Spill Your Guts: What You Really Think About MB members

WWWP · 06-13-2014, 03:37 PM

I for one am not going to shut up about it until it's no longer an issue of hate, inequality, oppression, and infringement of inalienable human rights. I'd rather be annoying and force things into conversation than turn a blind eye or pretend these things don't exist. But that's just me.

FRED HALE SR. · 06-13-2014, 03:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Junkyard Donner

I for one am not going to shut up about it until it's no longer an issue of hate, inequality, oppression, and infringement of inalienable human rights. I'd rather be annoying and force things into conversation than turn a blind eye or pretend these things don't exist. But that's just me.

Troublemaker

GuitarBizarre · 06-13-2014, 03:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Junkyard Donner

I for one am not going to shut up about it until it's no longer an issue of hate, inequality, oppression, and infringement of inalienable human rights. I'd rather be annoying and force things into conversation than turn a blind eye or pretend these things don't exist. But that's just me.

Who's pretending anything doesn't exist? I already told you I'm well onboard with your views. I just think you're really, really hurting your cause because you turn people away from agreeing with you on a personal level, inviting them to construct a counterargument in order to reject your personality rather than your logic.

Which wouldn't happen if you actually entered into these debates in situations arenas and in ways which bore some actual relevance to what you were saying. Nobody debates war crimes or the pro-life views of Margaret Thatcher at the Manchester Derby, because it's a jarring, irrelevant change to the event's purpose. You debate that stuff at a college campus or on the news. You organise marches, write articles, publish stories through Avaaz or 38Degrees, question politicians, email your local MP/State representative, donate to funds you approve of, comment and argue against abhorrent views when they're actually presented specifically, encourage your friends to support good movements, discourage them from aligning themselves with the far right or socialy unconscionable, etc. There's no shortage of outlets for this stuff that are both better for the reach of your message, and also more effective because you'll actually be talking to people who, even if they disagree with your message, will at least be there to discuss your message and not you personally.

But if you show up and expect an actual discussion to occur (Positive or otherwise) if you drag a discussion about, say, Pepsi vs Coca Cola, into the domain of arguing against cishet white males... that smacks to me of someone who finds it very difficult to actually seperate out which elements of reality pertain to the "opposition" of their political beliefs, and instead has resorted to attacking an enemy at literally every opportunity.

And like I said, that encourages people to simply dismiss you as a person, before they even think about your argument. Most people aren't even going to get to that second stage where they, like I, say "I agree with you but this is a bad way of going about it". They're going to stop flat at "I don't like you" and the rest of whatever you said will get lost in the fog.

The Batlord · 06-13-2014, 03:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GuitarBizarre

Who's pretending anything doesn't exist? I already told you I'm well onboard with your views. I just think you're really, really hurting your cause because you turn people away from agreeing with you on a personal level, inviting them to construct a counterargument in order to reject your personality rather than your logic.

Which wouldn't happen if you actually entered into these debates in situations arenas and in ways which bore some actual relevance to what you were saying. Nobody debates war crimes at the Manchester Derby, because it's a jarring, irrelevant change to the event's purpose. You debate that stuff at a college campus or on the news. You organise marches, write articles, publish stories through Avaaz or 38Degrees, question politicians, email your local MP/State representative, donate to funds you approve of, comment and argue against abhorrent views when they're actually presented specifically, encourage your friends to support good movements, discourage them from aligning themselves with the far right or socialy unconscionable, etc. There's no shortage of outlets for this stuff that are both better for the reach of your message, and also more effective because you'll actually be talking to people who, even if they disagree with your message, will at least be there to discuss your message and not you personally.

But if you show up and expect an actual discussion to occur (Positive or otherwise) if you drag a discussion about, say, Pepsi, into the domain of arguing against cishet white males... that smacks to me of someone who finds it very difficult to actually seperate out which elements of reality pertain to the "opposition" of their political beliefs, and instead has resorted to attacking an enemy at literally every opportunity.

And like I said, that encourages people to simply dismiss you as a person, before they even think about your argument. Most people aren't even going to get to that second stage where they, like I, say "I agree with you but this is a bad way of going about it". They're going to stop flat at "I don't like you" and the rest of whatever you said will get lost in the fog.

It would also help if their arguments consisted of things other than gifs, condescending one word posts, and unexplained jargon.

GuitarBizarre · 06-13-2014, 03:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Batlord

It would also help if their arguments consisted of things other than gifs, condescending one word posts, and unexplained jargon.

You mean it would help if their arguments consisted of arguments, then.

WWWP · 06-13-2014, 03:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GuitarBizarre

Who's pretending anything doesn't exist? I already told you I'm well onboard with your views. I just think you're really, really hurting your cause because you turn people away from agreeing with you on a personal level, inviting them to construct a counterargument in order to reject your personality rather than your logic.

Which wouldn't happen if you actually entered into these debates in situations arenas and in ways which bore some actual relevance to what you were saying. Nobody debates war crimes at the Manchester Derby, because it's a jarring, irrelevant change to the event's purpose. You debate that stuff at a college campus or on the news. You organise marches, write articles, publish stories through Avaaz or 38Degrees, question politicians, email your local MP/State representative, donate to funds you approve of, comment and argue against abhorrent views when they're actually presented specifically, encourage your friends to support good movements, discourage them from aligning themselves with the far right or socialy unconscionable, etc. There's no shortage of outlets for this stuff that are both better for the reach of your message, and also more effective because you'll actually be talking to people who, even if they disagree with your message, will at least be there to discuss your message and not you personally.

But if you show up and expect an actual discussion to occur (Positive or otherwise) if you drag a discussion about, say, Pepsi, into the domain of arguing against cishet white males... that smacks to me of someone who finds it very difficult to actually seperate out which elements of reality pertain to the "opposition" of their political beliefs, and instead has resorted to attacking an enemy at literally every opportunity.

And like I said, that encourages people to simply dismiss you as a person, before they even think about your argument. Most people aren't even going to get to that second stage where they, like I, say "I agree with you but this is a bad way of going about it". They're going to stop flat at "I don't like you" and the rest of whatever you said will get lost in the fog.

If people dismiss me as a person or argue against my personality rather than the points I make then that seems more their problem than mine. I don't have time for people like that.

GuitarBizarre · 06-13-2014, 03:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Junkyard Donner

If people dismiss me as a person or argue against my personality rather than the points I make then that seems more their problem than mine. I don't have time for people like that.

It's a political reality that you have to convince people to agree with you, that don't necessarily understand you. I don't argue that, say, Mattias Eklundh is great, by throwing a ton of music theory at them they have no interest in. I convince them by showing them parts of his music that they're more likely to understand and appreciate on some level.

On the same token, if 6 billion of 7 billion people are horrible people, I don't see why you'd echo chamber yourself with the 1 billion and imagine that's going to cause a change in the 6 billion's behaviour. What will change the 6 billion, is someone talking to them on their level and getting them to change their beliefs in a way they're capable of doing. Even if its small steps at a time.

What absolutely won't work is showing up at the local 6 billion's boozer armed with pamflets and an attitude problem.