Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

The End of Reasonable Debate

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

From this 2005 interview:

“Political correctness is communist propaganda writ small. In my study of communist societies, I came to the conclusion that the purpose of communist propaganda was not to persuade or convince, nor to inform, but to humiliate; and therefore, the less it corresponded to reality the better. When people are forced to remain silent when they are being told the most obvious lies, or even worse when they are forced to repeat the lies themselves, they lose once and for all their sense of probity. To assent to obvious lies is to co-operate with evil, and in some small way to become evil oneself. One’s standing to resist anything is thus eroded, and even destroyed. A society of emasculated liars is easy to control. I think if you examine political correctness, it has the same effect and is intended to.” – Dr. Theodore Dalrymple

By cleverly utilizing dishonest terms and phrases, we have been manipulated into conceding the debate to leftists/Marxists before it is begun simply because of words are redefined to frame the debate. “Corporate Tax Loophole” and “Legalized Tax Fraud” (see article here) are phrases used by liberals and socialists to make it seem like taking completely legal advantage of tax law is somehow immoral or unethical. Like anyone utilizing tax deductions or laws to pay as little tax as possible, corporations are demonized for doing the same, as if it is somehow their moral obligation not to find ways to pay as little tax as possible.  They are being demonized by the left by the lie of mischaracterization when they use a term to describe something that is not what that term means.

Take the term “hate”.  The left paints anyone that doesn’t agree with their social agenda as espousing “hate”, or “violence”, against some protected group.  Using their domination of the major media and entertainment market, and employing rabid gangs of “Social Justice Warriors”, anyone that simply disagrees with them and states their disagreement publicly is attacked as a “hater” or a “bigot”.  If you call an illegal immigrant “illegal”, you’re a racist – it doesn’t even matter the race of the immigrants in question.  If you express concerns about public bathrooms becoming gender neutral, you can be fired, like Curt Schilling.  In this way, honest debate is avoided and supplanted by emotionally charged false terminology that frames the debate in an entirely dishonest way.

Such as “tax cuts” “budget cuts” [corrected thanks to hrun].  With baseline budgeting, “cutting taxes the budget” can only mean “reduction in the rate of tax budget increase”.  Thus the debate is lost before it begins; the debate is never about actually cutting taxes the budget, but only about reducing the amount of increase.  Your “rights” can mean anything a leftist/progressive thinks you should get for free from the government, or provide you with whatever protections they think one ought to have.  Requiring a photo ID to vote becomes “racism” and “disenfranchisement”.  Refusing to force the public to pay for women’s contraceptives and abortions becomes a hate-filled “war on women” or being “against women’s rights” (while the real war on women, being conducted by Islamists worldwide, goes on unnoticed by leftists).  Performers boycott North Carolina for it’s “anti-LGBT” bathroom law, while the same performers gleefully perform in Dubai where homosexuals are executed.  Those who simply doubt a particular view held by many scientists are framed as “anti-science”.  The term “skepticism” now only applies if one ridicules that which it is politically correct to ridicule and dismiss; if you are skeptical of the wrong things, you are no longer a skeptic, you are a “denier”.

We live in a time where telling truths against the politically correct narrative, or simply voicing an opinion that contradicts it, is dangerous, because truthful terminology has been politically re-characterized by the leftists in media, politics and academia as hate speech.

“In times of deceit telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act” – George Orwell.

 

 

