The Death of Reasoned Debate?
Discussion
Interesting article from Tom Chivers, rather pertinent in the present circumstances I thought.
https://unherd.com/2020/06/slate-star-codex-must-r...
https://unherd.com/2020/06/slate-star-codex-must-r...
Yes the death of reasoned debate has been here a long time
If you disagree with the BLM movement , you are
racist.
If you agree that white lives matter also, you are
racist
If you question the need for the Black business awards, or the MOBO's, or Black british theatre awards, or The UK's black tech awards, or The black women in business awards, or the young and gifted black awards or many many more. You are
racist
If you set up any of the above, but for whites only, you are
racist.
If you have a differing opinion on the gay community, whether it be marriage or adoption or whatever, you are
homophobic
If you highlight atrocities practiced by the Islamic community, and the way they treat women and gays, you are now
an Islamaphobe
If you say there are only 2 genders, male and female, you are
transphobic
The debate is also brought to a quicker end if any of the above labels are screamed in your face by a purple haired lunatic
.
If you disagree with the BLM movement , you are
racist.
If you agree that white lives matter also, you are
racist
If you question the need for the Black business awards, or the MOBO's, or Black british theatre awards, or The UK's black tech awards, or The black women in business awards, or the young and gifted black awards or many many more. You are
racist
If you set up any of the above, but for whites only, you are
racist.
If you have a differing opinion on the gay community, whether it be marriage or adoption or whatever, you are
homophobic
If you highlight atrocities practiced by the Islamic community, and the way they treat women and gays, you are now
an Islamaphobe
If you say there are only 2 genders, male and female, you are
transphobic
The debate is also brought to a quicker end if any of the above labels are screamed in your face by a purple haired lunatic
.
Seanrof said:
If you question the need for the Black business awards, or the MOBO's, or Black british theatre awards, or The UK's black tech awards, or The black women in business awards, or the young and gifted black awards or many many more. You are
racist
If you set up any of the above, but for whites only, you are
racist.
You're also part of the reason why it's difficult to have reasoned debate because you've not taken the trouble to find out why those things exist in the first place. Once you do, you can then question them because your basis of argument is informed. If you don't, then your argument is based upon ill informed or even uninformed opinion and is thus unreasonable.racist
If you set up any of the above, but for whites only, you are
racist.
I'm not having a go at you directly Seanrof. The essence of your post actually articulates the issue quite well but via social media and to a certain extent 'news' we're fed opinions of others as facts and don't take the trouble to verify those facts ourselves. It's easy to quickly share a meme that makes us look thoughtful and wise but in most cases just makes you look like a chump. But it doesn't because so many others see it and think...."mmm, wise words indeed!"
How many UK councils have banned the flying of the Union Flag? - One - and was quickly overturned.
How many schools have banned playing conkers without eye protection - One.
How many British Muslims object to anyone wearing a Poppy? - None.
So when mass opinions are based on hyperbole, reasoned debate is out of the window.
Seanrof said:
Yes the death of reasoned debate has been here a long time
If you disagree with the BLM movement , you are
racist.
If you agree that white lives matter also, you are
racist
If you question the need for the Black business awards, or the MOBO's, or Black british theatre awards, or The UK's black tech awards, or The black women in business awards, or the young and gifted black awards or many many more. You are
racist
If you set up any of the above, but for whites only, you are
racist.
If you have a differing opinion on the gay community, whether it be marriage or adoption or whatever, you are
homophobic
If you highlight atrocities practiced by the Islamic community, and the way they treat women and gays, you are now
an Islamaphobe
If you say there are only 2 genders, male and female, you are
transphobic
The debate is also brought to a quicker end if any of the above labels are screamed in your face by a purple haired lunatic
.
Ooof, whole load of projection going on there.If you disagree with the BLM movement , you are
racist.
If you agree that white lives matter also, you are
racist
If you question the need for the Black business awards, or the MOBO's, or Black british theatre awards, or The UK's black tech awards, or The black women in business awards, or the young and gifted black awards or many many more. You are
racist
If you set up any of the above, but for whites only, you are
racist.
If you have a differing opinion on the gay community, whether it be marriage or adoption or whatever, you are
homophobic
If you highlight atrocities practiced by the Islamic community, and the way they treat women and gays, you are now
an Islamaphobe
If you say there are only 2 genders, male and female, you are
transphobic
The debate is also brought to a quicker end if any of the above labels are screamed in your face by a purple haired lunatic
.
