Dummies on the Other Side look like dummies over here.
July 5, 2016 3:16 PM Subscribe
The Other Side is Not so dumb. "...next time you feel compelled to share a link on social media about current events, ask yourself why you are doing it. Is it because that link brings to light information you hadn’t considered? Or does it confirm your world view, reminding your circle of intellectual teammates that you’re not on the Other Side?"
This post was deleted for the following reason: On sober reflection, this seems like a great way to piss people off and not achieve anything positive. Sorry for the late delete. -- restless_nomad
Or, you know, we may have examined both sides of the argument, and feel that ours is the more meritorious.
I really hate pieces like this, because they want to play the "more neutral than thou" card, not understanding that for a lot of us, we didn't just pull our opinions off the shelf, but actually came to them after reasoning.
It's almost like there are actual reasons political factions exist.
posted by NoxAeternum at 3:25 PM on July 5, 2016 [45 favorites]
I really hate pieces like this, because they want to play the "more neutral than thou" card, not understanding that for a lot of us, we didn't just pull our opinions off the shelf, but actually came to them after reasoning.
It's almost like there are actual reasons political factions exist.
posted by NoxAeternum at 3:25 PM on July 5, 2016 [45 favorites]
Yeah the current Other Side includes a lot of literal Neo Nazis sooo
posted by The Whelk at 3:25 PM on July 5, 2016 [53 favorites]
posted by The Whelk at 3:25 PM on July 5, 2016 [53 favorites]
Well, if nothing else, Trump's ascendance has proven to me that the Republican base was never uninformed. They just had a different set of priorities that are now coming to the fore quite explicitly (instead of implicitly like before). They were sharp enough to pick up on it before; sharper than me in that respect. So... mission accomplished?
posted by supercres at 3:28 PM on July 5, 2016 [10 favorites]
posted by supercres at 3:28 PM on July 5, 2016 [10 favorites]
Yeah the current Other Side includes a lot of literal Neo Nazis sooo
But if you'd just listen to those Neo Nazis you'd learn so...
No, I can't do it. Sorry, I'm all out of sarcasm. To hell with the Neo Nazis.
posted by Joey Michaels at 3:30 PM on July 5, 2016 [7 favorites]
But if you'd just listen to those Neo Nazis you'd learn so...
No, I can't do it. Sorry, I'm all out of sarcasm. To hell with the Neo Nazis.
posted by Joey Michaels at 3:30 PM on July 5, 2016 [7 favorites]
According to the infographic, The Big Bang Theory is "high culture." I think there's a very real possibility that America is dummies all the way down.
posted by selfmedicating at 3:41 PM on July 5, 2016 [12 favorites]
posted by selfmedicating at 3:41 PM on July 5, 2016 [12 favorites]
Wow, reading the comments first I expected the worst out of that article, but all it says is "entertain the idea that you might be wrong, and listen to what people say". That seems like...absolute common sense.
posted by Bugbread at 3:42 PM on July 5, 2016 [10 favorites]
posted by Bugbread at 3:42 PM on July 5, 2016 [10 favorites]
This is a tough sell right now, because a lot of us Democrats tried to do just that over the course of the Bush and Obama administration, just to see our worst assumptions get validated, and any attempt at bipartisanship get skewered. At this point, I'm less inclined to think the problem is with the attitudes of the voters but the structure of the legislature.
posted by mccarty.tim at 3:43 PM on July 5, 2016 [18 favorites]
posted by mccarty.tim at 3:43 PM on July 5, 2016 [18 favorites]
What happens instead of genuine intellectual curiosity is the sharing of Slate or Onion or Fox News or Red State links.
you leave America's Finest News Source out of this
posted by Krom Tatman at 3:44 PM on July 5, 2016 [10 favorites]
you leave America's Finest News Source out of this
posted by Krom Tatman at 3:44 PM on July 5, 2016 [10 favorites]
The Whelk: Yeah the current Other Side includes a lot of literal Neo Nazis sooo
Yeah, doesn't the author realize there are hateful, racist, people not worthy of the small amount of electricity it takes just one of your synapses to fire?
posted by Bugbread at 3:46 PM on July 5, 2016 [2 favorites]
Yeah, doesn't the author realize there are hateful, racist, people not worthy of the small amount of electricity it takes just one of your synapses to fire?
posted by Bugbread at 3:46 PM on July 5, 2016 [2 favorites]
I have purposely turned my social media feeds into largely an echo chamber. It's much better for my health.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 3:47 PM on July 5, 2016 [6 favorites]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 3:47 PM on July 5, 2016 [6 favorites]
I feel like this was posted before.
Fredrik deBoer, one of my favorite writers around
ehn.
What a lot of non-fact-based disagreements boil down to are value differences, not fact differences, and the mistake is usually in thinking that if everyone were just as well informed as us, they'd agree.
One good example I keep close to mind is: there are people who understand and acknowledge that, say, the death penalty as currently practiced in the US kills a shockingly high amount of innocent people, and also does so on already-marginalized groups, and that the best predictors of getting executed are 1) did you kill a white person and 2) how good a lawyer can you afford. And they will still advocate for the death penalty, because they hold that having the death penalty is a good thing. No amount of new information or otherwise unconsidered viewpoints will change this - killing evildoers is good in and of itself. This is not a fact-based argument.
"Oh man, think about your facts!" we are warned. "Don't dismiss facts!"
Well, what frame are these facts understood in? That's more important. And you can't use facts to prove the frame (thanks, Gödel.)
Or at least, for reasons just as good as yours.
My reasons are usually terrible, can I dismiss my opponents because their reasons are just as dumb as mine?
posted by the man of twists and turns at 3:47 PM on July 5, 2016 [27 favorites]
Fredrik deBoer, one of my favorite writers around
ehn.
What a lot of non-fact-based disagreements boil down to are value differences, not fact differences, and the mistake is usually in thinking that if everyone were just as well informed as us, they'd agree.
One good example I keep close to mind is: there are people who understand and acknowledge that, say, the death penalty as currently practiced in the US kills a shockingly high amount of innocent people, and also does so on already-marginalized groups, and that the best predictors of getting executed are 1) did you kill a white person and 2) how good a lawyer can you afford. And they will still advocate for the death penalty, because they hold that having the death penalty is a good thing. No amount of new information or otherwise unconsidered viewpoints will change this - killing evildoers is good in and of itself. This is not a fact-based argument.
"Oh man, think about your facts!" we are warned. "Don't dismiss facts!"
Well, what frame are these facts understood in? That's more important. And you can't use facts to prove the frame (thanks, Gödel.)
Or at least, for reasons just as good as yours.
My reasons are usually terrible, can I dismiss my opponents because their reasons are just as dumb as mine?
posted by the man of twists and turns at 3:47 PM on July 5, 2016 [27 favorites]
Counterpoint: The "Other Side" is endorsing an openly white-supremacist fascist for chief executive of the country. The "Other Side" is loudly proclaiming their affinity for Team Lout, and a substantial number of them are doing so particularly to harm people whom they see as unjustly usurping their position of power.
Appeals to civility, such as this FPP, start with a number of assumptions, including notions like an equivalency between the "two sides." By dismissing the actually shit-capped as a tiny minority, they ignore that the polarization on many issues has been asymmetric; by resorting to debate club framing, they assume a legitimate argument can be made for any position; by wringing hands over tribal signaling, they both ignore the positive aspect of social norms and the harm that views from the "Other Side" can bring.
If one wants to make an argument about how thought-stopping rhetoric can be harmful within liberal contexts, I'll happily agree — there are plenty of people on "My Side" who are full of shit in various levels of concentration. But that doesn't mean that a Both Sides Do It Let's Get Along argument is valid, nor that making that argument is the most effective way to get people to consider their biases.
It's also worth noting that this rhetorical strategy is most frequently employed by those with the least skin in the game, and that those with the luxury of sophistry are not necessarily the best equipped to dole out advice on civility and critical thinking.
It's worth noting that the author approvingly cites deBoer, whose half-baked notions of "cool" limiting discourse are largely self-congratulatory bullshit.
posted by klangklangston at 3:50 PM on July 5, 2016 [39 favorites]
Appeals to civility, such as this FPP, start with a number of assumptions, including notions like an equivalency between the "two sides." By dismissing the actually shit-capped as a tiny minority, they ignore that the polarization on many issues has been asymmetric; by resorting to debate club framing, they assume a legitimate argument can be made for any position; by wringing hands over tribal signaling, they both ignore the positive aspect of social norms and the harm that views from the "Other Side" can bring.