Comments
from http://www.ifyouonlynews.com/videos/fox-news-politely-destroys-the-right-favorite-anti-transgender-myth/
On Sunday, Fox News’ own Chris Wallace blew up the premise behind the numerous Republican “Bathroom Bills” by pointing out the emperor had no clothes. After conservative columnist Ben Domenech spouted the ridiculous claim that men would pretend to be transgender women to peek at little girls in the bathroom, Wallace dropped an atomic truth bomb: We actually tried to find out whether it is a public safety issue,” the Fox News host explained. “Whether it is a problem with transgender people misusing bathrooms to prey on others.” Wallace noted that PolitiFact had looked into the issue and found that there was no known “instance of criminals convicted of using transgender protections as cover in the United States.” “This seems to be a solution in search of a problem,” he concluded.
Aleta
April 24, 2016
April
04
Apr
24
24
2016
07:55 PM
7
07
55
PM
PDT
Re #44: I did. I showed a clear example how WJM twists the truth, erects a straw man, maligns the 'other side', and this is actually the cause of shutting down reasonable discourse. He then had two reasonable ways to deal with this: admit this fact and try better or show how I am wrong. Of course he did neither. And KF jumped right in and also did neither. I say it again: It's the people who lie and pretend they are being victimized who are shutting down reasonable debate.hrun0815
April 24, 2016
April
04
Apr
24
24
2016
07:14 PM
7
07
14
PM
PDT
Looking at the content of their posts, it seems to me that hrun and Indiana Effigy have been living with heads up their asses last couple of years. They are acting like Theodore Dalrymple doesn't know what he's talking about. I wonder if they even bothered to check him out.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodore_Dalrymple ....who generally uses the pen name Theodore Dalrymple, is an English writer and retired prison doctor and psychiatrist. ...... In his writing, Daniels frequently argues that the liberal and progressive views prevalent within Western intellectual circles minimise the responsibility of individuals for their own actions and undermine traditional mores, contributing to the formation within prosperous countries of an underclass afflicted by endemic violence, criminality, sexually transmitted diseases, welfare dependency, and drug abuse. Much of Dalrymple's writing is based on his experience of working with criminals and the mentally ill. The writer has been described as a pessimist. In 2010, Daniel Hannan wrote that Dalrymple's work "takes pessimism about human nature to a new level. Yet its tone is never patronising, shrill or hectoring. Once you get past the initial shock of reading about battered wives, petty crooks and junkies from a non-Left perspective, you find humanity and pathos".
0812681
April 24, 2016
April
04
Apr
24
24
2016
06:49 PM
6
06
49
PM
PDT
Well, some threadjacking going on here. How about commenting on original subject of this thread?0812681
April 24, 2016
April
04
Apr
24
24
2016
06:32 PM
6
06
32
PM
PDT
"StephenB@35: "Did it ever occur to you that there are perverse males who can claim to identify as women so that they can practice their perversity?" What's to stop them from doing that now? Oh yah! THE LAW!! Someone who enters a bathroom for the purpose of abusing children, or acting lewdly, regardless of their legal right to be there, is breaking the law. Transgendered have been using the bathrooms of the gender they associate with for decades. Can you provide me with any stats on the number of incidents that have been reported of them doing anything untoward other than using one of the stalls? No? Why do you think that is? Is it possible that this is because they do not pose any risk?Indiana Effigy
April 24, 2016
April
04
Apr
24
24
2016
06:09 PM
6
06
09
PM
PDT
Nobody should be exposing their genitals to someone who doesn't welcome that exposure, and certainly not to a child. This doesn't seem to me to be a specifically transgender issue: anyone who does expose their genitals to unwilling people is going to be breaking some sort of law. For what it's worth, most men are pretty restrained about exposing their genitals to other men in the restroom, and of course women have stalls so the issue doesn't even come up.Aleta
April 24, 2016
April
04
Apr
24
24
2016
06:05 PM
6
06
05
PM
PDT
StephenB@30: "What about those who are maligned as “transphobes” because they think a grown man should not expose himself to a little girl in the restroom on the grounds that he doesn’t identify with his own genitals?" Provide me with an example where someone is called a transphobe because they think that a man shouldn't expose himself to a young girl in a restroom and then I will answer your stupid hypothetical.Indiana Effigy
