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
Hrun0815 said:
And you honestly believe that this is an attempt at honest debate?
I asked you if you were also against those things, and if you agreed that attacking those with opposing views without any meaningful dialogue was irresponsible; you responded by attacking me and attempting to characterize me negatively. My attempt at honest debate was to ask you questions first to see what your position was; your response was to attempt to negatively characterize me and marginalize my views.
Why don’t you go ahead and find an example where the media, politics, or academia labels opposition to each one of those three example you listed in your post as racism, bigotry, or hate-speech? Go ahead, I’ll be right here waiting.
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. And that was not the point; the point is that an expressed opposition to illegal immigration or shipping in in middle-eastern refugees is immediately labeled as bigotry or racism by SJW's without any debate about the particular issues I brought up. From here:
Despite the obvious free speech concerns, UCLA’s undergraduate student government unanimously passed a resolution last week to declare that any use of the term “illegal immigrant” is now deemed racist and offensive.
Gov. Terry McAuliffe called Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump's comments about Muslims immigration [putting a temporary ban on muslim immigration from the middle east] “sad, hateful speech.” Why is it "sad" or "hateful" to consider at least temporarily halting the influx of immigrants from cultures that appear dedicated to infiltrating and destroying us and who appear to have no intention of adopting our culture or Western ideals? Do you not think it is wise to stem the flow of refugees or immigrants from cultures that are antagonistic towards our way of life, or are from cultures that embrace behaviors that are contrary to our own, at least to the point that we can more seriously and fully vet such immigrants? If you keep refusing to answer questions and instead insist on negatively characterizing me, or issuing ultimatums that if I don't obey that will prove something about me, you're only demonstrating my point - that rational debate is dead. Why won't you answer my rather simple questions in #9? Here are some more: is it racist to use the term "illegal immigrant"? Is it wrong to call "Jihad" wrong? Is it wrong to bar muslims who believe in Jihad and Sharia Law from entering countries in the west? Should the west's borders be entirely open to whomever wishes to cross them? Is it bigoted for a state to pass a law stating that you must use the restroom that corresponds to the gender of your birth?William J Murray
April 24, 2016
April
04
Apr
24
24
2016
10:22 AM
10
10
22
AM
PDT
There is no debating those who only seek to ridicule and humiliate.
WJM, it was you, who as the first example of his post, brought forth that supposedly the opposition to defecation in publish would get you labeled as racist, bigot, or hater. The other examples are opposing underage marriage and rape. And you honestly believe that this is an attempt at honest debate? Why don't you go ahead and find an example where the media, politics, or academia labels opposition to each one of those three example you listed in your post as racism, bigotry, or hate-speech? Go ahead, I'll be right here waiting. And trust me, if you can't bring up some actual cases for the three examples listed in your post #11 then it will be clear that there is no need for me to ridicule or humiliate you. You will have done so yourself.
Leftists outraged as European pools restrict migrants amid reports of rape, assault and public defecation
You know that this link doesn't actually support your claims, right?hrun0815
April 24, 2016
April
04
Apr
24
24
2016
09:24 AM
9
09
24
AM
PDT
Andre@8: "That is the biggest difference in our worldview. For materialists it is about the group, or the nation for a Christian it is about the individual." An incorrect generalization on both parts, but let's work with it. For the materialist, it is about the group and its ability to persist over time. To do so, it must establish rules (truths, if you will) that allow it to do so. And, with no surprise, not killing, not stealing, defending the young, etc. appear to be fairly universal as a result. Christianity is only about the individual as it pertains to how an individual should live his life. Things like don't kill, don't steal, defend the young, etc. Don't you find it strange that they come up with many of the same "truths" as a materialist society would. Except for those silly restrictions on questioning the deity.Indiana Effigy
April 24, 2016
April
04
Apr
24
24
2016
09:21 AM
9
09
21
AM
PDT
Note that hrun0815 refuses to answer any of the questions I posed to him/her in #9 & #11, but instead attempts to characterize me negatively as suffering from some sort of "victimization status". And that's the whole point of marxist propaganda - to negatively characterize, to ridicule, to humiliate and to marginalize instead of actually engaging rational debate or civilized dialogue. There is no debating those who only seek to ridicule and humiliate. hrun said:
It turns out that even though numerous immigrants come from India where public defecation is an issue, here it is neither practiced nor tolerated.
