Regarding your Dipshit law, there’s a law called Fred Clark’s Law which states, “Sufficiently advanced ignorance is indistinguishable from malice.” Basically there comes a point where the only way someone can remain that ignorant is through active deliberate effort, the kind of effort that can only be born of malice.
Wow. This is something I've been trying to come to terms with when so many people I know act in this exact "centrist" way (where they determine where the center should be and it is always around what they determine is reasonable). My main difficulty is that knowing these people for a very long time, I know for a fact that many of them are profoundly ignorant about the issues they talk about, and I'm still trying to figure out a way to point out that ignorance in a way that doesn't entrench them more in misinformation. What is clear from your argument though is that once you provide someone with clear evidence, they can either choose to reject that evidence and now you know their intent is malicious (even if they claim good intent), or they can change their mind.
This reminds me of Ian Danskin’s Alt Right Playbook series he did on YouTube a while back. It was the inspiration for me largely ending correcting right wingers online and instead moving to this “you are either ignorant or malicious and either way, not worth arguing with” position. It’s 100% true. So many of the trolls are conditioned/trained to respond to us acting like this is the West Wing and set themselves up to look like they are “winning” against our long explanations of facts and data. Only way out is to not play - and it makes them so angry. I’m sure it’s because of what you say, to do so is to not place them in the power position and to deny them their reality-setting supremacy.
I’m working on my Ph.D. in philosophy, but as a 60 year old, so I have the benefit of perspective. I’ve been boiling down things to their fundamentals, so I can use them as building blocks to make better arguments. I dismantled bad faith arguments and offer the following thoughts.
An argument is in bad faith if the Arguer A does not care about the truth of A’s premises. An argument is malicious if A knows a premise is false and makes the argument anyway.
Arguments are made in bad faith when the Arguer A is trying to come up with reasons to avoid the obligation to help those A does not care about. For example, A will argue it is an infringement on their liberty to tax them at all, when A just does not want their tax dollars to pay for the education of the poor, or the healthcare of the disabled. A wants to control where A’s money gets spent and so makes a bad faith argument that it is wrong to tax people in the first place. The reasons given are designed to mislead, or are mere opinion.
People can lie about their reasons. They can say “I don’t have to care about Y because reasons” but those reasons can be false. When reasons are false, the argument is made in bad faith.
All the arguments made about why you should fear or hate any identity group (gay, black, poor, disabled, etc.) are made in bad faith, without regard for the truth of the premises. The people making the argument, that you should fear this group, do so to control, oppress, demean, etc. that group, in order to gain and keep power to control reality. The people with the real power to create reality do not actually fear or hate particular identity groups. They just want others to do so, because it allows them to create a reality in which some groups manage to oppress other groups, and this is all to the advantage of the power mongers.
Arguments that you should fear/hate any identity group are made in bad faith. They argue this to control/oppress a group, in order to gain and keep power so they can create a reality in which they have power.
Okay, so I wrote: “All the arguments made about why you should fear or hate any identity group (gay, black, poor, disabled, etc.) are made in bad faith, without regard for the truth of the premises.”
The argument would be something like:
You should fear group Y because they will take your job, kill your pets, or whatever.
It is in bad faith because the reasons/premises are untrue.
So your critique is about my phrasing that ALL such arguments are in bad faith. I concede I could have been more careful in my wording.
If I made an argument that we should hate/fear Nazis, it would not be in bad faith because the reasons/premises are true. This doesn’t contradict my original argument, but it could be clearer.
That being said, I shall rephrase my own argument as follows:
If we make an argument that an identity group should be hated, it will be in bad faith if the premises are false.
Recently, there's a flurry of the "intolerant Left" argument - I think it's dying down - but nuance was never the conservative forte and the centrists rarely like to draw blood at all. That's the only problem I see with your position (the argument is sound imo), the centrists loath being confronted on their own illogic or value (eg free speech, free press) even as it defends the indefensible.
I'm working on an argument that "conservatives" tend toward authoritarianism and so are morally poorer than "liberals", but I need to finish my dissertation before I can get distracted!
