Controversial Asides

[anonymous45]

labels: trying to stay focused, light editing, casual effort

@anonymous105

While lots of other people think it is all made up and trans people are not being persecuted at all and are instead just mentally ill,

Off topic but a little relevant: This was suggested to me (by algorithm) the other day:

Neuro-biology of trans-sexuality : Prof. Robert Sapolsky

I was surprised that I hadn’t heard about this before. I can think of reasons that TRAs would want to suppress it but hard to know (might cause some issues because they’d be appealing to biological essentialism or adjacent). Maybe I should post it to BFITF thread too for discussion there.

@anonymous105

Irrelevant asides are still a problem, because people are often going to want to argue about them. That is basically expected because they are controversial. Controversial stuff, hot button stuff, gets people fired up. It predictably leads to more engagement, which is not necessarily what you want on an irrelevant tangent.

Yeah. It seems like there’s 2 things in mild conflict here: the asides can be ignored and are useful for providing context and exposing ideas (they’re an option if they reveal something more important / deeper), and also they’re a distraction because they’re controversial. So it feels like they are more okay the more skilled (or at least focused) your discussion partner is.

@anonymous105

I didn’t care that you never replied to that tangential thread.

It’s one of the posts I have half a reply drafted to, which I’ve deprioritized since this thread seems more important right now.

@anonymous105

So this one is a case where you not realizing it was controversial is a bigger problem. You probably should have realized that and provided more argument and context for your position (or, maybe better: picked a less controversial example)

Hmm yeah, I see what you mean.

for what it’s worth, in hindsight I don’t think I was serious enough about this topic. (Also it occurs to me now that if I wanted to argue that leftism was hostile to christianity, it’d probably be better to start with the soviet union or ccp)

@anonymous105

But it’s a controversial claim. I would say that “the left” does not hate the west, that is basically a common smear against left leaning people by members of their opposing political tribe.

Yeah I half agree. Well maybe I should fully agree but also point out that synecdoche is happening in that there definitely are some very anti-western leftists, but they’re the minority (probably). I can pull up examples if we need but it’s not relevant right now I think.

On the note of synecdoche, I should say:

@anonymous105

So I’m not convinced this is a principled position of yours that you apply consistently. This seems more like a justification for you making generalizations about a tribe you dislike.

It sounded like, from your conclusion, that you maybe thought that I thought synecdoche is good or something. I think it’s bad and almost always an error. The paragraph I added about when it might be okay is not meant to be a defense of using it generally, just that I could think of one kind of case where it might be okay or useful.

You’re right in that I’m not principled about it and that I do it.

@anonymous105

Depending on what you mean, I might do that constantly on this forum. It is a bit muddied by the fact that I don’t always know for sure what I believe anymore, I suppose.

But in general I argue stuff when I think the other person is wrong, not when I think that the position I am arguing “for” is right.

I think there’s an asymmetry here in that arguing for something being wrong is different than arguing for a specific position. And I’d guess that if you wanted to entertain a specific counter position as devils advocate, you’d bring this up via like a hypothetical, or have some context indicator about some other view/group disagreeing and then presenting their arguments, or something else that implies a different framing/context to prior comments. (I’m not sure I have any basis for that guess other than vibes)

@anonymous105

It could be that I can think of criticisms of all related ideological positions and I remain kinda ambivalent about them all. So if you stake out one of those positions, I will argue about it and criticize your position. Even though I do not necessarily agree much more with your opponents in the tribal war.

IDK if you’d consider this devil’s advocate or something else.

Hmm okay – it depends. If you’re arguing for a position you think is actually wrong then it seems more like the devil’s advocate kind. It can still be useful, but it feels different to arguing for something being wrong outside of anyone else’s position.

@anonymous105

Well, if I followed this right, then a claim like the left hates the west is not attributing XY beliefs to AB group, it is specifically attributing Y belief to AB group, which is false. Right?

Yeah something like that (and I agree it’s false in this case and generally).

And yeah I’m not consistent with it. I have some defensive type explanations that come to mind (like that it’s about the core of an ideology or whatever) but if I apply those consistently I should be harsher on the right too, and I should be more responsible in grouping (though using labels like ‘far left’ or ‘far right’ or ‘alt right’ or whatever feel basically meaningless in today’s political vernacular).

TBH I wish there was a centrist party that didn’t push their beliefs on their constituents so much. That would have been a lot better for preventing things getting this bad. I’m not sure such a party could lead us out of this situation though.

@anonymous105

I think you run into a significant problem if you did this, given your tribal affiliation.

This is one of the reasons I wanted to bring it up and discuss it. I was thinking about it in part because I’d identified it in me as well as more broadly (I think both tribes do it).

@anonymous105

executing political opposition

I can guess the others but what do you mean by this one?

@anonymous105

But did you find it valuable? I argued with it… are you interested in continuing that tangent now?

I’m not sure exactly what you’re referring to. I am finding this discussion valuable, if that’s what you mean. I’m happy to discuss any of the tangents I’ve brought up but I also might push back on discussing and just concede if it seems irrelevant or downstream of other topics.

@anonymous105

I’ll leave this one unanswered since you seem to have rethought it after writing it. I think you left it in to demonstrate the behavior and ask that question, not to get into an abortion argument.

Yeah that’s right. I thought it would be better to show more thinking and just like explore it a bit instead of trying to do a perfect reply or whatever. Hopefully the labels helped.