Tulsi Gabbard: I’m leaving the Democratic Party

[Dill]

(11-08-2022, 10:01 PM)hollodero Wrote: But here's what you most certainly do, for starters. You engage. And I don't get that. If I come across someone I consider a particularly unpleasant fellow, I will cut down on my interactions or stop them eventually. You, however, grinded your teeth into one another, pages over pages in threads over threads. And sure, I noticed things that could make you legitimately angry, but I could quite often also understand what made SSF or maybe also others angry. And no you don't call people racists, I know, but you might equate something they say to something someone said in defense of racism, or things like that. And I know you don't want to be condescending, but people tend to get that impression when you put their words in quotes and then try to pick them apart. But actually, I have no intention of presenting you my insignificant thoughts on your conduct. You're a nice person and a fine poster and most certainly don't represent the worst of the liberal side.

So. My explanation.

I’ve long been interested in how rational discourse is defined and limited by social conditions. E.g., the essentials of our current models thereof were elaborated 2400 years ago in the chaos of Greek democracy, where the legitimation of political authority depended on forging a way between arguments based on force and (flipside of the same coin) on claims that “it’s all opinion.”
 
Our (U.S. and Austrian) modern protocols for separating truth from falsehood across a range of institutions are a product of the empirical, secular turn which stabilized the multiple crises of religious and political authority affecting 17th century Europe. Those protocols were on display in Nov. 2020, when Trumpists brought 62 suits against state elections, only to have 61 dismissed outright by both conservative and liberal judges, given their foundation in hearsay and innuendo.
 
A triumph of civilization, sure. But I’d feel more secure in that if there weren’t still 50+ million Trump voters who ignore massive counter-evidence to hold fast to the word of their charismatic leader, who says "his" election was stolen and inclines them to anti-democratic politics.
 
They exist as a mass political power now because our current institutions, like those of Athens and 17th century Europe, are undergoing a crisis of authority.  Irrational critique is directed at the government, science, free press, and universities to produce the kind of social and political instability in which demagoguery can thrive. The cutting edge of this irrational critique is the Cohn-Hannity-Trump style of controlling the ground of political debate through aggressive misconstruction of opponents’ arguments and motives—accuse them first of what you are doing, fog, gaslight, and false equivalence. “Silver wit” is good shorthand for this. When they get political power, we have learned, there are no moderators to delete their statements or ban/impeach them for bad behavior. One can’t simply “disengage” then.
 
It's through the above lens that I view our spats in this little forum, a small part of that larger crisis. In the smack forum if someone calls me a “stupid liar” for saying the Steelers will take an OL in the first draft round, I might indeed disengage. Certainly I’m not going to throw up a lot of data and draft history to support my point for post after post.  But in this forum if someone calls climate change a “hoax” or insists that CRT teaches racism, or that Tulsi has good judgment, I don’t decide that he cannot be reasoned with. I’ll raise questions and offer counterpoint to the required depth and remain open to counter evidence.
 
If someone turns to “silver wit,” that’s a different tack. This is not the only venue in which I engage politics, and I need practice managing debate terrain with people who break the rules in the most disconcerting ways. I’m getting better at it through practice. Notice that the longest and most "grinding" exchanges between me and our friend are about standards or rational discourse, what they should  be, whether even needed. 

Anyway, that's why I engage.