[QatzelOk]

I enjoy your posts, but as soon as I saw 'genocide', I lost interest in what you had to say and had to force myself to stop and dismiss it before I could go on...

Our minds have been conditioned by our surroundings and media consumption to reject certain ideas, even if they are true and thus, useful.

There is no doubt that America was created by genocides. But to admit this is to engage in something other than positive-thinking or "supporting the troops," so this kind of truth has been seriously tarnished by our Disney culture.

Deep convictions can over-ride acquired ideology.
...

I would also like to add that, when discussing with someone with deep convictions, it's best to wait a day or so before responding. The "deep convictions" can only be unearthed slowly and with much thought.

[skinster]

You need to get over the fact that he's voted for Clinton. That certainly doesn't take him to the right of the political spectrum, especially in a US context

Yes it does and I don't need to get over anything just because you don't know what you're talking about. The Democratic WAR Party are not on the left.

[Negotiator]

Thats quite simple: the state when a person can no longer be reached with arguments is called "fanatism".

I wouldnt call it "deep convictions". Somebody who only has deep convictions can possibly still be talked to and can still be reached with logical arguments.

[mikema63]

Except that research shows that people tend to have their beliefs strengthened by arguments and debate. On both sides of the issue. We aren't a rational species on our deepest level and our beliefs can't be assailed by simple logic.

I may be misunderstanding you, but that doesn't seem to be entirely correct. Why be a Clinton supporter or try to prevent Trump from becoming president if it is inconsequential?

Well, I think society in general won't be different in a few decades regardless of which one won. It could be very different on the smaller levels that directly effect our lives so it does matter which one won. Both though would be ultimately impotent to change things like globalization, capitalism, or even foreign policy in the long run.

[skinster]

Both are fucking you in the ass, mike. And not in a good way.

When you cheerlead those who serve themselves instead of you and your tribe, you are the ultimate cuck.

[mikema63]

I'm not overly concerned. Me and my tribe (which I'm interpreting as gay people) are going to be fine. I'm happy to compromise that entirely pointless and self defeating ideological purity to actually effectively advocate for my tribe. I won't damn them all for my own integrity. If I wanted other people to admire how authentic I am I'd grow a curly mustache, wear plaid, and hang out at hip coffee places writing screenplays.

I'll do what I need to do in order to actually do things I think are good. You want to find the world's greatest underdog and, all the while advocating for them angrily, sacrafice them on the altar of your self identity.

I wonder which one of us will actually have anything to show for it in the end?

[skinster]

I meant liberals, not homosexuals, since there are plenty of smart homosexuals who don't support the two-party dictatorship.

Also, methinks the lady doth protest too much every time liberalism is criticized.

[mikema63]

Oh I see, so I'm abandoning liberalism because I'm participating in a non ideal liberal democracy?

As for the lady doth protest to much thing, Sorry for responding to your posts?

[Hong Wu]

I've found that people regularly debate subjects that neither of them are educated on. I have done this before myself. So now I just debate why we are debating.

You can't say I'm not participating in debate since that is technically a debate.

If that doesn't respect the principles of liberal democracy, oh well, that stopped making sense anyway once the internet revealed that there is no consensus on anything in the west. [/edgelord]

[One Degree]

I've found that people regularly debate subjects that neither of them are educated on. I have done this before myself. So now I just debate why we are debating.

You can't say I'm not participating in debate since that is technically a debate.

If that doesn't respect the principles of liberal democracy, oh well, that stopped making sense anyway once the internet revealed that there is no consensus on anything in the west. [/edgelord]

I know many posters get upset by those with less knowledge entering their debates, but is that not similar to saying a student should not participate in class until he knows all the answers to the questions that will be asked?
Those in the more advanced part can ignore the less informed when in heated debate, but when things slow down they can use the time to educate also. I guess it comes down to how you view the forum, but I have never liked the idea of passing up the sudden insight that comes from people who are not blinded by their own knowledge. This may be rare, but it can open up a lot of new lines of thought.

Edit: Besides, where do you expect me to post if I have to know what I am talking about?

[jimjam]

How do you convince someone so deeply convinced of the moral righteousness of their cause that there is gray area?

you don't

[QatzelOk]

... I guess it comes down to how you view the forum, but I have never liked the idea of passing up the sudden insight that comes from people who are not blinded by their own knowledge. This may be rare, but it can open up a lot of new lines of thought....

Exactly. People who "know what they're talking about" have often been indoctrinated by a text that has been prepared for them by the powerful.

The people who "don't know what they're talking about" are often free-er to explore new ideas and new ways of approaching old, unsolved (by conventional wisdom) problems.

[LV-GUCCI-PRADA-FLEX]

What does it matter how open you are to new ideas if all your ideas are shit and all the ideas you are open to exploring are shit?

[Hong Wu]

What does it matter how open you are to new ideas if all your ideas are shit and all the ideas you are open to exploring are shit?

Can a horse be a Trump supporter if it's being ridden by and is loyal to a Trump supporter?

[LV-GUCCI-PRADA-FLEX]

Can a horse be a Trump supporter if it's being ridden by and is loyal to a Trump supporter?

Absolutely, if the horse is owned by Trump clearly it is a Trump supporter since it has to support all that weight. How big is Donald, like 280?

