How to be reasonable

[Hygro]

Thank you for your demonstration...

I rtead your post just fine. I'm arguing, roughly coinciding with what Zack is saying that it's pretty meaningless if people say one or the other.
Most of the time people on this board say "your argument is racist (or stupid or whatever)" not to be particular about the distinction but to trick the forum rules.
How can i claim that? Well, if they fail to be consistent about it and get an infraction like 3 posts later that's a fairly good indicator...

Honestly, not distinguishing between content and identity is a major source of not-reasonable-ness.

So let me add one for the list:

Make sure to distinguish between the speaker and the speaker's speech. Content ≠ identity. Who and what are not interchangeable.

 

[Farm Boy]

There tends to be some causation though.

 

[warpus]

There are a lot of people out there who only parrot their ideologies' talking points, and nothing else. But I tend to give people the benefit of the doubt and assume that what I'm reading isn't a talking point. Once it turns into it, I shake my fist and throw something out my window and stop reading.

 

[Borachio]

What do you mean by a talking point?

Actually, what does anyone mean by a talking point?

But you seem to be using it in a negative way.

 

[metatron]

It's like saying "give me an example of some incorrect arithmetic said by someone who is normally very good at maths". Just as I might say something that is mathematically incorrect without realising that it's mathematically incorrect, I might say something that is racist without realising that it's racist. In neither case am I "crap-at-maths" or racist, but I am nonetheless saying something that exemplifies "crap-at-maths-ness" or racism. "You're not racist/crap at maths, you're just wrong in this particular instance".

Yeah, Zack's argument, if i understand correctly, is that you making such a statement didn't come out of nowhere. You didn't forget to carry the one. You verbalised an idea, a thought that is a function of attitude, preconcieved notions etc. that you hold.
Now it is possible that these interacted in a totally anomalous non sequitur-ish way, but most of the time, if the result is "racist" some part of the function is too and was even before you generated the thought.

You know, because your thoughts are not Schrödinger's cat...

 

[warpus]

What do you mean by a talking point?

Actually, what does anyone mean by a talking point?

But you seem to be using it in a negative way.

Talking points are things you say that you've heard repeated elsewhere, usually by others who share and/or are a leader of your ideology of choice.

They are designed around their marketability, perceived or not, rather than actual facts.

So for example, if your ideology is vehemently against cheese, a talking point might be "The overconsumption of cheese has lead to the ebola outbreak", even if there is no such link between these events.

A real life example would be "How come there's still monkeys if we evolved from them?" .. The person writing or saying this did not actually read your post and is trying to reason against it with that statement. It is just something they've heard others, who share their ideology (of creationism) say. It sounds good, so they say it, but it doesn't make any sense. This will continue even in the face of "Hey, that doesn't make any sense", and so on.

That's what it means to me - if someone's essentially just repeating the position of some higher authority or some such thing - which doesn't even apply to the points made by the person they're responding to. They say it because "that's what ____ people say" rather than it actually being an actual point that they thought about and reasoned through.

I call them talking points because they exist as they are, outside of the context of a debate or discussion. They can be neatly written down and repeated ad nauseum. So for example say you have a bunch of talking points written down for the Ebola discussion. You'd go into an ebola thread, and write out your talking points, instead of actually engaging others and debating their points honestly.

 

[metatron]

Honestly, not distinguishing between content and identity is a major source of not-reasonable-ness.

So let me add one for the list:

Make sure to distinguish between the speaker and the speaker's speech. Content ≠ identity. Who and what are not interchangeable.

Look, i get that you really like that point.
Fine, buy it a cute pink house. Hire a dog-walker (or rather idea-walker).
It's in theory a perfectly valid point.

It's still rather missing the point vis a vis the argument i am making.
I'm not arguing about theory here, but about practice and application on this board.

You can engage with that or you can choose not to because you're not interested in the debate culture on this board but want to muse on theoretical points.
But you may not pretend we were talking about the same thing and try to "enlighten" and "educate" me based on that faulty premise.

 

[Borachio]

Yeah... no... you mean... what's the phrase? Not talking points (which I think are just subjects of discussion or something).

 

[Smote]

I am a racist, in certain ways.
I am a sexist, in certain ways.
I am an agist, in certain ways.

Basically, if something is backed by scientific evidence, I am willing to believe it, even if it leads to beliefs that are not politically correct. However, I strive to treat all people well and fairly and not pre-judge individuals based on the averages of their race, sex, or age.

I think the whole stigma against racism, sexism, agism, etc are silly. It's obvious that races and sexes are different based on a purely biological level. It's common that they are different, based on the way society conditions them differently (this is regrettable). Instead of trying to purge the mind of racist or sexist beliefs, against scientific evidence, its best to just strive towards not letting information about averages affect our attitudes towards individuals. This is for the good of society.

 

[warpus]

Yeah... no... you mean... what's the phrase? Not talking points (which I think are just subjects of discussion or something).

I think I'm using the phrase "talking point" the same way a lot of other people use it to describe what I'm describing..

