Current Affairs The Landmarks of Slavery;

Status
Not open for further replies.
tsubaki said:
Not really, because for that to be the literal opposite of what I said there you'd have had to have voted against the orthodoxy for 15 of those 20 years.

As for the rest of your post, this is exactly what you criticise others for doing - its based on you being right and the people you disagree with being wrong, without any real evidence being presented either way.

I'd have thought years in this forum taking part in the threads about Labour, about anti-semitism and various other issues would have tought you that there are wide variations amongst peoples opinions, but it seems not.

Finally - in relation to Gervais - to echo @dead_soft I do think its bizarre that the people who shout loudest about free speech are the ones who have the most access to it.
Click to expand...

No, as that would be just as orthodox in the opposite direction - anything in power, vote against.

And no, I don't think I'm right - I'm saying I have the ability to never be sure I'm right and be able to adapt and take on arguments. Even with the statues, or the debate on the etymology of racist words and so on, I'm always ready to go "I never thought of it like that".

Be honest, no matter what comes out of, say, Nigel Farage's mouth, you aren't prepared to give him an inch are you?

That's the difference. I'm not saying I'm right; I'm saying people should be more willing to admit when they're wrong and adjust.
 
Blueclouds said:
Not a fan of this. They have been selfish in these protests. We shouldn't be rewarding this behaviour.
Click to expand...

The worst was defacing the Churchill Statue and now the Govt covering it up - forget about the person had it not been his contribution amongst the USSR/USA these protesters would have been trying to set fire to the swastika hanging from the cenotaph except their would have been no protesters and their certainly would have been no black lives matter movement or any black movements at all.

Whole thing has been a mess and the Tories have shown no backbone dealing with the trouble causers.
 
Last edited:
Tubey said:
No, as that would be just as orthodox in the opposite direction - anything in power, vote against.

And no, I don't think I'm right - I'm saying I have the ability to never be sure I'm right and be able to adapt and take on arguments. Even with the statues, or the debate on the etymology of racist words and so on, I'm always ready to go "I never thought of it like that".

Be honest, no matter what comes out of, say, Nigel Farage's mouth, you aren't prepared to give him an inch are you?

That's the difference. I'm not saying I'm right; I'm saying people should be more willing to admit when they're wrong and adjust.
Click to expand...

What? Everyone here not called pete has (and has shown) that ability to adapt and take on arguments, even @davek. Your issue is that people aren't doing it now, in the light of whatever it is you are saying.

With regards to the likes of Farage, when he says something that is worth agreeing with then I will probably agree with him. Has he said something you agree with lately?
 
Tubey said:
No, not free speech - just the ability to debate and grow.

You proved everything I said in that post with that sentence. It was easier to dismiss what he said as a "pub bore" and not even bother listen to it than try to genuinely extract anything from it of value. Because you'd already decided it wasn't a source of information you'd agree with so it wasn't worth your time.

I honestly couldn't have responded in any way but to highlight that sentence - it said all that needed to be said.
Click to expand...

I literally went on to write about the issues and try and discuss with you. It’s an odd thing to get upset about. I tried to listen and it was clear where it was going and he wasn’t saying anything new.

You really bizarrely keep trying to say everyone’s wrong because they don’t listen to the issues or discuss them but you’ve repeatedly been the most dogmatic and lacking in engagement with the actual issues.
 
dead_soft said:
I literally went on to write about the issues and try and discuss with you. It’s an odd thing to get upset about. I tried to listen and it was clear where it was going and he wasn’t saying anything new.

You really bizarrely keep trying to say everyone’s wrong because they don’t listen to the issues or discuss them but you’ve repeatedly been the most dogmatic and lacking in engagement with the actual issues.
Click to expand...

I gave you two examples in the original post - "boomer" and "gammon" - to show how the art of debate is lost and the attempt to simply dismiss is preferred. Even in regards to Gervais in the last hour, because he's rich and has "more access to free speech", what he says can be dismissed too.

You then asked for evidence of how society has broken down. I gave you Trump and Brexit just to scratch the surface.

The answers to your questions are already there; you don't want to see them because you need to disagree with me. Not actually disagree with me; need to, because of your defined political identity, to the point where you think I'm being "dogmatic and lacking in engagement with the actual issues" despite quite literally arguing against people doing that!!! Because you quite literally don't want to see it. Because I'm not bending to your view, you think I'm the one being too rigid.

It's a form of mental gymnastics and it really is a feature of how people 'debate' for want of a better word now.
 
tsubaki said:
What? Everyone here not called pete has (and has shown) that ability to adapt and take on arguments, even @davek. Your issue is that people aren't doing it now, in the light of whatever it is you are saying.

