39
votes
“Both-sides” and when is nuance acceptable discourse?
I feel like some sort of alien asking this question but there is this negative connotation I keep seeing towards acknowledging “both sides” of an argument. Now, I know that things that have racism, sexism, and violence on one side and do not have such abhorrent views on the other clearly have a “good” side, but I also get the sneaking suspicion that calling something “both-sidesy” in a context where there are not such clear boundaries is a potential manipulation tactic to dismiss nuanced arguments. Does anyone have any thoughts on this? Is my dividing line correct or are there other things to consider?
What I'm going to offer comes mostly from just my own anecdotal experience, and may not be applicable very far. I live in the southern US, grew up there and lived in the midwest a bit, for perspective. But what I've observed is that a whole lot of people have memorized a bunch of argumentative patterns that fuck up conversation. They don't necessarily see it that way and don't necessarily understand even exactly what it is they're saying. I'm not attempting to paint people in some sort of permanently ignorant light saying that, rather what I mean is that some of the shit people argue about really is just folks regurgitating stuff they saw, at each other, and getting mad when they don't say the same things. I think I can tell that because when you try to talk about things like the actual outcome of lawmaking or the predictable consequences of things, they can't really engage with that/attempt to divert the conversation.
It's led to me abandoning talking about political issues with most people, because i don't consider a conversation like this worth having and my capacity for it is limited in the first place. Those conversations are not about politics. More often than not, it's someone seeking validation and/or someone to commiserate with. I don't care about validating folks and I don't particularly care if they validate what I think, so I save the energy for folks who can have a nuanced discussion and share a goal of reaching a shared truth. I have little need to commiserate. Picking battles is a thing we gotta do in all areas of life and this is no different. Instead of trying to thread the needle of figuring out the precise phrasing, I've decided instead it's more like a litmus test - if I'm getting the sense you're squashing nuance out of it for the sake of just wanting to win an argument (or something like that) I'm not going to go further with you. Doesn't matter if the things you're saying are things I care about/agree with, the way this is coming about is messed up and I won't go there, is how I look at it. Very few are interested in dismantling their underlying assumptions, and that's what it would take to have a fruitful conversation there. Changing your mind too, frankly, will not likely make any difference and the time I use trying to do it can be better spent, it's that simple.
I don't mean to sound accusatory using second-person like that, just to clarify. It's the easiest way I can think to put it. I think a lot of the discourse is just plain fucked and doesn't come from the places it seems like it does. It's possible to use politics as an outlet for other things and I feel I see folks doing that more often than what I'd call "genuine engagement". I'm not gonna argue -isms with someone who hasn't read any books, nor do I care what they've come up with futzing about with their intuition. I already have a good idea of what most folks come up with when they don't engage with any material. The world is enormous and complex, you can approach that as a thing to be understood or you can try to force your own structure onto it. I'm much less interested in exploring the latter than I am the former, so I mostly stay out of discussions where it seems clear folks are more trying to win arguments/validate their structures than actually learn anything or clarify their positions.
I can't tell you what a correct dividing line is. But what I can offer is the idea that it's worth it to examine folk a bit and figure out whether this is really something you want to talk about with them in particular. Because, if they're in a weird place, or don't actually care a whole lot about the nuance of an issue, there's not a lot to get from that by my measure and I don't think folks need to be doing therapy with each other all the time. You just take em case by case and land on what works for you, what you're willing to put up with, etc. You're right to think folks deploy "both sides" to shut down conversation, but too they also sometimes just believe that that's the truth of it, self-evident and inarguable. There is a wide range of possible, underlying reasons. I don't really see the value of trying to put forward a crafted argument to someone who isn't trying to do the same thing. There are occasional exceptions, as with all things, but in general that's how I look at it and try to conduct myself, for whatever it's worth.
The world keeps becoming more and more polarized, and I do believe there’s a way to have reasoned discussion, but people have to drop these “shaming” tactics in order to get there. The only way I could see this happening is by fighting fire with fire in these situations and calling it out.
Calling it out will do nothing but make them defensive. The only way to have a discussion with someone and actually reach them is to treat them like a human with value and worth. If they accuse you of taking both sides on an argument the only way to understand why they feel that way is to ask them about the accusation and ideally to do so while in some way deferring to them as someone you can learn from or showing you value their opinion. Sometimes you have to deconstruct the feeling behind the stance- someone who's anti immigration, for example, is likely just feeling anxious or scared about job prospects and their ability to live a meaningful life and in many cases may be unaware of this or unwilling to share this without building up trust with you in the first place.
