Excellent! I suspect that at least sometimes the people who'd like us to stop seeing bad or extreme arguments on their side have a muddle of responses going on, some of which may be contradictory. These may include: Why are you calling attention to this argument that makes me (and my people) look bad (or ignorant)? I don't hold that argument. Or, I like that argument, but because it's not socially desirable, I can't acknowledge that I like it, perhaps even to myself. Now that you've demonstrated that it's irrational or illiberal, you're making me contend with something I'd rather not contend with, and I dislike you for that.
“ Nobody is saying that…” is an accusation that you’re making things up and acting in bad faith. But using that tactic is, in itself, bad faith.
What I’d rather hear is: yes, there are people on my side who argue that, I don’t agree, and I am with you on that point.
Even then, it can be hard to tell whether someone has genuinely thought it through and changed their mind, or if they’ve just decided the previous view is bad politics.
For example, Matthew Yglesias has moved closer to my anti-woke views on race and gender—points I’ve made in his comment section for years—but I’m not sure why. However I’m glad he has.
Or I could try to make them stop, but the space would react with hostility towards me if I said that the extremists are exaggerating, so I'll keep my mouth shut.
I dunno. I spend a lot of time calling out and poking fun at extremists in my identity group, but people still insist on moderates wearing these toxic views like an albatross
It is, honestly, so very much better not to have a "side". Having a side implies tribe, implies the mental/emotional knee-jerk reflex of agreeing uncritically, at least prima facie, with adherents of that "side" or its dog-whistles, catchphrases and slogans. This is I feel the origin of all the sins we observe.
I am in my old age a side of one, but I began to be such pretty early: it did actually begin when I was around 12 and watched a documentary on the BBC about the French Revolution, of which all the family approved of despite loyalty to our own monarchy; it appeared clear that the French monarchy had failed France, they behaved awfully with their own people and deserved the guillotine; there were also the "historical necessities", as my father liked to explain: "history" (personified) is a force that people ignore to their grief (dad was a staunch Tory and did not realise how much of a Marxist category he was employing). However, I went with it, standing on my family's "side". Until it came to the royal children. It bothered me that the children had to die and that their killing was thought to be justified. Historical necessity did not work for me as an explanation. I did not raise a stink, but that issue raised many thoughts in my 12 year old brain.
And that was, I believe, the beginning of the end of my embracing "sides". Like with regard to my family, I learned to only embrace, and consequently defend, positions that I approved of after due consideration. And so became a "side" of one. It makes for very little consistent political and social activism of any sort, although it allows for a gracious amount of volunteering. But I feel it may have prevented me from falling into a number of the fallacies you mention. Maybe more people should try it.
One last thing, dearest lady. I love nutpicking. I had never heard it before. The savvy Claude tells me that it is a neologism of political bloggers. I am clearly not online enough.
By the way, sorry for the personal anecdote, which does not mean much. Occasionally I stray on a tangent. Would like to say that it is because you make of this place a comfortable and pleasant resort for the exchange of ideas.
The argument holds throughout and the diagnosis of tribal epistemology is exactly right. The one moment that gave me pause: 'ideally say this privately if you can.' That assumes proximity — that you're inside the movement, that you have the relationship, that the person going off the rails is someone you can reach. Most people who notice bad arguments on a side they're broadly sympathetic to aren't insiders. They're observers without access to the correction mechanism you're describing. What does principled self-correction look like when the infrastructure for the private conversation doesn't exist?
It is amazing to me that this needs to be said... Seems like such a common-sense position, fundamental even. But I guess it does need to be said, over and over again. Thank you for stating it in such a clear way.