April 24, 2016
April
04
Apr
24
24
2016
05:57 PM
5
05
57
PM
PDT
Ok, thanks for clearing up the issue of multiple use restrooms for both sexes - I didn't think that was something anyone was seriously proposing. So I think that my statement that no one see's anyones genitals in a women's restroom is accurate, so the issue of a little girl just being exposed to a penis as people go about their business in the restroom doesn't seem to be a problem. Now there is a problem with the potential for adults in restrooms to sexually harass children, and I think that is a possible problem for non-transgender people also. I've certainly seen people in restrooms who made me uncomfortable, and I'd feel even more so, perhaps, about a boy going in there alone. But I think the chances are small that someone who is genitally male but appears as a woman is going to go into the women's restroom because they are sexually interested in the women or children in there. In fact, it is much more likely that there are lesbian women in women's restrooms than there are transgender women. So really the problem is sexual predation, and especially of children, which we need to guard against and prosecute irrespective of which gender and in which bathroom they are.Aleta
April 24, 2016
April
04
Apr
24
24
2016
05:43 PM
5
05
43
PM
PDT
Aleta: "You mean restrooms that both men and women use at the same time?" Well, no, I guess not. What I am objecting to is the proposition that a biological man should be allowed to use a women's restroom (which, by definition, allows for multiple occupancy--and indecent exposure). A male predator can certainly abuse that environment for purposes of sexual harassment, and be covered by the law on the grounds that he identifies as something else. Also, I am suggesting that anyone who accuses me of being a "transphobe" for holding that position is out of order? Would you agree on both counts?StephenB
April 24, 2016
April
04
Apr
24
24
2016
05:29 PM
5
05
29
PM
PDT
@ Indiana Effigy
IE #7 All of this argument over truth yet what we consider to be truth is different in different cultures and different religions. And over time within the same cultures.
That's funny, basically your are saying ''truth is relative'' or ''there is no truth''. When somebody says ''truth is relative/there is no truth'' I always ask that person "Is that true?" > If he answers ''yes'', then he is contradicting himself. > If he answers ''no'', then by default he is admitting that there is (absolute) truth. So, it's a selfdefeating statement/argument. If you fail the see the logical consequences of your own fallacy, wich I just pointed out above, then there is no point in talking with you. Because then you could argue about the (non)truthfulness of anything. Like, the reality of you reading these words. Or, another example, like someone from Saudi Arabia could say, it is not true at your nickname here is Indiana Effigy, cause I consider it to be ygiffE anaidnI, because in arabic they write/read from right to left. People who apply your way of reasoning would create (or are already creating) dysfunctional societies and familes, because they ignore absolute truths. let's apply your way of reasoning to mathematics. Let's say, you are in Italy, you pay with a €100 bill to buy a €5 pizza, but you get don't get €95 in return, because they have a different truth in Italy when it comes to mathematics. In a case like that, would you still say ''in my culture mathematical truth is different, but I don't want to argue what we consider to be truth'' ? I arrest my case. Anyway, it was nice doing business with you ;)0812681
April 24, 2016
April
04
Apr
24
24
2016
05:24 PM
5
05
24
PM
PDT
Stephen writes,
We are discussing Men/Women restrooms, not Women’s restrooms.
You mean restrooms that both men and women use at the same time? In that case, won't it be the case that the men will be "exposing themselves" to the women whenever they use the urinals. There could be no trans people involved at all, and you'd have this problem. And WJM had written,
Do you agree that it is irresponsible to call someone a bigot if they disagree with the idea that biological men should be allowed into the ladies bathroom?
It was this remark about ladies bathroom that prompted my statement about there being no urinals.Aleta
April 24, 2016
April
04
Apr
24
24
2016
05:18 PM
5
05
18
PM
PDT
Aleta --"But I’ve pointed out that women’s restrooms only have stalls, not urinals, so that wouldn’t happen. Nobody exposes their genitals in a women’s restroom." Irrelevant. We are discussing Men/Women restrooms, not Women's restrooms. So, back to the theme. Should I be maligned as a "transphobe" for holding my point of view? If so, doesn't that shut down any possibility of a good faith argument? Doesn't that make persuasion impossible? Isn't that the point of the name calling--to intimidate and avoid any semblance of a rational exchange of ideas.StephenB