True communication where you get a chance at educating or changing someone's mind often looks incredibly unsatisfying on the surface level to participants with strong moral convictions of what's right and wrong. It can take years of input from people you trust to shift even a small amount on a subject. Most people neither have the emotional fortitude nor the foresight to bother with this kind of education or interaction. It's also darn near impossible to know whether it's someone who even can be reached in the first place or whether they are steadfastly committed to whatever opinion they hold for life.
If this is something you feel strongly about (changing people's minds) then I would highly suggest starting with learning how to communicate with individuals first. Books like how to win friends and influence people, how minds change, the anatomy of peace, and the persuaders can all give insight into how to approach conversations with the goal of winning hearts and changing minds. But keep in mind that this is not an easy road and it requires serious mental and emotional investment and energy to change the mind of a single person. It's a noble cause, for sure, but learning when and where it's appropriate to invest is a skill in itself and more often than not the online space is not productive in this manner due to the ease at which you can write someone else off and the disconnect between an online presence and the person behind the screen.
IRL, I mostly tend to avoid these conversations just like you do, but this is great advice. I think in order to “unfuck” discourse these are steps that have to be taken collectively as a society.
But also as individuals, in each conversation we have.
It has to start somewhere. Trying to reach those around me is all I can do. Trying to do so not in an obnoxious way, but at the same time I feel I have a responsibility to challenge views that aren't defensible or even thought through.
Being nice, treating others with respect even though they espouse junk views that aren't thought out, but still taking people seriously is necessary to reaching people. A step in the right direction is better than no step.
Stopping when you realize the other party isn't interested, but still not backing down or glossing over having other views is important. If people get to cruise through life with shitty views, without experience of other things, we end up with some of the lawmakers that are doing so much harm right now.
Reasonable people abandoning having political conversations the last decades is what's driving these populist nonsense-spouting folks to being elected.
We all lose when all the reasonable people give up. Then it's just the loud folks shouting, and others thinking they're saying things "everyone" thinks. The Overton window shifts through silence.
One of my contributions to the local society around me is being a civically minded person and not letting talk show radio dominate public discourse, or the discourse just being about sports, celebrities, fashion etc.
Speaking up is also about fighting back against those who've systematically tried to dismantle public education for decades with the political aim of decoupling society from being knowledge- and fact-driven.
This is on all of us. As part of liberal democratic societies, it's my view we're obligated to participate for the best of our own children, communities, and ultimately as tiny contributions to our nations.
Sure, I am in agreement about there being an obligation. I don't think though that means we owe conversations to people who are intent on wasting our time, and if someone is going to preemptively draw the battle line then it's a battle, not a conversation. The Sartre quote about antisemites comes to mind - if you're dealing with someone who doesn't take language seriously, why are you talking to them? The approach has to change because they made that avenue impossible. They could change that, but that is something only they can do, and the world is plenty big for me and you to go do something more fruitful.
I get where you're coming from.
The constructive conversation is then probably not about the issue, but about language mattering. You're entirely right: the groundwork often has to be laid before it's possible to get to conversations about the hot topics.
What local forums are you doing this in? Is it having any effect? I ask because where I am in the US (Midwest or East coast depending on who you ask), I have not found any spaces where people are having conversations I feel like I can contribute to.
Anything from friends/acquaintances/colleagues and talking with individual people, to events in the neighborhood community etc.
Where people meet and talk, I'm going to do my part in having relevant conversations about other things than the weather and other idle chit-chat.
(Of course, there's a time and a place. It's not like I'll start a conversation about the theory of knowledge out of the blue, or jolt folks out of social cohesion to point out that "ackshually...." )
I think you're on to something here, but I can't think of any specific examples.
Could you expand a bit on these patterns?
Forgive me, for I am about to give you philosophy stuff to check out. These stratagems describe ways of manipulating perception to end debate. I think these can be learned by way of observation and repetition. A fun thing, take the list with you and go watch some debates. Especially if you choose something less formal, like a debate on Youtube, you will see a lot of this list happen and no one will bring attention to it. You can see a lot of it when political candidates debate each other, too. People watch this, they see the reactions different phrases elicit and sometimes will just take them for those reactions, not knowing why it does that. I don't think I need to argue out the idea that people also sometimes do shit purely because they take satisfaction watching people they don't like be uncomfortable, and a lot of this makes that happen.
