Message from @Alix
Discord ID: 497906547825967120
Kennedy cracks me up, lol.
He said “if you think this [the FBI investigation] is about finding the truth, you atta put down the bong”.
Lol
Politics don’t belong in racing
Fact
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4954141-Indictment-7-GRU-Officers-Oct2018.html
BOOOOM! SEVEN NEW RUSSIAN GRU OPERATIVES INDICTED!
^ that's fucking funny who tf is reviewing these papers
Ben Shapiro BULLDOZES Palestinian home with FACTS and LOGIC
“ Russian trolls targeted ‘Star Wars: The Last Jedi’ online to online to amplify discontent: report “ by Morgan GSTATER on The Hill
This is an article about a study that claims the backlash against The Last Jedi was perpetrated by Russia. He concluded this after noticing that more than half of the dislikes were from “ bots, trolls/socks puppets or political activists” . This study is ridiculous. It’s clearly counting people that aren’t working for Russian intelligence.
http://archive.today/X6wXr
“ Brett Kavanaugh and the information terrorists trying to reshape America “ by Molly McKew on Wired
This article claims that people supporting Kavanaugh, and people who have been involved in Gamergate are information terrorist. He argues that spreading information can literally be terrorism. It specifically credits Gamergate as being original terrorist organization. The ride never ends.
http://archive.today/T7x6D
man that debate in <#418657008409903105> was dumb wish I could talk in there for that
both peeps were switching the conversation to diff things really quickly
thanks
but he guided it
I did the debate
you were more coherent
meaning?
Meaning I agree, I think both of you could have stayed on a single point a little better but you're right he was guiding you in and out of diff subjects quickly
Doesn't make for good conversation
thats how you debate them, let them guide it to where they feel confident no matter the original, and keep up the work until you end up them wanting to leave or at the original point
Not sure who you mean by "them," and idk that can sometimes lead to understanding, but based on that comment it seems like your goal isn't mutual understanding but them wanting to leave
or back to square one like you say
The goal is for them to have nothing left to debate and to see your reasoning in the end
them leaving often means they have nothing left
if they admit you changed their POV, you certainly are a god
Do you think they see your reasoning in the end or do you think they are frustrated?
hahaha yeah for sure
I just think there's a subtle but crucial difference between debating for understanding and debating for winning
mutual compassion vs tribalism
good faith vs bad faith
not accusing you of being on either end of the spectrum btw just musing on this
I think many begin to, and both really, but many don't admit defeat. I debate for understanding initially, but should it come to it simply winning. If you can make them see your point at the start, amazing, but should you be diminished to what I was there, you simply debate to win, at that point they may have simply seen your point and refused to admit, or simply were always debating to win
bad for good really
I think that will make people dig their heels in more
You will end up with very stubborn debaters on both ends of the spectrum...which is exactly how we got here
here being the modern political climate
well I see the point
Problem with the modern climate is we have those that believe what their told by a mob, and those that believe in the truth and what they can find out themselves. They both see themselves are right and the other wrong, trick is understanding by winning
But you know both sides think that right? How do you not see that that behavior is mirrored by democrats and republicans, and is harmful?
Winning is inconsequential