I find those "just asking questions"-people annoying too. I sometimes actually like to know and don't immediately understand. So I have to go through a whole conversation until I see their position. I may still not agree, but I still wanted to understand. And those "just asking question" people make some people immediately jump to the conclusion that I also want to feel superior or push a narrative. Anyways. The great thing of noticing that patterns in enemies is that you can be pretty sure your own side does the same. That way you can uncover blind spots and hold both your friends and yourself accountable. If you hold to virtue ethics, then your own character growth should be one of the primary goals. _PS. In case you noticed, I also wrote that comment as a tool. I actually belief those things I wrote here. And I think that this should be done by everybody and I strive to do it myself. But I noticed when watching that video, that Joan was only firing into one direction when bringing his examples. Since this is the only video I've watched of his, and since this is a scripted video which makes it difficult to get a good feeling, I of course don't know. But it came across as if he is annoyed by certain people doing it while not considering if his own people are doing it too. Or in other words, it seems he is a pretty tribal person. And the way he framed the conversation also carried the underlying message that only conspiracy theorists do sophistry. And so I respond with an underlying message, that he may be a bit biased and should check himself if that is actually the case._ _I thought it was worth pointing out all the underlying messages because of the type of video this was._
I am asking questions to determine the content of your mind and if your ideas are found sound or lacking, will be challenged. You don't get to walk around on this planet without confrontation of ideas while one wags their tongue. For time immemorial, where one man said this is the way, another cried bullcrap.
There is no scientific proof that "defamation" is a crime. Anywhere in the world. And NOBODY has ANY reason to feel ANY shame for believing in Communism or Marxism or Socialism or Anarchy. If you did not consent to being born and governments did not stop your breeders breeding you, then you have ZERO reason to feel shame to openly advocate YOUR PERSONAL definitions of Communism or Marxism or Socialism. The ONLY reason I neither support nor oppose Communism is because the word is meaningless: it is unfalsifiable. Unfalsifiable words are useless. But I PROUDLY defend anyone who DOES claim to be a Marxist or Communist American. And if those who don't like that: THEY CAN LEAVE THE PLANET NOW!
Well, in that case you managed to clearly state your intentions, not hiding behind JAQ. But those who do hide, they are like people with hidden weapon openly confronting a stranger: why they having a weapon, why they are hiding it and why they seek for conflict? For me JAQ is an indicator of ill intent, or at least of a general stupidity.
Sometimes Just Asking Questions is literally the only way to get through to people who are wielding dangerously wrong ideas. Discounting people who ask difficult questions can also be a tool of manipulation. Just ask cults and authoritarians.
Marxists and Communists ask questions of politicians who force feed their free market capitalism religion. College students protesting question the lies and myths pushed by law schools, lawyers, prosecutors, police, FBI agents that kicking or assaulting a cop who deserves it, a cop who starts trouble for no reason, is "always a crime" and "never justified".
Then protestors, whether or not the media or judges dub them "violent" or not, are justified in questioning whether the concept of property exists, whether it is "illegal" or a "crime" to storm a university or a government building, to stop that university or government e.g. a military building, from performing burn experiments on cats or pigs, or giving weapons and money to Israel to oppress Palestinians. Marxists, Socialists, Communists are justified in questioning OTHERS' definitions of Marxism, Socialism, Communism, and question the lies and myths pushed that one person every killed or hurt another person for in the name of Communism or Socialism, or because that other person did not support workers getting paid more than executives. They are justified in questioning that narrative that "communism killed" anyone. They can assert that nationalism & fanatical devotion to the status quo murdered people.
I do not agree. People who sticking to dangerous ideas usually lacking of critical thinking, so each your question will be deflected not reaching its target. Those people need to be put into some extreme conditions proving their ideas wrong, until that they remain fanatics of some degree. Imagine JAQing child-free or LGBT ideologist, would it work?
Well, yeah, this is one example of subtext. You respond to subtext stuff with subtext. You don't cross the boundary. "I'm just answering your questions."
If a set of ideas is so weak, that it can be undermined by questions, than this set of ideas will be improved or disappear. Every good question undermines an idea, because it opens up another view one the idea that has not been seen before. Intention and who asks does not matter. Of course there are stupid questions. Questions that impossible to answer are fundamentally stupid. They lead to nothing. It is actually very good that people are not easily convinced by "facts" or "experts", because then we would completely lack any any diversity of tough. Those people that do not follow the mainstream have the biggest potential for creating new good Ideas. The marketplace of ideas is a marketplace. The market decides if an idea should disappear or not. "experts" or "facts" do not decide anything there. For example socialism, people like the idea, but it factually leads to misery. I think it is a good video, not because i agree with you, but because you made me think a bit.