April 24, 2016
April
04
Apr
24
24
2016
04:46 PM
4
04
46
PM
PDT
And it should be added that up till now transgender folks generally use the bathroom appropriate for their appearance.
Did it ever occur to you that there are perverse males who can claim to identify as women so that they can practice their perversity? Meanwhile, you have totally abandoned your argument. How about addressing my questions @30?StephenB
April 24, 2016
April
04
Apr
24
24
2016
04:43 PM
4
04
43
PM
PDT
I think it helpful to remember that toilet usage has changed over time. From the Biblical Archaeology Society, An Expert’s Take on Toilet History and Customs from Antiquity to the Renaissance:
The change in attitude with regard to the custom of going to the toilet in all privacy as we now know only happened after the decisions of the Council of Trent (1545–1563) were turned into regulation, which accounted for a lot of changes with regard to customs related to the body, but [these regulations] were not put into action overnight. Customs which had prevailed for thousands of years apparently do not change so easily. The Biblical passage you refer to [Judges 3:15–25] seems to me to fit into the Roman custom, which lasted well into the 16th century in Europe. Especially as the Romans adopted a lot of Greek customs and presumably they were not so different from other people living in the eastern Mediterranean area. And wasn’t Bathsheba bathing in full view to King David [2 Samuel 11:2], [and] Susanna watched by the Elders [Susanna (Chapter 13 of the Greek version of Daniel):7–8]? There was not such a difference between bathing and the toilet.
rhampton7
April 24, 2016
April
04
Apr
24
24
2016
04:43 PM
4
04
43
PM
PDT
But are those types of restrooms used by more than one person at a time? I have never seen a restroom where both men and women could go in and use multiple facilities at the same time. And if there were such a restroom, then the vast majority of people peeing in the urinal would be non-trans men, so if you took a little girl in there that's what she would see. So, assuming the virtually all multiple people restrooms are either men's or woman's, I think my analysis in 28 is correct: no one will ever see.Aleta
April 24, 2016
April
04
Apr
24
24
2016
04:36 PM
4
04
36
PM
PDT
Aleta:
What would a little girl be doing in a restroom with a urinal in it? Only men’s restrooms have urinals.
A one size fits all restroom may have urinals, and may not have stalls. Also, you are avoiding the other component of the argument. Why should I be maligned (or has some have been, fired--yes fired) as a "transphobe" for holding my point of view.StephenB
April 24, 2016
April
04
Apr
24
24
2016
04:28 PM
4
04
28
PM
PDT
Stephen, you write that,
a grown man should not expose himself to a little girl in the restroom on the grounds that he doesn’t identify with his own genitals.
But I've pointed out that women's restrooms only have stalls, not urinals, so that wouldn't happen. Nobody exposes their genitals in a women's restroom.Aleta
April 24, 2016
April
04
Apr
24
24
2016
04:25 PM
4
04
25
PM
PDT
hrun0815
KF, then why don’t you put up examples where WJM or anybody else was maligned as bigot, racist, or hater for opposing public defecation, rape, or underage marriage.
Why don't you address the examples of injustice that have already been put on the table? What about those who are called racist for simply advocating a border wall? What about those who are targeted for a jail sentence because they persist as "climate skeptics." What about those who are maligned as "transphobes" because they think a grown man should not expose himself to a little girl in the restroom on the grounds that he doesn't identify with his own genitals?StephenB
April 24, 2016
April
04
Apr
24
24
2016
04:19 PM
4
04
19
PM
PDT
Re #28: And it should be added that up till now transgender folks generally use the bathroom appropriate for their appearance. As you say, female-looking transgender who nevertheless have a penis were using stalls in the women's room while male-appearing transgender with female anatomy were using stalls in the men's room. So the only thing that the bathroom laws are changing is to (deep ding on the particulars of the law) force some transgender people into bathrooms that don't match their outward appearance.hrun0815
April 24, 2016
April
04
Apr
24
24
2016
04:17 PM
4
04
17
PM
PDT
If a trans woman with a penis goes into a women's bathroom, she will use a stall, because that's all there is. If a trans man with women's genitals goes into a men's restroom, he will use a stall cause he couldn't pee standing up anyway. So it's all going to be behind closed doors, and no one will ever know either way.Aleta
April 24, 2016
April