I think your “rants” aren’t as ranty as most! Maybe they’re essays that you’ve not fully developed yet. “Principled reason, objective evidence and engaged discussion” is my acronymifiable phrase for effective intelligent thinking (PROEED) wherever it happens. It defines what happens in — but has sadly often been suddenly lost in what were — effective academic, professional, mainstream media and government institutions and committees. Now the whole world wants to be in the online “room where it happens”. In that unbounded space — where only PROEED angels like Helen can dare to tread (albeit still probably attracting a select PROEED crowd like us!) — it’s no surprise that the rules of PROEED (and liberalism) have to be laboriously made and remade. It’s a public arena which enables people to behave tribally and badly with no heed to PROEED. It’s as if online people are in private or a private-ish bar (aka “pub”). In fact online they can be far worse behaved than in private where we often take great care to prioritise personal relationships by avoiding provocative topics or at least using tact and grounding hot topics as we build up into full PROEED mode. Standing ovations are therefore due to Helen and her ilk who can stand and deliver PROEED so often and so faultlessly to a potential audience of 8 billion of us!!
As a leftist, I loved this! I have always taken things very literally and have always based my opinions, beliefs, solutions etc on the most realistic, rational and logical ways possible, so to me this post was extremely correct. I think it’s completely counterproductive and contradictory when either the left or the right do any of these things because, as you said, it merely weakens your argument and your position in the political spectrum as a whole, discouraging opponents to hear anyone else on their opposing side out in any other topic, regardless of whether that person may differ from another person on the same side. One thing I will add though is, as with anything, there is some generalisation in this take. Neurodivergent individuals (speaking as one) tend to share my values of logical reasoning and critical thinking, and largely have a remarkable ability to play the Devils Advocate, thus only applying these phrases when it’s truly applicable. For instance, I have applied the phrases “that’s not the point” or “nobody is saying that” frequently but only when somebody i am talking to explicitly changes the original point of the argument or starts bringing in their own irrelevant point, same with “nobody is saying that”, I say this largely when talking about an individual or small scale issue, rather than something big, like Racism or Sexism, because I was aware that there was genuinely nobody saying that. That being said, not all neurodivergent individuals are the same, and these phrases are OVERWHELMINGLY used in the wrong ways, that you outlined. :))
Excellent! I suspect that at least sometimes the people who'd like us to stop seeing bad or extreme arguments on their side have a muddle of responses going on, some of which may be contradictory. These may include: Why are you calling attention to this argument that makes me (and my people) look bad (or ignorant)? I don't hold that argument. Or, I like that argument, but because it's not socially desirable, I can't acknowledge that I like it, perhaps even to myself. Now that you've demonstrated that it's irrational or illiberal, you're making me contend with something I'd rather not contend with, and I dislike you for that.
This is so true!
“ Nobody is saying that…” is an accusation that you’re making things up and acting in bad faith. But using that tactic is, in itself, bad faith.
What I’d rather hear is: yes, there are people on my side who argue that, I don’t agree, and I am with you on that point.
Even then, it can be hard to tell whether someone has genuinely thought it through and changed their mind, or if they’ve just decided the previous view is bad politics.
For example, Matthew Yglesias has moved closer to my anti-woke views on race and gender—points I’ve made in his comment section for years—but I’m not sure why. However I’m glad he has.
One of your best.
Nobody is saying that — someone is saying that, but they’re making me look bad and I can’t make them stop
Or I could try to make them stop, but the space would react with hostility towards me if I said that the extremists are exaggerating, so I'll keep my mouth shut.
I dunno. I spend a lot of time calling out and poking fun at extremists in my identity group, but people still insist on moderates wearing these toxic views like an albatross
This is so good. 💯
Thank you, Helen, for this timely reminder….
It is, honestly, so very much better not to have a "side". Having a side implies tribe, implies the mental/emotional knee-jerk reflex of agreeing uncritically, at least prima facie, with adherents of that "side" or its dog-whistles, catchphrases and slogans. This is I feel the origin of all the sins we observe.
I am in my old age a side of one, but I began to be such pretty early: it did actually begin when I was around 12 and watched a documentary on the BBC about the French Revolution, of which all the family approved of despite loyalty to our own monarchy; it appeared clear that the French monarchy had failed France, they behaved awfully with their own people and deserved the guillotine; there were also the "historical necessities", as my father liked to explain: "history" (personified) is a force that people ignore to their grief (dad was a staunch Tory and did not realise how much of a Marxist category he was employing). However, I went with it, standing on my family's "side". Until it came to the royal children. It bothered me that the children had to die and that their killing was thought to be justified. Historical necessity did not work for me as an explanation. I did not raise a stink, but that issue raised many thoughts in my 12 year old brain.
