Concentration of far-right extremists on PPR

Post Reply New Topic

That wasn't what I was saying; my point is that the Darwinian process that the holders of out of mainstream views go through on the internet tends to produce strong debaters, I wasn't making any comment on the truth or untruth of their various perspectives. It's easy to post on a forum where you hold the minority opinion, but it doesn't build up argumentative skill the way that posting against the grain and defending your points will.

Simply being stubborn and undeterred in the face of strong opposition doesn't necessarily make one a "strong debater", and neither does the ability to piss off the opposition. I mean, successfully pissing off a bunch of people might give them amusement, or even a feeling of psychological vindication, but they still don't "win". To me "winning" a debate should entail making arguments that are able to convince the opposition of something, or at least raise some doubts in their convictions.

Most people never doubt themselves much. I don't really count being a good debater as relevant to that. That being said, here's the set of criteria that I think are valuable in terms of determining what a good debater is:

1) Competent at both understanding and forming an position opposing their opponent's argument. (either as mere rebuttal or, ideally, showing the problems with that opponent's position)
2) Stubborn enough to continue the discussion to see how it ends up.
3) Clever enough to reformulate traditional positions and arguments into matters of different issues.
4) Capable of citing sources and other evidences(intellectual frameworks) as necessary.

That being said, I agree with Dox. Different people and different positions than one's own is more likely to build a strong debater. Without opposition one does not develop stubbornness, one does not start to see the reformulations, one does not develop the ability to understand their opponent in a real sense(rather than as a strawman), and one does not understand the need to use the heavy guns without a real opposition.

I meant causing the opposition to doubt themselves. I think people doubt themselves more than they admit to their opponent. People are unlikely to ever change their mind during a heated debate, but often later on they reconsider, usually after mulling over the doubts that were raised in them during the debate.


It seems to me that people with strong opposition are actually more likely to make strawmen of their opponents arguments because they feel "persecuted" by the majority and are thus more emotionally influenced. I mean, just read Hanotaux's posts.

Hanotaux is a sample size of one, and not particularly representative.

Realistically it can go either way, with better posters more likely to stand their ground, yet consider whether the other side might actually be right, and worse ones just yammering on regardless. It isn't always possible to tell the difference from the outside.

I think Dox has a good point in that heated debate can make good debaters, and you have a good point in that merely showing up to a heated debate doesn't make you good at it.

What does make one good at it? Does being able to piss off your opponent with offensive statements make one a good debator?

I could think of a "good debater" or at least for their own convenience, in the PPR forum or an any internet discussion, someone who makes a stand just once and never repond to replies, I mean, I believe that is convenient for the "debater" if we can call them that. Another is having allies, I have noticed in other sites that a person gives his opinions and has many supporters in the same group, thus opossition is difficult or no one even dares, even if what they say is pure crap. In the end, it doesn't seem to really matter who is "right" and who is "wrong" anyway, it seems rather who is strong and who is weak, and which idea is more popular within the group.

Now, I can give examples of good debaters here in the PPR forum, AG seems to win here, I like ruveyn's style as well, I believe he wouldn't qualified as a debater per say, but someone who doesn't seem to get much into argument, rather, apparantely, not caring about having to defend his position after stating his view.

But where would the fun in that be? If he just asks me, I might say something sensible, reasonable even; and where does that leave him and his agenda? I'm certainly having fun, in fact I'm taking bets on the side as to how Master P is going to try and twist my words next. The smart money's on plenty of extraneous adjectives...

Pissing off your opponents accomplishes nothing in any real, meaningful sense. It does expose who does and who doesn't know what they're talking about, but I'll normally be quick to call people on appealing to emotion. I'm almost convinced that people who engage in this do it subconsciously. It's apparently been an effective tactic before I got here, and it doesn't seem likely to change.

I think the people it affects more are the ones who are new to PPR, especially younger users. My opinion, and what I actually do, is the best way to handle it is to either ignore it or expose it for what it is--a distraction tactic. It doesn't really take a lot of skill to stick to the point, and I've found that those who use emotion-based distraction techniques really do more for weakening their own position rather than "defeating" their opposition. Younger participants, especially those with views that are unpopular in this forum, are especially vulnerable. And I don't mind admitting that I will take age into account if I'm "debating" (using that term loosely) someone who disagrees with me. There's a lot to learn in this area, especially when it comes to religion, and I'd rather use the forum as an opportunity to dispel ignorance than to piss off someone for the sake of making a shallow point.

