#i just want civil discourse between opposing viewpoints again | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

thefogoflife · 3 years

Text

I think a big friction point of the debate over the banning of Trump from Twitter boils down to one question: is social media considered a public good?

Because, here's the thing. Obviously, and this is from someone in the middle that tends to lean right, the majority of the nation and world has wished that he was banned. Regardless of whether or not you support Trump's policies, I think the majority of human beings can agree that he was petulant, unprofessional, and outright dishonest in his social media presence.

He shared dishonest and unreputable/extremist news sources (again, this is from someone that consumes conservative media, and I will say that Qanon, Breitbart, etc, is not acceptable for the leader of the free world, or generally most people, to post to the masses, especially as proof alongside actual journalistic sources), legitimizing them by being promoted by the president, giving them a mouthpiece to spread other dishonest or radical rhetoric.

He used his presence to interfere in the economy, by telling people not to buy from certain stores (the case I'm talking about is because Ivanka had a deal that fell through with the company, I forget which, and he was trying to influence it), which the president is not supposed to do.

He also conducted smear campaigns and constant barrages of insults at opponents of all kinds. Not thoughtful, heated debate, but just insults, which normalized it for both sides of the aisle and further destroyed bipartisan discourse.

Even if you only agree with me on one of these points being valid (even though all of them are true and documented), a president should do none of these things, as they're supposed to set the supreme example for not just the US, but for the free world to follow. Again, I'm not talking about policy, I'm talking about personal conduct.

So I think it's fairly established that most people think he deserves to be deplatformed, or even if they don't think he deserves it/is entitled to his rights, it's safe to assume they wish he would shut up, or tone it down and act more professionally. Essentially, if this man was acting this way on the internet and wasn't the president/representative of a party that includes half the nation, he would be an internet villain/pariah.

However, even if the majority of people wish he would shut up, or would love for him to be deplatformed, the reason this is being decried is because of the implications of the action. The president has been censored, and does that set a precedent that political censorship is now going to become commonplace? Political social media bans have almost exclusively been of conservatives, despite both sides committing egregious misconduct and unprofessionalism. I would chalk this up to the fact that social media users, as well as most founders, lean left, and therefore have a bias that makes the conduct seem unbalanced.

But I digress.

I personally am concerned about the precedent this sets as well, but simultaneously I've wanted that oaf to shut up for half a decade now (a big part of my candidate choice is how the conduct and carry themselves, as I care greatly for geopolitics and grand strategy, and professionalism is a vital component).

But the arguing about it isn't going to help solve anything. The argument we need to have is: is social media a public good? Or should it be run as a private company providing a service? If so, that means that censorship, even of the politically biased variety, is justified, as it is at the companies' discretion.

This, technically speaking, should be the free market/libertarian/libright perspective, as it promotes limited government and independent action of actors in a free market.

However, many conservatives seem to be abandoning this small government perspective because the precedent and implication for a dystopian censorship of only conservative entities (or maybe just strict censorship in general), is terrifying. The only way to mitigate this that I see would be to consider social media a public good, as then the companies would have to be held accountable in preserving constitutional rights. However, this could lead to a nationalization/federalization of social media, and then the state controls the flow of information, and we're right back at dystopia.

A further layer on this is, if social media is not a public good, is the internet? And if that answer is yes, then do these companies have obligation to preserve constitutional rights because they are dispensing their service via a public good?

I think these are the true questions, and important ones at that. I think that this discourse can be civil, as it has opportunity for the left to understand advocating free market/limited government policies to better society (letting social media companies act independently in order to be able to ban people at their discretion), and the right to understand advocating for government oversight/regulation to preserve freedoms (considering social media as a public good to hold companies accountable for the preservation of free speech).

It's a very weird, mirror world, inverted beliefs kind of scenario, but I think it is a really good starting point for civil discourse and the depolarization of politics, if the debate catches on.

155 notes · View notes

fawriel · 7 years

Text

On nazis and the punching thereof

There are two things that have been on my mind about the whole nazi-punching discourse.

