Tolerance Schmolerance

so she posits that logic will not work, rather emotive langauge.

then she says that liberals should take evangelicals to task for their bible-based beliefs, which is not much of a solution, rather commentary on why we are in a mutually intractable position.

the article does little more than serve as fiery rhetoric for why the right is wrong and why it's time for the left to feel its oats, even going so far as to use the same langauge we've grown so embattled by (last paragraph). i am seeing more and more of this rebranded neo-patriotism by the right and it's nothing more than using fire to fight fire. nothing is changing, no real substantive debate is occuring, just one side gaining the upper hand and using the same tactics that kept it down.

"rebranded neo-patriotism by the left"

d'oh!

nothing is changing, no real substantive debate is occuring, just one side gaining the upper hand and using the same tactics that kept it down.

And what tactics are those? The Chief Sitting Bull calibur tactic of not conferring an air of respectability on things that are clearly in conflict with empirical reality?

If such a tactic doesn't and/or won't ever work, then it's not simply time to give up on politics, it's time to give up on humanity.

the quoted text refers to the tactic of using language such as-

It is not just wrong, but downright unpatriotic, for us to let the right wing get away with...

...dressed up in Sunday clothes.

The stakes these days are just too high...

these types of comments can be found almost verbatim in the bag of tricks of most any member of the GOP. it goes much further than simply not acknowledging the opposing viewpoint's premise, and falls into the area of polarizing, counter-productive rhetoric. i am not disagreeing with her argument per se, rather the way these types of debates are being framed and what they expect of the reader in reaction.

cannot rational, non-emotive discourse stand on its own merit? even your own last statement brings the reader to a place of polarizing devisiveness predicated on anxiety, when such a decision is not necessary on those terms. resolution is possible, but these types of arguments show that they want nothing to do with it, rather they want control without regard for those who oppose them. such a resolution isn't necessary, compromise is possible within the bounds of compassion and reason. failure to do so will only bring us to the other side of the pendulum swing, in the same position of national unrest.

cannot rational, non-emotive discourse stand on its own merit?

In an academic setting it usually does. Rational and non-emotive discourse is found all the time in scientific periodicals and usually on these blogs. Character assasination, fearmongering, soundbytes, spin, strawmen, etc. all dominate political discourse.

Looking at it from a realistic politico-economic perspective, this is the principle of revealed preferences at it's most stark. The reason these tactics are used is because they work, and the reason they work is because the populace in a mass-franchise liberal democracy responds to them. That's not a matter of what is noble or ignoble, it's only reality. Call me a latter day Machiavelli, but I think there are certain points at which it is necessary to toss civility to the wind.

I'm with blah blah inc on this one.

In one place she says:

"if we just reason with them and give them the facts, they'll be persuaded and come around." Huh-uh. Not these folks. They're not reality-based, remember? You can talk facts at them all day, and get nowhere.

later on in the article she says:

It does NOT mean that the rest of us non-government types are required to hold our tongues and smile while people say things that are stupid, dangerous, or contrary to fact. In fact, it means we are duty-bound as citizens to stand up and say, as loudly as necessary, "No. That's a bad idea. And here's why."

So my question is:

Is violence ever appropriate in the furtherance of the goal? To protect oneself or community? Or is only resort to logic (and loud talking) acceptable?

I ask because it doesn't really matter who the government is; democrat or republican -- violence appears to be quite readily accepted over diplomacy at the international level at least and government seems to be generally practiced and executed by the educated class. Education seems to dictate to them that violence is effective and effort economical while talk and diplomacy is indecisive and weak.

And I was intrigued by the qualification of:

...and say, as loudly as necessary

that loudness is a necessary component to the discourse.

Oh, for pete's sake.

Loudness is not a necessary component to the discourse. But, as Tyler gets, it IS important to talk to them in ways they understand if you want their cooperation. Gore wanted the religious right's cooperation, and knew how to talk to them in a way that got it. If we refuse to leave our liberal fact-based communication style box, we're not going to be able to replicate this feat in the future.

