Big Tent-ism
Peter Boghossian and James Lindsay have a piece in the LA Times that I very much agree with:
The Danish philosopher Soren Kierkegaard famously observed that if everyone is a Lutheran then no one is a Lutheran. What he meant is that if you're born into a culture in which everybody has a similar worldview, you don't have an opportunity to develop genuine belief because your convictions are not subject to scrutiny.Put another way, if you don't talk to people who hold different views, you will not know what they believe, and you won't even know what you believe. Having conversations with people who hold beliefs different from yours affords you the opportunity to reflect -- and only then can you evaluate whether your beliefs hold true.
Immigration. Abortion. Gun control. The seemingly impossible issue du jour is irrelevant. What is relevant: To justify your confidence you must sincerely engage people who have solid arguments against your position.
Over the last few years, Americans seem to have convinced themselves that not speaking to people who hold different moral and political beliefs makes us better people -- even on college campuses where intellectual sparring has historically been part of the curricula. It does not. However, it does make us less likely to revise our beliefs and more likely to convince ourselves that others should believe as we do.
I used to see the late Andrew Breitbart at a monthly dinner for writers and for people from all points on the political spectrum. I was against the Iraq War; he was not. For a few months, we had spirited arguments on the subject -- arguments that would always end in the same way: with my giving him a hug goodbye and telling him to tell his wife I said hi.
To me, this is life in a civilized society -- one where we don't dehumanize and simply ignore (or mob) people we disagree with, but where we talk to them.
I ask people in the mediations I do to listen with an open mind. I am really conscious of trying to do that myself. I won't always change my mind, but sometimes I do, or something I sharpen my argument by better understanding what the other side is.
Christopher Hitchens talked about this -- how his M.O. was to know the other side's point of view better than they do (or at least as well). (Can't remember if he said the last part -- I think it's my addition, but if you're not Hitchens, maybe you settle for "at least as well.")
Boghossian and Lindsay have some other good advice:
Call out extremists on your side. Identify the authoritarians and fundamentalists who claim to represent your views and speak bluntly about how they take things too far. This is a way to build trust and signal that you're not an extremist. (If you can't figure out how your side goes too far, that may be a sign that you are part of the problem and need to moderate your beliefs.)Let people be wrong. It's OK if someone doesn't believe what you believe. Far more often than not, their beliefs don't present an existential threat -- they're just one person -- and you'll be just fine. Don't even bother to push back or point out holes in their arguments. Listen, learn and let them be wrong. Conclude by thanking them for the conversation. (As a good rule of thumb, the more strongly you disagree with someone's position, the more important it is to thank them for the discussion and end on a high note.)
This reminds me of Daniel Dennett's four rules for how to argue a point effectively:
•You should attempt to re-express your target's position so clearly, vividly, and fairly that your target says, "Thanks, I wish I'd thought of putting it that way.
•You should list any points of agreement (especially if they are not matters of general or widespread agreement).
•You should mention anything you have learned from your target.
•Only then are you permitted to say so much as a word of rebuttal or criticism.
> how to argue a point effectively:
In the past six months I've watched a lot of clips of Jonathan Haidt... He's fastidious about this technique. But it's uncertain that he's therefore more convincing.
A theory of mine is that people who expect too eagerly to be flattered in a conversation, or to be sheltered from rocky ground and bad weather by seamless demonstrations of formality, didn't show up to have their minds changed anyway... They'd prefer reassurance that the soil under their feet isn't moving, but that their participation is nonetheless essential to their boring planet.
My mind has been changed in big ways dozens of times, no less often on occasions where kind words and reassurance were never in the offing.
Crid at July 23, 2019 12:19 AM
> “If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.”
> ― Sun Tzu, The Art of War
It's tiring and boring to listen to people who do not know what their opponents position is, what their theories are, what motivates them.
It's worse when people just make assumptions, and worst still when it becomes "they are bad people".
jerry at July 23, 2019 12:46 AM
It's something that we all keep in mind -- in today's media environment, it's all too easy to fall into the habit of only paying attention to the sources that validate your own views. It can happen to anyone -- I've fallen into that trap, more than once.
