Materialism and Debate

I think that it is clear that our society does not appreciate actual discussion or debate. The reasons one should come to think this are obvious.

• When a podcast or radio personality has a caller from the "other side" and they simply mock and interrupt the caller, never really engaging with what the caller wanted to say.

• News shows bring in two diametrically opposed people and let them talk for only five minutes. This results in the "debate" being nothing but two people quickly repeating simplified talking points and talking over each other.

• Speakers who bill themselves as intellectuals who are interested in the analysis of ideas often do little more than repeat platitudes and misrepresent the actual beliefs and desires of the "other side".

I've argued elsewhere that our society's insistence on the "marketplace of ideas" approach to free speech creates an environment where everything should be open to debate, all the time. This would maybe be fine, if the debates being had were good quality and were conducted in sincerity.

But when the above mentioned problems, and others, plague all discussion and debate attempts, then the whatever notion we may have been able to entertain that ours was a society of "open debate" fly out the window. We may be a society of open debate on paper, but in practice we are a society of constant, unending, winner-take-all bullshitting.

Yet I know that there are many who really would like to see good dialogue and debate. There is, for instance, a large demographic of young people who adore people like Jordan Peterson and Joe Rogan for their promotion of real dialogue and debate (Note: It is besides the point, here, whether or not Peterson or Rogan actually uphold real dialogue and debate. What matters here is that a significant percentage of their audience appreciates them for promoting it.)

So, what are some ways we can increase the quality of public discussion and debate? Well, it starts with realizing that we're not seeing it, and then identifying the things that are masquerading in its place. Once we do that, and if we stay committed to actually ceasing those activities instead of simply playing lip service to rising above them, then we can move on to the real tasks at hand.

Another part of having good discussion and debate is in analyzing the material conditions that have to be present for those things to occur. We are, after all, material creatures with natures rooted in our biology and history. We cannot choose to be otherwise. As a species, we tend to have overly-emotional reactions, short attention spans, and a tribalism that makes really understanding the "other side" of an issue quite difficult.

So, if one is going to engage in good discussion and debate, then one has to account for our material conditions and try to set some proper conditions up for our better thinking to be able to take place. Here are some considerations for just that......

1. Don't try to throw your opponent off balance

People do not think very well. We didn't evolve for it. It is extremely easy for our brains to take short-cut heuristics in order to resolve the discomfort of not knowing something. It's also extremely easy for our brains to double-down on bad information or sloppy reasoning once we've emotionally staked a claim on an idea, or grafted that idea into our identity.

This being the case, it is immensely important that when two or more people decide to discuss a dicey topic or debate it, that they refrain from doing things that will encourage our brain's lesser instincts. A good example of how not to handle people is to be found in the conservative commentator Mark Levin.

When a caller dialed in to Mark Levin's show to discuss whether or not it is moral to classify non-violent drug offenses as felonies (and deprive said felons of voting rights), Levin kept talking over the caller. At other times, Levin will tell callers to "shut up" or say things like "hey, hey, earth calling here!". He'll frequently call them things like "dummy" or "jerk". And, normally, at some point he proudly proclaims that he's not interested in hearing their opinion anyway.

Being talked over is annoying, as is being called childish names like "dummy" or "jerk". When people get annoyed, their brain physiologically starts shutting down its analytical abilities and gearing up for fighting. It gets defensive and closes off to reason.

So if you are really committed to discussion and debate, don't do what Mark Levin does. Don't go for easy jabs and childish insults meant to throw the interlocutor off balance. Stay focused on the ideas, and if you slip up and act petty, apologize and move on.

2.) Set aside real time

The world as it is - totally divorced from active human meddling - is complicated. It quickly gets even more complicated when humans start trying to figure it out. Ideas get introduced into the mix, as well as perspectives, desires, emotions, and interests. Furthermore, the ideas we use to describe the world can themselves become quite complicated, and even if they start here "on the ground", they quickly get abstract and start diverging from one another.

Think about how old someone is when they try to engage an idea. Whatever their age is, that is X number of years of subtle indoctrination as to how they see the world. I don't mean that in a necessarily bad way; we all get "indoctrinated" into seeing the world a certain way. Breaking out of that easy mode of taking things for granted is hard in general, and it's harder for some than for others.

So given the fact that the world and the ideas we use to try and understand it are complicated and that we are all indoctrinated about something-or-other, to have a good discussion we have to set aside time.