Instead of 'listening', understanding and challenging people simply want to judge and to paint a negative picture of their opponent's character and reactions to challenging situations seem to be so irrational.
Cathy Newman Vs Jordan Peterson is a real example of this. She wouldn't listen to him. She had a preconceived idea of what she thought he stood for and was desparate to throw a scenario at him where he could answer 'incorrectly' so she could 'win'.
That episode exposed the ridiculous depths our discourse has reached. It goes beyond the internet, it's clear in other areas of the broadcast and published media. It's infiltrating our education system too, where dogma cannot be challenged.
Cathy Newman Vs Jordan Peterson is a real example of this. She wouldn't listen to him. She had a preconceived idea of what she thought he stood for and was desparate to throw a scenario at him where he could answer 'incorrectly' so she could 'win'.
That episode exposed the ridiculous depths our discourse has reached. It goes beyond the internet, it's clear in other areas of the broadcast and published media. It's infiltrating our education system too, where dogma cannot be challenged.
Sophisticated Sarah said:
The autoplay cued up Piers Moron and Ash Sarkar arguing about which of them is more irritating. TRIGGERED!It seems like the willingness and/or ability of the left to have a calm, rational debate has evaporated.
They don't want to hear a rational counter-argument and they don't have to; they have the racist card and can pull it anytime they are confronted with rational arguments from the opposite political camp - regardless if the opponent is a racist or not. Once this card is pulled, the conversation often ends - nobody likes this smear and character assassination as it can ruin careers. So they pull back, end of discussion.
This racist/nazi label is used at such a frequency and so broadly, that it has lost it's true meaning - rather than calling out actual racists/nazis, it is words used by people unable to debate, and as an assault on anyone who doesn't follow a certain political ideology.
They don't want to hear a rational counter-argument and they don't have to; they have the racist card and can pull it anytime they are confronted with rational arguments from the opposite political camp - regardless if the opponent is a racist or not. Once this card is pulled, the conversation often ends - nobody likes this smear and character assassination as it can ruin careers. So they pull back, end of discussion.
This racist/nazi label is used at such a frequency and so broadly, that it has lost it's true meaning - rather than calling out actual racists/nazis, it is words used by people unable to debate, and as an assault on anyone who doesn't follow a certain political ideology.
The premise is faulty.
For most of history, us normal people couldn’t engage in the debate in the first place at any meaningful level, the vast majority of people had little or no education, dissenters were punished in demeaning ways publicly.
Even in recent history, the debates around race, sexuality and the rights of women have only really begun to be dragged into something resembling reasoned debate.
I mean, for the vast majority of recorded history ‘reason’ has been tightly intertwined with ‘religion’ and, therefore, was never reasoned through with any thing most people would consider rationality.
There has never been another point in recoded history where so many people have the means and the right to engage in reasoned debate.
That we are still talking about race, sexuality and gender equality and the objections to current systems are getting louder and more frequent is not because of the death of reasoned debate, it’s because of reasoned debate.
The tragedy is not the death of reasoned debate, it is that some people still hate other people because of the colour of their skin, the people they love, or because they are the ‘lesser sex’.
It’s a joke really.
For most of history, us normal people couldn’t engage in the debate in the first place at any meaningful level, the vast majority of people had little or no education, dissenters were punished in demeaning ways publicly.
Even in recent history, the debates around race, sexuality and the rights of women have only really begun to be dragged into something resembling reasoned debate.
I mean, for the vast majority of recorded history ‘reason’ has been tightly intertwined with ‘religion’ and, therefore, was never reasoned through with any thing most people would consider rationality.
There has never been another point in recoded history where so many people have the means and the right to engage in reasoned debate.
That we are still talking about race, sexuality and gender equality and the objections to current systems are getting louder and more frequent is not because of the death of reasoned debate, it’s because of reasoned debate.
The tragedy is not the death of reasoned debate, it is that some people still hate other people because of the colour of their skin, the people they love, or because they are the ‘lesser sex’.
It’s a joke really.
Edited by gregs656 on Thursday 25th June 03:12
Edited by gregs656 on Thursday 25th June 03:13
Kessler said:
It seems like the willingness and/or ability of the left to have a calm, rational debate has evaporated.