Leftists outraged as European pools restrict migrants amid reports of rape, assault and public defecation The point I made, which you seem to have entirely ignore, is that if I express my view that such cultural habits are bad and should not be allowed, I will be attacked by leftists and ridiculed for that view ... which is exactly what you did. Are you against allowing cultural immigrants to come to the west and practice Sharia law? Or to treat women as possessions without rights? Or to rape women out at night, or molest children? Are you against allowing public defecation? I assume you are indeed against those things; why then attack those who argue against allowing easy immigration into the west people from such cultures? Do you think those people are going to magically adopt our culture? Do you see that going on in Europe?William J Murray
April 24, 2016
April
04
Apr
24
24
2016
09:02 AM
9
09
02
AM
PDT
Re #11: 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. And this is what you believe represents 'truth'? And, to top it all off, this brilliant example comes on the heels of your own headline decrying the end of reasonable debate. The irony! :)hrun0815
April 24, 2016
April
04
Apr
24
24
2016
06:18 AM
6
06
18
AM
PDT
HR, there are always conspiracies [massively plural], there is always manipulation, there are always ambitious agendas in a community. Too often, such amount to a march of blinded rage and folly of lemmings led by wolves in sheep's or shepherd's clothing, headed over the cliff. Hence Machiavelli's hard bitten point that political disorders are like hectic fever; at the first easy to cure but hard to diagnose and so when at length for want of prompt diagnosis and proper treatment the course of the disease becomes manifest to all it is far too late to cure. And it is my dad who explicitly taught that to me, many years past, as a national and regional policy thinker and technical leader. Where also, in my faith tradition (which happens to be foundational to our civilisation . . . as in Pauline-Augustinian synthesis of Jerusalem, Athens and Rome), there is a key historical example and warning of what can happen with democratic consensus under such influences, Ac 27. In contrast, we have soundness, soundness of reason, of knowledge, of morality. Where, a pivotal component of soundness is truth, correspondence of what is said or suggested with reality. Just so Aristotle -- that redneck ignorant, stupid, insane or wicked Bible-thumping Right wing, theocratic Creationist and Fundy . . . NOT -- in Metaphysics 1011b (2300 years ago) aptly defined truth: that which says of what is, that it is; and of what is not, that it is not. I defy you to come up with a sounder precise, short and apt description . . . definition . . . of what truth is. Where, too, as the sound lessons of history were bought with blood and tears -- a point literally written into my name and also inscribed in martyr's blood over the door of my homeland's parliament -- those who dismiss, reject or neglect them doom themselves to pay the same price again and again, often at ruinous cost. I put it to you, sir, that our civilisation has begun to cut itself off from its roots. Instead, it has begun to listen to the long running siren song of evolutionary materialism (it was already old in Plato's day) -- latterly, dressed up in a lab coat, it used to wear philosopher's robes -- and it has dismissed the foundations of reason, truth and morality. Just as Plato warned us against 2350 years ago. The direct consequence of such, is that we are left in the hands of those who have largely usurped control of the commanding heights of community influence and are ruthlessly playing the nihilistic game: might and manipulation make 'right' and 'truth' and 'consensus' and 'good strategy/policy' etc. Our civilisation is becoming increasingly suicidally insane, out of touch with reality. Little Red Riding Hood, look at yourself in the deadly mirror of the wolf's eye! (Never mind, he is dressed in Grandma's clothes and is lying in her bed, that does not change the fact of wolfish nature.) Now, above, I have already pointed to the dynamics of change and silencing that can oh so easily be used by the ruthless to impose folly which seems to serve their agendas. (Let us just say that when I had to deal with rescuing victims of manipulative cults, Schein's thought was a key insight. Notice his context of how the Chinese Communists tried to reprogram a whole society and what they did to achieve that goal. Not without some significant success, though in the aftermath of the so-called Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution of the Red Guards, the cost was ruinous. China has recovered after a generation of sounder policies, but that was at a cost of what 70 mn lives or more.) In further answer, I point out that in AD 59, mid October, it should have been plain to all on abundant experience and history that sailing out late in the year was ill advised. But Mr Moneybags was not happy with the port for his ship and cargo. His technico, the kubernete knew who buttered his bread. The passengers were unhappy with the rusticity of the nearby town and wanted a more comfortable port to winter in. So -- never mind that IDiot in chains (who