Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
A False Dichotomy: Be Patsies, or Be Like Them
I’m pretty much a broken record on the theme of speaking out, arguing that conservatives have to express conservative ideas boldly, and as clearly and with as much grace as we can muster. One common response to this is the claim that we’ve tried that and it hasn’t worked, and that now we have to adopt the techniques of our opponents.
I ran into this just today, when I suggested on another thread that the woke practice of “doxxing” (publishing personal information about private citizens) and getting people fired for the things they say or do on their own time was something we conservatives should not embrace. I’ve tried to make the same point on other occasions about such things as violating people’s first amendment rights, electoral cheating, and lying to further the conservative agenda. These are all things our opponents do. I don’t think that we should do them.
A lot of people seem to be of the opinion that we really have tried boldly speaking out, and that that’s now been proven to be inadequate. I don’t believe that. I think that the majority of conservatives are “normal” Americans (which Old Bathos very competently described in this comment), and normal Americans are reluctant to counter the prevailing media/academic/entertainment narrative that ever-faster seeps like a miasma into every facet of our lives.
Most of us don’t want to be the cranky relative at the family gathering arguing that mask mandates probably do more harm than good. Most of us don’t want to be the one who points out that BLM is a fraud. Most of us don’t want to be the insensitive so-and-so who argues that the “trans” movement is a dangerous fad, that America is as far from a racist country as one is likely to get, and that what torments our black communities is bad policies and broken culture, not anti-black bigotry.
So most of us don’t speak out. Many aren’t equipped — with information, temperament, or opportunity — to express those views. Others are worried about the professional or social blowback. There are lots of reasons why conservatives tend to be quiet, but the reality is that we do.
Pay attention to how free progressives are to give vent to their opinions. People who parrot the conventional leftist narrative clearly feel safe repeating what they hear on the radio and television, read in the paper, learn in school. It’s the air they breathe — that we all breathe. It takes no boldness or real conviction to go along with what looks like the majority view — even if it isn’t really the majority view.
Those of us who can speak up without endangering our livelihoods have to do so, and do so in ways that other normal people find persuasive and inspiring. We have to be reasonably well informed, well self-controlled, and understand that others need our example so that they, too, feel more free to stand up and be heard.
We have the advantage that we make sense and they do not. Most Americans still believe the things we believe. They just don’t realize that they’re in the majority, and that, if they speak out, they’ll be joined by others.
Published in Culture
You mean he was being pedantic? Gosh. :(
Moderately confident is about as close to 100% as I get for most things.
I can tell you that they are really mad about this type of thing in Minnesota.
The fundamental question is, why is the government running out of money?
Uhhh… because they spend too much?
I haven’t read all of the comments, but this is my new theory that I’m quite proud of, lol.
It has been very educational dealing with my lefty brother-in-law. He is very smart, but he doesn’t study policy enough.
This is what I have concluded.
Democrats believe in central planning and government force. They believe in any collective idea they all get sold on. Then they all get on board to row this boat like slaves on a slave ship. They will do anything at that point.
My brother-in-law rationalizes whatever the Democrat party is doing and he is only going to discuss policy tactically with you. He will use any tactic. He’s not interested in getting at the truth. He’s interested in winning, no matter what it takes. To me, it’s effectively arguing in bad faith. In my opinion, that is the way to think about the Democrat party and the left until proven otherwise. He’s 10 times smarter than me and I pretty much win every single argument with him and he knows it.
Operate differently at your own peril. I am never going to operate in good faith with these guys as if we are going to aim at mutually figuring out a good policy. Scoop Jackson has been gone a long time and he is never coming back.
I’ll give you an example. They had CNN on in their house when the U.S. military killed that Iranian general. The way CNN framed it and based on what I had in my head, I thought it had to be the Israelis or an inside job. I didn’t think for a second that Trump did it because we have never done it before, for whatever reason. I simply made the comment that it was quite amazing because they never get guys like that. I never would have said a damn thing if I would’ve known that Trump did it. OK so it becomes clear that this was trump’s initiative. He starts walking at me and pointing me sayingthat Trump takes credit for things he doesn’t do. It was confusing because first of all what the hell does this have to do with the governance of the republic and second of all what the hell does this have to do with the situation at hand? I couldn’t think because it didn’t make any sense. I was hung over as hell and I was getting very uncomfortable because I just didn’t know what to do. Then he evaluated that my argumentation is bad because I used Twitter so much.
So I’m sitting there in the only thing I could think of to say was that I really prefer discussing policy. And then his only answer is he doesn’t like discussing policy because “they are all liars”. Literal quote. Well this doesn’t make any damn sense because that means he’s a libertarian. I mean why in the hell hasn’t he come over to the ‘dark side’ a trillion years ago? A socialist simply cannot talk like this. A Democrat cannot talk like this. It doesn’t make any sense.
