Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.

Underground > Conversation >

Politics of the intolerable: democracy and discussion

We're The Great Old Ones Now

05:20 / 15.05.04

So: this post is sparked by this thread and by Tom's response to it.

As far as I can see, the topic as framed is anti-Semitic. If repeatedly expressed by a visitor to my home, some of the sentiments which have been iterated here would lead to that person's speedy expulsion, not just from the building, but from my life. The question which arises is whether to engage with discussions like this, or move to delete them.

In the wake of Tom's response, I feel a little unclean; I'm angry with myself for ditching my first, pithy response to the thread. Dao Jones would have been in there with a verbal pick-axe. But my instinct is to engage, because it seems to me that there must be value in doing so. If there is none - if arguing with ignorant or prejudiced positions is futile - then the discursive model of tolerant democracy generated by debate which I cherish is flawed at base.

A few days ago, I was listening to the BNP spokesman talking on Radio 4. He's almost miraculously inept. He was responding to the action of a bunch of Manchester vicars who had (may God, if she's paying attention, shower them with blessings) announced that membership of the BNP was inconsistent with Christianity. And in the course of that discussion, he revealed that he did not know that the head of the Church of England was the Queen, and re-committed his party to the UK's "tradition" of separating Church and State. I had visions of this interview - conducted with a masterfully disinterested, surgical precision by the presenter - persuading hundreds or thousands of voters that the BNP was run by idiots for idiots. Perhaps that's naive. Certainly it sounds more abstruse in the telling than it did at the time.

I don't know. Does it dignify a prejudice to seek to dismantle it with reason? Can you fight sloppy thinking and willful ignorance with accuracy and information? Or do you simply stamp on it when you see it, and just reckon the other side lost in action?

06:20 / 15.05.04

There are idiots, and there are assholes. Not all assholes are idiots, not all idiots are assholes. The non-idiot assholes are the ones that need to be taken to task. Everyone's heard what the idiot assholes have to say before.

But when prejudice is presented in a neat, well bound way, with logic that looks good on the surface, then I consider it an almost ethical duty to try to debate that person into a coma, especially on a web board, where someone might google for it and find all sorts of erroneous "facts" presented from a position of authority and be inclined to believe them. A logically presented argument can be really dangerous even when the logic is faulty, because to the uninformed it can read as truth. I engage then to try and keep this from happening. I don't do it as often as I should here, probably because there are so many people around far more skilled at doing so than I am.

I don't think the ideal of a tolerant democracy is hopeless, but I do think that there are people who can't be reached by reason. For them, Quentin Crisp's statement applies- tolerance won't be the result of enlightenment for the idiot assholes. Boredom will be. (Or, as time marches on, death will.)

I still hang onto a quote that Dao Jones once said, and I'm probably going to fuck it up: "Have the courage to admit that you are right and others are wrong." Maybe it was said facetiously, but I took it to heart. I don't waste my time reasoning with people who don't believe in reason or acknowledge it as a legitimate way to change their views, but the fact that I can't convince them to abandon their prejudice isn't really a reflection on me, or on reason. Reason exists to convince people who will listen to it, loud swearing and passive aggressive backhanded insults exist for people who won't.

Our Lady Has Left the Building

06:34 / 15.05.04

Well, there are at least two different things here. I'm not so sure that I would necessarily have a full-on argument with someone to try and change their views because in my experience it's never been that successful and tends to end up with me getting very angry. However, especially if there are people around I would make the effort to point out the inconsistencies and errors, in the hopes of exposing hirs full-on membership of the cretins league to them.

(Going slightly OT: There was an article, which unfortunately seems currently unavailable, at Searchlight's 'Stop the BNP' website that highlighted how useless BNP councillors were, they typically didn't understand what was going on and so would vote through things they'd promised to oppose, or oppose genuinely harmless things to try and show they were doing something. I'll edit this if it comes back again because it's worth a read if you're in any danger of being doorstepped by the BNP)

08:01 / 15.05.04

I think it's a good thing to confront repugnant viewpoints. However, I think that quite often these 'debates' are instigated by the assholes themselves in an attempt to propagate their ideas. You may feel you have roundly beaten them in an argument but win or lose, they've got their message across for other, less critical readers.

STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK

09:36 / 15.05.04

That is a worry, certainly. Personally I prefer engaging, and if that fails, taking the piss. But I can't maintain that it always works.

20:57 / 17.05.04

Always engage. I dunno about "confront" -- so much of this stuff (for me) involves facing assumptions I don't want to think I have but might be lurking around somewhere just out of sight. Yeah, confront. That's it exactly, really.

I don't think any idea should be out of bounds. Only modes of expression. There are ways to engage with anti-semitic ideas without be anti-semitic yourself or appearing to espouse them. It's difficult, though, to get that across without lots of extra effort. (Not saying that was what that thread was about -- I'm blissfully ignorant of its specifics, just aware of its general gist.)