If one wants to make an argument about how thought-stopping rhetoric can be harmful within liberal contexts, I'll happily agree — there are plenty of people on "My Side" who are full of shit in various levels of concentration. But that doesn't mean that a Both Sides Do It Let's Get Along argument is valid, nor that making that argument is the most effective way to get people to consider their biases.
It's also worth noting that this rhetorical strategy is most frequently employed by those with the least skin in the game, and that those with the luxury of sophistry are not necessarily the best equipped to dole out advice on civility and critical thinking.
It's worth noting that the author approvingly cites deBoer, whose half-baked notions of "cool" limiting discourse are largely self-congratulatory bullshit.
posted by klangklangston at 3:50 PM on July 5, 2016 [39 favorites]
On Facebook I rarely post anything about current events (but I do all the time on Twitter). Because of my work and my life experience, and the evolution of Facebook from a place to connect with old high school and university friends, my Facebook friends occupy a pretty broad spectrum, from NDP MLA's to federal Liberal Party supporters, and maybe a couple of Conservative Party supporters; a different Venn circle is comprised of American libertarians and Second Amendment Supporters. I have friends in Britain who voted Remain, and a few who voted Leave. Some of my Japanese friends embrace nuclear power, and some are SEALDs activists. I have friends in Beirut and Ankara and Lahore, and others in Paris and Brussels. And then there's my Mom and my sisters and my in-laws...
So, every issue is bound to have different perspectives, and the potential to create an argument (rather than a debate), and potentially raise my blood pressure.
So I just post photos I take while out for a walk or something. Seems to keep people happy.
What I have noticed is an attempt at "policing" or "educating" about the "right way" to think about current events, notably the latest horrific bombing to strike Baghdad.
"Why aren't we changing out FB avatars???" blah blah blah. While it made sense to question why Beirut was ignored while the Paris attacks were not, the steady succession of blood attacks, from month to month, over the past year has left me, for one, feeling numb.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that I wish everyone, including the self-righteous, had a bit more empathy on social media, and felt a little less need to educate the rest of us about how to think.
Twitter, on the other hand, is a lot of fun, and very informative. It's the first place I go for news, analysis and discussion.
posted by My Dad at 3:54 PM on July 5, 2016
So, every issue is bound to have different perspectives, and the potential to create an argument (rather than a debate), and potentially raise my blood pressure.
So I just post photos I take while out for a walk or something. Seems to keep people happy.
What I have noticed is an attempt at "policing" or "educating" about the "right way" to think about current events, notably the latest horrific bombing to strike Baghdad.
"Why aren't we changing out FB avatars???" blah blah blah. While it made sense to question why Beirut was ignored while the Paris attacks were not, the steady succession of blood attacks, from month to month, over the past year has left me, for one, feeling numb.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that I wish everyone, including the self-righteous, had a bit more empathy on social media, and felt a little less need to educate the rest of us about how to think.
Twitter, on the other hand, is a lot of fun, and very informative. It's the first place I go for news, analysis and discussion.
posted by My Dad at 3:54 PM on July 5, 2016
sadly, everyday online discourse is not like that one college class with the really cool teacher who smoked pot and let you grade each other's freeform assignments and the final was just everybody circled their chairs up and just talked, really opened up
posted by prize bull octorok at 3:57 PM on July 5, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by prize bull octorok at 3:57 PM on July 5, 2016 [5 favorites]
"Yeah, doesn't the author realize there are hateful, racist, people not worthy of the small amount of electricity it takes just one of your synapses to fire?"
So, what, this is supposed to get us to seriously consider the zombie-eyed granny starver Paul Ryan's sincere, heartfelt reasons for supporting the hateful, racist Republican candidate for president?
Or, to use another example from the article, how about that most gun owners I know have pretty flimsy, bullshit reasons for owning guns, and will quickly trump up paranoid idiocy to avoid having to say that to them guns are toys and they like having toys? Or that no matter how heartfelt, someone else's religion is no reason to restrict reproductive rights for women?
Taking these sincere, heartfelt beliefs at face value supports a frame where how earnestly held a belief is becomes justification for that belief — and that precludes engaging them through rational argument, because it treats sincerity as a trump over reason. From there, the best response is mockery, short-circuiting an otherwise irreducible conflict between earnest, harmful wrongness and ambiguous, complicated correctness.
posted by klangklangston at 4:00 PM on July 5, 2016 [15 favorites]
So, what, this is supposed to get us to seriously consider the zombie-eyed granny starver Paul Ryan's sincere, heartfelt reasons for supporting the hateful, racist Republican candidate for president?
Or, to use another example from the article, how about that most gun owners I know have pretty flimsy, bullshit reasons for owning guns, and will quickly trump up paranoid idiocy to avoid having to say that to them guns are toys and they like having toys? Or that no matter how heartfelt, someone else's religion is no reason to restrict reproductive rights for women?
Taking these sincere, heartfelt beliefs at face value supports a frame where how earnestly held a belief is becomes justification for that belief — and that precludes engaging them through rational argument, because it treats sincerity as a trump over reason. From there, the best response is mockery, short-circuiting an otherwise irreducible conflict between earnest, harmful wrongness and ambiguous, complicated correctness.
posted by klangklangston at 4:00 PM on July 5, 2016 [15 favorites]
When the Other Side are supporting a candidate that is openly campaigning for the return of torture, and thinks we should kill terrorists' families, stupidity is probably the best that can be said for them.
The pros and cons of torture and actual war crimes are not worth debating. There's no intellectual parity between the two sides. I don't think people are stupid for supporting torture. I think they're supporting evil.
posted by BungaDunga at 4:00 PM on July 5, 2016 [3 favorites]
The pros and cons of torture and actual war crimes are not worth debating. There's no intellectual parity between the two sides. I don't think people are stupid for supporting torture. I think they're supporting evil.
posted by BungaDunga at 4:00 PM on July 5, 2016 [3 favorites]
Hell, I don't like or have time for most people I agree with.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 4:01 PM on July 5, 2016 [22 favorites]
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 4:01 PM on July 5, 2016 [22 favorites]
There’s a fun game I like to play in a group of trusted friends called “Controversial Opinion.”
Ah yes, he's that asshole. Of course it's fun for him to play this kind of game, he's inoculated from pretty much any harm that can come from controversial opinions.
posted by zombieflanders at 4:01 PM on July 5, 2016 [30 favorites]
Ah yes, he's that asshole. Of course it's fun for him to play this kind of game, he's inoculated from pretty much any harm that can come from controversial opinions.
posted by zombieflanders at 4:01 PM on July 5, 2016 [30 favorites]
Holy cow did none of you guys realize that this is an Onion article
posted by beerperson at 4:01 PM on July 5, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by beerperson at 4:01 PM on July 5, 2016 [5 favorites]
"Yeah the current Other Side includes a lot of literal Neo Nazis sooo"
The number of Neo-Nazis associated with the Trump campaign are a fraction of a percent. I'm not denying they are there, but for every Neo-Nazi, there are innumerably more suburban parents who are confused and just want to do well by their children. Perhaps if more people tried reaching out to them and having an honest and open discussion, instead of dismissing them with contempt as "Neo-Nazis", they might be less likely to associate with actual Neo-Nazis. Just sayin.
posted by kevinbelt at 4:06 PM on July 5, 2016 [3 favorites]
The number of Neo-Nazis associated with the Trump campaign are a fraction of a percent. I'm not denying they are there, but for every Neo-Nazi, there are innumerably more suburban parents who are confused and just want to do well by their children. Perhaps if more people tried reaching out to them and having an honest and open discussion, instead of dismissing them with contempt as "Neo-Nazis", they might be less likely to associate with actual Neo-Nazis. Just sayin.
posted by kevinbelt at 4:06 PM on July 5, 2016 [3 favorites]
There are no sides. Just people who help you and people who don't. - Jessica Hyde, Utopia
posted by save alive nothing that breatheth at 4:08 PM on July 5, 2016
posted by save alive nothing that breatheth at 4:08 PM on July 5, 2016
Taking these sincere, heartfelt beliefs at face value supports a frame where how earnestly held a belief is becomes justification for that belief —
I think this is why hypocrisy: seeking it out, displaying it, crowing about it, has become the great obsession of our times.
