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.
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?
This is so true!
One of your best.
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 — someone is saying that, but they’re making me look bad and I can’t make them stop
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.
Nobody is saying that”
does