Well, I was thinking more about that, and one issue is that political arguments are less about changing minds than supporting a policy and/or party. That metaphorical elbow may not make the person you're arguing with any more receptive to your ideas [1], but making them accept your idea is only one possible route to accomplishing what you're actually trying to accomplish, which is to strengthen your coalition relative to theirs.
Maybe that means getting your allies fired up, or discouraging their allies, or both. Maybe it means enforcing (or creating) informal norms of discourse that make merely articulating their argument socially unacceptable [2]. Maybe it simply means transforming a speaker who is impressive and dignified (or merely scary) into a figure of ridicule.
Reasoned persuasion is a means, not an end. Like other means, it is better suited to some ends than others.
[1] On the contrary, I expect the vast majority of people become less persuadable when you insult them.
[2] One particularly common and frustrating assumption I find in American political discourse is that doing this is inherently illegitimate. I couldn't disagree more strenuously--I think the norm against explicitly advocating white supremacy to be one of the most important political accomplishment in the US in the 20th century.
The Alex Nichols piece has many, many flaws, but perhaps the worst is that it seems to be more-or-less entirely oblivious to the fact that people routinely enjoy Broadway musicals without seeing them. He may not be aware of it, but it is possible to make recordings of sounds--such as the songs the cast of a musical sing--and then reproduce those recordings, potentially allowing millions of people to hear those sounds despite the fact that they never came within a thousand miles of the place where they were originally made.
This subject almost always seems to come up in the context of social conservatism and its bone-deep opposition to allowing people the freedom to make choices in matters of sex, romance and household formation. IME, social liberals [1] tend to find the social conservative viewpoint on these matters not merely misguided or mistaken, but, well, "not even wrong". There is so little common ground that they find it impossible to find a common set of premises to provide a set of ground rules for debate. On those occasions when social conservatives do try to offer defenses for their positions that make sense to non-social conservatives, their attempts tend to be comically weak, as well.[2]
If you lack the ability to engage your opponent's argument on the merits, because as far as you can tell your opponent's argument is, really, completely without merit, yet the argument still has political force, what other options do you really have? You can ignore it, in the hopes it will go away, which has a pretty poor track record, or you can accept that this particular rhetorical struggle isn't being conducted by Marquess of Queensbury rules and throw the occasional metaphorical elbow.
[1] Of which I am one, and rather stridently.
[2] See the very common argument that gay people must forego the right to marry because straight people are so incredibly terrible at handling the burdens of marriage that the tiniest change in the way "marriage" is understood is liable to send even more straight marriages tumbling into the abyss.
Kazzy: We can shake our heads at their myopic and perspectiveless perception of the last, oh, 60 years. But we do so at our own peril.
What's the alternative? You say we can reject and push back against the hate, but, well, we've been doing that for a while and it has not, evidently, done much to help.
We already have pretty strong evidence for that based on David Farenthold's search. I wonder if there's nothing to it beyond the fact that Trump's never encountered a political norm he thinks is worthy of respect.
But whatever it is, there’s no conceivable way that it could lower a rational human being’s opinion of him any further than it already is.
Well, yeah, but voting isn't limited to only rational human beings, so only relying on arguments that might appeal to them seems to be a sub-optimal strategy.
The book was written in 1968. It is scary how well it describes the present world.
It was completely unrealistic. Brunner suggested that MTV would still be playing music videos in 2010!
More seriously, a lot of the book feels so eerily prescient, even as the fundamental underlying "crisis"--overpopulation--seems like a pretty quaint thing to worry about.
They seem to have a very shaky idea of how to achieve their goals, to the point of being actively counterproductive. They also have a remarkable talent for provoking circular firing squads among left-of-center advocacy groups and protest movements. Finally, they incorporate a lot of people who range from "very irritating" to "distinctly creepy".
Sure, there's a creepy bunch of Evangelicals who want to use the Jewish population Israel as the material component in a big summon (but definitely do not bind) Jesusthullhu spell.
Outside of them, however, you have majorities of white Protestants, black Protestants, white Catholics, Republicans, conservative Democrats, moderate Democrats, and all generational groups older than "millennial".
I'm (really, really) far from a fan of either BDS or the tendency for many leftists to make Israel, if not the source of all evil in the world, at least emblematic of all evil in the world...
...but this is pretty silly. It collapses the entire American political spectrum into left-wing protest movements and the Republican Party--ignoring, you know, pretty much the whole Democratic Party.
