Ephoron

Well, no, it doesn't mean that either, but I get the point anyway. You're not here to defend your position, that's fine. It's not obligatory.

It's a damn good assumption as I also could shit out a few dozen links after one Google search, too.

It's not, though. That's the point. Finding sources to back an unpopular opinion is, by definition, trawling through Google to find them. If you disallow that, you disallow unpopular opinion. Epistemological integrity does not simply oblige us to believe whatever view had the most sources, it's not dishonest to have a gut feeling about something and check that it is reasonable, based on finding supporting evidence. It's the mainstay of all academic essaying, for example. It's normal to check one's opinion is reasonable, we don't all arrive at an issue with blank slates to fill and if you think you do, you're lying to yourself.

Epistemic responsibility is about changing that initial view if it is overwhelmed by evidence to the contrary, it's not about updating it according to some popularity contest. Truth is not decided by vote.

So searching through Google to find sources supporting your view is perfectly reasonable so long as the sources found are valid and reputable. That indicates it is reasonable to continue to hold your view. It doesn't matter if a greater number of equally reputable sources present the opposing view because truth is not determined by popular vote.

If he does "do his research" and happens to have a list of links at the ready, that is just weird or it's someone with a motive other than showing how smart they are

So damned if he does and damned if he doesn't.

You're familiar, I assume, with the self-immunised argument?

dissent with bad information is just poor form

It is. Unless the dissent is over whether the information is 'bad', in which case evidence must be brought to bear to support arguments to the contrary. No doubt this poster would not simply agree their information was 'bad', so that is the point over which you disagree. Again, assuming it's bad when that's the very point of disagreement is begging the question.

"despite increasingly popular opinion" is supposed to convince me of something based on the rumored opinions of what?

I was merely commenting on the increasingly popular move of repeating things back in alternating capitals aS iF tHaT pRoVeD aNyThInG At All.

Addendum:

Basically, some people's initial view on some matter will coincide with that of the mainstream. They're lucky. The evidence supporting their view will be plastered over every newspaper and government announcement. They won't have to do any digging to support it since quality newspapers are (generally) reputable sources.

Others, however, will form a contrary initial opinion. They are not so lucky since, by definition, sources supporting their view will be less well disseminated. They will have to actively search.

Doublely unlucky if that view happens to oppose US policy because the US's many enemies will also be seeking out such evidence to use in their propaganda.

Triplely unlucky these days because conspiracy theorists and online cultists are also looking for dissenting evidence to add credence to whatever bullshit they're spouting.

But a healthy democracy requires that neither of these issues is used to simply smear all dissenting opinion. Otherwise we just have a monolith.

Dissent is not spouting off Russian propaganda verbatim

Why not? If Russia finds information which is opposed to the US/NATO position they will use it in their propaganda. It follows that anyone dissenting from the US/NATO position may also use the same information.

Something being part of foreign propaganda doesn't mean it's false. Propaganda isn't just lying. If the US had done something wrong, you can guarantee Russia would use it in their propaganda. They don't just lie about everything. They lie about things they want to hide, but if the truth helps their cause they'll tell it. It follows from this that some Russian propaganda is likely to be true (unless you want to make the case that the US never does anything wrong, or successfully hides it from Russia in all cases).

Dissent is also not searching for every internet based opinion piece with a flashy headline that aligns with a specific view.

That's true it isn't. But you've no evidence at all that this is what's happening here other than that the resulting opinion is a dissenting one.

If you simply assume all evidence for dissenting opinion must have been derived this way purely on the grounds that the view it supports is not a mainstream one, then you have a self-immumised argument. The antithesis of rational thought.

It is a structural necessity of dissenting opinion that it be based on fewer sources. If you deny the ability to present sources simply on the grounds that they are select, then you deny dissent, because dissent, by necessity, will be based on select sources. Opinion based on majority sources is, by definition, majority opinion (among a rational community).

Dissent is actually showing, to the best of ones abilities, real cause for action.

No, it isn't. Because whether a cause is a 'real' cause is the matter over which there is disagreement, so it is begging the question to only allow those causes you consider 'real' into a discussion about which causes are 'real'. You preemptively clear the field of all dissenting opinion before the debate even begins.

To properly use these articles, you have to dig. You need to understand the authors, the sources and the motivation. Again, link-boy is likely not doing this

As before, you've no evidence this hasn't been done other than that the resulting opinion is a dissenting one. If your proof that sources are inadequate is solely that they are used to support a dissenting opinion then you have by definition denied dissenting opinion.

You want to get all script-flippy about "sPeAkiG diSsEnT" when the people "dissenting" don't know what the actual fuck they are posting with.

