Derek Sivers never listened to anything, he's a narcissistic maniac who floods the email boxes of everyone on every list he's ever had with self-help advice that's never more than the most thinly disguised self-promotion.
Please stop talking as if his writing is profound.
Even a broken clock is right once in a while. I can understand your reaction if that is your experience with him (first time I hear of the guy), but it at least seems to have created some constructive discussion here.
aw man, you're gonna force me to read this? fuck. ok. give me a minute.
...
Okay, I think that as expected the word salad doesn't do anything to expand on the subject; it's another grossly compact attempt at telling everyone what a crazy and interesting life he's had without going into detail beyond the barest mention that he was somewhere and talked to someone; serves yet again as a form of name-dropping; proves absolutely nothing about debate but somehow oddly inspires people here to go way out of their way debating what the author meant.
In general? I think debate is just a byword for civil discussion, and the concept of winning or losing one is stupid. Discussions are meant to elucidate and digress and open both people to one another's point of view, but that's no reason they shouldn't be contentious. To describe a contentious conversation as a debate in which someone has to win and someone has to lose is reductive and misses the point of conversation. To cast oneself as the ultimate martyr in such conversations by way of [losing one's ego on the road from Patpong to Nepal and] creating ranking click bait topics is pure Derek Sivers. There ya go.
Thanks for your comment. I thought I was going crazy with all the responses to what reads essentially like a self-help quality article.
Also, some of the examples are infuriating. So someone thinks poverty is not upsetting? Well, screw them. And the rest of those examples are so bland, how about "losing" every debate with these:
- Nazism is right.
- Rich people should become richer and poor people should become poorer.
- Women should not have equal rights or vote.
Go on, "listen and lose the debate", I'm sure it will be illuminating and productive.
Losing doesn't have to mean you 100% agree with another party at the end. Learning something new and changing your original position is good enough.
> someone thinks poverty is not upsetting
Someone was able to find happiness in non-material things. Good for them.
> Nazism is right
Ok, but was it absolutely wrong? Should we dismiss anything that even remotely resembles Nazism? Were there any good parts that Nazism had? E.g. patriotism or anti-communism? Short-term dictatorship can be better than alternatives (especially during wars). Eugenics on it's own is also not bad (e.g. most people are pro-abortion when fetus has a deadly disease, which is a form of eugenics).
> Rich people should become richer and poor people should become poorer
Poor in US are among most wealthy people in the world. Instead of fighting laws of nature (a battle you cannot win), maybe it's better to focus on improving well-being of "poor"? I.e. you should be able to live a good life even if you are poor.
> Women should not have equal rights or vote
Unequal rights doesn't necessarily mean someone is being taken advantage of. In theory, an optimal distribution of rights could very well be unequal. You can also do a thought experiment on how society would look like if only families are allowed to vote (with highest earner in the family voting, which essentially means "women cannot vote").
> Someone was able to find happiness in non-material things. Good for them.
Poverty is not having to eat. Poverty is a self-compounding problem: you cannot eat, you cannot work (or not enough), you get sick, so you cannot work, etc. Every accident impacts someone living in poverty way more than someone who is not. "Find happiness in non-material things" is something only those who have their basic necessities covered have the possibility to contemplate.
> Ok, but was it absolutely wrong? Should we dismiss anything that even remotely resembles Nazism? Were there any good parts that Nazism had? E.g. patriotism or anti-communism?
"Yes", "yes", "no", and "no".
> Poor in US are among most wealthy people in the world
That doesn't address the worldview I mentioned, it's complete misdirection. The view is that the rich should get richer and the poor should get poorer. Engage with that.
(Also, poverty is not "a law of nature" and it's not true that every poor person in the US is among the most wealthy people in the world).
> Unequal rights doesn't necessarily mean someone is being taken advantage of.
Yes it is. Your proposed experiment is bullshit.
PS: you also misunderstood my prompt, which was to debate with people who believe what I listed, not debate with me. I don't care to debate with you about those awful, made-up and purposefully stupid statements. I don't want you to "teach me" anything, either.
Poverty has many definitions, but generally it's not being able to meet a certain standard of living. It may include nutrition standards, but again, malnutrition in US is very different from malnutrition in Africa. Again, if someone is "poor" by US standards, but lives a happy life - good for them. I could learn a thing or two from them. You could too.
> "Yes", "yes", "no", and "no".
Absolutist views are rather boring and a clear indication of a closed mindset. The exact opposite of what the post is about.
