No, I will not debate you

I've heard Laurie Penny previously explain that she wouldn't debate Bannon for the same reason why it would be improper to debate a proponent of the "Flat Earth" theory. She doesn't reuse those words here, but she does echo the sentiment- which is that Bannon's position is not worth debating.

What I think Penny gets wrong is that the value of debating someone is not related to the credibility of their ideas. Instead, the value of debate is the influence of their ideas. I agree that debating Flat Earthers is not very important, not because their view is invalid, but because almost nobody really believes in the Flat Earth theory. Conversely, if nearly half of the country thought the Earth was flat, then having a debate with Flat Earth folks would be one of the most important and impactful things you could do as an advocate for astronomy.

Bannon's ideas, whatever Penny would like to call them, are not fringe. They are massively influential and therefore they need to be discussed, analyzed, and yes, debated.

I don't even understand what Penny would hope to gain by not debating him. Will Bannon's influence wane without the popular appeal of Laurie Penny? Hardly, whereas it is plausible that presenting an opposing case to Bannon's world view would change some minds.

Penny has a cynical view of the debate watching public and the possibility for debate to change minds. She writes "People rarely change their minds in the course of formal public debate. Not the people on stage, and very few of those in the audience."

I've watched many "Intelligence Squared" debates where they poll the audience for opinions on the topic before and after the debates. Contrary to Penny's beliefs, large portions of the audience actually do switch sides or take a new opinion after a debate. Those results are in keeping with my own experience too. When I listen to a debate on a topic that I don't know very much about I often find my opinion swinging wildly back and forth depending on who is presenting or making a case. A debate is a great way to present the structure of an argument for a position to an audience.

Penny's opposition to debate is deeper than an unwillingness to confront Bannon on a stage. She also seems to me to be unwilling to confront his ideas - at least here, perhaps she does elsewhere. Instead, Penny relies heavily on the belief that Bannon is a fascist and that fascists cannot be debated because they actually don't want to debate and therefore she doesn't want to debate them.

I find this type of argument infuriating. I don't believe it is proper to ascribe to people political views that they don't espouse except where it's overwhelmingly obvious. Penny repeatedly refers to Bannon and his ilk as fascists, yet, to my knowledge, Bannon doesn't want the state to direct the economy, he doesn't want a dictator in power, and he doesn't advocate for violently crushing dissent. So, in what way is he actually a fascist? Penny simply takes it as a given that he is one, though I strongly suspect he'd deny it, and uses that as the basis of her position to refuse to debate him.

Fascists and others may not call themselves fascists because that name has negative connotations. I get that. But, if you want to call someone a fascist you should point out how their ideology lines up with fascism. Are they secretly calling for the state to direct the economy? Do they advocate for violently crushing political opposition while claiming not to be fascist? And if you cannot line these arguments up then perhaps you should realize that people can have different political opinions without being horrible villains.

If you won’t debate, the argument goes, you’re an enemy of free speech. [...] This bad-faith argument is a repeating refrain of this low, dishonest decade

This is not what a bad-faith argument is. At the bare minimum, the author did not make a successful case that the argument they're upset with is a bad-faith argument (that is, one which is made maliciously without any intent of fairly interacting any opposing view). Ironically, the failure to present any case that encouraging engagement with heinous ideas is bad-faith before calling it bad-faith is ... arguing in bad faith.

And given the placement of this offense, the second paragraph, I struggle to imagine why anything else this person has to say is worth my time. Yet I will read on hoping that the author finds a way to add more context that walks back this egregious error.

Yet, I'm not finding it. The core weakness in positions like this is that you all too often lump in people you don't mean to target with the behavior/speech you actually see as harmful, self-serving, and heinous. Every treatment this author gives of an opposing view is the extreme, not the moderate stance. But what often happens is people with moderate stances get lumped into the debate. What this means is you get a bunch of people arguing in bad-faith that other people are arguing in bad-faith, and potentially using that as an excuse to not have to think. That's unacceptable.