Unfortunately, despite increasingly popular opinion to the contrary, putting an argument into alternating capitals doesn't make it go away.

Look up 'empirical'. It doesn't mean 'point of view I agree with'.

So. Out of interest. Which alternative to presenting a dissenting opinion and sourcing it, would you prefer?

1. Not presenting any dissent at all - the only opinions posted should be ones that agree with the mainstream view?

2. Present a dissenting opinion, but don't provide any evidence for it?

3. Present a dissenting opinion but then provide evidence supporting the mainstream opinion instead?

Dissenting opinion, by it's very nature, has fewer sources, that's the whole point of it being 'dissenting', as such the character of any set of resources supporting it will be one of having "trawled through" a load of sources presenting the opposing, mainstream view.

By suggesting that any argument whose sources display that character is to be ignored, you're arguing that we should live in a society with no dissent from mainstream opinion.

Is that the sort of society you think Ukraine are fighting for?

It’s explained nearly every time this comes up.

It's so disheartening to see society descend into this monolithic, unthinking, blob.

An argument doesn't become an 'explanation' just because you agree with it.

People have made their case. I've disagreed with it and given reasons. That's how rational debate works (or at least it used to in better times).

What's happening here is people are disagreeing about a matter and exchanging reason why they reached their differing conclusion.

It's not one party 'explaining' some fact to another. It's not maths, people disagree. Experts disagree. It's an open question still.

If you read the whole post rather than just the bit of it you think you've got a condescending answer to, we might have a more productive conversation.

The question was if your claim is that the Democrats have a policy of shifting in the direction of more votes, then why do they not shift in the direction of opposing arms sales to Israel?

Your assumption that the Democrats move policy in the direction of more votes (the one you think it's so "stupid" to not know), is directly contradicted by the evidence that the majority of the country are anti-war and they are not shifting in that direction.

Just repeating blind platitudes you read in The Atlantic is not an argument. You have to actually attempt to respond to what your interlocutor is saying.

bye

?

You've expended less than 500 words arguing your case and you're giving up because I haven't capitulated in the first two replies?

Either you have a very low confidence in your persuasiveness, or a very low confidence in the strength of your argument.

What did you expect from this exchange, I unquestioningly accept the wisdom of your Delphic monologue?

Oh and this...

They'll lose because some fatally online "leftists" can't bring themselves to vote democrat no matter how bad the alternative is

... is a disgrace.

They work for us. They chase our vote. That's how democracy works. We don't owe them a vote.

I suggest maybe you stop blaming your fellow man, and defending those in power, and start blaming those in power and defending your fellow man.

they'll pivot right because they have some hope of winning over centrists

What makes you think that?

I've already, in a different thread, posted the latest polls showing the majority of Americans want to stop arms sales to Israel. The data suggests stopping arms sales would win a huge number of votes, but it isn't Democrat policy.

If the Democrats are likely to shift policy to seek votes, then why haven't they shifted to banning arms sales to Israel?

Absent of further data, it doesn't look at all like Democrat policy follows available votes. It looks more like Democrat policy follows the wishes of their wealthy donors, so unless they tack to the right, I can't see why Democrat policy will.

If you want to make a case that Democrat policy chases votes, you'll have to explain why they're not chasing the obvious anti-genocide vote?

So if they loose because leftists don't like their policies enough to vote for them, they'll pivot right? What would be the logic behind such a decision?

There's thousands of leftist votes available, all they have to do to access them is produce a more left-wing agenda (like, say, not being complicit in war crimes).

But you're suggesting in response to this loss (as a result of not denouncing war crimes) they'll not, you know, denounce war crimes next time, but rather shift even more into the ground that's in direct competition with their only opponent and try to win die hard Republicans who'd vote a Big Mac into government if it wore a MAGA cap?

Can you explain what you think their rationale would be for such a move?

there are only two possible outcomes of this election

And there's the problem with all these responses in a nutshell. Shortsightedness.

Yes, there's only two possible outcomes to this election, and yes Kamala is the better candidate by miles. But your voting actions don't only affect this election, they affect all future elections. They're the background against which all political strategy is determined.

If you just bend over every time you're threatened with four years of some fuckwit in office, then you've committed to a political system where your opinion on policy ceases to be relevant. All that's required for a complete autocracy is for one party to be a unbearable fascist and then the other party doesn't even have to consider what the electorate actually think because they're the not-fascists, and that's all that's needed.

And this isn't even slippery-slope. It's happening right now. The not-fascists are actually complicit in war crimes and are still getting your vote . How much worse will it be in four year's time after they've had it proven to work? Why would they ever listen to the electorate on anything ever again?