The opening line of my introduction is:
This dissertation answers the question, “why should I care about all the people” by making arguments based on equality, and refuting arguments based on individual liberty.
Grateful for your adept skill of capturing the jumbled dystopian thoughts in our collective brains then writing it so clearly and with a keen sense of humor to wash it down. Keep skewering the centrists and hypocrites and apologists.
"Good faith in debate requires a positive assumption of awareness, intention, and sincerity on the part of another, yet some arguments are so untethered to reality that to assume good faith in the matter of intention means assuming profound ignorance, but to assume awareness means assuming insincerity and bad intent...
What’s wanted here isn’t a civil discourse or an exchange of ideas.
What’s wanted is to agree that reality is not what it actually is, but what the person you’re dealing with says it is, which means you agree that they are the ones who get to set the terms of reality for everyone else."
Can't a person, an especially vile and especially deranged person, not partake both of detachment from empirical reality and malign purposes?
As I observed elsewhere, just because someone is a lying dirtbag doesn't mean they aren't also a true disciple of fascism, with all that entails. Actually, what it entails, when one is a true disciple of fascism, is both malign purposes, and empirical detachment from reality.
Let's consider a recent example.
Suppose a former history teacher at a small private Christian school moves on to become governor, and appoints some no kidding fascists to draft preferred renditions of American history for the textbooks of secondary students across the state. These preferred renditions of American history want impressionable young minds informed that Africans held in bondage were better off in specific ways from being held in bondage.
Is there sincerity in this effort? I say yes, because the former history teacher and the no kidding fascists he pals around with really believe that people of African decent should be grateful for the blessings conferred on them by the magnanimous slave owners. Because to fascists, people of African descent are incapable of functioning independently in the world, can only become civilized through the machinations of the slave owners.
The bad faith is woven in, however, because the no kidding fascists are aware that full-throated embrace of fascism, including the wearing of matching brown shirts and proud display of the Sonnenrad is not yet completely ready for prime time, general public display. Oh, you can knowingly display the Sonnenrad, but then fire the straight-up Nazi who crafted the message that the former history teacher approved, only to act like it was an 'Oopsie!' moment.
Like Ann Coulter flashing a coy sieg heil on national television, or CPAC going with the Othala rune design for its main stage, we're told that it's us triggered libs who are simply seeing things, because who would indulge in Nazi posturing so brazenly?
Gaslighting is always bad faith, but also currency of a person who just knows whatever they say and do is right.
"in the centrist’s Dipshit Paradox, they ask us to ignore the harm"
Exactly.
Some thoughts in word form of mine from a bit over seven years ago-
"Think respectful dialogue works with conservatives, and will bring Trump voters around? Think again."(March 21, 2017)
"We are told by wise elders and pundits of the left and right that a lack of civility has overtaken politics in this country, and that it is an affliction that has infected the entire political spectrum— progressives no less than conservatives...
But what if the ‘civility has broken down across the political spectrum’ trope wasn’t actually true?
What if the ‘both sides do it’ trope is a false equivalency, much as the much discussed ‘crisis of polarization’ turns out to be ‘not a thing’, as my kids might say, but simply a narrative that distorts the reality— the right wing has become increasingly extreme, but not the left...
It turns out, when someone does careful research on political messaging, we find that there is not a even distribution of incivility between the political right and left — conservatives aren’t merely the more polarized and rigid in their attitudes, they actually prefer to hear speakers who show disrespect...
How do we know it’s conservatives that prefer displays of disrespect? The appeal of disrespect towards perceived opponents lies in its connotation of strength, and it’s a feature of the authoritarian personality, which is a particular attribute of conservatives...
