(untitled)

Why do lainons frown upon politics so much? I get hating stupid insult wars that dont get anywhere but why are rational civilized debates getting the same treatment? IMO politics and cyberpunk go hand in hand, so why not discuss it here?

Because >rational civilized debates don't happen, they are always derailed. (A bit of chaos in order and it's already chaos ; a bit of order in chaos and it's still chaos ; chaos is just stronger.) Or that's what the politic-haters will claim. And if you look at the political thread currently up, there is at least as much soykaf flinging as actual discussion. (If only the rules 3&4 were enforced ...)

Because it brings out the Nazis and nobody likes Nazis.

>>1885 Politics seems to invoke some primal tribal identification. I suspect with the easy spread of memes on the internet makes it worse, more extreme an shocking versions getting to more prominence. Rational civilized debates are ok, but I'm extremely skeptical about even the capacity for that on nearly any community. The odds are so overwhelmingly against it that many people quite reasonably prefer not to bother giving it a chance.

i feel like some lainons are more of a scientist types than politics types. Scientists rarely get themselves into politics, because this is not their thing. >>1895 what that anon said too, though it sounds more like >I don't want people who don't share my opinions but, while creating a vacuum like that IRL is pretty bad idea, because you lack scale, vacuum in da internets, is kinda "better" in my opinion, because both leftists and righists have something terrible inside of them when they interact with their counterparts online.

>>1895 Not a nazi, but soykaf like this is why somewhat sympathize with them. I dont mind nazis or communitst, or anarachists if they are capable of critical thinking and arguing. >>1886 and >>1896 are right imo. Politics in reality are more about labels, sides and identity and so forth. And sooner or later it derails. Another thing i dislike is the fact that politics often deal with surface issues, rather than underlying issues.

People have systems of beliefs which of course conflict with other people's systems of beliefs. Depending on the beliefs, the reaction is volatile. One of these systems of belief is political faith. An attack on that is deeply personal as you're causing chaos to occur in an otherwise orderly belief (according to the holder). And of course, it can only be taken as an attack. Possibly a good portion of the volatility is due to the lack of body language in interacting with boards. As you can't see the person, you're unable to interpret social cues which otherwise would be present in a meatspace conversation. You're skeptical if the other person is arguing in good faith or not, which of course influences you to argue in good faith or not. And so, we plateau at stage 3: http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html

>>1885 We do discuss politics. We discuss software licensing and crypto wars among other things. If someone is frowning at a political thread, it's probably because the thread is dedicated to an ideology instead of a topic.

>>1886 >>1896 But they do happen. I hang out with my friends almost every weekend to drink, play poker and discusss politics, religion or philosophy, to name a few, and we give proper arguments and dont even insult each other, despite having extremely different opinions. It is possible, i assure you. >>1900 Not necessarily. I ussually talk about concepts and ideollogies from a neutral perspective and not a "my side is better than yours" one. To understand what you mean better, what do you consider underlying and superficial in politics? >>1901 Hadnt really tougth about that. Why do you think body language is so important in these discussions? What kind of social cues are you talking about? Expressions that convey anger, mockery and the like? Last one, by good faith you mean debating to protect a belif or sth? >>1902 Why not discusd ideollogies? I think things like alternatives to capitalism are nice topics.

>>1905 Have you looked at any of the locked thread, the tradition thread, or the borders thread? Even when people start out with reasoned arguments, it degenerates into personal attacks. There is a big difference between discussing things in person with people you know, and online with random strangers. In the former, it's just not acceptable for someone to respond to your points by calling you names and questioning your integrity. You wouldn't associate with such a person if they kept up the behaviour. Online, such people get derezzed and their posts deleted: then they change IP addresses and do it again. It only gets worse with a potentially touchy topic such as politics (or religion).

/civ/ quite destroyed the lainchan culture a while ago, i think that's where the resistance comes from. It's rare to find people who genuinely want to discuss politics like they would discuss algorithms, for every 10 threads, 1 has genuine interest in an honest discussion instead of ego stroking/winning arguments through cheap sophism. Not only that but the conspiracy theorists ruin any politics conversation with threats, implications and accusations. It's really tiresome and not what Lainchan is about. /civ/ attracted these people and they spread through the other boards, thus turning lainchan into something else. Most people probably are afraid of that happening again. The whole nazi vs not nazi thing is straight out of twitter too. It's a very cheap argument, not any better than calling someone "poo-poo face", when you can't in fact prove that they have poo on their face. And even if they had, that would make them disgusting but would not invalidate their arguments. TL;DR: Politics threads have too much noise and too little signal

Cognitive dissidents prevents actual discussion. People only double down on their already held beliefs so there is no mathematical point to discussing it because it won't change anything. best case scenario it become a non name-calling circle jerk; worst case scenario people get so sick of it and move some other cyberpunk board

>>1928 >Cognitive dissidents

>>1886 >don't happen, they are always derailed. This. Chans used to be good for political discussion, but since their power was recognized they were invaded. Now it's impossible to have a rational civilized discussion without one of two things: 1. a crazy draconian mod that kills all fallacious posts 2. personal identities within the community Since neither of these are appropriate for lainchan then it's better to stay away from the politics. Also, discussing traditional politics (liberal / conservative) attracts either of the two crowds which are generally very bad at rationality.

>>1900 >politics often deal with surface issues, rather than underlying issues. This too. Most of the time people acquire a label and buy the whole package (which includes soykafting all over a different group). I'm skeptical of the mental skills of anyone who identifies fully with any label.

>>1902 > If someone is frowning at a political thread, it's probably because the thread is dedicated to an ideology instead of a topic. Thank you. This is it for me.

>>1910 >It's a very cheap argument, not any better than calling someone "poo-poo face", when you can't in fact prove that they have poo on their face. This should be in every philosophy 101 book.