What the Backroom is good for, and what it is not

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Disclaimer #1: I have had a bit to drink, including a tequila slammer. I also had an unpleasant interaction with a friend of my sister's.

Disclaimer #2: I have been thinking about this topic for a while and it's worth saying that Furunculus has voiced the sentiments I am about to expound in more... succinct... form.

The Backroom is a good place to come to debate with other knowledgeable and intelligent people on a given topic. Though debate we can come to a greater appreciation of the opposition's viewpoint and our share humanity. The fact that someone does not agree with your view is not, in itself, a moral failing and this truism is encapsulated in the unofficial motto of the Backroom - "Play the ball, not the man". The point is that if your disagree with someone you should attack their argument and engage in dialogue - not attack them personally and interpret a failure to recognise the perceived merits of your argument as a character fault. All else aside, this view absolves you of any responsibility to convince your interlocutor.

You are a fallible human being, you can be wrong and you can also be right but present a bad argument - at all times you should be mindful of this.

Recently, I feel that certain members have been focusing on actually convincing their perceived opponents of their view, or of tripping them up and exposing them to ridicule. Not only should such behaviours be anathema to the Backroom, but it is futile. The average IQ of a Backroom poster is significantly above average and average now is mid-to-late 30's. Nobody here has come to their political or philosophical viewpoint without due consideration.

At the end of the day, if you're focusing your energy on trying to change people's minds you will disappoint not only yourself but your interlocutors and instead of an intellectually profitable experience participation becomes a trial for all involved.

Put simply, we should also spend less time trying to wear each other down and more time trying to understand each other an individuals.

[edyzmedieval]

Philippus, while I mostly agree with your sentiments, it's important to consider that tempers do flare up when discussing politics. And they flare up quickly. Any hard hitting attacks will be just as forcefully dealt with, be assured of that, but we cannot act as thought police for the Backroom . We're all here to debate, discuss and we get aggrieved sometimes. Correct observation you make, hence why I would like to mention that although a leeway is given, any strong reactions will be taken care of.

Speak softly and carry a big stick.

Also, I'm glad it was a fruitful night.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Philippus, while I mostly agree with your sentiments, it's important to consider that tempers do flare up when discussing politics. And they flare up quickly. Any hard hitting attacks will be just as forcefully dealt with, be assured of that, but we cannot act as thought police for the Backroom . We're all here to debate, discuss and we get aggrieved sometimes. Correct observation you make, hence why I would like to mention that although a leeway is given, any strong reactions will be taken care of.

Speak softly and carry a big stick.

Also, I'm glad it was a fruitful night.

Ah, it was not a fruitful night - I edited the post.

I got into a fight with a (male) friend of my sister over something as banal as whether or not people are actually tabula raza - I don't believe they are - but according to him that makes me a closed minded a elitist person simply because I have a belief he doesn't agree with.

This is something we see increasingly in the backroom from all sides - disagreement is taken to be indicative of a moral fault.

[Montmorency]

This is something we see increasingly in the backroom from all sides - disagreement is taken to be indicative of a moral fault.

That's not generally what I'm doing though, and as an aside I hope you recognize that sometimes disagreement can be indicative of a moral fault.

Monty wears me down sometimes, and Pan about the Brexit. Mostly I enjoy the interplay.

I understand the ideal is not to try to "persuade" anyone of anything but leave them to independently come to a similar conclusion indirectly. Call it a limitation. I've never been able to formulate a gentle process to introduce the assertion that available evidence significantly undermines one's assumptions or interpretations. Sorry.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Nobody here has come to their political or philosophical viewpoint without due consideration.

That's where you are wrong son. Send me a Vox video and I'll believe it.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Had a colleague who believed in the tabula raza thingee. Never could agree with her, though I am very much a believer in the importance of culture. However, while much of who we are is malleable, there are certain physical dispositions that are encoded in our DNA sequencing that can and do influence how we will develop. Your sister's friend is wrong. If what he really meant is that much/most of how we develop is a culturally influenced combination of factors that is not entirely fixed in advance then he would be correct.

Monty wears me down sometimes, and Pan about the Brexit. Mostly I enjoy the interplay.

[Pannonian]

Had a colleague who believed in the tabula raza thingee. Never could agree with her, though I am very much a believer in the importance of culture. However, while much of who we are is malleable, there are certain physical dispositions that are encoded in our DNA sequencing that can and do influence how we will develop. Your sister's friend is wrong. If what he really meant is that much/most of how we develop is a culturally influenced combination of factors that is not entirely fixed in advance then he would be correct.

