There will always be political sides. This is not an indictment of a political side. It’s an indictment of an Uncivil Behavior Phenomenon that has been underway for the past decade or so. We need to learn how to talk about this.
How do we form our political opinions? In my 20s, I adopted the opinions of my friends. They hated Ronald Regan, so I hated Ronald Regan, even though I didn’t know why. I recall asking a guy with ‘anarchy’ painted on his leather jacket what that meant. When he provided the definition, I remember asking why he desired mayhem and disorder. Wasn’t that kind of stupid?
He laughed and bought me a beer.
Those were the days.
Now certain topics have been taken off the table. They are not to be discussed. Only the truly open-minded will brook opposition. The rest pull out the guillotine with its little head basket.
I’ve been a guest on a few podcasts recently, where I’ve noted with requisite disappointment how fractured we are as a society, how quickly we cut the cord. I have my theories as to the cultural underpinnings of this phenomenon, but suffice to say, we need to learn how to parse the issues of the day in good faith. If the writer of the following meme is “better informed,” one hopes she would be amenable to sharing the wealth.
Regardless, this is a dumb meme, whether *littlewhitty leans left — or right. Reading it on Facebook a few months ago, I was baffled as to why someone would screenshot it into a meme, post or even ‘like’ it. “Better informed” is belied in the statements themselves.
How can one be “better informed” if one “wasn’t taught the details?” How can one “properly research things and practice critical thinking skills” without the details? What does “properly research things” mean to *littlewhitty? How could *littlewhitty have completed four or more years of college firm in the belief that ideologies were not taught? Ideologies such as feminism, identity politics, and environmentalism are taught in most colleges. These ideologies are inherent in leaning left.
“Indoctrination” occurs if only one side is examined, when opinions and ideas are presented as facts. It is not uncommon, in my observations, for professors to enable confirmation bias ‘research’ papers that merely cherry pick sources to support a predetermined thesis. Assertions are passing for evidence. I’ve experienced that thrumming chord of fear when asking in class if there might be another way to look at opinions that have been deemed morally superior. In 2018, I was accused of being a “right wing extremist” for showing the Roger Scruton documentary “Why Beauty Matters.” Never mind that the assignment gave students the option to support or refute his argument that beauty matters. The unrestrained inhumanity in the student evaluations that term was a wonder to behold.
The prefix ‘uni’ in ‘university’ implies the convergence of diverse perspectives and fields of study into a unified whole. Synthesizing information from multiple sources to create a new understanding is supposed to be the goal. Why not examine the details in order to reach that ‘new understanding?’ And yet this lofty goal appears to have become impossible due to the Uncivil Behavior Phenomenon of insulting, censoring, and/or cutting off those who question certain orthodoxies.
O, how naive was the young Dog L. to conclude, when learning that Gallileo was shunned for heresy, that present-day humans are too enlightened to indulge in such anti-intellectual small mindedness!
A recent interaction with a Devotee of the Uncivil Behavior Phenomenon goes as follows:
“I won’t hear anything against climate change. That’s where I draw the line.”
This was the male of a childless couple who live in a huge three-bedroom house, and commute long distance to work. By all outward appearances, this couple is steeped in ostentatious materialism. Dog L. is under the impression that when it comes to climate change, what one does matters more than what one thinks. On that note, the morally superior Dog L. has not owned a car since 1982, lives in an apartment, does not use air conditioning, and rarely buys anything new.
I told the man that I was once a true believer that the earth is doomed until I encountered some compelling arguments to refute that outcome. “Now I don’t know what to think,” I told him.
He put his hand in my face, as if to shove me to the other side of the terrace.
I gently said, “Well, I found it interesting, and…”
“Stop, just stop,” he said.
“So I’m curious about your perspective. What evidence convinces you that we’re doomed?”
“Do the research,” he said.
I tried to say that I had synthesized a variety of sources, but he put up his hand again. However, I did win points for being childless. He believes that humans should go extinct in order to save the earth.
If a tree falls in the forest, and no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound?
* * * * * * * * * * * * *
Within the next couple of months I’ll be launching Unfriended, a podcast that aims to bring the unfriended and the unfriender together for a discussion that doesn’t involve rage typing at an avatar. If you’re interested in pursuing a discussion with your executioner on the show, drop me a Direct Message.
Each participant must pledge to practice the lost art of disinterested inquiry, among other tenets of civility. This is modeled in fine form on Firing Line with William F. Buckley Jr.: The Warren Report: Fact or Fiction?:
Points will be awarded for the politeness — and the details — of each response. Points will be subtracted for ad hominem and straw-manning, the most abusive fallacies. Withering commentary is acceptable, as long as it’s done with equanimity.
Part of me is naively hopeful that the unfrienders will be amenable to good faith participation in these discussions. In the meantime, the people wounded by the Uncivil Behavior Phenomenon are legion. Whenever I comment on my experience with this phenomenon, everyone has a story. (Let’s hear yours!)
Liked by Peter Boghossian
If one cannot offer another point of view in a discussion among “friends,” without being unfriended, how on earth can we rebuild trust?