The other side of the coin, though, is the realization that you can't argue effectively with someone who has an irrational point of view. Appeals to reason break down when you are confronted with a person who is constantly changing the subject, shifting the goalposts, and retconning the argument. Unfortunately, this describes an awful lot of political candidates, at least in their public-facing campaign materials and speeches. And the result is that, in general, people tune out.
Cousin Dave at July 23, 2019 6:43 AM
"Identify the authoritarians and fundamentalists who claim to represent your views and speak bluntly about how they take things too far."
I'm going to somewhat dispute the underlying assumption behind this bit. Extremism is not a rational belief system taken "too far". It's qualitatively different, in the same way that a peaceful assembly or organization is different from a mob.
Cousin Dave at July 23, 2019 6:55 AM
Good arguments come from facts and reflection. Unfortunately the media these days spends more time obscuring facts than reporting them.
I don’t need to hear another god damn argument that is nothing more than repeating verbatim the inflammatory opinion of some 27 year old journalist or reddit reader (but I repeat myself) who doesn’t have either the knowledge or the intelligence to step back and get some perspective.
There is literally nothing new under the sun. Humans have deeply felt beliefs. Many of them are not based on anything rational.
Good arguments are found in letters and books. Nothing replaces time to read, digest, research and reflect before throwing shit out there.
Bomb throwing has almost totally replaced honest debate.
Isab at July 23, 2019 6:59 AM
If they're not bomb throwing, they're just regurgitating what they heard on their favorite media outlet, or favorite commentator, or politician.
I prefer to not listen to them, they're not even that well versed in what they think/believe. I will learn little from them, especially if I can go back to the source and listen/read what they have to say.
Let's hear what Ben Rhodes had to say about reporting.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/obama-official-says-he-pushed-a-narrative-to-media-to-sell-the-iran-nuclear-deal/2016/05/06/5b90d984-13a1-11e6-8967-7ac733c56f12_story.html?utm_term=.6364cd3f6d7a
I R A Darth Aggie at July 23, 2019 9:17 AM
I suspect that most of us, on the right at least, encounter not rational arguments but beliefs.
I have some relations who fell hard for the Covington/Maga thing. They had not gotten their feet under them before they were REALLY outraged by the Jussie Smollett case.
Turns out that things are so bad that these happenings could have happened really, and so they may as well have happened and so they happened and that's as good as if they happened, which they did.
Once in a while, if you get a couple of facts into them, they break...affect or something. They can't afford not to believe, no matter how silly.
Matthew Shepard is a martyr for the ages. The gay magazine, Advocate, had an article about a book insisting Shepard was murdered by a bunch of meth freaks coming off a binge who wanted his money. I didn't get which side the article took, but they were noodling around the edges of the question...what would be the effect on the gay community if the second thing were accepted as true.
Never happen, of course. Marginalized groups need the moral authority resulting from being seen to be victimized by white males. Straight ones.
So, while Trayvon Martin is dead, so is Heaven Sutton who is a nobody because she didn't have the discernment to be killed by a (temporary) white guy.
Actual rational arguments are wasted on a substantial number of people who NEED to believe and won't thank you for pointing out the obvious.
Richard Aubrey at July 23, 2019 12:03 PM
Good arguments are found in letters and books. Nothing replaces time to read, digest, research and reflect before throwing shit out there.
___________________________________
Or, as Fran Lebowitz wrote, back in the 1970s:
"Think before you speak. Read before you think. This will give you something to think about that you didn't make up yourself - a wise move at any age, but most especially at seventeen, when you are in the greatest danger of coming to annoying conclusions."
Yes, it's time consuming, but so are most worthwhile skills.
And, since the L.A. Times article is behind a paywall, would someone tell me if the authors make it clear that it's not enough to follow the rules of debate when it comes to controversial topics; one has to remember whether or not the Time and Place are appropriate for debating sensitive subjects in the first place?
