I Don't Believe You

[Xenophon]

I've gotten to the point where I just don't believe people really care about whatever they are criticizing if they aren't moved by facts. In fact, I find it hard to believe the most rabid right-wing extremists are concerned about anything because they never back up their assertions, and will continue making them even after they've been debunked. I think they just like to argue because.. I don't know... they're assholes? Or maybe it's just a warped agenda. Who knows?

We have countless examples of GOP leaders doing things the right has enjoyed whining about for years, but they don't care. It's only a concern to them if it's a Democrat, and even then, I don't think they're concerned. They will whine about it because they know people who argue in good faith might think it's a concern.

A person with a legitimate concern about something will educate themselves on that thing, and apply that concern in all cases, no matter who or what. They won't wail and moan about it interminably in the face of facts that show their concern to be unfounded. They don't argue in bad faith. They don't keep making the same bad arguments over and over.

Unless, ya know, they're brain damaged in some fundamental way and can't help their inferior thought processes.

Why should we listen to and take seriously any concern from someone like this?

tl;dr: If you aren't moved by facts, I'm going to assume you don't have any to offer.

If I can offer a bit of a different take, especially about the part that I bolded.

I think you may be vastly underestimating how heavily the deck is stacked against swapping one's political views (or any deeply held belief for that matter).

A pretty terrible public education system that offers little to no instruction on critical thibking, decades of attacks against the educated/experts/scientist from pundits and politicians, the memeification of political points and the ability to insulate within a particular bubble on the internet are all working against individual change. When you pair this with upbringing, familial and geographical pressures and any other of a thousand contextual issues it is no wonder humans have a hard time shifting their view points.

That said, I believe people can learn to rewire their brains a bit. Expand their horizons and break out of these molds. They will need help though and a friend who actually listens and engages with them will likely go further than any other avenue.

Whenever these conversations pop up I always think of Daryl Davis. I know he has been discussed a lot here but for anyone unaware. Davis is a black man that is quite famous for befriending KKK members and converting them out of it. If you haven't read up on him, do. He is an incredible example of breaking down barriers by opening up communication.

It is also worth pointing out that this isn't just true of the right. For the longest time the anti-Vax war was waged almost exclusively by the far left. Misinformation, entrenched views and outrage porn aren't monopolized by only one party. Every single one of us has fallen prey to it before.

I recognize you're most likely just referring to posters on the board and it is obviously your choice to engage or not but I thought it was worth expanding your point a bit broader. All I see in the above is dehumanizing individuals because they haven't been swayed yet and I just don't agree with it, nor do I think it productive.

[Chap]

I recognize you're most likely just referring to posters on the board

I think that is probably the case. A discussion board is not a normal human conversation: that is one of its great benefits, but also the cause of its major downsides.

In a normal conversation, you have some choice about the people you want to take part. On a discussion board, however, what would otherwise be interesting or at least mildly amusing exchanges can be disrupted at any moment by the sudden irruption of the equivalent of a loudly shouting drunk who keeps insisting that you should listen to his stories about how marvellous he is or how stupid everybody else is, or the kind of obsessive you see wandering alone the street talking rapidly and angrily to themselves. Or you may get an earnest guy who just wants to tell you how Jesus can solve all your problems, if only you would admit how much you need him.

You can of course put such people on ignore, but that is hardly an ideal solution. Too many of them too often is just tiring. Some irritation at the disruption is therefore understandable, perhaps even normal.

[Cultellus]

I recognize you're most likely just referring to posters on the board

I think that is probably the case. A discussion board is not a normal human conversation: that is one of its great benefits, but also the cause of its major downsides.

In a normal conversation, you have some choice about the people you want to take part. On a discussion board, however, what would otherwise be interesting or at least mildly amusing exchanges can be disrupted at any moment by the sudden irruption of the equivalent of a loudly shouting drunk who keeps insisting that you should listen to his stories about how marvellous he is or how stupid everybody else is, or the kind of obsessive you see wandering alone the street talking rapidly and angrily to themselves. Or you may get an earnest guy who just wants to tell you how Jesus can solve all your problems, if only you would admit how much you need him.

You can of course put such people on ignore, but that is hardly an ideal solution. Too many of them too often is just tiring. Some irritation at the disruption is therefore understandable, perhaps even normal.

You feel victimized?

You seem to have created a metaphor here without actually saying anything. In the metaphor you are describing, are you the drunk or the victim?

