How do you stop fanatics dominating debates?
Discussion
THIS IS NOT A THREAD ABOUT BREXIT.
In fact it's not inspired by any one issue, but something I've been mulling over for a while, crystallised by a couple of things I saw and heard over the weekend.
Most contentious debates - I'm going to choose a couple of topics I have very little opinion on - e.g. fox-hunting or abortion, are dominated by two very polarised bodies of opinion.
Many pressure groups/'charities' (RSPCA is a good example, as is increasingly the National Trust) get gradually dragged towards rather more fundamentalist positions on contentious topics.
The audience on programmes like Any Questions seem to be composed of people from the the extremes of the political spectrum.
Most policy interaction between the state and the populace through consultations and correspondence to MP's is dominated by single issue fanatics.
1. How does society counteract this tendency and afford the 'sensible quiet majority' more of a say in determining public policy?
2. Is it even a problem, or are terms like 'single issue fanatic' pejorative ways of describing people who are well-read enough on a subject to care about it and get off their arses and campaign on it?
The obvious answer to 1. is 'more direct democracy/elections' but something tells me that has gone waaaay out of fashion.
TLDR: most public policy is influenced by people with more extreme views on the subject than the average person: is this good or bad?
In fact it's not inspired by any one issue, but something I've been mulling over for a while, crystallised by a couple of things I saw and heard over the weekend.
Most contentious debates - I'm going to choose a couple of topics I have very little opinion on - e.g. fox-hunting or abortion, are dominated by two very polarised bodies of opinion.
Many pressure groups/'charities' (RSPCA is a good example, as is increasingly the National Trust) get gradually dragged towards rather more fundamentalist positions on contentious topics.
The audience on programmes like Any Questions seem to be composed of people from the the extremes of the political spectrum.
Most policy interaction between the state and the populace through consultations and correspondence to MP's is dominated by single issue fanatics.
1. How does society counteract this tendency and afford the 'sensible quiet majority' more of a say in determining public policy?
2. Is it even a problem, or are terms like 'single issue fanatic' pejorative ways of describing people who are well-read enough on a subject to care about it and get off their arses and campaign on it?
The obvious answer to 1. is 'more direct democracy/elections' but something tells me that has gone waaaay out of fashion.
TLDR: most public policy is influenced by people with more extreme views on the subject than the average person: is this good or bad?
Johnnytheboy said:
PositronicRay said:
Johnnytheboy said:
Most contentious debates - I'm going to choose a couple of topics I have very little opinion on
I think you've answered your own question. Johnnytheboy said:
1. How does society counteract this tendency and afford the 'sensible quiet majority' more of a say in determining public policy?
Social media provides a fantastic platform for the belligerent and bellicose. Their views are amplified - and to a diminishing degree legitimised - by the mainstream media for whom primary reporting is now the exception. Focus-group obsessed career politicians operate within this self-sustaining bubble, so debate becomes polarised and extreme outcomes appear possible.However, our british culture and systems of governance are designed to ensure that extreme minorities remain just that. In the end the sensible quiet majority will have its say, and that say will be decisive. The journey to this point however, can be painful!
It’s a function of modern communication.
30 years ago, the people who influenced the (say) RSPCA were drawn from the general population, and very middle of the road. The majority view was reasonable, because most people are reasonable.
With modern tools, you can gather a few like minded extremists in a second, and use the apathy of the reasonable people to take institutions over. At that point, a lot of reasonable people will say “sod that for a game of soldiers, it was only a bit of fun” and leave.
Ultimately it will destroy these institutions, because their support base will collapse (I’ve moved from being a strong supporter of the RSPCA to never donating again...), but at the moment they are getting a free pass.
Of course once one group of extremists is in place, another opposing group will appear, thus the debate becomes permanently polarised.
30 years ago, the people who influenced the (say) RSPCA were drawn from the general population, and very middle of the road. The majority view was reasonable, because most people are reasonable.
With modern tools, you can gather a few like minded extremists in a second, and use the apathy of the reasonable people to take institutions over. At that point, a lot of reasonable people will say “sod that for a game of soldiers, it was only a bit of fun” and leave.
Ultimately it will destroy these institutions, because their support base will collapse (I’ve moved from being a strong supporter of the RSPCA to never donating again...), but at the moment they are getting a free pass.