From the right end of things, a good example is number 1 in Schopenhauer's list. Consider 2020, when protests erupted over police brutality and a variety of different opinions were being put out under the umbrella of "defund the police". The reality of it was there was a multitude of perspectives, but because the phrase is as general as it is, it could be extended to mean something like "there shouldn't be any law enforcement at all", which if my experience being in those protests meant anything, wasn't a position many people actually held at all. In trying to talk about any of this with folks in my life, more often than not (be they conservative or liberal) I would find myself spending more time dismantling "get rid of all law enforcement" instead of talking about the actual issue, which was "what do we do about how the police behave". They would take whatever position I had and extend it, to exactly that, because that's what they saw elsewhere. It was always that, too, never anything milder, never anything different. Number 14 is a big one if you go out into the redpill parts of the internet. 21 is a good one too.
On the other end, number 16 is a good one, especially the last part about a "lack of action". I can't tell you how many times I've gone into a discussion only for it to end with something akin to "well what have you done". Doing shit does matter, it demonstrates commitment, but in the context of discussing an issue a lack of action has no bearing on whether or not what the person said makes sense. A classic example, folks shutting out what someone has to say because they don't live out some ideal form of the thing they're professing - as in, "you say you're a socialist but you live in a big house" kind of talk. Personal hypocrisy doesn't have much bearing on the validity of one's arguments. Deal with the arguments, not them.
28 is one you can observe practically everywhere. Force someone to give a complicated explanation after delivering a real zinger and they lose, every time. If you're somebody who must win the argument, it's like a silver bullet and conservatives tend to be very good at using it against their opponents especially. To go back to my original point, if you keep the list handy you can observe these pretty quickly and pretty often, and you will almost never see anyone bring attention to it in this way. On rare occasion you will and the opponent won't understand the criticism, because they're operating intuitively.
There's always room for grace, of course. if somebody chills a bit and recognizes they've been behaving ridiculously, that's more than enough for me to ease my own defensiveness and continue. It's when they double down on the bad behavior that I decide it's not worth my time.
Thank you for sharing that "Schopenhauer's 38 ways to win an argument," this is fascinating.
It would be great to go through these and identify any logical fallacies used in the ways, and then offer ways to defend against each of the ways. I hope it is even possible. A lot of them are clearly disingenuous ways to "win" and I don't really know the best way to defend against disingenuous arguments.
That list is eye-opening. A man who died a full century before the first ARPAnet wrote the handbook on internet trolling. One of my core beliefs is validated: internet discussion and public debates are both worthless performances, not sincere operations to discover truth. #33 is a personal favourite.
Anecdotally, my mind has been changed about issues from reading back n' forth arguments and discussions about a topic. And being that I am like other people, I'd say there are some more that have had their minds changed as well. There's also been cases where someone has taken up the sword and had internet or public debates about issues that directly impact me (such as issues about trans or queerness). In those situations where someone is arguing my person-hood, I've felt encouraged and empowered that someone has the heart to defend people. So, I think there is some value in internet discussion and public debates. Lurkers or stand-byres may be influenced, encouraged, etc.
All that said, I think your core belief is still valid. Those engaging in the debates probably aren't going to have their minds changed. They are absolutely performances in some sense, and they're not going to discover a nugget of truth.
Oh wow, it's been twenty years since I saw that list. Thank you, that's a terrific resource to review!
And there are definitely some common examples that track very closely to those argument patterns. 28 describes every Jordan Peterson debate/panel/interview to a T.
And 16 is interesting because it's practiced so often by liberals when mocking pro-life conservatives for not really being pro-life because they support the death penalty or don't take a holistic view of being in favour of social programs for "life." I am pro-choice, but have always found that argument irritating. "Pro-life", like "pro-choice" is obviously a descriptor for one's position on a single issue, not a universal commitment.
Statements that are emotional and don't engage with the content of the argument.
"That thinking is dangerous." Without ever saying what is dangerous about it. Sounds scary though.
"I have no sympathy for (person or group of people)." Makes the conversation about group alignment rather than validity of arguments.
"Should" statements. What you want the world to be like rather than discussing what is. For example: "Most people work two jobs to get by." "Actually the stats say it's about 5%." "No one should have to work two jobs to get by." Then the conversation is dead.
edit: Thinking about it more, I feel like most cases relate to cognitive distortions as described by cognitive behavioral therapy.