I’ve argued repeatedly in diaries that Trump’s campaign was explicitly fascist in nature, and Trump voters (90% reliable GOP voters) are proto-fascists, receptive to the message of a fascists, and ready to be recruited (as the election demonstrated). Richard Seymour makes it clear why discourse fails with fascists and proto-fascists:
//The problem is, in part, that operating liberal political theories about 'speech' -- the theories that, whether we 'believe' them are not, tend to be the ones that predominantly guide people's actions and responses -- are centuries behind the state of knowledge about how language works. It is still assumed that language is basically a neutral conduit, transferring meaning from one to the other, rather than something which is done to you. Meaning itself is treated as something contained in the language, which we may decide to unpack and digest, rather than as a form of intending, something which acts on us, by means of the very materiality of language and what it activates in us. If language does things to us, if we find that disagreeing is somehow just not adequate as a response, if it makes us want to throw a punch, or a brick, it must be because we're triggered snowflakes who can't deal with the argument.//
//The advantage that fascists have on this terrain is that they do not behave as though they are having a conversation. They are aware that they are throwing verbal bricks, and that in good time, in circumstances of their choosing, they'll throw literal bricks or bullets. In the meantime, they are taking advantage of the protocols of mainstream media communication to amplify their voice without in any serious way engaging with their opponents.//
Letting a conservative talk at you will not make them feel heard, and so make them more receptive to hearing progressive messages. They are not trying to convince us, they are trying to beat us to the ground.
If we assume they share a good faith interest in making the country better for everyone, we will be rewarded only with disdain, and the progressive accomplishments of the past century (imperfect and incomplete as they are), will be lost."
The same thing is happening in the abortion debate these days. I'm supposed to seriously ponder the opinion of people who want to shitcan other people's bodily autonomy, usually because their religion says abortion is murder. Fuck that. I've been an abortion rights activist for more than 35 years and my goal these days is to make womb sniffers' lives miserable scream in their faces on the sidewalk at clinics where they come to pester patients; find their churches and picket them on Sundays. If they don't like being treated the way they treat patients they can fuck off and die. They're always telling me I'm angry. Well fuck yeah. I was angry about this issue in 1985 and I'm angry now.
Regarding your Dipshit law, there’s a law called Fred Clark’s Law which states, “Sufficiently advanced ignorance is indistinguishable from malice.” Basically there comes a point where the only way someone can remain that ignorant is through active deliberate effort, the kind of effort that can only be born of malice.
Wow. This is something I've been trying to come to terms with when so many people I know act in this exact "centrist" way (where they determine where the center should be and it is always around what they determine is reasonable). My main difficulty is that knowing these people for a very long time, I know for a fact that many of them are profoundly ignorant about the issues they talk about, and I'm still trying to figure out a way to point out that ignorance in a way that doesn't entrench them more in misinformation. What is clear from your argument though is that once you provide someone with clear evidence, they can either choose to reject that evidence and now you know their intent is malicious (even if they claim good intent), or they can change their mind.
https://www.danquixote.co.uk/post/what-the-fuck-is-an-overton-window
This reminds me of Ian Danskin’s Alt Right Playbook series he did on YouTube a while back. It was the inspiration for me largely ending correcting right wingers online and instead moving to this “you are either ignorant or malicious and either way, not worth arguing with” position. It’s 100% true. So many of the trolls are conditioned/trained to respond to us acting like this is the West Wing and set themselves up to look like they are “winning” against our long explanations of facts and data. Only way out is to not play - and it makes them so angry. I’m sure it’s because of what you say, to do so is to not place them in the power position and to deny them their reality-setting supremacy.
I’m working on my Ph.D. in philosophy, but as a 60 year old, so I have the benefit of perspective. I’ve been boiling down things to their fundamentals, so I can use them as building blocks to make better arguments. I dismantled bad faith arguments and offer the following thoughts.
An argument is in bad faith if the Arguer A does not care about the truth of A’s premises. An argument is malicious if A knows a premise is false and makes the argument anyway.
Arguments are made in bad faith when the Arguer A is trying to come up with reasons to avoid the obligation to help those A does not care about. For example, A will argue it is an infringement on their liberty to tax them at all, when A just does not want their tax dollars to pay for the education of the poor, or the healthcare of the disabled. A wants to control where A’s money gets spent and so makes a bad faith argument that it is wrong to tax people in the first place. The reasons given are designed to mislead, or are mere opinion.
People can lie about their reasons. They can say “I don’t have to care about Y because reasons” but those reasons can be false. When reasons are false, the argument is made in bad faith.