Of course once one group of extremists is in place, another opposing group will appear, thus the debate becomes permanently polarised.
rxe said:
With modern tools, you can gather a few like minded extremists in a second, and use the apathy of the reasonable people to take institutions over. At that point, a lot of reasonable people will say “sod that for a game of soldiers, it was only a bit of fun” and leave.
Ultimately it will destroy these institutions, because their support base will collapse ...
Interesting post / thought. Thank you.Ultimately it will destroy these institutions, because their support base will collapse ...
It may be possible that institutions are more vulnerable to extremist takeover than they were. The Labour party is perhaps a prime example.
I think many people become polarised because it gives meaning to their lives. Religion, model railways, fox hunt saboteuring and plane spotting are all indulged in because people get something from such pastimes.
Some people wear badges, others have uniforms, but they are all, more or less, of the same mind. They enjoy what they are doing. If you save a person’s life, their gratitude and thanks is as nothing to the kick you get from having saved a person’s life. It’s unarguably cool. How nice to get the same feeling without having to do anything special.
I’ve policed pro-abortion demonstrations and anti- ones as well and the participants are indistinguishable. They are both totally sure that what they believe is right, and the only right there is. Reason disappears.
Most religious are a little bit religious. They like the pomp, the aura of community, the smells and the fact that they don’t have to think about what is right and what is wrong. They’ve got a book that tells them that, although the bit about pigs and shellfish is to be ignored. To be a fundamentalist make you a much better person even than those who are of your religion. And the same goes for animal rights. Just wanting animals to be treated with care and consideration is not enough. By demanding that they are not killed, milked or shorn, puts that person one step above the common or garden animal rights believer.
Vegetarians don’t eat meat. It’s about dinner. Vegans, though, now there we have people who don’t even like the saying, ‘grab a bull by the horns’.
You get to be important without having to do much about it. Others will tell you how inspiring you are for only eating fruit that’s fallen from a tree.
Some people wear badges, others have uniforms, but they are all, more or less, of the same mind. They enjoy what they are doing. If you save a person’s life, their gratitude and thanks is as nothing to the kick you get from having saved a person’s life. It’s unarguably cool. How nice to get the same feeling without having to do anything special.
I’ve policed pro-abortion demonstrations and anti- ones as well and the participants are indistinguishable. They are both totally sure that what they believe is right, and the only right there is. Reason disappears.
Most religious are a little bit religious. They like the pomp, the aura of community, the smells and the fact that they don’t have to think about what is right and what is wrong. They’ve got a book that tells them that, although the bit about pigs and shellfish is to be ignored. To be a fundamentalist make you a much better person even than those who are of your religion. And the same goes for animal rights. Just wanting animals to be treated with care and consideration is not enough. By demanding that they are not killed, milked or shorn, puts that person one step above the common or garden animal rights believer.
Vegetarians don’t eat meat. It’s about dinner. Vegans, though, now there we have people who don’t even like the saying, ‘grab a bull by the horns’.
You get to be important without having to do much about it. Others will tell you how inspiring you are for only eating fruit that’s fallen from a tree.
WindyCommon said:
Social media provides a fantastic platform for the belligerent and bellicose. Their views are amplified - and to a diminishing degree legitimised - by the mainstream media for whom primary reporting is now the exception. Focus-group obsessed career politicians operate within this self-sustaining bubble, so debate becomes polarised and extreme outcomes appear possible.
However, our british culture and systems of governance are designed to ensure that extreme minorities remain just that. In the end the sensible quiet majority will have its say, and that say will be decisive. The journey to this point however, can be painful!
A point which was confirmed very recently when the lady leading the Grenfell campaign complained bitterly that the report would be published at the same time as Brexit, because "The report needs to be debated in the media"However, our british culture and systems of governance are designed to ensure that extreme minorities remain just that. In the end the sensible quiet majority will have its say, and that say will be decisive. The journey to this point however, can be painful!
Why? It's a technical report on a complex subject. There is no doubt that the relevant professional and trade journals will publish opinion pieces in due course. What have the media got to add on publication day?
Johnnytheboy said:
TLDR: most public policy is influenced by people with more extreme views on the subject than the average person: is this good or bad?
I don't think this is true.Yes, there are extremists on both ends of any spectrum. And they stink up some threads that might otherwise have been interesting. And the media uses them for headlines.
But in reality all the media is choosing what it portrays as reality - there are nutcases on both sides to choose from. They pick a side. And this is all aimed at the political classes. So really it is the media's owners and advertisers that influence public policy.
It doesn't help that our politicians are moral vacuums desperate to be seen to be doing something to justify their existence and pension.