They don't want to hear a rational counter-argument and they don't have to; they have the racist card and can pull it anytime they are confronted with rational arguments from the opposite political camp - regardless if the opponent is a racist or not. Once this card is pulled, the conversation often ends - nobody likes this smear and character assassination as it can ruin careers. So they pull back, end of discussion.
This racist/nazi label is used at such a frequency and so broadly, that it has lost it's true meaning - rather than calling out actual racists/nazis, it is words used by people unable to debate, and as an assault on anyone who doesn't follow a certain political ideology.
This happens on the right, too. Lefty /snowflake/ SJW are label equivelents. But when pushed they retreat with a grumble and some sarcastic statement of support for what they think The Left want or complain about some straw man.They don't want to hear a rational counter-argument and they don't have to; they have the racist card and can pull it anytime they are confronted with rational arguments from the opposite political camp - regardless if the opponent is a racist or not. Once this card is pulled, the conversation often ends - nobody likes this smear and character assassination as it can ruin careers. So they pull back, end of discussion.
This racist/nazi label is used at such a frequency and so broadly, that it has lost it's true meaning - rather than calling out actual racists/nazis, it is words used by people unable to debate, and as an assault on anyone who doesn't follow a certain political ideology.
The reason Jordan Peterson came across so well is because he didn't lose his cool and continued in rational logical argument without the fear of a backlash against his views. Compare with Ben Shapiro when challenged by Andrew Neil.
I was disheartened to read the OP article because thst place sounds like what I remember thinking internet forums were and I've been looking for- a place where you can argue to your hearts content but can't call names and logical fallacies will be exposed. Theres no shame in discovering your ignorance, but society demands cult-like certainty from us all.
Reasoned debate has been staggering for years. I tend to think it started with the smartphone, but first really noticed it in the difference between the Scot Indy ref and Brexit debates.
The first was full of lively pragmatic arguments over currency, cost of embassies, etc. The latter dominated by talk of remoaners, nebulous control, immigration debates that didn't really go anywhere on here, whilst the media focussed on how racist and nasty all the leavers must be for not wanting to be part of a multinational trading-cum-political bloc and expressing this through the means of a ballot paper.
But since then we've had all kinds of identity politics exploding all over the place.
It's a sad time to be a floating voter. I feel we're veering towards some flavour of fascism and wish there were a country of vulcans somewhere so I could emigrate and be the hysterical one.
Edit to add- as pointed out above, rationalism has been oppressed for most of human history and even the Enlightenment didn't really start an inferno so much as light a lamp. People just aren't wired to accept that others might be right and us wrong.
Edited by glazbagun on Thursday 25th June 04:23
Its extremely hard if not impossible to have a reasoned debate when rules on what can be discussed are imposed by one side or the other via the use of shouting down, deplatforming, running people out of jobs etc.
It becomes an exercise in shouting the loudest and sheer attrition rates of it to decide the result.
It becomes an exercise in shouting the loudest and sheer attrition rates of it to decide the result.
StevieBee said:
You're also part of the reason why it's difficult to have reasoned debate because you've not taken the trouble to find out why those things exist in the first place. Once you do, you can then question them because your basis of argument is informed. If you don't, then your argument is based upon ill informed or even uninformed opinion and is thus unreasonable.
I'm not having a go at you directly Seanrof. The essence of your post actually articulates the issue quite well but via social media and to a certain extent 'news' we're fed opinions of others as facts and don't take the trouble to verify those facts ourselves. It's easy to quickly share a meme that makes us look thoughtful and wise but in most cases just makes you look like a chump. But it doesn't because so many others see it and think...."mmm, wise words indeed!"
How many UK councils have banned the flying of the Union Flag? - One - and was quickly overturned.
How many schools have banned playing conkers without eye protection - One.
How many British Muslims object to anyone wearing a Poppy? - None.
So when mass opinions are based on hyperbole, reasoned debate is out of the window.
You ask that we verify facts, when in fact that is sort of the undoing of your post Stevie. Just about everyone I know are in fear of losing their job by being vocal at the workplace opposing any of my examples, and stating my argument is based upon ill informed or even uninformed opinion and is thus unreasonable, is a bit ridiculous considering your examples.I'm not having a go at you directly Seanrof. The essence of your post actually articulates the issue quite well but via social media and to a certain extent 'news' we're fed opinions of others as facts and don't take the trouble to verify those facts ourselves. It's easy to quickly share a meme that makes us look thoughtful and wise but in most cases just makes you look like a chump. But it doesn't because so many others see it and think...."mmm, wise words indeed!"
