Debate at its center does not find answers; and it never has. All it ever does is become a squabble over who controls the framework.
I never debate a fascist with the framework they want to have. I drive the argument to their personal self-interest; and how their leaders are deceiving them. They hate that.
Love the article, many good points. For those getting dragged along unwittingly, I would suggest not touching issues of race, immigration, antisemitism, etc. at all. I would suggest bridging the gap by making people aware the supremacists, the billionaires and their political foot soldiers are the ones making them poor and struggling. Cite some wealth statistics, teach them who the real enemy is in a way that speaks to their personal struggle. Don't worry about lifting their understanding any higher. They just need to be converted enough to understand who the enemy is so they work with us, not against us.
Really enjoy the idea of "witness" and "inform" as tactics. But... I currently can't trust humanity much, that "showing them the bigotry" will be enough. 2020 broke me. Or maybe just shown me a broken humanity. I mean, people can be really dumb (or make themselves dumb, as you pointed out greatly), or can really choose for the fascist path, just because.
The solution for that is as simple as it is scary: Find new people. It feels unintuitive because when people say "people", it's usually closer to friends, loved ones, or harassers at best.
Thank you so much for making explicit and clear some things that I suppose are stewing in my mind when I say, all too often: “ Either they’re stupid or malicious, but it doesn’t matter which, in the end, if fascism/racism/oppression is achieved”. Whichever place they’re standing, facts and provable reality is where I want them to get to, so why not normalize and platform that? Normalize calling out BS and fascist impulses. Normalize talking to people about the danger of dehumanizing and othering people. Normalize, and be louder about, witnessing.
I've been thinking along these lines for a while. Have you considered (or already done) a piece on abstractions? This is the main problem I run into with friends who are on the border of the willful ignorance phase. They abstract things to the plane of economics and claim that they actually have read a lot and studies show that bad things are good actually. On the one hand it has led me to learn economics to be able to understand and realize they don't k ow what they're talking about, but on the other hand it's a little harder to recognize the willful ignorance at first when someone seems to be citing research and information.
"claim that they actually have read a lot and studies show that bad things are good actually."
Counter-intuitive arguments have an appeal, especially to people who may be feeling insecure and want to prove to everyone else how "smart" they are: "Oh, sure, you laymen think raising the minimum wage *helps* workers, but I, with my superior intellect, can see that the opposite is true!"
And if a particular discipline (like, say, Economics) is feeling insecure, pushing counter-intuitive arguments (or even nonsensical arguments) can be seen as a way of gaining intellectual prestige. Much of the prestige that physics enjoys is due to "crazy" results that are nevertheless true. Things like "spooky action at a distance" or time dilation aren't things anyone would imagine to be true, without understanding the physics. We really NEED the physicists, because our common-sense goes so far wrong on many of the things they study. Do we really need the economists? Not if economics produces results that align with common sense, so you can see the need for economists to produce arguments 180 degrees away from common sense.
As physics undergrad, this really resonated with me. Not to be self-promotional, but I actually wrote something recently about the difficulty with simplifying assumptions in physics vs economics (mainly focused on economics where I think there are far too many spherical cows). https://bathruminations.substack.com/p/modes-of-antitrust-thought
Not that you likely need my help, even if I had the time to provide it, but may I politely suggest that a proofreader/editor might make it easier for your readers to absorb clearly your intent?
When I reread a paragraph 2 or 3 times to mentally proof it to make sure I understood the point, I wonder how many readers may gloss over it and move on or possibly drift off altogether because it already was a fair task keeping up in the first place.
To be fair, you are getting better at it, but in my writing, which is mostly technical, I have learned that while proofreading almost never fixes everything, it’s helpful to assume that those who really are paying attention will appreciate the extra effort.
I especially related to this installment as one who often uses “when you’re ready to talk about reality, I’m more than happy to have that discussion with you” to end a futile exchange.
Also, count me among those who wish to be notified by email of a potential platform change.
Thanks for the interest, Steven. The idea that a proofreader can improve the clarity of my writing has occurred to me. As soon as I am reasonably sure I can afford to employ one, I will.
This was SO VERY HELPFUL, and I think in some sense I have managed to "get there" emotionally with several people in my life, without the clarity provided with the conscious decision tree you illustrated. Giving up that struggle against their ever deepening embrace of an alternative reality has let me reclaim a lot of space and energy I kept giving to people who won't ever gain anything useful by my doing it.
When providing information doesn't ever move the viewfinder for them, then you have to admit they are invested in the view they've already got, whether out of willful ignorance or malignant misplaced supremacy.
Someone ought to make this series of posts a class/seminar/pamphlet/animated TedTalk called, "How to fight Nazis without getting your hands dirty."
I'm an abortion rights activist and one of the most vociferous abortion opponents I go up against is a Christian zealot who likes to challenge his ideological opponents to debate him. You can't debate a madman, though. 😀
"For some people the struggle to exist takes everything they’ve got. The cost of staying aware is high, and reality can be painful, so awareness can take serious effort, and can even be a privilege."