Derek Smith said:
I think many people become polarised because it gives meaning to their lives. Religion, model railways, fox hunt saboteuring and plane spotting are all indulged in because people get something from such pastimes.
Some people wear badges, others have uniforms, but they are all, more or less, of the same mind. They enjoy what they are doing. If you save a person’s life, their gratitude and thanks is as nothing to the kick you get from having saved a person’s life. It’s unarguably cool. How nice to get the same feeling without having to do anything special.
I’ve policed pro-abortion demonstrations and anti- ones as well and the participants are indistinguishable. They are both totally sure that what they believe is right, and the only right there is. Reason disappears.
Most religious are a little bit religious. They like the pomp, the aura of community, the smells and the fact that they don’t have to think about what is right and what is wrong. They’ve got a book that tells them that, although the bit about pigs and shellfish is to be ignored. To be a fundamentalist make you a much better person even than those who are of your religion. And the same goes for animal rights. Just wanting animals to be treated with care and consideration is not enough. By demanding that they are not killed, milked or shorn, puts that person one step above the common or garden animal rights believer.
Vegetarians don’t eat meat. It’s about dinner. Vegans, though, now there we have people who don’t even like the saying, ‘grab a bull by the horns’.
You get to be important without having to do much about it. Others will tell you how inspiring you are for only eating fruit that’s fallen from a tree.
I cannot disagree with any of that. A thoughtful contribution.Some people wear badges, others have uniforms, but they are all, more or less, of the same mind. They enjoy what they are doing. If you save a person’s life, their gratitude and thanks is as nothing to the kick you get from having saved a person’s life. It’s unarguably cool. How nice to get the same feeling without having to do anything special.
I’ve policed pro-abortion demonstrations and anti- ones as well and the participants are indistinguishable. They are both totally sure that what they believe is right, and the only right there is. Reason disappears.
Most religious are a little bit religious. They like the pomp, the aura of community, the smells and the fact that they don’t have to think about what is right and what is wrong. They’ve got a book that tells them that, although the bit about pigs and shellfish is to be ignored. To be a fundamentalist make you a much better person even than those who are of your religion. And the same goes for animal rights. Just wanting animals to be treated with care and consideration is not enough. By demanding that they are not killed, milked or shorn, puts that person one step above the common or garden animal rights believer.
Vegetarians don’t eat meat. It’s about dinner. Vegans, though, now there we have people who don’t even like the saying, ‘grab a bull by the horns’.
You get to be important without having to do much about it. Others will tell you how inspiring you are for only eating fruit that’s fallen from a tree.
(But I might argue on principle
)PositronicRay said:
Johnnytheboy said:
PositronicRay said:
Johnnytheboy said:
Most contentious debates - I'm going to choose a couple of topics I have very little opinion on
I think you've answered your own question. 
I would think this happens more where an issue is mutually exclusive in nature too.
Johnnytheboy said:
...or are terms like 'single issue fanatic' pejorative ways of describing people ...
This is also close to, or bang on, striking the bail on the head.Is anyone really "single issue"? That you (for example) might think they are, and indeed think that they are fanatical suggests you might actually have an opinion, even if it's just to dismiss the SIF's view on a topic.
If one genuinely does not have an opinion either way on a topic, why let other people's opinions on it matter to you? Just let it go and roll with whatever the remaining majority want to happen on it.
If the SIFs bother you enough that you feel a need to form an opinion, then do so and engage.
Labelling people is not a great way of persuading them that their approach might be in some way flawed. It will typically just push them further to an extreme. Unfortunately humans love to label things. It helps us to rationalise and be part (or not) of a tribe. Animal instincts at their best and worst.
One issue on this topic is that we live in a time whereby everyone is triggered in to jumping to an extreme position just to simply make a point.
This likely comes from a direct mirroring of what the gutter press do day in day out with their hysterical stories that have the purpose of grabbing attention.
To grab attention it has long been said that one needs to get people angry to get them engaged in an issue - and this is something that the gutter press have been doing for countless years.
I think in the modern era, where everyone with a tw@tter or instagram account thinks that they become an 'official broadcaster of opinion', people seem to have simply copied and mirrored what the established press have been doing for years with their hysterics.
And its so rife that if you are not in an extreme position then your efforts in typing your own opinion on the internet go very much unnoticed.
How to stop fanatics and extremes? I guess just basic logic and rationale should be the 'go to' place for discussions and ignore completely those who are placing themselves on a "look at me" mantle in their extremisms.
