I’m right, and you’re an evil monster

[Stevicus]

I’m right, and you’re an evil monster (msn.com)

This is an op-ed from the Boston Globe which made some observations about the tone and intensity of public debate these days, focusing on the issues of gun control and abortion.

After a leaked Supreme Court draft opinion and two horrific mass shootings committed by teenagers, America’s raging debates over abortion rights and gun control have grown even more scorching. Search industriously and you can probably find examples of calm analysis and fair-minded commentary about why Roe v. Wade should or shouldn’t be overturned and why new limits on gun ownership would or wouldn’t be a good idea. But “calm” and “fair-minded” don’t describe most of what passes for public discourse in these maniacal, angry times.

Far too many of today’s political arguments begin from the premise that those on the other side of a controversial issue are motivated by repugnant views or sick motives. That attitude pervades the abortion and gun debates. Supporters of Roe are “evil monsters who don’t think twice about slaughtering unborn babies,” a conservative radio host tells his many online followers. “There is no number of murdered little children that is too many for Republicans,” writes a prominent liberal journalist after the massacre in Uvalde. Such is the quality of rhetoric you encounter if you spend any time scrolling through social media or watching cable news — resentment, mockery, rage, and the conviction that anyone who disagrees does so in bad faith.

I've noticed this trend myself, where people on one or the other side can't simply agree to disagree. They feel the need to go further, to denigrate, ridicule, mock, shame, and essentially condemn their opposition as the worst form of scum on earth (or "basket of deplorables" as one politician put it).

I've observed politics and political debates for most of my life, and I sense that ridicule and mockery are not something that happen spontaneously. It's part of a calculated tactic which is often used in bad faith. I've seen it played out here on RF and all across the internet.

Then there are those who want to shut down the speech of certain individuals, certain websites, certain points of view - because they believe that will make it all go away. But it doesn't go away. It just illustrates where the battle lines are being drawn and emphasizes the utter pointlessness of both sides sitting down and discussing their differences as if they were citizens in a civilized, free society.

This isn’t merely abrasive politics or overheated partisanship, which are to be expected in heterogeneous democratic societies. It is toxic polarization — the populist cancer that has metastasized on both the right and the left of American culture. It turns every disagreement into a binary war of good vs. evil, right vs. wrong, enlightened vs. barbaric. It shreds the public sense of moral community — the presumption that, whatever our disagreements, we all operate within a shared tradition and are pursuing the common good.

Countless Americans have lost an essential component of citizenship: the ability to grant that their opponents are sincere and that at least some of their claims are not easily dismissed. Even if you are unwaveringly pro-life and regard abortion as a tragic act of violence, you should be able to recognize that to a woman who is in the first stages of pregnancy and desperate to avoid the turmoil, pain, expense, or trauma of bearing an unwanted child, the right to an abortion is a fundamental matter of liberty and bodily autonomy. Even if you are a fierce defender of Roe v. Wade and have always believed that abortion rights are indispensable, you should be able to concede the threshold scientific truth that a fetus at 12 weeks is unmistakably human, alive, and vulnerable.

“The truth is that the best argument on each side is a damn good one, and until you acknowledge that fact, you aren’t speaking or even thinking honestly about the issue,” wrote Caitlin Flanagan in a powerful essay in The Atlantic in 2019. “You certainly aren’t going to convince anybody.”

The same is true when it comes to guns. Yes, the Constitution enshrines “the right of the people to keep and bear arms.” But that shouldn’t inhibit even the staunchest supporter of Second Amendment rights from admitting that firearms take a ghastly toll on American communities and that reasonable restrictions on acquiring and carrying guns are both sensible and, in the words of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, “presumptively lawful.” At the same time, even people who would ban all handguns and assault weapons if they could ought to have the intellectual honesty to affirm, with Senator Bernie Sanders, that “99.9 percent” of gun owners are law-abiding.

There is some truth to this. Both sides should really be willing to make some acknowledgement of the other's point of view without degenerating into ridicule and abuse. Unfortunately, there are too many prideful and headstrong types who believe that making even the slightest concession to the other side would be a show of weakness and compromising with "the enemy."

