That’s the way discourse works in the idealistic imaginations of many. In reality, people aren’t automatons who meticulously scrutinize a statement for its adherence to the rules of logic, nor even care if a the rules of logic are broken. In the real world, a small group with bad intentions can use cheap rhetoric to gain control then tak…
That’s the way discourse works in the idealistic imaginations of many. In reality, people aren’t automatons who meticulously scrutinize a statement for its adherence to the rules of logic, nor even care if a the rules of logic are broken. In the real world, a small group with bad intentions can use cheap rhetoric to gain control then take action to guard their power.
Those of us with good intentions must live and fight in the real world.
I'm usually condescended to in that way, so none of what you just said is much of a surprise. The thing is you're straw-manning what I am talking about, so there's nothing substantive for me to respond to here.
If you become indistinguishable from those you're opposing because you try to adopt their tactics to beat them, what does victory even mean anymore? "Because I'm one of the good guys" is not a justification for mirroring the total abandonment of civil discourse. *Everyone* thinks they're one of the good guys. The way forward is to be the adults in the room, and to hold people to adult standards of engagement. It doesn't mean rolling over and taking abuse or accepting bad behavior.
I'm not condescending to you. I'm simply not mincing words as I say what I believe. I also didn't straw-man your argument, because you didn't really put forward an argument. You put forward an assertion. I replied to your assertion with my own assertion.
If you would like to have a friendly debate on this topic, we can.
My first question to you would be how do you plan to "hold people to adult standards of engagement"? What are you going to do when people fall below those standards?
And they will, because cheap rhetoric is effective. Fallacies and shame and character assassination are all very effective tools for manipulating others and getting one's way. That's why we've been using them for as long as humans have been around.
What happens when you posture as the adult, but no one follows your lead because they're getting what they want by acting like a child? Then what?
You can straw man an assertion, which is what I believe you did. It doesn’t have to be an argument for you to mischaracterize it.
And when you imply that I am not engaging in the real world, and that what I’m saying works in an idealistic imagination, that comes off as pretty condescending.
As for your questions: What you do when someone falls below the adult and mature methods of engagement is you call it out clearly so they and everyone else can see. You offer a way forward beyond that, and if they refuse, the conversation is over.
Cheap rhetoric is effective for a while, but people can tell the difference between that and real engagement. And I think many people are coming around to the fact that this nonsense is exhausting and they want no part of it. The numbers are on the adult side of the equation, regardless of how it might seem online.
But even if no one follows my lead, at least I’m not contributing to the problem by mirroring the behavior of those I’m opposing. Fighting fire with fire burns everything to the ground.
Daryl Davis actively, compassionately, and bravely engaged with hundreds of people who literally believed he was sub-human and he was successful in changing their minds. If he can do THAT, then we can do this.
At no point am I advocating for acquiescing to nonsense and letting bullies get their way. I’m simply saying that returning fire in kind gets us nowhere good.
I'm sorry you feel that way. Although, an assertion is more or less a straw-man. If you want to add some flesh and bone to your assertion, then turn it into an argument.
It hardly seems fair of you to get upset with me because I didn't turn your assertion into an argument for you. I've already considered both sides of this issue and come to the opposite conclusion as you. If you think you have some argument that might change my mind, then the onus is on you to present it.
As for the argument you have now presented:
First you say we can enforce the adult standard of engagement by calling out anyone who falls below it. Next you say, if those we call out prove recalcitrant, we should no longer engage with them. (In a word, we should ignore them.) Finally, you say "[a]t no point am I advocating for acquiescing to nonsense and letting bullies get their way," referring to the people who are degrading our discourse with their immature rhetoric.
But that is, in effect, exactly what you advocate for earlier in your argument. If we simply break off conversation with and ignore anyone who will not follow our "adult" example, then we are effectively acquiescing to them. We are vacating the field and allowing them to continue polluting our discourse unopposed.
I'm not sure what leads you to believe the numbers are on our side either. If telling people to be better and ignoring those who refuse worked, the we should have seen some improvement in the discourse by now. But the discourse has only gotten worse in recent years. The reason we are debating the best approach to discourse is because more and more people are looking for a solution to what they view as a worsening national discourse.
So it is already the case that people pollute our discourse and ignore encouragement to stop. And that trend has been worsening for some time now. Which means we are already at the point where your proposed solution has failed. If we were to continue following your proposal, we should be entering the phase where we simply acquiesce to those immature people by ignoring them.
