OJBs Web Site: Blog Page

Note: You are currently viewing my old web site. There is a new version with most of this content at OJB.NZ.
The new site is being updated, uses modern techniques, has higher quality media, and has a mobile-friendly version.
This old site will stay on-line for a while, but maybe not indefinitely. Please update your bookmarks. Thanks.

Add a Comment (Go Up to OJB's Blog Page)

Assume the Worst?

Entry 2263, on 2023-03-08 at 14:07:17 (Rating 4, Politics)

I think a major cause of conflict in the modern world is that people assume the worst about their opponents. I try to avoid this, but it would be naive to think that I don't slip into that mode occasionally. This phenomenon, of "assuming the worst", happens for a number of reasons, so let's take a look at a few...

First, people are tribal, so to a left oriented person, anyone who is not practically a card-carrying Marxist looks like they're alt-right, whatever that means, because I have never seen a particularly consistent and succinct definition. But to the right, anyone who follows even a moderate leftist position looks like Lenin or Mao. Both are wrong, and both are harmful.

Second, categorising people makes it easier to reject their views. If someone on the left can categorise their opponent as a fascist, racist, misogynist, bigot, transphobe, homophobe, Islamophobe, or something similar, then they really don't feel as if they have to put any effort into answering their points. And a similar phenomenon happens from people on the right who classify their opponents as communists or woke.

In fact, I even succumbed to a mild form of the phenomenon myself above, because categorising people as left or right, while it doesn't imply the same extremist views as the labels I listed, is also a lesser form of this. It's hard to avoid completely, but we can at least minimise it.

Third, classifying people is a simple way to straw man their argument. The straw man is an informal logical fallacy where a person argues against a weak form (a man of straw) of their opponent's argument, making it easier to dismiss them than arguing against the real argument. Genuine debaters are encouraged to steel man the argument instead. If you can disprove the strongest form of their points then you can genuinely claim a win.

So now I want to mention a few examples of this recently where I have been both the victim and the perpetrator of this problematic behaviour. Yes, I admit I do it some times, but I acknowledge it, when I do it, making it more justifiable in my opinion.

The first is drag queens reading to children in libraries. This became an issue recently here in New Zealand when a reading of this sort was shut down by police, because a protest caused so much disruption.

I argued on the side that these events are problematic and maybe could be justifiably not allowed in public spaces. The reason I argued this way is that I have seen very similar events used as a way to present hyper-sexualised and extreme political opinions in favour of LGBTQIA+ lifestyles.

As a person leaning towards libertarianism I say that people should be able to live in whatever way makes them happy, but only until it starts affecting others significantly. So if a man wants to dress up in women's clothing and act in an extravagantly sexualised manner, then sure, let him do it. But if he wants to encourage children to do the same thing, then it becomes a problem.

Note that I am not saying this because being different from the norm is a problem, I would also object to a Christian group trying to impose fundamentalist views onto children, or a Marxist group trying to covert children to having an anti-capitalist view as well. Children are easily manipulated and free speech which aims to persuade its audience should be limited to where the targets are sufficiently well cognitively developed that they can evaluate what they are being told rationally.

In the debate I had about this subject my opponent really didn't answer any of these points. Instead, he just called me a bigot, even though I had already said I fully support the lifestyle these people have chosen. In fact, I just did a count, and he used that word 26 times, even though I told him it had no effect on me, because I had already explained my more nuanced view.

So he assumed the worst about me, and I do have to admit that I also might be accused of something similar, because he claimed I based my objection on the worst examples of this type of event. It was entirely possible that this one was completely innocent, and involved no attempt at affecting the thoughts of the children. However, I did say early in the exchange that I was basing my opinions on the phenomenon in general, and not this specific instance, because neither he nor I knew the exact material or context involved. So I sort of assumed the worst, but declared that early on.

My second example is climate change. For years I have supported the evidence for climate change being true, and it being primarily caused by human activity. There are many reasons for this view, but primarily they are the clear measurements from many independent organisations showing ice melt, temperature, CO2 levels, and many other indicators all changing in a consistent way, and the carbon isotopes showing the extra CO2 comes from combustion of fossil fuels.

But at the same time I am very critical of a lot of climate activism, especially the hideous Greta Thunberg and the silly children going on "climate strikes" here in New Zealand (as if anyone cares if some school kids go on "strike"). Why? Because, while I agree with the science of climate change, I disagree with a lot of the resulting politics.

I disagree with the politics because we need to either genuinely tackle the big CO2 emitters, or plan for coping with the changed climate. Making small changes in a place like New Zealand, while developing nations, China, and India hugely increase their emissions is just stupid. We could shut down everything in New Zealand tomorrow, and it would make no noticeable difference at all.

So all of our efforts at carbon emission reduction are really just glorified virtue signalling. The person driving the electric car isn't making much of a contribution to stopping climate change, but they probably feel good because they are "doing the right thing" or are on "the right side of history".

Note that I like electric cars, and prefer, on principle, using renewable energy sources rather than those which will eventually run out, but we need a rational approach to this, not one driven by a hysterical overeaction by children and an activist on the other side of the world.

So when I am accused of being a global warming denier on this, it is completely untrue. Again, my opponents assume the worst about me. I'm only denying the ineffective approach these people want to pursue, not the need for action in general.

Finally, my third example (which I will mention briefly, because this post is already too long) is the trans versus TERF debate. If you dont know, a TERF, is a "trans-exclusionary radical feminist". The dictionary defines this as: "a person whose views on gender identity are considered hostile to transgender people, or who opposes social and political policies designed to be inclusive of transgender people" which is really another example of assuming the worst.

Most TERFs accept that trans people have the right to exist, but deny the rights which more extreme manifestations of this phenomenon confer, like allowing trans women (people who were born male) access to women's change rooms, toilets, and allowing them to compete against women in sports.

Again, I fully support the rights of these people to identify and behave in any way which makes them happy... until is starts significantly affecting others. Surely, even the most rabid pro-trans person can see that allowing a man (who identifies as a woman) to compete against women in contact sports like martial arts is insane. No disrespect to women, but in almost every case that, is actually a dangerous mismatch.

And yes, I am referencing an extreme case there, but it is only the extreme cases which I, and the TERFS (I can't believe I'm actually on the side of radical feminists on this one), object to. If a trans person wants to live that way, I say great, do it, but if they want to exploit my good will towards their lifestyle to act in a way detrimental to others, then my support stops there.

So there it is: drag queens, climate change, trans rights. Never let it be said I avoid the controversial topics!

Comment 1 (7402) by Anonymous on 2023-03-19 at 20:30:49:

Your opinions on these subjects are controversial because you are completely wrong. Why do you think your opinion is different from what people think today. Your ideas are out of date. Listen to what you are being told.

Comment 2 (7403) by OJB on 2023-03-19 at 22:12:25:

I'm not really interested in whose opinions are old or new, or different from the (alleged) majority. I'm only interested in whose opinions are true, or at least more true than others. If you have any reason to doubt my ideas, let's hear your evidence.

You can leave comments about this entry using this form.

To add a comment: enter a name and email (both optional), type the number shown above, enter a comment, then click Add.
Note that you can leave the name blank if you want to remain anonymous.
Enter your email address to receive notifications of replies and updates to this entry.
The comment should appear immediately because the authorisation system is currently inactive.