do you have examples when the “Left” was significantly changing minds through dialogue/dialectic?
I don’t have a roster of examples right now, but a couple things come to mind:
1960s civil rights activism often used debate & speeches to drive change, though of course that’s not the full picture. e.g. Malcolm X, MLK, the Baldwin-Buckley debate.
The campaign for gay marriage seemed to rely more on inclusive discussion rather than exclusionary calling out.
so i kinda expected those. so do you know of any evidence that people’s minds where changed significantly or mostly due to debate/discussion? polls? surveys? ???
and of course on the other side, is there any evidence that those “fighting” for these believe it was debate/discussion vs (often militant) action?
i guess the “problem” i have is that im old (47) and read too much Zinn (to give you something to associate to or attempt to find similarities with people you know). ive specifically inculcate the belief that most things achieved have NOT been thru debate but action:
race: civil war, civil right, not to mention the insane daily resistence you can read about from black history authors
do you know of any evidence that people’s minds where changed significantly or mostly due to debate/discussion?
I think for both gay rights & cannabis advocacy, the model that best explains what happened goes something like:
Activists do a bunch of public education & direct action to push on the issue
The work of the activists moves the Overton window such that more people feel comfortable coming out (as gay, as cannabis users)
More & more people come into personal contact with the members of the group in question (gay people, cannabis users)
People update their views about the issue via personal interactions with someone they know, who turns out to be a member of the group in question
Not evidence, just a model that might explain how a lot of opinion change happens.
… shouting down the milos of the world is bad is evidence that talk is what had changed the world.
I think shouting down Milos is important & should keep happening to some extent (though I tend to bias towards reasoned discussion & indoor voices).
I also think that too many people are getting pattern-matched as Milos, and shouting down people who have been mis-typed as Milos has negative consequences (via the mechanism I sketched out in the post).
Not evidence, just a model that might explain how a lot of opinion change happens.
I very much like this model, and bullet 4 is where people’s minds are changed but it is through personal ties (as you say), discussion (yes) and very much suffused with emotion.
I also think that too many people are getting pattern-matched as Milos, and shouting down people who have been mis-typed as Milos has negative consequences
Again, who are we talking about? Damore-like? Peterson and the whole of the IDW? The unnamed (center? conservative?) academics?
I am not really at this site’s level, so perhaps I am missing the point. But I certainly dont see rampant shouting down or personal/prestige/economic harm to average people in the real-world via the Left.
Maybe another question: Who is the Left you are talking about? It seems like mostly college kids with I suppose Antifa thrown in(?). So, how about the DSA (they are “Left” yes?): Is the DSA guilty of what you see happening?
(Finally, feel free to ignore my questions; I have no expectation or believe you are obligated to reply. We are just talking! :))
Again, who are we talking about? Damore-like? Peterson and the whole of the IDW?
As stated in the post, I’m mostly worried about people who start self-policing their speech instead of speaking openly about what they believe. I think there are probably a lot of people like this.
Who is the Left you are talking about?
I have in mind a pretty broad swath, including:
Most university administrations
Most of the Bay Area tech industry
Most of the LA entertainment industry
About half of the D.C. lobbying & think tank industry
Not sure about New York… maybe 30-40% of Wall Street?
The problem seems to be with the discourse norms of those communities – what is okay to talk about & what isn’t in those places. I don’t yet have a good model of who sets & maintains those norms.
Is the DSA guilty of what you see happening?
I don’t know very much about the DSA, but from a quick scan of their twitter, I’d guess they are within the discourse-sphere I’m worried about.
so i kinda expected those. so do you know of any evidence that people’s minds where changed significantly or mostly due to debate/discussion? polls? surveys? ???
If debate / discussion doesn’t actually change people minds then it’s totally safe to let anyone defend whatever nonsense they want, they’re not going to change anyones mind anyway.
Hi! i do (mean to) try to add qualifiers like *mostly* and such to my questioning of whether or not speech/discussion/debate is a great mover of people’s minds; certainly in the ultimate, talk is what changes minds, but its talk among people with emotional investment (eg. caring) among themselves, not some grand forum of the public. i mean, where is the “discussion” in a milo-like event?
and similarly, what motivated me to create an account and comment in the first place is my annoyance at the IDW: I think they are whingers (certainly Harris and Peterson), and their assertion that discussion & debate is what is important and yet they dont do it! it seems to me their get togethers are only amongst themselves; Harris certainly has been touring with Peterson, and a couple of events with Weinsteins, but he has explicitly asserted that Ta-Nehisi Coates, for example, is irredeemable and undebatable.
perhaps unfairly, i saw this posting in this light: the assertion that there used to be some great time in the past when the “Left” was changing minds through some series of grand public discussions/debates, but lamentably the “Left” has changed(?) been taken over(?) and this no longer happens.
