
The “Other Side” Is Not Dumb - landonshoop
https://medium.com/@SeanBlanda/the-other-side-is-not-dumb-2670c1294063#.390rmt479
======
wfo
Yes but what if the other side doesn't extend you the same courtesy? What if
the other side sees your thoughtfulness as weakness, your careful
consideration as waffling and flip-flopping and leaps onto the opportunity to
push even more extreme views, becomes even more absurdly divisive?

On the whole in terms of writing, social media, op eds, etc I feel
intellectuals (left and right) have taken this advice too much and been
stomped all over because of it. Be polite, respectful, but firm and
unyielding. Don't concede points without needing to. Don't give credence where
credence is not due. Don't allow people to exploit your willingness to
respectfully consider their arguments to shift the Overton window and win
before you even open your mouth.

Because the person who is arguing back doesn't want to win the argument. He
just wants the audience to consider his ridiculous, extremist views just as or
almost as reasonable as yours. So you can meet in the middle, which has been
pushed so far towards him that it was where he wanted to be in the first
place.

I think this is excellent advice if you're talking to someone you know and
respect in real life.

~~~
ethbro
A lot of this in media is scientific laziness on the author's part. Which I
admit is partially science's fault in saying "the facts speak for themselves"
and failing to engage in a responsible manner (e.g. Sagan, Nye, or Tyson).

But I feel as though at some point in journalism school, it's drilled into
students never to say "this thing is, and I stand behind it."

Instead, we get either the global negative ("People who are not me say this
thing is") or an artificial alternative ("Some say this thing is, others hold
this [uncredible but nevertheless presented] view").

Scientists issue retractions all the time - that's how the process works.
Media should be comfortable with the same when it's interfacing on science
questions.

------
Animats
The "Other side" is scared, not dumb. Molly Ivins used to point this out. For
the white lower middle class, life has been a slow downhill slide since the
mid-1970s. Those are the people who support Trump and the Tea Party.

Unfortunately, exploiting that fear is politically effective. This is a
problem with a long history. There are records of it back as far as Cicero.

It's not their fault that they don't know what to do. Nobody knows what to do.
We have all this productivity, and we don't need that many people to make all
the stuff. Economic policymakers don't know how to deal with that. If you want
to look for dumb, look at what comes out of economists. There's a sizable
faction that says there can never be a shortage of demand. Tell that to Wal-
Mart's CEO, who says their customers are spent out.

(Sometimes they really are dumb, as in that Oregon "militia" group camping out
in the bird sanctuary.)

~~~
wrong_internet
There's also the 130+ IQ group of neoreactionaries who like Trump from a
perspective informed by history.

~~~
zardo
I had not heard the term. The current top post in their subreddit is "How to
genocide inferior kinds in a properly Christian manner"

Sounds like a great group of folks.

~~~
tamana
You just made the classic mistake of conflating evil (or differently moraled)
with dumb.

~~~
zardo
I didn't call anyone dumb. Read "great folks" as "good people". (Also with
sarcasm)

------
nikdaheratik
As a former card carrying Debate Club member, I suppose this article may be
helpful for people who aren't used to having these arguments. But I don't
believe it is very helpful for most interactions on anything really
controversial right now.

Most people making arguments for "the other side" haven't actually had to
defend them against real criticism. They also are usually not the originators
of their position, they're forwarding the ideas from someone else, so they
don't necessarily even understand _what it is_ they are articulating.

Trying to engage with someone who doesn't know how to argue and doesn't
actually grasp their ideas is about as productive as trying to argue with a
4-chan meme. I've long ago decided to just put my 2-cents in a single time, if
I feel they're saying something really stupid, then move on.

~~~
nadagast
This attitude ignores the other 90+% of people who read your replies: people
who aren't actually engaging, just reading and considering. I think the meme
of 'debate online is pointless' is wrong because the vast majority of people
who read anything you write publicly will be able to read from a position
where they could have their mind changed, maybe. Write for those people.

~~~
tamana
This is explained in Thank You For Smoking, and illustrated every day on
C-SPAN

~~~
nadagast
Interesting, I didn't know that--is it worth watching?

------
gpsx
Having grown up in West Virginia and now living Silicon Valley, I see extremes
from both sides. And they both _really_ think the other side is dumb. And that
the president (Obama or Bush) is purposely trying to destroy the country. It
is like two people in a marriage that has gone bad. Is there any way to fix
it?

