Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Pattern-chaser]

But bad ideas need to be called out, for the good of society.

We need to call attention to bad ideas, but this can be done effectively and courteously. No need for insults. And besides, if this is "for the good of society", then we need to do our 'calling out' in a way that is convincing/persuasive to other humans. And insults achieve the exact opposite of this. People double down on their belief in these bad ideas if you insult them. So society does not and cannot benefit.

[Pattern-chaser]

The grooming gang scandal was never able to be confronted...

It could have been confronted, but racist police officers saw their opportunity to act against the non-racists, by complaining that they didn't dare address the real problem in case they were found guilty under punitive (as they see them) racism laws. Balderdash! This is just like anti-immigrationists complaining that "our poor country is too full" (it isn't) when they really mean (but dare not say) "get rid of those <N-word>s!"

If you burgle my house, and you happen to be very tall, it's OK for me to say "you *** burglar!", but it isn't OK for me to tar every tall person with the burglary brush. So I shouldn't say "You *** tall burglar!". But if we encounter organised gangs of burglars, every member of whom is tall — that's a different matter. It is appropriate to take facts as evidence. But it is not OK to add in some biassed stuff that you happen to believe, and to pretend that's fact too, when it isn't. This sort of racism is pretty simple and obvious, isn't it?

[Fried Egg]

But bad ideas need to be called out, for the good of society.

We need to call attention to bad ideas, but this can be done effectively and courteously. No need for insults. And besides, if this is "for the good of society", then we need to do our 'calling out' in a way that is convincing/persuasive to other humans. And insults achieve the exact opposite of this. People double down on their belief in these bad ideas if you insult them. So society does not and cannot benefit.

So you're happy just to gloss over the fact that you've provided no way to objectively tell the difference between a criticism and an insult?

Yes, we've agreed that ad hominems are insults, but we're talking about those critiques that overtly aren't ad hominem, but must be treated that way if the hearer perceives it to be a "dog whistle"?

Generally speaking, I agree that being courteous is often the most effective way of changing hearts and minds. But that's not always the case. You've labelled satire (numerous times) as nothing more than an insult and yet it should be clear that this is often the most effective way of reaching people. They say that a picture is worth a thousand words. The same is often true of a story. You can explain something in a rational way all day long, sometimes what really brings it home to people is a picture or a story.

How many words would you need to explain in a strictly rational way why Totalitarianism is such a bad idea? Could that approach ever bring home the message as forcibly as was the case with the story of 1984? I would argue not.

Also, even if you know the fanatics are going to be insulted, who cares? No one expects to change the minds of the fanatics - it is the moderates that one is trying to reach. The fanatics are not going to be convinced however rational and courteous your arguments are. They are only interested in shutting down all criticism of their cherished idea.

[Fried Egg]

The grooming gang scandal was never able to be confronted...

It could have been confronted, but racist police officers saw their opportunity to act against the non-racists, by complaining that they didn't dare address the real problem in case they were found guilty under punitive (as they see them) racism laws. Balderdash! This is just like anti-immigrationists complaining that "our poor country is too full" (it isn't) when they really mean (but dare not say) "get rid of those <N-word>s!"

If you burgle my house, and you happen to be very tall, it's OK for me to say "you *** burglar!", but it isn't OK for me to tar every tall person with the burglary brush. So I shouldn't say "You *** tall burglar!". But if we encounter organised gangs of burglars, every member of whom is tall — that's a different matter. It is appropriate to take facts as evidence. But it is not OK to add in some biassed stuff that you happen to believe, and to pretend that's fact too, when it isn't. This sort of racism is pretty simple and obvious, isn't it?

I'm sorry, but you don't know what you are talking about.

National newspapers and magazines refused to report on it for so long for fear of being seen as racist. The police avoided pursuing investigations for fear of disturbing community cohesion. Go read the BBC article that reported (back in 2014) that: "A fear of being viewed as racist has been cited as one of the reasons why child sexual exploitation in Rotherham was allowed to proliferate for 16 years." Go read anything by the number of journalists who tried to report on this for years and were labelled as racist bigots. Even people like the left wing, feminist and gay rights campaigner Julie Bindel.

One of the reasons I mentioned this issue in this thread is because of the recent political discussion program in which the labour minister accused the Reform representative of using a dog whistle when he brought up the subject of the grooming gangs (this was before Kier Starmer finally caved and agreed to a national enquiry). We see it used again and again in an attempt to accuse people of saying things they didn't say and to shut down discussions they don't want to have.

[Pattern-chaser]

So you're happy just to gloss over the fact that you've provided no way to objectively tell the difference between a criticism and an insult?

What is the difference between tenderness and love? There are many other examples of terms whose very use requires that they NOT be precisely and objectively defined. The difference between criticism and an insult is obscured by the grey area that lies between them. That, and the insult carries no useful information except for the (insulting) opinion of the speaker. And the latter we already knew.

You've labelled satire (numerous times) as nothing more than an insult and yet it should be clear that this is often the most effective way of reaching people.

Of "reaching" people, but NOT persuading or convincing them.