'You're not sincere about this, therefore - '
'You said one thing and acted different, therefore - '
It's the biggest weapon against the sincerity argument you outline. I can't argue a consequentialist into acting virtuously for virtue's sake, but I can point out how: gee, that ethical calculus seems to come up different when it's you who takes the hit.
Maybe it's an effect of my own filter bubble, but these kinds of articles are always directed at the "Liberals / Left" "side". I'd be fascinated to read a "you should talk to those Democrats, they have good reasons for it, seriously" piece on NRO.
anyway, ethical systems are mostly fig leaves for what we already want to do
posted by the man of twists and turns at 4:10 PM on July 5, 2016 [6 favorites]
I think this is why hypocrisy: seeking it out, displaying it, crowing about it, has become the great obsession of our times.
'You're not sincere about this, therefore - '
'You said one thing and acted different, therefore - '
It's the biggest weapon against the sincerity argument you outline. I can't argue a consequentialist into acting virtuously for virtue's sake, but I can point out how: gee, that ethical calculus seems to come up different when it's you who takes the hit.
Maybe it's an effect of my own filter bubble, but these kinds of articles are always directed at the "Liberals / Left" "side". I'd be fascinated to read a "you should talk to those Democrats, they have good reasons for it, seriously" piece on NRO.
anyway, ethical systems are mostly fig leaves for what we already want to do
posted by the man of twists and turns at 4:10 PM on July 5, 2016 [6 favorites]
The challenge is not in understanding the other side, but having the other side not want to enforce their views on everyone else. You don't want to use condoms? Fine, whatever makes you happy. The problem starts when certain groups want everyone to be unable to use condoms.
We're not going to agree that one group should be allowed to force everyone to follow their beliefs and it isn't something to strive for.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 4:13 PM on July 5, 2016 [7 favorites]
We're not going to agree that one group should be allowed to force everyone to follow their beliefs and it isn't something to strive for.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 4:13 PM on July 5, 2016 [7 favorites]
I kind of liked the article. The distinction here is one that I try to keep in mind:
To be sure, there are hateful, racist, people not worthy of the small amount of electricity it takes just one of your synapses to fire. I’m instead referencing those who actually believe in an opposing viewpoint of a complicated issue, and do so for genuine, considered reasons. Or at least, for reasons just as good as yours.
Yeah, there's a lot of people whose opinions aren't worth engaging with. But there are a lot of people who don't think like me, but I ought to be listening to them anyway because they bring a perspective that I wouldn't have considered on my own. I tend to turn into a jerk when I don't spend the time trying to work out why someone disagrees with me. Maybe other people are just better at being kind than I am, but I find I have to work hard at remembering that sometimes smart and compassionate people can disagree with me for perfectly good reasons. I guess that's sort of trite, but I find it helpful.
posted by langtonsant at 4:14 PM on July 5, 2016 [4 favorites]
To be sure, there are hateful, racist, people not worthy of the small amount of electricity it takes just one of your synapses to fire. I’m instead referencing those who actually believe in an opposing viewpoint of a complicated issue, and do so for genuine, considered reasons. Or at least, for reasons just as good as yours.
Yeah, there's a lot of people whose opinions aren't worth engaging with. But there are a lot of people who don't think like me, but I ought to be listening to them anyway because they bring a perspective that I wouldn't have considered on my own. I tend to turn into a jerk when I don't spend the time trying to work out why someone disagrees with me. Maybe other people are just better at being kind than I am, but I find I have to work hard at remembering that sometimes smart and compassionate people can disagree with me for perfectly good reasons. I guess that's sort of trite, but I find it helpful.
posted by langtonsant at 4:14 PM on July 5, 2016 [4 favorites]
I have purposely turned my social media feeds into largely an echo chamber. It's much better for my health.
I had to turn off my accounts for precisely that reason. They were making me ill.
posted by urbanwhaleshark at 4:15 PM on July 5, 2016 [2 favorites]
I had to turn off my accounts for precisely that reason. They were making me ill.
posted by urbanwhaleshark at 4:15 PM on July 5, 2016 [2 favorites]
So many examples of "both sides do it" are hilariously inept:
Slate or Onion or Fox News or Red State
On one side, a leftist opinion site and a fake news site. On the other, a right-wing opinion site run by a proud bigot and the news source whose viewers are consistently rated at the far bottom of scale when it comes to accuracy of both history and current events. Totally the same!
The misinformation is so rampant that the Washington Post stopped publishing its internet fact-checking column because people didn’t seem to care if stuff was true.
Hmmm, I wonder if it turns out the quote he excerpts at this point leaves out some important context in that ". . ."? Like, say, that a lot of it was around bigotry and/or conservative nutjobbery:
Right, because he's just like most women, PoC, and LGBT "reader[s] of Medium and Twitter power user[s]" who are sealioned and harassed and threatened incessantly for merely existing, let alone expressing an opinion.
Think political correctness has gotten out of control? Follow the many great social activists on Twitter.
The same ones ya boy Freddie thinks are shrill mobs?
Think America’s stance on guns is puzzling? Read the stories of the 31% of Americans that own a firearm.
Most people don't think it's "America," they think it's politicians who don't even listen to the majority of those 31%.
posted by zombieflanders at 4:19 PM on July 5, 2016 [5 favorites]
Slate or Onion or Fox News or Red State
On one side, a leftist opinion site and a fake news site. On the other, a right-wing opinion site run by a proud bigot and the news source whose viewers are consistently rated at the far bottom of scale when it comes to accuracy of both history and current events. Totally the same!
The misinformation is so rampant that the Washington Post stopped publishing its internet fact-checking column because people didn’t seem to care if stuff was true.
Hmmm, I wonder if it turns out the quote he excerpts at this point leaves out some important context in that ". . ."? Like, say, that a lot of it was around bigotry and/or conservative nutjobbery:
Paul Horner, the proprietor of Nbc.com.co and a string of other very profitable fake-news sites, once told me he specifically tries to invent stories that will provoke strong reactions in middle-aged conservatives. They share a lot on Facebook, he explained; they’re the ideal audience.Isn’t it possible that you, reader of Medium and Twitter power user, like me, suffer from this from time to time?
As manipulative as that may seem, many other sites are worse: there’s Now8News, which runs outrageous crime stories next to the stolen mugshots of poor, often black, people; or World News Daily Report, which delights in inventing items about foreigners, often Muslims, having sex with or killing animals.
Needless to say, there are also more complicated, non-economic reasons for the change on the Internet hoax beat. For evidence, just look at some of the viral stories we’ve debunked in recent weeks: American Muslims rallying for ISIS, for instance, or Syrians invading New Orleans. Those items didn’t even come from outright fake-news sites: They originated with partisan bloggers who know how easy it is to profit off fear-mongering.
Frankly, this column wasn’t designed to address the current environment. This format doesn’t make sense.
Right, because he's just like most women, PoC, and LGBT "reader[s] of Medium and Twitter power user[s]" who are sealioned and harassed and threatened incessantly for merely existing, let alone expressing an opinion.
Think political correctness has gotten out of control? Follow the many great social activists on Twitter.
The same ones ya boy Freddie thinks are shrill mobs?
Think America’s stance on guns is puzzling? Read the stories of the 31% of Americans that own a firearm.
Most people don't think it's "America," they think it's politicians who don't even listen to the majority of those 31%.
posted by zombieflanders at 4:19 PM on July 5, 2016 [5 favorites]
"entertain the idea that you might be wrong, and listen to what people say"
OK, I entertained the idea. But it didn't entertain me.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 4:21 PM on July 5, 2016 [6 favorites]
OK, I entertained the idea. But it didn't entertain me.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 4:21 PM on July 5, 2016 [6 favorites]
Krom Tatman: "anyway my favorite thing about these threads is when some contrarian is going to come into the thread and dramatically declares that people making negative comments about the article just PROVES how RIGHT the author was"
I'm thinking you're talking about me? If so, I haven't said that these negative comments prove anything. And I certainly don't consider myself a contrarian. Browse through my comment history and you'll see I'm in agreement with MeFi zeitgeist on 99% of issues, and I don't play debate club devil's advocate stuff. I just think it's a good idea to hear people out before determining if they're right or wrong. I didn't even realize that was such a radical position.
