It was meant to be pretty holistic, but only about relatively free and liberal societies.
Less look at a couple of your examples to try and drill into my meaning.
Mass Shootings - full declaration, I'm pro-gun control. You can argue the line on where that is, of course. My point about civil discourse is merely that I shouldn't be conflating gun enthusiasts and sporting shooters with potential mass murderers, or as unfeeling monsters who don't care about human life. Of course, some people within any group can be 'monsters', but I mean holistically. It's unhelpful and polarising. What I should do is make my case. Quite forcefully, if possible. But not in a way that dehumanises others. Not out of politeness, but pragmatism. So, our discussion would never be around 'are mass shootings good', but instead how should our laws be structured, with mass shootings being a part of the discussion. Where I think we lose nuance is that mass shooting discussions become gun control discussions. There are actually other issues at play, including mental health support for American youth.
Abortion bans...I'm actually not a strict pro-choice person. I'd allow abortion with some limitations (albeit light touch). Others would not. I would argue stridently against the type of abortion bans in place in SOME US states. But if we fail to use argument as our means of discussion, if we fail to acknowledge that there isn't merely 'allow anyone to abort at any time at taxpayers cost and without choice for medical staff' vs 'never allow abortion, even in cases of rape and incest' we simply buy into the most extreme and least informative versions of the argument, and then challenge all people to 'pick a side'. Of course, out of those choices, my 'side' is easy. But it's NOT my side. It's a more extreme position, which apparently I'm supposed to cede to, else I'm effectively an ally of my enemies, and not being strong enough. It's frankly a poor argument. (Not saying it's your argument, I mean generally).
I don't disagree with anything here.
So, let's roll into the Nazis, because arguments always end up there eventually...lol
Nazis are bad. So it's black and white, right? I shouldn't allow any wiggle room there...
I agree! They're bad. It's pretty simple. So, should we imprison self-professed Nazis? Ban Nazi symbology? Chuck them in a concentration camp? Allow websites to exist that allow Nazi speech? If you're point was that I don't need to be polite to Nazis, then sure...I agree. But I think what happens is that less extreme arguments (let's say immigration) get tarred with the white supremacist brush (sometimes correctly, sometimes not). If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, by all means, call it a duck. But we often now seem to figure that a chicken is basically a duck, and calling out the differences is a semantic and useless argument that only duck allies would make.
Again, I see nothing I disagree with here.
No, I wouldn't expect someone to have a robust and two-way discussion with someone advocating for genocide. But...and it's worth reflecting on this I think...it's become increasingly hard to take a position that would have been seen as sensible, coherent and worthy (ie. traditional liberalism) without people using the most extreme edge cases to shut the conversation down, and instead return to more polarised...and comfortable...worldviews.
No disagreement here either.
What should be occurring is that effective legal challenges should be mounted. Those legal challenges should be based on effective and robust attendance to the law, and/or challenge that same law. Those things won't be effectively done by polarised posturing.
So I fundamentally disagree with the point you're making here. Too many people are mistaking making noise and taking a stand for effective activism.
I'm not sure what you're seeing in my position that makes you disagree. I'm not talking about polarized posturing or, say, social media rants. I'm only talking about not having an expectation of the average person to discuss certain beliefs that may contribute to or enable policies that pose an existential or otherwise severe risk to them.
This also ties into my next point:
They can discuss online if they like. And if they are simply using that platform to make some version of 'my side good, the other side bad', I'll simply have a lower opinion of their worldview.
There's a reason I don't use social media or even browse them nowadays. I see a lot of simplistic, unnuanced rhetoric that seems geared toward generating reactions and controversy rather than thought or awareness. When an average person does it, I find it pointless and mentally unhealthy. When a public or influential figure does it, I find it irresponsible and a misuse of their influence and public reach.
There is no 'side', and there certainly isn't a 'good' side. The left...which I'd think of as my side if forced to...have found it far easier to cast stones and demonise the right than be self-reflective and take care of their own problems. What is actually needed is discussion on issues, and a stronger understanding of the nuance each issue holds.