Anything can be undermined by questions if the audience is dumb enough. You have people being "skeptics" of gravity, evolution, the fucking science that makes the phones and satellites they use to post their nonsense function in the first place. So yeah an idea doesn't need to be weak to be undermined by questions. You just need people with the right amount of ignorance and paranoia, and suddenly even the existence of the moon isn't a fact to them.
What's true or approaches truth doesn't fear investigation, whether it's in good faith or not. Just because you disagree and have your own biases and values on what you think should and shouldn't be questioned, doesn't mean that these questions won't be asked and debates won't happen. there is always a space waiting in the marketplace for those who actually want to engage in dialog to get closer to the truth.
How about giving equal representation to us Animal Rights Vegans who call for an end to breeding animals for meat, to us Antinatalists who call for StopHavingKids, to us Greens, to climate warriors who call for an end to unnecessarily oversized SUVs and pickup trucks, to Communists & Marxists & Socialists who call for workers to get paid ten times MORE than managers and CEOs? Marxists and Communists ask questions of politicians who force feed their free market capitalism religion. College students protesting question the lies and myths pushed by law schools, lawyers, prosecutors, police, FBI agents that kicking or assaulting a cop who deserves it, a cop who starts trouble for no reason, is "always a crime" and "never justified". Defendants telling judges to fuck off and go kill themselves in courtrooms just want a fair objective balance platform where both sides can be heard equally with ZERO threat of imprisonment or being given a fine.
I'm halfway between you and the Joan. Joan is correct that "just asking questions" can shift the Overton window and it can cause people to distribute their ideological resources wrongly. But he was too tribal in my opinion and it is also valuable for some people to stand into the space where questions with those motives are asked. Because usually there are actually people there who listen and change their mind over time. Not all of them, but some do. And that is a worthy pursuit. And perhaps you end up being someone who has their mind changed. Joan successfully recognized the underlying intend of those questions. But instead of countering it in the conversation (by for example leading the conversation to a more productive place), he just draws back.
Then protestors, whether or not the media or judges dub them "violent" or not, are justified in questioning whether the concept of property exists, whether it is "illegal" or a "crime" to storm a university or a government building, to stop that university or government e.g. a military building, from performing burn experiments on cats or pigs, or giving weapons and money to Israel to oppress Palestinians. Marxists, Socialists, Communists are justified in questioning OTHERS' definitions of Marxism, Socialism, Communism, and question the lies and myths pushed that one person every killed or hurt another person for in the name of Communism or Socialism, or because that other person did not support workers getting paid more than executives. They are justified in questioning that narrative that "communism killed" anyone. They can assert that nationalism & fanatical devotion to the status quo murdered people.
There is no scientific proof that "defamation" is a crime. Anywhere in the world. And NOBODY has ANY reason to feel ANY shame for believing in Communism or Marxism or Socialism or Anarchy. If you did not consent to being born and governments did not stop your breeders breeding you, then you have ZERO reason to feel shame to openly advocate YOUR PERSONAL definitions of Communism or Marxism or Socialism. The ONLY reason I neither support nor oppose Communism is because the word is meaningless: it is unfalsifiable. Unfalsifiable words are useless. But I PROUDLY defend anyone who DOES claim to be a Marxist or Communist American. And if those who don't like that: THEY CAN LEAVE THE PLANET NOW!
Its not the matter of asking or not asking questions, its about how and why those questions are asked, which was clearly stated by the author. Seeking the knowledge is one thing, but sneakingly undermining the common values while camouflaging the real intents behind JAQ is more like a moral terrorism.
Specifically, these are the type of people who bait arguments into semantics then never settle on definitions. What they want to conclude ultimately doesn't make sense, so the problem always has to be in definitions. The more specific you get in the aim of resolving the topic - the more they fight to generalize the topic into obscurity. Its painful and annoying because they don't want to make sense of the topic, They're just trying to convince you to play along.
Asking questions anymore is all but pointless. Because if I have a question it is to cut to the root of an issue and we all know a Bullshitter is not going to reply to that. Like those who say they would hire the educated with soft degrees, I'll ask them what their industry is and how many they have hired and as of yet I have to get someone to reply.
