A few days ago we quoted Adriana sticking it to Andrew Keen in a debate. Well she is at it again in a bit more detail this time on her own blog.
Irritatingly, debating with the man invariably leads from his arguments to the person he is. It is like trying to have a conversation about a picture or an image with a colourblind man. He is looking at the same thing but, in his vision, there are colours missing and so in his mind the resulting image may be fundamentally different from reality. In the end, you find yourself insisting that the colours are really there and that he should just take your word for it. He, on the other hand, insists on describing what is in front of him without taking any notice of others telling him that his vision is flawed.
I particularly like the bit about him ‘re-setting’ each time so that no intellectual progress is possible with the man over time even if you successfully refute some part of his argument… next day it is as if the previous debate never happened (kind of like watching old non-story-arc episodic SciFi shows that never referenced previous events).
Read the whole thing.
I agree that talking to a troll is an irritating waste of time (yes I know I have done it a lot – “do not do as I do, do as I say”).
However, as the lady knows, in a debate one is really trying to win over the audience – or rather those of them who are interested in evidence and reasoning (which may be only a few).
Troll or not, this touches on a very real danger—the absolutley impervious nature of the committment of the true believer to his ideological viewpoint.
Nothing can penetrate. No matter how catastrophic the results of the ideologies’ policies, no matter how much suffering is caused, it’s always someone else’s fault, and the devotees can reset their minds to erase any unpleasant or inconvenient facts.
Over the summer, I rented the movie by Andy Garcia, “Havana”, and, more recently, “The Lives of Others”, set in East Germany just before and after the collapse of the marxist state. I remember a similar movie from several years ago about life in China during the cultural revolution, but I can’t remember the title.
Along with any number of books revealing the massive corruption and inhumanity of these social systems, these movie images are haunting in a special way.
There is a scene in “Others” showing the files of the Stasi, the GDR secret police—row upon row of massive file chests containing thousands of files stuffed onto shelves, in a room like a football field, eerily reminiscent of the final scene from “Raiders of the Lost Ark”, that giant warehouse with its endless rows of crates.
We live in what has been called “the information age”. It is said with a triumphal emphasis, obviously resting on the assumption that more information available to everyone will lead to a better life for all. I certainly hope that is the case.
But remember those banks of files. What does a future in which that Stasi mindset is married to the storage and retrieval capabilities of the modern computer portend?
All dictatorial regimes thrive on information about their captive populations—the acquisition of such data is a neverending priority.
We face the possibility that the creative genius that has developed the basis for an unprecedenterd world culture of shared electronic information and knowledge could be turned against its users, not for their emancipation, but for their enslavement.
Why is it utterly paramount that the rights of the individual be respected and protected? Because without them, nothing restrains an ever encroaching political power structure that can, with every advance in computing speed and storage capacity, track your every movement, purchase, employment, communication, every meal you eat, every message sent for love or money.
Allow the rights of the individual to be discarded, and the genius of humanity becomes a dagger at your throat.
So true veryretired. I consider so many on the Left now to be pathological: without a conscience and any means possible for the end ideological goal. There’s no guilt, no conviction, principle… nothing but self-delusion in being so right, in the face of reality’s judgment. It is scary especially when these people are in power and the relentless evolution of big brotherlike technology.
I consider so many on the Left now to be pathological
Not happy with this, part of my definition of left and right goes as follows – People of the right tend to regard those of the left as mistaken. People of the left tend to regard those of the right as evil.
Well considering mentality that is a threat to our liberty, I don’t see much from the right if meaning conservative and having the values I associate with the philosophy. But I can agree many simply perceive those on the left as mistaken.
The main threat is from the Left. Whether they actually believe or knowingly establish a facade that those to their right are evil… they can still be pathological. Increasingly its only one reality – in their head focused on their bottom line. They will not question themselves.
And really, one who truly believes you’re evil regardless of your reasoning, facts and hard evidence based in reality lives with a mentally disturbed condition.
I think very few people change their minds on anything significant after a certain point. I put myself into that category on many things. About the main thing I have changed my mind on is religion. I used to be Christian but have pretty much left religion behind. I also think the case for a state, albeit minimal, is strong (I once flirted with anarcho capitalism).
I think debates *do* change people’s minds, but only slowly, and not in a way that is immediately apparent to either party.
The right are forever despairing at how the left shrug off their obviously reasonable arguments. The Left are forever despairing at how the right shrug off their obvious social responsibilities. The Left are not more or less irrational lunatics than the right are sociopathic lunatics.
Failure to be convinced by a reasoned argument is not a sign of lunacy.
I am highly familiar with reason. I’ve studied it, and I’ve used it, I’ve made computers try to do it, and I’ve read the history of its scientific development. It’s jolly useful, but if it’s changing people’s minds you’re after, I’d drop it and shift to flattery.
