Effective Dialog?

[The Industrial Atheist]

Sig Heil Mein freunds!

---

Everyone knows I'm joking in the context of the thread right? Please don't ban me!

[Silver]

Just so we're all clear, you do know the Babylon Bee is a satirical news site modeled on The Onion, right?

I didn't know, but now I do.

[Cyberman]

Also spelling 'dialogue' correctly.

Grammar Nazi! That is literally what Hitler would say.

[RoadRunner79]

Lol. Some people sure seem to think so. Same with pointing out logical fallacies, it's actually just a sneaky way of people trying to feel smug and be smarter than the other person, not a dialog tool at all.

It also is something that has sprung almost entirely from the internet, internet forum people seem to think that philosophy and debate consists the of memorizing a list of logical fallacies and then pointing them out as frequently as possible and declaring victory, preferably with a really snarky meme.

I can certainly see where you are coming from, but also think that part of a good dialogue can be to point out where someone is thinking wrongly.  And hopefully it should add to the dialogue by either acknowledging or addressing the perceived mistake.  I do agree with your assessment, that it is not about pointing out every fallacy, and declaring gotcha!  Everyone makes mistakes, and it's not really about one argument, but the idea.

---

Here is one yinz might enjoy from the Babylon Bee.

WASHINGTON, D.C.—During a budgetary discussion Friday, Republican lawmakers announced a plan to pretend to be fiscally conservative again if a Democrat takes office again in 2020 or 2024.

The GOP said it would begin to decry deficit spending and the $20 trillion debt in order to win votes as soon as political power swung back to the opposing party.
“The second a Democrat is back in the White House, we will once again start yelling about fiscal responsibility,” Speaker Paul Ryan said in an address to the House of Representatives Friday. “For now, we will continue to vote for unsustainable and irresponsible budgets that your children’s children’s children will pay for for centuries to come.”

[CapnAwesome]

Lol. Some people sure seem to think so. Same with pointing out logical fallacies, it's actually just a sneaky way of people trying to feel smug and be smarter than the other person, not a dialog tool at all.

It also is something that has sprung almost entirely from the internet, internet forum people seem to think that philosophy and debate consists the of memorizing a list of logical fallacies and then pointing them out as frequently as possible and declaring victory, preferably with a really snarky meme.

I can certainly see where you are coming from, but also think that part of a good dialogue can be to point out where someone is thinking wrongly.  And hopefully it should add to the dialogue by either acknowledging or addressing the perceived mistake.  I do agree with your assessment, that it is not about pointing out every fallacy, and declaring gotcha!  Everyone makes mistakes, and it's not really about one argument, but the idea.

In theory you are right. In reality people just point them out to insult and feel superior. I'm not sure I've ever seen people point out logical fallacies productively in 10 years of being on the internet.

[RoadRunner79]

I can certainly see where you are coming from, but also think that part of a good dialogue can be to point out where someone is thinking wrongly.  And hopefully it should add to the dialogue by either acknowledging or addressing the perceived mistake.  I do agree with your assessment, that it is not about pointing out every fallacy, and declaring gotcha!  Everyone makes mistakes, and it's not really about one argument, but the idea.

In theory you are right. In reality people just point them out to insult and feel superior.  I'm not sure I've ever seen people point out logical fallacies productively in 10 years of being on the internet.

What would you consider as a way to point it out productively?   For me, I think there is some requirements on both parties at this point.  To first acknowledge the issue, and then progress appropriately from there, depending on if the perceived fallacy is to be contested, or acknowledged.   It's certainly not an end however; unless perhaps the fallacy was all there was to begin with (or they just get angry, and start calling you a nazi : )

[Amarok]

Awe the Nazi's racists  homophobes and other  assorted examples of human degeneracy don't like accurate wording and shut their brains off when properly labelled  . Buy me a violin so i can express my sadness over their hurt feelings 

[Neo-Scholastic]

IMHO the only way to change someones mind is to get to know them personally, show that you sincerely care about them, and actively listen to what they have to say. One they can see that you are a reasonable person, then, and only then is there a chance they might listen to what you have to say and give it serious consideration. My wife's family is a prime example. While they are very liberal, but I was able to reach them by showing them that I respected their fundamental values and helping them understand what would actually be required to implement those values and the problems / unintended consequences.

As a libertarian leaning person, I am open to the idea of minimal restrictions on the movements of people in the name of liberty. So they could see that we shared that as a value. And I also acknowledged that even a die-hard free-market advocate like Milton Friedman was not opposed to a social safety net provided it was done without strings attached as a means for social engineering. So basically, there were points of agreement. After that it took a while but they now understand that open borders and a generous social safety net are incompatible goals. At the same time, I learned a few things myself.

IMHO the anonymity of social media make it the least likely place to achieve any kind of mutual respect and agreement on just about anything. People cannot see your face or all the non-verbal cues that indicate sincerity. Text based communication is more likely than not to be interpreted with the least favorable tone. How many of use look at the religious views of new members before deciding how to respond? Why? It's only human to at least notice even if one is self aware enough to try and remain objective.