Hint: It has never been polite to raise the subjects of sex, politics, or religion in SOCIAL conversation - unless everyone present consents - preferably before getting together - to debate those issues in the first place. One can't just assume that everyone - or anyone - wants to discuss those issues. It should also be obvious by now that unless those subjects are related to your job, there is no reason to discuss them at work either. (Of course, your co-workers should have to follow the same rule.)
Here's Miss Manners' column on why that ban is perfectly fair and practical, to boot:
https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1817&dat=19970323&id=_zwdAAAAIBAJ&sjid=P6YEAAAAIBAJ&pg=5933,4027385&hl=en
Quote:
"Never mind -- Miss Manners knows what you are thinking. You are thinking that in its restless quest to stamp out fun, unchecked etiquette would drive the world to a state of blandness bordering on hysteria..."
She goes on to explain, clearly and intelligently, why this is not the case.
lenona at July 23, 2019 12:59 PM
"Over the last few years, Americans seem to have convinced themselves that not speaking to people who hold different moral and political beliefs makes us better people .."
No we haven't. What they've done here is actually more prevalent, which is to blame 'We' when in actuality it is a specific 'They'. The behavior they're criticizing is endorsed and primarily exhibited by a specific cohort of Progressives. Casting this as a societal problem excuses and justifies their behavior.
In fact, it's the desire by moderates and conservatives to speak to their opposition that motivates Progressives to label that behavior as Hate and Violence. I don't see anyone else doing that.
Am I wrong here?
Cat at July 23, 2019 1:38 PM
Anyone with integrity and over the age of 30 should be able to remember times when they were wrong or changed their opinion (not like screaming leftists who pretend they have always believed the latest craze). Knowing that you yourself have changed your mind on something should make you more willing to cut the other guy some slack. Maybe he is right or maybe he will change his mind. So then you don't have to hate him.
cc at July 23, 2019 4:44 PM
Cat is spot on here - it is NOT society at large who refuses to listen. It is many on the left who are doing nothing but name calling.
I'd love to have a serious discussion with someone else who has a viewpoint different from my own; but, it is NOT a discussion when the only thing the other side does is personal attacks.
How many Republicans went to Hillary campaign events to disrupt them? Compared to how many times did those on the left physically attacked Trump supporters?
Was it a gang of Republicans who held a mentally challenged man against his will, torturing him because he supported Hillary? No, wait, it was a group of thugs who did that to a young Trump supporter!
How many Republican politicians called for personal attacks against Democratic politicians? Compared to the number of leading Democrats who called for violence against members of Trump's White House staff?
Was it a young "I'm with Her" hat-wearing young man surrounded by a group of activists and called names? Nope, it was a MAGA-hat wearing young man libeled by the activist and the press.
So, no, I'm not buying this "Americans seem to have convinced themselves" crap.
It is typical of those on the left to "blame America" when, in fact, it is those on the left at fault.
America is at fault for favoring slavery; yes, and no. It was the Democrats who fought a war to keep it; and when they lost they founded the KKK.
America is at fault for Jim Crow laws; no, it was Democrats who passed those laws.
America is at fault for the internment of Japanese-Americans; again, no, it was FDR, a leftist progressive Democrat, who did that.
There is a pattern here; and blaming America or Americans is NOT the correct answer.
charles at July 23, 2019 6:38 PM
1. There were 2 great academies of Talmud: the House of Shammai and the House of Hillel. The law is generally like Hillel. Why? Because Hillel required his students to first re-state the other opinion before stating their own.
2. Not everyone is up to - or deserves - this kind of treatment in modern cultural/political "discussions". Often I find myself targeting the bystanders, having already vetted my interlocutor as a rabid Progressive sloganeer.
Ben David at July 24, 2019 10:13 AM
FDR did it at the urging of Earl Warren, then the Attorney General of California. Warren was later the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Under Warren, the Court decided such "fairness" cases as:
Conan the Grammarian at July 24, 2019 12:15 PM
America is at fault for the internment of Japanese-Americans; again, no, it was FDR, a leftist progressive Democrat, who did that.