#1: What good does it do to punch a nazi?

That is not a rhetorical question. I legitimately want to know.

Mind you, I’m in no way trying to say that it was wrong to punch Spencer in the face - if anything, I would’ve recommended some stylish brass knuckles. Facial damage calcs aside though, it has been rightly pointed out that (most) nazis can simply not be reasoned with, and that goes especially for a creature like old Spence here, who is just impressively disqualified from counting as any sort of poor, misguided soul or whatever. The guy is from a well-off family, highly educated and very much old enough to know better. He had every chance to listen to every argument and see the error in his way, but instead kept making the choice to dehumanize entire peoples and treat them as nothing more than obstacles on his path to even more power for him and his buds. If such a thing as objective evil exists, I’d reckon that’s a pretty good contender for its very definition.

The thing is, I consider myself moderate, although I seem to have a different idea from everyone else as to what that actually means. What I mean is that my ideas are pretty much congruent with most left-wing ideas, but I don’t defend them because I consider myself part of the political left. It’s that I’m a white German male, and none of those descriptors matter to me as an identity. All I know is that it makes me sad when people treat each other badly for bullshit reasons and I want to know how to make them stop.

So again, it’s not necessarily wrong to punch a nazi. But what does it accomplish? The fact that you can’t convince them with words doesn’t mean you can convince them with fists, so changing their mind isn’t the reason and I think we’re all aware of that. I can’t agree if the only reason is to satisfy an urge for revenge or such, either. That kind of self-righteous reasoning really is the path to the dark side. I imagine it could boost the morale of the people on our side, but again, dark side. More on that later.

Now one thing I have heard is that Spencebob actually had his ego bruised and is afraid to show himself in public again, which is a definite gain! On the other hand, I’m not sure how this will affect the morale of his people. The thing is that we all know that they’re the aggressors, but they don’t know that. I’m pretty sure most nazis or sympathizers see themselves as the victims, and tearing down one of their idols could just as well make him a martyr. “Look what cruel beasts we are up against,” the nazi screams, a single tear of condensed patriotism rolling down his cheek. “This is why Aryan Jesus is on my side!”

So... you don’t have to convince me that punching a monster isn’t bad. But what good does it do? I legitimately would love to hear about the positive effects, because I’m drawing a blank and I don’t like it.

#2: Political moderates have a point. But only a little.

There is merit to the “if you act violent you’re no better than they are”, you just can’t be that lazy about it. The issue with how most moderates seem to be arguing about this is not in the fact that they’re moderate, it’s in the fact that they’re complacent in their moderation.

The underlying principle here is that it’s impossible for any one person to know anything objectively, and you can never become complacent enough to trust yourself to not become the villain if you live long enough thinking of yourself as a hero. So the best we can do is always try to compare as many different viewpoints and use objective logical principles to try and figure out what makes the most sense. That’s pretty much the scientific principle, and it’s good. And when moderates bemoan the “just as bad as them” actions of anti-fascists and call for “hearing out both sides”, that’s what they’re thinking of.

But as I mentioned, the thing with nazis is that they don’t want to play nice. They act like they do, but only so they can get closer to the kids they don’t like so they can ram a fork in their eyes and win the game by default. That’s... that’s not the point of the game at all!

But the thing is, that underlying democratic principle of giving everyone the freedom to state their opinions so we can gather and compare them all and try to figure out a compromise that everyone can be happy with... it’s a good one. And I am, in fact, all for listening to the voices of nazis and finding a compromise.

The thing is, the compromise between a nazi saying “kill all Jews!” and a reasonable person saying “please don’t kill the Jews” is not to kill half the Jews. The correct course of action is to not kill any Jews but figure out the underlying problem that caused such an appalling stance. Maybe this person simply grew up in a horrible environment where terrible opinions fester and that environment should be fixed. Maybe they’re financially insecure and grasping for straws to find some sort of stability in their life and racist chanting at the bar is the best they can find, or whatever.

