He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them. But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion… Nor is it enough that he should hear the opinions of adversaries from his own teachers, presented as they state them, and accompanied by what they offer as refutations. He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them…he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.
- John Stuart Mill
Everything. My default position is disagreement.
Ha, very fair. I think a good number of friends would say the same about me. I think they’re wrong ;)
oh no. me, too!
I sometimes skim Breitbart just to see what the current talking points and bugbears are. Calling it news is a stretch, though - I find that it better fits the definition of a blog.
Good definition.
And you’re a better person than I am, I tried a few times but felt really icky really quickly.
I just gotta believe there’s something that offers a coherent defense of their positions without (or at least, with less of) the absolute craziness. Foreign policy ones, sure, Foreign Affairs works. But for a defense of say, trump’s immigration strategy or something, I’d love to have what the National Review used to be arguing for it, just to know what I’m missing.
I just gotta believe there’s something that offers a coherent defense of their positions without (or at least, with less of) the absolute craziness.
Let me know if you find it. At this point I sincerely believe I’m not missing anything, and that’s a sad thought.
The Economist
Ha, fair. I generally go about 60/40 on the agree disagree ratio with them but I really respect the way they articulate their views.
I don’t have an answer to your question, but I love your John Stuart Mill quote. I’ve just had a barrage of comments trying to rip me apart for suggesting that a political opponent’s position should be understood; and no comprehension of the point this quote puts across really well.
The membership of Lemmy is overly-emotional, flibbertigibbety infants, as a rule. It’s disheartening. It’s the mainstream. Bobbleheads as far as the eye can see.
I’ve just had a barrage of comments trying to rip me apart for suggesting that a political opponent’s position should be understood
Ironically, I’ve never understood the mindset of those commenters. How can you argue against something, or even know if you should argue against it, without knowing what “it” even is?
I generally go a step further than believing that every argument should be understood, and say that every argument should be considered as well. You shouldn’t reject an argument purely because it gives you bad vibes. If it’s obviously wrong, it should be obvious why it’s wrong. In practice you don’t always have time to engage with someone promoting obviously dumb ideas, but you should at least yourself know why you consider them to be wrong. I call this “radical possibilism” because you always consider the possibility that an argument is correct.
They like it or hate it. There is flocking behavior too. Simple. Pretty easy to model, no doubt.
You might like this podcast: https://youarenotsosmart.com/
This guy has done a lot of great work in trying to understand how conspiracy thinking works, how minds can change, how arriving at a state of “knowing” is an emotional state (and not a rational one), how biases change people thinking, etc.
Thanks, sounds interesting! Maybe this will be the one that finally gets me to check out podcasts :)
He has written a book if you prefer to read
Glad you liked it, It’s one of my favourites.
Sorry about the barrage of unfun comments. The internet is so wonderful and so goddamn annoying at the same time eh?
Thanks. Comments don’t really bother me. It would be a hard life trying to use social media without thick skin.
But your quote came at a good time to make the point I was looking to make.
For your question about news, I would highly recommend using an RSS app. Whichever news source you use, its much better when you get your news in time order instead of their stupidly curated website front pages.
Speaking as a person who’s skin is as thin as rice paper, we ragequit daily.
Can you suggest an rss app for someone who is tech dumb?
I only use it on android, but there are RSS apps on every platform.
I think Pluma is the best.
Of you care about it being free and open source, then “Read You” on f-droid.
If you search for RSS on any app store it will give you lots of options and you can look through screenshots to see what you like.
RSS is a great idea, not sure why I haven’t done that. Maybe I’ll set one up this weekend!
Thanks!
NYT. I wouldn’t say I generally disagree with them, but I disagree with them a lot.
Breaking Points. I disagree with the conservatives on there, but respect them. They are smart and rational, and often make good points.
Ooooooh, thank you! That sounds exactly like what I was hoping for!
Glad I helped, hope you find it engaging!
I read the Financial Times despite being on the left but I find that useful because they don’t cover DC drama unless it legitimately matters. I’m not at all interested in broadening my horizons by reading American conservative bullshit. I already know what they’re going to say. I prefer to read new perspectives. To give an example, I’d rather read a novel by an African woman than learn what propaganda Fox News is pushing. I just don’t care anymore.
“Merely having an open mind is nothing. The object of opening the mind, as of opening the mouth, is to shut it again on something solid.”
— G.K. Chesterton
Oh no, I wouldn’t recommend Fox or Newsmax or the ilk on anyone.
But I do like to understand what the best version of things I disagree with are. Wider perspectives are important but if I agree with all of them? I dunno, it feels intellectually lazy to me. That’s why I’m asking! I’d like to find something akin to what the National Review used to be.
Otherwise, to me at least, there’s a very real danger of becoming the kind of person who writes off everyone who disagrees with me as ignorant, bigoted or evil. Which, in my opinion, isn’t a great way to live. Though, admittedly, I’ve always found those “everything is black or white” folks to be insufferably boring so maybe I’m just trying to not be that person instead of any high minded ideal.
Sorry I’m tired and rambling while pooping.