I could be mistaken, but I can't think of any other way to say that. I'm basically talking about people who arrive at debates with neatly written down things they are going to say, no matter what everybody else is saying or how factual or infactual these written down things are. Like some political leaders do at "debates" - they will not answer questions but instead go right into re-repeating their talking points.

These talking points usually exist outside of any sort of context or reality. They need to be said, because that's what the party is saying.. or the ideology the person subscribes to expects him/her to say.

It takes away reasoning out of a debate, and so I find it very.. unreasonable.

 

[Harv]

I am a sexist, in certain ways.

Basically, if something is backed by scientific evidence, I am willing to believe it, even if it leads to beliefs that are not politically correct.

A scientist who studies Geology is called a Geologist.

A scientist who studies Biology is called a Biologist.

What is a Sexist?

 

[Manfred Belheim]

I thought a talking point was just a... point to talk about, or worth talking about. A discussion point. I've never heard it used to mean "empty rhetoric" or anything like that.

 

[warpus]

This is what wikipedia has to say about "talking point"

A talking point in debate or discourse is a succinct statement designed to support persuasively one side taken on an issue.[1][2][3][4] Such statements can either be free standing or created as retorts to the opposition's talking points and are frequently used in public relations, particularly in areas heavy in debate such as politics and marketing.

A political think tank will strategize the most effective informational attack on a target topic and launch talking points from media personalities to saturate discourse in order to frame a debate in their favor, standardizing the responses of sympathizers to their unique cause.[citation needed]

When used politically in this way, the typical purpose of a talking point is to propagandize, specifically using the technique of argumentum ad nauseam, i.e. continuous repetition within media outlets until accepted as fact.[citation needed]

The framing of political discourse in terms of simple talking points has been criticized by media personalities such as comedian Jon Stewart for being a superficial examination of issues

That's where I'm coming from, although I hadn't read the above until now.

 

[Gori the Grey]

The term "talking points" is now often used in the way warpus understands it in the US, in criticism of politics and of political commentary.

I'm sure it used to have the more neutral meaning that Borachio and Manfred know.

But in the US, bodies like the RNC or DNC now issue to their members "talking points": prefabricated verbal formulations that they think give their side an edge on a particular issue.

The Daily Show will often do a compilation of a bunch of Republicans and conservative talk show hosts, in various forums, all using one particular keyword to describe a particular political situation or development. You know they didn't each stumble on that particular verbal formulation independently. Instead, they are collectively trying to get it into the air, in order to frame public discussion of the issue in the way that they think is most advantageous to them. If someone unsympathetic to the cause challenges them on it, they won't elaborate; they just repeat the same fixed phrase or concept. Verbal marching orders. I wish I had an example handy. If one comes to me, and I'll post it.

EDIT: oops, warpus beat me to the punch.

EDIT #2: but do admire how close my off-the-cuff definition comes to the official one he dug up! Ha ha, even to the point of mentioning the Daily Show!

 

[Smote]

A scientist who studies Geology is called a Geologist.

A scientist who studies Biology is called a Biologist.

What is a Sexist?

A person that believes that one sex is superior to another.

I qualify "in certain ways," such that I mean things like, I believe men have more upper body-strength than women. This is sexist, and an example of why being sexist, racist, etc is not always bad. Its unreasonable not to be.

 

[Smote]

To counter my own statements, using Merriam Webster's definitions:

rac·ism noun \ˈrā-ˌsi-zəm also -ˌshi-\
: poor treatment of or violence against people because of their race

: the belief that some races of people are better than others

sex·ism noun \ˈsek-ˌsi-zəm\
: unfair treatment of people because of their sex; especially : unfair treatment of women

age·ism noun \ˈā-(&#716ji-zəm\
: unfair treatment of old people

With these definitions, i would be racist, in some ways. But not sexist or ageist, since they are only based on treatment of other people. This definition implies there is no such thing as a "sexist belief" since sexism is based strictly on treatment of other people.

 

[Flying Pig]

I think the point of being 'sexist' is that you see the sex before the person - it's not sexist to say that Alice is weaker than Bob, or even that most people called Alice are weaker than most people called Bob, but it is sexist to assume that Alice is weaker than Bob before you've seen for yourself.

 

[warpus]

I qualify "in certain ways," such that I mean things like, I believe men have more upper body-strength than women. This is sexist, and an example of why being sexist, racist, etc is not always bad. Its unreasonable not to be.

That isn't sexism though.

Sexism would be if you had said "Men are better than women overall, because they are generally stronger"

Pointing out existing differences between the genders isn't sexism and/or shouldn't be. Context and intent are important.

 

[Borachio]

This is what wikipedia has to say about "talking point"



That's where I'm coming from, although I hadn't read the above until now.

OK. That's fine.

But that's what I'd call "sound bites". (Which is the phrase I was trying to remember earlier.)

 

[Smote]

It seems you are in favor of Merriam Webster's definition, then. I agree with you.

What do you think about racist? Same thing or different?