Missed the edit window:
By the way, have you read Jonathan Chait’s recent article in New York Magazine? It received some criticism, but I think it touches on some aspects of this debate.
The thing is, bigotry is real, it’s common, and it’s a legit problem with many, many arguments. If folks can’t bring themselves to evaluate claims of bigotry dispassionately, without getting hyperdefensive, that’s their problem. It seems to me that a lot of folks want the freedom to make bigoted arguments without dealing with the consequences of making those bigoted arguments; they want to hold bigoted positions but not think of themselves as the sort of person who holds bigoted positions. I don’t think honoring their predilections in this regard is particularly helpful. It’s best to be forthright when analyzing the flaws in an argument, and if the arguments suffers from bigotry, it’s to everyone’s benefit to examine that forthrightly.
In other words, the proper response to this hyperdefensiveness isn’t to pussyfoot around folks; the proper response is for people to get over themselves.
You know, it’s interesting to me that you dealt with a particular sentence in Chait’s article with an ellipsis. Immediately following the first part you quoted, he wrote:
I’d like to quote myself from my OP now:
I’m not at all sure he’s right in general–but even if he’s right in general, I’m clearly calling for something the exact opposite of the phenomenon he claims to describe.
Why did you leave that sentence out?
The ellipses were only to indicate the two passages were not contiguous, and I didn’t think it altered the idea of what came before. It’s not like I left out the last sentence of the paragraph - it’s a long article, and I only wanted to give a flavor of what it contained; I didn’t use it to dispute anything you proposed, or even further my previous point.
Now see, I was basically put into defense mode here, which really has nothing to do with the discussion, or the point I made - except now by illustration.
My point was that making accusations before laying out the “meat of your argument” is a poor tactic, unless your only goal is to call people out and indulge in self righteousness.
If the person is not bigoted, they will be offended, and you will have lost a potential ally. If someone puts forth a bigoted argument unwittingly through ignorance of the facts, you will have turned them off from considering your points by making them defensive. And a truly bigoted person will simply laugh and feed off your indignation. So what is gained in any possible scenario except some kind of self satisfaction?
Of course bigotry is real - no one is arguing against that. But saying people need to “get over themselves” or that it’s “their problem” isn’t a tactic, it’s wishful thinking.
This strikes me as bizarre. It’s persuasive writing 101 that you state your thesis early, and then you lay out the evidence and reasons that support your thesis. You use emotionally-charged language when you say that I’m “making accusations,” but remove that emotional charge, and you’re saying, essentially, that it’s a poor tactic to state one’s thesis before providing the meat of the argument. And it’s absolutely not a poor tactic to do so.
Using the label isn’t core to the argument. You think it’s helpful to discourse (I think) but in my experience it’s not. It’s destructive to discourse. You say people should get over it - is your intent more to persuade or to shame? If it’s the former then your tactic is not effective. Why continue ineffective tactics?
You label the elements necessary in argument 1-3 with the first labeling. That is unecessary to the conclusion you are drawing so what is the purpose of its inclusion?
…that and I still believe your definition is not helpful either. Why not use the standard one and make your point another way? what is the value in deviating from the standard definition?
First, I’m not convinced that everyone is as hyper-defensive as you suggest. Second, in a debate, often the audience for the debate is less the person you’re directly arguing against and more other folks reading the debate. Third, my intent is to use language clearly, not to shame.
I think I’ve explained previously why I consider the standard definition inadequate. I’ve provided preliminary evidence that deviation from the standard is the norm, that overwhelmingly the definition I offer better matches how folks use the word. You might not think it’s helpful, but you’ve not offered counter-evidence, and you’ve not offered a way you might be persuaded that I’m right, so I think you’re correct that we’ll just have to disagree on this point.
But you’re not writing a thesis for submission, you’re debating - you’re engaging in a back and forth dialogue with someone else. You think labeling your opponent’s dialogue as bigoted is not emotionally charged language???
