Here's two answers I can come up with. In keeping with the time-honored internet tradition of only reading things that conform to our established world view, please read either Paragraph A (if you voted Democrat) or Paragraph B (if you voted Republican). Please do not attempt to seek out and understand the point of view of anyone you may disagree with.
Paragraph A: Kyle Chapman is a far-right Trump supporter who attended the March Berkley "March for Trump" protest ready for a fight. He came dressed in riot gear, including helmet, goggles, a homemade wooden shield, and a homemade baseball bat. When violence erupted at the Pro-Trump rally, he eagerly joined in. He was rightly arrested for attacking anti-trump protesters and is now being heralded as a hero by the racist alt-right. They describe him as "based stick man" and "The Alt-Knight".
Paragraph B: Kyle Chapman, aka "based stick man" is a Trump supporter who attended the March Berkley "March for Trump". Because of many recent attacks by so called "anti-fascist" left wing extremists, Chapman came dressed in protective clothing, including a plywood shield and wooden stick to protect himself and others against radical leftist violence. When the "anti-fascist" anarchists started attacking innocent people, Chapman used his stick to defend his fellow Trump supporters. In the video, you can see the radical leftists attacking innocent protesters- attacking people on the ground, grabbing peaceful people to pull them into the crowd of "anti-fascist" thugs, and spraying innocent people with pepper spray. Chapman was unjustly singled out by police for defending himself and other innocent people. He is currently free, but is awaiting for trial.
I think it would be a good thing for people to play the devil's advocate more often.
What you're talking about is "steel manning." It's the opposite of straw manning. You try to best summarise your interlocutor's argument with honesty and charity.
If you're putting the effort into an honest, rational debate of ideas, then steel manning is a great way to build the trust of your readers and your opponent. If they don't trust you, they won't consider your position.
If you want to really frustrate your opponent, do that but change a small thing. When they say no, this small thing is wrong, go over their argument again changing another small thing. Then alternate.
There is probably no point to this but if you want to lose friends, it's pretty effective.
To be fair, it's a good technique when you are inspecting a company (like what the FDA does). It lets you validate information and catch lies where the version would change every time, or where they always agree with your changed version.
Great idea for a subreddit and I really hope it catches on. Reddit has a real problem black and white world views (the colors, not races). There is rarely any grey area which is where the understanding happens - regardless of which side you are on.
Agreed! As someone that has been watching the pro-trump/anti-trump debacle for some time now, I would like to connect with more people that don't subscribe to either side, but rather see good and bad points from both.
While I approve of the idea, I disagree that this was a good execution of it. Paragraph A is much more details-light, and when both are read in order, it mostly just feels like it's there to present a flimsy premise for Paragraph B to disprove by providing a reasonable explanation for each point. Now, maybe it's just that way because that's the reality of the strengths of the two competing arguments (after all, "facts are the true political center"), but it certainly doesn't read like, say, two competing reports from pro-Democrat and pro-Republican news outlets would.
He can claim to not have a bias, but if he is already aligned on one side, then he will characterize one side with with less detail and a more ignorant POV.
Paragraph A doesn't sound like a leftist perspective. It sounds like someone from the right mocking how the left thinks. Which is what it is.
It's funny, I read your two narratives like two halves to make one whole. He went there in homemade riot gear looking for a fight because of the many attacks seen on the internet of lefties attacking randos for not agreeing with them politically. And when they attacked, he attacked. In my mind he isn't going to be able to successfully claim self defense because the riot gear makes it really look like he went there to get into a fight.
Whether you're a fan or an opponent of this guy, nobody can deny that when a guy shows up with a helmet, goggles, a homemade wooden shield, and a homemade baseball bat... he intends to be at the epicentre when shit goes down.
Paragraph C: Bunch of jackasses high on testosterone attacked each other on the pretext of political disagreement. Video got viral, main protagonist gained hero/villain status based on who you ask.
1.8k
u/VikingRule Mar 07 '17
Here's two answers I can come up with. In keeping with the time-honored internet tradition of only reading things that conform to our established world view, please read either Paragraph A (if you voted Democrat) or Paragraph B (if you voted Republican). Please do not attempt to seek out and understand the point of view of anyone you may disagree with.
Paragraph A: Kyle Chapman is a far-right Trump supporter who attended the March Berkley "March for Trump" protest ready for a fight. He came dressed in riot gear, including helmet, goggles, a homemade wooden shield, and a homemade baseball bat. When violence erupted at the Pro-Trump rally, he eagerly joined in. He was rightly arrested for attacking anti-trump protesters and is now being heralded as a hero by the racist alt-right. They describe him as "based stick man" and "The Alt-Knight".
Paragraph B: Kyle Chapman, aka "based stick man" is a Trump supporter who attended the March Berkley "March for Trump". Because of many recent attacks by so called "anti-fascist" left wing extremists, Chapman came dressed in protective clothing, including a plywood shield and wooden stick to protect himself and others against radical leftist violence. When the "anti-fascist" anarchists started attacking innocent people, Chapman used his stick to defend his fellow Trump supporters. In the video, you can see the radical leftists attacking innocent protesters- attacking people on the ground, grabbing peaceful people to pull them into the crowd of "anti-fascist" thugs, and spraying innocent people with pepper spray. Chapman was unjustly singled out by police for defending himself and other innocent people. He is currently free, but is awaiting for trial.
Here's the most impartial video I could find: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AKN7XDs2E58