I also wonder if maybe age is a factor? When you hear a novel position or argument, you should hear it out first without immediately shutting it down. But that doesn't mean that you should hear out the same position over and over and over again. Once you're as old as the average MeFite, you've already (hopefully) heard out these arguments, so you don't need to go through the whole process of "Okay, explain to me why global warming is fake" thing again. I'm assuming the author is talking more to young people who haven't already heard all the arguments.
klangklangston: "Or, to use another example from the article, how about that most gun owners I know have pretty flimsy, bullshit reasons for owning guns, and will quickly trump up paranoid idiocy to avoid having to say that to them guns are toys and they like having toys?"
Which you've heard out, right? So you've done the exact thing the author is advocating, right?
BungaDunga: "
The pros and cons of torture and actual war crimes are not worth debating."
...Yes? And he specifically talks about how this isn't about debating. Just asking questions to find out what the other side believes and why. He doesn't say you can't come to a different conclusion.
zombieflanders: "There’s a fun game I like to play in a group of trusted friends called “Controversial Opinion.”
Ah yes, he's that asshole."
Did you read the rules of the game? It isn't "Devil's Advocate." If anything, it's "give someone rope to hang themselves" (that's not its intent, but it often plays out like that)
---
I feel like I read a different article than y'all did. Maybe I misinterpreted it or something? Maybe it's because I'm not surrounded by the US media context? I'm not sure.
posted by Bugbread at 4:22 PM on July 5, 2016 [7 favorites]
I'm thinking you're talking about me? If so, I haven't said that these negative comments prove anything. And I certainly don't consider myself a contrarian. Browse through my comment history and you'll see I'm in agreement with MeFi zeitgeist on 99% of issues, and I don't play debate club devil's advocate stuff. I just think it's a good idea to hear people out before determining if they're right or wrong. I didn't even realize that was such a radical position.
I also wonder if maybe age is a factor? When you hear a novel position or argument, you should hear it out first without immediately shutting it down. But that doesn't mean that you should hear out the same position over and over and over again. Once you're as old as the average MeFite, you've already (hopefully) heard out these arguments, so you don't need to go through the whole process of "Okay, explain to me why global warming is fake" thing again. I'm assuming the author is talking more to young people who haven't already heard all the arguments.
klangklangston: "Or, to use another example from the article, how about that most gun owners I know have pretty flimsy, bullshit reasons for owning guns, and will quickly trump up paranoid idiocy to avoid having to say that to them guns are toys and they like having toys?"
Which you've heard out, right? So you've done the exact thing the author is advocating, right?
BungaDunga: "
The pros and cons of torture and actual war crimes are not worth debating."
...Yes? And he specifically talks about how this isn't about debating. Just asking questions to find out what the other side believes and why. He doesn't say you can't come to a different conclusion.
zombieflanders: "There’s a fun game I like to play in a group of trusted friends called “Controversial Opinion.”
Ah yes, he's that asshole."
Did you read the rules of the game? It isn't "Devil's Advocate." If anything, it's "give someone rope to hang themselves" (that's not its intent, but it often plays out like that)
---
I feel like I read a different article than y'all did. Maybe I misinterpreted it or something? Maybe it's because I'm not surrounded by the US media context? I'm not sure.
posted by Bugbread at 4:22 PM on July 5, 2016 [7 favorites]
I just think it's a good idea
Lots of good ideas turn into self-congratulatory horseshit via an alchemical process known to the ancients as "posting on Medium"
posted by prize bull octorok at 4:29 PM on July 5, 2016 [5 favorites]
Lots of good ideas turn into self-congratulatory horseshit via an alchemical process known to the ancients as "posting on Medium"
posted by prize bull octorok at 4:29 PM on July 5, 2016 [5 favorites]
Bugbread: "I feel like I read a different article than y'all did. Maybe I misinterpreted it or something? Maybe it's because I'm not surrounded by the US media context? I'm not sure."
Honestly I was wondering the same thing, and for pretty much the same reason actually? Is there some US-specific dogwhistle in the article that I'm missing here? Because most of it seemed terribly ordinary to me.
posted by langtonsant at 4:29 PM on July 5, 2016 [3 favorites]
Honestly I was wondering the same thing, and for pretty much the same reason actually? Is there some US-specific dogwhistle in the article that I'm missing here? Because most of it seemed terribly ordinary to me.
posted by langtonsant at 4:29 PM on July 5, 2016 [3 favorites]
I dunno. I think of lots of comments I've read on MeFi where people say that they used to be idiots but listening to what other folks here on MeFi have shared has changed them. People who look back on their comments during peak BoyZone years and cringe, or who have come about-face on trans issues after reading what trans people have had to say about their lived experiences. I just figured, in general, MeFi would look positively on an article that says "Listen to what others have to say, without just looking for attack vectors. You may be right, but you may be wrong. Listen, without just trying to shout the other person down, and then make up your mind."
posted by Bugbread at 4:34 PM on July 5, 2016 [6 favorites]
posted by Bugbread at 4:34 PM on July 5, 2016 [6 favorites]
You're missing the good ol' "tribalism" argument, framed here as "The Other Side". It's the argument that people (mainly those on the left) have not come to their positions by thought, but because they belong to a "tribe" that informs their views. As such, those views are suspect (because you came by them through your grouping), and thus need to be more considerate to the other side.
The idea that the people pushing the "tribalism" argument have the arrow of causality backwards - that it is not our viewpoint that is driven by our grouping, but our grouping driven by viewpoint - never once dawns on them.
posted by NoxAeternum at 4:39 PM on July 5, 2016 [5 favorites]
The idea that the people pushing the "tribalism" argument have the arrow of causality backwards - that it is not our viewpoint that is driven by our grouping, but our grouping driven by viewpoint - never once dawns on them.
posted by NoxAeternum at 4:39 PM on July 5, 2016 [5 favorites]
On one hand, I think there's a real danger of being smug and counterproductive in, say, calling all Trump voters or Leave voters stupid or racist. I think in most cases people are being screwed by a (neoliberal) system for years and don't know where to direct their anger, and forces/politicians manipulate them and exploit them further by stoking hatred and xenophobia. That there is a common enemy that is hurting us and them is often lost in the back-and-forth.
I can come to this conclusion in various ways: through a lifetime of learning how our economic system works, reading thoughtful articles from writers I've learned to trust going in-depth into why people believe what they believe, thinking about the sociology of how people become anti-establishment and how that can turn dark, thinking about why there may be a global trend toward nativism, understanding the roots and causes of fascism, or any of a number of things that qualify as sincerely engaging with the subject matter in a disciplined, multi-faceted way.
It is not so helpful, though, for me to click "Follow" on a bunch of Trump supporters willy-nilly and expose myself to a constant background radiation of people spewing hate and intolerance at me. Let alone constantly put myself in a naive frame of mind, thinking "but what if they're RIGHT?" It's one thing to come to an understanding of how that hate manifests, and how groups of good, decent people might be manipulated for political gain; it's another to pretend that hate might itself be valid.
And just being exposed to that constant radiation harms me. At best, it makes me dark, cynical, bitter, despairing of humanity, a shut-in fearful of my neighbors and community. At worst, it turns me into a hateful person. We all need to practice self-care.
There's a balance that needs to happen. But I think there's more nuance than "echo chamber" vs. "all viewpoints are equally valid." Find sources that are thoughtful and three-dimensional, and pay attention to them. Avoid kneejerk tribalism and examine your own beliefs and assumptions. Question things. Try to improve on your blindnesses and grow. Try to be perceptive, empathetic, and a good listener.
These are just good traits for being a decent human and navigating the world.
But for gods sake, there's no need to let the daily spaces where you spend your time become raging dumpster fires just because this guy is chastising you. And there's no need to give everyone the perfect benefit of the doubt, over and over, like a wide-eyed babe fresh unto the world.
posted by naju at 4:42 PM on July 5, 2016 [20 favorites]
I can come to this conclusion in various ways: through a lifetime of learning how our economic system works, reading thoughtful articles from writers I've learned to trust going in-depth into why people believe what they believe, thinking about the sociology of how people become anti-establishment and how that can turn dark, thinking about why there may be a global trend toward nativism, understanding the roots and causes of fascism, or any of a number of things that qualify as sincerely engaging with the subject matter in a disciplined, multi-faceted way.