The point is that there’s always a reason for how people behave and we need to attend even to the needs of bad people to figure out where their destructive behavior comes from in order to prevent it from getting worse and maybe even fix the problem so they can get back to worrying about their own business instead of lashing out. And that goes especially for the people who aren’t all-out nazis but are willing to follow them for the promise of financial security or the like.

The key thing here is that the underlying principle is supposed to help us figure out how to make everyone happy and secure. That’s why I’m asking for the purpose of nazi punching besides being a wholesome pastime for the whole family. Does it actually serve a purpose for the sake of making everyone’s lives better in the long run, or does it only serve to strengthen the divide between left- and right-wing? Does it only serve to validate our side and devalidate theirs?

Because... our reasoning might be valid. But if we allow ourselves to stop considering our opponents as people and stop working with the clear goal in mind to create the best possible world for all people, and instead start thinking in terms of “us versus them”, with the clear goal in mind to just fuck them up real good... that would be complacent. And dare I say it, in that respect, it would make you little better than people who say “you’re no better than they are.”

So here’s the deal: That underlying principle is good, and I hope we can all agree on that. But now we’re finding ourselves in a situation where blindly insisting on it doesn’t do anyone any good except for the nazis who are abusing that principle in order to destroy it. But we need to have this guiding principle. So either we need to find the flaw in how we interpreted it so far, or we need to rework it in a way that still works. And for the jackpot, do all of that without cheating the system by acting like nazis aren’t human, because oh boy they are, they are terribly human, and that’s what makes this whole thing so damn scary!

So, here’s my quick and dirty attempt:

The principle: I hope we can agree that people are people and all people have an equal right to voice their views. This does not mean that all views are equally valid, which would be logically impossible because a lot of them are mutually exclusive. But everyone still has the right to voice theirs so that their problems may be considered as everyone works together to try and work things out for everyone. I’m going to posit this as the underlying moral principle, because you need to establish some basic moral value before you can do anything else.

The nazi issue: Nazis have the right to voice their views. However, their views directly contradict the very basic principle of our collaborative efforts towards a better world for everyone. This means that, while the problems of each individual nazi must still be earnestly considered, their ideology is incompatible with the very structure of civil discourse and must not be allowed to take root. Their views as humans are equally valuable to all others, but their views are not equally valid as they cannot function in the framework of collaborative discourse. If their views do take root and are given power, it would render that framework disfunctional. The principle of civil, reasonable, collaborative discourse for the sake of everyone cannot work when it simultaneously has to justify the actions of a group defined by their denial of the worth of other people’s views or indeed even their very goddamn lives. And as such, to push for the institutionalization of nazi ideology in this discourse is to push for the disruption and ultimately destruction of that very system.

... It doesn’t sound much different, does it. But the key difference is that this is about ideas. We all need to be mindful of the difference between the value of a human, and the value of human ideas. We must never let ourselves forget that even our nazi opponents are human. And that the fact that they are human doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t oppose them, but that we have to be wary of how their human minds were poisoned so we can avoid the same happening to ourselves.

So in conclusion, nazis cannot be reasoned with and are a threat to reason itself, so do whatever it takes to keep them from gaining that power. Just don’t lose sight of what you are doing it for. Go ahead and punch a nazi if you reasonably believe that it will protect a future where we can all play nice together.

#nazi punching #nazis #antifa #politics #uspol #richard spencer #alt right

6 notes · View notes

neosessays-blog · 6 years

Text

Why I Dislike Politics

Politics, such a dirty word, one that among forums and chatrooms, the discussion is frequently not allowed, or if it is allowed, it is in a specific room with rules against bringing it outside of those rooms. But, it doesn't have to be that way, it never had to be. Unfortunately, what stops politics from being civil is the political climate itself. Politics are as what some people might call a necessary evil as anarchy in and of itself, cannot sustain itself, as social animals, humans will inevitably attempt to instill some sense of a pecking order, which invariably winds up becoming a system of government. This system is set up with sometimes noble intentions, like in the United States, however it can also be set up for nefarious purposes which is when you get something like a dictatorship out of the gate. In a republic like the United States, there are supposed to be multiple sides that represent the people and there is supposed to be a debate between the opposing viewpoints and they come to a consensus that leads to solution that lies somewhere within the middle. In the political climate of today, this doesn't happen, especially not within the United States where the Media and politicians have taken to simply smearing and blaming the other side. Which is where the problems with the political climate comes from.

