Are all internet discussion doomed?
- This topic has 74 replies, 9 voices, and was last updated 9 years ago by
.
-
Posts
-
LBird wrote:And because you can't have a detailed discussion, because you don't know the academic basis of your arguments, you turn to personal abuse of me. And when I return the favour, you call me a troll.LBird wrote:"knuckledragger"
More hypocricy?
Guess the idealist doesn't have an answer, he must have moved on to spoil another thread.
Looking at the title of this thread, "Are all Internet discussion doomed?" On the basis of the evidence at hand, I would say that Internet discussion may well prove to be our most productive medium, because, just looking back to the five months, June to October, 47% of new members claimed to have discovered the S.P.G.B. through contact with the Internet.
I think earlier in the thread I mentioned the "Denbunking Handbook". It's main point is compressed into one page here:http://www.realclearscience.com/blog/2015/01/the_biggest_myth_about_debunking_myths.html
DJP wrote:5 Logical Fallacies That Make You Wrong More Than You Thinkhttp://www.cracked.com/article_19468_5-logical-fallacies-that-make-you-wrong-more-than-you-think_p1.html#ixzz3JtiPcOxrIn short:We're Not Programmed to Seek "Truth," We're Programmed to "Win"Our Brains Don't Understand ProbabilityWe Think Everyone's Out to Get UsWe're Hard Wired To Have a Double StandardFacts Don't Change Our MindSo what do you think? Should be give up or just carry on knowing that our brains make us deluded egotists that like to form narratives with ourselves as the hero? (But perhaps that's from another book…)The nature of the internet is speed. Emails are about swift responses or retorts. Body-language is absent. One hasn`t got the leisure of drafting a written letter, nor of reading at leisure as one does via a book or magazine. It is laborious to sit in front of a screen at length. All of these things make for quick, knee-jerk reactions, often leading to competitive, self-aggrandising behaviour. It isn`t "natural" but is the conditioning of the electronic medium, which, regardless of the advantage of immediate contact, is inherently inferior to the printed word and the forum of leisured, profound disputation. (Can`t imagine Locke, Rousseau or Marx throwing "yah-boo!" slogans at each other online!!!
Came across this which I thought was apt, if only as a note to myself
Bertrand Russell – An Outline of Intellectual Rubbish wrote:If an opinion contrary to your own makes you angry, that is a sign that you are subconsciously aware of having no good reason for thinking as you do. If someone maintains that two and two are five, or that Iceland is on the equator, you feel pity rather than anger, unless you know so little of arithmetic or geography that his opinion shakes your own contrary conviction. The most savage controversies are those about matters as to which there is no good evidence either way. Persecution is used in theology, not in arithmetic, because in arithmetic there is knowledge, but in theology there is only opinion. So whenever you find yourself getting angry about a difference of opinion, be on your guard; you will probably find, on examination, that your belief is going beyond what the evidence warrants.Nicholas Carr: The Shallows: about the psychological dangers of the electronic medium, internet, e-books etc.http://www.amazon.co.uk/Shallows-Internet-Changing-Think-Remember/dp/1848872275/ref=sr_1_fkmr0_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1421667618&sr=8-1-fkmr0&keywords=Robert+Carr+The+Shallows
I`ve noticed that young people fresh out of school and even college know little or nothing of history.
For those who contributed to this thread, an article on Twitter and social media might be of interesthttp://www.ipsnews.net/2015/02/twiplomacy-gets-its-day-in-the-sun-at-u-n/
£100,000 a month, or £1.2m if continued for a whole year. Put another way: one in every £17 the Tories spent on the last general election campaign is going towards drumming up support on Facebook.http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/feb/06/tories-pumping-facebook-advertising-email-ukip
DJP wrote:Came across this which I thought was apt, if only as a note to myselfBertrand Russell – An Outline of Intellectual Rubbish wrote:If an opinion contrary to your own makes you angry, that is a sign that you are subconsciously aware of having no good reason for thinking as you do. If someone maintains that two and two are five, or that Iceland is on the equator, you feel pity rather than anger, unless you know so little of arithmetic or geography that his opinion shakes your own contrary conviction. The most savage controversies are those about matters as to which there is no good evidence either way. Persecution is used in theology, not in arithmetic, because in arithmetic there is knowledge, but in theology there is only opinion. So whenever you find yourself getting angry about a difference of opinion, be on your guard; you will probably find, on examination, that your belief is going beyond what the evidence warrants.Very good! I have been wondering why I receive so much anger
This may make interesting reading…a review of Twitter and political activismhttp://www.democraticaudit.com/?p=11362
Quote:the good news is that especially young people increasingly use the internet to get their voices heard….BUT…The average age of party members is rapidly rising and even with regard to voter turnout there is a strong downward trend among younger age groups….While for older citizens it still seems attractive to join party meetings, or to go to the polling booth to cast their vote…If a lot of people express a similar opinion on Twitter or another social medium, politicians and other officials sometimes regard this as an expression of what the population wants. The available empirical evidence, however, shows this is not the case: the things we read on Twitter are mainly the opinions of highly educated and well-off citizens. …I think this video definitely has something we should be using. Instead of pointing out why people are wrong, which only strengthens their beliefs, we should ask them to explain why they believe what they do, the process of having to come up with an explanation softens peoples views
Certainly on one-to-one face-to-face discussions this has a resonance that we should heed…but how do we make use of it in mass political campaigns?…It demands such a degree of interaction that only perhaps this forum offers the basis and sadly if it does, it is failing.The Socialist Standard and our pamphlets and blogs cannot perform this task, can it ?Every article rather than one-way communinication of information and facts needs to be written in a style that makes people ask their own questions of themselves, One reason why i am such an admirer of the Kids Stuff video…i think it succeeds in that. But is that because it uses a visual structure rather than a written one to back its claims up? How successful would the text of Paddy commentary be on its own? I note the Chomsky approach is to take an issue back in history and then offer actual examples over a period …to give an evolution of an issue, rather than merely a refutation, as a method of explanation. I don't think i have the creative style of writing to succeed and perhaps as we did with our campaign workshops, we should indulge in writing workshops…Or just refer people to the websites that encourage show examples of a manner of political writing that encourage a receptive response.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.