The fact that censorship is progressivism’s default position regarding so many things is evidence of progressives’ pessimism about the ability of their agenda to advance under a regime of robust discussion.
The quote illustrates rationality with a particular example from a political subject, which we all know can be mind-killing. For the avoidance of doubt, I would therefore note that the lesson in rationality from the quote applies equally to anyone, regardless of their politics, who is keen to censor discussions.
I disagree with the object level of this quote. Censorship can achieve multiple goals, and a lack of censorship does not necessarily imply “a regime of robust discussion.”
Examples of the first would be using the censorship itself as the action (e.g. a despot censoring religious minorities doesn’t just limit discussion, it’s an active method of subjugation), or protecting people from messages with annoying content or form (e.g. regulations on advertising).
The second is nearly a human universal, but is especially clear in propaganda situations—if we’re at war, and someone is spreading slanderous enemy propaganda, and I destroy their materials and arrest them, this is censorship. But it also increases the robustness of discussion, because they were trying to inject falsehoods into the discussion. Or for another example—sometimes you have to ban trolls from your message board.
I also dislike the implications of this quote for any discussion where it shows up. Some times ad hominem arguments are right. But they’re almost never productive, especially when cast in such general terms.
I wouldn’t say that it’s an ad hominem quote. I disagree with the premise—that censorship is a “default position regarding so many things” within progressivism—but I think that the link between censorship as a default position and a fear of the survivability-under-discussion of one’s own ideas is a rationally visible one. Unlike a typical example of an ad hominem attack, the undesirable behavior (fiat elimination of competing ideas as a default response) is related to the conclusion (that the individual is afraid of the effects of competing ideas). It’s oversimplified, but one can say only so much in a short quip.
Would the term “genetic argument” be better, do you think? Fewer emotional associations, certainly :P
Anyhow, what I meant to indicate is arguments of the form “Person or group X’s argument is wrong because X has trait Y.” Example: “Rossi’s claims of fusion are wrong because he’s been shown to be a fraud before.” fits this category. Rather than examining any specific argument, we are taking it “to the man.”
And I agree that these arguments can absolutely be valid. But if there is any kind of emotionally-charged disagreement, then not only is making this sort of “rhetorical move” not going to help you persuade anybody (it can be fine as a way to preach to the choir of course), but if someone presents an argument like this to you, you should give it much less credence than if you were discussing a trivial matter. I think “fallacy” can also mean a knife that people often cut themselves with.
The fact that I use knifes and forks to eat my meal isn’t evidence for my pessimism to successfully eat my meal without knifes and forks.
It’s just evidence that I consider those tools useful.
George Will, writing in the Washington Post.
The quote illustrates rationality with a particular example from a political subject, which we all know can be mind-killing. For the avoidance of doubt, I would therefore note that the lesson in rationality from the quote applies equally to anyone, regardless of their politics, who is keen to censor discussions.
I disagree with the object level of this quote. Censorship can achieve multiple goals, and a lack of censorship does not necessarily imply “a regime of robust discussion.”
Examples of the first would be using the censorship itself as the action (e.g. a despot censoring religious minorities doesn’t just limit discussion, it’s an active method of subjugation), or protecting people from messages with annoying content or form (e.g. regulations on advertising).
The second is nearly a human universal, but is especially clear in propaganda situations—if we’re at war, and someone is spreading slanderous enemy propaganda, and I destroy their materials and arrest them, this is censorship. But it also increases the robustness of discussion, because they were trying to inject falsehoods into the discussion. Or for another example—sometimes you have to ban trolls from your message board.
I also dislike the implications of this quote for any discussion where it shows up. Some times ad hominem arguments are right. But they’re almost never productive, especially when cast in such general terms.
I wouldn’t say that it’s an ad hominem quote. I disagree with the premise—that censorship is a “default position regarding so many things” within progressivism—but I think that the link between censorship as a default position and a fear of the survivability-under-discussion of one’s own ideas is a rationally visible one. Unlike a typical example of an ad hominem attack, the undesirable behavior (fiat elimination of competing ideas as a default response) is related to the conclusion (that the individual is afraid of the effects of competing ideas). It’s oversimplified, but one can say only so much in a short quip.
Would the term “genetic argument” be better, do you think? Fewer emotional associations, certainly :P
Anyhow, what I meant to indicate is arguments of the form “Person or group X’s argument is wrong because X has trait Y.” Example: “Rossi’s claims of fusion are wrong because he’s been shown to be a fraud before.” fits this category. Rather than examining any specific argument, we are taking it “to the man.”
And I agree that these arguments can absolutely be valid. But if there is any kind of emotionally-charged disagreement, then not only is making this sort of “rhetorical move” not going to help you persuade anybody (it can be fine as a way to preach to the choir of course), but if someone presents an argument like this to you, you should give it much less credence than if you were discussing a trivial matter. I think “fallacy” can also mean a knife that people often cut themselves with.
The fact that I use knifes and forks to eat my meal isn’t evidence for my pessimism to successfully eat my meal without knifes and forks. It’s just evidence that I consider those tools useful.