I think you recognize this as our status quo, as well. Because you preemptively argue that, even if your proposed solution were to fail (I'd argue it already has), then you'd rather fail with your integrity intact than betray your values to succeed.
That's a false moral equivalence, in my view. There is no moral equivalence between bad-faith actors who use rhetorical weapons to empower themselves and abuse others, and good-faith actors who use rhetorical weapons to convince bad-faith actors that it is in their self-interest to engage in good-faith. Ignoring evil when you have the power to stop it is a moral failure.
I think there is a tendency among classical-liberal types to believe that our values are not merely values, but rather some sort of higher Truth. And, if only people are made aware of the Truth, they will willingly adopt it. Almost like Christians believe people will be helpless to accept Christ as their one true lord and savior when he reveals himself.
But I don't buy that. I think our values are the best set of values, but not the inevitable set. Which is why I believe we must enforce our values if we don't wish to live by others--preferably while enforcement only requires some tough rhetoric.
An assertion *can* be a straw man, yes, but it is not always one. My assertion wasn't one. Yours was—and many of the other assertions you've made here also are. The rest are non sequiturs because you're responding to and arguing against things I didn't say and don't believe.
I'm not upset at all, by the way—just pointing out what I'm seeing as unproductive engagement.
Ceasing an unproductive exchange with someone doesn't mean ceding any moral or discursive ground. It is not the equivalent to walking away from the court and letting the cheater score points with no defense. At no point did I say that's what I'm calling for, but that's how you're reading it and it is incorrect. But employing the same tactics as the cheater to beat them makes *you* a cheater too. You can rationalize it all you want by saying you're the good guys and therefore it's justified, but the reality is that you're both cheaters now and that matters.
The discourse offline is very different from what it is online. Most people are fairly reasonable and can get along fairly well. There are problems, of course, but social media and legacy media give us a warped perception of how divided we actually are and how possible conversation across difference actually is.
I'll spare us both from responding to your other points, which I think are irrelevant because they describe someone who is not me and things I have not said and do not argue for.
That’s great. You’re simply parroting my points back at me and responding to things I never said as well. If I’ve already become the cheater I set out to oppose, I guess that means you’ve become a cheater as well.
That’s the way discourse works in the idealistic imaginations of many. In reality, people aren’t automatons who meticulously scrutinize a statement for its adherence to the rules of logic, nor even care if a the rules of logic are broken. In the real world, a small group with bad intentions can use cheap rhetoric to gain control then take action to guard their power.
Those of us with good intentions must live and fight in the real world.
I'm usually condescended to in that way, so none of what you just said is much of a surprise. The thing is you're straw-manning what I am talking about, so there's nothing substantive for me to respond to here.
If you become indistinguishable from those you're opposing because you try to adopt their tactics to beat them, what does victory even mean anymore? "Because I'm one of the good guys" is not a justification for mirroring the total abandonment of civil discourse. *Everyone* thinks they're one of the good guys. The way forward is to be the adults in the room, and to hold people to adult standards of engagement. It doesn't mean rolling over and taking abuse or accepting bad behavior.
I'm not condescending to you. I'm simply not mincing words as I say what I believe. I also didn't straw-man your argument, because you didn't really put forward an argument. You put forward an assertion. I replied to your assertion with my own assertion.
If you would like to have a friendly debate on this topic, we can.
My first question to you would be how do you plan to "hold people to adult standards of engagement"? What are you going to do when people fall below those standards?
And they will, because cheap rhetoric is effective. Fallacies and shame and character assassination are all very effective tools for manipulating others and getting one's way. That's why we've been using them for as long as humans have been around.
What happens when you posture as the adult, but no one follows your lead because they're getting what they want by acting like a child? Then what?
You can straw man an assertion, which is what I believe you did. It doesn’t have to be an argument for you to mischaracterize it.
And when you imply that I am not engaging in the real world, and that what I’m saying works in an idealistic imagination, that comes off as pretty condescending.
As for your questions: What you do when someone falls below the adult and mature methods of engagement is you call it out clearly so they and everyone else can see. You offer a way forward beyond that, and if they refuse, the conversation is over.
Cheap rhetoric is effective for a while, but people can tell the difference between that and real engagement. And I think many people are coming around to the fact that this nonsense is exhausting and they want no part of it. The numbers are on the adult side of the equation, regardless of how it might seem online.