My two cents is that a place to start is to try to make a single news source
that both sides can read, to help us try to get on the same page. The news
source would have to not generate viewers by inciting them to anger. Maybe
some thing like a newspaper but with peer reviewed articles by people from
both sides?

~~~
tamana
Nearly ño one on the left ever accused Bush of purposely destroying the
country. The accusation we a mix of incompetent mismanagement and cynical
exploitation for profit.

~~~
coddingtonbear
Really, it comes down to what you mean by "America"; my understanding of the
"[president] is destroying America" crowd is that they're commenting more on
destroying America's "America-ness" than actually dismantling the nation.

Right now, on the right, you have people making claims that Obama is a closet
authoritarian bent on dismantling the constitution, taking away our guns, and
forcing your small town to not have a nativity scene afront their courthouse
this year. Turning back the clock by a decade, those sorts of claims are not
very far off from the claims of people (like a rather-younger me) on the left
that Bush (or, perhaps, Cheney) were intentionally using the September 11th
attacks as a tool for stripping us of our constitutional freedoms. Although
obviously not a majority opinion; those sorts of views were definitely not
uncommon during the Bush era.

------
andrewclunn
I recall one time talking with a guy in the back of a church after the service
was over (back when I attended church). The sermon had been about acceptance
and had specifically touched on gay acceptance.

The man had only come to the church twice, and we were talking, and he was
quoting the bible in support of his view that homosexuality is a sin. I
listened and was engaging him in conversation. Multiple people came up to me
and tried to "help me escape" the conversation because they had no interest in
engaging with someone who didn't agree with them.

I read this article and I couldn't help but see lines like this, "To be sure,
there are hateful, racist, people not worthy of the small amount of
electricity it takes just one of your synapses to fire." Really? It just seems
like the same old play at being accepting and open minded, but not really. I
would also say that this IS a political correctness issue. This isn't really a
problem for the political right because they don't mind being offended, and
they don't feel the need to pretend to be open minded (at least in the US).

This seems very much in the vain of when Jon Stewart had the "Rally to Restore
Sanity." It claimed to be about being open minded, but it was really just
about presenting the notion that "we" (see people on the political left) value
being open minded.

------
TeMPOraL
Another observation about the "Other side" (that is, really, about all of us)
to add to excellent points made by others here.

Most disagreements happen around things that have no direct impact on day-to-
day life. People can hold widely different opinions about politics because...
it's politics. Most of it is bullshit, and rest doesn't affect your daily life
anyway, at least not immediately or directly. Take two people who are in
fierce disagreement about the balance between government intervention and
market freedom - take them, and go see how they manage their personal
checkbooks or how they maintain their homes and cars. Suddenly, you'll see
agreement, similar solutions, and both people being generally smart.

People are _pragmatic_. We tend to invest in knowing the actual truth
proportionally to how the issue is actually important to us. Hence most
disagreements are about things that actually cost us nothing when we get them
wrong.

~~~
enraged_camel
>>People can hold widely different opinions about politics because... it's
politics. Most of it is bullshit, and rest doesn't affect your daily life
anyway, at least not immediately or directly.

I completely disagree. Most political issues have a direct impact on people.
Affordable Care Act is requiring millions of people to buy health insurance.
Defunding Planned Parenthood would cut aid from millions of young women. Gun
control laws have a direct impact on our nation's safety from internal
threats. Legalized gay marriage is allowing tons of gay couples to finally get
married and enjoy many of the benefits (especially financial) of the
institution.

I can go on.

The only debates that don't have a direct and immediate impact on people are
the abstract ones, such as the example you gave about government intervention
vs. market freedom. But even those debates happen within the the context of
concrete issues, proposed laws or ongoing lawsuits.

~~~
TeMPOraL
Ask yourself - how many of those issues affect _you_ directly? And by directly
I mean something you'll suddenly have to account for in your daily life and
spending patterns.

Personally, their equivalents in my country don't affect me at all. I'm young
and relatively healthy, my employer pays for my health insurance. Yes,
accidents can happen, but it's an abstract possibility. Gun control - when
have you last seen people shooting each other on the streets in real life?
It's another topic that's just abstract for most people. Gay marriage is
something that naturally affects only LGBT people. The opposition argues
against same-sex marriages mostly from a moral standpoint, which is again
something abstract.

Say, on the other hand, that we'd have confirmed reports about zombies (or
evil commie nazi aliens) showing up in various places in the US. I'm pretty
sure the gun control debate would be resolved unanimously in a single hearing.