Honestly, I can find myself getting so angry that so many people can't seem to be bothered about finding out what's happening in the world, but when that happens, I try to fall back on my training as a teacher: If a given student isn't getting the mathematical concepts I'm trying to put across, it's not that they're stupid, and it might be that they got kicked out of the house by their parents and are now living in a car.
I, for one, really appreciate the visual aids. It's easy to lose track when you're dealing with "claims fascism isn't happening but actually knows it is" and "claims not to understand when they really understand too well."
One thing I'll say for my lefty politics is that I don't have to waste a second pretending to believe stuff I don't actually believe, or pretending not to know stuff I actually know. Takes a lot of the load off my mind.
ikr, Steve? When I think about all the logical pretzels I'd have to tie myself into in order to hold all these various conflicting beliefs on the right, it just seems remarkably exhausting. But then I guess the key is that all of it is transitory and whatever they need/want "the truth" to be in the present moment or discussion suddenly becomes the new true thing, and everything else falls by the wayside.
"I'll say or do anything for power over others" is certainly a consistent political/social motivation... but not so much when it comes to pretending you have any consistent foundational values or ideals beyond that.
If you don't stand for anything except political expedience, I'm not sure why anyone who keeps falling under the bus of Trump's former loyalty seems so surprised with how things turned out.
This is also the very reason the people who own this platform should kick the Nazis/fascists off it--because they are helping to normalize it. (And I believe I saw somewhere--maybe on Bluesky--where you said you are going to be moving the Reframe elsewhere? I realize that is a major decision and there are considerable logistics involved, but just know that wherever you go, I will follow you.)
Thanks much! Yes, I am reasonably confident that in the coming weeks I'll be moving, and these posts serve as an explanation of sorts as to why. Recent revelations about the letter in opposition to SAN were sort of the last straw.
I know a guy named David Dark here in my beloved city of music who defines sin in a way that I am fond of. He says, “Sin is active flight from a lived realization of available data.” I see so many parallels between that and what you’ve expounded upon here in exquisite detail. The willful part is especially painful to deal with in one’s own family. I thank you for offering a very reasonable response - a beautiful, useful gardening tool - to cultivate what I want to see grow in each of us. Recognition and acceptance of reality.
LOL, I read the article in my email and then came here to see if you had fixed that error. Kudos for doing so. You also need to double-check your principles/principals.
Debate at its center does not find answers; and it never has. All it ever does is become a squabble over who controls the framework.
I never debate a fascist with the framework they want to have. I drive the argument to their personal self-interest; and how their leaders are deceiving them. They hate that.
Love the article, many good points. For those getting dragged along unwittingly, I would suggest not touching issues of race, immigration, antisemitism, etc. at all. I would suggest bridging the gap by making people aware the supremacists, the billionaires and their political foot soldiers are the ones making them poor and struggling. Cite some wealth statistics, teach them who the real enemy is in a way that speaks to their personal struggle. Don't worry about lifting their understanding any higher. They just need to be converted enough to understand who the enemy is so they work with us, not against us.
Really enjoy the idea of "witness" and "inform" as tactics. But... I currently can't trust humanity much, that "showing them the bigotry" will be enough. 2020 broke me. Or maybe just shown me a broken humanity. I mean, people can be really dumb (or make themselves dumb, as you pointed out greatly), or can really choose for the fascist path, just because.
The solution for that is as simple as it is scary: Find new people. It feels unintuitive because when people say "people", it's usually closer to friends, loved ones, or harassers at best.
Ms. Stefanik is a member of the House, not the Senate.
Assuming you have my email and that you might entertain some free assistance, feel free to reach out.
I write against fascism and white supremacy. I like the idea of thinking of it as "witnessing." Thanks.
Thank you so much for making explicit and clear some things that I suppose are stewing in my mind when I say, all too often: “ Either they’re stupid or malicious, but it doesn’t matter which, in the end, if fascism/racism/oppression is achieved”. Whichever place they’re standing, facts and provable reality is where I want them to get to, so why not normalize and platform that? Normalize calling out BS and fascist impulses. Normalize talking to people about the danger of dehumanizing and othering people. Normalize, and be louder about, witnessing.
I've been thinking along these lines for a while. Have you considered (or already done) a piece on abstractions? This is the main problem I run into with friends who are on the border of the willful ignorance phase. They abstract things to the plane of economics and claim that they actually have read a lot and studies show that bad things are good actually. On the one hand it has led me to learn economics to be able to understand and realize they don't k ow what they're talking about, but on the other hand it's a little harder to recognize the willful ignorance at first when someone seems to be citing research and information.
"claim that they actually have read a lot and studies show that bad things are good actually."
Counter-intuitive arguments have an appeal, especially to people who may be feeling insecure and want to prove to everyone else how "smart" they are: "Oh, sure, you laymen think raising the minimum wage *helps* workers, but I, with my superior intellect, can see that the opposite is true!"
And if a particular discipline (like, say, Economics) is feeling insecure, pushing counter-intuitive arguments (or even nonsensical arguments) can be seen as a way of gaining intellectual prestige. Much of the prestige that physics enjoys is due to "crazy" results that are nevertheless true. Things like "spooky action at a distance" or time dilation aren't things anyone would imagine to be true, without understanding the physics. We really NEED the physicists, because our common-sense goes so far wrong on many of the things they study. Do we really need the economists? Not if economics produces results that align with common sense, so you can see the need for economists to produce arguments 180 degrees away from common sense.
