Peoples political views are mostly dependent on their social environment, aka their parents, teachers, friends.

If this was accurate, I'd be the biggest leftist on this planet. :ppppp

But srsly, it's kinda sad that other people shift you toward something and you end up with no choice.

Railey2 wrote:

Fuck, do you really believe someone can change his opinion in this environment? You can affect maybe one out of a 1000 people, at best. You're just arguing for your own sake here, and you know it.

Huh, I honestly haven't seen it that way.

I've certainly let myself get too pissed off sometimes when replying to B1rd's stuff for example, but for the most part I try to make arguments that are consistent and logical so that anyone reading it could see that and perhaps agree with my side over his. I think forums (and the internet in general) are DEFINITELY a part of people's "social environment", and that just because there are all kinds of opinions you can find on forums, that doesn't completely invalidate the effect that they can have on people's political views. Hell, I'm pretty sure a large amount of the right-wing shift in the last few years has been influenced by the internet, especially places like reddit (which, granted, have a much better setup for creating their own 'safe spaces' where people can go and feel validated for any opinion they could want.)

Your view of things is quite a lot more cynical than mine. That said, though, you may have a point in that nothing posted here specifically will affect people, since it's more of a dedicated userbase with already-decided opinions. Maybe I have been wasting my time there, I'm not sure.

I think forums (and the internet in general) are DEFINITELY a part of people's "social environment"

Interesting.

Feel like internet just make us more stubborn when it comes to politics, nothing more.

I'm a Libertarian, not because I've always been around Libertarian people, but because I've been around authoritarian people and it's bred a dislike for them. It's only because of the internet that I've been able to consolidate my views. If I were simply a product of my social environment, I definitely wouldn't a be Libertarian. And even within my "own camp", there are still constant arguments and debates. Though of course one would tend to associate more with one's own group, the large majority of people have little maturity and can't engage in civil discussion without attacking other people with an "us vs them" mentality, even though I do spend most of my time on non-libertarian forums, no one wants to get shat on constantly.

And I'm not under any illusions that arguments on the internet are the best way to "convince people". "Convincing people" is more about social posturing and sophistry than the quality of one's arguments. I like talking about politics and philosophy, I do not like to be a politician who's job is to get the crowd on their side (a.k.a redditors). One of the reasons I'm against Democracy. However, there are a minority of people who can argue in good faith and who will actually learn something and change their opinions form a rational debate.

And I'm sure Railey thinks he's the only one who doesn't have a confirmation bias, when he is no better at most people when it comes to personal attacks. Which is why I don't bother arguing with him anymore because that is always the result.

@vipper

This forum is of course a social environment, but

a) if you have a life, its effect on you will most likely weaker than the effect of other environments you're in
b) the forum is super fragmented. What usually happens here is, that people pick the group that you already feel close to instead of opening up to alternative lines of reasoning. Cue Mahogany.
What happens when you enter a platform that is basically a political battleground? You become more set in your own ways.

Don't get me wrong here, vipper: i would agree that many communities on the internet shape (especially young) peoples political views to great effect. Take for example the streamer you linked earlier, Destiny.
Someone right-leaning might join his stream for the gaming side of things, start to identify with him and then suddenly become involved in his political content. That's powerful.
But i doubt that something like that could ever happen here, because we don't provide that sort of streamlined community.

if you want to be effective, you really shouldn't argue HERE. Try somewhere else, maybe Destiny's community would be a good place. People that don't agree with him but still like his streams would actually be open for some compelling arguments.
if you want to change peoples minds, you need to separate them from people that agree with them.

My parents were Conservative Baptists? You learn something new every day.

B1rd wrote:

My parents were Conservative Baptists? You learn something new every day.

i guess not, huh
forget what i said then



To sum up my point nicely:

Group membership is (to most people) a stronger force than any rational argument.

it follows that if you want to be effective, you have to talk to people that are separated from their group.

You can't be separated from your group on OT, because the whole spectrum is represented here.

Therefore, OT isn't a good place to try and change peoples minds.

I just like to debate stuff like this to expose myself to opposing opinions to expand my mindset

Unfortunately I just end up dealing with people like b1rd who just prove I've always been right all along

Mahogany wrote:

I just like to debate stuff like this to expose myself to opposing opinions to expand my mindset

Unfortunately I just end up dealing with people like b1rd who just prove I've always been right all along

exactly my point, mahogany

I thought your point was that we were trying to convince outside observers that we are correct rather than each other

Mahogany wrote:

I thought your point was that we were trying to convince outside observers that we are correct rather than each other

Point 1:

Group membership is (to most people) a stronger force than any rational argument.
it follows that if you want to be effective, you have to talk to people that are separated from their group.
You can't be separated from your group on OT, because the whole spectrum is represented here.
Therefore, OT isn't a good place to try and change peoples minds.