Otherwise by giving attention one fuels the fire of the fanatics and therefore gives them further cause to continue.
The climate fear extinction propaganda group is a perfect example of where people should just laugh at them for their stupidity, use logic to counter them and be asking the police to make sure they protest in a manner that is lawful like everyone else must do if they want to make a point.
In 10 years time when the world is still ticking along perfectly inhabited by civilisation we can all look back at how silly their claims were. (SImilar to what we do now with Al Gore's very similar predictions back in the early 2000's).
This likely comes from a direct mirroring of what the gutter press do day in day out with their hysterical stories that have the purpose of grabbing attention.
To grab attention it has long been said that one needs to get people angry to get them engaged in an issue - and this is something that the gutter press have been doing for countless years.
I think in the modern era, where everyone with a tw@tter or instagram account thinks that they become an 'official broadcaster of opinion', people seem to have simply copied and mirrored what the established press have been doing for years with their hysterics.
And its so rife that if you are not in an extreme position then your efforts in typing your own opinion on the internet go very much unnoticed.
How to stop fanatics and extremes? I guess just basic logic and rationale should be the 'go to' place for discussions and ignore completely those who are placing themselves on a "look at me" mantle in their extremisms.
Otherwise by giving attention one fuels the fire of the fanatics and therefore gives them further cause to continue.
The climate fear extinction propaganda group is a perfect example of where people should just laugh at them for their stupidity, use logic to counter them and be asking the police to make sure they protest in a manner that is lawful like everyone else must do if they want to make a point.
In 10 years time when the world is still ticking along perfectly inhabited by civilisation we can all look back at how silly their claims were. (SImilar to what we do now with Al Gore's very similar predictions back in the early 2000's).
The reason a lot of complex or nuanced debates dissolve into name calling is because those debates ARE complex.
For the average "man in the street" they can't possibly actually research, understand and rationalise all the different facets into a single, coherent view point, so broadly speaking, they pick a side based on a hunch at best, or on a pre-existing bias at worst. And because it's not practically possible to discuss the full picture, people just stick with their hunches/biases.
Take the following question: What colour is this square?
No one is going to (sensibly) argue that it is anything other than black, because it's plain to see, by everyone, it's black.
Now try this question: Which square is better?
Now, woah there, were are into a whole different kettle of argumentative fish! There is no simple, objective answer, it's entirely subjective.
And once we get into subjection, then personalities, biases, and all other human traits start to take effect.
What all this rambling tells us, is that the issue is not the debating that is the issue, the issue is correctly forming the question! (see BREXIT for reference.... ;-)
For the average "man in the street" they can't possibly actually research, understand and rationalise all the different facets into a single, coherent view point, so broadly speaking, they pick a side based on a hunch at best, or on a pre-existing bias at worst. And because it's not practically possible to discuss the full picture, people just stick with their hunches/biases.
Take the following question: What colour is this square?
No one is going to (sensibly) argue that it is anything other than black, because it's plain to see, by everyone, it's black.
Now try this question: Which square is better?
Now, woah there, were are into a whole different kettle of argumentative fish! There is no simple, objective answer, it's entirely subjective.
And once we get into subjection, then personalities, biases, and all other human traits start to take effect.
What all this rambling tells us, is that the issue is not the debating that is the issue, the issue is correctly forming the question! (see BREXIT for reference.... ;-)
PositronicRay said:
Johnnytheboy said:
PositronicRay said:
Johnnytheboy said:
Most contentious debates - I'm going to choose a couple of topics I have very little opinion on
I think you've answered your own question. V10leptoquark said:
The climate fear extinction propaganda group is a perfect example of where people should just laugh at them for their stupidity, use logic to counter them
If you actually apply logic, then their actions are entirely sensible. The facts tell us
1) Our environment and climate are constantly changing (we have millions of years of pre-existent proof) due to a number of different effects and causes (from natural disasters to human activities)
2) Today, our reliance is on technology to support our population density. That density that is unsustainable by "natural" means ie you can't have a city of even 10,000 people without intensive farming methods for example, let alone electricity, water, sewage etc etc.
Therefore, by pure LOGIC, should 1) cause a failure in 2), our population is indeed "at risk"
So, logically, they are correct, at which point we then need to understand the PROBABILITY and EFFECT of any given scenario. And here, we are back into an extremely complex and Chaotic (in the mathematical sense) matrix of interlinked causalities. We cannot simply answer "yes" or "no", we have to build up a probabilistic answer. And one thing as an engineer i know is that the average man in the street does not actually understand probability!