had by then survived three shipwrecks) saying that the risk was not reasonable to gain the rewards of an easy afternoon's sailing -- the democratic majority decision was, if a suitable wind comes up, we sail for the next port 40 miles away. Soon enough, a sweet little south wind came up. Technico was not about to say, this is often a precursor to a nor'easter. Playing the risky game. They set sail, and were maybe half way when just such a nor'easter hit them with typhonic force. And after a nightmare fortnight, they were glad to shipwreck on it seems the north side (possibly the east end) of Malta. Of course that same despised IDiot in chains was the one who had to spot the ruse the technical folks were taking to abandon the helpless passengers to their fate. That is the difference between manipulated march of folly driven pseudo-consensus and sound decision making, in a democratic context. A lesson of history. Coming from the most common book in our civilisation, from 2000 years ago. Will we wake up and heed it, or will we have to go over the cliff and break our backs before we will be willing to listen? On long track record of the stubbornness of such marches of folly, I doubt that we will listen to soundness until it is too late or almost too late. Hence, the bite of Machiavelli's counsel. So, now, I suggest to you that appeal to the 'consensus' of a march of folly is trumped by the back-breaking force of foundational reality at the foot of the cliffs. (And I come from a country that broke its back through just such a mad march over a cliff in the heady days of socialist progressivism. And cultural marxism is little more than repackaging of the same.) I further suggest to you that our civilisation is headed for the cliffs. Again. KFkairosfocus
April 24, 2016
April
04
Apr
24
24
2016
03:30 AM
3
03
30
AM
PDT
If I held the view that I do not want immigrants bringing the unacceptable aspects of their culture into the USA (like defecating in the street, or marrying underage child brides, or rape), then the SJW's of cultural relativism will label me a bigot, or a racist, and claim I am operating from hate. How can cultural relativists proclaim my cultural perspective wrong in the first place? What does "justice" mean to economic, environmental or social justice "warriors"? "Justice" means, from Merriam Webster:
a : the maintenance or administration of what is just especially by the impartial adjustment of conflicting claims or the assignment of merited rewards or punishments b : judge c : the administration of law; especially : the establishment or determination of rights according to the rules of law or equity 2 a : the quality of being just, impartial, or fair b (1) : the principle or ideal of just dealing or right action (2) : conformity to this principle or ideal : righteousness c : the quality of conforming to law 3 : conformity to truth, fact, or reason : correctness
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? None. That's because SJW's do not fight for "justice" at all; nor can they be anything but hypocrites if they are cultural relativists. If one culture is not truthfully better than another, what truth-based ideal or law would the warriors be fighting to achieve? What truth-based principle would validate and authorize their shaming and intimidation?William J Murray
April 24, 2016
April
04
Apr
24
24
2016
03:13 AM
3
03
13
AM
PDT
Some Cultures Are Better Than Others (Fair warning: be careful who is in earshot while watching that video. NSFW or children.) Some things we know are wrong, whether it's part of someone's culture or not. Besides, if cultural relativism is true, then what exactly is the argument against patriarchy, imperialism, slavery, or theocracy based on?William J Murray
April 24, 2016
April
04
Apr
24
24
2016
02:58 AM
2
02
58
AM
PDT
hrun0815, Do you agree that in order to properly discuss what is true one must employ reason, facts and evidence? Do you agree that believing a position or action to be based on "hate" or "racism" or "bigotry" simply because figures of cultural authority characterize it as such is a poor policy? And that those who simply parrot and attempt to enforce those characterizations via intimidation, shaming, etc. are acting irrespoonsibly? Indiana Effigy, Just because different cultures believe different things are true doesn't mean there is no truth to be found to discern between them. If you have given up on the idea that actual truth exists and humans can understand it as such, then you've abandoned reasoned debate for rhetoric and manipulation.William J Murray
April 24, 2016
April
04
Apr
24
24
2016
02:42 AM
2
02
42
AM
PDT
Yes and a few like HR's is nothing more than might makes right and one of the fundamental differences between a Christian and a materialist. The materialist is happy if something makes the majority happy the Christian on the other hand will say "Even if something might make the majority happy we can't do it as it is unjust" That is the biggest difference in our worldview. For materialists it is about the group, or the nation for a Christian it is about the individual.Andre
April 23, 2016
April
04
Apr
23
23
2016
11:04 PM
11
11
04
PM
PDT
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.Indiana Effigy
April 23, 2016
April
