( I made the mistake of saying anything positive about the evil countries lol.) So I mentioned off the cuff the new Cuban family code and that led to insanity. Because apparently protections for maybe even things like Poly-amorous relationships is just a gateway to polygamy?! Or can it be used like that? She's an Exmo (so am I) and a woman so I know this can be an issue they make sure of

I got into an argument where they cited the new cuban family code to have protections for Underage Marraiges. It think they used this article, from the fact they told me it was this organization and its the only one: https://www.equalitynow.org/discriminatory_law/cuba_the_family_code/

But if thats the one they were using, (which they got from a mid-argument google search to check up on it), then it was written in 2021. The problem is the family code I was talking about was the rectification made in 2022.

https://nacla.org/cubas-new-family-code-window-political-ecosystem

This argument went on for hours because of this AND THEY WERE USING AN OUT OF DATE ARTICLE THAT DIDN'T EVEN APPLY?!

Granted the way I argued was very shit, I have chosen never to argue ever again, even debates IRL are completely useless. Even if I was right, the way I argued made sure that no one would have cared. It ended with me calling them a spinless centrist with no beliefs, not fun, not good. I'm not out as any gender I want to be yet so i gave the impression of an angry Cis man defending the evil dictatorship's child brides law, but the debate was between two people who are manipulative post-libs who pretend they aren't. Even though my whole arguement was basically that the progressive forces in cuba exist and are powerful, as proven with the new law, and Cuba has a better democratic system. I trust Cuba to have the ability to change such a law if they view it as a problem WHICH THEY FUCKIN DID AND LIED TO ME USING AN OUT OF DATE ARTICLE, unlike the US which they kept comparing to and then get mad when I do the same but make Cuba look better (rightfully, viva fidel).

ALRIGHT

BUT

The fact this was a thing that existed is a rather bad thing, and is there a further problem within the society for it? Some human rights orgs have data on it being a problem: https://www.girlsnotbrides.org/learning-resources/child-marriage-atlas/regions-and-countries/cuba/#:~:text=What's%20the%20prevalence%20rate%3F,union%20before%20their%2018th%20birthday.

Of course it isn't a problem anymore, with a complete ban on all underage marriages without exceptions since the new law, but I'm still on edge.

    • Boo_Boo [none/use name]
      ·
      2 years ago

      its detrimental, especially since the moment its combative de-escalation is just forgotten and it becomes a smear fest.

        • ChestRockwell [comrade/them, any]
          ·
          2 years ago

          So this may be my own take, but deep sophistry is all about a commitment to no truth, which means that arguments become less about being right and more about finding whatever point of the opponents argument is assumed/weak, and questioning that.

          The other advantage of sophistry is it's all about no truth except what is made, which works well with Marxist principles. We can question the assumptions of our opponents without any concern for some idea of "the good" in a platonic sense.

          The nice thing is if your audience is receptive, you can fit yourself to their receptivity. If they aren't, you don't need to feel as "attached" to ideological priors and just enjoy the ride. It's a different positionality from :posting:. The person I got a lot of my pedagogy from once described it closer to seduction, but in the ethical sense where both parties are receptive to it. When you're a sophist, it's about seducing and being seduced by the best argument simultaneously.

          Of course sometimes it's hard to adopt this position when we, for various reasons, believe our Marxist or anarchist :left-unity-4: principles. However, when trying to persuade people off the Internet, I feel like remaining open (and ready to be, as it were, filled by their argument before reflecting it back) is way more productive than an antagonistic stance.

          The basic reading list would involve something like the Gorgias and Phaedrus, Cicero's Orator, Castiglione's Book of the Courtier, then some more modern rhetorical thinkers like Kenneth Burke.

          • Frank [he/him, he/him]
            ·
            2 years ago

            Debate is for losers. Rhetoric is a weapon. The hell with truth. No one cares about truth. Humiliate your enemy badly enough and the crowd will believe whatever you tell them.

            • ChestRockwell [comrade/them, any]
              ·
              2 years ago

              I mean I'd say rhetoric is sophistry but that's just sophistry lol.

              Also lol socrates.

              Edited to add a slightly more effort version:

              Often rhetoric is understood as ornamental. Sophistic rhetoric is all about going deeper and basically emptying your priors as to truth and such.

              This comes up in "what if a person uses rhetoric for a bad purpose" question. Non-sophists generally get tied up in platonic conceptions of the good.

              Sophists it's all about brute force and you just kinda say "well get a better argument"

              Obviously this doesn't apply to fascists, who you should just :fash-bash:

                • ChestRockwell [comrade/them, any]
                  ·
                  2 years ago

                  I don't think sophistry is necessarily about being false though.

                  As I said, it's about truth being made by humans versus some abstract sense of "fact" or "good" that's somehow beyond ourselves.

                  This this is entirely consistent with Marxist principles, where humans shape and make our material world. Sophistry is about freeing yourself to make the best argument at the time.

                  In a way it's far closer to kairos than any sense of ethos/pathos/logos. It's about doing what's necessary in the moment and grabbing hold of your opponent or audiences material as is necessary without concern for some abstract notion of "right".

                  Again, this isn't epistemic nihilism but openness. Being willing to shift the grounds as is necessary, since there's no absolute Archimedean point from which to position anything.

                  After all, all conceptions of truth and good are fundamentally manmade and contingent. Rhetoric is what structures (and determines) our notions of truth and good.

                  I think the difference between the sophist and the bullshitter is the bullshitter doesn't believe anything out of a nihilistic position. The sophist doesn't believe anything because they are committed to the contingent and human nature of all knowledge and truth.

                  It's basically a deeply "atheistic" position in the sense that no idea of good, truth, etc exists outside of a rhetorical and human constructedness.

                  • Mardoniush [she/her]
                    ·
                    2 years ago

                    This this is entirely consistent with Marxist principles, where humans shape and make our material world

                    The reverse is also true, and more foundational and important. That's why it's dialectical materialism and not dialectical idealism. Your approach is more traditionally Hegelian.