment somebody flicks a fist in my direction.
And my current solution has been to insulate myself from the attack vectors of that memetic entity. Adblock on. No cable tv. No influencers. Don't read the articles, don't listen to the podcast, don't watch the movie written by the hollywood leftist. Maybe read the books but definitely don't try to discuss the book on reddit. Do not give the hostile egregore full write access to your brain.
I live in one of the reddest areas of a red (formerly purple) state, and have manipulated enough about my immediate environment that the chances of the culture war frontlines ever reaching me are virtually nil. This comes at some level of personal cost, but I've placed such a high value on maintaining my sanity that I GLADLY pay it.
And so I sit here wondering WHY I still pop onto themotte to do a little bit of sparring, keeping my debate skills honed, when even around here the odds of any given argument or set of arguments moving the needle on someone's personal beliefs seem slim.
One of the arguments in favor of democratic modes of government is that it allows peaceful transition of power because elections are viable proxies for battles/military force.
Quoth Federalist No. 10:
That is, the side that manages to pull 51% or more of the population that is engaged enough to vote can reasonably claim "if there was to be a physical war our side, being more numerous, is more likely to win it. In lieu of fighting that would be ruinous to both sides, you will accept our rule for a few years, we will rule with a certain amount of respect/deference, and then we can run another simulation to see if anythings changed."
Of course, it seems like the Dems/lefties haven't managed to process how they got trounced in the last election, even with some thumbs on the scale, and what this implies about their popularity in the country. So they "convulse the society" and "clog the administration" (how many national injunctions are we at?), but are 'unable to execute and mask its violence under... the Constitution.'
And yet we know that democratic elections don't completely avert violence, or else Mexico's most recent election wouldn't have been so damn bloody. Turns out that violence is also a way to influence outcomes in a democracy, when you don't expect the votes to go your way 'organically.' So there's a bit of a feedback loop.
So in a sense, the current upwelling of conflict doesn't read to me as a real instigation to war, but more just a disadvantaged minority faction pressing the 'foment chaos' button as a means of gumming up the works for the majority and maybe influencing outcomes, at least locally, towards their favor.
No, I'm not drawing a moral equivalence between drug cartels and ICE protestors, or even rioters. Just pointing out how these actions are closer to the "open violent conflict" end of the spectrum than the "free discourse and exchange of ideas as means of persuasion" that was idealized by, e.g., the Federalist Papers and that we try to maintain on this forum.
So what are we doing here? What's the point? Why bother?
I'd posit that everyone is in the continual stage of trying to size up the field and gauge the relative power of each tribe so as to determine if it is possible to make any decisive attacks or maneuvers that will lead to one group's victory and ascension to unquestioned rule over the cultural landscape. And the literal landscape, too.
Which faction has the best tacticians? The most guns? The most tightly organized units? The most efficient logistics? The most loyal/zealous footsoldiers? Which is favored by God? (love that scene, perfect illustration of this point about sizing up the force your opponent can bring to bear), which side has their Oppenheimer, their Feynman, their Von Neumann who can build superweapons, memetic or otherwise?
And as long as we're mostly convinced that the aggregate combat strength of each side is approximately at enough parity that the conflict would lead to uncapped casualties, including complete obliteration (which, in the age of nuclear MAD is a real possibility!), then even a conflict that you win is just not worth entering in the first place.
I'd argue that the more kinetic version of this is what led to the openly aggressive conflict with Israel and Palestine... and Israel and Iran, more recently. Israel knows it can pound Palestine into a fine powder if left to do it... but they can't ignore the various potential interlopers who might enter the fray. And so occasionally swatting Iran across the nose is a nice reminder to the rest to keep the claws sheathed.
Its why the Pakistan India thing didn't truly spiral out of control, neither side had a path to victory that wouldn't OBVIOUSLY leave both sides in ruins.
This little site is just one facet of a glittering jewel that is human social network, whose topology is beyond the comprehension of any individual human, but maybe if enough of us enlightened apes discuss our various perspectives and unique insights (we have those, right?) then the collective hivemind can manage to ascertain enough of the rough shape to determine if any particular faction has an egregious edge in power.
Because let me admit, about two years or so ago I would have told you that the Blue Tribe was close to locking insurmountable advantages which it could leverage to maintain complete control, and I was mentally gearing up to have to shoot at [redacted] agents in a last ditch effort to not be assimilated.