But even if no one follows my lead, at least I’m not contributing to the problem by mirroring the behavior of those I’m opposing. Fighting fire with fire burns everything to the ground.
Daryl Davis actively, compassionately, and bravely engaged with hundreds of people who literally believed he was sub-human and he was successful in changing their minds. If he can do THAT, then we can do this.
At no point am I advocating for acquiescing to nonsense and letting bullies get their way. I’m simply saying that returning fire in kind gets us nowhere good.
I'm sorry you feel that way. Although, an assertion is more or less a straw-man. If you want to add some flesh and bone to your assertion, then turn it into an argument.
It hardly seems fair of you to get upset with me because I didn't turn your assertion into an argument for you. I've already considered both sides of this issue and come to the opposite conclusion as you. If you think you have some argument that might change my mind, then the onus is on you to present it.
As for the argument you have now presented:
First you say we can enforce the adult standard of engagement by calling out anyone who falls below it. Next you say, if those we call out prove recalcitrant, we should no longer engage with them. (In a word, we should ignore them.) Finally, you say "[a]t no point am I advocating for acquiescing to nonsense and letting bullies get their way," referring to the people who are degrading our discourse with their immature rhetoric.
But that is, in effect, exactly what you advocate for earlier in your argument. If we simply break off conversation with and ignore anyone who will not follow our "adult" example, then we are effectively acquiescing to them. We are vacating the field and allowing them to continue polluting our discourse unopposed.
I'm not sure what leads you to believe the numbers are on our side either. If telling people to be better and ignoring those who refuse worked, the we should have seen some improvement in the discourse by now. But the discourse has only gotten worse in recent years. The reason we are debating the best approach to discourse is because more and more people are looking for a solution to what they view as a worsening national discourse.
So it is already the case that people pollute our discourse and ignore encouragement to stop. And that trend has been worsening for some time now. Which means we are already at the point where your proposed solution has failed. If we were to continue following your proposal, we should be entering the phase where we simply acquiesce to those immature people by ignoring them.
I think you recognize this as our status quo, as well. Because you preemptively argue that, even if your proposed solution were to fail (I'd argue it already has), then you'd rather fail with your integrity intact than betray your values to succeed.
That's a false moral equivalence, in my view. There is no moral equivalence between bad-faith actors who use rhetorical weapons to empower themselves and abuse others, and good-faith actors who use rhetorical weapons to convince bad-faith actors that it is in their self-interest to engage in good-faith. Ignoring evil when you have the power to stop it is a moral failure.
I think there is a tendency among classical-liberal types to believe that our values are not merely values, but rather some sort of higher Truth. And, if only people are made aware of the Truth, they will willingly adopt it. Almost like Christians believe people will be helpless to accept Christ as their one true lord and savior when he reveals himself.
But I don't buy that. I think our values are the best set of values, but not the inevitable set. Which is why I believe we must enforce our values if we don't wish to live by others--preferably while enforcement only requires some tough rhetoric.
An assertion *can* be a straw man, yes, but it is not always one. My assertion wasn't one. Yours was—and many of the other assertions you've made here also are. The rest are non sequiturs because you're responding to and arguing against things I didn't say and don't believe.
I'm not upset at all, by the way—just pointing out what I'm seeing as unproductive engagement.
Ceasing an unproductive exchange with someone doesn't mean ceding any moral or discursive ground. It is not the equivalent to walking away from the court and letting the cheater score points with no defense. At no point did I say that's what I'm calling for, but that's how you're reading it and it is incorrect. But employing the same tactics as the cheater to beat them makes *you* a cheater too. You can rationalize it all you want by saying you're the good guys and therefore it's justified, but the reality is that you're both cheaters now and that matters.
The discourse offline is very different from what it is online. Most people are fairly reasonable and can get along fairly well. There are problems, of course, but social media and legacy media give us a warped perception of how divided we actually are and how possible conversation across difference actually is.
I'll spare us both from responding to your other points, which I think are irrelevant because they describe someone who is not me and things I have not said and do not argue for.
That’s great. You’re simply parroting my points back at me and responding to things I never said as well. If I’ve already become the cheater I set out to oppose, I guess that means you’ve become a cheater as well.
Welcome to the club. Happy to have ya.