Here's a list from the first article I found on google:
filtering
polarization
overgeneralization
discounting the positive
jumping to conclusions
catastrophizing
personalization
control fallacies
fallacy of fairness
blaming
shoulds
emotional reasoning
fallacy of change
global labeling
always being right
The "should" one is interesting, because in my mind the use of the word "should" is central to many progressive causes and invites us to imagine the direction in which we would like to collectively travel. As in, I observe that the world is X, but I think the world ought to be more like Y; how can we get there?
I agree that it's pointless to further the conversation if all they're doing is looking for validation. Conversely, disagreements about what ought to be done seem like disagreements around values, and that's unlikely to shift.
However, if you happen to agree with their position, I still think there is value in talking about how one might go about getting to that imagined better world, and signaling your virtue seems like the necessary first step to having that more fruitful conversation. Because as a self-professed progressive, I find that's it's often much harder to agree on how to implement our shared goals than what the goals themselves are.
For example, we can both agree that climate change is real, and we should reduce carbon in the atmosphere. But where should we focus our energy and resources, towards building up renewables or towards carbon capture? Should we use public funds to incentivize/subsidize electric cars or invest in public transit?
I don't see how this relates to progressive ideas. Pretty sure "should" statements are often constructed for any types of ideas.
There's nothing wrong with aspirations. It's just that "should" statements can often be used to shut down nuanced argument. Your last sentence, "should we use public funds to..." is great for discussion. Conversely, "EVs should be cheap" or "all cities should be walkable" might shut down a discussion. Even if I want the same thing, I can no longer discuss the cost of batteries or city densification without being labeled as being against the cause.
Both you and @nooph identify one of the main drivers for why, in the cesspit of Reddit, I so often found myself punching left and merely passively downvoting those whose entire worldview I despise. I'm very much a technocrat when it comes to political discussion, and circlejerks of mutual validation without any shred of "how do we get there from here?" are one of the most effective ways to activate my "fuck you in particular" thought pattern (I am also an innate contrarian, thanks to early experiences often proving me right and the majority of my K–12 classmates wrong). Saying objectively worse things to a dedicated racist does nothing: telling him his family would be better off if he overdosed on fentanyl carries no sting because he writes it off as coming from an uppity lib. Say "you'll have my agreement once you answer this logistical question," and the argument will last indefinitely.
It's certainly not exclusive to progressive causes. I'm just relating it to my own experiences and that simply happens to be the political circles I inhabit.
More to the point, I don't really think the subjunctive is at fault so much as the other person's willingness to engage. For example, in response to "all cities should be walkable", I might say, "well I generally agree, what are the practical problems preventing us from achieving this?" This could lead to an interesting conversation. If I disagree with their opinion, then I wouldn't automatically disagree, I would just ask why they think the way they do, which invites them to interrogate their own beliefs (and my own). I, too, shouldn't automatically assume my opinions are automatically correct.
And yes sure, I've also experienced what you describe of being vilified for not hewing closely enough to a given position. Progressives do this all the time as a sort of litmus test. But at the same time, I do think with age it becomes all too easy to dismiss aspirational opinions as pure naivete. "Oh, these people don't understand the realities of the situation, they should grow up and accept that the world can't be like that."
But when I see people who are absolutist in a given belief (especially my friends, who I tend to believe are quite smart and thoughtful people), I tend to think it's not because they haven't considered the alternative, but because they feel like the subject carries strong moral implications that they feel like they can't budge on. Like, EVs and walkable cities, yes sure, being too staunch about that is a bit silly. But there are also human rights abuses that feel less debatable (that are still somehow up for debate). And even there I've had nuanced discussions, but ultimately it comes to differences in values, and if you disagree there it's unlikely that you'll change their mind (or they yours).
Thought terminating cliches would be a good example, I think. Statements like "well the Bible tells us...", "X people universally have Y negative trait", (perhaps controversially given the political demographics of Tildes) "the patriarchy hurts men, too", etc. Basically any statement that effectively ends a discussion by either being too slippery to argue against or so vague as to be meaningless.
It's a little tough to provide specific examples because in my experience it's more of a vibe that the other person gives off - think Ben Shapiro.
Often when this is the case, the other person comes off like a wizard reciting incantations, as if they believe to win a debate you just have to say the right things without thinking about deeper meaning.
I think a large portion of this can be attributed back to talking points programmed into people by news outlets or echo chambers. Part of the strategy for astro-turfing a new issue is giving people some quick responses to the obvious questions their neighbors might ask.
For example:
"A" did not make this up on the spot. "A" heard this from someone ranting and liked how it sounded, so "A" added this retort to their repertoire. And at this point anything "B" says in response that is grounded in reality will necessarily reference measurements or scientific analysis. But "A", prideful and doomed to stick to their guns, is immunized against 99% of all rational arguments against their belief.
