Do we have to listen to stupid arguments?

[Cedoria]

Why I do declare I think XKCD handled this already.

(Image)

Agreed, or as I often say, people who complain about suppression of their opinions on TV or radio are talking crap. If they were being suppressed, you wouldn't hear them.


For instance, writing to correct some figures from some right-wing cretin arguing about 'Indigenous Privilege' in my country, and I was accused of trying to suppress him, all I did was write a column in response to his argument, just persecution complex to avoid responding to my figures.

Just a personal example, I'm sure many other people have others. If I don't like what you say and criticise you, it's not suppression, or PC, it's part of argument. Your right to speak is my right to reply, as it is the other way around.

[Risottia]

Personally I figure people who rail against "political correctness" are just assholes who got told off for being an asshole.

Oh and put me firmly in the "No I'm not going to listen to your stupid argument" camp. If it's stupid I'll say it's stupid and hopefully I'll so offend the person with the stupid argument that they'll stop talking to me.

Put me in the same camp, in the "and I'll place people on Ignore in real life for saying stupid stuff" subset.

[Cedoria]

Donald Trump is all of the bad stuff of PC (pro-censorship, dishonest, reactionary, extremely thin-skinned) with none of the good stuff (well-intended).

Dumb arguments should be listened to, otherwise you can't refute them.

Hes more honest than Hillary.

Actually no, he's not (and coming from someone who loathes the Clinton's, that's saying something.)

[Cedoria]

I really hope you're right, and Trump loses.

Hes not going to lose though. The American people are not going to put a crook into the White House.

Better vote Bernie in then, no other non-crooks availiable (cult-worship of Donald Trump doesn't mean he is beyond my scrutiny or criticism. It is NOT PC to correct his inaccuracies, it's part of debate. Just because I insult the right's version of the Prophet Mohammed (SOME on the right, to be fair), doesn't give you the right to behave like IS.

[Cedoria]

Why I do declare I think XKCD handled this already.

(Image)

I think that argument only goes so far. If somebody expresses a belief that homosexuality or transgenderism is bad, in my neck of the woods they will experience repercussions. One has to be excessively diplomatic to the point of not saying that it is a bad thing. Maybe for you it's different.
It's also very self serving as an argument. Should universities not be open markets of ideas? I mean maybe it's not good to say "nigger" in a college, but it's not bad to state an opinion. The fact that stating an opinion in a place of learning can be dangerous is just ridiculous. You should have the right to state an opinion diplomatically in the appropriate time regardless of said opinion.

Actually, words like "nigger" are right or wrong only in context. Simply using the word is meaningless. I'm not concerned if a black person uses the word, I'm annoyed when an individual from the KKK uses it, because context and intention matter, that's why I don't get some people (including some on the Left), who make the argument that some words should be used, and some should not, it does nothing to stop people saying stupid things, just forces them to use different words, in a more subtle and insidious way.

[Cedoria]

I don't know, she may not look like she knows what she's doing, but she's made it this far with constant negative attention.

Trump basically just started.

Oh yeah, she definitely knows how to avoid valid criticism, but how long can she hold out?

Should do what Trump does, summon a media press conference, then insult them for daring to ask the questions he invited them to ask in the first place. Brings eyeballs and free publicity, democracy for dummies.

[Cedoria]

I read a lengthy interview with a self-described young, wealthy and educated prospective Trump voter today. This guy's argument for voting Trump seemed to be more or less entirely that Trump is not PC. The voter feels that we live in culture in which views he considers "not politically correct" cannot be expressed. Voting Hillary would, in his view, further this climate, while voting Trump would maybe change it, just because Trump is an example of someone who breaks PC taboos all the time.

But when you look at the guy's specific examples, and the hundreds (if not thousands) of complaints against political correctness, SJWs and so on brought by people on the internet, most don't really seem to be about actively being prevented from stating ones opinion. Such cases exist, to be sure (e.g. denying someone a university stage, or trying to prevent a Trump rally via protests), and they make good explicit events to point at. But my sense is that what this guy (and others) wouldn't suggest that PC-culture is only about such cases of actively denying someone's ability to say something non-PC. Rather, it is about the sense that there is now some sort of social pressure to conform, that saying something non-PC can get you socially ostracised. Like, you can still say whatever you want. But people might not engage with your argument or with you in the way you hoped for, and instead will judge you for that opinion according to their own values. In the words of the Trump voter: "Disagreement gets you labeled fascist, racist, bigoted, etc. It can provoke a reaction so intense that you’re suddenly an unperson to an acquaintance or friend. There is no saying “Hey, I disagree with you,” it's just instant shunning. Say things online, and they'll try to find out who you are and potentially even get you fired for it."