<a href="#" class="seekto" data-time="135">2:15</a> The end of this logical thread is that some topics should not be raised -- a very dangerous belief in itself. But I agree with your basic point. If you are going to raise a counterargument, then do so directly and present evidence for your argument. The anonymous internet is not the proper debate of ideas. Even discounting bad faith actors, the basic numeracy required for debate without appeal to authority is virtually non-existent. The awful crushing of valid but dissenting viewpoints on Covid policies as conspiratorial (many of which viewpoints later came to show merit) has really opened the door for every conspiracist to believe their fringe beliefs might also have such merit. The fault for that lies more on the side that crushed debate on "settled" issues than it does on the conspiracists', whom have always existed and always will.
Wow, fortunately, the RU-vid algorithm put up your video to me. I thought I was pretty prepared knowing the logical fallacies but you have explained things I hadn't thought about. Well done Joan, subscribed! EDIT: PS I'm Aussie too and appreciate the odd bit of swearing thrown in. :)
The thing that came to mind when listening to this which I think falls into the category of "just asking questions" but is probably the most cruel and manipulative of them all is "doubt bombing", or the "Gish Gallop". They ask as many doubt provoking questions as they possibly can, not filtering the arguments and questions they put forward for validity and quality, or even consistency. The goal is just to give you as many reasons to doubt something as possible. They overwhelm you with so many questions in the name of "just asking questions" that the average person couldn't hope to know how to answer all of them, or even have the time and patience to do so. The strategy is simple; keep heaping questions upon you until you are forced to say "I don't know" to one of them, or just throw up your hands because of the futility of it all, at which point they will claim intellectual victory. They didn't actually prove anything beyond how impossible it is to have a conversation with them. The doubt bomber will only concede the point once all of their "questions" are sufficiently answered. And, of course, it is only sufficiently answered when they say it is, so it'll never happen. It's honestly a very abusive and cruel method of argumentation, an act of psychological rape designed to impregnate your mind with their own belief system. The goal is to make you feel stupid, and ashamed, and gullible. It's effective if one's only goal is to spread their worldview without concern for the damage they do along the way, but it's not a good means for establishing truth.
I don't know is one of the most powerful weapons to use against doubt bombing. Why do you feel the need to know it or let them know you know it if you too are not playing some kind of power play. It is fine to not know things, just like it is fine to learn new things and fine to gain new perspective on old things. It is even fine to go back to a knowlege you perviously abandoned. These are the activities of a working brain. The inability to take any answer and integrate to understanding or delegate to appropriate form of disagreement for any question you have asked, but to only fire off more questions is an indication of a brain stuck in a loop, most often a power play loop but other loops exist. It is healthy to question your beliefs but I do not know the degree of health it provides or maintains. It is not healthy to ask question after question but the number of questions needed for each individual to come to understanding, I don't know. I do not know how everyone experiences pregnancy and the impregnating of a mind is rather a vague and unhelpful analogy without acknowleging the receptive nature of your own mind at the time. If you are nonconsentually subjected to forced impregnation while you mind is in discarding unneccessary superficial receptivity mode you may not suffer from the impregnation and you may be able to assert your own worldveiw back into your mental drivers seat. You will of course still feel the effects of the assault and that may alter your world view. Truth is a very strange thing and it can be arrived at in many strange ways. Even stranger is how truth and falsehood can live side by side and resamble each other so strongly. At least I find it so, whether you do, I don't know.
<a href="#" class="seekto" data-time="46">0:46</a> And that IS EXACTLY what I do to these "just asking questions" people. I agree: people SHOULD just ask questions. ABOUT ANY DECLARATIVE STATEMENT IN THE UNIVERSE. So I make sure they are LOGICALLY CONSISTENT and I DO ask them if the sky is blue or if Communists ever "killed" anybody or if property exists or if laws exist. If they are logical, then they will ABSOLUTELY EMBRACE asking THOSE questions, too.
This same guy, supports people who literally do the same thing but worse. Because it isn’t based on any shred of truth, just emotions. Peak intellectual dishonesty here, or just completely blinded by bias.
Those asking questions must be obligued to propely answer too when we are asking them. A conversation with questions should be a dialog; no one has a right to be only asking questions, but dispelling everythin asked in return into "seek your own evidence" kind of bullshit. And those pseudointellectuals wll be quicky exposed as ignorant and arrogant, being not able to sustain a dialog and to answer. Also there is a good strategy, to make them answer their own question themselves. "Just asking questions", eh?