Here in the US we have the red states (tend to be conservative and in flyover land) and the blue states (tend liberal, in the densely-populated areas of the coastlands). Farmers and the Urbane, in other words — or at least that is the heritage.
And the density of population is the important thing here. If you live cheek-by-jowl with people, lots of people, you think the abilities to persuade and negotiate are the most important things of all. If you live cheek-by-jowl with wild animals and a thousand acres of soybeans, you know there are some things that cannot be talked around.
It’s the difference between people being the world, and people being a feature of the world. That’s the basic distinction between the Liberal and the Conservative today.
As for trolls, there is a rather simple expression of the phenomenon: how do I know I exist if nobody’s paying attention to me? Liberal trolls tend to talk a lot, and it’s all about them. Conservative trolls? They take action, and it’s all about them.
A good exemplar of a liberal troll organization: moveon.org. A conservative troll organization: the Ku Klux Klan.
That works only when you are trying to sell something.
When arguing about ideas you need to have some common ground, or basic ideas that are accepted by both parties. Also some agreement on basic facts. Then you can refer to them to justify your position.
If no such common ground exists – then it’s like Adriana said: arguing with colorblind people.
Jacob,
Absolutely correct. Without certain shared concepts no debate is possible. This is because different worldviews sometimes attach completely different meanings to basic words like “freedom”, “justice”, “equality”.
By shared concepts I absolutely don’t mean a consensus. Look at UK politics. There is a consensus that the NHS is needed. That’s more of a “Well, yes, of course…” assumption than a shared set of concepts.
The best example I can think of a complete incompatibility of paradigms is the recent MoToons of Doom fiasco. It involved a complete disagreement as to what freedom of speech means. The metacontexts involved were demonstrably totally incompatible.
There really is no reasoning with some people.
The K.K.K. were not conservative if we mean “small government” Dr Ellen.
After all they were in favour of the Jim Crow laws.
But it was not just that, they were (are? they have split into various factions) in favour of protection of debters from creditors (as long as the debters were their sort of people of course), various taxes and regulations on “big business”, “low interest rates” (and other forms of easy credit – oddly enough this put them on the same side as some big business enterprises but they were too ignorant to know).
And so on and so on.
So, all in all, I am not a fan of the Klan (no shock there).
Counting Cats.
People are people (again no shock).
Some leftists have good hearts (Nick Cohen in this country springs to mind).
And some conservatives and libertarians have a nasty streak (it has often been said that I do).
On the matter of being open to both evidence and rational argument:
I would say that I am still open to such things on security and military issues (such as whether to go into country X) – in that sometimes I am in favour of a government action and sometimes I am against (it depends on the evidence and the arguments presented to me).
However, someone could say that (in this area) I am closed minded empiricist – closed to the obvious truth that such matters can be settled by consulting simple a priori principles.
I tend to be opposed to military operations (partly because I assume that if something can go wrong it will – when the government is involved), but I am not 100% dependably against all operations.
This makes me a retarded fascist to some libertarians.
Paul, there’s a nice article about fascism’s true derivation linked through NRO’s site. It’s by an English professor. I think you might appreciate it.
I can guess what it says veryretired.
An Italian Marxist (and editor of the main Marxist newspaper) falls out with his fellow Reds over the First World War and after the war sets up his own movement.
Movement uses Roman object as its symbol – the bound rods and axe head (“we are stronger as an organized collective than as individuals – the bound rods are us and the axe head is our weapon”).
Fascism defined as everything for the state, nothing outside the state (and so on). And as well as being obsessed with the Roman Empire (as opposed to the Republic) also has strong imput from the Italian “futureist” movement in the arts (destroy all traditional stuff in all the in the arts, including buildings, and build a new world of steel, concrete and glass – very socialist H.G. Wells, even down to hating traditional literature and thinking other races were inferior).
By the 1930’s Italy has the biggest government (outside of Russia) in Europe.
However, I certainly do not “know it all” – so I we try and look up the site you mention (after I have got some things done today).
The KKK was wrong. The climate that spawned them was unique in history. No other democracy has been conquered and occupied by a democracy. For examples of true expansion and omineer in govt encriachment, look to the Congress of 1872.
All of that being said. The KKK was/is and will be wrong for too many reasons to go into in this short space.
Arguing with the left-ish side is a waste of time. They never arrived at their positions by reason, they cannot hold them by reason and they cannot defend them with reason. They also cannot explain why I am so-very-very-wrong by reason.
A strong dose of reality is the only cure. They avoid reality like cats avoid water…. In the meantime, their world seems so nice, clean, safe and secure. It’s seductive… A bite of the Lotus leaves can be tempting… But like Ulysses I must be off to the next adventure…