Not all opinions are inherently valid or valuable though. That’s the Paradox of Tolerance. You do eventually have to draw a line, because some people will use the benefit of the doubt to dismantle democracy
Though, admittedly, I’ve always found those “everything is black or white” folks to be insufferably boring so maybe I’m just trying to not be that person instead of any high minded ideal.
I appreciate this level of introspection. I think you’re right to keep an open mind and to seek a broader view of the issues, but don’t be afraid for the conclusion you draw to be that someone or some opinion is ignorant, bigoted, or hateful. You should be open to any possibility… but as anticlimactic as it is, sometimes something really is black or white; that’s a possibility just like any other. Understanding why someone hateful thinks the way they do is useful, but it doesn’t change the fact that they are.
TL;DR: If you never consider other viewpoints, you’ll never find the right one, but if you never stop considering them, you’ll never find the right one either. I wish you luck in your pursuit of knowledge.
Meh. He shoulda quit while he was ahead.
The only news site I follow is my country’s equivalent of the BBC, which leans left. Lemmy also skews heavily to the left, but the podcasts I listen to tend to be more centrist or center-right from my perspective - though some might argue that someone like Joe Rogan is far-right, which I disagree with.
I don’t align myself with any particular side. I form my opinions on an issue-by-issue basis rather than adopting the beliefs of “my side” - whatever that may be - as a package deal. I’ve been on the right, and I’ve been on the left, but I’ve since settled somewhere in the middle. I feel like I have a fairly accurate understanding of both perspectives and can often argue for most hot topics from either side’s point of view.
I don’t align myself with any particular side. I form my opinions on an issue-by-issue basis rather than adopting the beliefs of “my side” - whatever that may be - as a package deal.
I’d like to think that most people do this, but unfortunately I know better. I would like to say, however, that it’s possible to make your own independent decisions about each issue, have them align with one party more than the other, and then identify with the party that your views align with. As long as your views define your party, rather than your party defining your views, there is nothing wrong with identifying with the party that you’re closest to.
In the US and I read mountains of business and economic news,much of most of it assumes the reader supports and agrees with the underlying premises of cronie capitalism. It’s a really helpful way to understand how businesses operate, think and where economy and society will be driven.
I used to read the National Review and disagree with 9/10 articles but after Krauthammer died, they went crazy on the trump train.
Foreign Affairs sort of counts? A lot of people with whom I disagree publish essays there…
The Economist, I go 50/50.
I dunno. I’d like the most plausible and persuasive form of the Conservative argument, I’ve got Conservative friends but I don’t think that’s really enough.
What are you trying to understand about conservatives? Like they believe in a hierarchy and follow a type of virtue ethics. Conservative brains are more fearful and less open.
If you want to understand conservative’s then just look at things through their view of stuff. For example, take Jan. 6 and the different interpretations presented. Conservative news just censors any actual coverage and just makes stuff up to serve their goals. So we get stuff like people were invited in by the cops and the only person who died that day was the girl that got herself shot. While completely ignoring the obstruction the Trump admin engaged in to ensure there was a delayed response to the assault on the Capitol.
Or just look at the coverage to both 2016 candidates mishandling classified documents. I know conservatives that couldn’t vote for H dawg because she mishandled those documents. Then eight years later they have no issue voting for Trump who stored documents in public areas of his resort and worked to obstruct the investigation into said handling. Why the different responses? Because conservatives believe in a hierarchy and their leaders can do no wrong.
Sorry for the essay.
This is pretty much exactly the mindset I’m trying to avoid.
I’d note you could just as easily flip the 2016 classified documents business. A Conservative could plausibly argue that Liberals were willing to vote for someone being investigated for mishandling classified documents when it was their person, but once it was trump it became a serious voting issue. (I tend to disagree, I think trump’s were a lot worse but I can absolutely see the logic of their case.)
lemmy
My day one bottom bitch, as Butters would call it, for news source I don’t always agree with but love: Jon Stewart. I lean right, especially back when The Daily Show was airing with Jon Stewart. Never mattered tho, always loved his perspective and wish I could list the amount of shit he’s brought to my attention or changed my stance on.
Distrowatch
Tbh, whatever pops up on lemmy for the most part. I’m right wing, it’s pretty easy to follow the left and lurk the news communities.
Although, it’s not being persuasive, it’s more disgusting and horrifying that my fellow human beings think these ways.
Ahaha, I glanced at this earlier before diving into work stuff and thought you’d have a lot more angry replies to you!
Among a lot of folks, I’m the crazy liberal hippy do gooder but I gotta say, a good amount of Lemmy kind of worries me. Though, I suppose I attract the crazy by having the temerity to explain or defend Conservative positions, even when I disagree with them.
In the spirit of this post (understanding the other side’s perspective), could you explain what thoughts you consider disgusting/horrifying and why?
My main thing is the illegal immigration thing. When the left says they need illegal immigrants to pick crops, what comes to my mind is 1850s American south, with slavery. The south claimed they needed slaves to pick crops, and now it’s being echoed by the modern left wing.
If farmers paid good wages, they’d get workers. And I’d rather pay extra for ethically grown and harvested crops. I already do to some extent.
That is kinda fucked up isn’t it?
National Review, The Economist, Drudge