So according to this guy, PC culture is oppressive because people don't respect his opinions, listen to them and treat them on what he considers to be their merits. So I suppose, in his ideal world, any opinion would be fairly discussed. In his ideal world, if you think and say that Mexicans are rapists, then people shouldn't label you or shun you or stop being your friend because of that. People wouldn't be judged for their opinions.

To those of you who consider yourselves to be against "PC culture", against "SJWs" or who sympathise with this guy's lament - how far would this go? Do all of us have a duty to take any opinion or argument seriously? Even if that argument is really stupid, or has nothing to do with facts? Would someone be part of the PC police, or be a social justice warrior, if they decided not to interact with you anymore because of some opinion you held?

Rightly or wrongly, opinions contribute to our judgements of people. If someone says something bigoted or idiotic, my good opinion of them goes down, if they do it often enough, I pay them no attention. What people who complain are really asking for is the right to say whatever they damn well please, without any consequences, rebuttal, debate or socio-personal consequences. It's rather inverted when 'personal responsibility' conservatives do it too. Say something dumb, then blame others for the consequences.

[Des-Bal]

Why I do declare I think XKCD handled this already.

(Image)

I hate this goddamned comic because it has hopelessly entangled freedom of speech and the first amendment. This makes sense if you look at freedom of speech as a thing that's just sort of there, or perhaps as an obstacle to be overcome. If you believe free speech is a good thing, that it's genuinely good for people to speak freely then it doesn't matter what forces are restraining that speech. I am not saying that people shouldn't be judged, I'm saying that the environment of people suffering serious consequences for expressing unpopular opinions, particularly online, is a bad thing and I think it makes us fundamentally shittier people.

When you shut down stupid arguments with intimidation or to some extent outright dismissal then you are asserting the authority of your own position based solely on the fact that the voices on your side are the loudest. That is not the way anybody should want to be right. You should try to be right by having well reasoned ideas that survive the scrutiny and skepticism that comes with an open marketplace of ideas. You should shut down stupid ideas by letting them stand in the light and collapse under their own flawed premises. We should let racists, homophobes, and other assorted bigots say their whole spiel without fear that they'll be fired, boycotted, or threatened. Let's give them the chance to say their whole spiel and see if they survive Q&A.

[Talanis Collective]

In order for any meaningful discourse to take place, it is necessary to listen to all arguments. All parties involved must present their case, then have it examined and rebutted as thoroughly as possible. Even when dealing with people or arguments I consider idiotic, I always endeavor to logically counter them as best I can. Now, especially on the internet, this usually results in emotional outbursts, circular arguments, or any number of logical fallacies being trotted out. The best you can do is just set your Bullshit Limit in any given conversation, and once reached, be prepared to walk away. Just don't do it before they open their mouth, 'cause then you're the asshole.

For the record, I'm not a fan of political correctness or SJW mentality. There is a difference between basic politeness and kowtowing to every potential critic that might get mildly offended by your remark. Society is about civil interaction, not freedom from feeling a little sad because someone said something slightly mean. Society, especially as represented on the internet, is not a dinner party at a Canadian monastery. Maybe a quinceanera at a Norwegian brothel, or a bar mitzvah in a San Jose Hooters. Doesn't that sound like more fun?

[USS Monitor]

I think there are some people who aren't reasonable, and it's fine to just dismiss their opinions as crap.

OTOH, there is a lot of disagreement about where the line is between a legitimate opinion and unreasonable crap, and I have definitely met people that are dismissive when there's no need for it.

[Kubra]

If we didn't, why would anyone give me so much as the time of day on here?

[Neu Leonstein]

This guy's opinion seems to be that enough is enough. He supports Trump because Cultural Marxism is oppressive and he just wants to live in a free country. I tend to agree.

Sorry to cut most of your post there, but I'm not really trying to have an argument about Trump specifically. I'm more interested in this statement, which seems to suggest that you basically agree with the guy (however much he may be lacking in "classical education").

Which I think is worth exploring. How specifically do you think "Cultural Marxism" is oppressing you either potentially or in actuality?

[Risottia]

This guy's opinion seems to be that enough is enough. He supports Trump because Cultural Marxism is oppressive and he just wants to live in a free country. I tend to agree.

