Twenty-four hours worth of travel time gives one a lot of time for thinking, even with a new Nintendo DS Lite (sent to me, weirdly, as a free gift by Comcast). A lot of what I thought about was this blog, and the occasionally wearying job of political debate. The night before I left, I had a conversation with a friend about the practice of calling people closet cases, which he mildly defended by asserting that excessive protestations against homosexuality are often a way to bolster one's masculinity.
My point, which I stand by, is that calling someone a [censored] does not, in fact, advance the debate. I can think of no circumstances under which someone who is concerned about appearing too feminine will be moved to change his views because you called him a big, fat nancy-boy. Even if it were true, the effect of insulting someone on this level is never to cause them to reexamine their position; instead, it energizes them to seek out reasons that you're wrong, and moreover, a huge jerk whose other ideas are probably equally moronic.
In general, you don't imply that someone's gay because you think it might lead to a change of heart; you imply that they're gay because it's fun to tweak people with whom you disagree so vehemently. Indulging in this form of name calling feels good, but it's ultimately counterproductive--firstly, because in this case, it does help sustain the notion that calling someone "gay" is some kind of insult; and second, because it just makes everyone angrier. And anger is something that we're currently a bit oversupplied with.
Remember that scene in Conan the Barbarian* where he is asked about the purpose of life, and he responds
To destroy your enemies, raze their villages and hear the lamentations of their women.
There you have too much of the blogosphere in a nutshell. It is perhaps cathartic, but it doesn't particularly serve the ostensible point of all of this, which is the free exchange of ideas. If all I wanted to do was insult people, I could just spend the day riding mass transit, which offers an equally rich source of targets without the risk of carpal tunnel.
* Of course you do
What in the world did you do for Comcast to give you a free DS Lite? Amazing.
You're right on most every count. I think that one thing to add is that, one way to ratchet down the politics of resentment in the blogosphere would be to curtail the use of supposedly provocative posts that are, in fact, merely provoking. I've always believed that a basic assumption of good faith is vital to a worthwhile discourse. As a libertarian you're a member of a vocal minority, and it is understandable to express your views in as outsized a manner as you can without distorting them. It's difficult to create change as a quite voice in a loud room, after all. But actually building meaningful coalitions of like-minded people to bring about that change requires not self-caricature but a rhetoric of inclusion that gives people the amount of common ground they need to engage your arguments. I don't mean to suggest that you water down your message to popularize it, and I know you walk a tightrope as a pundit whose job, at least nominally, is to entertain. But there are many people who I think could be engaged by the libertarian message in general, if that message wasn't so often delivered in the starkest or shrillest terms. (Not that you are anywhere close to the worst when it comes to that, let me add.)
Someone once say "contumely breeds concision," which is true. But it doesn't build bridges.
The only reason you think that there is too much anger in the world is because you fail to recognize that there is so much unnecessary suffering caused by people failing to take personal responsibility.
Unnecessary suffering should cause us to be angry. To want to destroy the enablers of personal irresponsibility that cause the unnecessary suffering.
To not be angry is an indulgent luxury.
And just because you are angry, that does not mean you cannot be happy.
The only problem with this assumption is that it is not true. Assuming good faith when there is none only enables evil.
It is most certainly not cathartic, and if left un-checked can eventually consume your attitude and relationships offline.
I've seen it from my own point of view on a limited basis and had to scale back and have seen it very much so in people who like to get in heated, frequent name calling debates.
It only serves to polarize our nation even worse. People have always disagreed vehementally with each other, but it was usually done more publically (not in the private of your room or office), and less frequently.
The frequency of these debates no doubt influences the rest of your personality (how could you claim doing something habitually for 3 hours or more everyday doesn't affect you?). And the non-public side of the debate makes you more apt to not only argue extremes, but leaves you feeling more safe and secure in your pronouncements. I could go on...
that Conan speech:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V30tyaXv6EI
The Conan quotation is inaccurate.
It's likely that many people online are arguing in bad faith. It's implausible to the point of nuttiness that everyone who holds the opposite side of some political or philosophical view as you do is arguing in bad faith, and secretly believes something else/is a selfish bastard/longs to bring down some evil fate on the world/etc.