So this whole stupid exercise was simply about making a counterpoint on a day that Trump did really well. It had nothing to do with anything.
I remember a long time ago that he thought it was funny that Republicans were making a big deal about the Democrats being socialist.
During the last election he had both Bernie and Elizabeth signs in his yard.
They don’t care about anything except making everything move left.
Scoop Jackson is dead and he’s not coming back.
Democrats think it’s because they don’t collect enough taxes. They have no notion that government spending on non-public goods reduces economic output.
Now think of all of the unfunded liabilities.
“discuss policy tactically”…nicely put! Relevant to the discussion at this thread: Believing Untrue Things?….OK if I quote you there?
I have example after example. Maybe at some point I will put some of them into this discussion.
Probably, alternatively, he also gets really upset if he can’t be “tactical” about something that he knows I’m going to defeat him on.
You just need to understand that everything they think of will work, and will make everything better! lol
If conservatives who face serious risks for speaking up will not do so, then only a fraction of conservatives will practice free expression. Freedom isn’t free.
You guys got me reaching for the OED and straining my older-than-Donald-Trump-eyes (I must struggle with the Compact Edition) in an order to join the fray. Let’s first consider the OED’s definitions of dichotomy and dilemma: (I’ve omitted definitions pertaining to botany or uses besides those noted as logical by the OED.)
Dichotomy …(gr. … a cutting in two) 1. Division of a whole into two parts. a. spec. in logic, etc. Division of a class or genus into two lower mutually exclusive classes or genres; binary classification. … 3. Logic, etc. involving division (of a class or group) into two (lower groups); proceeding by dichotomy; dichotomic
Dillema … (gr. … double proposition) … 1. In rhetoric; A form of argument involving an adversary in the choice of two (or loosely, more) alternatives, either of which is (or appears) equally unfavorable to him. … Hence, in logic, A hypothetical syllogism having a conjunctive or conditional major premise and disjunctive minor (or, one premise conjunctive and the other disjunctive.)
Nine points for the round goes to @StAugustine in maintaining that a dichotomy is specifically defined as a splitting into two mutually exclusive binary classes. The reason I can’t give the professor ten points is because he begs the question (a low blow in my point system) when arguing “(i)t looks like you’re thinking that a false reduction to two options is a sufficient reason to call an argument a false dichotomy.” An argument should be made that the premise is faulty, not merely stipulated that it is. That’s where @StAugustine errs. Is there a third class (e.g., Ignorant) that is in the major class? Perhaps, but that discrepancy must be introduced to suggest misuse of dichotomy.
Ten points for the round goes to @HenryRacette because his premise that the universe comprises exclusively Patsies and non-Patsies remains unrefuted when the bell rings. He proposes that the world has Patsies and non-Patsies. To contradict that stipulation, as noted above, one must identify a subclass that is neither a Patsy nor a non-Patsy. (A point recognized by the professor when he says: “It’s not crazy to call an argument a false dichotomy on the ground that it separates only two options when it should separate two.”) In sum: The singular claim that use of the word dichotomy is an error is insufficient.
With apologies for any arguments missed because I was insufficiently attentive while ogling the Round Announcement Girl, you may now start pummeling the referee.
Who knows everything? Rufus R. Jones!
Aaron, it would be great if everyone could speak up without suffering dire consequences. I can. You probably can. But some people can’t, not without losing their ability to provide for their families, or something similarly valuable. There are people here on Ricochet who would like to use their real names, but who fear they would suffer serious professional damage if they did, so they make what they believe to be a necessary compromise. I respect that need. We’re each in a different place in life, situations change, level of security changes.
This is why I say that, as more of us speak up, the security increases for those who aren’t ready. It’s easier to speak out if you know that others will support you, and easier to stand up to criticism if you know that you’re one of a large number who share your view. A lot of people don’t yet know that, because they rarely hear sensible conservative voices. Those of us who can safely expand the conservative message should do so, so that others can more safely join in.
Ah. Well then, we’re back to law enforcement. We agree that the law should be enforced. You suspect that attempting to enforce it will result in a lot of dead Antifa activists. I suspect that’s wrong, because I think these people are clowns who riot at no risk to themselves, but we’re both just guessing.
Since I don’t know what you’re actually advocating, I’ll simply repeat what I’m advocating: bold and outspoken opposition to the progressive agenda in a way that demonstrates to normal Americans that conservatives are the sensible, law-abiding, responsible, humane, rational people who are advocating time-proven ideas that actually work and are consistent with normal American values.
