Entry 2352, on 2024-06-26 at 19:56:52 (Rating 3, Comments)
Summary
I have been underestimated and attacked by opponents who assume I hold extreme conservative views. However, I actually identify as a libertarian and support some conservative ideas but also appreciate progressivism. Despite this, opponents resort to insults like "Nazi" without understanding my actual beliefs. In a Facebook debate, I defended free speech on X and explained the term "woke" as an excessive focus on social justice over facts. My opponent disagreed but eventually left the debate. I believe insults stem from tribalism, as opponents hastily categorize me based on misconceptions rather than engaging in constructive dialogue. Ultimately, I remain unfazed by insults and views them as a sign of weak arguments, and encourage opponents to move away from tribalistic attitudes for more productive discussions.
Full Text
I have been involved in several debates recently where my opponents were quite easily defeated because they underestimated me. I'm not trying to be smart and say that I am the world's greatest debater, just that they thought I was some sort of idiot, which I would claim, isn't true! In every case, the opponent was a member for what I call the "woke mob" and was attacking me because they thought I was a conservative, a Trump supporter, or a denier of progressive values.
Now, to be fair, I am partly all of those things. I appreciate some of the ideas of conservatism, although I also appreciate parts of progressivism, and mainly identify as a libertarian. I think Trump has some significant character flaws, but I do support many of his ideas, and if I was an American I would seriously consider voting for him in preference to Biden. And I think we should always strive to progress, but we need to be careful that we are progressing in the right direction, and that we don't go too far and cause more problems than we solve.
But when I make comments which are contrary to what my opponents see as being appropriate they assume I'm some kind of inbred redneck, a member of the KKK, or a Nazi. Of course, I'm not any of those things, but by the time they realise that, it is too late and their feeble arguments are destroyed!
Here are a few comments about me from a recent "discussion" on Facebook about whether X (previously Twitter) is a place for good debate since Elon Musk took over...
First, "I guess even racist trolls deserve a home", then "Woke mob, huh? Define woke, tough guy", and "Stop embarrassing yourself you little Nazi", and finally "all the way from tin foil hat conspiracy spewers, to nazi sympathizers and other assorted bigots".
And here are the comments I made which elicited this invective. Regarding X, I said: "It's better than ever, IMHO. Better range of views, less cancellation, and community notes is really useful". And when challenged to define the word "woke", I said: "I usually use something like this: Having an excessive and irrational preoccupation with social justice issues based on emotion more than facts". And defending that definition: "There are multiple ways to use the word. I gave you the definition I was thinking if when I made the comment."
Can you see a difference in the two styles?
The context here was that, after I said that many people who were criticised on X were just opposing the "woke mob", he challenged me to define woke. I gave him "Having an excessive and irrational preoccupation with social justice issues based on emotion more than facts" and he disagreed because he found a different definition in the dictionary. But reading further through that same dictionary there was a second definition which matched mine very closely. That was when he disappeared from the debate.
But we were debating the meaning of a word, although I agree it is a very political word. Why was it necessary to go down the path of using words like "Nazi" and "bigots". Sure, I used "woke" but that is more a description rather than an insult. Also, I used it to describe a general class of person on X, not him personally.
I do get insulted a lot like that, but it doesn't worry me in the least. In fact, it usually means the other person has run out of real ideas and is resorting to ad hominems. I also think they use it to try to evoke and angry or emotional reaction from me, and when I reply with very reasonable arguments it just makes them look ridiculous.
But really, underneath, the problem is tribalism. I say something which triggers them to assign me to the "MAGA" or "redneck" or "ignoramus" tribe. When that happens their reaction is to attack with personal insults and material against a position I don't really hold. And that's why they lose the debate. They really need to stop the tribalism.
Comment 1 by S Kumar on 2024-06-26 at 21:31:22:
It sounds like you’ve been navigating some intense debates lately! It can be frustrating when opponents underestimate you based on assumptions about your beliefs. It’s commendable that you stick to discussing ideas rather than letting personal attacks derail the conversation. Tribalism often clouds meaningful dialogue, and it’s important to focus on exchanging reasoned arguments rather than resorting to labels and insults. Keep advocating for constructive debate - it’s how we can all learn and grow from different perspectives.
Comment 2 by OJB on 2024-06-26 at 21:35:31:
I enjoy debating and don't take personal abuse too seriously. I have had one (just one) more reasonable discussion recently too, and I felt as if both of us learned a bit from that. The thing is that if my opponents were a bit more reasonable I would be far more likely to see things their way.
You can leave comments about this using this form.
Enter name, email (optional), enter number, comment, click Add. You can leave the name blank if you want to remain anonymous. Enter your email address to receive notifications of replies. Comment should appear immediately (authorisation is inactive).
BLOG PAGE