You must log in or register to comment.

Dendad6972 t1_iteisn6 wrote

Sounds good but nobody purposely debates thinking their way is going to fuck things up.


seminally_me t1_itfs0fa wrote

But they do defend dying on those hills without entertaining other opinions than their own. That's the difference.


straight-lampin OP t1_itenioq wrote

I refuse to believe that all the hate vitriol coming from people's mouths is best effort to be kind. Or any effort at all really.


Dendad6972 t1_itepwfq wrote

Their thinking is it's better at least for them.


longleggedbirds t1_itfdaf9 wrote

Some people in good faith believe that the world is corrupt and resources can only be spread so far. Blah blah blah tragedy of the commons. And if not that then they know how to exploit systems and Nader stand other people all do it too, so why penalize yourself.
Getting into it with either attitude/philosophy hasn’t Changed anyone’s mind because they believe in getting theirs and personal good. And I want to at least humor collective good, but collectives are hard to draw together over time. At least it does inform you of who to protect yourself from.

P.s. being generous with kindness is an amazing gift to have. Feed that instinct!


subzero112001 t1_itfn9iz wrote

People ARE trying to make things better. Better for themselves mostly.


Fearfultick0 t1_itgttm2 wrote

If someone is debating in good faith, they’re willing to learn from the other side. In any debate, both sides will make good points and both sides can learn. If everyone is willing to listen, while putting their best arguments forward, everyone would make progress. While this all sounds good in theory, people typically don’t participate in formal methods of debate, people naturally fall into bubbles, people often don’t debate in good faith, and much of the content we consume is given spin to fit a given narrative. We have a lot of work to do to improve society. It takes more than debating to get there, but debate is essential to gaining knowledge, which is essential to making progress.


tianavitoli t1_iti3zun wrote

even this is subject to the immediate dismissal of good faith, because if they didn't learn anything, they must not have been debating in good faith.

And by learn something, I mean accommodating my beliefs in lieu of your own.

or to oversimplify: if you don't agree with me you are acting in bad faith

that sounds oddly familiar to the status quo we have now.

it only creates the incentive to be disingenuous first, before the other party can be.

and this is a genuine problem. every system based on rules will always be subject to the exploitation by those who discover they gain distinct and often insurmountable advantage by breaking the rules.

good faith is not enough.


Fearfultick0 t1_iti4fgz wrote

Are you saying that I’m saying that if they don’t agree with me then they’re arguing in bad faith? Are you making a straw man of me? Are you arguing in bad faith!! This is why debate will never be enough. People get too bogged down in BS


tianavitoli t1_itigwch wrote

no no no no, don't get me wrong. i'm not saying that you're saying if they don't agree with you they're acting in bad faith. i'm saying that i'm saying that they're acting in bad faith that's why they're disagreeing with you. not like a chicken and egg thing, but more like and egg and chicken thing.


Fearfultick0 t1_itihuxh wrote

Yeah I guess there’s got to be more to bad faith than just whether or not they agree it’s more about like the attitude and approach to the debate.


tianavitoli t1_itinu82 wrote

or maybe it's less about talking and more about walking. honestly it seems like most debate is two people arguing to be right about some change or development they aren't participating in effecting, and those who are aren't sincere in effecting it anyways.


Fearfultick0 t1_itirmti wrote

Yeah, as far as fixing the world goes, walking the walk is incredibly important. That’s something I struggle with in my own life. I do all this reading and learning but what can I do to help?

That said, debate isn’t just about fixing the world, it’s largely be about learning and finding the truth. I’ve learned just from this discussion on Reddit. People have to construct arguments when they write the articles and books we read. Debate is quite fundamental to the dissemination of knowledge, which is what we base our decisions on.

