First time I've ever seen it happen when it wasn't explicitly spam or obvious trolling. I'm more confused about it than anything.
Huh. And here I thought we were having a nice conversation.
I'd ask that you please consider that you may not have been as clear with your intended message as you may have thought, and not that the person speaking to you is just a bad-faith idiot in the future.
Not sure if I agree with that. I'm not basing my use of devil's advocate on classical debate models. I would, in fact, argue that those aren't relevant in modern society for the most part.
In our rules, I state:
DO: Be a “Devil’s Advocate” if there’s no opposition and you can see some arguments for the other side you’d like to see addressed. You do not have to believe either side of an issue in order to generate solid points on a view.
Elsewhere I've spoken about something I feel devil's advocate helps with - namely that you can be right for the wrong reasons and wrong for the right reasons. There are tons of examples. You do not have to disagree with someone in order to point out that their reasoning sucks.
This is an absolutely garbage example, but it's one from my real life. My mother-in-law is an atheist, as am I. When I asked her how she arrived there, her reasoning was (in full, and apologies to anyone reading this stupid shit) "Religion is gay."
Now... I agree with her about there not being a God, but not her reasoning. Asking clarifying DA questions and having her answer her own questions helped her express her actual opinion and not just... the dumbest fucking thing I've ever heard in a religious discussion. I do the same here when someone expresses something that leaves major chunks in their argument or opinion, even if I agree.
Asking strong questions to fill gaps in my opinions and belief structure are also called a "Steelman" (opposite of a strawman) which are of incredible value in logic courses.
We almost need like... some kind of "Supreme Court" or Mod review system. One way or another, it's a really hard problem to solve for certain.
All good, and this was exactly the kind of thing I was hoping for and appreciate the answer. I didn't really see anything that disagreed with what I asked though.
As I mentioned, some of those questions were unanswered by the original responder and some were just assumptive next steps based on what I was reading. They weren't leading, they were clarifying and harder to answer and asked from another perspective. I try to ask (at least somewhat) challenging questions in order to get a more nuanced and informed take on topics and hope that asking them helps those that can explain as well. I'm on the side of bannings being generally bad for discourse and Communities as a whole. Permanent multi-Comminuty bans for small slights is even worse and makes Lemmy look thin-skinned and childish.
And to borrow the coffee analogy again, Reddit would be like Dunkin' Doughnuts (in which nobody gives a fuck about you as long as you get your swill there and make them money) and Lemmy would be more like an ethically-sourced small-batch experimental coffee shop where some batches are great and some are dogshit (except some of the baristas are kind of dicks because the band on your tee shirt said something they didn't like once). I don't think either is perfect, but I like it here better.
Heh. I'm Canadian; I've got zero issues with socialism. Safety nets have helped me at various points in my life and many of my friends as well that, in the US system, would have been destroyed for their entire lives.
Updated the link in the side panel, thanks!
To explain, the priority-shuffling means that I value things in a different order. For example, a strict vegan may value not eating meat more than survival in a starvation situation. I value the survival more and would eat the meat - it's a different stack order.
I value my family more than your family. You most likely hold the opposite stack order. That's all I meant. This is where a lot of confrontations come in; people don't understand or care about the order of other people's stack and don't understand that someone values X over Y. Hell, people don't often understand their own stack.
That's the issue and speaks to what I was getting at. I value an open and good-faith exchange of ideas, even if those ideas are not the norm. I'm all for people being gay even in the middle of a Southern Baptist church, for instance. It being a transgression doesn't matter. If a taboo flies in the face of a logical and scientific position, then the taboo should probably go away, which may take tact, time, and effort.
People react poorly to anything position they hold that is morals-based, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't try. Most worthwhile change is resisted, at least somewhat. You know that saying "You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into"? It's most often because the position they got into was based on a moral stance, not logic and they've reinforced themselves over time (often with echo chambers that misrepresent opposing views).
If a solution just requires everybody to change, it’s not a solution.
If a solution requires just enough people to change, it's may not be an easy solution, but may be a worthwhile one.
the practice of playing devils advocate has never been to foster discussion
Well, it's what I've been using it for and my debate teacher before me, so that's not a correct statement. You can see here for how it's considered a valuable tool in a discussion or educational context. It's also used in a legal context quite frequently.
Presenting flawed arguments as a rhetorical device is generally a waste of your audience’s time at best
The arguments aren't flawed, they're often ones that there is no easy answer to, present a different value system, or cover an angle that the initial speaker hadn't considered. If anything, they're a way to become more correct by covering bases that hadn't been prior.
Nothing. It’s not a problem.
There are a large number of people that would disagree with that statement as it leads to unjust bannings. Kind of the impetus for this thread.
Downvotes filter low quality, irrelevant, and illegal content.
They can do that, yes (although I would say that reporting is a much more appropriate response than just a downvote for illegal posts). It's not used solely for that in practice however. It also is used to bury community-appropriate content by those ideologically opposed to the content (for example, vegans vs. people in the carnivore diet sub). It could be burying valuable, community-appropriate posts. Downvotes can also be accidental or malicious (in the case of brigading or bot farms). Downvoting something you disagree with also doesn't make it any of the three things you listed.
If you go to a community formed around a concept and play devils advocate… you deserve what you get. That doesn’t make it an echo chamber. Just makes you captain Ahab.
If you go to a Community and mid-discussion post something factual that a mod doesn't care for without being malicious, you aren't playing devil's advocate, you are simply replying to a thread and using the platform as intended. These are discussion platforms and using them to solely remove any other position is, in fact, the definition of an echo chamber.
The stance of "don't question anyone on my side for any reason because we're right" is neither healthy, nor particularly intelligent. If I were a sub based around a controversial idea, I'd build a Steelman FAQ as a stickied thread and direct detractors to it and leave it open for debate. I would also add to the Steelman as more and better arguments flowed in. If my side of an issue were correct, it would be a helluva thing to reference and would allow us to keep controversial discussion to a thread that people could avoid if they wish.
I didn't remove it and I'm the only Mod here. WTF.
Ah. Looks like it was an admin... Well, that's not generally how I work here unless you're breaking a rule, and our rules are conversation-focused. I dunno what the etiquette for restoring it would be or if it would just be me pissing off an Admin which is probably not smart.
Oh, absolutely. It's worse on Reddit without a doubt!
I agree that you can do that stuff, but most people don't have the time or wish to do it. Instead, they just get turned off the Community (or even platform) altogether and just... leave.
Even if they do start their own Community, that's not even a sure way to stop it. As I described above, I have been banned from other Communities for playing devils advocate in my own Community.
I do like the idea for sub-only Communities. I wonder if it's on the dev list?