Sorry to cut most of your post there, but I'm not really trying to have an argument about Trump specifically. I'm more interested in this statement, which seems to suggest that you basically agree with the guy (however much he may be lacking in "classical education").

Which I think is worth exploring. How specifically do you think "Cultural Marxism" is oppressing you either potentially or in actuality?

The use of the "Cultural Marxism" expression is one of the elements that make me discard an argument as "stupid".

[USS Monitor]

I really hope you're right, and Trump loses.

Hes not going to lose though. The American people are not going to put a crook into the White House.

Trump has to lose if we don't want a crook.

[Cedoria]

Hes not going to lose though. The American people are not going to put a crook into the White House.

Trump has to lose if we don't want a crook.

History would suggest that crooks typically win US elections.

So could be Clinton or (hell no!) Trump.

[Jumalariik]

Right. The reason that you don't learn in university that 2+2=4 is that nobody would ask to learn that. They already know it. There is a difference though between 2+2=4 and a scientific question of the equality of the races. (you know there is. You know that arguments can be made based off of data for racial differences in iq at least) There are certain premises with which you must start any argument or systematic worldview. One of those is basic math. Not because it's obviously true, but because it is so basic and simple. From basic math comes all other math. If you want to take Geometry 101 or something you need to know 2+2=4. To take Geometry 101 or History 101 for that matter you don't need to know that all races are equal.

By filtering for supported ideas the university can teach things like hyperbole as a rhetorical tool so that its students don't get bogged down in a non existent detail and lose the thread of the argument.

By teaching people basic reading they could make it so that people know what an example is.

[Donut section]

Do you have to?
Fuck no.
Is there a benefit to?
Fucking well likely if you can engage them.

You only get out what you put in. And if the horizon of your "not stupid argument" isn't malleable then you're going to end up in the dustyest Echo chamber around.

[Betoni]

How does one determine the stupidity of an argument without listening to it?

[Dumb Ideologies]

Telling us that we shouldn't call stupid arguments stupid and should oblige ourselves to engage with bullshit seems a bit too PC for me.

[Stormopolis]

Yes. You should listen to stupid arguments. The best way to take someone out is to let them do that to themselves.

[Forsher]

Yes. You should listen to stupid arguments. The best way to take someone out is to let them do that to themselves.

That's insane.

Stupid arguments are generally made because the people making them do not realise they are stupid. (And, in fact, quite often do not respond with "Oh, yeah, silly me" when it is pointed out that the argument is stupid. I would argue that this is how a lot of persecution complexes come to exist.)

It also the case that stupid arguments are often particularly convincing arguments... or, at least, require less effort to read/follow than their non-stupid rebuttals.

But, yes, you should listen to stupid arguments... because it may just be the case that you can come up with a stupid version of the non-stupid arguments (i.e. one that would actually receive equal or superior treatment as the stupid, assumed to be wrong, arguments).

There seems an irony here.

[Betoni]

Seems that the "anti-PC"-crowd, if you allow the term, has successfully muddled the distinction between not listening to an argument and not buying an argument. Sadly, that becomes clear with just reading this thread. Personally, I find it more than a tad unfortunate. I blame the facebooks, twitters, instagrams, phonograms, twitters, tumblers, tinders, grinders, facebooks, twitters, vagina peoples, facebooks, facebooks, twitters, instagrams, tumblers, and whatnots of the word. Just because I can. But in political terms, props to anyone who has managed to adapt to the turmoil of instant communication with less to say, despite the growing bandwidth.

Oh and to do justice to the joke in the post. (Youtube link/redlettermedia)

[MERIZoC]

There are no heroes in this fight. The last one died in 2003.

.....

Strom Thurmond?

[Dakini]

They already know it. There is a difference though between 2+2=4 and a scientific question of the equality of the races. (you know there is. You know that arguments can be made based off of data for racial differences in iq at least)

Race is not a meaningful concept scientifically speaking so asking whether the races are equal is not a scientific question. Don't act like it is.

[Annihilators of Chan Island]

Its your right and prerogative to not listen, but you should. You should be engage with stupid arguments for that you can refute them in honest discussion.

I will say that this should not go for institutions. Institutions, especially universities and government, must allow all speech. Even stupid arguments are free speech, and things like losing job, being expelled or getting fined/jailed is unacceptable.

Both sides here have a point. The right typically resorts to this persecution complex whenever somebody disagrees, but the left pull off shenanigans like what those 2 BLM activists at DePaul University did to Milo Yannopolis (yes, I know it's misspelled) which is actual evidence of PC culture going too far.