That of course doesn't account for _all_ policy disagreements. But the most
I've seen so far always involve at least one side with no immediate, tangible
stake in the issue.

\--

EDIT:

Replying to the three (so far) responses.

Thanks for sharing your perspectives. I guess I might be underestimating the
direct importance of some of those issues to people, as well as the amount of
disagreements that are about conflicting interests. I will reevaluate my
opinions on this topic.

~~~
munin
> Say, on the other hand, that we'd have confirmed reports about zombies (or
> evil commie nazi aliens)

seriously? so you read a piece whose thesis is "talk rationally and
empathetically with people that hold different points of views" and your next
thought was "okay, zombies and evil commie nazi aliens, yeah"

anyway:

> I'm young and relatively healthy

great for you, I'm not. daily survival is contingent on remaining employed.
yippee! the opposition to ACA sees a reminder of why they should oppose this
issue every two weeks when they look at their income tax deduction and wonder
how much they would get back if a few people that they didn't really know
suffered some more. what is more immediate than money missing from your own
pocket?

> when have you last seen people shooting each other on the streets in real
> life?

growing up, guns were a part of every day life. they were tools that you used
to accomplish concrete goals. sometimes those goals were defending yourself
from wildlife, sometimes they were getting dinner. sometimes, they were for
ending your own life. people that are for gun control have seen one too many
accident, suicide, or homicide. people that are against gun control see an
immediate threat to a utilitarian tool or a way of life. it's very visceral
and you're deluding yourself if you think otherwise.

> Gay marriage is something that naturally affects only LGBT people

I guess you don't know or care about any LGBT people in your life, which is
okay, but totally overlooks anyone for whom this is the case. in the south, if
you walk around in the wrong town with the person you love, you're liable to
have someone yell "FAGGOT!" or "DYKES!" at you just for being you. to the
people doing the yelling, they are on the front line of a culture war and they
see an insult to their moral fiber every time they encounter someone that
loves another of their own gender. they get a reminder of why to keep fighting
every week or so.

these aren't abstract concepts, these are issues where the parties involved
have real skin in the game. the abstract issues you're thinking about are
probably things like "foreign policy" or "defense spending" but even there the
reason to support them is visceral - every time a redneck sees someone on the
street that isn't white, they get reminded of the "other" and are filled with
a desire to keep them out. every time a family living near a base hears about
BRAC they develop an immediate fear for the vortex of pain that is about to
fill their lives, require their relocation, and destroy the property value of
their home.

you are a fool if you think the people involved in these debates consider the
issues abstract. they're quite concrete.

~~~
wutbrodo
> seriously? so you read a piece whose thesis is "talk rationally and
> empathetically with people that hold different points of views" and your
> next thought was "okay, zombies and evil commie nazi aliens, yeah"

Not the parent commenter but in what way is using a mildly humorous
hypothetical even remotely contrary to either rationality or empathy...?

------
woodandsteel
This is an excellent article. It occurs to me that it would be good if someone
put up a web site where pairs of people could publicly or privately practice
the sorts of respectful interviewing and dialogue that he is advocating.

Let me add that I have found the active listening skill of just saying back to
the other person what they said is very useful here. I have run workshops
where people did this and it is remarkable what a difference it makes. I also
like Marshall Rosenberg's book Nonviolent Communication.

I think part of the problem is that people don't realize there is a more
productive way of going about things, and in addition there certainly are many
parties today that profit from having people screaming at each other.

~~~
JoBrad
I frequent two sites that do something like this. I found them from this
article (which was also very helpful for me):
[http://www.makeuseof.com/tag/read-intelligent-
content-2016-3...](http://www.makeuseof.com/tag/read-intelligent-
content-2016-35-sites/)

The Conversation [https://theconversation.com/](https://theconversation.com/)

Aeon [http://aeon.co/magazine/](http://aeon.co/magazine/)

------
gweinberg
This article has it exactly wrong. Most people on the other side ARE stupid.
Most people on your side are stupid also.

~~~
onewaystreet
The thing that someone who has a firm grasp on an issue will often find is
that most people on both sides don't actually know what they are talking
about.

~~~
TeMPOraL
This is a painfully true observation.

I think the first time I really realized it was when I was drifting away from
my religion of birth, and actually started to listen to atheist people around
me. I soon discovered that the only difference between most of them and the
religious people I know was the value of $religion variable. For one group it
was "God", for the other it was "no God". The thought patterns were _exactly
the same_. Neither of them could actually justify their beliefs.