It is not so helpful, though, for me to click "Follow" on a bunch of Trump supporters willy-nilly and expose myself to a constant background radiation of people spewing hate and intolerance at me. Let alone constantly put myself in a naive frame of mind, thinking "but what if they're RIGHT?" It's one thing to come to an understanding of how that hate manifests, and how groups of good, decent people might be manipulated for political gain; it's another to pretend that hate might itself be valid.
And just being exposed to that constant radiation harms me. At best, it makes me dark, cynical, bitter, despairing of humanity, a shut-in fearful of my neighbors and community. At worst, it turns me into a hateful person. We all need to practice self-care.
There's a balance that needs to happen. But I think there's more nuance than "echo chamber" vs. "all viewpoints are equally valid." Find sources that are thoughtful and three-dimensional, and pay attention to them. Avoid kneejerk tribalism and examine your own beliefs and assumptions. Question things. Try to improve on your blindnesses and grow. Try to be perceptive, empathetic, and a good listener.
These are just good traits for being a decent human and navigating the world.
But for gods sake, there's no need to let the daily spaces where you spend your time become raging dumpster fires just because this guy is chastising you. And there's no need to give everyone the perfect benefit of the doubt, over and over, like a wide-eyed babe fresh unto the world.
posted by naju at 4:42 PM on July 5, 2016 [20 favorites]
I just figured, in general, MeFi would look positively on an article that says "Listen to what others have to say, without just looking for attack vectors. You may be right, but you may be wrong. Listen, without just trying to shout the other person down, and then make up your mind."
There may be an article that does that without clearly making it all the fault of liberals, deliberately and repeatedly omitting important context, not acknowledging the incredible privilege the writer has across almost every single socioeconomic axis, and incorporating the viewpoints of any group for whom expressing controversial opinions or just being who they are is dangerous.
This isn't it, though.
posted by zombieflanders at 4:42 PM on July 5, 2016 [9 favorites]
There may be an article that does that without clearly making it all the fault of liberals, deliberately and repeatedly omitting important context, not acknowledging the incredible privilege the writer has across almost every single socioeconomic axis, and incorporating the viewpoints of any group for whom expressing controversial opinions or just being who they are is dangerous.
This isn't it, though.
posted by zombieflanders at 4:42 PM on July 5, 2016 [9 favorites]
I was speaking generally, but you posted like microseconds before me (you hadn't even shown up on preview.) You could argue that was serendipity or clairvoyance, but really it's just a function of how fucking predictable the "can't we allllll juuuuust geeeeet aaaaallooooooobg" shit is.
posted by Krom Tatman at 4:47 PM on July 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Krom Tatman at 4:47 PM on July 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
Greg Nog: "I hated the article because all of the text seemed like pretty obvious "don't be a fucking closed-minded cock, dude" and all of the subtext struck me as virtue signalling about what a thoughtful person the author was. "
Heh. That makes sense. Maybe that's the difference - my "natural" tendency in most things is to reject everything unfamiliar and be fearful of that which is outside my comfort zone. If I didn't constantly work at it I probably would be a closed-minded arsehole all the time (instead of only sometimes - sigh). So from my perspective I don't mind the reminder that I genuinely do have to work on this, even if it that reminder comes with an unhealthy dose of holier-than-thou smugness. But I can see how it would come across as irritating to someone who isn't constantly at war with their own worst impulses!
posted by langtonsant at 4:49 PM on July 5, 2016
Heh. That makes sense. Maybe that's the difference - my "natural" tendency in most things is to reject everything unfamiliar and be fearful of that which is outside my comfort zone. If I didn't constantly work at it I probably would be a closed-minded arsehole all the time (instead of only sometimes - sigh). So from my perspective I don't mind the reminder that I genuinely do have to work on this, even if it that reminder comes with an unhealthy dose of holier-than-thou smugness. But I can see how it would come across as irritating to someone who isn't constantly at war with their own worst impulses!
posted by langtonsant at 4:49 PM on July 5, 2016
Did Ken Levine write this?
posted by kmz at 4:51 PM on July 5, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by kmz at 4:51 PM on July 5, 2016 [2 favorites]
Great article, thanks for posting it. Asking questions is a good approach in the sort of social media interactions the article is about. It's a good way to feel out how much thought the person you are speaking with has put in to the issue. I don't mind a contentious Facebook debate, but a thoughtless one is a waste of time. I like when I can use questions to guide a person towards where my thoughts on the issue are. That way they know I'm not just trying to waste their time either. (Or they can see that I am if I'm clearly out of my depth)
posted by Drinky Die at 4:52 PM on July 5, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by Drinky Die at 4:52 PM on July 5, 2016 [2 favorites]
I hated the article because all of the text seemed like pretty obvious "don't be a fucking closed-minded cock, dude" and all of the subtext struck me as virtue signalling about what a thoughtful person the author was. So my distaste was bi-level:
1. no duh
2. oh for pete's sake, Mister Saint
You got that totally backwards. It's Saint Mister, for Pete's sake.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 4:53 PM on July 5, 2016
1. no duh
2. oh for pete's sake, Mister Saint
You got that totally backwards. It's Saint Mister, for Pete's sake.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 4:53 PM on July 5, 2016
Asking questions is a good approach in the sort of social media interactions the article is about
I like when I can use questions to guide a person towards where my thoughts on the issue are
Maybe with a close friend. Using questions in this way, though, is often a tiresome rhetorical tactic, so don't be surprised when it annoys people.
I find there are enough people on the internet expounding on their thoughts at length and explaining concepts that I rarely need to engage in a tortured socratic dialogue with people. I can just listen and absorb.
posted by naju at 5:02 PM on July 5, 2016 [7 favorites]
I like when I can use questions to guide a person towards where my thoughts on the issue are
Maybe with a close friend. Using questions in this way, though, is often a tiresome rhetorical tactic, so don't be surprised when it annoys people.
I find there are enough people on the internet expounding on their thoughts at length and explaining concepts that I rarely need to engage in a tortured socratic dialogue with people. I can just listen and absorb.
posted by naju at 5:02 PM on July 5, 2016 [7 favorites]
It's actually about ethics in complete horseshit arguments.
posted by Artw at 5:07 PM on July 5, 2016 [7 favorites]
posted by Artw at 5:07 PM on July 5, 2016 [7 favorites]
I like when I can use questions to guide a person towards where my thoughts on the issue are.
That's actually an incredibly arrogant and obnoxious way to engage with someone.
posted by nom de poop at 5:07 PM on July 5, 2016 [12 favorites]
That's actually an incredibly arrogant and obnoxious way to engage with someone.
posted by nom de poop at 5:07 PM on July 5, 2016 [12 favorites]
I really don't think anyone has ever sealioned themselves into changing their mind on anything.
posted by Artw at 5:09 PM on July 5, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by Artw at 5:09 PM on July 5, 2016 [5 favorites]
Sorry, The Other Side has to at least acknowledge the validity of basic science, or empirical evidence, or hell, I'd settle for the accuracy of written transcripts, first before I'll consider accepting their positions as argued in good faith.
They've earned that level of mistrust.
posted by T.D. Strange at 5:11 PM on July 5, 2016 [4 favorites]
They've earned that level of mistrust.
posted by T.D. Strange at 5:11 PM on July 5, 2016 [4 favorites]
May I just say that I turned off Facebook and stopped going to Twitter around the time that gg got really ugly, and y'all..it's been amazing how much more time I have,and how much my hate for the universe has declined. It's the rare day now that I caress the fabric from which my minions suits will be cut, or stroke the marble I've selected for the volcano lair entry.
posted by SecretAgentSockpuppet at 5:12 PM on July 5, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by SecretAgentSockpuppet at 5:12 PM on July 5, 2016 [2 favorites]
A sincere question -
Why is everyone assuming that the "Other Side" mentioned in this article is necessarily the conservative/red state/libertarian/Republican side, or that the author is speaking exclusively to the liberal/blue state/progressive/Democratic side?
Or if everyone isn't assuming that, why is everyone talking as if they are?
Case in point:
The Other Side has to at least acknowledge the validity of basic science, or empirical evidence, or hell, I'd settle for the accuracy of written transcripts, first before I'll consider accepting their positions as argued in good faith.
Plenty of non-scientific woo going on on the progressive side, too.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 5:13 PM on July 5, 2016 [6 favorites]
Why is everyone assuming that the "Other Side" mentioned in this article is necessarily the conservative/red state/libertarian/Republican side, or that the author is speaking exclusively to the liberal/blue state/progressive/Democratic side?