When the Media start to merely smear the other side while trying to say that their side is unquestionably good, you start to create a divide between the people. This divide creates friction between the different sides and this eventually becomes hostility, which is why there are numerous flame wars on the internet over politics. This divide is why there are almost no civil discourses anymore, because it's become so great that the two sides can never see eye to eye, thus leading to constant bickering and fighting when politics are brought up. It doesn't matter how close two people are to each other, if people disagree politically, there is always a chance that the two of them will end up fighting.

Another issue with the political climate which isn't helped by the smear tactics while people try to sell themselves as being unquestionably good is the fact that neither side wants to admit the possibility that they are wrong. It is human nature to make mistakes, it is human nature to be wrong about certain things. But it is this tribalistic attitude that leads to people of either side only looking at the information that their side has presented and saying that it is unquestionably right, while saying that the other side is wrong before ever giving them the benefit of the doubt. This doesn't allow for a civil discourse of ideas and neither side wants to accept the possibility that the other side could be right or that their side could be wrong, nor do they want to accept the very real possibility that both sides could be right or even that both sides could be wrong. This inability to accept these very real possibilities also leads to hostility between people when politics is brought up.

This leads into yet another issue, the demonization of the other. Because people cannot accept the possibility that they might be wrong when it comes to politics, they have to demonize groups of people for the problems that are happening in their lives. In the United States, a common theme is that instead of both liberals and conservatives coming together and having a civil discourse and asking how they should go about fixing the problem and having a healthy debate, the two sides decide to look at the various problems, point towards the other side and spend all their time screaming at them and doing nothing to solve the problem at hand. When the problem finally stops being a problem, both sides promptly latch onto a new problem to do this with, repeating the cycle endlessly. Not to mention that both sides will also demonize groups other than the major political group, which causes even more friction and hostility between people in politics come up.

The final problem when it comes to politics that will be addressed is the misuse of words. People who are very political love to latch onto words that were created for a different purpose and appropriate them for their own purposes. This invariably creates negative connotations for these words, which includes the two most well known political sides. Liberal, which means given or provided in a generous and openhanded way as well as not literal or strict, but has been appropriated for one side of the political spectrum that is commonly known as the Left Wing, which is also appropriated as a Left Wing is a position in Hockey that stands to the left of the Center at Faceoff. Conservative, which means marked by moderation or caution as well as marked by or relating to traditional norms of taste, elegance, style, or manners, but this word has also been appropriated for the referring to the side of the political spectrum that is commonly known as the Right Wing, which is again appropriated from Hockey as a Right Wing is the man who stands Right from the Center during Faceoff.

In conclusion, Politics doesn't have to be about bickering and arguing and stubbornly refusing to admit that there is the possibility that one is wrong while always trying to tell the other that no matter what they say they are wrong. If people would be open to differing views and accept the fact that no one person, no one ideal, and no one political view is perfect, then political discourse would be a far more civil matter. But as long as people hold onto their views as if they were their own identity, refusing to give any other view any consideration, politics will remain a hotbed for friction and hostility.

Addendum: The reason the United States was chosen was because it is unique in being the only republic in the world that has only two major political sides. Which means that both sides are not only massive, but also incredibly hostile towards each other. The problems were listed are global issues, not just centered around a single nation.

0 notes

jcdevinejr · 6 years

Text

Take the Charles Krauthammer Road

The recent news on Charles Krauthammer’s terminal cancer is a reminder of the chasm between the snarling debates we hear every day and the reasoned, respectful and constructive commentary we could always count on from him. Godspeed, Mr. K. / jcd

It’s hard to imagine the level of our political discourse in the US sinking any lower. Today’s conversations on political matters are not spoken, they are shouted. Obscenity is commonplace. Insults are hurled in all directions – toward people who post on Facebook, toward TV panelists with opposing views, toward the President of the United States.

