One of the more dispiriting processes I regularly notice in confrontations between Good and Evil is when Evil concedes that it has done something evil, and Good promptly turns round, in the spirit of fair play, and concedes something else evil. It’s like Good is a football team, and when it goes one-nil up, it feels that the fair thing to do is to give the other fellows a goal. To make a game of it. Or something.
So, for instance, if Evil concedes that, I don’t know, “socialism hasn’t turned out very well in practice”, Good, in a burst of bonhomie and generosity and brotherhood-of-manliness, concedes that socialism was a nice idea “in theory”.
No it wasn’t. An idea that turns out badly in practice is a bad idea. Especially if the badness was a predictable and predicted consequence of that bad idea.
Often, in circumstances like these, Evil even asks for an equalising goal.
Evil offers a pairing of ideas – good twinned with evil, like socks emerging from the laundrette – as a package: “I’ll concede that socialism has turned out badly in practice if you concede that socialism is a nice theory.”
The proper way to behave, if you are Good, and go one-nil up in an argument, is to press for a two-nil lead.
The proper response to going one-nil up in the above argument about the practice and theory of socialism is to say: “Socialism has indeed turned out badly in practice. Now, about this evil notion of yours that socialism is a nice theory. Let’s talk about that. And let’s you admit that you are wrong about that also. We told you you were wrong from the start, and we were right that you were wrong. We predicted that socialism would turn out badly in practice, on account of it being a bad theory. You pressed on. You were wrong. In theory as well as in practice.”
Like I say, press for two-nil.
So, all hail to Mark Meckler. (And further hail to Instapundit for linking to the story, today, and earlier.)
Meckler, arriving in New York and learning that he must not carry a gun, handed his gun over to the New York goons. (That much, he was willing to concede.) The goons promptly arrested him, for carrying the gun up to the point where he stopped carrying it, or something.
Faced with a determined Meckler, and a huge outcry of rage and contempt from the forces of Good, the New York goons have dropped their evil charges. One-nil to Meckler. But Meckler is now being subjected to another evil injustice. The goons still have his gun, and are refusing to return it.
Instead of thanking the goons for being so nice about not arresting him any more, Meckler now wants his gun back. Quite right. New York goons, give the man his gun back! (This is now an international campaign. I am international and I now say this.)
Saying “now give me back my gun” is not only the good thing for Good Mr Meckler to do; it is also excellent tactics. He is now one-nil up. He faces the chance to score another goal, and go two-nil up against the forces of Evil. He is now pressing to do just that.
Quite right. When you have argumentative momentum, against a team that is saying (or in this case also doing) not just one bad thing but many bad things, use it. Thereby keep it, and build it.
When the New York goons do hand back Meckler’s gun, if they ever do (and actually, even if they don’t), the proper next response, from all of us who have now rallied around Meckler, is: “Now, about all these other gun-carrying people, against whom you have not dropped the charges, and whose guns you have not returned …” Three-nil. Four-nil. Five-nil …
If the New York goons don’t hand back Meckler’s gun, perhaps because they sense that if they do, Meckler’s team will then get more momentum, then the New York goons will be digging their heels in in an argument that they will hate but which the Meckler team will relish.
Also good. Shame about the stolen gun, but also good.
He did plead guilty to disorderly conduct. So, evil got a little bit out of the deal.
I agree with absolutely everything in this post. But pet peeve – it’s heels. I can’t help it, sorry.
BladeDoc
Thanks for the heals thing, now corrected. Some day soon, my spellchecker will pick up on things like that. But all it now cares about is if there is any word spelled like that, and in this case there is.
I prefer spelt, but my spellchecker says spelled.
Isn’t “spelt” a kind of fish?
Seeing as we’re all having a go: “paring”.
While, I quite agree on never conceding, I think you’ve got to be careful when you go for two-nil. Be nice, while you’re doing it. Make it as easy as possible for the other side to change their minds.
Mark Meckler is a friend of mine. I got to know him quite well via with work with the Tea Party Patriots. He is a stand-up guy and always a pleasure to be around. The guy has been through pretty nasty stuff due to his high profile role in the tea party movement, but it hasn’t changed him a jot.
Patrick
I entirely agree about staying nice. Not conceding any arguments doesn’t mean shouting or being nasty about it, although in my opinion it is often assumed that this has to happen.
“Extremism” in what you say is one thing. Extremism as in extremely bad manners is an entirely distinct matter.
I will now correct pairing. Dear God, my spelling is going into reverse. And I bet this comment contains further evidence of this.
I’m suprised that the New York goons are being this dense about it.
There’s a department not a million miles from here that has made something of an artform of sticking it to OOS CCW-holders in cases like this. And all completely legal.
They’ll arrest an OOS CCW holder who gets stopped for speeding or having a license-plate lamp out, and who tells the officer that he is packing – as state law requires he do. The officer will claim uncertainty about whether this state has CCW reciprocity with his state – these things can be confusing, you know. And the sergeant is 10-7 right now . . .
Three hours later, the citizen is turned out of the jail – no charges, there’s nothing to charge him with. But, becasue he was arrested – in accordance with State law – his pistol has now been impounded and will be sent to the State crime lab for testing. Takes about 6 weeks. You can come back and collect it from us after then. No, we can’t send it to you. If you want to designate a local FFL dealer that we can release it to, who will then ship it to your local FFL dealer – all at your expense, naturally – then we’re going to need a notarised release, and a letter from the FFL dealer saying he’ll come and get it from us when we’re done with it. If you don’t make suitable arrangements, after 5 days, we’ll consider it abandoned and it will be destroyed.