I don’t have a roster of examples right now, but a couple things come to mind:
1960s civil rights activism often used debate & speeches to drive change, though of course that’s not the full picture. e.g. Malcolm X, MLK, the Baldwin-Buckley debate.
The campaign for gay marriage seemed to rely more on inclusive discussion rather than exclusionary calling out.
so i kinda expected those. so do you know of any evidence that people’s minds where changed significantly or mostly due to debate/discussion? polls? surveys? ???
and of course on the other side, is there any evidence that those “fighting” for these believe it was debate/discussion vs (often militant) action?
i guess the “problem” i have is that im old (47) and read too much Zinn (to give you something to associate to or attempt to find similarities with people you know). ive specifically inculcate the belief that most things achieved have NOT been thru debate but action:
race: civil war, civil right, not to mention the insane daily resistence you can read about from black history authors
labor: militant labor strikes pre, say, 1930s, strong unions until 1970s
sufferage: direct action
gay rights: same
so, what i need to be convinced that shouting down the milos of the world is bad is evidence that talk is what had changed the world.
I think for both gay rights & cannabis advocacy, the model that best explains what happened goes something like:
Activists do a bunch of public education & direct action to push on the issue
The work of the activists moves the Overton window such that more people feel comfortable coming out (as gay, as cannabis users)
More & more people come into personal contact with the members of the group in question (gay people, cannabis users)
People update their views about the issue via personal interactions with someone they know, who turns out to be a member of the group in question
Not evidence, just a model that might explain how a lot of opinion change happens.
I think shouting down Milos is important & should keep happening to some extent (though I tend to bias towards reasoned discussion & indoor voices).
I also think that too many people are getting pattern-matched as Milos, and shouting down people who have been mis-typed as Milos has negative consequences (via the mechanism I sketched out in the post).
I very much like this model, and bullet 4 is where people’s minds are changed but it is through personal ties (as you say), discussion (yes) and very much suffused with emotion.
Again, who are we talking about? Damore-like? Peterson and the whole of the IDW? The unnamed (center? conservative?) academics?
I am not really at this site’s level, so perhaps I am missing the point. But I certainly dont see rampant shouting down or personal/prestige/economic harm to average people in the real-world via the Left.
Maybe another question: Who is the Left you are talking about? It seems like mostly college kids with I suppose Antifa thrown in(?). So, how about the DSA (they are “Left” yes?): Is the DSA guilty of what you see happening?
(Finally, feel free to ignore my questions; I have no expectation or believe you are obligated to reply. We are just talking! :))
As stated in the post, I’m mostly worried about people who start self-policing their speech instead of speaking openly about what they believe. I think there are probably a lot of people like this.
I have in mind a pretty broad swath, including:
Most university administrations
Most of the Bay Area tech industry
Most of the LA entertainment industry
About half of the D.C. lobbying & think tank industry
Not sure about New York… maybe 30-40% of Wall Street?
The problem seems to be with the discourse norms of those communities – what is okay to talk about & what isn’t in those places. I don’t yet have a good model of who sets & maintains those norms.
I don’t know very much about the DSA, but from a quick scan of their twitter, I’d guess they are within the discourse-sphere I’m worried about.
If debate / discussion doesn’t actually change people minds then it’s totally safe to let anyone defend whatever nonsense they want, they’re not going to change anyones mind anyway.
Hi! i do (mean to) try to add qualifiers like *mostly* and such to my questioning of whether or not speech/discussion/debate is a great mover of people’s minds; certainly in the ultimate, talk is what changes minds, but its talk among people with emotional investment (eg. caring) among themselves, not some grand forum of the public. i mean, where is the “discussion” in a milo-like event?
and similarly, what motivated me to create an account and comment in the first place is my annoyance at the IDW: I think they are whingers (certainly Harris and Peterson), and their assertion that discussion & debate is what is important and yet they dont do it! it seems to me their get togethers are only amongst themselves; Harris certainly has been touring with Peterson, and a couple of events with Weinsteins, but he has explicitly asserted that Ta-Nehisi Coates, for example, is irredeemable and undebatable.
perhaps unfairly, i saw this posting in this light: the assertion that there used to be some great time in the past when the “Left” was changing minds through some series of grand public discussions/debates, but lamentably the “Left” has changed(?) been taken over(?) and this no longer happens.