But I tire of answering the same tiny details yet again. You claim your treasured Right to Insult by a roundabout route, by showing that no-one can "objectively" prove an insult is an insult. Just like we can't prove that the world we think we see is Objective Reality, and yet we believe it anyway, usually without a second thought.

The points I have made here, many times, are valid, and we all know what they mean, but it is also true that they cannot be "objectively" proven. But is that a valid criticism? The thing is, very few things can be objectively proven...

When we resort to insults, we’ve already lost the argument

I’ve spent years learning how people think and how to get them to change their minds. My favorite lenses for understanding people and what motivates them have been psychology, economics, and law.

As General Counsel of a large public company for 20 years, I put these tools to good use in negotiating many thousands of contracts and deals with people all over the world. What they taught me is this: personal insults are remarkably poor persuaders. Insults in an exchange signal failure, not that you’re winning.

[...]

If insults win no arguments, why do we hurl them at each other?

Here’s where things get scary. Insulting an opponent (say, a politician) or a group (like their supporters) is not meant to change anyone’s mind but to bolster opposition. That is, I want you to feel both righteous anger and a vicarious thrill when I insult our common enemy.

In other words, these insults are tools to divide citizens and dehumanize our enemies.

Reading history, I used to wonder how it is that so many seemingly enlightened and civilized societies found themselves turning on each other. How is it that neighbors could not only willingly, but happily, round up neighbors to imprison, torture, and even kill them?

I wonder no more. It starts with ceasing civil discussion in favor of bullying, shouting, and insulting. It’s no joke, even if we find ourselves laughing.

This is an excerpt from a longer article.

[Fried Egg]

What is the difference between tenderness and love? There are many other examples of terms whose very use requires that they NOT be precisely and objectively defined. The difference between criticism and an insult is obscured by the grey area that lies between them.

Yes indeed. Not only is there a grey area in between, but there is also an overlap (i.e. something can be both criticism of an idea and an insult to the one who believes in it).

But if you insist that society should penalize and prosecute those who insult but not those who criticise, then you are going to have to "precisely and objectively" define the boundary. Me? I'm happy to leave that boundary nebulous and undefined but I would not expect the criminal justice system have to make that distinction.

You've labelled satire (numerous times) as nothing more than an insult and yet it should be clear that this is often the most effective way of reaching people.

Of "reaching" people, but NOT persuading or convincing them.

Yes, in some cases it is better at not only reaching, but persuading and convincing them. Not the devout fanatics, sure. But the moderates, yes.

You claim your treasured Right to Insult by a roundabout route, by showing that no-one can "objectively" prove an insult is an insult. Just like we can't prove that the world we think we see is Objective Reality, and yet we believe it anyway, usually without a second thought.

No one is denying that there is an objective reality here, only that it is not clear nor obvious what that reality is. It's possible that the speaker intended a "dog whistle" insult, it's possible that that they didn't but the hearer perceived that there was one, and it's possible that they are just pretending they did in order to shut down the argument.

If you really propose to circumscribe free speech by outlawing insults, the onus is on you to carefully define it so that valid criticism isn't stifled or just come out and say that you think that's a price worth paying to achieve your goals.

[Pattern-chaser]

(i.e. something can be both criticism of an idea and an insult to the one who believes in it).

No. I've been more "precise and objective" than that, and tried always to refer clearly, to "courteous and constructive criticism". It is not possible to mistake *courteous and constructive* criticism for an insult.

You've labelled satire (numerous times) as nothing more than an insult and yet it should be clear that this is often the most effective way of reaching people.

Of "reaching" people, but NOT persuading or convincing them.

Yes, in some cases it is better at not only reaching, but persuading and convincing them. Not the devout fanatics, sure. But the moderates, yes.

This goes against everything I have read or understood. AIUI, no-one responds to being insulted in the way you describe. Simple empirical observation seems to offer solid confirmation of this. Please can you offer links, or other justification, of your POV? Thanks.

[Fried Egg]

(i.e. something can be both criticism of an idea and an insult to the one who believes in it).

No. I've been more "precise and objective" than that, and tried always to refer clearly, to "courteous and constructive criticism". It is not possible to mistake *courteous and constructive* criticism for an insult.

I have never seen such a spectacular example of doublethink. You have repeatedly contradicted yourself in your thread, so many times that I can't take you seriously any more.

You say in one breath that some things can't (and shouldn't) be "precisely and objectively defined", admitted that the difference between insult and criticism is "obscured by the grey area that lies between them". And in the next you say it is not possible to mistake "*courteous and constructive* criticism for an insult".

You said earlier in this thread that there is little point in continuing the discussion and now I'm inclined to agree with you. This discussion is going nowhere.

[Pattern-chaser]

You say in one breath that some things can't (and shouldn't) be "precisely and objectively defined", admitted that the difference between insult and criticism is "obscured by the grey area that lies between them". And in the next you say it is not possible to mistake "*courteous and constructive* criticism for an insult".

There's no contradiction here. It is courteous and constructive criticism that cannot be mistaken for an insult, while mere 'criticism' can stray too close to insult to be easily distinguishable. That's why I added a rather obvious qualification: courteous and constructive , to avoid confusion.