Earlier today I read Lisa Selin Davis on Democrats and gender medicine. That's a subject that I'm not going to go into because I don't think too often about it. But it did make me think about debate, and what's happened to it.
Public debates on hot topics became a big thing (again) in the 60s. And they were not the kinds of debate where liberals tiptoe around other liberals. Very often what you'd see is, "Norman Mailer and Random Black Panther call each other the Antichrist, agree women belong in the kitchen." You don't miss it until it's gone.
And nobody expected it to ever be gone. Because what it was was open argument. Whether or not they had explicitly agreed to disagree, everyone knew they'd be disagreeing. There was no reason to hold back, to be anything less than honest.
"Liberals tiptoeing around each other" was more a feature of turn-of-the-millennium rhetoric. And of course smartphones have made the problem worse because the groups who discuss things amongst themselves are now so much more homogeneous. And then when a truly extreme idea arises, no one knows what to do with it. Except maybe give in.
2 comments:
That was an interesting article but since I do have an opinion on the subject, which I'm pretty sure you know, I'll leave it alone too.
I think there's a lack of understanding among people who don't really understand what constitutes a debate as a logical process of convincing an audience not your opponent. You and your competitor are required to take contrary sides even if you both do agree. Needless to say, you don't necessarily take the side you agree with but instead be open to understanding their viewpoint.
Debating in the West is generally looked down on since in general it means you’re a fundamentalist zealot trying to push your beliefs while violating their constitutional rights to believe in unicorns without ever having been contradicted.
Arguments are emotional - a good debate is not. The following is not a debate.. but it still is funny.
https://youtu.be/TpQlyUjp3vM?si=DqlvhJtRsjFAghNy
Well I do sort of have a position, which is that transwhatever is a fake issue that wastes everyone's time. Also that if you inject needless hormones into a child you should be thrown off a cliff.
From what I understand, high school debate teams are assigned topics to debate and which positions to defend on them. The point is to make a strong argument, not necessarily the argument you agree with. Or at least that's how it has been. If schools have watered down this discipline it would explain a lot.
Arguing is in some places treated as a kind of spectator sport. That might actually be the healthiest attitude towards it. Agree or disagree, you can still admire someone's technique.''
That skit is one of the best possible introductions to Monty Python. Including Graham Chapman and his abuse clinic.
Post a Comment