Consequentially, Point 2:
if you're aware of Point 1 and still participate in debates here, you do so for your own sake, not for the sake of ''convincing others'' (as that would be pointless).
i only post here cause its fun.


When i said ''exactly my point'' in my response to you, i meant that you seem to be one of these people that value group membership over everything else. You can't bear talking to B1rd (member of a different group) for even a second, you put him down right away, regardless of context.

You can't use logic to make someone change their opinion if they didn't arrive at that opinion through logic. If someone simply changes their opinion by being in a different social group, it means they never had a rational basis for their ideas in the first place, and were just doing it for social acceptance. It's not so much an issue of the social groups themselves, rather it's the people who make up those social groups. If you are in a hugbox like Reddit, where opposing opinions aren't tolerated, most of the people there aren't there because of a desire for intellectual betterment, but rather a desire to fit in with a certain group (which is a characteristic of most people). If you transplanted one of the people from one of those groups they might change, but it would only be a superficial change. I've been to these hugboxes, it doesn't change the fact that it's a "battle", it just changes the amount of people on "my team" so it's me verses everyone.

So, changing someone else opinion might be rare, but it's still possible, it's just dependent upon finding the right person. The prerequisite for having a productive debate is mutual respect. As soon as it turns into a "battle", any chance for mutual benefit has gone. That's why it's largely pointless to debate people who engage in ad hominem is largely pointless, not to mention not very fun. Though it is true that debates can be a benefit to oneself even if it isn't for the other party.

B1rd wrote:

You can't use logic to make someone change their opinion if they didn't arrive at that opinion through logic. If someone simply changes their opinion by being in a different social group, it means they never had a rational basis for their ideas in the first place, and were just doing it for social acceptance. It's not so much an issue of the social groups themselves, rather it's the people who make up those social groups. If you are in a hugbox like Reddit, where opposing opinions aren't tolerated, most of the people there aren't there because of a desire for intellectual betterment, but rather a desire to fit in with a certain group (which is a characteristic of most people). If you transplanted one of the people from one of those groups they might change, but it would only be a superficial change.

That's exactly my point, B1rd: Humans are social beings, and for most people social groups have a profound impact on what they will and will not think.
Social acceptance is a stronger factor than rationality, otherwise bullshit like religion couldn't be thriving for thousands of years - obviously rationality has nothing to do with it.

But this is not superficial, in fact i'd say that it is quite the opposite: it runs very very deep. An opinion that is the result of someones socialization is usually much harder to change than an opinion that was formed rationally.

The former needs a lot of hard work, potentially the formation of a completely new social environment, while the latter just needs... a better argument. So if you manage to turn someone's opinion around using a socialization process, it's usually the opposite of a superficial change.

Hence why its most effective to try and convince people that are already one foot in a new social environment, such as the right-leaning person that enjoys Destiny's stream.

B1rd wrote:

So, changing someone else opinion might be rare, but it's still possible, it's just dependent upon finding the right person. The prerequisite for having a productive debate is mutual respect. As soon as it turns into a "battle", any chance for mutual benefit has gone. That's why it's largely pointless to debate people who engage in ad hominem is largely pointless, not to mention not very fun. Though it is true that debates can be a benefit to oneself even if it isn't for the other party.

i agreed 100 percent.
if you find someone using ad-hominems, its usually a sign that they value the protection of their group higher than the pursue of truth (if they valued truth higher, they'd try using arguments instead of insults)

ACTUALLY
i don't think that respect is needed, so i guess its not 100 percent. But still.

It's ironic that b1rd says that when all he's ever cared about is shitting on my opinion

Mahogany wrote:

It's ironic that b1rd says that when all he's ever cared about is shitting on my opinion

From what I've seen he's simply arguing against your opinion because they contradict his own.

Mahogany wrote:

It's ironic that b1rd says that when all he's ever cared about is shitting on my opinion

B1rd is actually really polite in discussions (for internet-standards), even when his opponents raise him hell.

You are the one thats always shitting on him every chance you get, even when the discussion about something that should be completely unrelated to your political disagreements.

Even right now you try to make an ad-hominem argument, or at least i assume that you're trying for that.
You're calling him a hypocrite, even though that has nothing to do with what B1rd and i are discussing.