And that was, I believe, the beginning of the end of my embracing "sides". Like with regard to my family, I learned to only embrace, and consequently defend, positions that I approved of after due consideration. And so became a "side" of one. It makes for very little consistent political and social activism of any sort, although it allows for a gracious amount of volunteering. But I feel it may have prevented me from falling into a number of the fallacies you mention. Maybe more people should try it.
One last thing, dearest lady. I love nutpicking. I had never heard it before. The savvy Claude tells me that it is a neologism of political bloggers. I am clearly not online enough.
By the way, sorry for the personal anecdote, which does not mean much. Occasionally I stray on a tangent. Would like to say that it is because you make of this place a comfortable and pleasant resort for the exchange of ideas.
When i read your work, it deters me from trying to write my own thinking. You’ve nearly always already covered it! Big ups.
Nooooo! Do it! Doooo iiittttt!
The argument holds throughout and the diagnosis of tribal epistemology is exactly right. The one moment that gave me pause: 'ideally say this privately if you can.' That assumes proximity — that you're inside the movement, that you have the relationship, that the person going off the rails is someone you can reach. Most people who notice bad arguments on a side they're broadly sympathetic to aren't insiders. They're observers without access to the correction mechanism you're describing. What does principled self-correction look like when the infrastructure for the private conversation doesn't exist?
Public conversation. We can all speak to our friends and online acquaintances privately and we can all address any argument publicly.
Fair point.
So, what you’re saying is….
I hate to be accused of nitpicking, but nobody is saying nutpicking
It is amazing to me that this needs to be said... Seems like such a common-sense position, fundamental even. But I guess it does need to be said, over and over again. Thank you for stating it in such a clear way.
I think your “rants” aren’t as ranty as most! Maybe they’re essays that you’ve not fully developed yet. “Principled reason, objective evidence and engaged discussion” is my acronymifiable phrase for effective intelligent thinking (PROEED) wherever it happens. It defines what happens in — but has sadly often been suddenly lost in what were — effective academic, professional, mainstream media and government institutions and committees. Now the whole world wants to be in the online “room where it happens”. In that unbounded space — where only PROEED angels like Helen can dare to tread (albeit still probably attracting a select PROEED crowd like us!) — it’s no surprise that the rules of PROEED (and liberalism) have to be laboriously made and remade. It’s a public arena which enables people to behave tribally and badly with no heed to PROEED. It’s as if online people are in private or a private-ish bar (aka “pub”). In fact online they can be far worse behaved than in private where we often take great care to prioritise personal relationships by avoiding provocative topics or at least using tact and grounding hot topics as we build up into full PROEED mode. Standing ovations are therefore due to Helen and her ilk who can stand and deliver PROEED so often and so faultlessly to a potential audience of 8 billion of us!!
Yes, Yes, Yes - not a scene from when Harry met Sally, but enthusiastic agreement! Write a book on this.
As a leftist, I loved this! I have always taken things very literally and have always based my opinions, beliefs, solutions etc on the most realistic, rational and logical ways possible, so to me this post was extremely correct. I think it’s completely counterproductive and contradictory when either the left or the right do any of these things because, as you said, it merely weakens your argument and your position in the political spectrum as a whole, discouraging opponents to hear anyone else on their opposing side out in any other topic, regardless of whether that person may differ from another person on the same side. One thing I will add though is, as with anything, there is some generalisation in this take. Neurodivergent individuals (speaking as one) tend to share my values of logical reasoning and critical thinking, and largely have a remarkable ability to play the Devils Advocate, thus only applying these phrases when it’s truly applicable. For instance, I have applied the phrases “that’s not the point” or “nobody is saying that” frequently but only when somebody i am talking to explicitly changes the original point of the argument or starts bringing in their own irrelevant point, same with “nobody is saying that”, I say this largely when talking about an individual or small scale issue, rather than something big, like Racism or Sexism, because I was aware that there was genuinely nobody saying that. That being said, not all neurodivergent individuals are the same, and these phrases are OVERWHELMINGLY used in the wrong ways, that you outlined. :))