Another idea for reducing distracting emotional argumentation...

Eliminate all screen names, any and all reference to the poster. A collection of ideas appear on the page, and who typed them is irrelevant.

After all, little of what we're saying can really be called "MY idea" anyway. We're all basically recycling ideas that have already been expressed a million times in one form or another.

Isn't it interesting how adamantly we will promote and defend a totally anonymous identity such as screen name SnoopyDog27? If I had no screen name I'd have nothing to promote, nothing to defend, and that would pull the rug out from under at least some of the pose striking.

Of course, then almost everyone would stop posting. So there's that. :smile:

Are you suggesting that the last part is a mistaken move? — All sight

No, it really is a rule structure that is in fact conducive to human flourishing (or any of that basket of closely related goals).

The objectivity was implicit in the fact that ancestors who happened to live in ways that sketchily and searchingly accorded with those rules, howsoever "blindly" (without knowing what they were doing) tended to survive and flourish. And the objectivity is still there when the rules and goals are made explicit, streamlined, made more coherent, as time goes on.

Okay, yeah, I agree with that.

The meta-battle or meta-framing can only arise from a position of superiority.

Have you heard of divine madman stories? I think they're common in most religions I believe. Divine madmen are well known for breaking from convention, especially moral or societal ones. They may be rude and sometimes even outright evil. To me one has to achieve a certain level of, I shall call it, enlightenment to wield emotions and manipulate people to achieve good.

Anyway. I think you guys are right.

I'm making the pragmatic point that many people are fairly impervious to reason and more swayed by rthetoric, so if "winning" in the marketplace of ideas really was just down to using reason, I'd agree with you, but I'm saying it's demonstrably not. — Baden

That would only happen if we as a society reject reason and logic as the arbiters of truth. If we were to actually value reason over emotion as a society, then we could get to the place I have proposed.

If you aren't interested in reason, then what are you really saying? Your words would be meaningless. If you are inconsistent, then how can you actually mean anything? How is it that your words become interesting or even valuable when you are inconsistent and emotional? It seems to me that we simply have a problem of not valuing reason over emotional rhetoric - which is a social problem - one that needs fixing if we are to keep away from hateful ideologies.

That would only happen if we as a society reject reason and logic as the arbiters of truth. — Harry Hindu

Well, I wasn't presenting a hypothetical but describing a current reality. There's no "would" about it. That's demonstrably the way things are. On top of that, I want to make it clear that what I said is not an injunction not to be reasonable nor to reject reason and logic as the ultimate arbiters of truth, nor is it an expression of a lack of interest in reason, but just the observation that in reality winning in the marketplace of ideas (insofar as winning is defined for a given idea as the extent to which it holds social sway) is not solely down to reason.

So, yes, I agree, it's a social problem. It's also a human problem. We're not rational animals; we're at best rationalising ones. Given that, reason alone is not necessarily enough to protect people from hateful ideologies. And in a world where the most powerful man is apparently a racist, that's fairly salient. So, where do we stand? It seems you are saying we should allow unrestricted free speech everywhere including on this forum because otherwise we are using illegitimate (unreasonable) means to combat unreasonable ideologies (am I correct?). Whereas where I stand is that I think it's not sensible to unnecessarily restrict yourself in terms of methods employed to fight these ideologies and their purveyors such that you give them (who are not directly interested in reason at all but merely in spreading their beliefs) any help in the marketplace of ideas. So if one way of combating their spread is to marginalize them, I say, that's fine.

So, we could frame this as me being unprincipled and you being principled, or me being realistic and you being naive, or me being a labeler and you being a non-labeler, or me being a consequentialist and you being a deontologist, or any other way you want that reflects well or badly on either of us, but if the agreed goal is to inhibit the spread of hateful ideologies then I think I'm on more solid ground than you in suggesting we don't handicap ourselves rhetorically or strategically any more than they do in this fight.

Apropos

If we slander someone's integrity to prove a point we will only strengthen their perspective and the perspective of people who agree with the perspective we wish to change. You have simply made a martyr. Not only that, but we encourage others to slander people as well. We have the power to shift perspective if our approach warrants communication as opposed to separation. We all have the powers of influence and inspiration. Are we using ours to incite divides between humanity, or to build bridges?
Hate+Hate does not = Peace

Bitter and hateful people might be full of so much love and positivity to offer the world, but if they never have the chance to understand that then they may have to live with their fear of others for the rest of their lives. They have extreme passion that can be utilized to help others and to help take care of the Earth if they have the chance to redirect their effort.
Or they may remain as they are as a choice regardless of interaction with others, and we may not be able to help them no matter what we do. We cannot control others, but we can try our best to inspire hope within them.

