but Jerry knows Bob is his friend and gives him warning.
The actual empirical experience of Russia is that Jerry writes a denunciation letter accusing Bob of being an imperialist lapdog, after which Bob with his family leave for a Siberian labour camp and Jerry moves into Bob’s old flat.
Um. I’m not sure you and I use empirical the same way.
More importantly, what on earth is your point here? My point was that a non confrontational argumentative style might have benefits outside of simply getting along with fellow human beings, but it might even save your skin in a totalitarian regime. Is your point of view that the way to save your skin in a totalitarian regime to be aggressively argumentative? I suspect if Jerry is going to denounce good ol’ Bob then he’ll definitely denounce firebrand Bob. The answer might be for Bob to leave the country, but we are literally talking about how to talk to other human beings here.
For the average LW reader, I would imagine that this is in general true
If that is true, there are implications. Why would people engage in arguments where nothing serious is at stake (other than posturing and social grooming) and wouldn’t it be better for them do something useful instead?
Why would people engage in arguments where nothing serious is at stake (other than posturing and social grooming) and wouldn’t it be better for them do something useful instead?
Why would people watch movies and wouldn’t it be better for them do something useful instead?
Why would people read novels and wouldn’t it be better for them do something useful instead?
Could… could you evidence the claim that the non confrontational arguers in Russia all died while the confrontational arguers didn’t?
[ I appreciate that I haven’t presented evidence that my narrative of what might occur is more likely than yours, but I’m not the one using the phrase “empirical”.]
Could… could you evidence the claim that the non confrontational arguers in Russia all died while the confrontational arguers didn’t?
Could you please quote me where I said anything remotely like that? I’m particularly curious about “all” and about “the confrontational arguers didn’t”.
OK. So what point are you making? That when stakes matter, no argumentative style is effective? Yes, “all” was hyperbolic, but I’m actually trying to get at what exactly you are trying to see. You seem to have a strong disagreement with this article, and I’d love to get to the heart of it.
Right, so to try to get to the end of this exhausting thread, your contention is that the confrontational arguers would do better in revolutionary Russia (say) than non confrontational arguers? So, if so, where is your evidence that this is the case? To be clear, I do not have evidence to the contrary, and would be happy to know where your confident claims are originating from.
The actual empirical experience of Russia is that Jerry writes a denunciation letter accusing Bob of being an imperialist lapdog, after which Bob with his family leave for a Siberian labour camp and Jerry moves into Bob’s old flat.
Um. I’m not sure you and I use empirical the same way.
More importantly, what on earth is your point here? My point was that a non confrontational argumentative style might have benefits outside of simply getting along with fellow human beings, but it might even save your skin in a totalitarian regime. Is your point of view that the way to save your skin in a totalitarian regime to be aggressively argumentative? I suspect if Jerry is going to denounce good ol’ Bob then he’ll definitely denounce firebrand Bob. The answer might be for Bob to leave the country, but we are literally talking about how to talk to other human beings here.
“Empirical” = “Actually observed in reality”
That a non-confrontational style is appropriate when nothing serious is at stake.
For the average LW reader, I would imagine that this is in general true, which would put your original comment under the category of “nitpicking”.
If that is true, there are implications. Why would people engage in arguments where nothing serious is at stake (other than posturing and social grooming) and wouldn’t it be better for them do something useful instead?
Why would people watch movies and wouldn’t it be better for them do something useful instead?
Why would people read novels and wouldn’t it be better for them do something useful instead?
The answer to both questions is “pleasure”.
Do want to say that people argue for the pleasure of arguing?
Yes, they often do.
Could… could you evidence the claim that the non confrontational arguers in Russia all died while the confrontational arguers didn’t?
[ I appreciate that I haven’t presented evidence that my narrative of what might occur is more likely than yours, but I’m not the one using the phrase “empirical”.]
Could you please quote me where I said anything remotely like that? I’m particularly curious about “all” and about “the confrontational arguers didn’t”.
OK. So what point are you making? That when stakes matter, no argumentative style is effective? Yes, “all” was hyperbolic, but I’m actually trying to get at what exactly you are trying to see. You seem to have a strong disagreement with this article, and I’d love to get to the heart of it.
The answer only what, three comments up? To quote myself, “a non-confrontational style is appropriate when nothing serious is at stake”.
Right, so to try to get to the end of this exhausting thread, your contention is that the confrontational arguers would do better in revolutionary Russia (say) than non confrontational arguers? So, if so, where is your evidence that this is the case? To be clear, I do not have evidence to the contrary, and would be happy to know where your confident claims are originating from.