I'm not sure what you mean by "there's no side." Are you referring to the individual differences in views that exist among many people who are supposedly on the "same side"? If so, I agree. Personally, I don't tend to think of myself as associated with any "side," aside from my small circle of friends that I've made very slowly and selectively. I don't see myself associating in such a generalized manner with any group, let alone a political one where variation and polarization are even more pronounced than in other contexts.
I used to associate with the "secular humanist side" up until a few years ago, when I realized my views on many issues were diametrically opposed to those of many secular humanists. I didn't want to be broadly lumped in with a movement that didn't represent my values or beliefs, so I used the label on an individual rather than collective level for a while before dropping it altogether (because my worldview no longer fit into secular humanism in the first place).
However, broadly speaking, I think political parties can be thought of as "sides," and sometimes—but definitely not always—there's practical value in viewing them as such. If the GOP runs a platform that the party collectively pushes in Congress, even with some internal dissent in the party, the Democrats may need to advertise their own platform in a similarly collective manner.
I'm not saying that I support this or find it productive, but it's how a lot of political campaigns work, for better or worse. If one party successfully galvanizes supporters in the style of a football team with slogans promoting a sense of fellowship and common purpose, the other party might find itself easily losing if it responds by saying that there's "no side" instead of galvanizing its own supporters to avert the risk of losing government branches to people with markedly harmful policies (or at least to the "bigger evil," if both parties have harmful policies and voters are forced to choose the lesser damage).
I see that as a self-perpetuating cycle, where extreme polarization just leads to more polarization and both parties feel the need to double down instead of adopting a more reasonable approach. I think this is a decidedly mutual problem, however, and I don't believe that it will be solved if either of the two parties decides to become more reasonable and attempts to start discussions while the other is working tooth and nail to rouse more voters and push its own platform without considering opposing input.
The average brown or black citizen refusing to debate a white supremacist really isn't where this lies, though. It's an edge case. All we ever deal in these days are edge cases.
Regardless, if a brown or black citizen decided to debate with a white supremacist for whatever reason, the fact that their arguments would stack up and be far more compelling and rational than the white supremacists would be pretty obvious.
This is where I disagree the most out of the points in your post. I absolutely don't think we can trust that rational and compelling arguments will be obviously so to most people, let alone to all. I believe that humans are largely emotional, and many of our heuristics and thought processes evolved to aid in survival, not rational analysis. As a species, we're prone to faulty logic, overly emotional thinking, tribalism, cognitive biases, and a preference for the familiar even when it may not be the most rational or healthiest option, among many other traits that foster illogical thinking and poor decision-making.
In many cases, the more persuasive or emotionally appealing debater is the one who gains more support, not the one with the more robust and rational arguments. Many demagogues throughout history have known this, and I think it is part of why cults of personality usually know how important it is for them to spread propaganda in its various forms.
When it comes to what decides the prevalent beliefs in a society, I think material conditions are by far the most impactful aspect—economic status, individual upbringing, education, historical events, biology, and stability or unrest in society, to name some. Public discussions are crucial, but in my opinion, their role in shaping culture and society is ancillary at most compared to these other factors. Sure, many people may change their minds due to public debates or discussions, especially if they aren't heavily invested in one position in the first place, but I think other factors are much more influential and powerful in terms of making people's minds up.
Whereas increasing the pool of 'white supremacists' to all sorts of mildly xenophobic individuals is counterproductive in my opinion.
Agreed, strongly. I have seen some reasonable and understandable concerns about immigration that have nothing to do with xenophobia, although some people may brand them as such.
If something is important to me in a fundamental sense, what I want is effective activism to promote change.
Same. I think what constitutes effective activism is largely context-dependent, of course.
That's fine. No one is compelled to take part in any debate. But those that do should do so with both mouth and ears.
Agreed. A few days ago, a friend was telling me about someone who insulted her during a Discord conversation. She was asking me whether she had possibly done anything wrong to warrant such a response. I said, "People either decide to get into a discussion or they don't. If they do, they have implicitly agreed to respect the other person and discuss in good faith."
I don't find it useful or intellectually disciplined when someone voluntarily enters a discussion knowing what its subject will be but then insults others or mocks them instead of properly holding up their end of the conversation.
Continuing in the next post due to the character limit.