[Some Schmo]

I think you may be vastly underestimating how heavily the deck is stacked against swapping one's political views (or any deeply held belief for that matter).

A pretty terrible public education system that offers little to no instruction on critical thibking, decades of attacks against the educated/experts/scientist from pundits and politicians, the memeification of political points and the ability to insulate within a particular bubble on the internet are all working against individual change. When you pair this with upbringing, familial and geographical pressures and any other of a thousand contextual issues it is no wonder humans have a hard time shifting their view points.

I hear you, but I'm not really talking about the average American. The focus of my post is people unmoved by facts. I'm not talking about people who are insulated from facts.

That said, I believe people can learn to rewire their brains a bit. Expand their horizons and break out of these molds. They will need help though and a friend who actually listens and engages with them will likely go further than any other avenue.

There's no doubt about it. I have changed my mind when confronted with verifiable facts too many times to count. I care about what's real, not what's comfortable. My only quibble with the above is that I don't really think you need the help of friends to change your mind. If you are motivated to find out what's real, you'll do the necessary research with or without help.

Whenever these conversations pop up I always think of Daryl Davis. I know he has been discussed a lot here but for anyone unaware. Davis is a black man that is quite famous for befriending KKK members and converting them out of it. If you haven't read up on him, do. He is an incredible example of breaking down barriers by opening up communication.

Thank you. I will.

It is also worth pointing out that this isn't just true of the right. For the longest time the anti-Vax war was waged almost exclusively by the far left. Misinformation, entrenched views and outrage porn aren't monopolized by only one party. Every single one of us has fallen prey to it before.

No doubt about this either. The difference is in whether you become emotionally attached to your beliefs to the point where you refuse to let them go when confronted by contradictory evidence.

I recognize you're most likely just referring to posters on the board and it is obviously your choice to engage or not but I thought it was worth expanding your point a bit broader. All I see in the above is dehumanizing individuals because they haven't been swayed yet and I just don't agree with it, nor do I think it productive.

I don't think they can be swayed. They prove it regularly. That's the point of my post. I don't see the point in discussing anything with someone who appears to detest learning.

I also think your choice of the word "dehumanizing" is a bit strong. It's certainly human to become emotionally attached to your beliefs and lie to defend them, but it's also in the range of human behavior to transcend that in favor of knowing what's real.

It's admirable if someone wants to try to sway the type of person I'm talking about, but it's also a high risk of time/low probability of success proposition.

[Morley]

Agreed. And as Jersey notes, the deleted posts are all a piece of this. Like Lem, I hope you're able to work through it, Cultellus.
.

Morley, the deleted posts are all a piece of what? What exactly do the deleted posts mean to you?

By the way, I will delete this one too.

You seem to know something. That the deleted posts are ALL a piece of "this." Tell us all what they all are.

Right or wrong, it comes across as lack of acceptance of yourself. Past and present. It feeds into the perception that you don't want to be held accountable for what you say and do--that you may not even believe what you yourself are typing. You talk about being a lay-it-all-out-there-and-face-the-consequences kind of guy. Then you delete your posts and suggest to everyone that that's a lie.

And yes, I'm sure you will continue to delete your posts. That way you can continue to sabotage your credibility. I think that's too bad.
.

[Cultellus]

I recognize you're most likely just referring to posters on the board

I think that is probably the case. A discussion board is not a normal human conversation: that is one of its great benefits, but also the cause of its major downsides.

In a normal conversation, you have some choice about the people you want to take part. On a discussion board, however, what would otherwise be interesting or at least mildly amusing exchanges can be disrupted at any moment by the sudden irruption of the equivalent of a loudly shouting drunk who keeps insisting that you should listen to his stories about how marvellous he is or how stupid everybody else is, or the kind of obsessive you see wandering alone the street talking rapidly and angrily to themselves. Or you may get an earnest guy who just wants to tell you how Jesus can solve all your problems, if only you would admit how much you need him.

You can of course put such people on ignore, but that is hardly an ideal solution. Too many of them too often is just tiring. Some irritation at the disruption is therefore understandable, perhaps even normal.

I have another question Chap. If one poster says he is going to crap on every post ever written by someone with whom he disagrees, would you have a problem with that? Hypothetically speaking, what if someone did that and said, straight up, I am here to destroy every conversation and point that is made if I do not like that person? You would applaud that, correct? As long as the person was on your side, you would welcome that and facilitate it. You do not have a problem with that declaration or even that behavior. You approve of that process, correct?

