refusing to engage in dialog about something, is in essence true bigotry?

[Regular_P]

Who said they were the same thing?

You said "people wil different beliefs."

Some people believe the earth is flat. Facts show these people are wrong but they won't change their beliefs.

 

[Maschine_Man]

You said "people wil different beliefs."

Some people believe the earth is flat. Facts show these people are wrong but they won't change their beliefs.

welp...I hope you aren't a religious person or talk to anyone that is.

 

[Bernie Madoff]

so many people these days are total sheep. It's tough to find logical ground with most people in debates because they're irrational. I enter any debate with an open mind and a willingness to consider all sides. I'd say 85% of the population doesn't have the same outlook. Moderates and Centrist>>>>>

 

[Mowgli]

Intellectualized bigotry will take the same turn eventually since it's only used to keep/gain allies from people who are sitting on the fence of stupidity.

Winning a debate is meaningless if someone has the manpower to make a bad idea reality

 

[Dr. Acula]

Not going to watch the video. I'll just make this one point.

I have no issue debating different ideas. I will not however debate the Racists to acknowledge and respect by right to exist as a human being. It's not something I feel should even be up for debate and st this point you're just my enemy. At this point you deserve death in my mind instead of moderate debate. I have no desire to go to jail so I don't plan on doing anything but if people like this got cancer of the dikk I'd be happy.

 

[Cyber]

I'm a centrist who leans left socially and right economically so I can find common ground with people from many different ideologies. From my experience most people lean only one direction in their views so I rarely find people who are eye to eye with me on both. I've never understood social conservatism but can kinda see where the left wants the government to have a much bigger role in welfare despite my disagreement with anything left of democratic socialism (even that I'm not too big on).

That said it seems to many people politics is a sports competition, pick a side and never acknowledge that the other side might have a better idea on something. Oh well, it's been like that literally since early civilization but I'd like to see it move in the better direction at some point during my lifetime.

 

[mbewane]

I'm a centrist who leans left socially and right economically so I can find common ground with people from many different ideologies. From my experience most people lean only one direction in their views so I rarely find people who are eye to eye with me on both. I've never understood social conservatism but can kinda see where the left wants the government to have a much bigger role in welfare despite my disagreement with anything left of democratic socialism (even that I'm not too big on).

That said it seems to many people politics is a sports competition, pick a side and never acknowledge that the other side might have a better idea on something. Oh well, it's been like that literally since early civilization but I'd like to see it move in the better direction at some point during my lifetime.

Salute, I have a similar approach to yours. I woudl go one step further and say people see politics as damn near religion, which also (as sports) divides people in "with" or "against".

Fortunately I had a professor at university that said you have to understand the other's point of view, and his logic, in order to see how he can be wrong and argue against it. Unfortunately in french (and I think english -not my native language-) "to understand" has become close in meaning as "to agree with". I "understand" the logic that leads people to vote for Extreme-Right parties, but obviously I totally disagree with it. But I see how they get there.

That's actually a huge problem some people have : dismissing people because they are "stupid" or "savages" or whatever. Even terrorists have their logic. Labelling them this or that way doesn't jelp anyone.

Unfortunately the problem is when in conversation one party is intellectually dishonest or relies to platitudes to avoid discussing he issues at hand. In that case all the arguments one may bring up will be useless. In that case, indeed, it can be useless to engage in dialog.

 

[Cyber]

Salute, I have a similar approach to yours. I woudl go one step further and say people see politics as damn near religion, which also (as sports) divides people in "with" or "against".

Fortunately I had a professor at university that said you have to understand the other's point of view, and his logic, in order to see how he can be wrong and argue against it. Unfortunately in french (and I think english -not my native language-) "to understand" has become close in meaning as "to agree with". I "understand" the logic that leads people to vote for Extreme-Right parties, but obviously I totally disagree with it. But I see how they get there.

That's actually a huge problem some people have : dismissing people because they are "stupid" or "savages" or whatever. Even terrorists have their logic. Labelling them this or that way doesn't jelp anyone.

Unfortunately the problem is when in conversation one party is intellectually dishonest or relies to platitudes to avoid discussing he issues at hand. In that case all the arguments one may bring up will be useless. In that case, indeed, it can be useless to engage in dialog.

I can understand some extreme views. I don't condone their views at all but we're all a product of the circumstances around us, although some of them (like Identitarian) really worry me I can at least see why they come to their conclusions, sadly ignorance is often the reason for such views. There isn't much that bothers me more than seeing far-left or far-right groups springing up when things are going downhill, desperate times calls for desperate measures it seems.

And to quote George Carlin, "Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups". That's as accurate as it gets when it comes to politics.

 

[Isaiah Bradley]

I meant to return to this thread, the video below reminded me. Very informative and encourages self analysis

In certain circumstances there are certain issues that don't deserve to be debated; and rightfully so.

Why in the high holy fukk should I debate with someone that the Earth is not fukking flat when science has not only proven it but you can literally...right now...view a picture of the fukking Earth...FROM SPACE.

Every other heavenly body is fukking round or at the very least an ellipse.

If you, as an adult, think that the world is flat and have at the very least, a junior high school education, you are a fukking moron plain and simple.

4:00 to 6:37

 

[Isaiah Bradley]

Not going to watch the video. I'll just make this one point.

I have no issue debating different ideas. I will not however debate the Racists to acknowledge and respect by right to exist as a human being. It's not something I feel should even be up for debate and st this point you're just my enemy. At this point you deserve death in my mind instead of moderate debate. I have no desire to go to jail so I don't plan on doing anything but if people like this got cancer of the dikk I'd be happy.

at least watch the new video that directly addresses your view

 

[Isaiah Bradley]

Intellectualized bigotry will take the same turn eventually since it's only used to keep/gain allies from people who are sitting on the fence of stupidity.

Winning a debate is meaningless if someone has the manpower to make a bad idea reality

to suppress any form of intellectual bigotry, you're undermining the required individual's obligation to reason, debate, process new information, and update old information

 

[Mowgli]

to suppress any form of intellectual bigotry, you're undermining the required individual's obligation to reason, debate, process new information, and update old information

Historically minds are changed with blood.

 

[Isaiah Bradley]

Historically minds are changed with blood.

if you beat a person long enough, you could convince him you're the pope's long lost son
I'm not sure how coercion and truth seeking are related

 

[Pressure]

if you beat a person long enough, you could convince him you're the pope's long lost son
I'm not sure how coercion and truth seeking are related

Suggesting this exercise is truth seeking is false.

 

[TTT]

Some people cannot reconginze arguments that are made in bad faith, or they are the type that sympathize with the dissenting viewpoint without as much courage to stand behind it. It's like people who say stuff like if ideas are debated in the open that somehow the "marketplace" for ideas will allow the good ones to survive and the bad ones to die. It assumes that racists and bigots are somehow people who just have faulty logic instead of a far harsher truth that it is just who they are, some people are actually proud of it and will not be talked out of it. When people are too dumb enough to fall for those tweets blaming Katrina on Obama or not know that the ACA was what the GOP called Obamacare what good is it to debate. In fact what they are looking for is some type of legitimacy, even bigots over time learned that donning robes like the KKK became socially unacceptable even among whites, it was far easier to achieve similar objectives through coded language. The civil rights movement could have sat down and done Oxford debates but what chance is there that this would have shifted attitudes in the country. They hated the movement leaders when they were alive because they challenged the status quo.