Australian anti speeding ad. Damn.

hypnoguy1 · 16 days

"Internalizing a really complicated situation in my head?" Ah yes. Like this one.

FreakAndGeek · 1 month

/r/moderatepolitics is for all viewpoints, argued with the thoughtfulness of knowing that intelligent well-intended people will disagree with you. Nothing about his comment was particularly out of line for /r/MP. A little more depth and discussion than what (s)he's got is always good of course.

YouArentReasonable · 1 month

Your fourth comment demonstrates that you too will probably fall prey to this unfortunate phenomenon.

...

Don't be dense.

...

...admit you were sold your position by some politician and never put much thought into it.

Easy there. /r/MP sidebar, #2 (a):

Comment on content, not on redditors: No attacking fellow MPers:

Don't simply state that someone else is dumb or uninformed. You can explain the specifics of the misperception at hand without making it about the other person.

Suppose YouArentReasonable is really not being rational and arguing from a strong confirmation bias: frustrating as it may be, accusing him/her of it doesn't negate it and only provokes. Same deal with repeating the accusation below. Please try to keep debates impersonal as much as possible for /r/MP. Thanks for your discussion.

redsworldchapmions · 1 month

I founded /r/MP because I saw /r/politics as a circlejerk for liberals. And I'm a liberal. I got tired of people blatantly ignoring how many things can be legitimately argued from the other side. How can you take a stance on an issue when you haven't seriously considered the opposing argument?

Fluttershychotic · 1 month

Gf just got me into Firefly. Must upvote all references.

sockthepuppetry · 1 month

Love it! Draw it and we'll do it!

LesWes · 1 month

I think there remain significant, unsettled issues as to whether the point is to endeavor for agreeableness or thoughtfulness.

Neither really. The idea is a separation of arguing on content from arguing about users. Say whatever matches your beliefs, but don't make it a statement about the intelligence or bias of the other MPers. The outcome of a debate then either becomes, "I agree," "I can see where you're coming from," or "I think your values and priorities are very different than mine," as opposed to "You're dumb/misinformed/trying to subvert and destroy society."

RiseAM · 2 months

He then proceeded to repeat his argument based solely on his own, limited understanding, without acknowledging any point of my response.

Please continue to assume good faith. He may think the same of you. I will not be a point-by-point judge of who's making effective points and who's being repetitive as a subjective matter, but an attack on another editor is categorically not useful.

RiseAM · 2 months

It is always more helpful to address specific pieces of misunderstanding, pieces of content (e.g. you said above that X is a property of Y. Actually, this isn't generally the case). "You don't know what you're talking about"/"You're over your head" conveys no information and only provokes others.

RiseAM · 2 months

Perhaps you should limit your authoritative tone to your comments on hard sciences, and maybe ask more questions in regards to the soft sciences. Especially in subject that you don't seem to be comfortable with, like Economics.

Not appropriate for /r/MP. Please stay away from accusations of bias, motive, or simple lack of understanding. Stick to content and level heads will prevail.

RiseAM · 2 months

Shocking.

Hey hey. Anything that is said sarcastically can be said as clearly with less provocative tone. Please play nice.

RiseAM · 2 months

Easy there. The point of /r/MP is to argue content, rather than speculate on other editor's motives and biases.

r2002 · 5 months

Not good etiquette to this subreddit, either of you. Please try to keep the dialogue elevated.

r2002 · 5 months

This comment isn't helpful nor good etiquette. Please try to keep the discussion elevated here.

sockthepuppetry · 6 months

We did it! We made even-handed political discussion on the internets!

Azrael11 · 7 months

It's not a hard set rule, but caps on the internet is generally seen as yelling. It just reads angrier.

Azrael11 · 7 months

Whoa, easy on the caps there. We appreciate dissenting viewpoints but we're trying to mellow the tone in /r/MP.

lolstuff · 7 months

Guy: Yeah, I'm here to fix deine light bulb.

Maude: Lord. You can imagine where it goes from here.

The Dude: He fixes the light bulb?

sockthepuppetry · 8 months

This kind of simplistic sarcasm is not encouraged in /r/mp.

As for the stolen land claim: Jews have been continuously living in Palestine for thousands of years, alongside their non-Jewish brethren, including in 1882 when Jews from Europe, the US, etc.. started arriving in larger waves. The arriving Jews bought up land from absentee landlords.#7. As things destabilized under the Palestine Mandate, Britain sought be rid of it.

The UN offered a partition plan in 1947 that the Jewish leaderships accepted but most of the Muslim leadership did not accept and stated they would accept no derivative form of the proposal. Britain unilaterally withdrew, agreeing to the plan but refused to enforce it since there wasn't agreement from both sides. The next day civil war erupted. Israel declared nationhood and the conflict went from intranational to international.

In the process, about 700,000 Muslim and Christian Arabs fled out of the newly declared Israel and over the next 2 decades about 800,000 Arab Jews fled nearby Arab lands to Israel.

So, "stolen land" is a very simplistic and loaded way to say it, considering that:

ownership of the land was a result of a civil war
approximately equal numbers of Jews also lost their land as a result of the conflict
a number of Muslim and Christian Arabs stayed behind and became citizens of Israel

r2002 · 8 months

Personal taste isn't a matter of intelligence. We all are guilty of wasting money and time to entertain ourselves. If you're on reddit, chances are you prioritize toward wasting time in internet threads.

wetheslaves · 9 months

I suppose that's where you and I have our differences. In age when knowledge is becoming ever increasingly fragmented, I don't trust myself (or anyone else) to be able to navigate a world run entirely on free market principles. IMO, there's just way too much to know to keep yourself safe and uncheated. There are also HUGE disparities in power that have been empirically shown to be self-reinforcing.

But if priorities of property are more important to you than concerns of convenience, equality, safety, and environment, then sure, tax-funded actions are tyrannical.

Also, if you're interested level-headed discussions with people, I'd suggest calling it "force" instead of "violence". I know what you mean, but it's only true by metonymy and it's needlessly inflammatory. And if someone disagrees with you about the existence of "violence", then you have to waste your time explaining it. The best way I've heard it put by a libertarian in argument is just to call it "enforceable by men with guns".

wetheslaves · 9 months

It's at this point that I'm not really following you. I'm putting none of this in terms of "rights". I just think it's a more effective way to live if I pay some fraction of my paycheck to an organization in charge of enforcing that my good is safe to eat. And I think that enough people also appreciate the value of having food that's ensured safe that it's not terribly fascist to have everyone pay in and reap the benefits.

Besides that, it helps out the economy when everyone feels more or less safe about eating out at their favorite restaurants or trying out new ones. Of course, none of this is anyone's right. It's just an easier and more comfortable way of living for everyone.

Similarly, paying for an organization to regular the safety of airplanes (FAA) is a much more effective way to live than have the free market correct safety oversights through crashes and deaths. People fly more, knowing that someone who's an expert in the field is empowered to ensure that all planes are flying within certain standards.

These are the aspects of the free market which are better left with some oversight.

wetheslaves · 9 months

Restaurants would have an incentive to pay a reputable health rating organization to inspect it's[sic] business

Which would be prone to all kinds of corruption avoided by having the health rating organization be publicly funded. Besides you've just made the information problem worse: now, instead of just knowing which restaurants are good, I have to know which ratings organizations are good.

sockthepuppetry

TROPHY CASE

you'll need to login or register to do that

create a new account

login