Many of us are completely uninvolved with politics, so I see what you’re saying as basically apathy leads to poor debate etiquette. Since people don’t feel like they have an impact on the world they aren’t motivated to care about the debate. But people in power can also be stubborn. It doesn’t necessarily come down to investment in the topic, but I think subconscious interpersonal dynamics and emotions play a large role in one’s debate style and willingness to learn and listen.


tianavitoli t1_itixhgn wrote

i believe that's right, which is why the answer for me always comes back around to personal development, self improvement through self reflection.

not exactly my idea, there are many different well known people who've said the same. this has been validated in my own experience is all.

i'm of the opinion right now that... maybe the best way to express is is actually from a mary ann williamson poem, to paraphrase

people aren't afraid of their darkness, they're afraid being successful will alienate them from those they care about. this is actually against our inner nature, we were made to be prosperous, whatever that means evolution, creation, it doesn't matter. everything about us is emblematic of prosperity. somewhere along the way we got the wrong idea, reaching for our goals, pursuing our potential, it unconsciously inspires, motivates, and gives permission to others to do the same. this is what we were designed to do.

so hey look, do you. people notice the changes, it makes them happy. we can't directly influence those in power, but we can influence those who might assume the role tomorrow. not through coercion or emotional manipulation, but through resisting it, by being able to navigate the sea of life successfully and maintain a (more or less) healthy optimism. again, other people said this best so i'm just going to use their words:

"don't wish it was easier, wish you were better. don't wish for less problems, wish for more skills. don't wish for the wind to change, that's what they call naiive. wish for the wisdom to set a better sail, let the wind take you where you want to go in life"

- Jim Rohn

he would also say something like the world stays the same. we kinda cycle through the same conversations over and over again. somebody comes up with some idea they feel passionately about that doesn't know it was already tried so they go on a crusade to change the world for the better. i tend to suffer from the opposite, i look and see other people already did it, and i hate feeling like i'm copying other people so i tend not to do things, even though it's obvious there's plenty of room in the world to stake a claim to something, and i have enough competence to be successful in things and people like competence so i will be successful. example: my friend back in 2013 said the real money in crypto would be operating an exchange. there was already coinbase bittrex bitfinex, bitmex, etc and they seemed to be well enough established so i dismissed the idea. fuck me, that was a great idea, since then we've got bybit, ftx, deribit, circle, voyager, and a whole bunch of other shitty exchanges that are all making a lot of money. we probably would have failed, it's not like we know anything, but it was a great idea.

i remember some friend told me about some book he read, i don't remember, eastern philosophy stuff. actually i've heard alan watts say this too. at some point you have to realize you've got the juice inside you and just run with it. the teacher will poke fun of and mock the student until the student realizes the teacher is full of shit too, and just start running with it. i like this, the spiritual principles are really simple, sometimes the pursuit of knowledge becomes an escape from the responsibility of having it.


Durdyb15 t1_itgvjtv wrote

They do if the right amount of money is backing them.


ashgallows t1_itelcye wrote

Step one. Get people who live radically different lives to agree on what "better" is.

Step two. get them to agree on how to make it better.


fvccboi_avgvstvs t1_ithyttc wrote

There is an objective and empirical truth as to what better is, based off science and the universe's design


ashgallows t1_iti0lg1 wrote

what's better for one is not necessarily better for another.

if you need further proof, give a bunch of strangers the stereo aux cord in your car. obvious the correct answer is Pantera, but others disagree.


fvccboi_avgvstvs t1_itiya1b wrote

Music is disagreeable because it is a human creation. It's a subjective thing, and cultural. A bunch of punk rockers may not like the newest pop hit, and obviously that's fine, and honestly dank in my opinion.

The fundamental laws of reality are objective. Think waste: is there any situation where waste is a good thing? Or water: is there any living thing that doesn't need water? We have objective goals as an animal we need to pursue + maximize, and that is beyond culture or country.


bobiz82 t1_itfz9oi wrote



ZincMan t1_itg8aow wrote

The world would be perfect if everyone was perfect


[deleted] t1_itgry14 wrote



ZincMan t1_itgwwth wrote

Are you trying to debate me ? I wasn’t be sarcastic


[deleted] t1_itgx87u wrote



DoneisDone45 t1_itfbyf8 wrote

the problem is with most people, it's not about who is right or who is wrong. it's about getting what they want. all they care about is themselves.