Monty wears me down sometimes, and Pan about the Brexit. Mostly I enjoy the interplay.

I'm extremely willing to be open and malleable, if the debate is evidence based and the conclusion gradual and reversible. Where this is no longer so, I am not prepared to be malleable. If one's argument is simply that you won and therefore I should suck it up, and you don't care about the consequences, I'm not going to bend and accept your point of view. Brexit is a parallel of the Confederate split from the Union. There was polarisation in that debate, and so there is in Brexit. Same with the eventual break up of the UK resulting from Brexit (see the Scottish debates a few years ago). A super-majority of the UK's population now reckon the Brexit referendum should never have been held in the first place.

[Furunculus]

Good post, PFH.

My view on this is that in matters of political preference, rarely can a person be said to be right or wrong in moral terms:
There is an overton window here, and it is pretty wide!

There is nothing incorrect or immoral in taking a different view to me on contentious issues.
There is absolutely everything right in taking a nuanced view at the wider argument, although the way debate plays out here in setting traps - and looking to trip people up - it is often deeply unrewarding to 'reveal' and explain that nuance when the easier life of the purist beckons.

There is of course space outside this 'overton' window, where people move beyond an acceptable moral viewpoint, but too often here we see this attempt to close down debate in seeking to brand someone else's view as beyond the pale. Outside that window of acceptability.

It is also possible to be factually wrong.
Both on the details of the evidence, and on its political consequence as something that will be judged by wider society.
Here there is a perhaps a cultural difference in how we interpret that latter point depending on where we are from.

And this difference is most easily seen when discussion crosses over the divide between issues and people from adversarial and consensual political systems:
When weighing the political consequence of something, it is easy for US/UK voices to write off an idea as impossible when in fact that idea is situated in a political system that makes space and legitimises wildly different ideas. e.g. the idea of a 'successful' Corybnite part in most european countries would be normal and of no particular mention.
When weighing the political consequence of something, it is easy for european voices to accept an idea as normal when in fact that idea is situated in a political system that delegitimises radical ideological niches. e.g. the idea of a 'successful' Corybnite party in the UK is difficult to comprehend, as he polarises opinion in a way that cannot gather widespread support.
This problem can equally happen within a country too, where someone looks at the other system and wants it here, and then makes domestic judgement in a political framework that doesn't really exist.

This makes it easy for us to misunderstand each other, particularly when we're more interested in looking for mistakes from the other that we can use to our advantage, than accepting that difference motivations that can lead to different political choices.

[Gilrandir]

Brits managed to drag their Brexit into the thread on usefulness of backroom debates. Good God! Will you ever stop?

[Gilrandir]

Disclaimer #1: I have had a bit to drink, including a tequila slammer. I also had an unpleasant interaction with a friend of my sister's.

Disclaimer #2: I have been thinking about this topic for a while and it's worth saying that Furunculus has voiced the sentiments I am about to expound in more... succinct... form.

The Backroom is a good place to come to debate with other knowledgeable and intelligent people on a given topic. Though debate we can come to a greater appreciation of the opposition's viewpoint and our share humanity. The fact that someone does not agree with your view is not, in itself, a moral failing and this truism is encapsulated in the unofficial motto of the Backroom - "Play the ball, not the man". The point is that if your disagree with someone you should attack their argument and engage in dialogue - not attack them personally and interpret a failure to recognise the perceived merits of your argument as a character fault. All else aside, this view absolves you of any responsibility to convince your interlocutor.

You are a fallible human being, you can be wrong and you can also be right but present a bad argument - at all times you should be mindful of this.

Recently, I feel that certain members have been focusing on actually convincing their perceived opponents of their view, or of tripping them up and exposing them to ridicule. Not only should such behaviours be anathema to the Backroom, but it is futile. The average IQ of a Backroom poster is significantly above average and average now is mid-to-late 30's. Nobody here has come to their political or philosophical viewpoint without due consideration.

At the end of the day, if you're focusing your energy on trying to change people's minds you will disappoint not only yourself but your interlocutors and instead of an intellectually profitable experience participation becomes a trial for all involved.

Put simply, we should also spend less time trying to wear each other down and more time trying to understand each other an individuals.

So basically you claim that all discussions here are just milling the wind. I agree on that.

[CrossLOPER]

Nobody here has come to their political or philosophical viewpoint without due consideration.

I am sorry you had a bad time. I mostly agree with what you said. However, I cannot say that arguing with a person in bad faith is totally worth the trouble if the person has no interest in being right, but rather winning the argument.