And now, though, now it looks like the ballgame is way closer than I anticipated, and I am now more uncertain than before about the current trajectory of U.S. political power. I guess Red Tribe is currently at bat, and they're trying to load up the bases, but really, really counting on some kind of grand slam to put them far ahead before, presumably, blue tribe grabs the levers of power again.
So I keep coming back here, hoping someone will hit on the observation or connect some dots that will help me foresee the unforeseeable and align myself with the right people (or, failing that, align myself AGAINST the right people) to ensure my longer term success and survival.
Some might actually be intending to get froggy if the tide is shown to turn in their favor, and are quietly trying to sense who might fight back, who might ally with them, who might look the other way. Maybe they want moral justification for doing some really nasty thing to the hated opposition. I don't know. But I think we're all at least idly, casually interested in figuring out the shape of the conflict and the ebb and flow of the battle and then making whatever use of that information we can.
And where else can we go for an actual clearheaded view of things?
First time seeing this term. Fascinating rabbit hole dive followed. Cheers.
It's the perfect shorthand for describing what at first seems like a whole variety of disparate effects and behaviors but that really has a lot of nonvisible connections and correlations.
Yes. What do you think of the rest of the concept? Is it worth reading a book on it?
I see that associated concepts and treatments veer into very strange and wacky stuff.
I might try Egregores: The Occult Entities That Watch Over Human Destiny.
Can't speak to that one.
In keeping with the traditions of this forum, its probably worth starting with some of Scott Alexander's writings.
Have you read Meditations on Moloch?
https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/30/meditations-on-moloch/
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Why bother? Because forcing yourself and the other person to dig, think through unexpected things, etc. makes both of you come to more nuanced, defensible, in-touch-with-reality versions of your positions.
And secondly, for the sake of those watching, who may not yet have committed to positions.
I'm agreed with you that we're on a terrible trajectory. E.g. the judiciary and presidency are on a crash course almost no matter what happens, given that, right now, all the district judges are making ridiculous TROs far overstepping their power (so that ignoring the courts is a growing sentiment on the online right), and on the other hand, the democrats want to pack the court. The chances we have a judiciary functioning properly in 30 years feel much lower than I would like. That's just an example, across the board, from both sides we're seeing escalations, radicalization, degradation of norms, which invites more of the same.
More options
Context Copy link
I post on here because it's fun. And I hope I am smart enough to stop if it ever stops being so.
We may be having some of the highest quality political discourse on the internet right here, but in the grand scheme of things we're relatively inconsequential. Winning the discussion here won't stop knuckleheads from spouting idiotic lies elsewhere, and certainly won't result in political change.
Nothing ever happens.
I strongly feel the latter is causing the former too. The day you become consequential is the day the spambots and cyber warriors come for you.
Truth only ever seems to get its day in the halls of nerds who argue for sport. May we never be cursed with influence.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
That bike lane discussion you linked to was so much fun.
Very illuminating however, your point about living in entirely different worlds really resonated with me. I haven't interacted with someone with such orthogonal views to mine in a long time. I can usually understand where people come from and why they think they way they do, but it was very hard here. The level of anger and reality denial was quite something.
Also very funny to see any pretense of "rationalism" or truth-seeking completely fly out the window to be replaced by personal anecdotes and confirmation bias.
Great time, would do again. I think my answer to "why bother" is because it's fun feeling self righteous anger and arguing circles around people. I'm happy I discovered this website.
Point of order: all rationalism is, is exactly that under a few layers of misdirection. Abandoning it is the good and honest thing to do.
While I don't disagree, I'm not sure if naked reliance on anecdotes and confirmation bias is much better.
At least """rationalists""" (I really can't type this with a straight face) pay lip service to Bayes, updating their opinions in the face of truth, etc.
While they're still human, that at least forces one to think about their thinking occasionally.
Why not? People are not that bad at coming up with heuristics that work for them. They have their limit's, of course, and offer no way of resolving disagreements, but it's really not a bad way of looking for the truth.q
Paying lip service to something, but not doing it is worse than just not doing it.
Can't remember who it was, but someone wrote a book about how smart people aren't any less prone to falling for bad ideas, they're just a lot better at justifying them. This is all "thinking about your thinking" accomplishes.
