There’s an obvious solace within the written medium. You get to carve out a space safe from constraints and take as much as you need to fully express yourself. Words are neat! I mean, just look at the torrential avalanche I regularly shit out just on my own.
I'm not sure if ending your article about how real-time conversations can end badly with an invitation to your adversaries to appear on your podcast is a king-size flex or the worst-placed advertisement ever.
While I agree Tim Pool for sure "owned" Lance, really the question was so obvious, and even the bits leading up to it were, that Lance really just owned himself. You could see this coming from a mile away, it was like Lance had never had a conversation with someone on the subject before.
Also I've come to appreciate some of Destiny's style. I saw a snip of him talking to a Christian pro life guy recently, and he started by focusing in on precisely what the guy had issue with and what should be done about it.
There's this practice in street epistemology called the "real reason" check, where you take a person's stated reason for a belief, ask them if they were satisfied that it didn't apply in the situation or was otherwise not a factor would they still have the same confidence in the belief / claim. It helps when people aren't being 100% upfront and presenting more palatable reasons for a belief, but when a person is being honest, sometimes will reveal to a person things about themselves they didn't even know. (usually when a belief hasn't been interrogated before)
Loved the examples here, but man Meghan is taking a beating here :)
Fantastic article but I have to disagree with regards to Murphy. You make the claim she has “hidden beliefs” about what makes paying for sex unethical. However, I don’t think the example you use supports that.
Murphy is concerned with women in the sex trade as they are the primary victims. In the course of questioning she reiterates that her concern is for women, twice.
As per the clip you provide, one of the main reasons she argues that paying a women for sex is unethical, is because of the physical vulnerability of women during sex and the potential to become pregnant. Destiny also concedes that women are at a physical disadvantage during sex.
Destiny goes on to question Murphy with regards to men in the sex trade. In doing so he implies two points. One, that Megan believes the only thing that makes the sex trade unethical is the potential for physical harm. And two, that in order for physical harm to be a valid ethical objection it must apply equally across the sexes.
When she replies that she believes it is unethical to pay men for sex, he responds, “Okay. Then the vulnerability and the penetration part don't matter then. I don't know why you bring that up if a guy can’t even sell his body for sex then”
I find this argument to be incredibly underhanded. While he is right that she must have a different reason to object to male prostitution other than direct physical harm, that does not automatically mean she is not genuinely concerned about the physical vulnerability of female prostitutes.
Women do make up the majority of the sex trade. That men are not as vulnerable as women does not mean that the violence female sex workers face is not a very good reason to be opposed to prostitution.
"Murphy’s responses make a lot more sense if you assume that her true objections to the sex industry are really borne out of an aesthetic or disgust aversion, and specifically only when men are the patrons. "
Mostly, what we discover from this exploration of human hypocrisy is that much of human belief and ideology are largely a matter of aesthetics, class/tribal signaling, and mimetics.
Cats, and certainly feral cats, cannot afford such luxury beliefs. "Freedom is just another word for 'nothing left to lose!".
Also, great article on some tactics used for cross examination. Would be great if you wrote more on this subject both as the examiner and the witness. What strategies are best?
If anything, this article made me more pessimistic about the value of real-time debate as opposed to written debate. All your examples are "gotchas" that are lauded for exposing a supposed double-standard in real time. But I doubt that's how the individuals on the receiving end felt it. They probably felt it was a cheap trick that made them look bad, but didn't really expose anything other than their own unpreparedness.
If there are genuine contradictions, asking them in writing works just fine. It's not like writing gives some shield from this type of thing, it merely gives the person time to form the best answer they can come up with. This doesn't give as many lurid soundbytes of "owning the libs" or whatnot, but it's better at getting at the truth.
I'm not sure if ending your article about how real-time conversations can end badly with an invitation to your adversaries to appear on your podcast is a king-size flex or the worst-placed advertisement ever.
While I agree Tim Pool for sure "owned" Lance, really the question was so obvious, and even the bits leading up to it were, that Lance really just owned himself. You could see this coming from a mile away, it was like Lance had never had a conversation with someone on the subject before.
Also I've come to appreciate some of Destiny's style. I saw a snip of him talking to a Christian pro life guy recently, and he started by focusing in on precisely what the guy had issue with and what should be done about it.
There's this practice in street epistemology called the "real reason" check, where you take a person's stated reason for a belief, ask them if they were satisfied that it didn't apply in the situation or was otherwise not a factor would they still have the same confidence in the belief / claim. It helps when people aren't being 100% upfront and presenting more palatable reasons for a belief, but when a person is being honest, sometimes will reveal to a person things about themselves they didn't even know. (usually when a belief hasn't been interrogated before)
Loved the examples here, but man Meghan is taking a beating here :)
Fantastic article but I have to disagree with regards to Murphy. You make the claim she has “hidden beliefs” about what makes paying for sex unethical. However, I don’t think the example you use supports that.
Murphy is concerned with women in the sex trade as they are the primary victims. In the course of questioning she reiterates that her concern is for women, twice.
As per the clip you provide, one of the main reasons she argues that paying a women for sex is unethical, is because of the physical vulnerability of women during sex and the potential to become pregnant. Destiny also concedes that women are at a physical disadvantage during sex.
Destiny goes on to question Murphy with regards to men in the sex trade. In doing so he implies two points. One, that Megan believes the only thing that makes the sex trade unethical is the potential for physical harm. And two, that in order for physical harm to be a valid ethical objection it must apply equally across the sexes.
When she replies that she believes it is unethical to pay men for sex, he responds, “Okay. Then the vulnerability and the penetration part don't matter then. I don't know why you bring that up if a guy can’t even sell his body for sex then”
I find this argument to be incredibly underhanded. While he is right that she must have a different reason to object to male prostitution other than direct physical harm, that does not automatically mean she is not genuinely concerned about the physical vulnerability of female prostitutes.
Women do make up the majority of the sex trade. That men are not as vulnerable as women does not mean that the violence female sex workers face is not a very good reason to be opposed to prostitution.
"Murphy’s responses make a lot more sense if you assume that her true objections to the sex industry are really borne out of an aesthetic or disgust aversion, and specifically only when men are the patrons. "
Mostly, what we discover from this exploration of human hypocrisy is that much of human belief and ideology are largely a matter of aesthetics, class/tribal signaling, and mimetics.
Cats, and certainly feral cats, cannot afford such luxury beliefs. "Freedom is just another word for 'nothing left to lose!".
"[pregnant pause]" is that pun intended?
Also, great article on some tactics used for cross examination. Would be great if you wrote more on this subject both as the examiner and the witness. What strategies are best?
If anything, this article made me more pessimistic about the value of real-time debate as opposed to written debate. All your examples are "gotchas" that are lauded for exposing a supposed double-standard in real time. But I doubt that's how the individuals on the receiving end felt it. They probably felt it was a cheap trick that made them look bad, but didn't really expose anything other than their own unpreparedness.
If there are genuine contradictions, asking them in writing works just fine. It's not like writing gives some shield from this type of thing, it merely gives the person time to form the best answer they can come up with. This doesn't give as many lurid soundbytes of "owning the libs" or whatnot, but it's better at getting at the truth.