This must be some kind of basic feature of human psychology, because it's nuts, but very common. You argue against someone's position, and it's often the case that they charge you with really secretly believing their side is right, but having some evil motive for "lying" about their beliefs. A nearly as common alternative assigns them some obviously silly viewpoint, which usually includes a lot of intentional evil.
For example, it's common in abortion discussions to see pro-lifers charge pro-choicers with wanting the right to kill babies for their own convenience. Which is nuts; to a first approximation, pro-choicers don't think it's murder, which is why they're in favor of abortion being legal. Or you will see people in favor of some kind of universal medical care accuse opponents of knowing that the universal system would be better for most people, but simply not giving a damn about anyone else. (Opponents of universal health care overwhelmingly don't think it would make most people better off, of course.)
HappyCon wrote: The only problem with this assumption is that it is not true. Assuming good faith when there is none only enables evil.
It is quite likely you don't understand the point he was attempting to make.
"Evil" requires a fairly severe and harsh judgement of a set of actions or motives. The alternative to approaching an argument "in good faith" is for someone to assume a priori that s/he has the necessary components on hand to make that judgment.
Generally, the party doesn't, and it is when s/he proceeds with that judgment anyway that the debate shipwrecks. The worst that can happen from repeating "That argument is wrong, and here is why: ___" several times is that is stops being edifying; nothing is "enabled" by doing that. On the other hand, "You are EVIL! Oh, and this is why that argument is wrong:___" tends to enable broken noses.
It's implausible to the point of nuttiness that everyone who holds the opposite side of some political or philosophical view as you do is arguing in bad faith, and secretly believes something else/is a selfish bastard/longs to bring down some evil fate on the world/etc.
This must be some kind of basic feature of human psychology, because it's nuts, but very common. You argue against someone's position, and it's often the case that they charge you with really secretly believing their side is right, but having some evil motive for "lying" about their beliefs. A nearly as common alternative assigns them some obviously silly viewpoint, which usually includes a lot of intentional evil.
True. I must say, though, that I see this particular mental dysfunction indulged by leftist commenters hugely more often than by those on the right. The main exceptions are Buchananites and Ron Paulistas. Both of these right-wing subgroups share with much of the left a fundamentally conspiracy-based view of political/economic causality.
I think you are right about the merits of natural discourse. I would just point out that the risks involved in insulting people all day on mass transit are probably a bit higher than any carpal tunnel risks due to blogging.
The only reason you think that there is too much anger in the world is because you fail to recognize that there is so much unnecessary suffering caused by people failing to take personal responsibility.
Unnecessary suffering should cause us to be angry. To want to destroy the enablers of personal irresponsibility that cause the unnecessary suffering.
To not be angry is an indulgent luxury.
And just because you are angry, that does not mean you cannot be happy.
Yikes!! It's not even those who are "personally irresponsible," it's those who enable it who should be destroyed. Is there such a thing as necessary suffering? Is that what the "enablers" should suffer, before you "destroy" them?
And what's wrong w/ "indulgent luxury?" Isn't the entire point of "personal responsibility" to grub as much money as possible for yourself & the other stockholders, in order to indulge yourselves?
Oh, by the way, is there any such thing as corporate or governmental "responsibility" in your worldview? Or does everyone exist in a perfect vacuum where they, & and only they, are the absolute masters of their fates?
Apparently (not to call names, just to describe accurately) it's quite easy to be a happy sociopath.
It's likely that many people online are arguing in bad faith.
There isn't necessarily a bad faith argument going on here though. Many, many times I hear anti-gay-rights commentators make comments that make absolutely no sense to me as a straight person. I mean, I really don't think that seeing two men kiss on television is going to somehow entice me or my kids into being gay.
To point out that, say, Ted Haggard is starting from assumptions of sexual attraction that aren't shared by the general public isn't accusing him of a bad faith argument. On the contrary, he's being totally honest when he suggests that any association with gay men will make it very difficult for men like him to avoid gay sex.
