So, you're an American and you started a politics thread, and you're saying you don't know about Q-anon?

Let's start with something simple:

Do you think it's possible Trump actually won the election?

So, you're an American and you started a politics thread, and you're saying you don't know about Q-anon? — RogueAI

I've heard of them, but I don't know enough to speak anything of them. This discussion is about why people are increasingly losing their ability to converse about politics, not about the right or wrong about any specific issues per se. Why do you imply that I'm not allowed to start this political thread, and why is Q-anon that important?

I don't think it was a smart idea that the doubt cast for the election results by millions of people was ignored. Not because the election was fraudulent, but because it leaves the doubt stay on the people's minds.

I will be back again in a few hours.

My point in bringing up Q-anon is to contrast myself with Trump supporters because you kept claiming I might be ignorant about Q-anon being wrong and Sandy Hook being a false flag (I notice you didn't bring that one up). I'm not. Here are where Trump supporters and objective reality part ways:
- The election was not stolen
- Q-anon is bullshit
- Hillary Clinton is not a murderer
- Climate change is not a hoax
- Obama was an American citizen
- Sandy Hook really happened
- Masks work

And on and on.

So, to sum up, no, I'm not wrong about any of the above, it's all bullshit, and I don't want to have anything to do with the people who are stupid/crazy enough to believe that stuff.

Well the thing is that science does not purport to speak any truths. I'm assuming by "actual truths" you meant scientific theories. — FlaccidDoor

Is it a theory that the earth orbits the sun? Or is that the truth? And is that truth contrary to about half a dozen Biblical passages that claim "the earth fixed in the heavens"?

That's what I mean by:

we didn't switch out those presumed truths, when actual truths emerged. — counterpunch

If you think there's a better word than truth that I can use, please - suggest it. We both know that science does not claim absolute truth; and that officially, all scientific conclusions are provisional - for the possibility of further evidence.

But are you saying then, that science has got nothing right? Maybe it hasn't. Maybe all this is an illusion - and you and I are in fact, both brain in jars being fed sensory data we mistake for reality.

But the more likely explanation is it's true that the earth orbits the sun, and it's true that water is two parts hydrogen to one part oxygen, and that I was using the term truth colloquially - because there isn't another word that adequately conveys the epistemological complexities of scientific investigation.

So, as your objection to unavoidable terminology doesn't invalidate everything else I said in my post, can you respond to it properly now?

"More liberal than thou" liberals can be vicious, vituperative vipers. — Bitter Crank

Actually, my brother's Trump supporting South Carolinian parents in law are the most conservative when everyone is there. At our last reunion, someone allowed my outspoken liberal sister and daughter to sit next to them. It was painful and inconsiderate. My sister often doesn't think before she speaks. Actually, she does. That's probably the problem.

My point in bringing up Q-anon is to contrast myself with Trump supporters because you kept claiming I might be ignorant about Q-anon being wrong — RogueAI

I don't understand. I don't think I even came close to comparing you to Trump supporters, nor did I claim you might be ignorant of Q-anon. If I said anything close to comparing you to Trump supporters, it was when I mentioned a self destructive quote from Joe Biden. However I find it hard to believe that it's disagreeable.

To me, this seems similar to saying something like, "Those [insert race] is so stupid. They are all the same and wrong about everything." — FlaccidDoor

Perhaps this is what you're talking about, when I accused you of being the equivalent of a racist. I meant this to say that you are generalizing a large demographic to fit a narrow narrative for you to feel superior, like a bigoted racist might (understand that I believe race is a genetic factor too broad and too minor to affect any intellectual debate)

I have no clue where you might've thought that I was criticizing your knowledge about "Q-anon." I sincerely don't care and I thought it was a meme, much less anything of value.

So, to sum up, no, I'm not wrong about any of the above, it's all bullshit, and I don't want to have anything to do with the people who are stupid/crazy enough to believe that stuff. — RogueAI

So this is the thing. You haven't said anything that "sums up" to showing that you are not wrong about any of the above. You never actually talked about the contents of the topics you mentioned. You've only talked about what you imagined your political opponents thought of it.

Perhaps this is the very rage bait I was talking about. I will refrain from responding if I feel that we are making no progress about this topic.

Better to learn how to argue than to learn how to shut up. — Bitter Crank

You compare having opinions to claiming stakes over a territory. Do you believe that learning how to argue, even if it might cross another's territory is more worthwhile than to just learning how to shut up?

In other words, what do you think is the final destination for peoples with differing opinions?

My family is terrible. We all agree on everything. Our arguments are all about who can be more liberal. I tend to be the most conservative person in the room. I'll say something conciliatory about supporters of President Trump and I get beaten to a figurative pulp. — T Clark

I find that to be very funny, not to make fun of you, but it reminds me of my childhood. My family was Christian, and our family would have songs, bible lectures and prayers twice a week. The songs were fun enough, but the other two bored me out of my mind because I either couldn't understand it or I frankly disagreed with it. I was jealous of people who could be more zealous than me, because they spent their time in lecture and prayer in an almost orgasmic joy.