Like (16)
sooz
This. I’ve been struggling recently on how to best have a civil conversation with the most important people in my life who (perhaps unknowingly) misunderstand how I (or anyone else) could possibly vote for Trump. Convicted of 94 felonies! He lies! He is immoral! I have finally accepted the fact that I must self-censor, avoid any discussion of Trump, and keep conversations on a more superficial level. We have lost the ability to “agree to disagree.” If we cannot communicate, indeed “how on earth can we rebuild trust?”
Liked (6)
Reply (1)
Victoria Cooper
I sympathise. Same with my daughter. Part of their indoctrination involves not having a rational argument with which to discuss. Hence, no discussion. They have blind faith in the press. An independent reporter/journalist in UK said the MSM press is a cancer and the indies the cure.
* * *. * * * *
Recently, in the analog world, I presented my idea for the Unfriended show to a friend. I launched into an example of a Facebook unfriending that occurred during the Harris - Trump debate, when I posted: Could she at least accuse him of something he’s actually said?
(The unfriender is the female counterpart of the man who wants humans to go extinct in order to save the planet.)
In a debate — or an argument of any kind — it’s bad practice to accuse someone of saying something that they did not say, barring any genuine misunderstanding. In that case, both parties ought to attempt to ameliorate the misunderstanding in good faith.
In any case, I’m referring to Harris accusing Trump of plotting to implement a national abortion ban.
Trump has provided plenty of fodder for accusations, so why tilt at the national abortion ban windmill?
This is not an argument over abortion. It’s an argument over the constitution and rights that are ceded to the States. Overturning Roe v Wade for its '“unconstitutional” nature has been thrown into the ring nearly every election since I can remember.
The friend and I were walking down a suburban block among quiet houses in repose. It was a gorgeous day. I have known this friend for thirty years. We meet every six weeks or so for a ritual that we both enjoy.
When I relayed what Harris had accused Trump of saying, the friend got into a boxing stance on the street corner, and started sputtering like a popped helium balloon. I wish I were exaggerating.
The dialogue went something like this:
“He destroyed Roe v Wade. That’s all I need to know. You never know what he’ll do. I don’t care whether he said that or not. He killed Roe v Wade….”
I said, “Yes, but the reason why Roe v Wade was overturned is also why he wouldn’t implement a national abortion ban….”
“I DON’T CARE WHY HE OVERTURNED ROE V WADE. ALL I NEED TO KNOW IS THAT HE DID IT, THE JERK!” (It went on and on, but that’s the gist of it.)
When I could get a word in edgewise, I tried to convey once again the rationale behind overturning Roe V Wade, and that this detail matters. In other words, this wasn’t an argument for or against abortion; it was an argument about whether the whether the federal government should institute rights that the constitution intended for local governments — the States.
The friend wailed: “I don’t care about the details! I don’t NEED TO KNOW any DETAILS! He’s against abortion and that’s all I care about!”
I said: “Wow! Would you look at that gorgeous Japanese maple? Isn’t it amazing?”
Here’s another example of Uncivil Behavior Phenomenon. What is the benefit of behaving like this? What has this friend gained by going postal on a friend of 15 years?
A few years ago, at the height of the Social Justice Fundamentalism (SJF) movement, I texted a friend asking for her thoughts on Ibram Kendi’s book How to Be An Antiracist. I expressed concern that the book might be steering us in the wrong direction and asked if she’d be willing to steelman some of Kendi’s arguments for me so that I could be sure I wasn’t misrepresenting his position.
She instantly lashed out at me. She told me that the world didn’t need another “angry, self-righteous white person” lecturing people about race and said I had a moral obligation to shut up. It didn’t stop there. She kept attacking me, again and again. When I told her that her language was stirring memories of the abuse I had experienced as a child, her response was, “cry me a river.”
I was stunned. We had been friends for 15 years. She would have been a bridesmaid at my wedding. And now, here she was, flaying me alive for the crime of expressing mild political disagreement.
What was going on?
-Julian, for Reality's Last Stand.
Here’s another case study of the Uncivil Behavioral Phenomenon:
Once on a rooftop in Seoul, I saw a young white American man with a handlebar mustache, beanie, flannel shirt, skinny pants rolled at the bottom to reveal his ankles, vintage Converse, and a messenger bag. He looked like a walking Urban Outfitters clearance rack with a master’s degree in black studies. But I actually liked the look. I told him so. “I really dig the hipster look you’ve got,” I said. Unfortunately, the word hipster triggered him and he became outraged, threw his drink on the ground, and stormed over to complain to his black girlfriend who was, of course, wearing an Ankara-print head wrap and BLM shirt.
Weeks later, I saw him in a bar and went over to apologize for any misunderstanding. He immediately began screaming so loudly that the music stopped and the entire bar became focused on us. In the end, I simply walked away. But I don’t despise the dude. I feel sympathy for him. He’s not simply an asshole, but clearly mentally unwell and in need of help. And that’s exactly the kind of person I mean, someone so attached to the ideology that they become dysfunctional, dysregulated, and their capacity for prosocial interaction disintegrates.
In case these anecdotes seem cherry picked, comments on being summarily executed by a climate change denier, or someone who finds Ibrahim Kendi’s argument rather…fallacious…or any other political or religious matter are welcome!
No matter what side one is on — WE NEED TO TALK. More to the point, we need to find a way to enjoy talking about what we’re not supposed to talk about. It’s an intellectual sport!
Lets be friends?
KanKhem