I am not saying there are no good reasons to not engage or for a private institution to refuse any person they want a platform to discuss views that fundamentally undermine the goals of that private institution. That issue is so obviously in favor of the private institution that it barely deserves comment. Of course the private institution both has that right and the responsibility to see to its goals first, and to hosting whatever speech can further those goals second. That does not absolve the left of its arrogance and poor critical thinking training when dealing with opposing views. These are two wholly separate issues.

You know why people focus on the process of free speech when they're concerned they're about to be silenced? Because they're concerned they're about to be silenced. And when you leave the door open to silence people just because you disagree with them, because you're--I don't know--vaguely dismissing someone whose views you find to be heinous, you're necessarily going to leave a lot of people who don't necessarily hold those views wondering if you won't do the same to them. Because that's what humans do. They dismiss what they don't want to engage. It's so common a behavior in humanity that it's arrogant to believe you wouldn't do it yourself, and no one who doesn't already agree with you will give you that benefit of the doubt unless you earn it in this climate.

So earn it.

Last week, when I was on the evening news discussing my refusal to attend The Economist’s event, the showrunners sat us in front of a big screen with Bannon’s face on it — twice. And that, of course, is the problem.

Nailed it.

The first mistake these people make is assuming this is a debate of some sort, or some intellectual argument.

In reality, it's just a chance for more public exposure. A chance to proselytize to people and a chance for more outreach. A chance to have their views normalized by trusted organizations.

In my opinion, the quote below is the lynchpin of this whole piece and an entire brand of thought, but it's an incredibly weak idea to rest your philosophy on.

Focusing the conversation on the ethics of disseminating speech rather than the actual content of that speech is hugely useful for the far right for three reasons. Firstly, it allows them to paint themselves as the wronged party — the martyrs and victims. Secondly, it stops people from talking about the actual wronged parties, the real lives at risk. And thirdly, of course, it’s an enormous diversion tactic, a shout of “Fire!” in the crowded theatre of politics. But Liberals don’t want to feel like bad people, so this impossible choice — betray the letter of your principles, or betray the spirit — leaves everyone feeling filthy.

Firstly, it allows them to paint themselves as the wronged party — the martyrs and victims.

If a person is given an opportunity and then a mob demands that the opportunity is taken away in a public fashion, that person is going to feel wronged.

Was the opportunity taken away for good and just reason? Maybe yes maybe no.

Is it easy for the opposing side to use this as an opportunity to show they have been wronged? Absolutely

I think a more effective tactic would be to allow the speaker to speak but to convince the audience to not show up. That way there is less of an opportunity for the opposition to claim martyrdom and it creates a beautiful optic of what happens when people with bad ideas are speakers. The optic is no one wants to hear it, and their invitation was a waste of time and money for everyone involved.

Secondly, it stops people from talking about the actual wronged parties, the real lives at risk.

Who are the wronged parties? Who wronged them? When was this wrong done? Why should we be talking about it? and what is putting their lives at risk?

I'm genuinely interested in these answers as I've never heard an answer that provides any facts or details. I guess this is supposed to be common knowledge but I was never exposed to it.

And thirdly, of course, it’s an enormous diversion tactic, a shout of “Fire!” in the crowded theatre of politics.

If there's an actual fire, you should shout about it. If the far left is successful in silencing any group of speech they will just move on to other ideas they don't like and silence those next. This is a slippery slope argument, but I think we have reason to believe it's true.

When the social justice movement picked up steam and starting labeling folks 'alt-right' and 'Nazi' and started using the argument that speech is violence they had a lot of success de-platforming and getting people fired. Then those labels started getting applied to wider groups of people, many people that were moderate republicans, democrats, and there were even Jews called nazis for having conservative ideas. So I find this third argument to just be completely ridiculous and akin to saying "I started a fire and now someone is shouting fire in a crowded building but I think this is not really a fire because it's justified."

I'm also motivated to see hateful ideas and racism eradicated but I find these means to be completely inadequate. While de-platforming and the refusal to engage had success in the past, the flaws are becoming obvious. Now the people who hold the reprehensible ideas are exploiting these tactics to help themselves and they are more successful than ever.