> That doesn't address the worldview I mentioned, it's complete misdirection. The view is that the rich should get richer and the poor should get poorer.
But it does. Rich are getting richer is the natural effect of positive feedback loops. You are rewarded for the value you produce, which allows you to produce more value. Streamlining those loops allowed us to create enormous amount of wealth in the last century.
The only way to fight it is to create an artificial compensating negative feedback loop, i.e. punish people for creating value. Evidently, not a good idea if you look at famine in USSR (google for "Dekulakization").
People like you seem to focus on a few outliers without recognizing that "rich getting richer" has benefitted billions. If having a few billionaires is the cost of moving billions out of poverty, I'll gladly take it. So yeah, rich should be getting richer, because the only alternative is everybody being poor.
> Yes it is. Your proposed experiment is bullshit.
No, that's poverty. Poverty is a self-reinforcing loop, this is well studied. Malnutrition is malnutrition, you die from it in North America, Africa or whatever. I don't care for your new age "find happiness where you can" mumbo jumbo.
I don't live in the US nor anywhere close to the US, so stick your assumptions where the sun don't shine!
> Absolutist views are rather boring and a clear indication of a closed mindset
I'm sorry you find denouncing and rejecting Nazism is boring.
> "rich getting richer"
You conveniently forgot "the poor must get poorer".
> (google for "Dekulakization")
I'm puzzled, is "assuming people don't know a term I'm using and need googling it" part of your "just listen, do not try to win debates" strategy of TFA? Thanks for teaching me though, I didn't know anything about the history of the USSR!
It must be that I am not "producing value", haw haw haw!
I wrote a longer post to your bullshit reply, but I won't bother, since you decided to ignore this: "you also misunderstood my prompt, which was to debate with people who believe what I listed, not debate with me". Since you failed to engage with pretty simple instructions, and instead you chose to go your own way -- funnily enough, breaking the premise of TFA, which was "to listen"; instead of doing so you launched into an attempt to refute what you guessed were my objections -- I'll bid you adieu.
> I'm sorry you find denouncing and rejecting Nazism is boring.
Evidently, simply denouncing and rejecting does nothing to prevent it from emerging again. All the raping and murdering in Ukraine is currently done in the name of denouncing Nazism, yet it looks very much like Nazism.
> you also misunderstood my prompt, which was to debate with people who believe what I listed, not debate with me
Turns out debates don't always happen on your terms. Despite your best effort, you still learned something today.
> All the raping and murdering in Ukraine is currently done in the name of denouncing Nazism.
Ah, yes, I guess if we had debated the "good parts" of Nazism then the invasion of Ukraine wouldn't have happened.
> Despite your best effort, you still learned something today.
Do you really think that's an honest debate tactic? Do you think that, when reading your last line, I will think "gee, this guy truly taught me something!" or rather dismiss your remark entirely? And do you feel your way of debating is in line with what TFA proposes, or is it possible that you are trying to "win" here, therefore rejecting the whole article?
> Ah, yes, I guess if we had debated the "good parts" of Nazism then the invasion of Ukraine wouldn't have happened.
Kind of. If more time was spent deconstructing Nazism/Fascism, instead of simply repeating "Nazism bad" it would be much easier to notice it right under our (their) nose.
> I guess I learned this conversation is futile?
I'd suggest you to re-read your messages in this thread. Analyze their tone. You never attempted to have a conversation.
I'm not using debate tactics and not accusing others of doing it. I'm just debating.
If you do want to switch topic to debate tactics, you should first re-read your own comments: they are full of strawman arguments, deflections, condescension and are quite demeaning in general. Hopefully acting like a butthurt teenager is a debate tactic too, not your personality.
> Could you summarize what you think my initial comment was arguing?
In a lame "gotcha" attempt you took author's words extremely literally: "Let's see how you lose a debate against 2 x 2 = 5 believer. Haha, I'm so smart."
Now, which one do you think is more likely:
- Author meant to say that literally every debate is worth losing
- You (likely on purpose) misunderstood the point author is trying to make
What do you really think is the point author was trying to make? Can you explain in your own words?
> In a lame "gotcha" attempt you took author's words extremely literally: "Let's see how you lose a debate against 2 x 2 = 5 believer. Haha, I'm so smart."
Have you read the HN guidelines?
> You (likely on purpose) misunderstood
Ah, we have a mind reader!
> Can you explain in your own words?
I can, but I won't for you, because it would be fruitless.
No need to reply: you won. You won big time. Have a cookie.
Please stop talking as if his writing is profound.