I'm not completely sure what made me think back to this from what you mentioned. Maybe it's the pain that we want to be blissfully unaware of the criticisms of our beliefs, but something inside us doesn't allow that. I know that whenever I chose to disagree, they would beat me down with "Christ's love."

Is it a theory that the earth orbits the sun? Or is that the truth? — counterpunch

Yes it is a theory, but perhaps I should change the framing of my argument. Have you ever been in a spaceship, and watched the sun, moon and earth move in relationship of each other, until you learned that it was in orbit? No? but you believe in the words of the scientists who calculated that you should? Obviously the concept of orbit is not just a result of basement dwelling scientists, but my point is, you have faith in the words of the literature those scientists produced, even though you have no experience to support that belief.

So, in my eyes you have faith, much like a Christian has faith in their God. Your faith may be placed into something more concrete than God in your eyes, but in the end you have faith in your own God nonetheless.

If you think there's a better word than truth that I can use, please - suggest it. We both know that science does not claim absolute truth [...] But are you saying then, that science has got nothing right? — counterpunch

I said that the "truth" should be called reliable ideas, if not just scientific theories, however, in practice, they can be close to "truths." There's little reason to think about events that only happen .001% of the time in real life after all. Claiming that science is too humble to boast about absolute truth though, is very different from saying that it is worthless.

Actually, my brother's Trump supporting South Carolinian parents in law are the most conservative when everyone is there. At our last reunion, someone allowed my outspoken liberal sister and daughter to sit next to them. It was painful and inconsiderate. My sister often doesn't think before she speaks. Actually, she does. That's probably the problem. — T Clark

I'm curious. Did your sister and your South Carolinian parents hate the experience? or was everyone else who had to deal with it the most hateful of the situation? I know when I had political conversation in my circle, while it may not have been explosive, I feel like my friends were those most distraught by it, with the mere thought of politics determining if the night was a failure or not.

There's a name for this psychological condition - cognitive dissonance. The fact that one may feel sorry for an adversary who's made it faer life's purpose to maim or kill you and, at the same time, one lashes out at one's own friend and family bespeaks a deep, underlying contradiction in one's worldview.

That said, this only if one takes it seriously enough but I suggest we cut ourselves some slack and take heed of the advice, "don't take life too seriously."

"don't take life too seriously." — TheMadFool

That is an intriguing idea. I have a hard time thinking of anything that is worth taking more seriously than life. If we don't take life seriously, can we take anything seriously? Conversely, if we can't take anything more seriously than life, can we take life any less seriously?

So I guess my question is, what do you mean "don't take life seriously?" Should I be considering suicide more (joking)?

Yes it is a theory, — FlaccidDoor

Are you mad?

Have you ever been in a spaceship, and watched the sun, moon and earth move in relationship of each other, — FlaccidDoor

It depend on what you mean by spaceship. Is not earth a spaceship? I have been on earth, and able to deduce by the movement of the planets - that the sun does not rise, but that earth moves in relation to the sun. I have done this - practically, to my intellectual satisfaction. By the same measure, I know the earth is round, and that water, induced by electric current, yields oxygen and hydrogen that are combustible. I have done these experiments. Are they not, thus, true? I think you're being silly, over the definition of the word; true.

"truth" should be called reliable ideas, if not just scientific theories, however, in practice, they can be close to "truths." — FlaccidDoor

There's little reason to think about events that only happen .001% of the time in real life after all. — FlaccidDoor

Are you aware, that's the precise number of arrest related deaths of black people in America? Yet I imagine, you - as a committed leftie anti-science bigot, think that's somehow significant when talking about the death of black people as a proportion of arrests, yet cite the same number as something that would otherwise go unnoticed. Fucking lefty anti-science bigots!

I should apoologise, for responding whilst drunk, but ... I'm drunk! I still believe the same things. Science is true. And you're a fucking idiot if you don't recognise that cleaving to science is our best shot at any kind of future. I'm sorry. I should log off for six to eight hours. I'm currently unqualified to comment.

However the philosophy forum is filled with people with just that, but even seem to be happy to continue butting heads for exactly that reason. If a community exists with only irreconcilable differences in opinion to bring them together, I don't see how they can't be accepted by friends or family. — FlaccidDoor

But people at a forum like this typically are not friends or family. We're not a community.
Discussing issues in a philosophical-ish manner is not conducive to friendship.

There's a saying: "You shouldn't discuss politics or religion in polite society." I add philosophy to the other two. Such discussion makes society impolite.

comment deleted.

Yay, for you're the one who is despaired!!

Uh?

That is an intriguing idea. I have a hard time thinking of anything that is worth taking more seriously than life. If we don't take life seriously, can we take anything seriously? Conversely, if we can't take anything more seriously than life, can we take life any less seriously?