Here I think Joe Rogan's podcast is a good example. Regardless of what you think of him, Joe Rogan has hit on a good discussion/interview format. I've watched many of his interviews and have learned quite a bit about people and topics that I otherwise would probably have never listened to or learned about. In itself, that's neither good nor bad. But when it comes to the hard task of discussing difficult ideas, Rogan's show is a good format to imitate. You really get time to get to know a bit about the person, their background, and the ideas they're advocating during that three hours.

Now, is even three hours enough time? No, not really. But then again, it becomes impractical to assume that people will have more than three hours (or even three hours) to dedicate to discussion, so we needn't be precisely worried about time.

The point is that good discussion and debate cannot be rushed. It cannot be two people just spitting out conflicting claims and data over the course of ten minutes. So if you want to meet with someone personally do debate or discuss something, make time for it. And don't trick yourself into thinking that you're educated if the only discussions and debates you watch are quick snippets.

3.) If it's a crow-pleasing zinger, it probably isn't intellectually sound

This isn't always true. It is possible to deliver great analysis that's simultaneously witty or funny. It is also possible to give a good speech about a topic, treat the topic fairly, but also include the occasional joke or jab to keep the audience awake. However, as a rule of thumb, when a speaker does nothing but crank out zinger after zinger against the other side, you are not seeing someone engage with the ideas. You're seeing a bullshitter.

Real dialogue with the "other side" sometimes means giving speeches to your own people about what the "other side" thinks. During these occasions, you probably won't have an interlocutor there to rebut what you say or defend their beliefs.

Thus, when giving a speech to your own crowd, it is vital to refrain from mockery. This is true if your goal is intellectual dialogue and debate. You can be blunt, and forceful, but if you slide into petty mockery then you lose all chances at a solid analysis. You're doing theater at that point, and not critical engagement.

I think a good example of this is Ben Shapiro. When giving speeches, Shapiro often cannot resist simple minded jabs and zingers. Sometimes his talks actually will start to drift into decent analysis (albeit analysis that I think is ultimately wrong). But then he'll backslide into saying things like - and I'm only slightly paraphrasing - "...the only way you can believe this is if your head is so far up your ass that you can see your colon". In that same speech, he gave a paltry pseudo-definition of fascism and an equally paltry straw-man version of intersectionality.

If Shapiro would spend less time on simple zingers and more time on deeper analysis, then his objections to things like intersectionality or Antifa might be more well grounded and persuasive on merit, and not so shallow.

But far worse exemplars of the faux-speech are those given by Milo Yiannopoulos. For a while, he was the darling of the Alt Right, and when people opposed him speaking at certain events it was claimed that they were squashing free expression of radical ideas. But if you listen to his speeches, he isn't espousing radical ideas. He's barely espousing ideas. He's simply trying to fit in a bunch of "offensive" zingers meant to get a laugh (or any other reaction) from his audience. It is, to put it bluntly, pure bullshitting.

The take away is that if you are going to be doing a speech on your ideological opponent, and if you are committed to really analyzing what they think and why they are wrong, then you must avoid the urge to drop zingers and passive aggressive jokes at every turn. These things do nothing but rile up your opponents and get a chuckle from those who already agree with you.

---

In conclusion...

So, what if you read all that and are thinking: "But I want to hear the other side get flustered and pissed off. I want to hear them insulted and mocked. I don't care about their opinions, I'm just in it for the lulz!"

Well, then so be it. But keep up that level of honesty. Don't turn around later and pretend that your a passionate and sincere truth-seeker who just wants open dialogue and debate. Don't pretend that you're a calm, cool, level-headed critical thinker who has a clear view of the objective truth (as opposed to all those people who get too emotional). Because if all you want is to guffaw at cheap-shots and seeing the "other side" get pissed off, then you aren't any of those things. You're an easy-to-please, emotionally fueled troll. You're pure audience material, and nothing more.

But what if you do want to engage and be a critical thinker? What if you do want to get into the culture wars, make your points, and fight the good fight? Then accept that while there may be times were some fun mockery is perfectly legitimate (and I think that there are such times), there will also be plenty of occasions where you have to commit to boring, stead, slow, and painfully patient conversation and debate. Learn to tell the difference between when its time to throw some jabs and jokes into the mix and when it's time to critically engage.

And remember, some good rules of thumb are:

• Don't talk over your opponent or just try to piss them off in any way.

• Don't try to rush good discussion and debate.

• Don't mistake insults or jabs for valid, critically thought out points.

• Don't misrepresent what your opponent is actually saying.