I have an intelligent cousin who keeps a large reference book of such responses in his head. Arguing with him, even if you try to dodge these blockades, is an endless battle.
I really hope more people on Tildes adopt this point of view. When I first joined it seemed like most people felt this way, but more and more recently it seems like people are willingly regressing back to polarizing discourse on everything they can. Perhaps I'm just reading into things too much, but I love Tildes because its a place where you can feel free to discuss differing points of view without the threat of being swooped on by hoards of angry people.
I don't disagree, but I think it's still important to speak up, even if you know beforehand that you won't change anyone's mind. We are all social animals, and the more backtalk we are getting, the more likely we are to maybe change our opinion eventually.
You don't have to argue, just say whatever it is you think is not ok. If I had an enjoyable conversation with you yesterday and today you're telling me my joke about jews made you uncomfortable and we're not going to have a similar chat for the forseeable future, I probably won't change my mind about jews or bad jokes, but I've learned a lesson, even if it doesn't change my mind at all.
I do agree with you. I am primarily thinking of those who have closed all the doors. They've abandoned much of what allows us to build consensus and they lack care for what actually happens. It's more about the team and winning, or about feeling right, avoiding discomfort, expressing rancor. It's noise, noise that sounds like something important. I won't engage with that, there is nothing to really do with that. If somebody thinks they can pierce through it power to em, but I'm just beyond my limit with it.
"It's led to me abandoning talking about political issues with most people, because i don't consider a conversation like this worth having and my capacity for it is limited in the ..first place. Those conversations are not about politics. More often than not, it's someone seeking validation"
Well said.
I appreciate you. I do want to be sure I say that I'm not making a value judgment saying that particular part, nor implying a bias. It's just the result when I started setting that kind of standard for when I would go into depth with folks. To be a bit concrete, it meant I had less conversations but what conversations I did have, were much more fruitful, for me and for them. I think the good of that experience outweighs whatever lost potential there was with, I dunno, Jim who believes 5g is giving his kids a mind virus and tried to imply I was a groomer when I said his car could use cleaning. Or Sherrie, who vaguely criticized me for purchasing almond milk but couldn't explain what her actual criticism was, just that it had something to do with where it was shipped from.
With those folks, again to be a little concrete: When Jim said that about pedophiles and tried to tie it together with me liking metal music, he was met with stone cold silence and an expressionless stare. He smiled, then as the seconds ticked, his smile faded and he changed the subject. And for the next 20 minutes there was no talk of 5g or woke while I bought some sandwich meat. Perhaps if I see him again in the store, he'll just not go there at all, and that's one less person who has to hear it, probably more than that because he speaks very loudly. And with Sherrie, I gave her a book not too long ago that she has said multiple times she would read. If she does she'll find it will give her the words to make her criticism properly. She still hasn't done that yet, so next time I see her I'll ask again whether she checked out that book or not, and if she's as sheepish this time as she was last time, maybe she will finally, actually crack it open.
Gotta stay sane, shit takes time, not everybody's gotta be a top priority, do what you can with what's there
Nuance isn't the same as "both sides".
Nuance provides additional context and helps reconcile-- or at least holds space for-- multiple perspectives.
"Both sides" is the assumption that all arguments are equally well-researched, well-intentioned, and deserve an equal amount of consideration. It's a logical fallacy to believe that the truth is always to be found somewhere in the middle of opposing arguments.
This answers my question and raises another. Because this line depends on the opinion that one side is “bad faith,” how do you determine that the accuser of “both sides” isn’t acting in bad faith to shut the other down?
I think you'd have to determine this on a case-to-case basis, since you'd have to assess the arguments and the people making the arguments.
Also, it's not just bad faith arguments. Even a non-malicious argument made in good faith can be ill-informed or mistaken.
Valid point, thank you.
In the context of the OP's question, "both-sidesism" is colloquial shorthand for false balance. The opposition of two sides to an argument shouldn't be posited without reference to a preponderance of evidence in favor of one side or the other. The classic example of our times is whether human-caused climate change exists or not. Based on available evidence, the existence of human-caused climate change is 99+% certain. Thus, having equal time given to arguments for/against implies a false balance.