So to say "people should laugh at" something because they don't understand it themselves is as short sighted as it is ILLOGICAL :-)
Murph7355 said:
Johnnytheboy said:
...or are terms like 'single issue fanatic' pejorative ways of describing people ...
This is also close to, or bang on, striking the bail on the head.Is anyone really "single issue"? That you (for example) might think they are, and indeed think that they are fanatical suggests you might actually have an opinion, even if it's just to dismiss the SIF's view on a topic.
If one genuinely does not have an opinion either way on a topic, why let other people's opinions on it matter to you? Just let it go and roll with whatever the remaining majority want to happen on it.
If the SIFs bother you enough that you feel a need to form an opinion, then do so and engage.
Labelling people is not a great way of persuading them that their approach might be in some way flawed. It will typically just push them further to an extreme. Unfortunately humans love to label things. It helps us to rationalise and be part (or not) of a tribe. Animal instincts at their best and worst.
If (say) the government had a public consultation on Poster X's obsession, her or she would be the one with the motivation to respond to it, the rest of us wouldn't bother.
I suppose the other way of framing the question of this thread is "How do you take account of the opinion of the generally silent majority?"
You might argue that, like people that don't vote, they are forfeiting their voice.
V10leptoquark said:
...
How to stop fanatics and extremes? I guess just basic logic and rationale should be the 'go to' place for discussions and ignore completely those who are placing themselves on a "look at me" mantle in their extremisms.
Otherwise by giving attention one fuels the fire of the fanatics and therefore gives them further cause to continue.
...
The problem is that "fanaticism" isn't a black or white (or blue square How to stop fanatics and extremes? I guess just basic logic and rationale should be the 'go to' place for discussions and ignore completely those who are placing themselves on a "look at me" mantle in their extremisms.
Otherwise by giving attention one fuels the fire of the fanatics and therefore gives them further cause to continue.
...
) thing. It's a full range colour chart and every single one of us will have different lines where fanaticism starts and ends.For any topic we'll think person A is a fanatic when someone else will think their view is a bit extreme but understandable, and yet someone else will think they're being too mellow.
There's no real answer to this. It's just the way people are. We have social boundaries and laws etc which set limits in important examples. These get formed as opinions move and sway. As things move too far one way, those with "no opinion" may be encouraged to have one and bring the metronome back. It's how it's always worked
I suspect the metronome is moving away from "centrist" at the moment, perhaps because people are frustrated with the lack of change (on any side of a given polarised debate, for better and for worse). It'll swing back.
Will it do so in time to save the middle ground sitters? Who knows. As a species we'll eradicate ourselves somehow at some point. Nature's way of sorting out our excesses isn't really disease or similar, it's giving us "intelligence"
Max_Torque said:
V10leptoquark said:
The climate fear extinction propaganda group is a perfect example of where people should just laugh at them for their stupidity, use logic to counter them
If you actually apply logic, then their actions are entirely sensible. The facts tell us
1) Our environment and climate are constantly changing (we have millions of years of pre-existent proof) due to a number of different effects and causes (from natural disasters to human activities)
2) Today, our reliance is on technology to support our population density. That density that is unsustainable by "natural" means ie you can't have a city of even 10,000 people without intensive farming methods for example, let alone electricity, water, sewage etc etc.
Therefore, by pure LOGIC, should 1) cause a failure in 2), our population is indeed "at risk"
So, logically, they are correct, at which point we then need to understand the PROBABILITY and EFFECT of any given scenario. And here, we are back into an extremely complex and Chaotic (in the mathematical sense) matrix of interlinked causalities. We cannot simply answer "yes" or "no", we have to build up a probabilistic answer. And one thing as an engineer i know is that the average man in the street does not actually understand probability!
So to say "people should laugh at" something because they don't understand it themselves is as short sighted as it is ILLOGICAL :-)
The use of fear and implanting this in to the young is also something that I would put in the 'extremist/fanatical' category.
When at university I did some additional analytical modules on my engineering degree as part of my masters, I was taught at an early stage that when fear is being used to promote an argument then it suggests the evidence/facts can be very weak. The modules in question looked at the use of scientific reasoning and wider issues on political use of science publications. Ironically the course modules were run at the time when Al Gore was spreading his project fear in the early 2000's.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff