most scientists are great at speaking. Your research is only as good as how effectively you communicate it. You don’t have to be a TED talk speaker, but generally most scientists can put together a logical story on what they’re doing, why they’re doing it, and why you should care. (That’s how we get funding, but convincing people that it’s important).

To be a successful scientist before, you needed to learn how to transmit your ideas not only on paper, but also in a conference room filled with tens of people

you still need to do that, but also you need to put your ideas in a nice, cohesive, indexable package we call an “article”, and it gets more important than it was before. it’s a good thing solely because of expanding knowledge base. neither absolves you of critical thinking and evaluating your sources, something that you don’t name explicitly

As simply using a source of a science article that is published by a big name now makes you right and the other person wrong.

iff that article supports what that other person says, if it doesn’t you can make them look like a buffon very quickly (unfortunately i’ve seen that before)

then you get mix of things like bs asymmetry principle, the fact that right wing moguls push money into very targeted ads that are in general more effective on broke people, the quirk of engagement-driven platforms that select for inflammatory and conspirational discourse, and expectation that if you draw fiber optic into Nondescript Backwater, Oklahoma then Corn University of Oklahoma will get more CS professors (it kinda works, and sometimes Florida Man does get Nobel prize indirectly because of that, but most of the time you’ll just get things like voat)

it didn’t started yesterday and we won’t wake up in idiocracy tomorrow either. people were like this since introduction of long range communication. this, too, shall pass

Well, here is the problem: the right wing has made it their platform to go after certain classes of people. I can debate you all day long about the economy or gun control or taxes. I should not have to debate you on my right to exist and thrive as a citizen.

I dunno, looks like it’s doing fine to me: https://youtu.be/OVJrtzbK4zE

This really just speaks to the kinds of people and communities you spend time around. If you do not want to be around garbage, you actually need to leave garbage behind.

They need to put people in a soundproof box, and turn on the mic when it’s their turn to speak. Don’t even show the audience their video when it’s not their turn.
We’d be forced to only pay attention to the words of the person speaking.
No ‘thats wrong’ being yelled. No gesticulating from the opposing party. A lot of the pageantry would be gone, and for the benefit of all.
Together with longer speaking times, I think that could do a lot to make debates more civil.

Sorry, but you’re right.

The thing I’ve noticed over thirty years or so of posting on forums, and the reason I pretty much entirely stopped even bothering to try to debate anything online, is the ubiquity of fallacies.

At this point, I would say that the single most common “argument” presented on the internet combines strawman, hasty generalization, ad hominem and non sequitur.

The way it works:

Jane says [opinion X].

Tom responds with something that boils down to “So what you’re saying is [something other than opinion X]. That’s what [pejoratives] say, therefore you are a [pejorative], therefore you are evil and stupid and wrong.”

And that’s it - that’s the majority of internet “arguments” - strawman the assertion so you can characterize it as the same as an opinion held by some hated group, then assign the person making the argument to that hated group, then assert that they’re self-evidently wrong (and evil and stupid and whatever else) because they’re (purportedly) part of that group.

It’s really not even an argument at all - it’s a non sequitur. Even without the strawmanning and the hasty generalization and the ad hominem, it’s still just an arbitrary assertion. But the thing is that it works, and it’s simple, and likely most importantly, it’s emotionally satisfying, since it gives people (both those making it and those reading it) that handy little self-affirmation rush that comes from tribalism.

And due to the asymmetry of bullshit, it was always difficult to counter, and at this point it’s so ubiquitous that it’s effectively impossible. And it’s not worth even trying.

This phenomenon is as old as history.

Socrates was killed because he made fun of powerful people. Anaxagoras was exiled from Athens for arguing that the sun and moon are just fire and rock, rather than gods. Galileo was persecuted because he got into a pissing match with the Jesuits over the nature of comets, then when the Pope’s support for Galileo’s (geocentric) views wavered (…they wavered for political reasons), Galileo wrote a treatise ridiculing the Pope. Hearst and Pulitzer propagandized the US into the Spanish-American War. Mondale lost the election because the media decided he looked ridiculous.

Yeah the internet is terrible for discourse, but the more basic fact is that almost all humans suck at discourse. Even, or maybe especially, Galileo.

Christianity killed civilised debates. They took over the economically conservative side and turned it into the party of intolerant theocracy. Anyone who disagrees with them and their hate speech is l labeled as ‘immoral’ and ‘demonic,’ and immediately dismissed and shunned rather than logically debated. The emotional reaction to this hate (as expected) has also lacked logic, because you can’t debate a force that labeles decent morality and acceptance as evil, and calles evil, hatred, and bigotry “morality.”

Christianity by its very nature takes the Bible as the absolute word of ‘god.’ And the Bible is explicitly intolerant of homosexuality, LGBTQ+ rights, and religious freedom. To follow that religion is to be intolerant and label everyone else as demonic. To claim to follow it, yet be tolerant and decent, is to compromise on the very core of the religion. It is, at that point, not Christianity.

If you accept others, and support their rights, and do not think homosexuality and other religions are evil, don’t claim to be a Christian. The Christians will tell you that. Others will tell you that. Do not be afraid to reject a doctrine built on hate, and simply accept only some of Jesus’ words as those of a very wise man, not ‘god.’

To truly have free debate, to argue freely without Christian morality labeling dissenters as evil, we must remove Christianity from politics. And to do that, because of its very nature (that they must make others comply to ‘save’ them), it cannot happen until Christianity is dead.