Or if everyone isn't assuming that, why is everyone talking as if they are?
Case in point:
The Other Side has to at least acknowledge the validity of basic science, or empirical evidence, or hell, I'd settle for the accuracy of written transcripts, first before I'll consider accepting their positions as argued in good faith.
Plenty of non-scientific woo going on on the progressive side, too.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 5:13 PM on July 5, 2016 [6 favorites]
Why is everyone assuming that the "Other Side" mentioned in this article is necessarily the conservative/red state/libertarian/Republican side
Why did the chicken-hawk cross the road? OBAMACARE!
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 5:15 PM on July 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
Why did the chicken-hawk cross the road? OBAMACARE!
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 5:15 PM on July 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
Why is everyone assuming that the "Other Side" mentioned in this article is necessarily the conservative/red state/libertarian/Republican side
Err, did you not just commit the same thing?
posted by T.D. Strange at 5:16 PM on July 5, 2016
Err, did you not just commit the same thing?
posted by T.D. Strange at 5:16 PM on July 5, 2016
Why did the chicken-hawk cross the road? OBAMACARE!
This has been another episode of Non-sequitor Theatre, brought to you by Toast. Toast. It's what's for breakfast.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 5:18 PM on July 5, 2016
This has been another episode of Non-sequitor Theatre, brought to you by Toast. Toast. It's what's for breakfast.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 5:18 PM on July 5, 2016
Why is everyone assuming that the "Other Side" mentioned in this article is necessarily the conservative/red state/libertarian/Republican side, or that the author is speaking exclusively to the liberal/blue state/progressive/Democratic side?
Probably because he made every example about the hypothetical reader like that, and went out of his way to remove any criticisms in quotes or examples that specifically noted most or all of the factual problems with evidence came from one side.
posted by zombieflanders at 5:20 PM on July 5, 2016 [3 favorites]
Probably because he made every example about the hypothetical reader like that, and went out of his way to remove any criticisms in quotes or examples that specifically noted most or all of the factual problems with evidence came from one side.
posted by zombieflanders at 5:20 PM on July 5, 2016 [3 favorites]
Nobody ever writes this kind of dumb article aimed at the conservative/red state/libertarian/Republican side.
posted by Artw at 5:22 PM on July 5, 2016 [7 favorites]
posted by Artw at 5:22 PM on July 5, 2016 [7 favorites]
I like when I can use questions to guide a person towards where my thoughts on the issue are. That way they know I'm not just trying to waste their time either.
WELL ACTUALLY there are a lot of us who feel like being "guided" by questions with an ulterior motive are an immense waste of time, and all the more so because we get chided for calling it such.
posted by Krom Tatman at 5:22 PM on July 5, 2016 [9 favorites]
WELL ACTUALLY there are a lot of us who feel like being "guided" by questions with an ulterior motive are an immense waste of time, and all the more so because we get chided for calling it such.
posted by Krom Tatman at 5:22 PM on July 5, 2016 [9 favorites]
Plenty of non-scientific woo going on on the progressive side, too.
Sure, if you remove any context or comparisons with both the level and fervor of woo on the conservative side I could see it looks like he has a point.
posted by zombieflanders at 5:23 PM on July 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
Sure, if you remove any context or comparisons with both the level and fervor of woo on the conservative side I could see it looks like he has a point.
posted by zombieflanders at 5:23 PM on July 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
Sorry, The Other Side has to at least acknowledge the validity of basic science, or empirical evidence, or hell, I'd settle for the accuracy of written transcripts, first before I'll consider accepting their positions as argued in good faith.
So, what can a person do to encourage people to, for one example, trust science more?
It's true that there are some hateful, angry people out there, whose positions on issues they care about are informed more by emotion than reason.
We all start out, mostly, with the same basic hardware, and a good capacity for reason and empathy. Yet somewhere along the way, some people end up feeling very strongly and very differently about important issues. These differences seem to be pretty huge, and need to be addressed somehow -- even if not necessarily the way the posted article proposes.
How would one do that? If reasoning doesn't work, there are other non-violent means. There really are. We have a huge base of knowledge about people's social, emotional, and physical needs that we never had before. We have countless writings about what makes people cling to ideas -- other than logic.
Even Game of Thrones shows a character naively pushing for "right" ideas from the top down getting stabbed to death.
I love the book (and now play) The Best of Enemies, because it not only shows a pretty hard-core racist letting go of his racism, and what led to that; it also analyzes what needs of his were being filled by his angry beliefs. I think it may give some key ideas about how to actually address some of the more pernicious "belief" based issues.
And now, more than ever, is the time to figure out how to really address them.
posted by amtho at 5:23 PM on July 5, 2016
So, what can a person do to encourage people to, for one example, trust science more?
It's true that there are some hateful, angry people out there, whose positions on issues they care about are informed more by emotion than reason.
We all start out, mostly, with the same basic hardware, and a good capacity for reason and empathy. Yet somewhere along the way, some people end up feeling very strongly and very differently about important issues. These differences seem to be pretty huge, and need to be addressed somehow -- even if not necessarily the way the posted article proposes.
How would one do that? If reasoning doesn't work, there are other non-violent means. There really are. We have a huge base of knowledge about people's social, emotional, and physical needs that we never had before. We have countless writings about what makes people cling to ideas -- other than logic.
Even Game of Thrones shows a character naively pushing for "right" ideas from the top down getting stabbed to death.
I love the book (and now play) The Best of Enemies, because it not only shows a pretty hard-core racist letting go of his racism, and what led to that; it also analyzes what needs of his were being filled by his angry beliefs. I think it may give some key ideas about how to actually address some of the more pernicious "belief" based issues.
And now, more than ever, is the time to figure out how to really address them.
posted by amtho at 5:23 PM on July 5, 2016
There's an element of performative politics which I think is part of what the OP was trying to get at, which misses some parts of the purpose of performance (it is disingenuous to claim you're critiquing a movement to help them when you haven't spoken on their behalf before) but gets at the marking group membership part of performance. For example, I have relatives who reflexively insult Republican frontrunners' appearance or presumed level of education, which I always find to be a distraction from the actual issue of what are they likely to use their political influence to achieve. Likewise, I once got insulted for objecting to jerrymandering in a Democratic district by a democrat despite my effectively being a democrat because of that self-same group membership instinct; if I critiqued a Democrat I must not be one.
Here, the kneejerk response was that he was critiquing people for being against Trump when in the essay he was careful to use examples from both sides. That type of knee-jerk response sets up a situation where the argument becomes about group markers and not about the fears and needs we have which drive our political involvement and beliefs. It also sets up a binary where people become more entrenched and less able to discuss issues rather than people.
I think this is hampered by people having items about which they feel incredibly strongly, and it's certainly a lot more complicated by demographics and systemic bias than the OP recognizes, but I think all people could benefit from knowing and mediating our knee-jerk reactions.
posted by Deoridhe at 5:26 PM on July 5, 2016 [6 favorites]
Here, the kneejerk response was that he was critiquing people for being against Trump when in the essay he was careful to use examples from both sides. That type of knee-jerk response sets up a situation where the argument becomes about group markers and not about the fears and needs we have which drive our political involvement and beliefs. It also sets up a binary where people become more entrenched and less able to discuss issues rather than people.
