This thread between RT and Noah is a fascinating example of today’s polarized arguments where some feel the need to personally attack the other and “draw first blood” in order to aggravate the response from other side making it impossible to have a civil discussion. This is a strategy commonly deployed now and a trap we have to be caref…
This thread between RT and Noah is a fascinating example of today’s polarized arguments where some feel the need to personally attack the other and “draw first blood” in order to aggravate the response from other side making it impossible to have a civil discussion. This is a strategy commonly deployed now and a trap we have to be careful not to step into. It’s one I experienced firsthand:
I organized a community meeting with the police to create a scheduling plan for parents to patrol the forest immediately adjacent to our high school where drug users (evidence: many needles in their tents) were living. It was apparently out of the police’s district, so we would patrol and inform them of what we found. A young woman (who did not rsvp) showed up recording us and asking questions that were clearly meant to aggravate the group and its mission. She seemed to be following a script and seemed ready to record whatever she could incite. I am now more aware of this technique and will now be prepared to also record the lead-up to these meetings so others can see the whole context. My goal is to expose this strategy and render it ineffective. It’s counter productive as you can see from the discussion in this post.
Go back through their thread and see if you can find the point of personal attack that diverted a healthy conversation. Let’s try not to play into that game and stay focused on discussion vs name-calling. The good guys eventually win.
This thread between RT and Noah is a fascinating example of today’s polarized arguments where some feel the need to personally attack the other and “draw first blood” in order to aggravate the response from other side making it impossible to have a civil discussion. This is a strategy commonly deployed now and a trap we have to be careful not to step into. It’s one I experienced firsthand:
I organized a community meeting with the police to create a scheduling plan for parents to patrol the forest immediately adjacent to our high school where drug users (evidence: many needles in their tents) were living. It was apparently out of the police’s district, so we would patrol and inform them of what we found. A young woman (who did not rsvp) showed up recording us and asking questions that were clearly meant to aggravate the group and its mission. She seemed to be following a script and seemed ready to record whatever she could incite. I am now more aware of this technique and will now be prepared to also record the lead-up to these meetings so others can see the whole context. My goal is to expose this strategy and render it ineffective. It’s counter productive as you can see from the discussion in this post.
Go back through their thread and see if you can find the point of personal attack that diverted a healthy conversation. Let’s try not to play into that game and stay focused on discussion vs name-calling. The good guys eventually win.