Discussion about fact based discussion

I wish we could make people pass a test on this

I’ll add some notes later

Just my quick bookmarks, so I don’t lose them.

11:45 Have a diversity of opinions. (As a moderator, this is the main reason I let people stay even though I don’t consider them logical) Note he talks about how people like to be validated by the news. This happens in MSM news watching, or unhinged YouTubes.

16 Try to create the opposition, to make it a “real” debate". AKA Steel Man. Keep listening from there for RISA

29 There are things that are off the table. We shouldn’t debate the equal moral standing of persons. I’ve seen a lot of this in recent ad hominems.

31:40 Social media debates. The solution of face-to-face has it’s limits, but we can stop doing performances as part of our posting. Talk to the person like a person, not like you are speaking to the lurkers. Creating a safe space to discuss will attract people to this forum. IMO

33- the dark side. People want to be heard, to connect, AND, they want to dominate the debate. These are in conflict. I had to rewind several times to get what he was talking about, that problems arise when we lack confidence in our interlocutors that they can receive our words with grace and respond kindly. The slightest slip-up and we are ready to pounce and bury them with our righteous data and facts.

49 Schopenhauer

54 Dodger, Twister, Wrangler, Liar (plug and replace is the solution, Richard Carrier does this often) The following section is about how to respond. Basically, pick one issue and try to work through it, show the logic problems, then speak broadly of how they are repeating those problems. If they won’t do that, then they are trolls and need to be banned

1:07 How Nixon handled Kruschev.

At the end he talks about the value of having disagreements. That it’s healthy. But we need to find healthy ways to have them. As Jonathan Haidt says, democracy thrives on disagreement.

1 Like