Sorry I should have been more clear. I think that having things like "Bayesian reasoning" and "try to seek the truth, if you're wrong, adjust your understanding of the world" and "attempt to anchor your thoughts and arguments in real and truthful facts" are all great things to do. I think they make people make smarter decisions and be correct more often.
I don't think they're a silver bullet, and none of them will make you right when you're wrong. You can also justify stupid shit by dressing it up in smart language.
But I think people who incorporate such ideals/heuristics into their life critically think more, and thus it is useful. It's just that rationalists seem to lean into it a bit much (not "pay lip service but don't do it"). They, like most people, still overvalue their beliefs, see: the perpetual meltdown over p(doom).
I don't think you're trolling me (although if you are, bravo) but are you serious? You will struggle to be right about anything if all your evidence is just you noticing things that confirm your biases and ignoring things that show you may be wrong (or at least not right).
This is a first for me though. I've never seen someone say out loud "anecdotes and confirmation bias is fine, actually"
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I think people underrate persuasion, its just often not visible.
When I was in high school I was a Diablo II forum moderator and trader, and ideas like that there are significant racial IQ gaps simply were not among the facts or topics I was in contact with. But as Diablo II kind of died (its not actually dead even now) the forum got interesting and political from time to time. And then topics were introduced. And I was able to learn about such topics, expand, etc.
More options
Context Copy link
Then don't argue with people here? Engage the way you want to be engaged with. I disagree with Nara's "why are you here", because telling people that don't like an area's culture to leave just makes for an echo chamber.
Personally, I would rather more discussion of process and fun pontificating, including more levity, but have been hard-pressed to, be the so-named change I want to see.
But I stay and lurk anyway, because maybe I'll find something entertaining and insightful to say. Unfortunately, the law of the internet is here to stay. 90% of everything is shit.
More options
Context Copy link
I've thought about this question a lot. It's why I've never really posted on this site. I spend lots of time on many other forums but post very infrequently. In-person I don't talk much either.
I often reflect on the things I do write or say. In hindsight, many of them seem obvious and therefore unnecessary. Others I regret because my opinion has changed. But occasionally I'll look at something I wrote and feel glad, because I was right. Whether it's because I predicted something, I made someone else agree; or it's something I wrote when I was much younger, and despite having far more experience, my opinion hasn't changed at all.
Here are some reasons why you should argue for your beliefs:
To convince yourself: people aren't perfectly rational, we form beliefs for illogical reasons (e.g. because we heard them from friends or family), and we hold beliefs without understanding why. When you argue for such a belief, you create the argument on the fly. If it's a "justifiable" belief (i.e. aligns with your other beliefs), the argument can reinforce your confidence in it later; or if it's not, you may start writing, realize you can't find a good argument, then change your belief for the better (happens to me).
Because it may convince some people: the vast majority probably approach your argument firmly holding their own conclusions, but perhaps one or two are unsure, and your argument moves them to your side. I believe this happens, everyone has some concepts they don't hold a firm opinion on and can be persuaded either way. If your giant wall of text convinces just one or two people, was it worth writing? That's up for you to decide, but note that enough "one or two people"s can sway an election.
Because it appeases people who already agree with you: It makes me happy to read and hear nuanced opinions similar to mine among a sea of surface-level takes. I appreciate them even though I already agree with them. It makes me more confident, because it signals there are more people like me in this world, and that my worldview may not be "wrong" because others hold it. If the opinion is backed with evidence, I can use it if/when I restate the opinion in my own social spaces. Thus, even if everyone that reads your post agrees, it may still have positive consequences.
Because it appeases people who don't agree with you (if you care about people in general): I like reading some nuanced opinions that I strongly disagree with, because they make me think. As much as I dislike some parts of society, I wouldn't want everyone to think exactly like me, because it would be much more boring.
Because of pride, and/or because you want to for some other reason: people aren't perfectly rational, we can't control what we want. If posting makes you feel better about yourself, or feel like you accomplished something, then even if there's no other reason I believe it's worth it. Scott Alexander has written a lot, he's written that people have said (paraphrasing) "wow, you write so much. How do you do it? Isn't it hard?"; and he replied, he just really likes to write, for him it's not work, it's relaxation.