04
Apr
23
23
2016
09:48 PM
9
09
48
PM
PDT
HR: [ "Or, of course, if media, politics, academia, and a sizable chunk of the population agree, you may want to consider if your “truths” aren’t in fact hate speech after all." ] KF: [ HR, truth is not determined by opinions or popularity. Truth is that which says of what is that it is, and of what is not that it is not. Aristotle got that right in Metaphysics 1011b, 2300 years past. KF ] HR: [ KF, did I suggest it was a matter of opinion? I’m not suggested everybody else voted on what is truth, I’m suggesting that WJM might erroneously believe something to simply be truth when in fact it is not. ] Hmm. No, it seems you rather DID suggest that media, politics and academia, and a "sizable chunk of the population" (what size, you fail to articulate) are the rightful measures for truth in our society; and that we had better get in line, or we are guilty of hate crimes. IOW, truth is entirely subject to the will of the people. That seems to be what you ARE, in fact, suggesting.CannuckianYankee
April 23, 2016
April
04
Apr
23
23
2016
09:03 PM
9
09
03
PM
PDT
Amen. This is so right about these times we live in. Future people can quote the author of this thread. How to fight and conquer it? The same way as the fathers left us tools to do it. The bad guys are not that clever. They use words to define the argument. like we all do with our parents, spouse, kids, friends. Its not to deny HATE accusations against those opposing something. I am against legal immigration as well as illegal. its an identity issue to me. they are foreigners i don't want any more of or ever did. The accusation of hate is just a accusation. The accuser might be the hater actually. Probably. What must be done to fight and conquer is go back to the contract behind the whole civilization of truth, freedom, and getting your way. We have no excuses. its up to free men to defend freedom. The bad guys have lost credibility. We must accuse that truth on important matters is being interfered with. That from this truth comes important decisions in a nation and so this interference breaks the social contract of the governed with those who govern. truth must be expressed and so speech must be allowed without punishment from anyone. In short freedom of speech must not be interfered with by any power. government or mob. we must stop defending our character and motives. We must attack them as invaders of our nation(s) as long as they seek to punish, silence, or bring any judgement, without trial, on our speech. Back to the contract. its the absolute right of the people to the truth. So why is the source of truth, SPEECH, being attacked and punished!! Why is this allowed? I say because eVERYBODY has sinned and agreed to punish wrong speech. So a empire is built to control speech. back to the contract. Cease and desist on all punishment or interference on speech about important things or everything. i undetstand free speech is the law!!Robert Byers
April 23, 2016
April
04
Apr
23
23
2016
08:45 PM
8
08
45
PM
PDT
KF, did I suggest it was a matter of opinion? I'm not suggested everybody else voted on what is truth, I'm suggesting that WJM might erroneously believe something to simply be truth when in fact it is not. But don't worry, judging both him and you, assuredly neither one of you will consider this option to be possible and rather assume there is a giant conspiracy including media, politics, academia, and a sizable chunk of the population to deny and obfuscate certain truth for some nebulous nefarious reasons.hrun0815
April 23, 2016
April
04
Apr
23
23
2016
08:38 PM
8
08
38
PM
PDT
HR, truth is not determined by opinions or popularity. Truth is that which says of what is that it is, and of what is not that it is not. Aristotle got that right in Metaphysics 1011b, 2300 years past. KFkairosfocus
April 23, 2016
April
04
Apr
23
23
2016
08:08 PM
8
08
08
PM
PDT
Or, of course, if media, politics, academia, and a sizable chunk of the population agree, you may want to consider if your "truths" aren't in fact hate speech after all. ;) Just some food for thought.hrun0815
April 23, 2016
April
04
Apr
23
23
2016
07:18 PM
7
07
18
PM
PDT
WJM, always important to hear from you. And, a sobering topic. Look up the spiral of silence concept, I have to run. KF PS: Cf Schein on Lewin's ice cube change theory taken in a ruthlessly manipulative context and blend it with the spiral of silence: http://wayback.archive.org/web/20001212204800/http://www.sol-ne.org/res/wp/10006.html cf too on silencing: https://masscommtheory.com/theory-overviews/spiral-of-silence/ This agit-prop march of rage and folly attack survival guide is also worth a pause to ponder on its own merits never mind its source's deep problems: http://www.voxday.net/mart/SJW_Attack_Survival_Guide.pdf This bit of law of tort may help depending on jurisdiction: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/tortious_interference as may public mischief laws: http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-46/section-140.html cases: http://www.nrlawyers.com/Recent-Successes/Perjury-Public-Mischief-Mischief-to-Property-and-Breach-of-Court-Orders.shtml .kairosfocus
April 23, 2016
April
04
Apr
23
23
2016
04:33 PM
4
04
33
PM
PDT
1 25 26 27

Leave a Reply