The spelling and diction of the closed captions aren't the best. You're making excellent arguments, and on the whole I agree with what you're saying, but the captions make your video seem less than what it could be.
To the idiots who criticize this excellent speaker but who clearly did not bother to watch and listen to this video, play from <a href="#" class="seekto" data-time="260">4:20</a> onwards over and over and over and over again until you get it drilled through your skulls. This ILLOGICAL "selective skepticism".
Marxists and Communists ask questions of politicians who force feed their free market capitalism religion. College students protesting question the lies and myths pushed by law schools, lawyers, prosecutors, police, FBI agents that kicking or assaulting a cop who deserves it, a cop who starts trouble for no reason, is "always a crime" and "never justified". Defendants telling judges to fuck off and go kill themselves in courtrooms just want a fair objective balance platform where both sides can be heard equally with ZERO threat of imprisonment or being given a fine.
Tucker Carlson isn't the smartest person, but he's sane and doing his job well enough. He is on the development level of his general audience, maybe slightly higher, that's why he is on place. That does not mean that his audience is bad, but they are somewhat delusional thanks to general media propaganda. Tucker is of few who's trying to wash that out.
Why would asking questions be a problem? Even if there's an agenda behind it? If one doesn't agree with the agenda, one can always refute it with facts. Questions become problematic when one doesn't have a good answer.
I don't think this video is implying that there is a proble with questions, I think he is trying to call out people who disenguinely use asking questions.
Marxists and Communists ask questions of politicians who force feed their free market capitalism religion. College students protesting question the lies and myths pushed by law schools, lawyers, prosecutors, police, FBI agents that kicking or assaulting a cop who deserves it, a cop who starts trouble for no reason, is "always a crime" and "never justified".
There is no scientific proof that "defamation" is a crime. Anywhere in the world. And NOBODY has ANY reason to feel ANY shame for believing in Communism or Marxism or Socialism or Anarchy. If you did not consent to being born and governments did not stop your breeders breeding you, then you have ZERO reason to feel shame to openly advocate YOUR PERSONAL definitions of Communism or Marxism or Socialism. The ONLY reason I neither support nor oppose Communism is because the word is meaningless: it is unfalsifiable. Unfalsifiable words are useless. But I PROUDLY defend anyone who DOES claim to be a Marxist or Communist American. And if those who don't like that: THEY CAN LEAVE THE PLANET NOW!
The red caption effect is distracting. I agree. Now, personally, I try to operate on the "principle of charity", which means I pretend the other person has good intentions first. It's a silly mind game which helps me to avoid petty arguments and saying things I regret. That doesn't mean I'm obligated to respond to bull****, of course. Additionally, I make exceptions for obvious vatniks and wumao. "Questions are tools." Very well said. Contrary to stupid try-hard gotchas, you've got questions that are so specific and well-phrased you just know that the asker is genuine and has gone to some effort to inform themselves. People who ask questions like that immediately garner more respect.
Usually, if I just ignore all manipulative aspects of a conversation and only respond to the factual aspects of it, the conversation turns for the better. But occasionally I try out some of the purely rhetorical strategies too, just to see if they can improve my effectiveness. The goal is still to understand the other person, finding truth and make the other person understand me.
You seen pretty fragile here. Well, I can definitely agree that some questions are asked in bad faith, as a rhetorical device, questions in general I’ve just part of discourse. You can’t shut off questions without shutting off discourse.
How about giving equal representation to us Animal Rights Vegans who call for an end to breeding animals for meat, to us Antinatalists who call for StopHavingKids, to us Greens, to climate warriors who call for an end to unnecessarily oversized SUVs and pickup trucks, to Communists & Marxists & Socialists who call for workers to get paid ten times MORE than managers and CEOs? Marxists and Communists ask questions of politicians who force feed their free market capitalism religion. College students protesting question the lies and myths pushed by law schools, lawyers, prosecutors, police, FBI agents that kicking or assaulting a cop who deserves it, a cop who starts trouble for no reason, is "always a crime" and "never justified". Defendants telling judges to fuck off and go kill themselves in courtrooms just want a fair objective balance platform where both sides can be heard equally with ZERO threat of imprisonment or being given a fine.