Apparently, the chief executive of this department considers this to be good police work, because it’s happened several times now.
By contrast, another adjoining department has the list of state CCW reciprocity in the SOP binder in every patrol car, and OOS CCW holders who are otherwise legal are sent on their way unmolested in their person or goods.
Givemn the ability of the NYPD to be stunningly obtuse when they choose, I am amazed that they have not already crafted some plausibly-defensible response like this. Although I suppose that, given the climate in NYC, a simple ‘no’ will get all of the political support required to make it stick. Why bother to do more?
llater,
llamas
Also, there’s a misplaced comma in paragraph two.
“So for, instance,”
What? I thought it was a game.
‘after 5 days, we’ll consider it abandoned and it will be destroyed’
If anyone here believes this, or you know of someone who does, please contact me, I have several extremely valuable pieces of beach front property as well as a considerable amount of uranium stock that I would like to discuss with you !!
Interesting comments – especially from Andrew who knows the man involved (Tea Party Patriots is the best, as well as the largest, of the Tea Party alliances).
On Brian’s post……
Yes – agreed on all points.
I suppose I am not good (although I hope I am not evil). As the “well they have conceded…. so we will concede…” has always driven me to fury.
As best as I can (“not very well Paul” – pipe down there at the back), I seek the truth.
No doubt I often make mistakes – but it is the truth that I am seeking.
And when I find what I think is the truth I express it (there is no point in just me knowing it).
And I could not give a flying f*** if I upset people by saying they are not just partly wrong, but (in fact) totally wrong.
One of the things that troubles me about the football analogy is the idea that debate is a zero sum game. One of the saddest aspects of human psychology is that changing our minds or being proved wrong are frequently experienced as embarassment. If I strongly believe in A but you convince me that actually B is true I have not lost a thing. In fact my gain is probably greater than yours, since you already knew that B was true.
If our purpose in debate is to help other people become aware that their ideas are mistaken I am not sure that going for the 2-0 is always a good idea. In fact it might be counterproductive. If you ask the person you are talking to to conceed too much they may be less likely to admit that ANY of your arguments are true. That doesn’t mean we have to score own goals out of politeness but it means acknowledging that people are proud, that they usually change their mind gradually and that this might mean that accepting a first down rather than try to score a 99 yard touchdown on a single play is a better strategy (To shamelessly mix my sports metaphors)
Jay Thomas – you are sometimes correct.
Sometimes there is a real chance to make the other person in a debate see the error of their ways. And, of course, one must always be open to the possibilty that one is WRONG (that the other person in the debate is correct).
However, most of the time debate is about winning (or losing) people who are listening to the debate… rather than the opponent themselves.
Someone like Comrade Barack (to pick a name at random…) knows perfectly well that his policies of wild government spending and regulating are not good for the economy.
You are not going to get him to know that they will destroy civil society – because he already does know that (that is the whole point of “Cloward and Piven” style tactics – the inventors and practicers of these Columbia University style tactics know them at least well as we do).
The point in debate with the left is to “show them up” (expose the consequences of their position) before uncommitted third parties. Not to try and convince them of things they already know.
“But Paul – you are ignoring the possibility, that someone on the other side might be a person of good will, rather than an utterly evil demon-from-Hell”.
Yes I am ignoring that possibility and sometimes that will be unjust.
But, sadly, not most of the time.
Although (of course) they tell themsleves that the destruction of the present society (civil society – or what they would call “capitalist” society) is not about destruction for its own sake. It is about clearing the way for a wonderful new society – where everyone can hunt in the morning, and fish in the afternoon and be critical after dinner, without being a hunter, fisherman or critic, because society [as a collective enity] will organize production (the German Ideology 1845, but similar dreams have been had by collectivists for thousands of years – at least).
A bit like the set up of the “Federation” in “Star Trek” (especially “Star Trek: The New Generation”).
Individuals are free (indeed more free than they have ever been before), but production is collective. With businessmen either not existing or being a few vile parasites on the fringe of society (the Federation itself has no money – or need of it).
Most modern academics (and so on) find this inspiring – as does popular culture (it is the dream land of modern Hollywood productions – and so on).
And the dream itself is NOT evil (I admit that) – it is just crackbrained (not the same thing as evil).
However, the tactics these people (politicians, academics, media people and …..) are willing to use to destroy the existing “capitalist” society ARE EVIL.
Nor can one (normally) convert such people by trying to show them that their vision will not work.
Karl Marx had a answer to that – perhaps his one great contribution to collectivist thought.
One CAN NOT describe the details of the comming society – to even try would be “utopean socialism” which evil reactionaries will refute.
So one just has to have faith that it will all work itself out (by some inverted version of the invisible hand – the laws of history will create something new that can achieve the collectivist vision – as long as the existing society is exterminated).
So asking them “how will your idea work in PRACTICE” will either get the response (if they are strict Marxists) “that is an unscientific question”. Or (if they are not strict Marxists) “you just do not understand…. – how can anyone say how things will work in the future, but we have got to get rid of this terrible situation so that the future can arrive….”
The terrible thing that needs to be got rid of is (of course) private property based civil society – strictly speaking private property in the means of production, distribution and exchange and the free (civil) use of this private property.