Current_Macaroon3317 t1_itffssd wrote

This should be the definition of 'gobbledegook'

Too many words and fuck all substance.


Amacalago t1_itgdzoj wrote

This take is terminally online. No positive change in the real world happened because of intellectual tea time. Race realists, flat earthers, and body language experts, all claim to be more informed, yet as we all know humans are capable of convincing themselves of total bs, some way more harmful than others. Evil isn’t always like you see on the movies. Everyone believes they’re the good guys. What does it mean to make things better? What counts as intellectual? Good faith? What’s a problem in the first place? Who decides the “winner”? These questions are at the heart of politics, social justice, and debate bros.

There were (and still are) “intellectuals” that would be more than happy to “debate good faith” about why black people are inferior, or why God exists (or doesn’t not exist), or or why pineapples belong on pizza. Again, some of these are way more harmful to society than others, but the problem is, not everyone sees it that way. This “why can’t we all kumbaya around the campfire” is naive at best and at worst, dangerously close to enlightened centrism. Real change happens with advocacy, hard work, and lots of self reflection.

Would a debate with a hard-core vegan make you give up all meat products? Would you boycott your favorite sandwich shop because the owner supported conversion therapy? Would you throw away a smartphone because it’s made in a country with looser child labor laws? We make harmful, net-negative decisions all the time for lots of reasons, not necessarily because we think they’re wrong and we’re right. Vegan products are expensive, they’re the only good sandwich shop around, a smartphone might as well be a commodity these days, you get the picture.

Stand up for what you believe in, and always keep your morals and motivations in check. Radical change comes from radical actions, on a huge, political level and on a personal level. Focus on helping yourself and others. The world sucks for way too many reasons, don’t waste your effort perfecting it. But at least you can better yourself.


frothysmile t1_itfrll8 wrote

Words only go so far. Alexander Hamilton was a known duelist. He died from it, but was honestly one if not the most prominent founding fathers of the U.S.

We got lucky and we literally had to kill people to be free. It is what it is. Humans are animals and we do not always play nice or with ethics, or authenticity,....


SquidTheDan t1_itg2f4u wrote

This is false because it operates on the assumption that people will put the greater good before their own profits.


Fearfultick0 t1_itguy7e wrote

People who think debate is the only thing keeping us from Eutopia don’t understand that most of our social ills arise from scarcity, rather than character flaws.


SquidTheDan t1_itgvy2m wrote

True. However, much of that scarcity is engineered and enforced to maintain a certain social hierarchy. There's enough food on Earth to feed the population, there is far more than space to comfortably house everyone. The problem is that some have far more than they need, leaving the rest to fight over the scraps.


ThatsMrDickfaceToYou t1_itgel8n wrote

Game theory rejects this notion. As soon as enough people are playing by one set of rules, there opens an opportunity vacuum in breaking those rules.


ALargePianist t1_itexz4o wrote

I mean, I feel like that describes me and most people i meet, but the world currently feels like that meme of the bird and the crow screaming over him. Sure, a lot of the worlds problems would be solved by the people with good hearths coming in good faith to discuss hownto move forward, but for everyone one of them theres two that want to yell over them.


seminally_me t1_itfs56c wrote

The population needs to relearn communication and move away from tribal thinking.


Jshea2448 t1_itewv8d wrote

The intellectuals won’t reproduce enough to replace the unmotivated majority. It will always end with a Nero.


Ok-Ice-7050 t1_itf2iyf wrote

Shame we're so far from this currently.