To elaborate on "because you want to" and expand on "why bother": why bother with anything? I have a dog, and dogs seem to live meaningless lives: they sleep, eat, go for walks mostly around the same places, play a repetitive game (fetch), get pet, and occasionally meet people who are invited over. People live much more meaningfully: we travel, build things, lead corporations and governments, go into space, etc. But those things are only more meaningful because we feel they are; for depressed nihilistic people they aren't meaningful at all. Likewise, I think a post is intrinsically "meaningful" if the author feels it is, even if there's no other reason...
...I don't know, I guess I "bothered" to write that last part, and this whole post.
More options
Context Copy link
Well... it isn't 100% on point, given the different context, but I would invite you to read what I wrote to Kulak's exit and imagine how the substance of my post might apply to you.
More options
Context Copy link
Back in 2010 and 2011 and 2012, all of the liberal news opinion sources that I had read when I was an I AM VERY SMART New Atheist suddenly shifted on a dime, and they started repeating an intersectional line of politics that none of them had evinced back when all of us were extremely mad about Bush. It was the early rumblings of the politics of wokeness, essentially. And for several years, I found my blood pressure going up more and more every time I would read these formerly sympathetic sources. I found them painting with broader and broader brushes, and casting more and more groups that I still identified with in a worse light, and I kept wrestling with the "why bother" question... until a point finally came, in 2014, where a discontinuous break happened. And all of those voices suddenly went from being an "us" to a "them", and I was no longer a sympathetic reader of those voices.
But what I want to say is... that process of me reading, and getting more frustrated, was an essential part of the process of me shifting my perspective, and realizing a whole lot of things about politics and ideology that I had been totally in the dark about. That was, for a time, an actual answer to "why bother". It led me to a lot of much smarter, sharper reading (mostly in the form of actual, rigorous books) than I had done when I was coasting on anti-Bush vibes and Obama charisma. In retrospect, I would say, interacting with those conversations was really important, because it was interacting with it that led to the point where I could be confident that that conversation was entirely over. You could say that's sad, I guess, but I think it's just pragmatic, and possibly healthy, too. If you're blithely in a Schmidt-ian relationship with powerful forces, much better to remove the scales from your eyes, accept reality, and move on (possibly reconfiguring your life so your surface area is minimized as much as possible) than to be a gas lit cuckold, if I can haul out a fraught term.
So there's that. And unfortunately, this cycle feeds on itself - at this point, I simply can't and won't give progressives much of hearing unless they really bend over backwards to repudiate most of the last 15 years of politics and culture. And that's extremely unlikely, so I'm not particularly reachable. And that's too bad, I guess - but I already went on this rodeo before, back when I was being activisted out of my home conservative culture between 1996 and 2008. Fool me once, shame on me...
And of course, and I'm far from alone in this, I'm socially still surrounded by highly presumptuous, true-believing progressives for professional and class reasons, so at least in my case (and I think I'm far from alone in this), it's not like I no idea what evolving progressive thought looks like these days.
I believe, and I think this was once a much more common American belief, that there are much, much, much worse things in the world than different groups with different world views and different values giving each other some generous space. If we are lucky, maybe America will return to that form of organization. But it's going to be very difficult in the interim, because we have all sorts of institutions in place (the New Deal state, universities, Hollywood, multinational corporations) that assume a degree of integration that is possibly no longer supportable given how America is drifting. Or maybe other blacks swan events will conspire that restore a sense of unity - but if so, they'll almost certainly have to involve a massive amount of suffering and death, just like the Great Depression and World War 2 did.
So, to return to your original question, why bother? Well, pragmatically, it's likely that Trump and the new version of the right will overplay their hand in certain key ways. And as they do, there will likely be people who are receptive to new arguments again. You can only make those arguments if you're mixing it up in mixed communities and have gotten good at doing so rhetorically. And the old wisdom I've always seen is, far more people read than write, so if you make good arguments on a forum, even if you're downvoted, you might be reaching an audience that's invisible - that's a thankless road to hoe in the short-term, but if you time it right, and you're fortunate in picking where you participate, you could well reach people that way. I mean, even for me, there is no possible future where I'm reachable by American progressives in a positive sense... but I could be persuaded that whatever gets called the right is more or less supportable, depending on what's going on. But this is all about "what's politically effective", not "what's a fun way to spend my evenings".
More options
Context Copy link
Well, there's a thesis in the culture war thread OP that we've had for actual years:
Why bother? Well, you're here, aren'tcha?
More options
Context Copy link
Filing this under "posts I really hope I end up being wrong about".
More options
Context Copy link