Rules for Argumentation or Debate to Succeed (or Fail) by (Part 2)

Focus on the argument; don’t engage in Ad hominem attacks – In every debate or argument, there will be fundamental points of contention that need to be put forth and worked through by the parties. Whoever of them can best set out their position and rationally resolve the tension of competing positions will prove more persuasive and win the contest. This is the very definition of success as the context defines it. What is not acceptable or looked upon favourably are Ad hominem, or personally directed, attacks by one party against another. In the eyes of an audience, it is a losing and unbecoming strategy to take that low road. Those who genuinely have points of substance to make, don’t need to resort to personal attacks to make their points because they know that attempts to undermine the messenger rather than focusing on the message can’t help but detract from the substance of their argument. No doubt, things can get heated in the throes of battle, and when egos get involved in the process, personal feelings can become inflamed by the sense that one is losing ground or face to the other side. This is where self-awareness and restraint needs to be exercised before one gives expression to their emotionality. Even when one is being baited to reflexively react to a point being made, they need not take that bait, and being present to their state of being as they engage in the discussion will go a long way to keeping calm and remaining in control of their case to be made, and winning the respect of those who might need to adjudicate a decision between the parties. All of this also explains why we yearn for statespersons in our government and not for politicians. Most politicians are incredibly petty and aren’t adverse to taking pot shots at members of the opposition who question what they want to do or how they want to do it. This is because their ego is invested in the proposed plan that they want to have implemented, often for their own career objectives and advancement. Statespersons, on the other hand, don’t allow that ego interference, and they can push forward and get behind policies that are in the broader interest of the constituents they serve. Because they also have a thicker skin in the face of challenges to their perspectives or plans, they are less inclined to become triggered or experience the defensiveness that could prompt an underhanded attack against those critics.

Establish common ground at the outset and proceed from there – There is no surer way for a debate to go immediately off the rails than for each of its participants to commence by going hard in on their opposing viewpoints. I think why this deleterious strategy is often advocated for is because it is thought to be an effective starting point to put forward the strongest points that one has against the other side at the outset. A better strategy, and one that will paint the participant advocating for it in a better light, is to establish common ground at the beginning of the discussion. For most topics that are up for debate, there will be a middle ground that most reasonable persons of good will can land in determining the issues in question. For example, in the recent Voice referendum debate, I think the vast majority of Australians would agree with the proposition of wanting the condition of the most vulnerable Indigenous Australians to be improved, and their recognition as a people being integral to the narrative history of this country. Obviously, there were very different positions taken about how that should be formally enshrined or affected, and the details surrounding this ended up hijacking the debate and being decisive in how it was settled. If there was a missed opportunity to come from the debate, it was not proceeding from the base of common ground, and instead allowing opposing (and often extreme) ideas which deviated from that mean to become entrenched in the public discourse. The problem with opposing ideas that lie at the extremes of a spectrum is that they appeal to the ego so strongly that when we choose a side that we can invest this aspect of our identity in, we don’t want to give any ground to an opposing side for fear that this may erode our identity or call into question what we have been conditioned by this positionality to believe is right about the perspective we hold. It takes a strong person however, who is guided by truth, solidarity and the integrity that strives to cohere elements into a whole, to rail against this egocentric temptation, and not many are evolved enough to look beyond what they want to achieve in winning the battle of ideas to generate a win-win outcome that can be fruitful for all of those persons sitting at the table together. Despite this being a rarity, you and I can develop ourselves to want to find this shared space of mutual flourishing, and have this be the base that we orient ourselves from to reconcile division or conflict in the domains we occupy.