Likewise, it's a common propaganda technique in online commentary for legions of bots and trolls to colonize a thread. They give the appearance that the desired position has greater popular support than it does in actuality, or that the evidence in support of their position is at least equal to that of the opposition, or that the wrongs of the opposition create moral equivalency. I'm sure we can all find examples without too much effort, and I'm not picking any fights with this line of discussion.
This is just my impression from hanging around Tildes, but I don't recall seeing specific examples where an accusation of "both-sidesism" was used to silence anyone in particular. I've certainly seen it applied (with considerable justification) to troll accounts in Financial Times comment threads and other journalistic outlets.
I think maybe part of the issue is viewing everything as if there are only two sides and everyone fits into either side perfectly and for the same reason.
I like what Gaywallet wrote:
"Both sides" is an easy way to fall into all-or-nothing thinking. These two general blobs of "sides" emerge and all nuance is lost.
This by Thomas-C is interesting as well:
I wonder if these people have memorized a bunch of argumentative patterns because they're so used to being typecast and assumed they're a "cookie-cutter other sider" and so now they just give "cookie-cutter responses." I think polarization takes a part in this.
I approach people with the idea that they're doing their best. I don't agree with them on everything, but in their mind, they think what they're doing is "the best they can." Engaging with people who one disagrees with in a genuine manner takes much patience and effort.
I was about to say "nuance is always acceptable," but I realize that's using all-or-nothing thinking (absolutes like "always"). I try to use nuance as much as possible, and I also keep in mind that I'm a human being and I have my limits. My "modus operandi" for nuance is "Does this other opinion I'm dealing with disparage, harm, or stereotype people? Does this other opinion I'm dealing with want to forcefully control other people?" For examples such as racism, sexism, antisemitism, authoritarianism, etc. I am not going to "try to seek nuance," nor are they viewpoints I am willing to "open-minded" for. It doesn't mean I have to be rude to the person who has these opinions, it just means I can give myself the grace of being able to peace out and spend my time in a more productive manner. (Although I'm suddenly reminded of the black man who befriended and convinced 200 KKK members to give up their robes, and am again wondering about nuance and open-mindedness. Life is complex.)
I can see that. I think a resource that might help you get through these blurry boundaries and manipulative tactics is the Types of Propaganda, Propaganda Techniques, and Propaganda Strategies article.
Also something that helps me when I am having a controversial discussion where I disagree with the other person is "listening to their opinion doesn't mean I agree with it."
Overall, I do think it is important to listen to "the other side," to find out why people support it. I try to refute the idea that everyone on "the other side" of an idea I disagree with is a "terrible evil person" or something and that I can just ignore them completely. For starters, they are just going to be further cemented in their beliefs if people instantly reject them and they're still going to go have their say and convince others to "join their side." And most of all, we are all human, and I try my best to find that one aspect of humanity I can connect to with someone else.
(This comment is mainly a "I just woke up and haven't finished my coffee and I got too interesting in a Tildes post" comment. I hope it is not too incoherent and rambly.)
My coworkers, to put it as politely as I can, have, uh, differing political views from me. When I first started working there, I tried engaging with them when they bring up politics or social issues positively, hearing their side and trying to find out why they hold the positions they do.
When I engaged them, I'd ask them questions like "you believe in X, how does that coincide with Y" with some real world examples and they invariably go "well that's just what I heard/feel" and change the subject. Any topic, abortion, guns, feminism, immigration, tax reform, vaccination etc. There's no interest in learning my position, I've found that they just seek validation of their position. When it's clear I won't offer that up freely without scrutiny, they don't want to talk about it anymore. They don't shut down because I'm judging them for holding the opinions they do, or shaming them. They shut down because they don't see political stances in the same way I do. They aren't "discussion topics", they're totems to vent over, and don't find me to be an appropriate outlet. These totems are constantly reinforced by the "news" media they consume, and don't exist in a space that can be challenged or analyzed.
So how do you engage in good faith with someone who is allergic to the notion of engaging in good faith? I have no idea at this point. Apart from tying them down and forcing them to reflect on their positions, I don't think they ever will until they're met with the consequences of their opinions.
I mostly just either cut them out of my life as much as possible, or make fun of them whenever they say something egrariously offensive. People don't like being mocked, and if you can get a good group laugh at the shithead, they'll at least keep their garbage inside their heads.
That is a good question, and to be honest I don't know. I honestly don't think one can. I think it's best in those cases to keep your energy for people who can engage in good faith.
One other thing is that when I feel like the person refuses to engage in good faith, I just state what my opinions are (the whole "use 'I' statements" method), and say that it's okay that we disagree, and just move on. That way at least they can experience someone being tolerant of disagreement, not caring about "being right" or "winning", and having healthy social boundaries.
