Total Posts:6|Showing Posts:1-6
Jump to topic:

Performative Contradictions

Daktoria
Posts: 497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2013 8:44:44 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Is this website just an onslaught of performative contradictions where people insist on imposing their will on others to force them to change their beliefs?

I can't believe people vote honestly in this community. There is a tremendous amount of brutal assertions in RFD where people beg the question, affirm the consequent, or otherwise don't explain why they vote the way they do.

I'm convinced that this website is about preferring Foucault to Habermas. That is people vote in order to convince others to believe in power analytics before discourse ethics. People vote not because they honestly believe something is right or wrong, but because they have self-interests and vote for the side which represents their self-interest.

Even those who try to be universally minded are discounted on the basis of appearing arrogant for trying to rise above it all. The theme of this website seems to be about forcing people to assume the risk of incompatibility, and saying the incompatible are obligated to endure being voted against for no reason.
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2013 11:54:11 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Debates are, arguably, not the largest part of this website.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
YYW
Posts: 36,289
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2013 11:59:31 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/4/2013 8:44:44 AM, Daktoria wrote:
Is this website just an onslaught of performative contradictions where people insist on imposing their will on others to force them to change their beliefs?

I can't believe people vote honestly in this community. There is a tremendous amount of brutal assertions in RFD where people beg the question, affirm the consequent, or otherwise don't explain why they vote the way they do.

I'm convinced that this website is about preferring Foucault to Habermas. That is people vote in order to convince others to believe in power analytics before discourse ethics. People vote not because they honestly believe something is right or wrong, but because they have self-interests and vote for the side which represents their self-interest.

Even those who try to be universally minded are discounted on the basis of appearing arrogant for trying to rise above it all. The theme of this website seems to be about forcing people to assume the risk of incompatibility, and saying the incompatible are obligated to endure being voted against for no reason.

I'm intrigued. Perhaps you would like to offer some sort of evidence to support that rather audacious claim of yours?
Tsar of DDO
YYW
Posts: 36,289
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2013 12:00:24 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/4/2013 11:59:31 PM, YYW wrote:
At 4/4/2013 8:44:44 AM, Daktoria wrote:
Is this website just an onslaught of performative contradictions where people insist on imposing their will on others to force them to change their beliefs?

I can't believe people vote honestly in this community. There is a tremendous amount of brutal assertions in RFD where people beg the question, affirm the consequent, or otherwise don't explain why they vote the way they do.

I'm convinced that this website is about preferring Foucault to Habermas. That is people vote in order to convince others to believe in power analytics before discourse ethics. People vote not because they honestly believe something is right or wrong, but because they have self-interests and vote for the side which represents their self-interest.

Even those who try to be universally minded are discounted on the basis of appearing arrogant for trying to rise above it all. The theme of this website seems to be about forcing people to assume the risk of incompatibility, and saying the incompatible are obligated to endure being voted against for no reason.

I'm intrigued. Perhaps you would like to offer some sort of evidence to support that rather audacious claim* of yours?

Ahem... series of audacious claims.
Tsar of DDO
Daktoria
Posts: 497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2013 7:26:58 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/4/2013 11:59:31 PM, YYW wrote:
At 4/4/2013 8:44:44 AM, Daktoria wrote:
Is this website just an onslaught of performative contradictions where people insist on imposing their will on others to force them to change their beliefs?

I can't believe people vote honestly in this community. There is a tremendous amount of brutal assertions in RFD where people beg the question, affirm the consequent, or otherwise don't explain why they vote the way they do.

I'm convinced that this website is about preferring Foucault to Habermas. That is people vote in order to convince others to believe in power analytics before discourse ethics. People vote not because they honestly believe something is right or wrong, but because they have self-interests and vote for the side which represents their self-interest.

Even those who try to be universally minded are discounted on the basis of appearing arrogant for trying to rise above it all. The theme of this website seems to be about forcing people to assume the risk of incompatibility, and saying the incompatible are obligated to endure being voted against for no reason.

I'm intrigued. Perhaps you would like to offer some sort of evidence to support that rather audacious claim of yours?

Exactly. People rarely provide evidence or explain the intuitive leaps between evidence and interpretation when providing RFD in votes.

(If anyone should have to provide evidence for a claim, it's those who believe this website involves voting honestly. Burden of proof is on the affirmative. People are entitled to be skeptical of honest voting.)