Re:Amazon, Apple and Google Cut Off Parler
by Fjolsvith on Sunday January 10, 2021 @05:21PM
(#25720737)
> Group A cannot provide said evidence, or the evidence provided is unreliable/cannot be validated.
Recall my post that evidence cannot sway "person N".
Re:Amazon, Apple and Google Cut Off Parler
by brokenkebab on Sunday January 10, 2021 @04:31PM
(#25720146)
Agreement, and conclusion should be reached by applying procedures to which sides* agree: be it a coin tossing, asking oracle, or voting. Opposing side won't magically disappear when your side achieves power over media. What will likely happen instead they will get more reasonable motivation to wrestle this power from your hands with any means possible.
*Btw, usually there are more then two sides: it's just stale majoritarian system which leaves people just two unsatisfactory choices in US.
Re:Amazon, Apple and Google Cut Off Parler
by zimpenfish on Monday January 11, 2021 @03:38AM
(#25726281)
> to which sides* agree:
But that assumes both sides are operating in good faith - it's pretty clear in the example that A are not (as are some sides in the real world.)
Re:Amazon, Apple and Google Cut Off Parler
by brokenkebab on Monday January 11, 2021 @03:48PM
(#25736556)
The example tells about inability to reach conclusion in debates, but explicitly assumes good faith, you probably skipped the final part. And in real life as well, not a lot of people would be inclined to choose civil war instead of political/cultural one.
That being said, what do we do in this situation (which is a common one I see in these kinds of debates)?:
- Group A claims X.
- Person N asks Group A to provide evidence for their claim X.
- Group A cannot provide said evidence, or the evidence provided is unreliable/cannot be validated.
- Person N asks for additional evidence that the claim X made by Group A is true.
- Group A insists they are right and refuses to provide any additional evidence for claim X.
- Person N chooses to not believe Group A’s claim X due to a lack of evidence.
What’s the next step? Assuming good faith on the sides of both parties, how do you reach some sort of agreement or conclusion?
And what do we do when claim X made by Group A is one that leads to violence or other societal harms (such as an increase in death and suffering due to the spread of disease in the case of anti-vaccination theories)?
I don’t have a good answer, here. I desperately want to have rational and productive conversations with people with whom I disagree. But how do you avoid a deadlock situation like the above?