JoeJoe__ t1_itfpg4k wrote

Simplified: one common goal.. something greater than ourselves..


tianavitoli t1_iti7p0j wrote

fancy that, this used to be served by religion, one god and all... but then no one agreed on quite the right way to serve this one god, and much violence ensured.

it wasn't wholly unproductive thought, men were brought up to restrain themselves, be amenable to women, to be of service to their family and community.

now that's all been replaced with government. that proud loving intervening god that generally stayed up there in heaven, is replaced with a real, violent government who enjoys physical intervention, intimidation, obstruction, and coercion. if you wish to suffer for your beliefs, they will happily oblige you. praise be to the state. in congress we trust.


LeakyGuts t1_itfqtyn wrote

Adding qualifiers like motivated, intellectual, and acting in good faith unfortunately absolves about %70 of people on Earth of this effort


NovaCaine12 t1_itfx0gb wrote

I disagree, the world got this bad because people sat and tried to have debates with rich sociopaths who have no intention of changing their behaviour. Democracy is dead, the ONLY way to to fix the world at this point is to kill the ruling elite who are happily destroying it


tianavitoli t1_iti6eml wrote

"the 2nd is there in case the 1st doesn't work out" - dave chappelle


findingthe t1_itg8i9l wrote

All people need to do is be a bit nicer to each other and have a bit more integrity.


mswright353 t1_itggviw wrote

To put it bluntly, if people decided to do the right thing regardless of their social, economic, or intellectual standing in society, it would make for a better world all the way around. Everyone is different in their own way with different thoughts, ideas, and desires, but what unites us as human beings is what can save us as a society.


tianavitoli t1_iti312n wrote

most people believe that doing something is always better than doing nothing, because they believe that at the very least, they can say they did something, irrespective of how constructive the action taken actually was.

made the problem worse? oh well fuck it at least we did something, look at you who said we should do nothing, you're the loser, not us who made things worse.

"Yeah, but your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn't stop to think if they should."

so the whole idea of "making things better" is a false pretense. how about you make yourself better and leave the rest of us alone.

the entirety of government malpractice has been predicated on this idea of "we are making things better". You can ask them, they sincerely believe they are acting in good faith.

example: covid. follow the science. if you're not following the science, then you need to have a heart, shut your mouth, and listen to our scientists. sucks to your belief that our scientists are acting under false pretense, it's just that we've decided you have no heart, therefore you must not have a brain either. we're doing something and you're not you loser.

"Now is the time to do as you're told" - Anthony Fauci

So the correct statement is "All of the problems in this world could be solved with a motivated populace who prided themselves on being involved with the intellectual debates of the day

with a good faith effort to make themselves better"

"I used to say; I'll take care of you if you take care of me. Now I say; I'll take care of me for you, if you'll take care of you for me" - Jim Rohn


Miss_kira1 t1_itj5wcx wrote

I feel like a lot of other folks have made some pretty great arguments. I’m just going to point out that from a neurodivergent perspective, a motivated populace is difficult to achieve.

Some of us can’t make ourselves do shit that we REALLY want to do. Will power isn’t a real thing; it’s all just how your brain happens to be wired.


karma_the_sequel t1_itf53hf wrote

I think about this very thing quite frequently.

Unfortunately, it will never happen. Ever.


Dooshbaguette t1_itfpzy4 wrote

You're talking about the intellectual left the primitive masses make fun of while clasping a beer and hooting at a TV screen over the direction a ball was yeeted.


Ilskur t1_itg6dmg wrote

I think the French Revolution disagrees. 🤣


Tiny-Professor-4543 t1_itg78vw wrote

“…make things better.” presupposes that “better” is definable.

  • Right and left define “better” differently.
  • Christian and atheist define “better” differently.
  • Baby boomers and Generation X define “better” differently.



somethingrandom261 t1_itggq8q wrote

Delete everything after “with” except “good faith” and we’d be 99% there. There’s just too much to gain from, and all the mechanisms reward instead of punish, bad faith.


horridgoblyn t1_ith9bow wrote

Assuming everyone played ball it would create a better society. As it stands in spite of the prevalence of self described free and critical thinkers they don't appreciate having their beliefs (chosen deliberately) challenged.