How many UK councils have banned the flying of the Union Flag? - One - and was quickly overturned.
How many schools have banned playing conkers without eye protection - One.
How many British Muslims object to anyone wearing a Poppy? - None.
So when mass opinions are based on hyperbole, reasoned debate is out of the window.
How many UK councils have banned the flying of the Union Flag? - One - and was quickly overturned.
It may not be banned for the public, but have you ever seen a St Georges flag being proudly flown above any UK council building on the 23rd of April ? No, and for obvious reasons
How many schools have banned playing conkers without eye protection - One.
Not sure what this has got to do with it, but other reports suggest 1 in 6 schools have banned it altogether , with most using the 'nut allergy' line to ease it in without further protest.
How many British Muslims object to anyone wearing a Poppy? - None.
Sorry, this is just ignorant. There have been a number of incidents relating to Muslims burning the poppy, and for you to suggest that NO British Muslims object, especially out of the thousands of Islamic Extremists that reside in this country, is just wishful fantasy mate.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-or...
Randy Winkman said:
Perhaps some people preferred it when we didn't debate equality for women, ethnic minorities, transgender etc? Perhaps that was their idea of reasoned debate?
Doubtless such people did and do exist, but theyd be wrong, equally we cant have a set of rules imposed about what we're allowed debate, it limits the transfer of ideas and exchange of information otherwise.glazbagun said:
This happens on the right, too. Lefty /snowflake/ SJW are label equivelents. But when pushed they retreat with a grumble and some sarcastic statement of support for what they think The Left want or complain about some straw man.
The reason Jordan Peterson came across so well is because he didn't lose his cool and continued in rational logical argument without the fear of a backlash against his views. Compare with Ben Shapiro when challenged by Andrew Neil.
I was disheartened to read the OP article because thst place sounds like what I remember thinking internet forums were and I've been looking for- a place where you can argue to your hearts content but can't call names and logical fallacies will be exposed. Theres no shame in discovering your ignorance, but society demands cult-like certainty from us all.
Reasoned debate has been staggering for years. I tend to think it started with the smartphone, but first really noticed it in the difference between the Scot Indy ref and Brexit debates.
The first was full of lively pragmatic arguments over currency, cost of embassies, etc. The latter dominated by talk of remoaners, nebulous control, immigration debates that didn't really go anywhere on here, whilst the media focussed on how racist and nasty all the leavers must be for not wanting to be part of a multinational trading-cum-political bloc and expressing this through the means of a ballot paper.
But since then we've had all kinds of identity politics exploding all over the place.
It's a sad time to be a floating voter. I feel we're veering towards some flavour of fascism and wish there were a country of vulcans somewhere so I could emigrate and be the hysterical one.
Edit to add- as pointed out above, rationalism has been oppressed for most of human history and even the Enlightenment didn't really start an inferno so much as light a lamp. People just aren't wired to accept that others might be right and us wrong.
Good post, thank you The reason Jordan Peterson came across so well is because he didn't lose his cool and continued in rational logical argument without the fear of a backlash against his views. Compare with Ben Shapiro when challenged by Andrew Neil.
I was disheartened to read the OP article because thst place sounds like what I remember thinking internet forums were and I've been looking for- a place where you can argue to your hearts content but can't call names and logical fallacies will be exposed. Theres no shame in discovering your ignorance, but society demands cult-like certainty from us all.
Reasoned debate has been staggering for years. I tend to think it started with the smartphone, but first really noticed it in the difference between the Scot Indy ref and Brexit debates.
The first was full of lively pragmatic arguments over currency, cost of embassies, etc. The latter dominated by talk of remoaners, nebulous control, immigration debates that didn't really go anywhere on here, whilst the media focussed on how racist and nasty all the leavers must be for not wanting to be part of a multinational trading-cum-political bloc and expressing this through the means of a ballot paper.
But since then we've had all kinds of identity politics exploding all over the place.
It's a sad time to be a floating voter. I feel we're veering towards some flavour of fascism and wish there were a country of vulcans somewhere so I could emigrate and be the hysterical one.
Edit to add- as pointed out above, rationalism has been oppressed for most of human history and even the Enlightenment didn't really start an inferno so much as light a lamp. People just aren't wired to accept that others might be right and us wrong.
Edited by glazbagun on Thursday 25th June 04:23
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff