This chat followed immediately after the DavetheDastard Chat. That's what my first four messages relate to.
This is from the public Fallible Ideas Discord.
curi:
i don't like talking with people who aren't interested and also aren't adequately literate or precise.
curi:
and who don't want to address that problem e.g. by reading my articles on how to discuss or the Inferential Distance articles
curi:
or making a serious effort to propose a way forward that works from my pov
curi:
i don't like when people say things like "my lord" instead of recognizing the large culture clash, being tolerant and curious, trying to deal with it rationally instead of assuming bad faith, etc.
footsoldier:
(pinned)
"i don't like talking with people who [...don't want to read...] my articles on how to discuss"
footsoldier:
are you aware that doesn't sound so cool curi?
curi:
i suggest that your next message do something to persuade me of your good faith interest in productive discussion.
footsoldier:
So far all I have gotten from this server is people talking meta, being arrogant and getting caught up on miscommunication and nitpicking. I'm not interested in persuading you of my good faith, I'm interested in talking to cool people. I've come in here with an open mind but you aren't doing much to convince me you aren't arrogant and annoying to talk to. So at this point my interest in being in this server has wained to close to zero. Feel free to ban me, at least it will end my umming and arring about leaving 😂
curi:
you quoted me in a misleading way to make me look bad, then didn't give any explanation of what you think is bad. neither you nor any of your friends has made a reasonable effort to objectively establish any significant error by me or in FI philosophy. there hasn't even been a claim that a particular set of messages was objectively, rationally adequate to win the debate. see e.g. https://curi.us/2232-claiming-you-objectively-won-a-debate
footsoldier:
I never claimed I won any debate
footsoldier:
I came here to debate
footsoldier:
and got meta
footsoldier:
and links to articles
curi:
you're judging me and some ideas negatively. the rational way to do that is to back up that claim with arguments and attempt to actually win the debate re whether your arguments are correct or not, rather than just arbitrarily believing it or believing it while ignoring counter-arguments, or other errors like that.
footsoldier:
what am I arguing for?
curi:
you claimed e.g.
being arrogant and getting caught up on miscommunication and nitpicking.
curi:
but you aren't arguing your negative beliefs like these
curi:
so it's unreasonable to conclude they're correct, because you might be incorrect and aren't taking adequate steps to find out if you're mistaken
curi:
establishing a negative claim in argument is one of the reasonable ways to reach a negative judgment about people. if you have some other method for reaching negative judgments that you think is rational and truth-seeking-compatible, you haven't explained it and i wasn't able to figure it out from your comments.
footsoldier:
you are proving my point
footsoldier:
I came to discuss and got meta
footsoldier:
and you are continuing meta
curi:
this is discussion of how to be rational
curi:
if that topic doesn't interest you, you're on the wrong server
footsoldier:
so the goals in this server are to discuss the meta of discussion?
footsoldier:
if so then cool but i didn't know that
footsoldier:
i thought this was a general philo server
curi:
discussing how to think, learn, judge ideas, etc – epistemology – is a common topic here
curi:
you can also discuss other things
footsoldier:
well epistemology doesn't mean talking about a conversation about epistemology
curi:
however, if your discussion methodology differs from that of others, then you may run into major problems. as has happened with e.g. SS and ppl here.
footsoldier:
for example, if I said to you, can music be judged objectively?
footsoldier:
and you said, I don't like the way you posed the question
footsoldier:
and then we argue the meta
footsoldier:
then that's meta
footsoldier:
and not the actual discussion itself
curi:
you aren't similar to the FI people. you don't seem to want to learn our ideas about how to think, learn and discuss. you want discussion to just work automatically without doing anything to bridge the gap.
curi:
it's really up to you if you're interested enough to learn something about ideas that are different than your current ideas, or not.
curi:
but if you try to ignore that this is the situation you're in when you come here, it isn't going to work well.
footsoldier:
i appreciate that you are interested in meta discussion
footsoldier:
but what if I want to discuss my previous example, whether music can be judged objectively... is that appropriate to do here? Or would we only want to discuss the way we can discuss whether music can be objective without actually discussing whether music can be objectively judged??
curi:
you can try but i expect you to run into problems like when i think you read something i say in a non-literal, biased way
curi:
then, in my understanding, you won't want to discuss or try to solve that problem
curi:
and i won't think the original discussion is productive given ongoing, unsolved problems like that
footsoldier:
ok that's a fun goal. Let us attempt to discuss whether music can be objectively judged but before we get to that, let us immediately resolve any outstanding issues
footsoldier:
please can you give the first issue to resolve?
curi:
i don't know if you're being sarcastic or what you mean
footsoldier:
what is it I have said? Are we speaking about the quote you felt I manipulated?
footsoldier:
or are there other things?
footsoldier:
is the [mis]quote the most important issue here?
curi:
my biggest concern is that i predict certain types of problems will come up and that you then won't want to continue in a way i regard as productive, as i just explained.
footsoldier:
well that is irrational
footsoldier:
both you and I can predict anything we like
footsoldier:
or are you claiming to have access to future knowledge? This is suddenly a bizarre conversation.
curi:
my take on this is that you aren't reading and understanding what i say, and that you aren't responding in a way that's good at clarifying.
footsoldier:
can you point to an example?
curi:
me: i expect ... you won't want to
you: what is it I have said?
curi:
i talked about an expectation and used future tense. your response was to ask about the past.
footsoldier:
what is your prediction based off?
footsoldier:
I must have prompted you to think that
footsoldier:
otherwise you are just being mystical
curi:
you don't understand where
then, in my understanding, you won't want to discuss or try to solve that problem
is coming from and how it relates to anything prior in the discussion?
footsoldier:
no because I am currently tying to discuss and solve problems RIGHT NOW
footsoldier:
LOL
curi:
can you point to an example?
do you accept the first example i gave?
curi:
you didn't respond
footsoldier:
could you confirm what constitutes you example? I do not feel you have given a clear example yet.
curi:
footsoldier:
You seem to be confused as to the flow of the conversation.
- ME - let us discuss objectivity in music
- YOU - I don't think we will get very far because I expect issues to arise
- ME - how so? Can you give an example of previous issues which have arisen so we can resolve?
- YOU - I am simply predicting that issues will arise - and the fact you assume I am referencing a previous example when in fact I am just predicting is an example of such an issue.
NOW - it seems that this example is derailing from the conversation. It seems your objections are prophetic. If there are no CURRENT issues preventing us from discussing objectivity in music, could we stop getting caught up in meta and move to the conversation of objectivity in music?
curi:
could you try responding more directly to what i said? e.g. do you agree that i talked about the future and you responded about the past? if so, why did you do that?
footsoldier:
i already explained this......
footsoldier:
you cannot make a prediction based upon nothing
footsoldier:
but this is derailing
curi:
i talked about an expectation and used future tense. your response was to ask about the past.
footsoldier:
what is your expectation predicated upon?
curi:
you aren't responding to me.
footsoldier:
i am
footsoldier:
is it because you think you can make predictions based upon nothing previously being observed?
curi:
why did you respond with the wrong tense?
footsoldier:
because I assumed that you weren't foolish enough to base predictions on nothing
footsoldier:
so skipped a step
footsoldier:
and went stright to asking you what your predictions were based upon
footsoldier:
so again what you are predictions based upon?
footsoldier:
because now your predictions are based upon something which occurred after the fact of you originally predicting
curi:
ok so here i am worrying about miscommunications followed by them not being fixed b/c discussing miscommunications is meta discussion and you expressed your negative opinions of meta discussion ... and what you do is skip steps which makes miscommunications more likely and larger.
footsoldier:
lol
footsoldier:
curi:
ok gl talking wtih someone else
footsoldier:
you've confirmed my opinion of you mate
footsoldier:
You assert we cannot discuss any given topic because you prophesize issues will arise - therefore we are limited to discussing how we ought to discuss but which is itself a discussion. Either you are a comedian or need to pull your head out of your ass. Leaving the server. No interesting discussion to be had here.
Messages