I think this is hampered by people having items about which they feel incredibly strongly, and it's certainly a lot more complicated by demographics and systemic bias than the OP recognizes, but I think all people could benefit from knowing and mediating our knee-jerk reactions.
posted by Deoridhe at 5:26 PM on July 5, 2016 [6 favorites]
My comment did not suggest asking questions in bad faith.
posted by Drinky Die at 5:28 PM on July 5, 2016
posted by Drinky Die at 5:28 PM on July 5, 2016
if you really believe that was not baldly in your comment you are working from a very idiosyncratic definition of "bad faith"
posted by Krom Tatman at 5:31 PM on July 5, 2016 [6 favorites]
posted by Krom Tatman at 5:31 PM on July 5, 2016 [6 favorites]
To be sure, there are hateful, racist, people not worthy of the small amount of electricity it takes just one of your synapses to fire.So even the author agrees that there is a degree of wrong with which we need not engage at all. Pace Godwin, Nazis are useful because they establish this point fairly universally, but of course it isn't limited to Nazis. We agree that we need not listen to, or better understand, the KKK, and the arguments of anti-evolutionists or climate-change deniers are probably something we no longer need listen to either. Same goes for the chemtrails folks, and probably the anti-vaxxers these days. So the question is, how wrong is wrong enough to ignore? And how do we judge without having to re-wade through KKK literature every time we want to claim that it is ignorable? How do we distinguish them from
those who actually believe in an opposing viewpoint of a complicated issue, and do so for genuine, considered reasons. Or at least, for reasons just as good as yours.Well, ok, that second sentence doesn't remotely follow from the first, and indeed it's hard to quote more than a sentence at a time without running into an internal contradiction, but let's try to grant as much benefit of the doubt as we can. This essay may not itself be in the category of things that should be ignored without reading, but it's close for anyone who has spent the last decade reading centrist both-sides-do-it-ism, the dominant ideology of the media and ruling political classes. For instance, when he writes:
But this holier-than-thou social media behavior is counterproductive, it’s self-aggrandizement at the cost of actual nuanced discourse and if we want to consider online discourse productive, we need to move past this.many of us recognize this series of cliches and received wisdom, having read it literally dozens if not hundreds of times before. In fact, for anyone who reads the news regularly, you've probably read something very like this already today. For instance, for me, the most recent one was a few hours ago, when I read the Twitter sequence approvingly quoted at the end of this Vox article about the Kemper "clean coal" plant.
So perhaps for those who are new to politics, this call for mutual understanding is novel or informative. But the same words, when read for the hundredth time just here on Metafilter alone, can be quite maddening for longer-term participants. Heck, how many times have we seen deBoer himself quoted around here making much the same sort of centrist-conservative points?
So should those of us who are sick of this stuff just ignore it, and leave it for those for whom it is new? Sure, if we agree with it; but by its own lights, if we don't agree, then it asks us to engage. But engage with what? The same sea-lioning by a white dude with raised chin? What percentage of our time should we spend reading and listening to those we are sure are wrong? There are lots out there!
Which brings us back to the original question. How wrong is wrong enough to ignore? Surely it must be relative to one's experience. Even Nazis are interesting to explore if one has never read the history. But if you have seen it many times before (20? 100?), and explored it from many angles (not every angle -- that is impossible, a straw man), what logic is there in thinking that this time might be different? That an anti-evolution argument might finally be a good one, or a 9/11 theory might finally show conspiracy? It's impossible to know this without going through the moves a few dozen times. But when you have, what need is there to do it again? Even if you are possibly wrong, listening to the same arguments for the hundredth time is not going to be what does the trick of righting you.
So for those of us who have seen this centrist both-siderism hundreds of times before, even here on Metafilter for over a decade, we are probably justified in ignoring it. But perhaps this one last time we can take him at his word, engage with the argument sincerely, and rather than ignoring it, argue for the sake of those for whom it is new that, if it is not ignored, then it should be treated sincerely: as the bullshit that it is.
For details, I refer the interested reader to every political thread on Metafilter ever.
posted by chortly at 5:31 PM on July 5, 2016 [4 favorites]
Earnestly asking questions in an attempt to college-philosophy-class Socratically guide people to your thoughts on an issue (while implicitly hiding them in the meantime) seems pretty categorically "wasting people's time", whether they're in bad faith or not.
posted by CrystalDave at 5:32 PM on July 5, 2016 [10 favorites]
posted by CrystalDave at 5:32 PM on July 5, 2016 [10 favorites]
I was considering opinions back in, like, '01 or '02. Many of us have moved beyond these formative fripperies and have gotten down to the real business of change.
posted by turbid dahlia at 5:32 PM on July 5, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by turbid dahlia at 5:32 PM on July 5, 2016 [2 favorites]
Asking questions to "Socratically guide" people to your side is unattractive.
However - I find that sometimes, earnestly asking questions about how someone arrived at their opinion can uncover some very real fears and concerns, and it can help you suggest alternative solutions to those concerns.
I was considering opinions back in, like, '01 or '02. Many of us have moved beyond these formative fripperies and have gotten down to the real business of change.
Whereas I find that discovering what is driving the opposition can help bring that change about more successfully. Call that a "frippery" if you like, but I'd rather call it "addressing the root cause of a problem".
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 5:37 PM on July 5, 2016 [2 favorites]
However - I find that sometimes, earnestly asking questions about how someone arrived at their opinion can uncover some very real fears and concerns, and it can help you suggest alternative solutions to those concerns.
I was considering opinions back in, like, '01 or '02. Many of us have moved beyond these formative fripperies and have gotten down to the real business of change.
Whereas I find that discovering what is driving the opposition can help bring that change about more successfully. Call that a "frippery" if you like, but I'd rather call it "addressing the root cause of a problem".
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 5:37 PM on July 5, 2016 [2 favorites]
Earnestly asking questions in an attempt to college-philosophy-class Socratically guide people to your thoughts on an issue
...has lead to the term JAQing off (Just Asking Questions), the Fuck You Pay Me movement, block groups and chains, and muting or going private because you can't read your own feed for all the gawping mouths demanding you engage with them, owe them debate, or are "censoring" them by blocking. And then the death threats.
All this stuff looks and feels very, very different if you are a woman or person of color, generally.
posted by Lyn Never at 5:39 PM on July 5, 2016 [13 favorites]
...has lead to the term JAQing off (Just Asking Questions), the Fuck You Pay Me movement, block groups and chains, and muting or going private because you can't read your own feed for all the gawping mouths demanding you engage with them, owe them debate, or are "censoring" them by blocking. And then the death threats.
All this stuff looks and feels very, very different if you are a woman or person of color, generally.
posted by Lyn Never at 5:39 PM on July 5, 2016 [13 favorites]
Mod note: Folks, the "Drinky Die's rhetorical style" sidebar needs to end so the thread can continue. Thanks.
posted by restless_nomad (staff) at 5:53 PM on July 5, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by restless_nomad (staff) at 5:53 PM on July 5, 2016 [3 favorites]
The existence of things like sealioning and JAQing off does not mean that every time someone suggests questions can be helpful in a conversation on Facebook they are suggesting sealioning and JAQing off. I don't know how I can clarify it any more clearly.
posted by Drinky Die at 5:56 PM on July 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Drinky Die at 5:56 PM on July 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
Asking questions to "Socratically guide" people to your side is unattractive.
Not to mention, you can usually drive a truck through the holes in Socratic reasoning
posted by thelonius at 5:57 PM on July 5, 2016 [4 favorites]
Not to mention, you can usually drive a truck through the holes in Socratic reasoning
posted by thelonius at 5:57 PM on July 5, 2016 [4 favorites]
When you hear someone cite “facts” that don’t support your viewpoint don’t think “that can’t be true!” Instead consider, “Hm, maybe that person is right? I should look into this.”
The author of the article and I have different definitions of words like "cite" and "facts." When people I know make unfounded statements of fact I ask them for citations to back it up. When that's not possible, I look into it myself. But if someone actually cites a fact to me then I respect that at face value.
posted by carsonb at 6:00 PM on July 5, 2016 [2 favorites]
The author of the article and I have different definitions of words like "cite" and "facts." When people I know make unfounded statements of fact I ask them for citations to back it up. When that's not possible, I look into it myself. But if someone actually cites a fact to me then I respect that at face value.
posted by carsonb at 6:00 PM on July 5, 2016 [2 favorites]
"Nobody ever writes this kind of dumb article aimed at the conservative/red state/libertarian/Republican side."
Somewhere, David Frum sheds a tiny tear.
"The number of Neo-Nazis associated with the Trump campaign are a fraction of a percent. I'm not denying they are there, but for every Neo-Nazi, there are innumerably more suburban parents who are confused and just want to do well by their children. Perhaps if more people tried reaching out to them and having an honest and open discussion, instead of dismissing them with contempt as "Neo-Nazis", they might be less likely to associate with actual Neo-Nazis. Just sayin."
Maybe if they don't want to get shit from the Neo-Nazi toilet splattered on them, they should stop going to Sewer King rallies. Maybe you shouldn't have to be fucking told that a candidate who retweets racist shit from 8chan (where you go when 4chan is too politically correct), makes openly racist comments about a judge he doesn't like, and took days to kinda sorta distance himself from a fucking Klan leader is a fucking shitbag and that supporting him makes you look like a shitbag too.
I mean, seriously, if you're just voting for Hitler because of his positions on improving the lot for the working class, you're still a fucking Nazi. Just sayin'.