All the arguments made about why you should fear or hate any identity group (gay, black, poor, disabled, etc.) are made in bad faith, without regard for the truth of the premises. The people making the argument, that you should fear this group, do so to control, oppress, demean, etc. that group, in order to gain and keep power to control reality. The people with the real power to create reality do not actually fear or hate particular identity groups. They just want others to do so, because it allows them to create a reality in which some groups manage to oppress other groups, and this is all to the advantage of the power mongers.
Arguments that you should fear/hate any identity group are made in bad faith. They argue this to control/oppress a group, in order to gain and keep power so they can create a reality in which they have power.
Serious here. Will that argument fall apart if the identity group is Nazi/supremacists?
Okay, so I wrote: “All the arguments made about why you should fear or hate any identity group (gay, black, poor, disabled, etc.) are made in bad faith, without regard for the truth of the premises.”
The argument would be something like:
You should fear group Y because they will take your job, kill your pets, or whatever.
It is in bad faith because the reasons/premises are untrue.
So your critique is about my phrasing that ALL such arguments are in bad faith. I concede I could have been more careful in my wording.
If I made an argument that we should hate/fear Nazis, it would not be in bad faith because the reasons/premises are true. This doesn’t contradict my original argument, but it could be clearer.
That being said, I shall rephrase my own argument as follows:
If we make an argument that an identity group should be hated, it will be in bad faith if the premises are false.
Not trying to castigate, just trying to be clear with the arguments because that is something they pounce on.
(◕ᴗ◕✿)
Understood. No worries. It is my self imposed job to make solid arguments and I have to be able to defend them, so it's good to get critiques.
Recently, there's a flurry of the "intolerant Left" argument - I think it's dying down - but nuance was never the conservative forte and the centrists rarely like to draw blood at all. That's the only problem I see with your position (the argument is sound imo), the centrists loath being confronted on their own illogic or value (eg free speech, free press) even as it defends the indefensible.
I'm working on an argument that "conservatives" tend toward authoritarianism and so are morally poorer than "liberals", but I need to finish my dissertation before I can get distracted!
The opening line of my introduction is:
This dissertation answers the question, “why should I care about all the people” by making arguments based on equality, and refuting arguments based on individual liberty.
Grateful for your adept skill of capturing the jumbled dystopian thoughts in our collective brains then writing it so clearly and with a keen sense of humor to wash it down. Keep skewering the centrists and hypocrites and apologists.
"Good faith in debate requires a positive assumption of awareness, intention, and sincerity on the part of another, yet some arguments are so untethered to reality that to assume good faith in the matter of intention means assuming profound ignorance, but to assume awareness means assuming insincerity and bad intent...
What’s wanted here isn’t a civil discourse or an exchange of ideas.
What’s wanted is to agree that reality is not what it actually is, but what the person you’re dealing with says it is, which means you agree that they are the ones who get to set the terms of reality for everyone else."
Can't a person, an especially vile and especially deranged person, not partake both of detachment from empirical reality and malign purposes?
As I observed elsewhere, just because someone is a lying dirtbag doesn't mean they aren't also a true disciple of fascism, with all that entails. Actually, what it entails, when one is a true disciple of fascism, is both malign purposes, and empirical detachment from reality.
Let's consider a recent example.
Suppose a former history teacher at a small private Christian school moves on to become governor, and appoints some no kidding fascists to draft preferred renditions of American history for the textbooks of secondary students across the state. These preferred renditions of American history want impressionable young minds informed that Africans held in bondage were better off in specific ways from being held in bondage.
Is there sincerity in this effort? I say yes, because the former history teacher and the no kidding fascists he pals around with really believe that people of African decent should be grateful for the blessings conferred on them by the magnanimous slave owners. Because to fascists, people of African descent are incapable of functioning independently in the world, can only become civilized through the machinations of the slave owners.
The bad faith is woven in, however, because the no kidding fascists are aware that full-throated embrace of fascism, including the wearing of matching brown shirts and proud display of the Sonnenrad is not yet completely ready for prime time, general public display. Oh, you can knowingly display the Sonnenrad, but then fire the straight-up Nazi who crafted the message that the former history teacher approved, only to act like it was an 'Oopsie!' moment.