___________________________________________
And what makes you think a Republican president WOULDN'T have done that, given Pearl Harbor?
Or that a Republican president, in that era, would have done nearly as much as FDR did for other minorities?
From journalist Ellen Tarry's 1955 book, "The Third Door: The Autobiography of an American Negro Woman":
"To write of Harlem in 1945 without making mention of the great sorrow which blanketed the community on April 12 at the death of Franklin Delano Roosevelt would be a serious oversight. Regardless of the numerous controversies which have arisen over the role played by our wartime president, Roosevelt was the first chief executive since Lincoln who succeeded in creating a national atmosphere in which the Negro felt as if he were really free.
"I was ironing the last of a pile of tiny dresses when the announcement was made over the radio that Roosevelt had died in Warm Springs, Georgia. At first I thought I had been mistaken, then as additional details filled in the death picture my first impulse was to call out to someone, to say: 'Can it be true?' But I was alone except for the baby. I took her in my arms and said a prayer for the repose of the soul of this every human, physically handicapped man who, by being aware of the changing tides and nodding at the right times, had helped my people to walk taller, to dream and to hope.
"When I went out to shop, the streets were crowded with little groups of Negroes standing aimlessly together looking as if they were lost. Some were crying. Others were asking: 'What will happen now? What will become of us?' Franklin Delano Roosevelt succeeded in making many enemies, but none of them that I have known was black. He was our 'Great White Father,' the first since 'Father Abraham,' and we were bereft." (253-254)
You can read more here, from the same chapter - it's about civil rights leader A. Philip Randolph, in 1941 (btw, he lived to be 90 and died in 1979):
https://www.nathanielturner.com/aphiliprandolph.htm
lenona at July 24, 2019 4:31 PM
Oh, and if Republicans today are so determined to be "the party of Lincoln," what exactly are they doing to attract more black members? How hard are they really trying? Do they really want them at all?
lenona at July 24, 2019 4:33 PM
You can read more here, from the same chapter
_______________________________________
Correction - the Randolph section isn't from the same chapter; it was about 75 pages earlier.
lenona at July 24, 2019 4:38 PM
No reason to believe a Republican wouldn't, but no automatic reason to believe one would, either. Warren was an influential Democrat in a state FDR needed for re-election.
Like Krystalnacht, exiling the Japanese residents of the Western states was little more than a plot to seize land and assets from a detested minority and business competitors.
Internment was the result of decades of racial animosity toward Asians in California and other West Coast states. The Chinese Exclusion Act was intended to limit Chinese immigration to the US, substituting Japanese immigration in order to appear unbiased.
When the Japanese proved as industrious as the Chinese, citizenship became the weapon of choice. First-generation Japanese immigrants were prevented from attaining citizenship. Their children (Nisei), having been born here, were automatically citizens.
Because they were not citizens, the parents were exiled to concentration camps (real ones, not AOC's fantasy) and considered not trustworthy. Warren et al argued that, as loyal subjects of the emperor, Japanese residents could not be trusted and their loyalty was, at best, split.
The military governor of Hawai'i, Delos Carleton Emmons, tried to stop the process there, arguing that Japanese residents, citizens or not, were essential to building the island state's defenses (90% of the state's carpenters were Japanese). As a result of his and the Hawaiian business community's efforts, only 1,200 to 1,800 Japanese in Hawai'i were exiled.
Nisei were later given the opportunity to fight for the US in the 442nd Regimental Combat Team. Their unit fought in Italy and was the most-decorated infantry unit in US military history (for its size).
In rescuing the 275 soldiers of the "Lost Battalion" of the Texas National Guard, the 442nd took over 800 casualties. One company, I Company, went into the fight with 185 soldiers; 8 walked out. K Company went in with 186; 17 walked out. In 1962, Governor John Connally made the veterans of the 442nd honorary Texans in gratitude.
Conan the Grammarian at July 24, 2019 5:43 PM
Leave a comment