04
Apr
24
24
2016
04:02 PM
4
04
02
PM
PDT
What would a little girl be doing in a restroom with a urinal in it? Only men's restrooms have urinals.Aleta
April 24, 2016
April
04
Apr
24
24
2016
03:47 PM
3
03
47
PM
PDT
Indiana Effigy Do you agree with me that a man should not be permitted to enter a restroom and use the urinal when a little girl is present? Or, do you, like the thought police, hold that anyone who holds such archaic views should be dafamed for being a "transphobe" and that a man should be permitted to expose himself to a child on the grounds that he identifies himself as a woman.StephenB
April 24, 2016
April
04
Apr
24
24
2016
03:39 PM
3
03
39
PM
PDT
KF, then why don't you put up examples where WJM or anybody else was maligned as bigot, racist, or hater for opposing public defecation, rape, or underage marriage. Either by me or by (as WJM claims) media, politics, or academia. If you can, then uou can soundly prove me wrong and maybe your post #24 is spot on. If not, then you are simply propping up WJM's dishonest attempt to play the victim, malign the other side, and attempt to put an end to reasonable debate.hrun0815
April 24, 2016
April
04
Apr
24
24
2016
02:58 PM
2
02
58
PM
PDT
IE and HR, I think it is very unwise in the long run for your side to so often (and frequently as a first resort) project base motivations and strawmannish constructions on those who differ or question. There is something called blowback after all. KFkairosfocus
April 24, 2016
April
04
Apr
24
24
2016
02:51 PM
2
02
51
PM
PDT
WJM: "Do you agree it is irresponsible and detrimental to debate to shame or parrot shaming terminology and accusations without first having a fair hearing, reasonable debate and a good understanding of what it is one is attempting to shame?" Not always. Sometimes it speeds up the debate, or the enforcement of existing laws. We had the date over gay rights and SSM long ago. Just because the debate didn't go your way doesn't mean it was stifled. Shaming was the only way to stop people like the county clerk from violating someone's legal rights. "Do you agree that it is irresponsible to call a position “racist” if you want to build a border wall in order to better keep security threats out?" Yes. But do you think it is racist to pay illegal immigrants less than minimum wage, creating a huge demand for illegal immigrants, and then blame the problem on the illegal immigrants rather than the employers who are breaking the law? "Do you agree that it is irresponsible to call someone “anti-science” simply because they are skeptical of certain supposedly consensus science views?" Depends on the circumstance. When someone misrepresents the science, as is common with many ID proponents and climate change opponents, then no, it is not irresponsible. But I prefer to deal with them on a case by case basis rather than paint all people who oppose my views with the same brush, as the title of your OP does. "Do you agree that it is irresponsible to call someone a bigot if they disagree with the idea that biological men should be allowed into the ladies bathroom?" When they disagree because they think that transsexuals are deviants and put women at risk, no. They are bigots. If they can back it up with the hundreds of incidents of transsexuals abusing women in women's washrooms, then they are not bigots. Unfortunately, there is no history of this. And don't pretend that this is because transsexuals have not been using women's bathrooms. They have been doing it for decades.Indiana Effigy
April 24, 2016
April
04
Apr
24
24
2016
02:27 PM
2
02
27
PM
PDT
No case my previous post is not clear enough: I am asserting that you are simply making random stuff up. Nobody is labeled racist, bigot, or hater for opposing public defecation, underage marriage, or rape. The reason why you make this stuff up is so you can paint yourself as a victim and others as the folks who are sabotaging reasonable debate. Yet, it is you, with your lies, who is sabotaging reasonable debate. Clear enough? You know what to do in order to show that you are not lying.hrun0815
April 24, 2016
April
04
Apr
24
24
2016
02:02 PM
2
02
02
PM
PDT
WJM, it looks like you forget to put up examples where media, politics, academia, or I labeled you racist, bigoted, or a hater because you oppose public defecation, rape, or underage marriage. I'm sure you'll get to that any minute now, right? If not, I'm sure that everybody following the thread will take this as a clear indication who is actually sabotaging reasonable debate.hrun0815
April 24, 2016
April
04
Apr
24
24
2016
01:54 PM
1
01
54
PM
PDT
Indiana Effigy: I said:
But what part of shaming, attacking and ruining the lives of those with dissenting views without any fair hearing or reasonable debate conforms to any of those definitions?