With regards to the likes of Farage, when he says something that is worth agreeing with then I will probably agree with him. Has he said something you agree with lately?
Click to expand...

Sort of wish I did, I'd able to bloody make sense of him then. He's painfully effective at what he does.
 
Tubey said:
I gave you two examples in the original post - "boomer" and "gammon" - to show how the art of debate is lost and the attempt to simply dismiss is preferred. Even in regards to Gervais in the last hour, because he's rich and has "more access to free speech", what he says can be dismissed too.

You then asked for evidence of how society has broken down. I gave you Trump and Brexit just to scratch the surface.

The answers to your questions are already there; you don't want to see them because you need to disagree with me. Not actually disagree with me; need to, because of your defined political identity, to the point where you think I'm being "dogmatic and lacking in engagement with the actual issues" despite quite literally arguing against people doing that!!! Because you quite literally don't want to see it. Because I'm not bending to your view, you think I'm the one being too rigid.

It's a form of mental gymnastics and it really is a feature of how people 'debate' for want of a better word now.
Click to expand...

People have always used throwaway lines to envelop groups. It’s nowhere new, it’s just those particular words are. I’m not saying some people don’t dismiss others, I just don’t think it’s any more rife.
Gervais isn’t dismissed because he’s rich, it’s because he’s a living breathing embodiment of the freedoms he says are no longer available.

I disagreed with you. I engaged with your point but I don’t feel you put up enough of an argument for them. Yet you feel because I can’t see this it’s because of some failing on my part. This is because you clearly think the argument you make is right and everyone else must have bad faith in order to disagree. I just don’t get how you can’t see that.

You are arguing against people being dogmatic whilst being dogmatic! That’s the exact point. I’m not wildly bothered if you change to my opinion, I think debate is important and interesting. I certainly won’t try and suggest the other person is somehow lacking just because they disagree.

I’d also rather this wasn’t about the individuals but it keeps getting brought back to it.
 
dead_soft said:
So you don’y agree with anything from him but others are somehow morally lacking because they don’t?
Click to expand...

No, I'm saying I'm prepared to accept the outlandish possibility something he may say may have value.

And my view is there's too many who quite simply won't accept anything he says as correct no matter what it is.

You say this:

you clearly think the argument you make is right and everyone else must have bad faith in order to disagree.
Click to expand...

No. I'm not saying they have bad faith; I'm saying they are seemingly incapable of moving from a preset view. Someone could write an opinion on here about something, and no matter how eloquently they put, no matter how many facts, no matter how reasonable, I could write a list of the people who would agree and disagree with it before they replied, and it'd be a minor miracle if one shifted their opinion one iota. It's that predictable.

"Pulling down a 17th century statue does nothing to advance the cause of racial equality in 2020, and in all likelihood probably harms it instead" - that sentence, right there, no matter how well or badly it's supported, it simply doesn't matter, because the vast majority of modern society has decided whether it's right or wrong from the outset. I'm not saying I'm right; I'm saying hardly anyone has the capability to shift from one position to another, so we can't progress.

That's why I say society is broken. It didn't used to be that way. It's how we've advanced.
 
Tubey said:
No, I'm saying I'm prepared to accept the outlandish possibility something he may say may have value.

And my view is there's too many who quite simply won't accept anything he says as correct no matter what it is.

You say this:



No. I'm not saying they have bad faith; I'm saying they are seemingly incapable of moving from a preset view. Someone could write an opinion on here about something, and no matter how eloquently they put, no matter how many facts, no matter how reasonable, I could write a list of the people who would agree and disagree with it before they replied, and it'd be a minor miracle if one shifted their opinion one iota. It's that predictable.

"Pulling down a 17th century statue does nothing to advance the cause of racial equality in 2020, and in all likelihood probably harms it instead" - that sentence, right there, no matter how well or badly it's supported, it simply doesn't matter, because the vast majority of modern society has decided whether it's right or wrong from the outset. I'm not saying I'm right; I'm saying hardly anyone has the capability to shift from one position to another, so we can't progress.

That's why I say society is broken. It didn't used to be that way. It's how we've advanced.
Click to expand...

I don’t believe that is true of most. Or don’t believe it’s anymore true now that it was previously. People get their opinions form
A variety of sources, it’s quite a place to suggest that they will then change much based on postings on a football forum. And it’s a bit wild to suggest no one is doing it off the forum. I know of opinions I’ve shifted on in the last few years and I’m sure they can shift again in the future.

Just because you think it doesn’t make it so
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Welcome

Join the Everton conversation today.
Fewer ads, full access, completely free.

→ Log in 🔑 Register
🛒 Visit Shop

Support Grand Old Team by checking out our latest Everton gear!
Back
Top