The point about "tolerance" being used as an excuse for political cowardice -- for letting people spout nonsense without challenging it and offering better ideas -- is related, in that liberals have avoided standing up to the right for decades, and let a whole lot of rank nonsense (religious, scientific, and otherwise) go totally unanswered. Sometimes, you do have to match loudness for loudness, when it will work (and with some audiences, it will). Sometimes, you have to stop behaving like scientists and make emotional appeals, because that's what the audience needs. Most times, facts are not going to influence people nearly as well as we'd like to think, as 25 years of liberal (non-) communication with half the country has proven rather well.

And, yeah, I do get a little heated and polemical. It's a deliberate choice. I can do measured, evidence-based speech too -- and for an audience of scientists, I would -- but blogging is not a scientific enterprise, it's a political one. And in political discourse, emotional speech is what moves crowds. In fact, I'm trying rather consciously to provide an example of how liberals need to start talking if we're going to get the country back on our side.

Sorry, gang: I know that's what you're comfortable with, but dispassionate presentations of fact are not going to do the job here.

Exactly. Thank you Sara for coming here and saying this. I just got home and was wondering how to respond. Now I don't have to because you did.

For pete's sake nothing.

Look, I agree with most of your points in this thread above:

1. Facts and logic will not by themselves change many minds that are firmly set. The logic, fact-based argumenters fail to see this routinely but they're too busy patting themselves on the back to notice that they did not really change the position of the opponent.

2. The (other side) need to be challenged and vehemently. I just think that there is more to it than a logical dismantlement of their arguments (as you seem to imply). (And six billion escalating voices doesn't seem like a solution to me.)

But that doesn't really address some of the other issues in your essay including how much talking is enough, which is the perennial problem of American liberals. I should have quoted this before, but it wasn't clear to me if you thought it was worth talking to people that perceived reality differently.

To me, this touches on the crux:

The Democrats done it for decades, and we can all see how well that's turned out for them. These True Believers eat contradictions for breakfast, and lies from their leadership for lunch. Facts mean nothing, no matter how sound they are; and trying to "understand how they think" will only make you as crazy as they are.

Now, I think your phrase These True Believers eat contradictions for breakfast, and lies from their leadership for lunch. Facts mean nothing, no matter how sound they are; and trying to "understand how they think" will only make you as crazy as they are. is dangerously dismissive because lies don't only come from their leaders and facts are routinely weighed in order of importance during normal decision-making.

In a practical sense, I read the general position as this:

Democrats (and liberals) would like to debate and use fact-based logic as a weapon in the clash of civilizations, the war on terror or any from a variety of other cultural issues. Can we trust Democrats/Liberals to engage an enemy on any terms others than the self-congratulatory logical fisking that educated elitism brings with it?

My answer: No. Although the ruling class democrat or republican is a class onto itself (educated, with means, power and support from the status quo institutions) and as such is less representative of the public that they talk down to. But as a general message they articulate, democrats and liberals are too wedded to logic and fisking to be of practical use in a variety of areas.

The democrats and liberals need to define some standard where fisking is put away and violence can become the accepted answer to the argument. Violence doesn't necessarily need to be defined in the traditional sense -- Clinton had some ability to address entitlement programs that can be viewed as violence of kind at least to those it affected.

Now, this position that violence needs to be acceptable is not going to be a popular position among the educated, but it's a position that works on a variety of levels. i.e. Heard this recently: Do we want Nancy Pelosi as the speaker? Well, why not?

So what's my point: Only this -- if the elections turn, it won't be because the public has embraced democrats or liberalism or secularism (or we suddenly get the argumentative logic of academics and scientists or they found the formula for gut appeal suddenly), but because the republicans are undeniably very bad at running the government. We'll vote for democrats not because they've learned to talk to us on a pragmatic level, but because they're the alternative to republicans. And despite the corruption headlines we won't vote for democrats because they're less corrupt than republicans -- if they were the party in power they'd be the corrupt ones because money follows power (some of us remember that).

With regard to appealing to the gut, for the democrats and liberals to be taken seriously they need to affirm violence as part of their plank not as part of gutless political expedience like the Iraq war vote. But hey, that's just my deranged view.