Do you agree it is irresponsible and detrimental to debate to shame or parrot shaming terminology and accusations without first having a fair hearing, reasonable debate and a good understanding of what it is one is attempting to shame? Do you agree that it is irresponsible to call a position "racist" if you want to build a border wall in order to better keep security threats out? Do you agree that it is irresponsible to call someone "anti-science" simply because they are skeptical of certain supposedly consensus science views? Do you agree that it is irresponsible to call someone a bigot if they disagree with the idea that biological men should be allowed into the ladies bathroom? -------------------------------- hrun0815: I said:
You just did this very thing – attempted to marginalized/negatively characterize me for expressing my view that such cultural habits should not be invited to the West.
hrun0815 asks:
You are simply deluded. Where did I do that?
In #13, where you said:
Oh what a great example. In fact it shows perfectly that you have a victimization complex and are just full of it. It turns out that even though numerous immigrants come from India where public defecation is an issue, here it is neither practiced nor tolerated. Also, it shows to everybody into what kinda pretzel you have to twist your world view just so you can stick with being the victim.
I expressed my view that I am against tolerating certain cultural norms being imported via refugees or immigrants, and even though you have now agreed that those behaviors should not be tolerated, you still had to negatively characterize me as having to "twist my world view like a pretzel so I see myself as a victim". I don't see myself as a "victim"; what I see is honest debate being destroyed by an increasingly intolerant leftist narrative that operates through intimidation tactics and deceitfully applied, emotionally charged labels.William J Murray
April 24, 2016
April
04
Apr
24
24
2016
01:46 PM
1
01
46
PM
PDT
You just did this very thing – attempted to marginalized/negatively characterize me for expressing my view that such cultural habits should not be invited to the West.?
You are simply deluded. Where did I do that? Not once did I attack you for opposing 'public defecation', 'rape', or 'underage marriage'. If it makes you feel better, I am against all three things. Yet, you claim that because you hold this views I supposedly attempted to marginalize you and that you are being labeled a bigot, racist, or hater. If so, show me where I have done so! And show me where media, academia, or politics labeled people that oppose 'public defecation', 'rape', or 'underage marriage' a bigot, racist, or hater. Put up or admit that you are simply playing victim.hrun0815
April 24, 2016
April
04
Apr
24
24
2016
11:17 AM
11
11
17
AM
PDT
WJM@11: "But what part of shaming, attacking and ruining the lives of those with dissenting views without any fair hearing or reasonable debate conforms to any of those definitions?" You do realize that Rosa Parks used shaming of those with dissenting views. As did the black teens at the Woolworths counter. Don't underestimate the role of shaming in getting the debate started. It is great at pointing to the irrationality of an existing law, or cultural norm. The recent examples (eg the county clerk who refused to issue a SSM licence, or the florists or bakers who refused to provide services because of the sexual orientation of the clients) used shaming to bring the rediculousness of these actions to the forefront and ensure that everyone was aware that religious freedoms do not extend to discrimination based on sexual orientation. This has not stopped or stifled debate on the subject. You just have to watch Fox or check the Internet. The debate on SSM and homosexual rights is very active and vibrant. What shaming does is ensure that illegal discrimination on these grounds is not tolerated. If you want to change the laws, you are well within your rights to make the attempt. But don't cry "conspiracy" when you are unable to do so. The examples of people being fired for voicing their opinions on something is not always as black and white as you suggest. Many on-air personalities have contracts with their employer that cover what they say in public. In many cases, the celebrity Twitter and Facebook accounts are owned by the broadcaster and fall under their employment agreement. Whether they like it or not, on-air celebrities are legally bound to follow the code of conduct when they speak in public or use social media. What must be remembered is that they agreed to this in writing. Shame has always been part of the justice system. It may not be ideal, or even always just, but it is very effective.Indiana Effigy
April 24, 2016
April
04
Apr
24
24
2016
11:06 AM
11
11
06
AM
PDT
1 24 25 26 27

Leave a Reply