More and more, the term “civil discourse” seems like an oxymoron.

Every bit as depressing as the vile language is the way it is perceived by public and media. Whether behavior is applauded or condemned seems to depend solely on the political orientation of the individual passing judgment.

A few examples:

Roseanne Barr, a TV sitcom personality whose well-worn routine is to demean just about everyone, became the darling of the right when she took on the role of ardent Trump supporter. But that ended with her notoriously racist tweet targeting former Obama advisor Valerie Jarrett. Within hours, she was summarily fired by ABC.

At about the same time, relatively obscure cable TV comic Samantha Bee opened her weekly show with an obscene and misogynistic smear of the president’s daughter, Ivanka Trump. Unlike Barr’s Twitter outburst, Bee’s words were scripted, vetted, pre-recorded and televised – clearly a premeditated verbal assault. She subsequently offered a tepid apology and is now back on the air, unscathed and better known.

Wade through the wall-to-wall commentary about these unseemly eruptions and you find two entirely different viewpoints. Progressive Democrats assert that because Barr’s comments were racist, her firing was completely appropriate; and they maintain that Bee’s comments, while tasteless, were not really that shocking for an ‘edgy’ comic and had been intended to call attention to an important issue.

Conservative Republicans come down on exactly the opposite corner – they are appalled by the double standard and they find nothing remotely redeeming about Bee’s tirade.

Shift to the sporting world. Before the NBA finals, both the Golden State Warriors and the Cleveland Cavaliers announced with great fanfare that if invited to the White House they would never accept - as Cav superstar Lebron James explained, “while he (Donald Trump) is there”. The president’s rejoinder: no problem, I won’t invite you.

The Philadelphia Eagles, reigning Super Bowl champs, had accepted their White House invitation and planned to attend with a full contingent of players, coaches and staff - but last week they reversed field and advised that only a few individuals would attend. Trump’s rejoinder on that one: I invited the team; if the team doesn’t want to come, that’s OK – invitation withdrawn.

Both exchanges triggered firestorms of reaction, politically aligned as usual. Conservatives applauded: that’ll teach those overpaid ingrates. Democrats were outraged: Trump once again shows that he’s arrogant, egotistical, uncaring.

Not to be outdone, actor Robert De Niro unleashed a series of F-epithets at President Trump at Sunday evening’s nationally televised Tony Awards – to a standing ovation from the adoring theater crowd and shoulder shrug from most media.

These episodes are just fragments of a steadily deteriorating discourse – angry, ugly, insulting language, met with wholly polarized response. In each case, while the offensive comments may have been engendered by heartfelt concerns (e.g., immigration policy, police brutality), the ensuing uproars largely ignored those issues and served only to cement the partisan divide. Nothing constructive was achieved, by anyone, on either side.

There is a far better model for us all to follow, recently called to our attention by a sad turn of events. A few days ago we learned that conservative political commentator Charles Krauthammer is in the final stages of his losing battle with terminal cancer. For decades Krauthammer has been respected by all sides for his thoughtful commentary on current events.

Charles Krauthammer is an intellectual heavyweight who writes and speaks with uncommon clarity. He never preaches, he doesn’t wave his arms or try to yell louder. He just lays out facts and offers cogent analysis. And he consistently takes the high road.

Krauthammer revealed his dire medical situation in an extraordinarily candid, dignified open letter. In it he stated:

“I believe that the pursuit of truth and right ideas through honest debate and rigorous argument is a noble undertaking. I am grateful to have played a small role in the conversations that have helped guide this extraordinary nation’s destiny”.

Let’s follow his lead. Can we notpass up the obscenity and snarling insults, and in their place confront the critical issues of our time with Krauthammer’s “honest debate and rigorous argument”?

What a difference that would make.

Jack DeVine

June 2018

#Charles Krauthammer #political debate #De Niro #Samatha Bee #Rosanne Barr

0 notes