Anyway, like I said, it doesn't matter if you're open to ideas when you are never exposed to any good ones. That's why I do think there is hope in a forum like this, because at the very least you have people willing to expose themselves to ideas that are not their own and may lead them to conclusions they would have never been led to independently.

[QatzelOk]

...Anyway, like I said, it doesn't matter if you're open to ideas when you are never exposed to any good ones.

I'm glad you clarified your point so that I can see that I disagree strongly with it.

Most "received ideas" are not useful because they are just a faithful regurgitation of a clever meme or nice feeling we had while in the presence of a charismatic person or text.

The best and most original ideas come from some kind of enriched contemplation, like you might find while hiking in mountains, swimming long distance, or riding a bike for hours and hours.

Very deep convictions can be formed in these natural and augmented situations, and the only way to find your own "deep convictions" to bring to the table is to indulge in these kinds of activities yourself.

[anna]

Most "received ideas" are not useful because they are just a faithful regurgitation of a clever meme or nice feeling we had while in the presence of a charismatic person or text.

"We?" You, perhaps. But your experience is not the next person's.

The best and most original ideas come from some kind of enriched contemplation, like you might find while hiking in mountains, swimming long distance, or riding a bike for hours and hours.

Very deep convictions can be formed in these natural and augmented situations, and the only way to find your own "deep convictions" to bring to the table is to indulge in these kinds of activities yourself.

Again, that may be true for you, but not for everyone. Flashes of insight, inspiration, innovation... there are many ways for these things to happen. They don't always happen during "enriched contemplation," sometimes they arise out of urgency, out of necessity, in a surge of adrenaline, in a dream, and very often, out of nowhere. Our minds are mysterious things, and while I'm a great believer in the positive benefits of nature and solitude and I don't negate them, I don't agree that the best and most original ideas can't be just as likely to be found in the most inhospitable of circumstances for introspection.

[QatzelOk]

...I don't agree that the best and most original ideas can't be just as likely to be found in the most inhospitable of circumstances for introspection.

Those kinds of inhospitable conditions are useful for analyzing what's wrong with a particular system. But solutions and general ideas about our condition on this planet are not likely to be thought of while being tortured by the CIA in some hellhole of our capitalist zombie masters, or while suffering PTSD after fighting in one of our resource-seeking wars.

Intensely stressful situations are far more likely to make creative thought impossible. Exile isn't necessarily stressful, and neither are all forms of incarceration. But the stressful kinds of either aren't likely to lead to anything but reactionary defensive thoughts.

The mind, under duress, becomes a dagger rather than a paintbrush. Relaxing recreation that engages the body and mind... are far more useful in creating something with ideas.

[anna]

Those kinds of inhospitable conditions are useful for analyzing what's wrong with a particular system. But solutions and general ideas about our condition on this planet are not likely to be thought of while being tortured by the CIA in some hellhole of our capitalist zombie masters.

Much has been written by those who were imprisoned in gulags, reeducation camps, and concentration camps, for starters. It's certainly possible, for those whose minds were destined to be thinkers, poets and writers regardless of where their bodies were.

It just seems to me that you're projecting your preferred ways of contemplation onto everyone, as if there's one best way and you've found it.

Intensely stressful situations are far more likely to make creative thought impossible. Exile isn't necessarily stressful, and neither are all forms of incarceration. But the stressful kinds of either aren't likely to lead to anything but reactionary defense thoughts. The mind becomes a weapon rather than a paintbrush.

I remember an artist saying that without pain he couldn't create. I can't remember the exact quote or who said it and so I just did a search and while I haven't found it yet, I did find this:

The Myth of the Tortured Artist — and Why It’s Not a Myth

"It’s always been my belief that all great art comes from pain. Van Gogh painted The Starry Night while in emotional torment; Lennon and McCartney forged their creative partnership following the death of their respective mothers; Milton penned Paradise Lost after losing his wife, his daughter, and his eyesight. Such unremitting grief would send even the most grounded among us into a frenzied Xanax binge and associated fetal position, but these celebrated artists chose not to recoil in passive suffering. Instead, they turned their sorrow into something the world would cherish."

There's a long list of artists and writers who've struggled with depression, anxiety, substance abuse, etc. - and many who ended their pain by suicide.

[QatzelOk]

...I remember an artist saying that without pain he couldn't create.
...

"It’s always been my belief that all great art comes from pain. Van Gogh painted The Starry Night while in emotional torment."

There's a long list of artists and writers who've struggled with depression, anxiety, substance abuse, etc. - and many who ended their pain by suicide.

And there's also the great example of Christianity, a model of the tortured and beaten down philosopher who is beautiful because he is repressed and ineffective.

This is slave philosophy. "You must be destroyed and exploited in order to be useful to others."

I'd say that most of the art that comes from torture is more of a sign of a shitty system than of any kind of useful creative understanding of the human condition.

And that the Christian habit of inviting misery on himself, of sacrificing his own happiness for the glory of some kind of text-created empire, is just a way of writing himself out of any kind of real reflection or freedom that comes from peaceful, augmented reflection.

Our system is shitty. That won't change by giving our system's victims posthumous book prizes. Our leader probably want us reading about their tribulations in order to scare us into compliance.