I know conservatives who do this too. Everybody does it. It's not a poltically-specific tactic. I've seen salespeople do stuff like this.

There's a right way and a wrong way to carry on a debate. The right way is to argue what the information is suggesting, the other is to argue the validity of the person providing the information.

The former promotes discussion. The latter promotes social power. Guess which one is used most often?

>>225
That's not entirely true, especially if an argument hinges on the validity of information from a specific source.

To use the OP's example, it can be difficult to find reliable assessment and analysis of phenomena like the Occupy Movement or the Tea Party, if only because any attempt to keep track of factual occurrences related to these phenomenon is going to imply a particular political belief on the part of the observer, and as a result, someone with a different political belief can dismiss the source on those grounds.

To give you an example, let's image that the Tea Party both compensates local businesses and uses (intentionally or otherwise) racist slogans at a particular protest. You argue that the Tea Party are upstanding citizens because your source reports reports the former incident, while I argue that they're selfish bigots because my source reports the latter incident.

We can back-and-forth the exact moral calculus of these actions all we want, but unless we can verify to within a reasonable degree of trust that both incidents actually occurred, neither of us will ever be able to move past the fundamental suspicion that the other is, if not knowingly biased, then at the very least misguided and deluded by those who are.

This represents, In my opinion, the single most serious obstacle to genuine political debate - the deep-seated suspicion that our opponent is liar, or that his sources are lying. I don't claim to have an easy or elegant solution to this problem, but absolute credulity (accepting that any factual claim made your opponent is true without evidence) followed by attempts to reinterpret those claims to fit your argument is at best as useless as absolute cynicism and at worst an invitation for a cynical opponent to force you to defend every strawman he can imagine.

I'm strongly convinced that there are good ways to get a reasonable degree of certainty about objective truth. However, any discussion based primarily on opinions, and worse still second-hand opinions, is doomed to fail, and that's what most political discourse amounts to.

Your assertion that discussion is often more about social power than changing opinions or establishing some meaningful conclusions is a valuable one, and I encourage you to examine future claims with that in mind.

>most people are insane about politics
>OP argues with liberals
>OP notices liberals are insane
>it's not liberals who are insane about politics, its *everybody*

Problem solved.

Politics is the mind killer, brah. Don't expect sanity when there is a green or blue position on some issue.

http://lesswrong.com/lw/gt/a_fable_of_science_and_politics/
http://lesswrong.com/lw/gw/politics_is_the_mindkiller

>>230
You make some good points. I should have clarified my position better. Some of the best salespeople I've met have little regard for what is actually true. Instead, they are masters of personality and wordplay. This is what I meant by using debate and arguments for social power. The use of communication to force a decision in the other person that might not otherwise be made. Social engineering, basically.

Because of this, especially with salespeople, the assumption really has to be that your are dealing with a liar. At the very least, someone who is skilled in making you see things their way no matter how wrong they actually are.

Arguing the validity of a source is a valid technique when, and only when, the object is to determine honest credibility in the other person. In the case of a salesman or politician, this is often not the case. More often, the use of the technique is more to impugn the reputation of someone that is considered an opposing force.

Put it this way. I once was telling a friend of mine about a video I saw where people were rounded up in a park by the police and arrested en masse. My friend asked if I was actually there and witnessed the event, and I said "no". My friend pointed out that videos can be faked very easily and making an assumption about something off a YouTube video is a premature decision.

This event is what you describe in your argument about considering the source. The discussion we had was very reasonable and focused on the the giving of evidence, the credibility thereof and the conclusions that could be drawn. Contrast that with some of the better salespeople and you see a very different situation. That was really the point I was trying to make. Ultimately, the tactics used by salespeople are more common than the tactics used by those seeking information or wisdom. I find so, anyway.

>Falling for false left/right paradigm