"Asking questions to "Socratically guide" people to your side is unattractive."
Socrates was a giant dick all the fucking time — he was so much of a dick that the people of Athens killed him.
That said, asking people questions about their beliefs is pretty much the top way to persuade people. One of the problems is that it's really hard to suss out what questions are actually earnest ones worth answering without a fair amount more context.
posted by klangklangston at 6:04 PM on July 5, 2016 [8 favorites]
Somewhere, David Frum sheds a tiny tear.
"The number of Neo-Nazis associated with the Trump campaign are a fraction of a percent. I'm not denying they are there, but for every Neo-Nazi, there are innumerably more suburban parents who are confused and just want to do well by their children. Perhaps if more people tried reaching out to them and having an honest and open discussion, instead of dismissing them with contempt as "Neo-Nazis", they might be less likely to associate with actual Neo-Nazis. Just sayin."
Maybe if they don't want to get shit from the Neo-Nazi toilet splattered on them, they should stop going to Sewer King rallies. Maybe you shouldn't have to be fucking told that a candidate who retweets racist shit from 8chan (where you go when 4chan is too politically correct), makes openly racist comments about a judge he doesn't like, and took days to kinda sorta distance himself from a fucking Klan leader is a fucking shitbag and that supporting him makes you look like a shitbag too.
I mean, seriously, if you're just voting for Hitler because of his positions on improving the lot for the working class, you're still a fucking Nazi. Just sayin'.
"Asking questions to "Socratically guide" people to your side is unattractive."
Socrates was a giant dick all the fucking time — he was so much of a dick that the people of Athens killed him.
That said, asking people questions about their beliefs is pretty much the top way to persuade people. One of the problems is that it's really hard to suss out what questions are actually earnest ones worth answering without a fair amount more context.
posted by klangklangston at 6:04 PM on July 5, 2016 [8 favorites]
I guess I get plenty of exposure to extended/expanded/more nuanced thinking about points because I keep company with people who signal-boost/retweet/talk about these issues. We look into things as a matter of course. When we have conversations about them, they are often non-confrontational and parallel.
There are a whole lot of people out there - and coincidentally I think a bunch of us aren't white men - who are able to do our own legwork when confronted with a concept that seems odd or unfair or a threat to our status quo. We put a value on not posting hoax/questionable-source material, so we try to fact-check. We don't need to be confronted except for the occasional "whoa, ooh, maybe consider this thing though?"
I learned literally the first thing about intersectional feminism on Twitter without "challenging" a single Black woman to prove she was right or 101 me - and some of it hit real close to home and I had to learn to interrogate that feeling rather than be aggressive in response. Sometimes I have to stand back let a friend work through their own shit to get to places I arrived on my own, and only intervening by signal-boosting what I consider to be good content.
When I have to, and I'm prepared to put my foot down, I will say, "you may not realize it, but that's a really colonialist attitude that's really harmful to X and it's not okay, here's more if you want background on why I'm saying that." What I will not do is patronize them, and I take poorly to being patronized. It's entirely possible to have enlightening discourse without games.
posted by Lyn Never at 6:12 PM on July 5, 2016 [10 favorites]
There are a whole lot of people out there - and coincidentally I think a bunch of us aren't white men - who are able to do our own legwork when confronted with a concept that seems odd or unfair or a threat to our status quo. We put a value on not posting hoax/questionable-source material, so we try to fact-check. We don't need to be confronted except for the occasional "whoa, ooh, maybe consider this thing though?"
I learned literally the first thing about intersectional feminism on Twitter without "challenging" a single Black woman to prove she was right or 101 me - and some of it hit real close to home and I had to learn to interrogate that feeling rather than be aggressive in response. Sometimes I have to stand back let a friend work through their own shit to get to places I arrived on my own, and only intervening by signal-boosting what I consider to be good content.
When I have to, and I'm prepared to put my foot down, I will say, "you may not realize it, but that's a really colonialist attitude that's really harmful to X and it's not okay, here's more if you want background on why I'm saying that." What I will not do is patronize them, and I take poorly to being patronized. It's entirely possible to have enlightening discourse without games.
posted by Lyn Never at 6:12 PM on July 5, 2016 [10 favorites]
My grandmother was a librarian in the 60's, and was at the center of a Second Wave feminism. Incredibly liberal for her time. With all the race/class issues of White Feminism, plus all kinds of body negativity.
I don't try to understand conservative thought because I think there's a nugget of wisdom there. I try to understand conservative thought because it gives me perspective that liberal thought will eventually leave me in the dust. I have spent a great deal of time considering my opinions. But if history is any indicator, I know many of those opinions will eventually be considered backwards.
It's helpful to notice when opinion calcifies and resists change. And it's easier to notice in others rather than myself. I think the practice makes it easier for me to set aside my relationship with race and gender, and listen to marginalized perspectives that are foreign to me. I know I'm not perfect. But I do try. Most of the comments start from the premise that they don't need to try, as though they're confident they're the final iteration of morality and wisdom, simply because Republicans are so terrible.
posted by politikitty at 6:14 PM on July 5, 2016 [7 favorites]
I don't try to understand conservative thought because I think there's a nugget of wisdom there. I try to understand conservative thought because it gives me perspective that liberal thought will eventually leave me in the dust. I have spent a great deal of time considering my opinions. But if history is any indicator, I know many of those opinions will eventually be considered backwards.
It's helpful to notice when opinion calcifies and resists change. And it's easier to notice in others rather than myself. I think the practice makes it easier for me to set aside my relationship with race and gender, and listen to marginalized perspectives that are foreign to me. I know I'm not perfect. But I do try. Most of the comments start from the premise that they don't need to try, as though they're confident they're the final iteration of morality and wisdom, simply because Republicans are so terrible.
posted by politikitty at 6:14 PM on July 5, 2016 [7 favorites]
> I think of lots of comments I've read on MeFi where people say that they used to be idiots but listening to what other folks here on MeFi have shared has changed them. People who look back on their comments during peak BoyZone years and cringe, or who have come about-face on trans issues after reading what trans people have had to say about their lived experiences.
This is true, and it's also true that a lot of those threads were (or became, in their meTa incarnations) bitter, angry arguments where trans* people/women/etc. got told to be nicer or more polite or to stop being so sensitive. A lot of people leave or get shown the door. All of this is not without cost and sometimes those of us who bear the brunt of it don't want to hear again and again that it's on us to hug a white supremacist for the good of the nation.
posted by rtha at 6:18 PM on July 5, 2016 [8 favorites]
This is true, and it's also true that a lot of those threads were (or became, in their meTa incarnations) bitter, angry arguments where trans* people/women/etc. got told to be nicer or more polite or to stop being so sensitive. A lot of people leave or get shown the door. All of this is not without cost and sometimes those of us who bear the brunt of it don't want to hear again and again that it's on us to hug a white supremacist for the good of the nation.
posted by rtha at 6:18 PM on July 5, 2016 [8 favorites]
These articles are fucking stupid because they are used as rhetorical weapons by my relatives when I refuse to engage them on such topics as 'all Muslims must be eradicated'. Clearly if I refuse to hear out their reasoning it is because I am unable to build a good argument for my position that said relatives are scum. Obviously when I say I'm not going to explain what racism is in order to justify my implication that UKIP is racist, I am retreating due to a lack of understanding of the term. What else could it be when I block a relative on facebook but an admission of defeat in the face of his claim that Richard Dawkins is the pinnacle of reason and anything he said is as good as a command from a non-existent god?
Nah fuck that shit. My contribution to the world will have to come some other way, I have no intention of ruining my life by attempting to even read all of this poisonous bullshit, let alone spend time looking into it and clarifying the weaselly rhetoric used just to see him pretend I said something completely imaginary that makes me sound stupid.
posted by the agents of KAOS at 6:20 PM on July 5, 2016 [8 favorites]
Nah fuck that shit. My contribution to the world will have to come some other way, I have no intention of ruining my life by attempting to even read all of this poisonous bullshit, let alone spend time looking into it and clarifying the weaselly rhetoric used just to see him pretend I said something completely imaginary that makes me sound stupid.
posted by the agents of KAOS at 6:20 PM on July 5, 2016 [8 favorites]
« Older Object Permanence | The return of Bree Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by supercres at 3:24 PM on July 5, 2016 [5 favorites]