Railey2 wrote:

Even right now you try to make an ad-hominem argument, or at least i assume that you're trying for that.

Excuse me, I'm just pointing out a fact? That would make you the one with an ad-hominem here, friendo.

Hah, I knew it would boil down to this. You guys never learn. :p

Mahogany wrote:

Railey2 wrote:

Even right now you try to make an ad-hominem argument, or at least i assume that you're trying for that.

Excuse me, I'm just pointing out a fact? That would make you the one with an ad-hominem here, friendo.

Well if you say you didn't mean it as ad hominem then fair enough, but its still clear as day that you're very hostile towards B1rd.

As soon as someone with radically different views rolls in you stop discussing and start fighting. This becomes really clear when you say anything about B1rd.

if you were interested in rational argument you'd be way more open (like daddyvipper, for example). But instead you just flat out insult him every single time you see him. This is because you're not actually interested in hearing what B1rd has to say, you're just interested in protecting your socio-political identity by being as aggressive as you can to anyone that challenges it.

if i started expressing views from the other side of the spectrum, you'd probably start insulting me too. Even if i was very polite to you.

Railey2 wrote:

but its still clear as day that you're very hostile towards B1rd.

Hostile? Absolutely, he's treated me like shit before our political views even clashed, so he deserves my full ire.

Railey2 wrote:

As soon as someone with radically different views rolls in you stop discussing and start fighting. This becomes really clear when you say anything about B1rd.

I actually can't discuss anything with b1rd because he has me blocked, man. If more decent people with still opposing opinions like Foxtrot posted about it more often you'd see that side of me more often, too. It just so happens that b1rd is the only person here being an asshole about it.

Railey2 wrote:

if i started expressing views from the other side of the spectrum, you'd probably start insulting me too. Even if i was very polite to you.

Well, yes, of course. Do you really expect a gay man to let homophobes advocate for violence? A black man to let racists advocate for oppression? A woman to let sexists advocate for abuse? It doesn't matter how polite you are about it, it's about what you're saying.
And before it becomes an issue this isn't me shitting on "libertarians" like b1rd, this is me shitting on nazis or as they call themselves "alt-right", because that's how I interpret "the other side of the spectrum" relative to you. Even though b1rd has shown support for the same movement.

well fuck me

Aurani wrote:

Hah, I knew it would boil down to this. You guys never learn. :p

fuck me

xD

To put it bluntly, I have an assumption about Mahogany- I think he's had enough bad experiences with B1rd to hold a grudge against him, deciding to try and give him shit wherever he can after what happened in the past.

I don't know you guys' history, though, so this is really just an assumption. I think for your sake (@Mahogany) that you should probably try to lay off the insults about him as a person and instead attack his arguments, since that's more appealing as a viewer, I guess.


Also, something interesting is that everyone talks about how convincing people isn't necessarily a matter of a good argument. While I agree that good, consistent, logical arguments aren't necessary to change people's opinions, and it's probably more effective to appeal to their emotion or to be a dominant social group, I REALLY detest that kind of way of changing people's opinions. I think that logical, consistent arguments are so important/valuable that I only really want to use those when it comes to 'convincing' people, and I feel like anything else is just cheap and... well, gross, honestly.

It reminds me of something they showed on the news recently, where they interviewed someone who ran a twitter account discussing Corbyn and May's clothing (UK elections). They said "While in a perfect world people would vote only on policies, we're embracing the reality that people care more about populism, and the personality of the person being voted for! So we feel that this kind of thing is important in the modern political landscape."

Things like that honestly make me *sick*. I have a massive distate for anything that isn't relatively emotionally-disconnected rationality when it comes to politics, I guess.

In general, i'm done with the politics discussion

same

This thread doesn't look like the spawn of OT at all
It's like a different place
Maybe frozen in time from an era long forgotten

Not the OT i came to see when I first arrived, thats for sure

abraker wrote:

This thread doesn't look like the spawn of OT at all
It's like a different place
Maybe frozen in time from an era long forgotten

Plenty of not-new-generation people posting here, that's why, I guess!

You know what? I'm fucking tired of this shit. I'm tired of oldfags shitting on newfags in an attempt to make their petty lives seem more important than what they really are. This is the reason I stopped playing Hearthstone and the reason I stopped using reddit. They are both so circlejerky and are unfriendly to newcomers, and I eventually got fed up with their shit. The difference in this community is that they are at least remotely willing to let new people into their circlejerk.