~~~
nadagast
I don't think this is very true--what significant/majority of religious
thought patterns are the same in atheism? The only one I think you could make
a case for is ingroup/outgroup thinking, but that is not a majority of
religious belief.

~~~
TeMPOraL
Acquiring the belief because it's popular in your ingroup, along with a
strawman-based view of the outgroup(s). No real effort spent on thinking the
belief through; lack of any real argument against the beliefs of the
outgroup(s).

------
exolymph
Accepting epistemic uncertainty is very difficult and unsettling but totally
worthwhile.

~~~
rewqfdsa
Agreed

------
ethbro
_> A dare for the next time you’re in discussion with someone you disagree
with: Don’t try to “win.” Don’t try to “convince” anyone of your viewpoint.
Don’t score points by mocking them to your peers. Instead try to “lose.” Hear
them out. Ask them to convince you and mean it._

I'm going to dream about what that world would look like tonight.

------
hammock
There have been a few articles posted to HN pointing out the folly of assuming
your competitors are stupid. You're better off assuming that for reasons
unknown, they rationally have made the decisions they did.

------
poke111
I like that he mentions the Ideological Turing Test, though not by name
([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideological_Turing_Test](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideological_Turing_Test))

"As any debate club veteran knows, if you can’t make your opponent’s point for
them, you don’t truly grasp the issue."

~~~
gweinberg
That's bullshit though. On many issues, one or both sides don't have any
argument beyond "me not like". But that's enough, if you can find enough
people that feel the same way.

~~~
TeMPOraL
No, that's actually a very insightful observation. The process of taking your
opponent's argument, improving it and defeating its stronger form is sometimes
known as "steelmanning"[0].

"If you’re interested in being on the right side of disputes, you will refute
your opponents' arguments. But if you're interested in producing truth, you
will fix your opponents' arguments for them. To win, you must fight not only
the creature you encounter; you [also] must fight the most horrible thing that
can be constructed from its corpse."[1]

If the other side's argument boils down to "me not like", then you have your
job made even easier for you. Seeing the stronger arguments for their position
and how (and where exactly) it still falls apart can be enlightening to your
conversation partner.

Conversely, if you can't fathom why a reasonable person could hold the opinion
your partner holds, it means you don't understand the issue itself at all.
Most people are not dumb, their beliefs always form some structure that's
plausible for them. It usually doesn't take much work to build yourself a
model of someone else's beliefs, if you're willing to do so.

The only requirement, obviously, is that the other person at least tries to be
honest. I think most people are, but sometimes you need to first work around
their (and yours) ego issues.

[0] -
[https://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Steel_man](https://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Steel_man)

[1] -
[http://lesswrong.com/lw/85h/better_disagreement/](http://lesswrong.com/lw/85h/better_disagreement/)

~~~
emmelaich
I have heard that that is an Augustinian trait or method. But I have not been
able to find any reference to St Augustus advocating this.

Can anyone help me out? Perhaps I have the wrong saint or philosopher.

------
memracom
Ever think that on most issues, say 985 times out of 100, the other side is
roughly 50% of those that are not undecided. If you look at the issue overall,
and allow for shades of gray between the positions, then most people are in
rough agreement around some central position.

I think that if you can construct a survey on the issue that correctly breaks
out several shades of gray in the position, then the results will plot out on
a normal curve. Only when the normal curve is heavily weighted to one side or
the other, i.e. there is a larger group on one side of the median, do you have
a winnable issue.

It's too bad that media just spends so much time groveling in the mud with
everyone else, when they could actually be doing such surveys and illuminating
the issue.

Take gun control for instance. How many of you have any idea what shape of
curve would result from such a survey? And if you compared it to the results
25 years ago, how would it differ? If you had a series of such surveys over
time, then what trends would they show?

Without this info, there is no point in debating. I don't doubt that somebody
has done such surveys and does have this info. And those people do influence
politicians. But that just reinforces an elite separate from the masses, and
is fundamentally anti-democratic.

~~~
DrScump

       ...say 985 times out of 100...
    

985 times out of 100, people in general will mistrust the data. ;)

------
cryoshon
What if the other side is actually rejecting factual reality, though? Are they
still "not dumb"? What if facts have no hold on them whatsoever? Can we even
have a productive conversation?