You’ve lost me. What question did I allegedly beg–the premise that a false reduction to two options is not a sufficient reason to call an argument a false dichotomy?
That wasn’t a premise. That was a conclusion; the premise is the definition of the word “dichotomy.” You shouldn’t call something a dichotomy if it doesn’t cut/separate/divide.
Whoever disagreed with him on that? I didn’t.
You’ve lost me entirely. But I may have lost you first with that hideous typo I just fixed.
See the dictionaries: If it doesn’t separate two options, it’s not a chotomy at all, and therefore not a dichotomy; and therefore a fallacious reduction of the available choices to two is not sufficient grounds to call a fallacy a “false dichotomy.”
If a chotomy should separate two options but should have separated more, it is indeed fallacious. But “false dilemma” is the proper term for this fallacy based on etymology and on every logic textbook definition of “false dilemma.” The fallacy here is different from the fallacy of improperly dividing options that need not be divided. That fallacy should be called by a different name; the only name available is the etymological name “false dichotomy,” which fits perfectly.
(This is not the most important thing in the world. But as long as clarity and logic are important, this still matters to at least some extent.)
I think it’s essential that we argue politely with them, if the goal is to win the larger fight. I’ll keep saying this until it seems no longer necessary to say it: we are trying to persuade normal people. And normal people don’t want angry attacks and confusing rants. They want to feel secure, to believe that things they value are being upheld, and to trust that there is some kind of integrity and rationality in society and government.
We convey that by upholding traditional American values when we engage progressives, so that the audience of normal people can see that we, and not the radicals, better represent the things normal people want.
And if we don’t have an audience of normal people? Walk away. It isn’t worth the time arguing with a progressive if there’s no one there to hear it.
Bro, I’m trying to agree with you, like you told me I’d have to if I expected to get along around here, but what’s that expression? Oh, yeah: Shut up, jerk!
Pretty much.
I thought I could. But I couldn’t. Private political polite conversation was used to severely disrupt my livelihood and I’m an attorney. If they could get me, they can get anyone. Thankfully I am recovering quite nicely but it was unpleasant.
Nah. Military actions are not law enforcement. I’m talking about using the US army to stop them. That is legal, but absolutely not law enforcement. Posse Comitatus should be suspended to destroy them.
Normal people don’t need persuading. Normal people get herded into train cars. We need to stop the communists, not merely convince people that communism is evil.
I am curious about the legal dynamics around Antifa. I don’t get why we have to spend resources putting up with them. It just seems unworkable. If they aren’t acting extra-constitutionally, how are we going to keep doing this? They want to get everybody to give up.
Dude, you don’t have to agree with me to “get along around here.” You have to agree with me to keep @susanquinn from showing up at your place and keying your car. She seems like a nice lady, thoughtful and considerate, etc., etc., but you don’t want to get her riled up. She is, as someone-I-can’t-remember-who said, “meaner than a snake, and a darn good shot.”
And that’s the point: not everyone is in a position, at any given time, to deal with the blowback from speaking out. There are other ways to contribute, either anonymously or by supporting those who are more free to speak up, or both.
There are tens of millions of us, and we’re a constantly shifting and reconfiguring lot. Our challenge is to nudge the bell curve to the right, and there are lots of ways to do that. It doesn’t have to be dramatic. But enough of us do have to make the effort.
Hmm. A moment ago you said that you weren’t talking about extra-judicial violence. Now you’re saying that you’re calling for violence that isn’t law enforcement. Do you see the courts being in charge of the military, somehow? Or are we back to talking about extra-judicial violence?
In either case, I think the military is probably overkill in this context. I think Antifa gets away with it because everyone treats them like they’re somehow noble, rather than the loudmouth street punks they are. If the police stood up to them and enforced the law when they came around, I think it would end pretty quickly.
I think Steven Miller’s (Trump’s speech writer) new legal organization is a good way to deal with at least part of what we are talking about here.
They show up in black bloc and then they have all of these tactics. Then the cops do what ever they do over and over and over and over and over and over. I don’t get it.
Then this empowers the left to be more crazy.
It does seem pretty crazy. We may need to create some legislation prohibiting mask wearing (imagine that) at large public gatherings like that. Then we can use all that facial recognition technology that works so good at catching “insurrectionists” to arrest people.
Academy Award for Best Comment on Dialectics-Related Subject of the Month.
It obeys the rules of intelligent discussion so assiduously that I will have to finish reading it at some Peak Performance hour in the future to follow it. It beats out Henry’s and the Saint’s entries because it analyzes the composition of their own dialectic arguments, and they are themselves a logical very-high performer and a logical genius, respectively, both in full flight.