[Atlanticmike]

And that is exactly the sort of thing that causes a rational person to never believe what this kind of person says. It's a sign this kind of person cares about nothing, given they can't even be bothered to take care about their own credibility.

If people like this do care about their credibility, then they're simpletons for thinking their rhetorical strategy is effective (assuming they know they're full of crap. If they aren't aware they're full of crap, then they're absolutely brain dead).

Any way you slice it, they are unworthy of real attention. Certainly not worth a conversation.

I mean, these are the kind of people who push back on the advantages of diversity but get their panties in a twist when you suggest they come from a shallow gene pool. We're talking really low IQs here.

Actually, Gadianton's point was not true.

Schmo, you may not find me credible. I have spent over two thousand posts talking about credibility. It is a key issue for me. If you think I am contradicting myself, F'ing say it you coward. If you think I am a specific kind of person, say that and give us the examples.

You can't do it. You come on here and brag about how you do not read my posts. Over and over and over you say this like you have some higher moral conviction and you can ignore what is going on - and, now, suddenly, you know I am a contradiction when you have ignored, willfully, the facts. Are you F'ing kidding me? Could you be a bigger train wreck of B.S., lies, contradictions and lack of credibility?

Think about this for a F'ing moment, Schmo. You say - I ignore this person. Then you make a conclusion about that person. This is the F'ing problem, you twitfuck clown.

You want to quote Gadianton, and then make a conclusion about my credibility. Well, the post that you are quoting is full of straight up F'ing lies. Twisted up non-factual crap that he made up. And it is all laid out for everyone to see. And you, you come here and quote it.

I have, without a doubt, the lowest IQ on this board. No question. Now, is that a fact? Or just a line of B.S.? You Schmo, seem to have assessed my IQ and made an exclamation about it. Is your exclamation a fact, or just a line of B.S.?

Schmo reads every one of your post, probably multiple times. He's obsessed with them and he doesn't know what to do with them actually. Before you came along he and the other two stooges, semen and pencil, were able to drive away pretty much anyone they wanted to without too much of a problem. They were able to play offense and put just about put any poster they wanted to in defense mode. That's not happening anymore!! Now they're operating in defensive mode and commenting on threads that contradict their PROGRESSIVE position. Thanks for sticking in here cultellus and bringing common sense to a forum that thrived on insults and name calling before you showed up. You're a great man!

[canpakes]

And that is exactly the sort of thing that causes a rational person to never believe what this kind of person says. It's a sign this kind of person cares about nothing, given they can't even be bothered to take care about their own credibility.

If people like this do care about their credibility, then they're simpletons for thinking their rhetorical strategy is effective (assuming they know they're full of crap. If they aren't aware they're full of crap, then they're absolutely brain dead).

Any way you slice it, they are unworthy of real attention. Certainly not worth a conversation.

I mean, these are the kind of people who push back on the advantages of diversity but get their panties in a twist when you suggest they come from a shallow gene pool. We're talking really low IQs here.

Actually, Gadianton's point was not true.

Schmo, you may not find me credible. I have spent over two thousand posts talking about credibility. It is a key issue for me. If you think I am contradicting myself, damned say it you coward. If you think I am a specific kind of person, say that and give us the examples.

You can't do it. You come on here and brag about how you do not read my posts. Over and over and over you say this like you have some higher moral conviction and you can ignore what is going on - and, now, suddenly, you know I am a contradiction when you have ignored, willfully, the facts. Are you damned kidding me? Could you be a bigger train wreck of BS, lies, contradictions and lack of credibility?

Think about this for a damned moment, Schmo. You say - I ignore this person. Then you make a conclusion about that person. This is the damned problem, you twitfuck clown.

You want to quote Gadianton, and then make a conclusion about my credibility. Well, the post that you are quoting is full of straight up damned lies. Twisted up non-factual crap that he made up. And it is all laid out for everyone to see. And you, you come here and quote it.

I have, without a doubt, the lowest IQ on this board. No question. Now, is that a fact? Or just a line of BS? You Schmo, seem to have assessed my IQ and made an exclamation about it. Is your exclamation a fact, or just a line of BS?

You do lack credibility and you are often wildly self-contradictory. But it’s never too late to turn over a new leaf.
: )
.

[Cultellus]

Morley, the deleted posts are all a piece of what? What exactly do the deleted posts mean to you?

By the way, I will delete this one too.

You seem to know something. That the deleted posts are ALL a piece of "this." Tell us all what they all are.