In my experience, it's mostly just self reinforcing things that arise from a community just constantly saying the same things to each other. Think about Christians all using the exact same words in similar situations because one phrase or one translation of one phrase has just become so common. The same thing happens when, e.g., Fox News repeats the same exact claim with the same exact phrasing over and over. It becomes like a mantra for a whole community.
It's a bit of a fluffy discusion without any actual real-life examples. But I mostly find "both-sides" accusations to be spot on. Racism, sexism, transphobia and other abhorrent view are seldom presented as such, but more often given a fernis of "nuanced arguments", or having "concerns" about this or that. Sometimes they even pick up issues which, if it weren't for the hidden agenda, would be worth having, such as the Nazis using criticism of Kosher slaughter in their antisemetic propaganda, or today when transphobes have manifactured an overblown debate about trans women doing sport to fuel their hate campain.
An illustration of how abhorrent views can be presented in good taste can be seen in this comic strip from 1996.
25 years later, Contrapoints made a similar observation in her J. K. Rowling vid where she differentiate between Direct Bigotry and Indirect Bigotry. We can also look at Innuendo Studios The Cost of Doing Business wich explore the same territory regarding racism, but with other categories.
The idea in that comic strip is almost cliche now, but that would have been a real scorcher in 1996.
Even in 1996, it's drawing on an old quotation by either Richard Nixon or Spiro Agnew when discussing the Southern Strategy. Still as relevant as ever.
What makes such tactics doubly effective is that it tricks normies into using dogwhistles in a sincere and literal manner. When they get pushback for using a dogwhistle, it drives them away from whoever accused them of holding a more extreme belief than they intended to express.
I think there are a lot of people who don’t really want to have a nuanced conversation about politics and you have to respect their wishes. It’s frustrating when they’re posting about politics in a way that seems unfair, but you can unsubscribe from their feed. (Yes, the reply box is right there, but you don’t have to use it.)
The question is how to find or build places where you can have the kinds of conversations you want.
Let’s be honest though, every time someone tries to build one of these “safe spaces” it overcorrects and nazis flock to it.
Not to mention the place I want would not be an echo chamber. I think Tildes for example presents a good opportunity to prevent dismissive discourse.
Part of the problem, however, is a rush to group people who aren't Nazis as being basically just as bad and therefore not worth distinguishing between.
All that does is increase polarization by silencing people who don't want to be dismissed as Nazis.
I suppose the best medicine, not a cure mind you, for any one platform is exceptional moderation with patience and empathy. The same of course applies to users as well and I'd include not getting into shouting matches with someone that may or may not be a troll. That takes a lot of self-control.
If it's an unmoderated forum then yeah, that's what you get. But nothing I said implies that it wouldn't have good moderation. I'm thinking something closer to classroom discussions. Someone needs to lead the discussion, though.
You don't actually "have to", but the classic adage about pig wrestling applies strongly here. It's equally (in)effective in both cases, but one saves you effort and mental energy.
I think a good way to look at it is to evaluate what the sides are. There are definitely situations where a look at both sides is warranted, because someone is being severely negatively impacted by something (e.g., a new factory is being built that will bring a lot of new jobs, but it will also disrupt the local residents with noise/pollution etc.), especially if the goal is to have a compromise. But with some other situations, it's really just about people not liking something that doesn't significantly impact them (e.g., people of a certain type want to exist in peace, and some other people don't like that).
So my personal rule of thumb is - does Side A really have a significant (so, beyond just 'I want people to only do what I think is right') impact on Side B? Are they harming someone or having a tangible negative impact on something? If yes, this is probably an issue where both sides should be heard. If no, it's likely that the other side shouldn't even be involved.
You're absolutely correct, that's a great litmus test to determine whether or not to consider alternate perspectives to find compromise.
I think a problem there might be that people stuck on the "wrong" side of what's clearly a one sided debate believe that they are being impacted tangibly and negatively. The people who hate trans people have probably never even met them, but they're being told that the fabric of society is being attacked, that their world that they tangibly live in, is being corrupted. People who cry about the flood of immigration at the southern border believe that their way of life is being threatened by drug-trafficking criminals, even when they live in like, North Dakota.
Normal people know that their anxieties are based on nothing, and they feel like their anxieties are being dismissed or ignored, which leads to them entrenching their positions. How do you compromise with people living in a dangerous fantasy?