The only way to challenge that point is to point out that these sexual yearnings aren't shared by most, or perhaps any, straight people.
Isn't it just a counterproductive style of argument?
I accuse those who disagree with gay rights to be secretly gay. 95% of those who disagree are NOT secretly gay. They are well aware that I am wrong. So they dismiss my argument as stupid, and hence ignore the rest of what I have to say.
Of course, Genghis Khan has the following quotation attributed to him.
"The Greatest Happiness is to scatter your enemy and drive him before you. To see his cities reduced to ashes. To see those who love him shrouded and in tears. And to gather to your bosom his wives and daughters."
So I guess he was something of a role model for ol' Conan.
A bit off the narrow topic of closet cases, but a thought or two:
Most people aren't really all that interested in truth. The social effects of holding certain views is stronger than any personal satisfaction at having a better understanding of reality.
Which is to say that many (most?) people who hold popular views hold them as a means of fitting in with a certain peer group.
Those more interested in truth-seeking dialog will pursue means conducive to such, those more interested in signaling their loyalty to their peer group will chose different means.
As far as the ecology of ideas goes, rational analysis is relatively cognitively costly, while emotionalism appeals to lower parts of the brain stem and more primitive primate psychology.
It also seems reasonable, though admittedly rather speculative, that in our environment of evolutionary adaptedness, low-ranked members of the group couldn't get away with insulting high-ranking members publicly, so insulting others signals high-status, and it is best to ally with the high-status members, so repeat their insults to be part of the cool group. Low-cost emotive and insulting 'mentation' and behavior is thus likely to be more common and more popular.
So I would argue that many people with strong beliefs (especially popular ones) don't hold them due to reasoned reflection, and so can't defend them rationally. This leaves invective, ad hominem, and the usual suspects.
And Megan, your (mis)quote of Conan officially makes you my new favorite person in the DC area*, even if you are on the other side of the planet at the moment. Enjoy your journey.
*full disclosure: this is a rather low standard.
A bit off the narrow topic of closet cases, but a thought or two:
Most people aren't really all that interested in truth. The social effects of holding certain views is stronger than any personal satisfaction at having a better understanding of reality.
Which is to say that many (most?) people who hold popular views hold them as a means of fitting in with a certain peer group.
Those more interested in truth-seeking dialog will pursue means conducive to such, those more interested in signaling their loyalty to their peer group will chose different means.
As far as the ecology of ideas goes, rational analysis is relatively cognitively costly, while emotionalism appeals to lower parts of the brain stem and more primitive primate psychology.
It also seems reasonable, though admittedly rather speculative, that in our environment of evolutionary adaptedness, low-ranked members of the group couldn't get away with insulting high-ranking members publicly, so insulting others signals high-status, and it is best to ally with the high-status members, so repeat their insults to be part of the cool group. Low-cost emotive and insulting 'mentation' and behavior is thus likely to be more common and more popular.
So I would argue that many people with strong beliefs (especially popular ones) don't hold them due to reasoned reflection, and so can't defend them rationally. This leaves invective, ad hominem, and the usual suspects.
And Megan, your (mis)quote of Conan officially makes you my new favorite person in the DC area*, even if you are on the other side of the planet at the moment. Enjoy your journey.
*full disclosure: this is a rather low standard.
Megan, I believe you've just travelled halfway around the world, because you used the term "free gift" with no irony attached to it at all. (If you've read William Gibson's Pattern Recognition, the main character describes jet lag as a process where your soul trails out behind the aircraft like a long string, requiring several days before it's reeled back in and incorporated back into your body.)
Eliminating name-calling would be nice, but I think the real problem is all forms of ad hominem argument/attack. It doesn't advance the debate when you question the other person's motives or his associations. I'd kinda hope that arguments stand on their merits, rather than by whom is doing the arguing. Silly me.
To destroy your enemies, SEE THEM DRIVEN BEFORE YOU, and hear the lamentations of the women.
For shame, Megan!
But you're right, as always.
"My point, which I stand by, is that calling someone a [censored] does not, in fact, advance the debate."