See: vaccine deniers/vaccine scheduling skeptics, climate change deniers,
evolution deniers, etc.

~~~
TeMPOraL
The examples you provided have nothing to do with facts, actually. They're
about trustworthiness of the fact _sources_.

Given all the shenanigans pharmaceutical companies pull, given how FDA itself
is often reported in the news as unreliable or even corrupt, given that so
many studies keep turning out to be unreliable - ask yourself, why do _you_
believe you're right about vaccines? :).

~~~
danieltillett
Unreliable agents do not make something false. If you are lucky enough to have
great grandparents go and ask them about the time before the polio vaccine. I
asked mine and it was a nightmare.

~~~
TeMPOraL
Unfortunately, I'm not lucky enough.

I'm not defending anti-vaccination beliefs. All I'm saying is that with all
the moral bankruptcy of our governments, corporations and journalists, it's no
surprise movements like anti-vaccination started to appear. I believe the core
issue has nothing to do with facts, or people being "dumb" or uneducated -
that it's mostly about lack of trust in authorities. And so we won't solve it
by throwing even more scientific papers at the antivaxx crowd.

~~~
danieltillett
I have to say I am not too sure why people become anti-vaxers, but I do agree
with you that trying to convince them with science is not likely to succeed.

Anti-vax is worse than child abuse. If you don’t vaccinate your children you
are not only putting them at risk (child abuse), but you are putting my
children at risk through lowering the herd immunity. I have zero tolerance for
crazy ideas that risk the health of my children.

The way we have tackled this problem in Australia is by tying the welfare
system to vaccination - no vaccination, no child payments from the government.
It is amazing how most anti-vaxers change their tune when it is going to cost
them money.

------
overgard
I usually think of this sort of thing in terms of cached thoughts:
[http://lesswrong.com/lw/k5/cached_thoughts/](http://lesswrong.com/lw/k5/cached_thoughts/)

Once you get over the smug thought of "ha! all those people and their cached
thoughts!", you have to stop to think, which of your own principles have you
actually _really_ thought about?

I don't think it's so much about considering "The Other Side", instead it's
about having clarity by knowing why you believe what you believe. Generally
speaking, if it's "us vs them", you're being played anyway. Some tribe has a
vested interest in playing you against another tribe.

------
sandworm101
>> I implore you to seek out your opposite. When you hear someone cite “facts”
that don’t support your viewpoint don’t think “that can’t be true!” Instead
consider, “Hm, maybe that person is right? I should look into this.”

Nooop. When the crazy uncle starts going on about how the lizard people at the
US have formed a world government for the express purpose of using solar
panels to take guns away from seniors ... no. There are ideas that are not
worth my time to explore or disprove. So long as the crazy people stick to
their crazy shacks, I am not going to engage.

Of course those crazies seem to be breeding uncontrollably. It may be time to
reverse my position and actually start researching the vril.

~~~
ocdtrekkie
Well, we all generally agree that there aren't 'lizard people' in the US (we
do agree that, right? ...right?), but increasingly less crazy ideas are now
being regarded as similarly crazy.

~~~
sandworm101
Like the US president is a secret muslim from kenya in office to take away the
guns in furtherance of the global warming hoax? I see aspects of that
narrative on TV almost every day. It's a daily reality for millions and
millions of americans.

~~~
ocdtrekkie
None of those concepts are as crazy as lizard people, are they?

~~~
sandworm101
Well they are both rather unlikely, but at least the lizard thing is testable.
Poke the guy with a stick and see. Question answered. The other theories
cannot be so easily disproved.

~~~
tamana
Practically speaking, you can't personally poke the guy with a stick, and you
don't trust the people who claim they have poked him. That's the unresolvable
problem in the debate, same as with Muslim, guns, climate, autism, etc.

------
golemotron
This is a good analysis but it misses something. People on the "other side" in
most social media conversations are either "red tribe" if you are "blue tribe"
or "blue tribe" if you are "red tribe."

Scott Anderson gets into that filter-bubble issue:
[http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/09/30/i-can-tolerate-
anything...](http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/09/30/i-can-tolerate-anything-
except-the-outgroup/)

------
Nursie
I don't share links on social media, and I've basically blocked all news
sources and link-factories so I don't see when others do either.

It took some time, but my facebook is now more or less back to inane chatter
and cat/baby/both pictures.

Everyone else is free to get on with signalling their hearts out, I don't want
to know.

------
joolze
You seem to be describing what is commonly known as a "conversation".

I find it hilarious that western society has gradually devolved itself to such
an extent with fear-fear mongering, hate-hate speech, and an absurd amount of
righteous indignation that people are literally terrified to have opinions
outside the groupthink; and you not only have to invent a game to feel human
again, but that game is apparently novel enough to reach the front page of HN.
This is literally an analysis of how to have a disagreement without reacting
like a fourth grader.

~~~
state
This seems to me to be even more true online, although we like to think that
information technology has the opposite effect.

~~~
lostcolony
It is more true online, and for a lot of reasons.

I meet someone at a party and we become Facebook friends. I then post some
sort of political article or comment to my feed. They see it, disagree with
it, and (likely) either comment on it in a non-polite manner, or stay silent,
but either way categorize me in their head as a crazy right/left winger. Why?
Because these are what is easiest to do for 'crazy' opinions coming from
strangers.

Compare that with what can happen in real life. I get to know someone over the
course of multiple interactions; all my political comments are kept to those I
already know and trust. Eventually we get to a point we know and trust each
other, and I venture an opinion, one they disagree with. They say "I disagree
with that", and we discuss it. Why? Because we already know each other, value
each other, trust each other, and are seeking legitimately to understand
and/or sway one another, while also preserving the relationship.

The internet has essentially made it so the thoughts we used to reserve for
those we knew in depth, are becoming aired to strangers, and responded to
accordingly.

While it means that insular bubbles of thought (the rural family who doesn't
know anyone who believes in gun control, say) are encountering people who
disagree with them, those people are strangers, and there's no reason to give
them any credence. If anything, it just makes one even more vociferous,
because now you can preach to people who -aren't- in the choir.

~~~
Nursie
I don't know. I had one or two friends come out as anti-vax IRL and we didn't
have a discussion, instead my opinion of them just plummeted.

~~~
DrScump
Does someone who opposes media-driven thinking (with supporting science to
show why) about any _one_ vaccine get lumped into "anti-vaxxers" in your mind?
Because that all-or-nothing thinking fallacy is a key symptom of the problem.

~~~
Nursie
If they have a factual basis for their views that's fine.

But in general I was talking about folks who have, for whatever reason, said
things like "oh we're not vaccinating our children", meaning all vaccines.

There is no reasonable basis for this outlook.

------
orionblastar
Actually it is quite confusing for me as I am a moderate and liberals see me
as a conservative and conservatives see me as a liberal and I get blasted by
both sides for being dumb because I don't have 100% of their views.

I am for social programs so conservatives think me a liberal.

I am for freedom of religion and gun rights so liberals think me conservative.

However there can be like 30 different political viewpoints besides liberal
and conservative. It is not a black and white issue but shades of grey and
colors as well. The political charts they use are misleading and based on
questions they ask I am either on the left or the right and never the same
place.

I'm for basic income because people lose their jobs when websites automate
stuff and AI programs and robots take over jobs. People need something to live
on in order to get an education to qualify for a better job. You see new jobs
are created but require a different skill set than the jobs that are
eliminated. People used to learn how a typewriter worked and would have a room
of 100 people typing letters and memos all day until the Word Processor and
Laser Printer came into play and put them out of work. My own father had
worked for AT&T with 1ESS Switches they had tried to convert to computers
using Unix and he lost his job when AT&T was broken up, nobody else used the
1ESS they used IBM AS/400 systems instead or the PC and he wasn't trained in
it. He struggled with finding jobs to make ends meet. Working as a janitor or
working on factory machines for a pasta company. We went from being middle
class to poor or lower middle class.

Anyway I never consider the other person I debate with on the other side of
the screen is stupid or dumb. I figure they were educated in a different way
than I was, grew up different, have a different view on life than I do.

The problem is citing sources to back up your claims, the Internet has
websites that will support almost any claim. For even website I cite the other
person can cite a website that says the opposite. Even more they can say the
other website supports a contrary view to theirs so it must be biased, and
thus discarded.

In college I had an Astronomy class, and the Professor argued with the book,
and countered every theory with his own personal theory. The universe is not
expanding, he would claim, Hubble is wrong about red shifts. Instead of a Big
Bang, he claimed the universe always existed, etc. It as hard for me to learn
from such a person. I was lucky to get a C from his class because I had to
take notes on his personal theories to get test answers correct and not use
the book to study.

At times I get voted down here because I write a comment that people disagree
with. Then sometimes it gets voted back up by people who agree with me.

------
bitwize
If this were in reference to France or Germany or the UK or Australia or New
Zealand, it'd be very on point.

In reference to the USA, where just around half the population believe that
God literally created the universe in six literal days, no, I'm sorry, the
"other side" really is willfully, dangerously stupid.