I don't think this is obviously right, because "moving up" depends on having an understanding of the local environment, while "moving towards" something seems to be depend much more on having a view of the local environment. Having a sense of "better" that is useful in evaluating whether a given change is a move up or not may not be easy, but it seems much more likely to be easy (and useful) than having a picture of an ideal society we should be progressing towards.
There will also, of course, be instances where no one can come to a consensus on what "up" means, but there will be other instances where we do have that consensus.
Sure, I'm considering what happens in the absence of such a change. If we actually see crime getting worse, and if people are responding to direct experiences, or experiences of folks in their own social networks--we'll have a different situation.
Right. And those messages are, I think, pretty self-limiting. Consider, for instance, "fear the criminals". No matter what people may tell you about their perceptions, when you boil it down, a lot fewer people are being victimized by criminals than they were 20 years ago.
The idea that the forces of chaos are out control appeals to a subset of the white electorate, but a lot of white folks don't find that reflective of their experience. A future Trumpista would have to find a way to expand his appeal to the people who don't share in that vision, one way or another. Doing so, I expect, will lead to something less toxic, possibly way less toxic.
I'm not sure "faith" is the right word. The ~40% of white voters that Trump is alienating are [1] being alienated for actual reasons, and not all of those reasons boil down to Trump's crudeness.
I also think a big part of Trumpism really has to be put down as his lack of a platform. It's all gestures and affect with him.
[1] If the various "Why is Trump so popular with the white working class?" think pieces are to be believed.
I'm having trouble envisioning a Trumpist candidate building a winning coalition. A candidate that could build such a coalition would likely lack some of the most dangerous aspects of Trumpism.
On “On Ad Hominems Part 1: The Messy World”
Well, I was thinking more about that, and one issue is that political arguments are less about changing minds than supporting a policy and/or party. That metaphorical elbow may not make the person you're arguing with any more receptive to your ideas [1], but making them accept your idea is only one possible route to accomplishing what you're actually trying to accomplish, which is to strengthen your coalition relative to theirs.
Maybe that means getting your allies fired up, or discouraging their allies, or both. Maybe it means enforcing (or creating) informal norms of discourse that make merely articulating their argument socially unacceptable [2]. Maybe it simply means transforming a speaker who is impressive and dignified (or merely scary) into a figure of ridicule.
Reasoned persuasion is a means, not an end. Like other means, it is better suited to some ends than others.
[1] On the contrary, I expect the vast majority of people become less persuadable when you insult them.
[2] One particularly common and frustrating assumption I find in American political discourse is that doing this is inherently illegitimate. I couldn't disagree more strenuously--I think the norm against explicitly advocating white supremacy to be one of the most important political accomplishment in the US in the 20th century.
On “Morning Ed: Politics {2016.08.07.Su}”
The Alex Nichols piece has many, many flaws, but perhaps the worst is that it seems to be more-or-less entirely oblivious to the fact that people routinely enjoy Broadway musicals without seeing them. He may not be aware of it, but it is possible to make recordings of sounds--such as the songs the cast of a musical sing--and then reproduce those recordings, potentially allowing millions of people to hear those sounds despite the fact that they never came within a thousand miles of the place where they were originally made.
On “On Ad Hominems Part 1: The Messy World”
This subject almost always seems to come up in the context of social conservatism and its bone-deep opposition to allowing people the freedom to make choices in matters of sex, romance and household formation. IME, social liberals [1] tend to find the social conservative viewpoint on these matters not merely misguided or mistaken, but, well, "not even wrong". There is so little common ground that they find it impossible to find a common set of premises to provide a set of ground rules for debate. On those occasions when social conservatives do try to offer defenses for their positions that make sense to non-social conservatives, their attempts tend to be comically weak, as well.[2]
If you lack the ability to engage your opponent's argument on the merits, because as far as you can tell your opponent's argument is, really, completely without merit, yet the argument still has political force, what other options do you really have? You can ignore it, in the hopes it will go away, which has a pretty poor track record, or you can accept that this particular rhetorical struggle isn't being conducted by Marquess of Queensbury rules and throw the occasional metaphorical elbow.
[1] Of which I am one, and rather stridently.
[2] See the very common argument that gay people must forego the right to marry because straight people are so incredibly terrible at handling the burdens of marriage that the tiniest change in the way "marriage" is understood is liable to send even more straight marriages tumbling into the abyss.
On “Does It Really Matter That Trump Won’t Release His Tax Returns?”
What's the alternative? You say we can reject and push back against the hate, but, well, we've been doing that for a while and it has not, evidently, done much to help.