Right or wrong, it comes across as lack of acceptance of yourself. Past and present. It feeds into the perception that you don't want to be held accountable for what you say and do--that you may not even believe what you yourself are typing. You talk about being a lay-it-all-out-there-and-face-the-consequences kind of guy. Then you delete your posts and suggest to everyone that that's a lie.

And yes, I'm sure you will continue to delete your posts. That way you can continue to sabotage your credibility. I think that's too bad.
.

Many of my posts have been chopped up into different sub-forums. Many have been quoted, and edited within the quotes. Many of my posts are redirected into other threads. That is all fine and great - this is a forum. Responses from the sole moderator when I joined, and the team of moderators since I joined, confirmed that I have the option of editing a post, or deleting a post that has not had a sequential response.

I have other reasons for editing my posts. The above are not my reasons. I have just pointed out that this is the process. If you would like a different process, suggest one.

Your conclusions about me, based on edited posts, are not accurate. I would merely ask why it bothers you that I do it, regardless of why I do it. I can promise you, it is not because I lie or because I reject my arguments or self. I am accountable for what I do. But this forum is a collection of people I do not know using cartoon pictures and fake names. I am writing, not archiving. If I wanted to archive, I would just use Microsoft Word instead of this forum.

I will give you a hint, Morley. If I am typing, I am in this conversation. I am not in one that happened last July. Cleaning it all up, while watching a youtube video or a playoff game, is just de-cluttering. We should all do it. So, in short, do not draw conclusions not based on fact. Honor what it makes you think of me or feel, I am cool with that. But you do not have enough information to know that I am not well in my own skin.

[Xenophon]

I hear you, but I'm not really talking about the average American. The focus of my post is people unmoved by facts. I'm not talking about people who are insulated from facts.

It may just be a difference of opinion but I absolutely think you are talking about the average American. It is often difficult to comprehend because I'm the kind of person that posts on boards about it but the American public is pretty apathetic on most of these topics. And the two categories you describe there aren't mutually exclusive but intertwined, in my opinion. The reasons people aren't moved by facts is often deeply tied to what is insulating them from said facts. It also doesn't help that in this modern age we're also dealing with all the "alternative fact" shenanigans that further muddy the water.

There's no doubt about it. I have changed my mind when confronted with verifiable facts too many times to count. I care about what's real, not what's comfortable. My only quibble with the above is that I don't really think you need the help of friends to change your mind. If you are motivated to find out what's real, you'll do the necessary research with or without help.

In my experience people need outside help in seeing their own blind spots. Outside of a work environment it seems that a trusted friend or partner is as good a helper as anyone. I'd suspect that if you looked back on some of those times you shifted your opinion it started by having your perspective opened by another, or a trusted individual sharing some information. I know even posters I've trusted on this very board have led to some change for me. Very few of us will ever pop up out of bed one day and say "Hot damn I was wrong about xxxx!" it is usually a gradual process of having your views slowly shifted until you arrive at a new position. Radicalization doesn't happen over night and neither does the reverse.

I don't think they can be swayed. They prove it regularly. That's the point of my post. I don't see the point in discussing anything with someone who appears to detest learning.

I also think your choice of the word "dehumanizing" is a bit strong. It's certainly human to become emotionally attached to your beliefs and lie to defend them, but it's also in the range of human behavior to transcend that in favor of knowing what's real.

It's admirable if someone wants to try to sway the type of person I'm talking about, but it's also a high risk of time/low probability of success proposition.

And I think just about anyone can be swayed, even if as you say the time to outcome ratio isn't something everyone wants to tackle (trust me, I'm not trying to suggest you have to engage anyone you don't find value in) . Part of the battle isn't in totally pulling someone into the fold either. There are battles to be one on softening people's stances, getting them part way to truth or atleast getting them to throw off some of their previously more radicalized views.

I don't know about everyone else but a view conversations here as having a few levels. There is obviously the direct back and forth we have with one another. But there are also the lurkers to consider, there are plenty of people who read here but never post (I was one of them for years). I also often take lessons I learn here and apply them to my in real life conversations. Just because your direct interactions with a poster don't shift their position it doesn't mean that it has no value.

The part I find dehumanizing is that I see you as saying "if people don't respond or handle situations the way I would then they are brain damaged". I may vehemently disagree with them but that doesn't mean I can't acknowledge that there are countless ways they arrived at their positions and continue to hold to them. I understand this was likely just rethorical flourish but it hit me wrong this morning.