The second trouble group are more interactive, but hold similar ideas. They will engage readily. I think there is a Cliff's Notes on obfuscation of debates and suggestion techniques. The problem is that the people who try to engage in this behavior pitiful.

Effective manipulation demands social skills and some degree of empathy to read others to convince them. "Master debaters" have neither.

Formal debate doesn't end in consensus. Informal debate can, but more often the interaction provides understanding. You learn about the person as well as the ideas they hold. Open discourse broadens and energizes minds. We are all better for exchanging information and learning from one another. In a better world this is,who we would be. It isn't our way and it serves the society we have not to be like this.


Grinagh t1_iti8t97 wrote

In the face of oblivion most ignore the signs of things going very wrong, very quickly. It's almost as if humanity has been here before which, Surprise surprise, we have. There are numerous inflection points on the human race all of which saw tremendous declines in the population whether it be floods, droughts, volcanoes, ice ages, or sea people as in the case of the late Bronze Age Collapse.

The thing is that even though humanity has encountered large scale systemic threats before, it doesn't seem that we're very good at dealing with them without drastic declines in the population. There is every reason to believe that humanity is just as irrational nowadays as it was in antiquity and surely in prehistory. This irrationality is not some aberration of humanity, rather it seems to be a defining feature and may indeed be part of the human mind in driving how society develops and interacts with other groups. After all is that neighboring village an ally or an enemy? This thinking may have actual cognitive biases based on brain architecture with certain individuals predisposed to outgroups regardless of circumstance.

In our modern world of comparative advantage and international cooperation, one would assume that the fear of the outsider might be diminished as humanity has enjoyed one of the most rapid quality of life transformations we have ever seen. Yet the reality is quite disappointing as it is well established that hate for outgroups is still very strong in society and has been encouraged by sympathetic demagogues.

No it seems we can no more escape this problem than a person can escape their own shadow. Looking back in history it seems one civilization understood such a problem well enough to deify the struggle between Arura Mazda and Ahriman.


pfiffocracy t1_itfi25s wrote

Thinking got us into this mess


Neutronenster t1_itfi9f3 wrote

If that population is unable to execute what they agree on, this will basically be useless, so I disagree with the title.


CaptSharn t1_itfo0mo wrote

I thought this was on the unpopularopinons section


vertexherder t1_itgeo9x wrote

...and butterflies will fly out of my butt.


Toiletchan t1_itgj1b5 wrote

There is a very large amount of us that have sunken so deep into apathy and nihilism that they no longer wish or desire to make things better.


jjameson2000 t1_itglnfb wrote

I wouldn’t need shingles on my roof if it would just stop raining.


Lawdoc1 t1_itgqhdd wrote

The Dunning-Kruger effect makes this nearly impossible.


thelegendofskyler t1_itgt0pq wrote

There is that. There’s just none of that + an unimaginable amount of money so unfortunately we’re outweighed


16ozoatlatte t1_ithcy8a wrote

Maybe, but with 7.5+ billion people on the planet I think the time of sitting around a fire and having intellectual debates with good faith in an effort to make things better has passed lol.


tullystenders t1_ithf3g3 wrote

Motivation, sure. But then they will treat the non-motivated like crap (like the motivational speakers). And, I'm scared of literally everyone having debates, it'll be chaos and anger and fighting.


MrNerdHair t1_ithk000 wrote

Corollary: the world's problems are not solved, so therefore the populace is either not motivated, it intellectual, not acting in good faith, or not trying to make things better.

Which one's your favorite option?


GsTSaien t1_ithkwpp wrote

Or a truly intelligent benevolent world dictator.

Doesn't change the fact these are both fantasies that failed in their conception.


foshizol t1_ithwjna wrote

Most of us have to earn a living