I'm not sure if this is something that's polite to do on tildes, but I would like to summon @Deimos and @tindall if they have the patience and interest to share their opinions on this discussion....
I'm not sure if this is something that's polite to do on tildes, but I would like to summon @Deimos and @tindall if they have the patience and interest to share their opinions on this discussion.
Deimos as the operator of what could be the destination for a number of people coming from Voat.
Tindall as a person that has been (or at least I've seen to be) very vocal in favour of social justice and strongly opposing discriminating assholes (ie, assholes that discriminate).
I don't expect to get any users coming from Voat to here. If they were happy spending any time on Voat, they obviously want something very different out of an online platform than anything they're...
I don't expect to get any users coming from Voat to here. If they were happy spending any time on Voat, they obviously want something very different out of an online platform than anything they're going to find on Tildes.
I'm not sure about Voat users, but there are definitely people on tildes coming from some of the unsavory parts of reddit. I think that as long as they don't become a majority there are enough...
I'm not sure about Voat users, but there are definitely people on tildes coming from some of the unsavory parts of reddit. I think that as long as they don't become a majority there are enough voices here to counter them.
That is kinda my point. Unsavory people on tildes will not have the community's support for getting away with the things that they were saying on other platforms. So having some here, would most...
That is kinda my point. Unsavory people on tildes will not have the community's support for getting away with the things that they were saying on other platforms. So having some here, would most likely not be disastrous.
I can't speak for anyone else, but I do actively look for your voice in many specific threads. Not just as an ally and champion for what is right, but often because you are able to put into words...
I'm flattered that I'm the resident Voice of the SJWs, so thanks for that ego boost :)
I can't speak for anyone else, but I do actively look for your voice in many specific threads. Not just as an ally and champion for what is right, but often because you are able to put into words what I cannot.
In the past year one of the gems I found concerning opinion sharing and polite debating on the internet was https://letter.wiki. I've seen that it has been briefly discussed on tildes, but I want...
In the past year one of the gems I found concerning opinion sharing and polite debating on the internet was https://letter.wiki.
I've seen that it has been briefly discussed on tildes, but I want to share now one of the exchanges that had a big impact on me and led to more debating in my circle of friends. The reason why it came to mind is the big discussion happening now regarding the imminent closing of Voat and the inevitable exodus of hateful people towards other platforms.
It's a discussion about the value (or lack there of) of debating disagreeable people and their ideas. The opposing points are held by Peter Boghossian and Laurie Penny.
Both letters are well written and well reasoned. The first letter contains some factual data that I find very persuasive. It is also unemotional in tone, which appeals to my personal inclinations....
Both letters are well written and well reasoned. The first letter contains some factual data that I find very persuasive. It is also unemotional in tone, which appeals to my personal inclinations.
The second letter starts with a defense (and implicit accusation) that seemed uncalled for.
The second letter makes more general statements that are entirely reasonable, but lack concrete examples. There are numerous demonstrations of acute insight and big picture thinking.
The second letter is probably especially persuasive for some because the author is more evidently someone for whom these issues are a matter of life; that adds to the author’s credibility.
That said, I am, for better or worse, a staunch rationalist, sometimes to a fault. I seldom find emotional language very persuasive on such matters, and it sometimes has the effect of reducing the author’s credibility in my eyes.
That is not to say that I find that the second letter arrives at conclusions that are necessarily false. On the contrary: I believe they’re mostly true (at least in some relevant sense...). But the amount of generalizations left me unsatisfied. In other words, for the most part, I like where the author took me, but I have reservations about the path.
I also suspect that the second author failed to acknowledge that, given some adjustments, they’re more in agreement than they realize.
To sum up, the first letter is more correct because it presents a single example to demonstrate that debates can be valuable. The second letter starts by stating that they do not believe debates are always not valuable but concludes by affirming just that.
Incidentally, reading these letters actually did change my opinion on something (or at least started to). And given that an exchange between opposing ideas with the purpose of persuasion is necessarily a debate, that’s anecdotal evidence in support of the thesis of the first letter.
I'm not sure if this is something that's polite to do on tildes, but I would like to summon @Deimos and @tindall if they have the patience and interest to share their opinions on this discussion.
Deimos as the operator of what could be the destination for a number of people coming from Voat.
Tindall as a person that has been (or at least I've seen to be) very vocal in favour of social justice and strongly opposing discriminating assholes (ie, assholes that discriminate).
I don't expect to get any users coming from Voat to here. If they were happy spending any time on Voat, they obviously want something very different out of an online platform than anything they're going to find on Tildes.
I'm not sure about Voat users, but there are definitely people on tildes coming from some of the unsavory parts of reddit. I think that as long as they don't become a majority there are enough voices here to counter them.
That is kinda my point. Unsavory people on tildes will not have the community's support for getting away with the things that they were saying on other platforms. So having some here, would most likely not be disastrous.
I can't speak for anyone else, but I do actively look for your voice in many specific threads. Not just as an ally and champion for what is right, but often because you are able to put into words what I cannot.
In the past year one of the gems I found concerning opinion sharing and polite debating on the internet was https://letter.wiki.
I've seen that it has been briefly discussed on tildes, but I want to share now one of the exchanges that had a big impact on me and led to more debating in my circle of friends. The reason why it came to mind is the big discussion happening now regarding the imminent closing of Voat and the inevitable exodus of hateful people towards other platforms.
It's a discussion about the value (or lack there of) of debating disagreeable people and their ideas. The opposing points are held by Peter Boghossian and Laurie Penny.
Both letters are well written and well reasoned. The first letter contains some factual data that I find very persuasive. It is also unemotional in tone, which appeals to my personal inclinations.
The second letter starts with a defense (and implicit accusation) that seemed uncalled for.
The second letter makes more general statements that are entirely reasonable, but lack concrete examples. There are numerous demonstrations of acute insight and big picture thinking.
The second letter is probably especially persuasive for some because the author is more evidently someone for whom these issues are a matter of life; that adds to the author’s credibility.
That said, I am, for better or worse, a staunch rationalist, sometimes to a fault. I seldom find emotional language very persuasive on such matters, and it sometimes has the effect of reducing the author’s credibility in my eyes.
That is not to say that I find that the second letter arrives at conclusions that are necessarily false. On the contrary: I believe they’re mostly true (at least in some relevant sense...). But the amount of generalizations left me unsatisfied. In other words, for the most part, I like where the author took me, but I have reservations about the path.
I also suspect that the second author failed to acknowledge that, given some adjustments, they’re more in agreement than they realize.
To sum up, the first letter is more correct because it presents a single example to demonstrate that debates can be valuable. The second letter starts by stating that they do not believe debates are always not valuable but concludes by affirming just that.
Incidentally, reading these letters actually did change my opinion on something (or at least started to). And given that an exchange between opposing ideas with the purpose of persuasion is necessarily a debate, that’s anecdotal evidence in support of the thesis of the first letter.