Stop labeling all newfags as cancer. Some of them are, but you shouldn't apply the term like a blanket, covering anyone who hasn't been here for two years or more. Without new people a community dies, I don't even have to mention tuuba to you all so you'll understand what I'm talking about. Stop having this "patriarchal" attitude that you all have. Just because you have wasted five fucking years of your life on this stupid forum doesn't mean you're better than someone who signed up last year.

Oh dang

you stopped using reddit cause of circlejerking? not sure why that affects people so much but i can't spend a day on the internet without visiting r/mfa, r/streetwear, r/sneakers, r/nba, and r/soccer so that must be tough

johnmedina999 wrote:

You know what? I'm fucking tired of this shit. I'm tired of oldfags shitting on newfags in an attempt to make their petty lives seem more important than what they really are. This is the reason I stopped playing Hearthstone and the reason I stopped using reddit. They are both so circlejerky and are unfriendly to newcomers, and I eventually got fed up with their shit. The difference in this community is that they are at least remotely willing to let new people into their circlejerk.

Stop labeling all newfags as cancer. Some of them are, but you shouldn't apply the term like a blanket, covering anyone who hasn't been here for two years or more. Without new people a community dies, I don't even have to mention tuuba to you all so you'll understand what I'm talking about. Stop having this "patriarchal" attitude that you all have. Just because you have wasted five fucking years of your life on this stupid forum doesn't mean you're better than someone who signed up last year.

...uh

I just mentioned that the thread had a different tone since it had more 'oldfags', wasn't intending to shit on anyone

DaddyCoolVipper wrote:

...uh

I just mentioned that the thread had a different tone since it had more 'oldfags', wasn't intending to shit on anyone

You might not have meant it, but you said it. The gist of your post:

RoseusJaeger wrote:

Not the OT i came to see when I first arrived, thats for sure

DaddyCoolVipper wrote:

It's because these newfags are shitting the place up, that's why, I guess!

Also, you're not the only part of the problem. It's all the regulars of this thread, the oldfags. I intended to post something like this when the discussion was up about a week ago, but I couldn't.

I think the reason older users hate newer users is because of the age difference. In a game like osu, new players are usually young (13-15 years old) so if you joined this community 5 or 6 years ago, even if you were 13 at the time you'd be an adult right now which means in general you'll be more mature than people new to the game. That's why the usually childish behavior of newcomers annoys old members of the community.

Jump off the bridge haha mem Xd

It doesn't matter because it's a god damn forum; let the oldfags hate and let the newfags cause cancer and vice versa. Please.

Zain Sugieres wrote:

I think the reason older users hate newer users is because of the age difference. In a game like osu, new players are usually young (13-15 years old) so if you joined this community 5 or 6 years ago, even if you were 13 at the time you'd be an adult right now which means in general you'll be more mature than people new to the game. That's why the usually childish behavior of newcomers annoys old members of the community.

That is a good point; however, seeing as the older users were once just as cringy as they see the newer users, they should be more tolerant with them, because again, without them, this community would die. It's not their fault they were born in 2003 and not in 1995.

johnmedina999 wrote:

Stop labeling all newfags as cancer. Some of them are, but you shouldn't apply the term like a blanket, covering anyone who hasn't been here for two years or more.

...but you're perfectly fine with doing the reverse?

Respect is a two-way system.

johnmedina999 wrote:

You might not have meant it, but you said it. The gist of your post:

RoseusJaeger wrote:

Not the OT i came to see when I first arrived, thats for sure

DaddyCoolVipper wrote:

It's because these newfags are shitting the place up, that's why, I guess!

Also, you're not the only part of the problem. It's all the regulars of this thread, the oldfags. I intended to post something like this when the discussion was up about a week ago, but I couldn't.

Definitely reading too much into what I said. Unlike a lot of people, I'm not that overly nostalgic about how OT used to be.

I understand that you're just taking the opportunity to have this discussion now since you didn't (want to?) earlier, though.

Tae wrote:

johnmedina999 wrote:

Stop labeling all newfags as cancer. Some of them are, but you shouldn't apply the term like a blanket, covering anyone who hasn't been here for two years or more.

...but you're perfectly fine with doing the reverse?

I never did that. I said the regulars of this thread. I can point out many people who are oldfags but at least tolerate newfags. abraker and levesterz are prime examples.

DaddyCoolVipper wrote:

Definitely reading too much into what I said. Unlike a lot of people, I'm not that overly nostalgic about how OT used to be.

I understand that you're just taking the opportunity to have this discussion now since you didn't (want to?) earlier, though.

I was silenced.