So I guess my question is, what do you mean "don't take life seriously?" Should I be considering suicide more (joking)? — FlaccidDoor

I wanted to qualify the statement "don't take life too seriously" but I just left it as it was for effect. My point is those who complain about cognitive dissonance maybe committing the grave mistake of assuming the world is self-consistent. There's no evidence for that I'm afraid and in fact all the evidence seems to point in the opposite direction. I guess a much harsher response to those who want to seek and destroy all inconsistencies in their worldview would be "that's the way it (the world) is. live with it!"

You haven't said anything that "sums up" to showing that you are not wrong about any of the above. You never actually talked about the contents of the topics you mentioned.

Do you really need me to go over the Sandy Hook shooting to convince you it's not a "false flag" operation? No, you don't. Good day.

I have no memory of this....

Was I hacked?

Did your sister and your South Carolinian parents hate the experience? or was everyone else who had to deal with it the most hateful of the situation? — FlaccidDoor

My sister and my brother's parents-in-law were not talking to each other. My sister was just expressing her opinion forcefully to the whole table. They just sat there in silence. I think it probably bothered my brother most. I think he was humiliated.

bored me out of my mind — FlaccidDoor

I was raised as a Methodist, although my mother wasn't as devout as your family sounds. I have very vivid memories of sitting in the pews when I was about five, listening to the sermon and feeling like I was going to explode. I was a very high-energy child and I had no patience. Sitting still for that long was very painful.

I'm not completely sure what made me think back to this from what you mentioned. — FlaccidDoor

That happens to me all the time. I usually find that, even though it might not seem directly on-subject, it shares the tone or mood of the subject being discussed. That can be helpful, even if it isn't a perfect match.

It depend on what you mean by spaceship. Is not earth a spaceship? I have been on earth, and able to deduce by the movement of the planets — counterpunch

I guess you got me there. My argument really only works for theories you haven't confirmed for yourself, but instead put faith in, simply for its name in science. People do not have the time or capacity to be able to prove all scientific "truths" for themselves, but in practice have to put faith in scientists conducting the research and critically reviewing them: an act that, if time were to permit, should be done by each of us, to our satisfaction.

Yet I imagine, you - as a committed leftie anti-science bigot, think that's somehow significant when talking about the death of black people as a proportion of arrests, yet cite the same number as something that would otherwise go unnoticed [...] I should apoologise, for responding whilst drunk, but ... I'm drunk! — counterpunch

Understandable. I have an alcoholic side myself, however I would put aside your assumptions for my political leaning. In the same discussion I think I have someone accusing me of being a pro-Trump or pro Q-anon or something of the sort.

But people at a forum like this typically are not friends or family. We're not a community.
Discussing issues in a philosophical-ish manner is not conducive to friendship. [...] "You shouldn't discuss politics or religion in polite society." — baker

That's true. This community probably would disagree to the notion of being friends, and much less family. However if a community can exist with only disagreements to hold it together, why can't it simply exist in friends and family? I personally feel like friends or at least family is far from polite society.

Do you really need me to go over the Sandy Hook shooting to convince you it's not a "false flag" operation? No, you don't. Good day. — RogueAI

So you're confident in your knowledge in Sandy Hook! I was going to address it but I ran out of time earlier. Unfortunately I'm clueless to this event but I'd be happy to hear out an explanation of why this is relevant.

However I don't think a convincing perspective over Sandy Hook changes the argument over the other topics you mentioned. I suppose you feel that i'm trying to convince you that having your opinions about politics is wrong. I really couldn't care less who you voted for or your political leanings were. Thus I don't care if you're actually right or wrong on these subjects. What I'm trying to say though, is that you seem to have a zealous faith in either the sources of information your getting on these, or some magical power that makes your political opponents automatically wrong.

How do you have such strong faith in your opinions? I always find myself skeptical and I can't relate.

My sister and my brother's parents-in-law were not talking to each other. My sister was just expressing her opinion forcefully to the whole table. They just sat there in silence. — T Clark

I guess it turned out to be a one sided speech than any conversation. That's unfortunate.

I was raised as a Methodist, although my mother wasn't as devout as your family sounds. — T Clark

I want to clarify that my family didn't actually beat me in the name of Christ's love. Rather if and when I showed doubt over some religious claim, it felt like the conversation was just drowned out by it.

I have no memory of this....

Was I hacked? — counterpunch

You remind me of a character in an anime I'm watching. I enjoy it.

I'm sorry about that comment. I apologise to you, the mods, and the site. I was drunk, and as you said, despairing. That's not an excuse, but rather to say I recognise this isn't the place to be when drunk! No more drunk philosophy from me! Sorry.

However if a community can exist with only disagreements to hold it together — FlaccidDoor

No, what "holds a philosophy discussion forum together" is a measure of commitment by its members to a very specific tradition of discussing things in a specific way.

why can't it simply exist in friends and family? I personally feel like friends or at least family is far from polite society.

Sure, friends and esp. family sometimes are not "polite society", but they are not intended to be a philosophy discussion forum and don't serve that purpose.