Of course "closet case" advances the debate. Remember, it started with "butt bandit."
Bill Abbott said:
Most people aren't really all that interested in truth.
...rational analysis is relatively cognitively costly...
Far, far easier to pick and choose your beliefs buffet-style than to come up with a rational, consistent, and cohesive worldview.
We have very short attention spans. Everything is fragmented, with important, nuanced topics reduced to quick sound bites. No depth. Tabloid sensationalism rules.
(getting down off my soapbox....)
Apparently I remember the scene slightly better than you, as the quote is:
"To crush your enemies, to see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of their women."
Far, far easier to pick and choose your beliefs buffet-style than to come up with a rational, consistent, and cohesive worldview.
When you present me with a rational, consistent and cohesive world, I will acknowledge the superiority of a rational, consistent, and cohesive worldview. Until then I'll stick with buffet style.
One of the more vacuous characterisitcs of some libertarians is their self-congratulation on supposedly arguing everything from first principles. The generally sound like a cross between a Spartacist and Rush Limbaugh.
There are many people, Left, Right, and Center, who see themselves as possessors of a "rational, consistent, and cohesive worldview."
Sententious idiots, the lot of them.
I'm not really interested in "advancing the debate" with people who are advocates of torture, scream about how the war in Iraq is the most important struggle for our existence, and/or write for The Corner. I'm more interested in laughing at them. Is that so wrong? Can't I have my fun and point out their absurdity and make fun of their child-like ignorance without wasting my time worrying about whether i'm "advancing the debate" with people who would otherwise not be deserving of my attention?
I mean, I don't down a Nintendo DS, and I'm between televisions, so I have to make my own fun, these days.
It's your turn in the barrel, Megsy. Enjoy!
I was drawn here by Atrios, via Edroso, expecting to find the usual comity drivel right-wingnuts spew when they lose an argument.
Instead I find some sort of strange essay on gay panic, which seems to apply to no one but Mickey Kaus. I'll cautiously submit that the cry of "Faggot!" simply does not have the same bite as it did in, say, 1952.
I'll say it again: Ross Douhat's title of World's Shittiest Paid Blogger is in grave, grave danger from Mmme. McArdle.
Those darn bloggers and their anger! Why I ought to-- What's that? You say that National Review editor Jonah "I cashed my advance check so whatcha gonna do about it" Goldberg has used the Conan quote over and over and over again to describe his feelings about Democrats? Well, if a big name magazine like National Review could fall for letting someone who's obviously just an idiot blogger at heart slip in the door then what's next? Idiot Republican bloggers at the Atlantic Monthly?
...
Oh. Wait.
Never mind.
Well this has been depressing.
What Edroso said:
I think Roy Edroso has the perfect take down of this dreck of a blog post. Check it out here:
http://alicublog.blogspot.com/2007_11_11_archive.html#6123212434134475743
Since Instarube and the other heroes of Megan's side of the blogosphere have been calling me and people like me unpatriotic for five years, I call "bullspit" on this post.
because it's fun to tweak people with whom you disagree so vehemently
Well, for some of us it's just fun to tweak people whether or not you disagree with them.
If all I wanted to do was insult people, I could just spend the day riding mass transit, which offers an equally rich source of targets without the risk of carpal tunnel.
Yes, but the risk of getting punched in the mouth is noticeably higher.
As always, Megan, the lunch is naked.
Meanwhile, your guy Rush has been calling liberals traitors for years, and Malkin, Coulter, and the rest of the usual suspects have all happily joined the same chorus. If you all are forced to choke down a cup of the same poison you've so energetically forced down the throats of others -- all for a nice fat envelope on the dresser, I might add -- I, for one, couldn't be more pleased.
Salud!
Really whats a million dead Iraqis and a gutted Bill of Rights compared to bad words?
Children in need.
DONATE EDUCATIONAL MATERIALS TO CHILDREN IN IMPOVERISHED COUNTRIES
In some parts of the world, educational materials such as books, paper, pencils, rulers and erasers are scarce and expensive. Donate now to help children in need.
LIBERTY RESERVE: U9022457