On “Linky Friday #178: Crime, Death, & Urban Living”
"I'm Feeling the Johnson."
On “Does It Really Matter That Trump Won’t Release His Tax Returns?”
We already have pretty strong evidence for that based on David Farenthold's search. I wonder if there's nothing to it beyond the fact that Trump's never encountered a political norm he thinks is worthy of respect.
"
But whatever it is, there’s no conceivable way that it could lower a rational human being’s opinion of him any further than it already is.
Well, yeah, but voting isn't limited to only rational human beings, so only relying on arguments that might appeal to them seems to be a sub-optimal strategy.
On “Linky Friday #178: Crime, Death, & Urban Living”
And here I was hoping to get my pulse on the finger of the hyper-elite!
EDIT: I meant to say "finger on the pulse", but I think I like this better.
"
HYPLS
What's the 'L' stand for?
"
Many of those people come from professions where the only things they need to put their hands on are keyboards.
"
Perhaps you might consider that they don’t have the goals you think they do.
This makes me less--rather than more--inclined to like them.
"
The book was written in 1968. It is scary how well it describes the present world.
It was completely unrealistic. Brunner suggested that MTV would still be playing music videos in 2010!
More seriously, a lot of the book feels so eerily prescient, even as the fundamental underlying "crisis"--overpopulation--seems like a pretty quaint thing to worry about.
"
They seem to have a very shaky idea of how to achieve their goals, to the point of being actively counterproductive. They also have a remarkable talent for provoking circular firing squads among left-of-center advocacy groups and protest movements. Finally, they incorporate a lot of people who range from "very irritating" to "distinctly creepy".
"
Yeah. One of the more cracked NRO denizens (Mark Krikorian?) actually harps on this as a reason to oppose immigration. :-/
"
Sure, there's a creepy bunch of Evangelicals who want to use the Jewish population Israel as the material component in a big summon (but definitely do not bind) Jesusthullhu spell.
Outside of them, however, you have majorities of white Protestants, black Protestants, white Catholics, Republicans, conservative Democrats, moderate Democrats, and all generational groups older than "millennial".
"
That was not OK.
"
Yeah, @kazzy, what are you doing jumping to conclusions like that?
As far as we know, none of the people involved in the defendant's holding were Muslims!
"
I wonder how many of these people's problems would be solved if they would simply stop caring about all the shit they claim not to care about.
"
I'm (really, really) far from a fan of either BDS or the tendency for many leftists to make Israel, if not the source of all evil in the world, at least emblematic of all evil in the world...
...but this is pretty silly. It collapses the entire American political spectrum into left-wing protest movements and the Republican Party--ignoring, you know, pretty much the whole Democratic Party.
On “Will Wilkison: How political idealism leads us astray”
I don't think this is obviously right, because "moving up" depends on having an understanding of the local environment, while "moving towards" something seems to be depend much more on having a view of the local environment. Having a sense of "better" that is useful in evaluating whether a given change is a move up or not may not be easy, but it seems much more likely to be easy (and useful) than having a picture of an ideal society we should be progressing towards.
There will also, of course, be instances where no one can come to a consensus on what "up" means, but there will be other instances where we do have that consensus.
On “Morning Ed: Resources {2016.08.04.Th}”
Sure, I'm considering what happens in the absence of such a change. If we actually see crime getting worse, and if people are responding to direct experiences, or experiences of folks in their own social networks--we'll have a different situation.
"
Right. And those messages are, I think, pretty self-limiting. Consider, for instance, "fear the criminals". No matter what people may tell you about their perceptions, when you boil it down, a lot fewer people are being victimized by criminals than they were 20 years ago.
The idea that the forces of chaos are out control appeals to a subset of the white electorate, but a lot of white folks don't find that reflective of their experience. A future Trumpista would have to find a way to expand his appeal to the people who don't share in that vision, one way or another. Doing so, I expect, will lead to something less toxic, possibly way less toxic.
"
I'm not sure "faith" is the right word. The ~40% of white voters that Trump is alienating are [1] being alienated for actual reasons, and not all of those reasons boil down to Trump's crudeness.
I also think a big part of Trumpism really has to be put down as his lack of a platform. It's all gestures and affect with him.
[1] If the various "Why is Trump so popular with the white working class?" think pieces are to be believed.
"
I'm having trouble envisioning a Trumpist candidate building a winning coalition. A candidate that could build such a coalition would likely lack some of the most dangerous aspects of Trumpism.
"
The fact that CA is non-compliant with an existing federal law seems to make this objection somewhat less convincing.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.