Performative insincerity has a scent, and so does genuine authenticity. People can tell when you are merely an avatar parroting an ideology for a tribe or base – Have you ever watched an interview and observed a guest who doesn’t really answer any of the questions posed to them and just responds with what appears to be segments of a mental script filled with buzzwords or ideological talking points? I remember taking in such a performance by a woman, convinced of the modern prevalence of systemic racism, on Piers Morgan Uncensored. Despite this woman being presented with evidence against her hyperbolic and selective claims about the phenomenon, she bulldozed forward, talking rapidly in conveying her ideological views that she wasn’t interested in having challenged by others who would take a different position. As I listened to her rattling off one talking point after another that I had previously heard spewed by others who were similarly indoctrinated into a progressive woke ideology, it occurred to me that this woman was in essence merely an avatar for the ideas she was putting forwards, and that you could have put any other person who thought the same way in front of that camera, and their vacuity would have been similarly transparent to those who were watching. Hers was an agenda to push, not a reality to be elucidated. Had she been there to genuinely shed light on the matter by presenting a perspective that was informed by both anecdotal and empirical evidence, she would have taken a much softer and humbler line that was open and willing to be influenced by facts that contravened her initial presumptions.

I Feel, Therefore I Am (Part 1)

The title of this entry, which is a play on the famous dictum posited by French philosopher René Descartes, highlights the modern predilection that we have for over identifying with our subjective selves and the feelings that arise as we interact with the world. Believing in the primacy of this individualistic construct, we find ourselves being quick to react to forces that challenge how we want to be seen by the world, even if they point towards an objective and immutable reality that is grounded in truth. Not wanting to face this truth and what it will reveal about the deficiencies in our perceptual framework, we give our emotions free reign to overcome us and use them as a defensive shield against those who we are ideologically opposed to, or to deflect attention away from legitimate criticisms by those who have no qualms about calling us out on the delusional aspects of our worldview. ‘How dare you make me angry, scared, vulnerable…violate my safe space…or dishonour my lived experience’ these people decry, with a disproportionality that is indicative of the tenuous reality that they have constructed for themselves. Were they grounded in a solid reality, they wouldn’t need to act so offended or fragile in response to mere words that don’t amount to violence as they like to claim.

Another popular tactic that is often deployed is smearing the opposed other with labels that carry a social stigma. Accusations of racism, sexism, and transphobia, for example, are too easily thrown out by proponents of the woke left in response to valid criticism of the ideology that underpins their extreme positions. Cancel culture, especially as it is expressed on social media, thrives on this prioritisation of feelings above facts, where online mobs will turn against those who state scientific or moral truths which diverge from the reality that they are ideologically aligned with. Platforms such as Twitter have algorithms that are fine tuned to inflame the emotional centres of the brain because this is how engagement is driven on the site. Larger followings also accrue to those who stimulate these strong emotions through hot takes and biting commentary which rewards those who indulge their emotionality over the nuanced rationality that has greater explanatory power in deciphering complex issues.

Our broader victimhood culture also doesn’t provide the incentive to heal and transcend the negative emotions that are associated with trauma. Many an influencer has made their name on an origin story that revolves around real or imagined harm that was perpetrated against them, but rather than doing the inspiring work of reconciling this trauma to show others a prosperous path of moving through it, what is too often settled for is the indulgence of pain and grievance to demonise entire groups of people for the personal harm suffered. Having an inflammatory and divisive effect on the world, this vision of vengefulness also doesn’t provide an accurate picture of how human beings are naturally inclined to act in furtherance of the good.

If we care to look, unobscured by our subjective feelings, we will see the fundamental role that the embodiment of virtue plays in advancing the human condition. This is one of the objective truths that can be observed across time. Regardless of the more subjective elements of our personhood, we have the innate propensity to demonstrate love, caring, evenhandedness, courage and service. In the most fundamental sense, this is who we are, beyond even the capacity to think that Descartes placed prime value in. These virtues that I am bringing your attention to here emerge from the consciousness of life itself, and as they are demonstrated so do they perpetuate life through the mutual thriving that is created in the world. While thought is no doubt important and one of the key functions that distinguishes humans from the more instinctually driven wiring of our animal cousins, it is secondary to consciousness itself. Without the animating force of consciousness, thought is impossible for there will be no spark of life in the brain to allow it to serve this function. The feelings that flow from thought, and that also serve to shape the substance of our thoughts, are similarly secondary to this animating consciousness.