01:13 / 18.05.04

I find that I have heard so many people expressing cut-and-paste political ideas for purely ideological reasons - they identify with a particular "side", therefore they repeat the latest email from NewsMax - that I have no patience whatsoever. Where once I might have debated the matter angrily and pointlessly, now I either ignore it entirely or engage in disruptive tactics.

I like to think that, if I see a new *argument*, I examine it personally and decide how much if any truth there is in it. However, I don't bother debating the posters of those arguments any more. They didn't come up with that argument. They're just repeating it. They can't back it up, they'll just fall back on a few other repetitions and then perhaps some psychobabble or simple abuse. Why would I waste my time?

I'm just tired of it. It's got worse since I moved to the US, though I don't know whether I can say that's to do with the US environment (which is distinctly more polarised than the UK) or whether it's because I spend more time on the net.

As far as more extreme viewpoints go, such as neo-Nazis trying to encourage support by pretending their viewpoints are challenging and being censored because of that, or playing on popular fears and prejudices regarding immigration and so on, I don't engage with them at all. I play with them to find out what the latest line is, then once I've learnt that I ban them if I have that power, or I disrupt all their threads unmercifully until they have no choice but to leave.

I'm not proud of any of this, I'd like to be the sort of patient debater who tries to argue everything rationally and persuade people of what I see as the errors in their position, but I'm not. Psychically I cannot cope with doing that. The rewards are too infrequent, the stress too high and the time wasted too lengthy.

02:10 / 18.05.04

I don't think we are engaging with these people. It's impossible for us to enter into a dialogue of equals, the only time true communication can occur, with people who have opinions that are repugnant to us. You know, the SNAFU principle. I think finding racism repugnant is a healthy response but it does put us in a difficult position of feeling moral superiority.

All this debate is sound and fury, sadly, I very much doubt anyone is listening on either side.

What's awful about this is I'm just not sure how to fix this so we CAN communicate. Anyone seen the Louis Theroux with the Nazi's? This reminds me of the bit where he's talking to the Nazi mum in her kitchen trying to change her mind- really sad.

07:09 / 18.05.04

What's awful about this is I'm just not sure how to fix this so we CAN communicate.

You won’t find a way to fix it until you decide to change the following repugnant opinion:

It's impossible for us to enter into a dialogue of equals, the only time true communication can occur, with people who have opinions that are repugnant to us.

Because if you believe it’s impossible to communicate then you won’t be able to find a way. You can’t solve a perceived problem with the same thinking that led to that problem. I do things quite differently:

I can enter into a dialogue with virtually anyone. I accept them and I suspend judgement. I realise that the opinion is not the person. I make relationships regardless of the opinions held.

This process is fun. It’s a brilliant use of my time and energy, because I’m making friends rather than hitting my head against a brick wall. By having a relationship I can approach the same issue on many occasions over time. I can lead by example. And I (hopefully) have respect from the other person. They might even help me to change some of my dodgy opinions.

I have a long history of being called, for example, “The only decent Christian I’ve ever met.” Or, “The only decent manager I’ve ever had.” I have a stranger and more diverse group of friends and acquaintances than anyone else I know. Everyone is your equal, regardless of whether you want them to be or not. Relationship first, debate second, and I guarantee you’ll have more fun and more success.

09:19 / 18.05.04

Seth, perhaps you could reread my passage again and then consider with your self-proclaimed oh-so-open mind exactly what was said.

To recapitulate, I said-

What's awful about this is I'm just not sure how to fix this so we CAN communicate.

Now, my concern is with the moral superiority pervading all posts about the disputed thread. If you are trying to tell me that you feel absolutely no moral superiority to racists, I would be extremely surprised.

When people do not consider themselves equals, morally or otherwise, to people they are entering into a dialogue with what tends to happen is-

The people considered to be morally inferior will become dogmatic/resentful/unco-operative. Or in other words they stop listening.

The people considered to be morally superior will become dogmatic/arrogant/bullying. Or in other words they stop listening.

Personally, I find racism morally repugnant. So if I were to enter into a dialogue with racists I would find it difficult not to let this slip in my tone, body language, attitudes, stated opinions etc.

Believe it or not I'm very fond of hearing many differing opinions on subjects and enjoy interacting with a wide variety of people. It is precisely because of this that I am so aware of this predicament.

...

I've just been told my Grandpa has died

I think I'll come back to this later.

00:36 / 19.05.04

Sorry to hear about your Grandpa. That's harsh and I wish you and your family all the best. As many blessings as my little heart can muster.

I can talk to racists and not feel superior. They're just people. It comes naturally for me, growing up in a lot of situations where I was forced to live and work alongside a lot of people who weren't like me.

My first post above is the best description I can give for how I do this. If I think of anything else I'll let you know.

... and there were a lot of people who loved me when I spoke and acted and thought like a dickhead on some issues. That also helped!

00:39 / 19.05.04

I hope there'll be people like that in future, too. There are a few who do right now...

02:32 / 19.05.04

You guys rock! It would be difficult for me not to visit this website!