Like Ann Coulter flashing a coy sieg heil on national television, or CPAC going with the Othala rune design for its main stage, we're told that it's us triggered libs who are simply seeing things, because who would indulge in Nazi posturing so brazenly?
Gaslighting is always bad faith, but also currency of a person who just knows whatever they say and do is right.
"in the centrist’s Dipshit Paradox, they ask us to ignore the harm"
Exactly.
Some thoughts in word form of mine from a bit over seven years ago-
"Think respectful dialogue works with conservatives, and will bring Trump voters around? Think again."(March 21, 2017)
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2017/3/21/1645715/-Think-respectful-dialogue-works-with-conservatives-and-will-bring-Trump-voters-around-Think-again
"We are told by wise elders and pundits of the left and right that a lack of civility has overtaken politics in this country, and that it is an affliction that has infected the entire political spectrum— progressives no less than conservatives...
But what if the ‘civility has broken down across the political spectrum’ trope wasn’t actually true?
What if the ‘both sides do it’ trope is a false equivalency, much as the much discussed ‘crisis of polarization’ turns out to be ‘not a thing’, as my kids might say, but simply a narrative that distorts the reality— the right wing has become increasingly extreme, but not the left...
It turns out, when someone does careful research on political messaging, we find that there is not a even distribution of incivility between the political right and left — conservatives aren’t merely the more polarized and rigid in their attitudes, they actually prefer to hear speakers who show disrespect...
How do we know it’s conservatives that prefer displays of disrespect? The appeal of disrespect towards perceived opponents lies in its connotation of strength, and it’s a feature of the authoritarian personality, which is a particular attribute of conservatives...
I’ve argued repeatedly in diaries that Trump’s campaign was explicitly fascist in nature, and Trump voters (90% reliable GOP voters) are proto-fascists, receptive to the message of a fascists, and ready to be recruited (as the election demonstrated). Richard Seymour makes it clear why discourse fails with fascists and proto-fascists:
//The problem is, in part, that operating liberal political theories about 'speech' -- the theories that, whether we 'believe' them are not, tend to be the ones that predominantly guide people's actions and responses -- are centuries behind the state of knowledge about how language works. It is still assumed that language is basically a neutral conduit, transferring meaning from one to the other, rather than something which is done to you. Meaning itself is treated as something contained in the language, which we may decide to unpack and digest, rather than as a form of intending, something which acts on us, by means of the very materiality of language and what it activates in us. If language does things to us, if we find that disagreeing is somehow just not adequate as a response, if it makes us want to throw a punch, or a brick, it must be because we're triggered snowflakes who can't deal with the argument.//
//The advantage that fascists have on this terrain is that they do not behave as though they are having a conversation. They are aware that they are throwing verbal bricks, and that in good time, in circumstances of their choosing, they'll throw literal bricks or bullets. In the meantime, they are taking advantage of the protocols of mainstream media communication to amplify their voice without in any serious way engaging with their opponents.//
Letting a conservative talk at you will not make them feel heard, and so make them more receptive to hearing progressive messages. They are not trying to convince us, they are trying to beat us to the ground.
If we assume they share a good faith interest in making the country better for everyone, we will be rewarded only with disdain, and the progressive accomplishments of the past century (imperfect and incomplete as they are), will be lost."
You're a veritable ray of sunshine. The life of any party, no doubt.
I'll take your literary recommendations under advisement, the same advisement under which I'll take every word you took the time to type.
The same thing is happening in the abortion debate these days. I'm supposed to seriously ponder the opinion of people who want to shitcan other people's bodily autonomy, usually because their religion says abortion is murder. Fuck that. I've been an abortion rights activist for more than 35 years and my goal these days is to make womb sniffers' lives miserable scream in their faces on the sidewalk at clinics where they come to pester patients; find their churches and picket them on Sundays. If they don't like being treated the way they treat patients they can fuck off and die. They're always telling me I'm angry. Well fuck yeah. I was angry about this issue in 1985 and I'm angry now.
Mom got you locked in the basement again?
Exactly the point of the argument presented herein.