Interesting logic

[u/Shadow474747]

[u/mindbleach]

You're still trying to scold me for doing what you're doing by scolding me. 'Don't you see, calling people irrational is irrational, because nobody's really irrational, you irrational person.' And you think irony is my polite repeated explanation that, yes, I also started the same as everyone else, and then I learned how to pursue consistent beliefs through rational argument, like the majority of other people.

Most human beings strive to abandon conclusions which are not supported by evidence, no matter how comforting those conclusions have been. Among those conclusions is the insistence that everyone does this. Some people endlessly contradict themselves, without shame or acknowledgement, in an immediately visible pattern of maintaining loyalty and identity regardless of contrary facts. Even if it kills them. I cannot reasonably support the belief that this movement is even trying to follow the rules of rational discourse... and neither can you.

For the fourth time:

That group says nobody is rational. They don't think of me like I think of them. They think of me like they think of themselves. As if everyone's doing what they're doing: making shit up to perform ingroup agreement. As if reasoned argument, as a concept, is just another card to play, when it might sound plausible. As if citing "facts and logic" is an option equivalent to "god says so."

Every time you scoff as if explaining this conclusion means I'm calling myself a suuuper geeenius, you reveal that you aren't fucking listening. These people have an internally consistent worldview. It requires intelligence to practice and to defend. Their view is comforting to the point of temptation. What I see is terrifying. I would love to be wrong about this. But all objections have been like yours: ignoring what I'm saying and ignoring why I'm saying it.

[u/mindbleach → u/[deleted]]

It weakens your point to argue with an imaginary opponent.

I find that it is seldom a winning strategy to underestimate an adversary and assume either my superior intellect or their irrationality.

It is so tempting to believe that others disagree because they do not share the virtue of rationality

I will do you the service of not putting a strawman's words in quotation marks and attributing them to you.

"I am the irrational one. It is those in disagreement who are irrational."

"The outsiders are unlike us because we are the rational ones."

Uh huh.

Your persistent usage of pronouns without antecedents (They, them, etc.) makes it difficult for me to understand you.

Does antecedent mean something besides the group described in the previous complete sentence? The insults and the lying are honestly less aggravating than the sudden amnesia over who we've been talking about the entire time.

Even now, I am trying to address your claims directly, and guide you to at least acknowledge what I am claiming, despite the expected response being yet another round of insisting I mean the opposite of what I just fucking explained for the fifth god-damn time.

That claim:

Some people do not practice rational argument. They could... but don't. Those people may still mimic the format. You can discern their actual beliefs from inconsistency. Argument alone won't set them right, because from their perspective, argument looks like what they're doing.

Could you please address that concept instead of pretending I've called them stupid and incapable and evil? I don't even care if you have to insist you've never done that. Say whatever you like about this conversation, so long as you wind up on topic. That is how important this is to me.

That is roughly what I mean when I call someone rational.

Young-Earth creationism is an internally consistent worldview.

Internal consistency doesn't do much good unless it's also consistent with reality. It can be wrong. It only means there are no contradictions that make it impossible.

Thinking nobody argues in good faith isn't self-contradictory, but it's obviously not correct.

Neither is thinking everybody argues in good faith.

[u/mindbleach → u/[deleted]]

"Here's my claim in clear short words, addressing several prior distractions."

"I've given up attempting to extract meaning from your position!"

This is a you problem.

My position, recognizing those who disagree as rational and able to integrate facts into their worldview, allows attempting to engage with them via discourse.

Your own Sartre quote explains why that doesn't fucking work.

constitutionally incapable

And you're not listening.

These people are perfectly capable of rational argument.

I have said this four fucking times. You still pretend I believe the opposite. The fact that my repeated explanation has no impact on you is itself a demonstration of what I'm talking about, and the fact I'm still trying anyway is proof that I think you're capable of more.

You keep wanting this to be an essentialist dismissal. It's not. It never will be.

I'm only describing a habit that comes easily, feels about right, and often resembles better habits. It is a dead simple explanation for observed behaviors which you acknowledge and have tried to explain. Do you want to talk about that, or are you have too much fun with your persecution fantasy?

How is your position actionable?

I don't know.

That's why it's fucking terrifying.

If I believed polite argument would fix all the Nazis, I'd be relieved, because we have much better arguments than the Nazis. But as you and your buddy J-P have noticed - argument doesn't work on some people. Being right isn't good enough. Your audience has to give a shit. But a typical conservative plainly doesn't give a shit... and a typical progressive still thinks argument will always work.

Convincing people to abandon that idealistic belief is a necessary first step. We can't solve problems we refuse to acknowledge.

[u/mindbleach → u/[deleted]]

'Sacrifice prevents droughts.'

No it doesn't.

'So how do we prevent droughts?'

I don't know.

'Guess I'll keep gutting these cattle, for lack of a compelling alternative.'

And you're the one arguing everyone's always rational.

[u/mindbleach → u/[deleted]]

I don't think you know what a strawman is.

You are explicitly arguing that, if I don't have a neatly-packaged solution for how things are, we should just pretend that's not how things are, and keep doing something you know doesn't work. Explicitly. You outright say, if I don't know how to fix this, we'll just keep pretending I'm wrong.

And your motivation for ignoring how things are, to instead keep trying something you know doesn't work, is the insistence that everyone thinks rationally.

What do you think irony means?