There are some disturbing viewpoints that do not deserve a fair argument validating both ends or attempting to reason them. When such arguments are pushed or continue to assert an equality of opposing views, think good vs evil, it attempts to normalize or diminish the evilness of the other side.
QThe most clear example I can think for this was the Unite Right Rally in Charlotte that resulted in clashes with counter protesters, only from Trump to refuse to denounce the white nationalist and claim "very fine people on both sides." This comment attempted to equate neo-nazis, klansmen, white nationalist, and whole other slew of awful people as the same of those protesting that a racist statue needs to come down. In this incident Trump's words attempted to validate the actions of a racist group and minimize the valid reasoning of those wanting remove a symbol of racism. When reality those racist should have never been given the time and immediately eviscerated.
Just like racists, there are other horrible views movements that should not be given a stage for both-sides arguments. When there is clearly something malicious like anti-trans rhetoric, attacks on LGBTQ movements, misogynistic movements, Nazism, antisemitism, anti-muslim, and more; there is no room to entertain their awful views. When I encounter a discussion where someone is attempting to give concessions to those groups and minimize the effects of their victims, they're both sidesing the issue and only helps to normalize such horrendous things.
The Don't Be a Sucker short film produced by the US Department of Defense in 1947 is a great early depiction that this type of platforming or normalizing such atrocious views can be dangerous to us as a society.
Part of the challenge is trying to determine who is discussing in good faith. Some people are trolls, in it for the lulz. Some people are paid to shill for a particular perspective. Some people are fully invested in one side of an argument and will never listen to competing perspectives or evidence in spite of being honest and sincere.
And some people are genuinely trying to learn and grow, but even they may be clumsy or overly invested and hard to convince, easy to feel insulted and take offence. It's a challenging issue.
I think one of the problems with "both sides" is simply that, more and more, both "sides" don't live in reality. Even though one 'side' is probably closer to the truth, both are often so far from reality that it muddies the waters.
It's more and more common that on any issue the two 'sides' are something like this:
Side A - MILLIONS of illegals are crossing our border EVERY day!
Side B - Literally nothing needs to be done about the border, everything is fine.
Side A - Israel is completely justified in ANY action they take against Palestine
Side B - Israel is LITERALLY committing the HOLOCAUST, this is APARTHEID and GENOCIDE, Israel is the aggressor!
Neither side really lives in a fact-based reality. On each issue, one is much closer to the truth - I would even argue one of these sides is, as a rule, the more correct one, but it's like both are living on different planets. There's no room for nuance on anything.
@Thomas-C gave a great answer. What I'll add on is that many people have developed an ideology and belief about many topics without doing a thorough review of the history, context, or reasonable points of difference. When they argue they aren't actively incorporating what you say, scrutinizing it, and challenging what they believe based on new articulations or facts. Instead, they spend the time you are talking thinking about how they will respond.
Good discussions are characterized by how well each party listens moreso than how well they speak.
When it comes to politics, the people saying both sides are the same clearly didn't arrive at that position by comparing relative voting records, rates of legislation passed, or other quantitative information. My experience that it ends up being a with us or against us thing. I'd a party doesn't prioritize their pet issues, then they must be as bad as the party opposing it. Ignoring the real trade-offs and balancing of governance, etc.
So don't spend your time in debates with people who ignore the main thrust of your argument and instead nitpick little things or make bombastic statements. If they can't acknowledge your point and clarify where disagreement and agreement exist, then they aren't debating, they are trying to browbeat.
You put it better than I did, I feel. It's all about observing so you can uncover the intent, before you end up getting a ton of your time wasted with someone who doesn't actually value it.
My rule tends to be: remember all arguments worth remembering. If both sides have arguments worth making, the issue is nuanced.
It's on me to do this right: if I hold idiotic arguments in my head, I slowly turn into an idiot.
It somewhat depends on your goals and the goals of those arguing.
Most just yell to yell, and it doesn't matter what side they're on, because it's basically just noised aimed at getting other people to agree with them.
If you're serious about getting someone to change their behavior, I think listening to their position is paramount. There's this...accepted myth?...of a perfect argument where suddenly someone who's felt a certain way for any serious amount of time will throw up their hands and say "OF COURSE! I'VE BEEN WRONG THE WHOLE TIME!" and it just does not work that way, I think people know this. And yet you'll see them rip each other apart because they made a good point and it wasn't instantly accepted as such.
Change takes time, and it often happens long after the discussions have happened when people have had time to sit down and think about it and let their emotions not get the best of them.