pull down to refresh
45 sats \ 7 replies \ @orangecheckemail_isthereany 8 May \ parent \ on: To talk or not to talk with normies about libertarianism ideasfromtheedge
There's definitely some people with whom further discussion is likely to be fruitless, or certainly not worth the effort.
But the point I'm making is that we should be honest and realistic in the way we speak.
That way we not only speak more accurately and more truthfully, but that manner of speaking can also avoid unnecessary argument.
However much we believe something to be true, however certain we are, however logically inescapable something seems it is still our opinion and our perception and we should talk in that manner.
I've noticed discussion are far more congenial that way. People don't get defensive as much, don't dig their heels in as much. It becomes more about exploring perspectives and possibilities, than about proving who is right and who is wrong.
Well said and it is telling that very few Libertarians appear capable of responding in such a calm and reasoned manner where they will defend and represent their viewpoint in a manner that welcomes alternative viewpoints - because they provide a golden opportunity to engage in a contest of ideas.
Much more often Libertarians out themselves as fragile emotional ideologically rigid 'believers' in a creed, and that they cannot convincingly respond in a calm and reasoned manner that convincingly refutes alternative viewpoints.
When a respondent seeks to shoot the messenger they concede defeat, by default, in the contest of ideas.
They lose the opportunity to respond in a manner that demonstrates to a neutral observer the logic and strength of their beliefs.
reply
I wouldn't make that generalization about libertarians.
In my experience the average libertarian on responda in a reasoned manner more often than the average member of most other political ideologies.
I've found that libertarians tend to be able to describe what they believe and why more effectively and consistently on average.
I think we should all strive to respond in a calm and reasoned manner like you say and there's certainly examples of people using the label libertarian failing to do that.
Returning to the theme about ways to avoid unecessrily acrimonious arguing:
Slowing down the discussion and pauzing to ponder and consider can also be a good strategy fo fruitful conversation and debate.
E.g. when someone makes a point that seems off we could say pauze, and say:
"Interesting, that doesn't seem quite right to me but I'm not sure why. Let me think about it. ... Ah I think the reason for my reluctance to go along with that description has to do with ..."
Instead of reflexively responding "No" or "That's incorrect" without offering actual argument or evidence.
I see it often these days that people confuse statements like
"That's misinformation",
"That's a conspiracy theory",
"That's been demonstrated to be incorrect"
with actual argument or evidence.
These phrases merely state conclusions or assertions without offering reasons to give them creedence apart from the authority or perceived credibility of the person uttering them.
People often take for granted their own understandings and beliefs about the world and fail to make them explicit in discussion.
They throw out conclusions of theirs without showing how they reached them, sometimes perhaps not even know how they reached them.
reply
Completely agree except that my experience here on SNs has been that it is very very rare for the Libertarians on here to engage in calm reasoned debate and a respectful contest of ideas in response to alternative viewpoints , but rather almost exclusively they are-
'reflexively responding "No" or "That's incorrect" without offering actual argument or evidence.'
Often they resort to name calling and/or blatantly misrepresenting what has been said, instead of taking the opportunity to consider and respond in a thoughtful honest manner to demonstrate the strength of their Libertarian reasoning.
It has been disappointing, as I expected and hoped for more reasoned substance and less reactionary and irrational abuse.
reply
a sane individual simply doesn't drink tea with stalin.
reply
Comparing me and what I have said with Stalin is as absurd and is failure to respond logically and with any convincing argument to what I have actually said.
It is a crude and blatantly dishonest attempt at shooting the messenger instead of engaging in a reasoned contest of ideas.
BTW Churchill and Roosevelt did!
If your ability to present your ideology cannot cope with the real world and challenges to your viewpoint directly then your grasp of your ideology is not strong.
When others present an alternative viewpoint this is the golden opportunity to advance your position and refute theirs in a reasoned manner.
If you fail to take that opportunity then you fail in the contest of ideas.
Those who are confident and secure in their beliefs are not frightened of different ideas.
They welcome the opportunity to engage and compare logic.
Very few Libertarians appear capable of this.
It makes them look more like a cult than a philosophy.
reply
I do not know what the 'NAP principle' is and it has not been explained in any dialogue I have been part of but as you state it is a 'belief' I can only guess it is a belief that individuals 'should' not exercise aggression toward others?
If that is the case then I might agree with the principle intent but would suggest that expecting all other humans to comply would be a very dangerous assumption to make.
reply
You don't believe in the NAP (non aggression principle), it's the same thing only with a different scale. I don't care what my lack of engagement with declared socialists and communists may look like.
reply