Politics Discussion Thread January 2013

OrphanWilde

Top-level comments should introduce arguments; responses should be responses to those arguments.
Upvote and downvote based on whether or not you find an argument convincing in the context in which it was raised. This means if it's a good argument against the argument it is responding to, not whether or not there's a good/obvious counterargument to it; if you have a good counterargument, raise it. If it's a convincing argument, and the counterargument is also convincing, upvote both. If both arguments are unconvincing, downvote both.
A single argument per comment would be ideal; as MixedNuts points out here, it's otherwise hard to distinguish between one good and one bad argument, which makes the upvoting/downvoting difficult to evaluate.
In general try to avoid color politics; try to discuss political issues, rather than political parties, wherever possible.

As Multiheaded added, "Personal is Political" stuff like gender relations, etc also may belong here.

Top-level comments should introduce arguments; responses should be responses to those arguments.
Upvote and downvote based on whether or not you find an argument convincing in the context in which it was raised. This means if it's a good argument against the argument it is responding to, not whether or not there's a good/obvious counterargument to it; if you have a good counterargument, raise it. If it's a convincing argument, and the counterargument is also convincing, upvote both. If both arguments are unconvincing, downvote both.
A single argument per comment would be ideal; as MixedNuts points out here, it's otherwise hard to distinguish between one good and one bad argument, which makes the upvoting/downvoting difficult to evaluate.
In general try to avoid color politics; try to discuss political issues, rather than political parties, wherever possible.

As Multiheaded added, "Personal is Political" stuff like gender relations, etc also may belong here.

The joke is more likely to resonate with the audience if it corresponds to their experience.

If they laugh, that proves I'm right;

Note the difference in meaning between the two italicized phrases?

if they boo, that proves I'm right.

What did I say that could reasonably be interpreted this way?

(Edit: thinking about it, I think I see how you got that impression: Laughter is evidence that you're right, an extreme negative reaction is weaker evidence that you're onto something. Indifference, or a non-extreme negative reaction is thus evidence that you're wrong.)

That in a marriage, the natural and desirable order of things is that man shall be the absolute ruler and woman the slave, and that any other arrangement is a futile struggle against our fundamental biological nature that if pursued will bring only doom and destruction?

Seriously, could you at least try not to straw-man my position?

The joke is more likely to resonate with the audience if it corresponds to their experience.

If they laugh, that proves I'm right;

Note the difference in meaning between the two italicized phrases?

Consider "proves" replaced by "is evidence in favour of". It doesn't change my point.

if they boo, that proves I'm right.

What did I say that could reasonably be interpreted this way?

That's the other half of the pattern -- which you obligingly go on to complete:

Laughter is evidence that you're right, an extreme negative reaction

... (read more)

0[anonymous]13y

Consider "proves" replaced by "is evidence in favour of". It doesn't change my point. [...] That's the other half of the pattern -- which you obligingly go on to complete: [...]

0[anonymous]13y

Consider "proves" replaced by "is evidence in favour of". It doesn't change my point. [...] That's the other half of the pattern -- which you obligingly go on to complete: [...]

5

Politics Discussion Thread January 2013

5

5

5

Politics Discussion Thread January 2013

5

5