Finding our Way Back to Centre (Part 2)

The consequences for holding these misogynistic or bigoted views are straightforward. Outside the echo chambers in which this hate can be spewed, these people for the most part are held accountable and shunned by society for their views. If there is any part of ‘anti-racism’ that I can get on board with, it is that this racism should be denounced when it is encountered. But we don’t have to go on a witch hunt in order to achieve this, and the sought effect will (and already does) organically happen by the ostracisation of these people to the fringes of society. In this respect, the powerful disincentive of social exclusion is already at work to temper the proliferation of these toxic forms of thinking.

In response to this would be the claim by those on the woke left that this racism is not a bug that exists on the fringes but a feature of the greater society as a whole. I don’t believe the evidence exists to support this claim, and instances of racism among individuals can’t be expanded out to imbue the whole of society with that quality. To do so not only distorts reality, but it creates an unnecessarily adversarial relationship between those who label themselves as ‘systemically oppressed’ and those who aren’t racist but are labelled as ‘privileged oppressors’ by dint of nothing else than their skin colour. Being itself a form of racism in another guise, we are shown how legitimate social principles such as ‘equity’ and ‘social justice’ are bastardised to serve an ideological agenda in which reconciliation and the movement towards a post-racial future are not primary considerations.

As I have written about previously, it is this bastardisation of moral virtue and the rank hypocrisy which flows from that which animates my scorn for the far left. If we as a society really do care about equity and injustice, it should be focused on those most in need of opportunities or remedial restoration regardless of the superficial identity categories that we place so much stock in. Being preoccupied about one’s race, sex, gender identity (or the intersectional combination of these) only derails this pursuit because it disregards the nuance and complexity that exists in the real world. A good number of minorities enjoy wealth and privilege, many women occupy positions of power and are compensated fairly for their efforts, and the protections of the law apply equally to members of the LGBTQIA+ community in the Western world.

Presented with this clear evidence of progress being made relative to the past, why then are we convinced that things are worse now than they have ever been? Because doing so serves the narrative that we have constructed for ourselves about the place we occupy in the world. This place, unfortunately, too often is defined through the lens of victimhood that has permeated the culture to become valorised as a marker of status or entitlement. So instead of defining ourselves by the fruits of our character and the virtues that we bring forward into the world through our contribution, we default to defining ourselves by our opposition to those ‘in power’ who we perceive have oppressed or dispossessed us of what is rightfully ours. The irony of defining ourselves in this way is that we only victimise ourselves further. Becoming a slave to this disempowering narrative, in whatever form it takes for us, does nothing to transform us into the type of person who can effect meaningful change in the world. Leadership, in this respect, requires us to sacrifice the ideologies at the extremes for a renewal of the connection and commitment to the human heart that unites and offers hope for a more harmonious path of prosperity for humanity.

It is also the case that the loudest minority at these extremes distort our perception of how far these divisions lie. Keeping this in mind can temper our outrage towards those who we don’t agree with. The barrier that is preserved by this online polarisation is that it doesn’t allow us to meet and sit down with other people who think differently than we do. Behind the avatars are often rational and well-intentioned people who are amenable to argument if it is couched in the right way with a shared end in mind. Regardless of what our unique circumstances or understandings are, we clearly have common interests that extend from the present into the future where succeeding generations will have to face problems that should be different from those that we have been tasked with the responsibility for resolving. Slugging it out like two boxers in a ring is no strategy for evolution, and rather than take our licks and inflict corresponding punishment, we should step back to see that ultimately our opponent is not the person in front of us, but the polarising ideological constructions inside us that have us conflate and confuse who we are with what we oppose.   

