By Grabthar’s Hammer, by the Suns of Warvan, you shall be avenged.

Yeah, I had a feeling.

I haven’t settled yet, figured I’d decide based on any limitations noted by the crafter

I think you’re probably worrying too much though,

This could certainly be true, but I prefer to think of it more as a prophylactic approach to critical thinking. These videos show viewers that it’s okay to form volatile opinions absent fact, critical thinking, reason, context, or application. I don’t want my child be trained to think like a Republican or a Christian.

When he says ‘I don’t know’ maybe you should believe that’s how he really feels,

If that’s how they really feel, then I want to encourage deeper thought into something before forming opinions on it. I want to train them to sort through their feelings on something and be able to come to a rational conclusion. If that’s not how they feel and this is just a cop-out to not have to discuss something with a parent (I’d bet my mortgage on this), then I want to discourage the notion that an excuse can be used for everything and the concept that nobody can be held accountable for their stances on something.

Your seven points you worry about are well and good but media doesn’t do that, politicians don’t do that, corporations don’t do that,

These are not excuses or explanations, these are problems.

life partners and lovers don’t do that, friends don’t do that,

Which may be the cause for much strive in social interactions.

I bet YOU don’t do that…

I do do that. I am a scientist and a philosopher. I believe in reason, rationalization, context, applicability, utility, and equality/equity.

we’ve got to learn why people do the things they do

People do things because they either 1) Have a rationalized reason for doing so (someone who has critical thinking capabilities), 2) they have an irrational reason for doing so (someone absent reason and logic), or 3) they have no reason for doing so (someone absent sanity or care/investment).

I listened to endless craziness like

It sounds like all these sources did nothing but build up their own disrepute, and you knew it. Entertainment factor, sure, but the only value you get from listening to this stuff is to understand their motivations. They don’t contribute any new information, and justifiable hypotheses, any authoritative conclusions; they only instruct their listeners in how to copy their behavior. Which is exactly why I don’t want my child exposed to such garbage until they’re capable of the critical thought necessary to spot the fallacies.

Yes maybe the entertainment is more important than the content of their arguments, being able to know the truth is useful but being able to entertain friends, girlfriends, bosses and authority figures is what can turn a hard life into a great and easy one.

I can see the point you’re trying to make but I have to disagree. I’d much rather be able to form a cogent argument that fosters profitable discourse than post an adequately funny meme without understanding why the joke is inappropriate.

On numerous occasions in a variety of ways, yes.

Perhaps I’m being too impatient. Just this morning I was watching with them a video where the pundit was complaining about people who do gender reveal parties for their babies. I turned around and asked “Does this person have any kids of their own?” and they said “No, why?” Didn’t see the connection. Didn’t pick up the absence of authority on the topic. Just wanted to watch because it’s fun to watch someone make fun of someone else.

I’ve sat and watched it with them and said things like “That makes absolutely no sense,” “All of that was incorrect,” “None of that is supported by any evidence,” and such. They just figure I’m a stupid adult and ignore everything I’m doing.

I agree with all of this. My issue is that the child in question literally will not listen to anything. They completely ignore heart-to-heart conversations, won’t take any advice, and don’t even acknowledge anyone is speaking. I’ve tried to use reason and logic but they just don’t care. I’ve tried to point out logical fallacy and they don’t get it. I’ve tried to show arguments being made with more cohesion and sound justification but they don’t care.

They just want to watch this garbage for entertainment. And that’s fine; I did the same thing. It’s just that this crap in particular is going to make them stupid and unable of critical thinking.

I agree. The issue, however, is that they simply do not engage with any conversation. All I get is shrugs and “I don’t know” to literally anything I say. My latest idea is a litmus test I will reward them for taking which gives me an idea of their cognitive and critical thinking .

Well that’s kinda what I was worried about; the structure of these videos tend to push the kind of absence of critical thinking necessary to make a good voter, to say nothing of the influences behind the pundits themselves.

This is really great advice. I have tried this. They’re just at that point where they shrug or say “I don’t know” at everything, never engaging in any conversation.

This is a highly personal topic so I’d suggest trying as many things as you can.

Seconded!

Up-doot

Thank you, this has been highly entertaining.

If you think the sentiment applies to all cases, you’re really missing the point.

Ask them to do so themselves, voluntarily.

If they refuse, the argument stands.

If they accept, you won’t convince this person.

You’re missing the point. He did a bad thing. Yes. But punishing him for doing it doesn’t undo the bad thing. Right now we have the chance to praise the good thing: switching sides.

What will get more blue votes: penalizing red votes after they’re already cast, or extolling the virtues of voting blue, especially using cases of those who have seen the value of switching sides?

You’re not wrong that his vote may have caused harm, but he has just as much right to cast it as you have to shun him for it. The real story here is that he learned and is now on a more productive side. We should be celebrating the future, not dwelling on past mistakes.

What did he get away with? He voted for a candidate he believed in. It was a poor choice from some perspectives, but he apparently knows that now and is advocating for the opposing side. Literal democracy at work.

We should reward this behavior. Punishing bad behavior only teaches people to get better at lying about it. Rewarding good behavior creates more of it.

Will punishing him cause Trump to lose the election he already won?

Building solutions is harder than casting blame, but it’s also more important.

Totally, which is why I use Mull. I suppose I meant: what’s great about Fennec or what’s different between Fennec and Mull?