As quoted in the article: "The truth is that the best argument on each side is a damn good one, and until you acknowledge that fact, you aren’t speaking or even thinking honestly about the issue. You certainly aren’t going to convince anybody." There is a great deal of truth to this. It's the extreme intransigence which I would identify as a significant factor in making public debate far more toxic than what should be considered healthy.

Some people see it as a betrayal of their convictions or abandonment of their allies if they make even the smallest concessions or conciliatory gestures - even to the point of becoming angry at those who do, even if they're supposedly on the same side. It's the attitude of "those who are not with us are against us," which is also a major source of toxicity in public debate.

It is not betraying your convictions or abandoning your allies to show a measure of grace to those with whom you profoundly disagree or to concede that your cause doesn’t have a monopoly on integrity. Self-government is not a zero-sum game — inevitably it requires compromise, and compromise is possible only when honest debate is possible. Yet when it comes to our thorniest, most divisive political controversies, such as abortion and gun control, leading politicians, activists, and opinion leaders act as if they are in a war to the death, in which the goal is not just for their side to win but to ensure that the other side is seen to fail.

In his 2020 book “Morality,” the late Lord Jonathan Sacks — a celebrated rabbi, philosopher, public intellectual, and British peer — lamented the death of civility that is corroding public dialogue and destroying Western society.

“Civility is more than good manners,” wrote Sacks. “It is a recognition that violent speech leads to violent deeds; that listening respectfully to your opponents is a necessary part of the politics of a free society; and that liberal democracy . . . must keep the peace between contending groups by honoring us all equally, in both our diversity and our commonality.”

As a college freshman long ago, I took a yearlong course called “Politics and Values.” I learned a lot in that course, which covered subjects as varied as economics, nuclear power, and European forms of government. Most memorable to me in retrospect, however, is a rule that was enforced by the professor during our animated classroom arguments: Before you could challenge another student’s opinion, you had to first summarize what he or she had said. When you have to fairly restate arguments you don’t agree with, it makes it hard to treat an honest difference of opinion with the sort of contempt and bile that are now so common.

This is a good approach outlined here. Before you can challenge another person's opinion, one should first fairly summarize what the person said. As noted here, "When you have to fairly restate arguments you don’t agree with, it makes it hard to treat an honest difference of opinion with the sort of contempt and bile that are now so common."

(I wonder if we could make that a rule on RF?)

If we don’t find a way to rein them in, hardline populism and toxic polarization will, I am convinced, shatter what is left of our democracy. And the only effective way of reining them in is by hearing out those with whom you disagree.

Two weeks before D-Day in 1944, Judge Learned Hand — one of the most admired jurists in US history — addressed a vast audience assembled at New York’s Central Park for “I Am an American” Day. His topic was “The Spirit of Liberty” and his central message was that blind, inflexible certitude is deadly to the preservation of democratic freedom.

This is very well put: "Blind, inflexible certitude is deadly to the preservation of democratic freedom." How often do we see this? Not just in internet discussions, but even in news stories, from politicians and even academicians over things which they admit they can't possibly have absolute 100% certainty over. This is also toxic and it should be addressed and challenged.

“The spirit of liberty is the spirit which is not too sure that it is right,” Hand told the crowd. It is “the spirit which seeks to understand the mind of other men and women” and “which weighs their interests alongside its own without bias.” There is virtually no hint of that spirit in our brutal political battles over abortion and guns and so many other hotly contested issues. We have all but forgotten how to reason together, how to compromise, how to keep disagreement from devolving into enmity. Our culture is fraying at the seams, and it won’t knit itself back together.

Thoughts?

 

[Revoltingest]

You hate children.

 

[Brickjectivity]

I'm amazed that I keep finding news channels running in lobbies and waiting rooms. They're always full of bigoted asinine repetitive commentary. Who watches these things?

 

[Stevicus]

You hate children.

I think you're evil - EVIL!

 

[Stevicus]

I'm amazed that I keep finding news channels running in lobbies and waiting rooms. They're always full of bigoted asinine repetitive commentary. Who watches these things?

I've noticed that, too, although it can vary.

 

[Brickjectivity]

I've noticed that, too, although it can vary.

Yes, it can vary; but it makes you jaded and gets you to stop believing anything is true and to get you to stop trusting yourself. Above all it makes you feel unrewarded for being interested in events. You can find out what is going on, but its in spite of them not because of them. They are a noisy box that stands in between.