Finding our Way Back to Centre (Part 1)

This entry is my attempt to get off the see saw of polarity that I find myself playing on as I explore the different facets of the culture wars that are raging all around us. Or maybe this fire just seems out of control because of the plains on which I roam. While I am not on social media other than LinkedIn, I do consume a fair bit of political content from both sides of the aisle on YouTube, and listen to podcasts from a wide range of commentators on these issues. Too often it is all so dizzying, like being bounced up and down on this piece of play equipment by an overzealous playmate who doesn’t know when to quit. But unlike children who allow themselves to become intoxicated by the thrill of taking this form of play to its limits, we as would-be ‘mature’ and contributing members to society need to exercise restraint and understand the game for what it is, one that provides us with titillating stimulation in the moment, but not ultimate and lasting meaning in driving humanity forward.    

I get it. We as human beings are tribal creatures. We need to belong to a group, and becoming separated from that group poses a threat to our safety. Whereas in times past these threats were primarily physical, in the modern world these threats have become ideological, with the potential for physical violence flowing on from this ideological divide. Only the ‘other’ can hurt us from our polarised perspective, with the members of our in-group standing on the ‘right side’ as a source of our support and validation. Not wanting to have the righteousness of our ideological standing challenged, we choose only to move in familiar territory, echo chambers where the amplification of our team’s talking points are taken to extreme levels. If before, we may have been open to hearing the arguments of the other side/s, now our ears are closed shut to any voices of dissention.

Should this surprise us at all? Not one bit, for the more entrenched we become in a particular way of thinking, the stronger it becomes as a basis of our identity. Whereas at the start of our indoctrination journey, we had little to lose of the identity that was only nascently formed, now we have the whole of ourselves being invested in an all-encompassing narrative worldview that can’t not make sense if we are to feel a sense of control over our lives. If we can understand this, then we shouldn’t be taken aback by the propensity for large scale violence that is demonstrated often in the public forum when these ideological agents are afforded the cloak of anonymity that comes with group identity.

I lament this state of affairs. Beneath all of these ideological identifications lies the human heart and its call for each of us to embody and practice virtue in our lives and towards each other. Love, respect, understanding, co-operation, enrichment through service. Each of these virtues and others are our native proclivities when we give ourselves over to the essential source of being, however we define that in the context of our own lives. We were each born to be centrists in the truest sense, rooted in the basis of our humanity. Only as we occupy a central position relative to two extremes can we reach out to both sides and play peacemaker. If we are too far positioned out on the poles, we won’t have enough leverage to extend our hand far enough to those on the other side. There is proof enough of this in our politics where this divide is perhaps made most manifest. As a metaphor, the aisle represents a distance of only a few feet, but in reality that distance can be measured in miles. While our reason and goodwill should override our emotion to allow us to entertain the concerns that underpin our opponent’s arguments, our stubborn insistence to not give an inch so as to preserve our moral high ground is resolute. This is not how we as a civil society should be conducting discourse, and while I may be accused of hyperbole here, one has to only go to platforms such as Twitter to see how toxic this state of affairs has become. While I strive not to participate in this mortal combat online, I can’t help but be an observer of the collateral damage that results to interpersonal relationships, freedoms like speech that we take for granted, and the recognition of objective truth that is indispensable to our flourishing.   

Let me be clear. I really don’t have a dog in this fight. If I identify as anything, it is as apolitical, and I distain the excesses of the woke left as much as I do the bigotry of the far right. Both extremes on each side are ideologically corrupted, and have little of value or wisdom to offer us as we seek to evolve our species. Granted, the ire in my writing is directed more towards these far left fringes than those on the far right, but that is because for me the evils of the far right present as much more conspicuous and blatantly deplorable. No decent human being would support misogynistic ideas that value men above women, theories of racial superiority, or prejudicial attitudes towards people because of who they fundamentally are at their core.