Trey Harris: I’m a troll, and I didn’t even know it. Or am I being gaslighted? (2018)
...I was told there wasn’t a written rule—yet—about “doubling down” because they couldn’t figure out the wording, but there would be, and in the meantime I must not do it now I’d been warned — and no, they couldn’t tell me what it was because like they said, there was still a dispute on the wording....
An Algorithm for Finding Common Ground
Included in Trey Harris's "Gaslighting" post.
@dredmorbius A bit overcomplicated, but not wrong… but only works with people who learned debate before 2000 or so.
Current debate process is simpler:
1. Make statement of feeling; research beyond Wikipedia is not necessary or wanted.
2. If Wikipedia does not support your view, edit it.
3. Anyone who disagrees is an Unperson who must be Cancelled.
@FLauenroth This to me is the fundamental distinction between dialectic (truth-seeking) and rhetoric (being right / dogma promotion).
It only took me about 50 years to figure that out (the realisation hit me a few years back). And that these are two fundamentally different and incompatible modes, often confused for one another.
Truth-seeking _has_ to come from a fundamental point of security, which is often lacking. Getting to that point is ... an interesting challenge.
@FLauenroth The notion of revisiting conversations or ideas, and bootstrapping up another level, is accurate and something I've found myself doing increasingly of late (or at least I hope I am).
For outsiders it may seem endless and pointless, but from my view, it's an ever-increasing understanding and appreciation of points, often with subtleties and inconsistencies. I think this is much of what Wittgenstein was about (i've only read small scraps). Ladders.
@dredmorbius @mdhughes It´s never to late to start I´d say. I mean, if I tell you to do X and you say no I wont because it´s <<insert reasoning>> I learned something, can give you some feedback on your conclusion and we both learn sth in the process. More often than not this is more complicated and sometimes heated because of emotions or personal experiences but I mean, we should respect the other side enough to not drag the discussion in the mud and make it a personal thing.
Though increasingly I find I simply don't have the spoons to try returning multiple times to uncharitable or pedantically misconstrued or points-missed discussions.
If I know the interlocutor somewhat, it's sometimes possible to beg off for a while. With Strangers On The Internet, often not so much.
@FLauenroth The capper is when a highly cogent or relevant response earns crickets.
This exchange from /r/AskEconomics comes particularly to mind:
(The entire field -- my own area of study, I'll add -- tends to exemplify this bad-faith argumentation, and this sub specifically.)
The social network of the future: No ads, no corporate surveillance, ethical design, and decentralization! Own your data with Mastodon!