Do you remember after the 911 towers fell how they endlessly droned on? It was all useless, endless repetition of planes striking towers and talk of how angry we ought to be and how scared we should have been and how we needed to be united etc. We were already united. What they meant was "You need for us to tell you how to feel about this," but we didn't. I only needed to get the information one time.

It wasn't a surprise, but they kept putting on a show like this was just the most impossible thing that was surreal and world shattering -- hour after hour, day after day. It was obvious that something like that could happen easily. Anybody can see that there is great danger if a city is attacked, and we all knew about terrorist bombings. It was a terrible thing but was no surprise.

That is how useless and trollish the news channels have become, and they even try to peddle their garbage on youtube, now. I click 'Do not recommend this channel'.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I’m right, and you’re an evil monster (msn.com)

...


Thoughts?

Short for any subject.
Someone: It is X and nothing else.
Someone else: It is Y and nothing else.
Me: Well, to me it is X, Y, Z and so on in part.

The fallacy of reduction is strong in some people, if we have to play fallacies.

 

[Stevicus]

Yes, it can vary; but it makes you jaded and gets you to stop believing anything is true and to get you to stop trusting yourself. Above all it makes you feel unrewarded for being interested in events. You can find out what is going on, but its in spite of them not because of them. They are a noisy box that stands in between.

Some debates can be enlightening, especially if it's conducted by those putting their best foot forward and making their best arguments, but they're usually a small minority among the louder, more numerous adherents who seem more susceptible to agitation than anything else.

 

[LuisDantas]

The way I see it, this sad state of things is the fault of the alt-right. Its ethos are contagious, toxic and deeply dysfunctional.

Of particular relevance is the practice of the "never play defense" principle and its close friend, the love of unashamed false equivalences.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Some debates can be enlightening, especially if it's conducted by those putting their best foot forward and making their best arguments, but they're usually a small minority among the louder, more numerous adherents who seem more susceptible to agitation than anything else.

To be honest, most people in a debate will take something subjective/individual/limited or what ever in a similar sense as objective/universal/regular and thus claim the other position as wrong, but they don't notice that it is due to their thinking that they get that the other position is wrong.
I do it from time to time and I should know better, but it seems to be a dirty heuristic in general thinking and feelings/emotions.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

The way I see it, this sad state of things is the fault of the alt-right. Its ethos are contagious, toxic and deeply dysfunctional.

Of particular relevance is the practice of the "never play defense" principle and its close friend, the love of unashamed false equivalences.

Well, there is another variant, Claim you are rational, with evidence/proof/truth and everybody else is irrational and what not.
The religious version is: I know the correct True Religion and you don't.

 

[Stevicus]

Do you remember after the 911 towers fell how they endlessly droned on? It was all useless, endless repetition of planes striking towers and talk of how angry we ought to be and how scared we should have been and how we needed to be united etc. We were already united. What they meant was "You need for us to tell you how to feel about this," but we didn't. I only needed to get the information one time.

It wasn't a surprise, but they kept putting on a show like this was just the most impossible thing that was surreal and world shattering -- hour after hour, day after day. It was obvious that something like that could happen easily. Anybody can see that there is great danger if a city is attacked, and we all knew about terrorist bombings. It was a terrible thing but was no surprise.

That is how useless and trollish the news channels have become, and they even try to peddle their garbage on youtube, now. I click 'Do not recommend this channel'.

Yes, I remember that. At the time, news and information was coming in piece by piece, in a bit of a trickle. Some of the early information was wrong. I remember early on they said that over 10,000 were killed when the towers fell, but the death toll was later amended to around 3,000. It was on every station, every network, covering the same story.

I also remember several weeks after 9/11, after things had calmed down somewhat, I was watching a news channel and they had brief snippets of other major events which occurred in the previous weeks but got almost no coverage because all the channels were focused on 9/11. One was a major bridge collapse, as I recall.

 

[Astravalon]

I'm amazed that I keep finding news channels running in lobbies and waiting rooms. They're always full of bigoted asinine repetitive commentary. Who watches these things?

As a news media avoider myself, I think you touched upon what stirs all these things up: The news. It seems people take their cues from it. If folks just turned it off for once, much of the conflict would likely simmer down.

 

[Daemon Sophic]

The way I see it, this sad state of things is the fault of the alt-right. Its ethos are contagious, toxic and deeply dysfunctional.

Of particular relevance is the practice of the "never play defense" principle and its close friend, the love of unashamed false equivalences.

Quoted for truth.

Well, there is another variant, Claim you are rational, with evidence/proof/truth and everybody else is irrational and what not.
The religious version is: I know the correct True Religion and you don't.

Not quite. Per the video in @LuisDantas post, the tactic of correcting the right-wingers who attack (constantly) via sound bytes and incorrect “alternative facts”, is a losing tactic, since they pose themselves as “winning” regardless of all the evidence/proof/truth you crush their argument(s) with.
This is something that has worsened over the last several decades.

But yes, you’re correct. Christian Right-wingers will use the format you suggested in the end of your post. I.e. - my True Religion is correct, and I”m right about it because I know it, and have been assured of my righteousness by divine confirmation. To which, even discussions based upon internal contradictions within their own “Holy Texts” will go completely unheeded, since they claim “divine knowledge”. And the feeling the watching audience gets is that the right is “winning”, even though they just got their hiney whooped in every logical sense.

 

[Daemon Sophic]

As a news media avoider myself, I think you touched upon what stirs all these things up: The news. It seems people take their cues from it. If folks just turned it off for once, much of the conflict would likely simmer down.

In my workplace buildings, there are multiple waiting rooms. Often a TV is playing, and horrifically, it is sometimes playing Faux Noise.
My response is that I wordlessly and unapologetically walk to the TV, even if people are watching it, and switch it over to a sports station (and I have never liked sports). I’ve never gotten a complaint from the audience, but have gotten several “Thank you” responses.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Yes, I remember that. At the time, news and information was coming in piece by piece, in a bit of a trickle. Some of the early information was wrong. I remember early on they said that over 10,000 were killed when the towers fell, but the death toll was later amended to around 3,000. It was on every station, every network, covering the same story.

I also remember several weeks after 9/11, after things had calmed down somewhat, I was watching a news channel and they had brief snippets of other major events which occurred in the previous weeks but got almost no coverage because all the channels were focused on 9/11. One was a major bridge collapse, as I recall.

The whole world became addicted to 24 hour rolling news that day. But there is seldom enough real news to feed that addiction, so the news media have to fill air time or pages with endless repetition, and people get bored with that; so then comes opinion, speculation, and the blatant manipulation of emotions.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...
Not quite. Per the video in @LuisDantas post, the tactic of correcting the right-wingers who attack (constantly) via sound bytes and incorrect “alternative facts”, is a losing tactic, since they pose themselves as “winning” regardless of all the evidence/proof/truth you crush their argument(s) with.
This is something that has worsened over the last several decades.

But yes, you’re correct. Christian Right-wingers will use the format you suggested in the end of your post. I.e. - my True Religion is correct, and I”m right about it because I know it, and have been assured of my righteousness by divine confirmation. To which, even discussions based upon internal contradictions within their own “Holy Texts” will go completely unheeded, since they claim “divine knowledge”. And the feeling the watching audience gets is that the right is “winning”, even though they just got their hiney whooped in every logical sense.

How come you avoided my tribe of with reason, logic and evidence?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

As a news media avoider myself, I think you touched upon what stirs all these things up: The news. It seems people take their cues from it. If folks just turned it off for once, much of the conflict would likely simmer down.

Well, you can learn to filter news and not get affected. Whether it is worth your time or not, is something else.

 

[Estro Felino]

As Voltaire used to say:
I don't agree with what you say, but I will fight to death, so you will always be able to say it.

 

[Estro Felino]

It depends on the premises.
By premises I mean that if someone believes in absolute truths, and that anything that defies the absolute truth is to be destroyed, censored, eliminated.

The absolutist thought is fundamentalism. Religious fundamentalism has always caused death and destruction.
Scientific fundamentalism is the one that made Galileo withdraw his thesis. And killed Giordano Bruno at the stake.

I do not believe in absolute truths.
I think everyone is entitled to have their own truth.
Also because...I am so confident about my own certainties.