You have a duty to your fellow human beings, because it is up to all of us to continue our evolution. If you feel like you see a miscalculation in the equation of society and you have the courage to face adversary head on to balance the equation out in order to pursue peace, then by all means please do, but if you shout at someone, belittle them, or become violent with them, then have you really given your best effort? I don't think so.

You have to talk with them; not at them. They have already been talked at, it doesn't work, and that is part of why they are upset in the first place.

Those who oppose using ostracisation and rhetoric to oppose extreme ideas seem to raise the argument that it is better to use reason and logic to oppose them to avoid martyring and to show that their ideas can be opposed in such a way (ie 'normal' ideas are not just zeitgeist, but carefully thought out).

The trouble with the latter of these two reasons is that it actually creates both problems in the first place. The more we perpetuate the notion that the grand political ideologies are the result of reasoned analysis, the more fuel we give to every distasteful fundamentalist group who demands their 'new' idea be given fair consideration. But we just don't seem to arrive at grand ideologies in that way, nor is it demonstrably possible to do so. Ideologies have been debated by intelligent groups of people for decades, no one's won yet. At least a sensible working presumption for the time being is that the "let's resolve this once and for all with a rational discussion" project, is probably something of a non-starter.

The idea, for example, that certain races are 'inferior' has been around for decades. Its been around that long (as opposed to, say, the idea that there is no gravity, or that jelly is a good building material), because it is possible to construct an argument, using evidence and logic, in favour of it. That doesn't make it right, of course, the evidence could be (and is) deeply flawed and logic is always fallible in any other form that obvious syllogisms, but pointing out that those flaws exist is just highlighting a general property of all ideas (that they contain sufficient flaws to construct a counter-argument from). So the extremist need feel no obligation to alter their view simply for knowing such flaws exist.

The alternative is to focus on some measure of the extent of the flaws. There's no doubt, for example, that the science claiming that certain races are inferior is massively more flawed than any science claiming the opposite. But then this suggests that, automaton-like, we are obliged to adopt those ideas for which the least flaws in the scientific or logical evidence exist, and again, this is demonstrably not how we find and hold ideas, nor is it possible to establish with clarity (in most cases). It seems clear that we almost universally form, or adopt, ideas and as a result of numerous factors (mostly social) and reject them only if they are overwhelmingly demonstrated to be unsupportable, or a more attractive idea comes along. Reason and logic play a supporting role from the sidelines at best, at worst, they barely get a look in.

So, given that most ideas are arrived at by social cues, what could be worse for an unpleasant idea than to give those in whose mind it currently festers the notion that there's an acceptable social group of people who also hold such ideas and who seem to at least be taken seriously enough to be part of the 'global debate'?

I can see no reason why any community should not be able to make a clear statement about the boundaries of tolerance within which ideas will be discussed and outside of which ideas are rejected as not worthy of consideration. Ridicule is a tried and tested method for making this boundary absolutely clear.

As far as 'free speech' is concerned, has anyone not heard of these ideas before? Especially with the Internet, I don't see the worldwide suppression of any idea being likely. The freedom to speak about your ideas does not entail the freedom to do so in any place and at any time.

It depends on who "they" are. If "they" are other relatively reasonable people as tend to predominate on this site then it's more productive to engage purely on the level of reason even if you ultimately will continue to disagree. However, if "they" are people who have no intention of engaging on the level of reason as they are not willing or capable of doing so, and if you being reasonable and them not being reasonable suits a destructive agenda of theirs then it makes sense to allow yourself other options, which may include censoring, marginalizing, positive propaganda, abusive argumentation or whatever. Think of it from a game theory point of view. Rule number 1: Don't play a dominated strategy. A high horse is no good to you if your interlocutors are busy turning the ground beneath you into a swamp.

You have simply made a martyr. — Lif3r

I've always found this argument entirely disingenuous. By putting murderers in prision, we do not make them 'martyrs'. By locking away rapists we do not make rape a cause of martyrdom. The 'martyrs' argument is always selectively wheeled out by those who do not have the courage of their own convictions, playing a faux-neutrality that does nothing but give aid to horrible people. Let awful people be martyred. We'll 'martyr' their sympathizers too. As for this:

You have a duty to your fellow human beings — Lif3r

No one ought to give a flying fig about 'human beings', an abstract, useless category made to intellectualize the flesh and blood of the world out of existence; one has duties to the persecuted, the voiceless, friends and strangers in need. Not 'human beings', who are as miserable as they are wonderful by turns. Human beings don't exist. Only these people and those people in real, concrete situations do. And one 'has a duty' to them, far more than the armchair, paper cut-out notion of the 'human being'.

You have to talk with them; not at them. They have already been talked at, it doesn't work, and that is part of why they are upset in the first place. — Lif3r

:clap: