I think I've succinctly diagnosed the problem here. He just doesn't care, and doesn't see a problem, with things that he should care about, and things for which it is a problem not to care about, and he rationalises this by coming out with things like, "There's no correct or incorrect", and, "What people should care about is a matter of individual opinion".

That's actually a massive problem, and it's a massive problem if it's not recognised as a massive problem. I mean, that could be used to "justify" practically anything, right? Decapitating children, burning people alive, genocide, finding Adam Sandler funny... you name it.

So, the real you, now, with your free speech absolutism: you see no problem if free speech didn't in fact matter to you, and other people were trying to explain the merits of free speech absolutism, and why free speech matters, and why it should matter, and you were just not getting it at all, and were in fact boasting about how consistent you are in not getting it? You hadn't got it for decades, in fact. — S

It's not a fact that it matters or should matter.

It's not a fact that it doesn't matter or shouldn't matter.

We're talking about ways that people feel, dispositions they have.

If you feel that everyone should feel the same way, okay, but I don't feel that everyone should feel the same way.

With S it's frustrating because he doesn't want to straightforwardly articulate stuff. He often resorts to saying that you should simply know what he has in mind. He often thinks that you do know, but you're just being disingenuous by saying you don't. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Honestly, I don’t think you have diagnosed much at all. You don’t seem concerned with understanding his view, only dismissing it and condemning it. I think you are just as big a problem to you two talking past each other as he is, assuming both of you are not being disingenuous (if either of you are, its moot anyway).

It's not a fact that it matters or should matter.

It's not a fact that it doesn't matter or shouldn't matter.

We're talking about ways that people feel, dispositions they have.

If you feel that everyone should feel the same way, okay, but I don't feel that everyone should feel the same way. — Terrapin Station

That's a blatant red herring. Please answer what you quoted.

Thinking that there are things one should or shouldn't care about, independent of whether one does care about them, is the opposite of subjectivism.

I'm a subjectivist on this stuff.

Honestly, I don’t think you have diagnosed much at all. You don’t seem concerned with understanding his view, only dismissing it and condemning it. I think you are just as big a problem to you two talking past each other as he is, assuming both of you are not being disingenuous (if either of you are, its moot anyway). — DingoJones

Well then why don't you actually tell me what you think is wrong with my diagnosis? Maybe that would actually help.

Obviously I don't think that's a problem. What I wrote is why I don't think it's a problem.

With S it's frustrating because he doesn't want to straightforwardly articulate stuff. He often resorts to saying that you should simply know what he has in mind. He often thinks that you do know, but you're just being disingenuous by saying you don't. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ — Terrapin Station

Maybe I think too highly of you.

Obviously I don't think that's a problem. What I wrote is why I don't think it's a problem. — Terrapin Station

Wow. So you won't even acknowledge that if the shoe was on the other foot, and you didn't get why free speech was so important, that that would be a problem.

Again, maybe I'm thinking too highly of you, but I find that too hard to believe. I just think that you're trying to maintain consistency here.

Maybe I think too highly of you. — S

If you think that I'm not being forthright re whether I know what you're claiming (for example, re thinking I stated an argument earlier), then you probably are.

Thinking that there are things one should or shouldn't care about, independent of whether one does care about them, is the opposite of subjectivism.

I'm a subjectivist on this stuff. — Terrapin Station

Oh god, not this again. That stuff can still be subjective, even of it's independent of one particular subject. And that's the only kind of independence which you can tie me to in that regard. So stop suggesting objectivism, which is the opposite of what we're both saying, at all times throughout this discussion. Subjectivism is broader than any one particular subject or subjective view. If you don't understand that, then you don't understand subjectivism.

Its a bit awkward for me to be interjecting (just a little disclaimer) but I can see how each of you is being frustrated. I find it hard to believe you dont understand how the way you choose to engage could be frustrating to people...based on your track record with people in this forum alone you have a pretty obvious clue.

That stuff can still be subjective, even of it's independent of one particular subject. — S

How would that work?

I find it hard to believe you dont understand how the way you choose to engage could be frustrating to people.. — DingoJones

Did I say that? (I seriously don't recall saying that, but maybe I did.)

How would that work? — Terrapin Station

Easily, through relativism. Relativism doesn't have to be exclusively relative to the views of a single subject. Surely you get that. So just because I might be disregarding your personal view, that doesn't mean that I'm therefore adopting an objectivist stance. That's a complete non sequitur.