And yes, I’m not writing a thesis for submission, but I do exercise some of the same skills in writing here that I’d use in a persuasive essay. Among them is sometimes the statement, early on, of my main idea, followed by supporting evidence.
I was responding to this:
I don’t think thesis writing is a helpful comparison. I had to write a thesis for my degree (I assume you did as well). So you must know, how many people willingly read another person’s thesis if they don’t absolutely have to? 
Two misunderstandings:
-
When I said “remove that emotional charge,” I was talking about the emotional charge in YOUR language: instead of saying, “explaining what you’re going to argue,” you said, “making accusations.” I consider your language emotionally charged, but I did what a good debater does in that case, and I responded to the substance of what you said rather than to any emotional charge it carried.
-
When I talk about theses, I’m not talking about final papers for college. I’m talking about “a proposition stated or put forward for consideration, especially one to be discussed and proved or to be maintained against objections,” to quote the first dictionary Google offered. In this case, I think the dictionary definition is quite helpful :).
-
IMO, when someone hears “bigoted” in response to their own ideas, they will perceive it as an accusation rather than an explanation.
-
I thought my smiley would indicate it was an attempt at levity.
If there’s no explanation that follows the word, then they’re right to dismiss it. If there’s an explanation that follows the word, and they dismiss the word because they don’t like how it makes them feel, that’s on them.
Ah. If the whole point of that quoted bit was to make a ha-ha about the fact that “thesis” has two different meanings, then haha, you got me! I thought you meant something more with it.
Once again, saying “it’s on them” is more like wishful thinking. And it chills discussion.
No, it was a reminder of how unpleasant it is to read something that was obviously written primarily to score points for the writer (as would be the case with most college theses).
There’s nothing “wishful” about it. If someone is not able to look past their emotional reaction to a perfectly cromulent word, I’m not hopeful about the potential for discussion with them in the first place.
In which case my earlier criticism was apt: I wasn’t talking about a college thesis, nor something written to score points, but the kind of thesis that’s a proposition put forth for discussion. And at this point I’m officially out of interest in discussing what the word “thesis” means.
The effort you’re expending in being able to continue to play “bigot” like a trump card is impressive.
But given the great debate skills I know you think you possess, I find that odd. I mean, this hypothetical “bigoted” argument is also wrong on the merits, no? Then why don’t you just dismantle the wrong and/or fallacious arguments using logic and facts, slaying such horrible wrongness with your righteous sword of intellect?
But I’m certainly not asking you to stop. Nothing much to watch on TV right now. So, please, by all means, continue…
For someone concerned about whether my posts contain substance, you sure filled yours with a lot of content-free sniping about my imagined debate skills and your entertainment and all. As I said earlier, though, I don’t necessarily think hypocrisy is a serious flaw in an argument, so I’ll sift through your post looking for any diamonds.
The meat of what you wrote appears to be a concern that, if the “hypothetical “bigoted” argument is also wrong on the merits,” then I should “just dismantle the wrong and/or fallacious arguments using logic and facts.”
Fortunately, I addressed your concern in the OP:
If you’re still confused, I encourage you to reread my exchanges with Camille, who raised exactly the same concern you raised, only more clearly and without the hypocrisy :).
The questions is that if an argument that you classify as bigoted is presented, why can’t you just attack it on its merits, or lack thereof? If the argument is wrong/bad/fallacious, why not apply logic, reason and facts. Assuming you do that, what additional purpose is served by classifying it as “bigoted”? Surely even you have to admit that the word carries a lot of emotion with it. So, again, if you are in GD and it is not an attempt to insult (even indirectly) or quash debate, what purpose does it serve?
I want to know what arguments of mine are bigoted – I encourage people to point them out. None of us are perfect, and it’s very possible that we all may hold some bigoted views – I’m certain that I have in the past. If these are pointed out, we have an opportunity to evaluate ourselves and maybe improve ourselves.
So this is one reason to point out views that one believes might be bigoted.
Again, Camille raised pretty much this exact objection in post 40, and I’ve already responded to it in my response to her.