As physics undergrad, this really resonated with me. Not to be self-promotional, but I actually wrote something recently about the difficulty with simplifying assumptions in physics vs economics (mainly focused on economics where I think there are far too many spherical cows). https://bathruminations.substack.com/p/modes-of-antitrust-thought
Not that you likely need my help, even if I had the time to provide it, but may I politely suggest that a proofreader/editor might make it easier for your readers to absorb clearly your intent?
When I reread a paragraph 2 or 3 times to mentally proof it to make sure I understood the point, I wonder how many readers may gloss over it and move on or possibly drift off altogether because it already was a fair task keeping up in the first place.
To be fair, you are getting better at it, but in my writing, which is mostly technical, I have learned that while proofreading almost never fixes everything, it’s helpful to assume that those who really are paying attention will appreciate the extra effort.
I especially related to this installment as one who often uses “when you’re ready to talk about reality, I’m more than happy to have that discussion with you” to end a futile exchange.
Also, count me among those who wish to be notified by email of a potential platform change.
Thanks for the interest, Steven. The idea that a proofreader can improve the clarity of my writing has occurred to me. As soon as I am reasonably sure I can afford to employ one, I will.
Ask for volunteers. Many of us appreciate what you are doing and you could probably find a few (maybe retired writers/journalists) willing to help.
This was SO VERY HELPFUL, and I think in some sense I have managed to "get there" emotionally with several people in my life, without the clarity provided with the conscious decision tree you illustrated. Giving up that struggle against their ever deepening embrace of an alternative reality has let me reclaim a lot of space and energy I kept giving to people who won't ever gain anything useful by my doing it.
When providing information doesn't ever move the viewfinder for them, then you have to admit they are invested in the view they've already got, whether out of willful ignorance or malignant misplaced supremacy.
Someone ought to make this series of posts a class/seminar/pamphlet/animated TedTalk called, "How to fight Nazis without getting your hands dirty."
I'm an abortion rights activist and one of the most vociferous abortion opponents I go up against is a Christian zealot who likes to challenge his ideological opponents to debate him. You can't debate a madman, though. 😀
Also, thanks for this:
"For some people the struggle to exist takes everything they’ve got. The cost of staying aware is high, and reality can be painful, so awareness can take serious effort, and can even be a privilege."
Honestly, I can find myself getting so angry that so many people can't seem to be bothered about finding out what's happening in the world, but when that happens, I try to fall back on my training as a teacher: If a given student isn't getting the mathematical concepts I'm trying to put across, it's not that they're stupid, and it might be that they got kicked out of the house by their parents and are now living in a car.
I, for one, really appreciate the visual aids. It's easy to lose track when you're dealing with "claims fascism isn't happening but actually knows it is" and "claims not to understand when they really understand too well."
One thing I'll say for my lefty politics is that I don't have to waste a second pretending to believe stuff I don't actually believe, or pretending not to know stuff I actually know. Takes a lot of the load off my mind.
ikr, Steve? When I think about all the logical pretzels I'd have to tie myself into in order to hold all these various conflicting beliefs on the right, it just seems remarkably exhausting. But then I guess the key is that all of it is transitory and whatever they need/want "the truth" to be in the present moment or discussion suddenly becomes the new true thing, and everything else falls by the wayside.
"I'll say or do anything for power over others" is certainly a consistent political/social motivation... but not so much when it comes to pretending you have any consistent foundational values or ideals beyond that.
If you don't stand for anything except political expedience, I'm not sure why anyone who keeps falling under the bus of Trump's former loyalty seems so surprised with how things turned out.
Once again, a home run.
This is also the very reason the people who own this platform should kick the Nazis/fascists off it--because they are helping to normalize it. (And I believe I saw somewhere--maybe on Bluesky--where you said you are going to be moving the Reframe elsewhere? I realize that is a major decision and there are considerable logistics involved, but just know that wherever you go, I will follow you.)
Thanks much! Yes, I am reasonably confident that in the coming weeks I'll be moving, and these posts serve as an explanation of sorts as to why. Recent revelations about the letter in opposition to SAN were sort of the last straw.
Same here about the move, as long as whatever platform you go to can send me an email when you post something, you won't be able to lose me.
Thanks!
I know a guy named David Dark here in my beloved city of music who defines sin in a way that I am fond of. He says, “Sin is active flight from a lived realization of available data.” I see so many parallels between that and what you’ve expounded upon here in exquisite detail. The willful part is especially painful to deal with in one’s own family. I thank you for offering a very reasonable response - a beautiful, useful gardening tool - to cultivate what I want to see grow in each of us. Recognition and acceptance of reality.
Representative, not Senator.
Those responsible for the error have been sacked.
LOL, I read the article in my email and then came here to see if you had fixed that error. Kudos for doing so. You also need to double-check your principles/principals.
A marvelously-written piece, though.
So hard to get good help these days. Thanks a lot, Biden!