Well then why don't you actually tell me what you think is wrong with my diagnosis? Maybe that would actually help. — S

Well I confess Im having trouble articulating to myself what exactly is going on. Part of it is semantics, some of it has to do with you two being stubborn about framing...my analogy of the train tracks hopefully help illustrate what I think might be happening.

Did I say that? (I seriously don't recall saying that, but maybe I did.) — Terrapin Station

Maybe you didnt, thats the impression I get though. Have I made a mistake? If you realise you are frustrating people, do you just not care if people get frustrated then? Im not trying to be disparaging, just trying to parse the waters here.

:rofl:

But that's still just an aside which doesn't clearly tell me anything at all about what you think is wrong with my diagnosis. You don't seem to be understanding what I'm seeking from you. You said something along the lines that you don't think much of my diagnosis. I'm simply asking you what you think is wrong with it, but you're just coming out with things like, "You're stubborn", and "I think you two are talking past each other".

Forget about me for a second. Focus on the ball, not the player. Do you think what I said in my diagnosis is true or not?

If you think that I'm not being forthright re whether I know what you're claiming (for example, re thinking I stated an argument earlier), then you probably are. — Terrapin Station

There are times when it's much harder - or even impossible - to believe that you don't get something, than to believe that there's some other explanation for why you respond in the way you do.

Like - and I'll keep going back to this example, because it's one of the best - how you say that you don't know whether or not I believe that I'm on the moon. I can't help but believe that there's some other explanation for why you say that. You do know that I don't actually believe that. So it must be something else, like that you don't really mean what you say. That's much more plausible an explanation. After all, earlier on you actually said that you don't have a position in this discussion. That's something you actually said.

Forget about me for a second. Focus on the ball, not the player. Do you think what I said in my diagnosis true or not? — S

Some of it is true, some of it isnt. If you want flat out one or the other, I guess not true as some of it doesnt seem accurate or charitable. I dont think a dichotomy will be useful here though. The issue is in framing and communication, as I think both of you are being consistent to your views.
Also, Im not making comments on the player because I find the players personality abrasive or problematic the way other folks do on this forum. I mention the player because of the way the player is handling the ball, as part of addressing the...er, ball? (The diagnosis, whatever, the point is im not mentioning you rather than your argument because I cant see past your diagnosis do to a problem i have with you).

This is almost like trying to get blood out of a stone. Which part of what I said do you think isn't true, or isn't accurate?

Easily, through relativism. Relativism doesn't have to be exclusively relative to the views of a single subject. Surely you get that. So just because I might be disregarding your personal view, that doesn't mean that I'm therefore adopting an objectivist stance. That's a complete non sequitur. — S

But relativism doesn't imply subjectivism. The objective world is relative. It's not subjective.

But relativism doesn't imply subjectivism. The objective world is relative. It's not subjective. — Terrapin Station

Facepalm.

Its because you are stubborn about framing and im not much for being told how I have to frame things.

Anyway, when you are saying that Terra should care about this or shouldnt care about that, you are making an appeal to something Terra doesnt even acknowledge, and so your diagnosis doesnt actually address what Terra is saying or why.
How do you expect your diagnosis to be accurate when it doesnt do that? Its a sure way to unintentionally strawman someone.
You think that he is just an idiosyncratic contrarian, and maybe thats true but that doesnt mean he is wrong. From the basis he is operating from he is being consistent, as are you. So that is where the discussion needs to focus in order to move forward. Hence, Im trying to find a path where you guys arent talking past each other.
Is that more the kind of answer you wanted?

Edited: There...

Articulate response. :up:

You think that he is just an idiosyncratic contrarian — DingoJones

The way to test that is to say things I normally agree with and see if I disagree with them just to disagree with them. :wink:

But relativism doesn't imply subjectivism. The objective world is relative. It's not subjective. — Terrapin Station

K well this is exactly what needs to be parsed with more than a flip “facepalm” S. i get why that makes you wanna bang your head against a wall, but you two should discuss that distinction (relative and subjective), its integral to how you are both thinking about this.

Is that more the kind of answer you wanted? — DingoJones

No, because I asked you which part of what I said you think isn't true, or isn't accurate, and your first five words were, "It's because you are stubborn", which is exactly not the kind of answer I wanted.

Honestly, you people do my head in.