I have, unfortunately, found that pissing off people to be an inevitable consequence when engaging people, especially other RELIGIOUS people I disagree with, who are "just plain wrong." But my approach is no different with them than with the atheists. What pisses ME off is that they give up so easily, in contrast to the atheist poo-slingers who never seem to have a shortage of ammo.

I may be a religious conservative, but I'm certainly out of my league when it comes to politics. What little bit I've followed in political discussions is not much different in nature than the religious discussions. There are enough liberals to shout-down the conservatives. I'm just pleased that there are at least two or three willing enough to hold their own in politics. Ruveyn and I are on opposite ends of the continuum on religion, but "ditto" is about all I can say when he expresses his political views. As for apparent conservative-leaning political commentary, ruveyn is perhaps the most articulate and knowledgeable.

I really don't think the liberals here have much to fear from far-right PPR extremism. I think the expression of far-right views have value in debate, and though I wouldn't classify my self as an extremist, I've considered assuming that role for the sake of building skill in political discourse. I just don't really have enough time to learn all the views of the far right and their justifications. Religion just seems to be what I'm most knowledgeable about, and I prefer to stick with what I know.

That was well said Rho.

When I first showed up I got SLAMMED. I had to make a decision to get tough, get smart or get out. I was shocked at the articulation and passion of the community here.

I'm a socially left and fiscally conservative Atheist. I hear it hard from all sides. I'm not going anywhere though.

I'm hard left. I avoid posting here (and usually avoid even reading) because it makes me very angry, and I've already gotten angry enough about eejits on the interwebs (ironically enough, ones who'd probably consider themselves ultra-left) to do me for the rest of my life.

And it's "bent", damnit.

I still doubt that even. Doubting is so much a matter of personality, that I don't hold it as a legitimate requirement. A lot of people won't doubt even after their position has been debunked. Some people will feel a twinge of doubt at the mere existence of opposition. Sometimes the difference is really rhetorical, rather than anything to do with the debate.


I've read his posts. He is not even engaging in a real debate on a large number of them, and a lot of them just don't make sense.

That being said, he might be unused to a lot of debating anyway. If that is the case, then pointing out his errors in thinking could potentially be beneficial. (assuming he's actually engaged in any form or fashion)

IMHO, if a particular topic gets you too emotional, then it's better to leave it alone. Your opponents can use this tendency to get you angry, which tends to make your arguments weaker, and when you lose it, everyone else can really tell, and they'll pay less attention to what you say because they know you're venting rather than arguing.

Not only does it hurt your debating technique, but it can keep you angry for as long as the thread lasts, which isn't very fun itself.

There is another problem in debating that occurs when, at the outset, both sides of a debate assume the opposite is Ignorant© and need Educating©. Per these conditions, both parties in the debate will just get more and more upset at the other because they aren't being "good students" and willfully receiving their lessons.

Please read my post again. I never claimed that self-doubting was a requirement for being a good debator (though moderate self-doubt can be beneficial to some degree, but I won't get into that right now). What I stated was that the goal of a debate should be to cause others to doubt their own after they read your arguments. There's simply no way to sway the opinion of others toward what you believe is correct without first causing them to doubt their own firmly held positions.

Also, my other point was that you never really know when someone has doubts. Doubters will never admit thier doubts in front of an audience because they don't want to appear "weak". This is pretty basic psychology.

Last edited by marshall on 18 Oct 2010, 3:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I'd like to make a point that there are conservatives here who don't seem to understand why people on the other side of the political spectrum get angry. They seem to think we just like to act self-righteous and are simply angry because we think the other side is "wrong". I'll tell you quite honestly that it's not that. If a conservative claimed the moon was made of blue cheese I might disagree, but it wouldn't make me angry. I'm not that bothered by simple disagreements.

Personally, I get angry because conservative views often appear rather callous and insensitive. This is especially pertinent in the autism community where there's an even larger percentage of people struggling with long term unemployment and quite a sizable proportion reliant on government assistance of some sort. Can you connect the dots and see why a lot of us are extremely uncomfortable with the right? Especially considering that a lot of fringe Tea Party candidates who, from some of their own genuinely expressed views, might be in favor of dismantling social security and unemployment benefits altogether, in a move similar to the Pinochet coup?