There is no scientific proof that "defamation" is a crime. Anywhere in the world. And NOBODY has ANY reason to feel ANY shame for believing in Communism or Marxism or Socialism or Anarchy. If you did not consent to being born and governments did not stop your breeders breeding you, then you have ZERO reason to feel shame to openly advocate YOUR PERSONAL definitions of Communism or Marxism or Socialism. The ONLY reason I neither support nor oppose Communism is because the word is meaningless: it is unfalsifiable. Unfalsifiable words are useless. But I PROUDLY defend anyone who DOES claim to be a Marxist or Communist American. And if those who don't like that: THEY CAN LEAVE THE PLANET NOW!
Most of the time I've heard someone playing devil's advocate was in a fruitful situation. But I guess it was always from a person who agrees, but wants to ask some more challenging questions.
Marxists and Communists ask questions of politicians who force feed their free market capitalism religion. College students protesting question the lies and myths pushed by law schools, lawyers, prosecutors, police, FBI agents that kicking or assaulting a cop who deserves it, a cop who starts trouble for no reason, is "always a crime" and "never justified". Defendants telling judges to fuck off and go kill themselves in courtrooms just want a fair objective balance platform where both sides can be heard equally with ZERO threat of imprisonment or being given a fine.
Questions are not tools. Questions always contain statements. Statements are tools. Questions establish context, set relevance, create alternatives. If the questioner does not bear responsibility for his question's implied statements, then it is not a question. Its a dogma. A dogma is a statement that does not need to be argued for, so all other statements are necessarily false. What can be more important than the Will of God? So you're saying that differences between man and woman make men superior? You say there are fewer black mathematicians, do you think black people are dumb? The difference between your view and mine is that I put emphasis on statement, you put emphasis on conversation and conclusion. For me the main problem is not, that the questioner does not react to the answer. The main problem is that the questioner cannot be questioned. At all. Nobody asks the reporter. That is the problem. He claims to represent the average Joe, the faithful Christian, the republican voter, the worrying citizen. Whatever. That is their dogma, and anybody who questions this, is a heretic. In reality they are representing themselves, or somebody who gave them money. They hardly possess any real life useful skills in the domain they are asking their questions. 99% of the time they don't even bother to make the questions, just borrow them from each other. So there is no "intellectual marketplace". They make questions, and you listen to it. That is not a marketplace, that is a logistic hub. We do not exchange ideas, we consume them. In that system a mindless questioner is not a bad faith actor, but a working man, who does what he is paid for.
How about giving equal representation to us Animal Rights Vegans who call for an end to breeding animals for meat, to us Antinatalists who call for StopHavingKids, to us Greens, to climate warriors who call for an end to unnecessarily oversized SUVs and pickup trucks, to Communists & Marxists & Socialists who call for workers to get paid ten times MORE than managers and CEOs? Marxists and Communists ask questions of politicians who force feed their free market capitalism religion. College students protesting question the lies and myths pushed by law schools, lawyers, prosecutors, police, FBI agents that kicking or assaulting a cop who deserves it, a cop who starts trouble for no reason, is "always a crime" and "never justified". Defendants telling judges to fuck off and go kill themselves in courtrooms just want a fair objective balance platform where both sides can be heard equally with ZERO threat of imprisonment or being given a fine.
When I think of "just asking questions" I think of the movement that literally named itself after it. And that would be the Atheist sceptic. Or a close relative called the lack-theist. But of course this mindset exists in all ideologies and in many different domains. We should keep our friends in check when they do sophistry and after a while things hopefully turn for the better.
I absoulutly agree, every time I see a foreign journalist at different countries, they talk like they are making a interegation, when they ask a question they also bring certain thoughts to viewers ( they make claims with questions and even sometimes not by mentioning them ) its really hard to point it out and explain it to people,
How about giving equal representation to us Animal Rights Vegans who call for an end to breeding animals for meat, to us Antinatalists who call for StopHavingKids, to us Greens, to climate warriors who call for an end to unnecessarily oversized SUVs and pickup trucks, to Communists & Marxists & Socialists who call for workers to get paid ten times MORE than managers and CEOs? Marxists and Communists ask questions of politicians who force feed their free market capitalism religion. College students protesting question the lies and myths pushed by law schools, lawyers, prosecutors, police, FBI agents that kicking or assaulting a cop who deserves it, a cop who starts trouble for no reason, is "always a crime" and "never justified". Defendants telling judges to fuck off and go kill themselves in courtrooms just want a fair objective balance platform where both sides can be heard equally with ZERO threat of imprisonment or being given a fine.
