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
😂😂😂
One way I tend to think that perhaps I may disagree with you just a little, is that that we think we have rational thoughts and wish to convince people through rational dialog. However, those we wish to convince are irrational and punitive, and not only can we not convince them of anything, but we incur their wrath.
And on top of this, many if not most, of the left get their wealth from the government that they are busily redefining and defending, either as employees or as subsidees (I think I made that word up), and they have a concrete wall of self-interest that protects their views, a wall that they will not bear to have broken down by anyone.
I need to add that he was yelling the whole time. He was effectively yelling that semi automatics are* assault weapons.
James,
I suppose, but I never saw the appeal of burning a neighborhood. I also don’t need a big screen TV bad enough to put someone out of business. I meant more in the sense of street violence. People normally do not support people fighting in the street outside of entertainment .
Consider if you will, that when these people utter falsehoods in front of you, their aim is to “out” you, and little more. Yes they are parading their power, often unconsciously but nevertheless.
They do not want to have a discussion or debate. They want a ‘hit and run’. They are not interested in the truth or facts. They are interested in promoting their narratives and discovering who the stealth enemies are. They need reassurance and they, by God, will find it, either in your agreement, or in demonizing you if you counter them with a different opinion or factual citation.
Often, our silence is enough to rankle their suspicions. However sometimes silence is necessary.
With this knowledge, it is up to us to chose how and when to participate. It’s mostly a losing situation for us.
We lose “friends” when we speak out because these people are at war with us – or our ‘side’ first and foremost. Any so-called friendship is secondary.
They do not want to hear information that conflicts with their belief system. You, my friends, are a threat to everything they hold dear, especially their well-crafted identity of being a ‘good person’ because of their beliefs. But they will rationalize like a drug addict or an alcoholic when confronted. If you get close, they will lash out. The more effective you are, the more they will hate you.
These people are psychologically damaged and should be avoided. Certainly avoid talking politics.
If I must, the first approach I take is epistemological. How do you know that? What cable channels do you watch? Usually the answer will tell you a lot, usually enough to stop debating with them. But always question their sources, I think that’s the only way to get to them ( the ones who are capable).
I told someone close to me finally, “consider that it’s you who is in a cult” He laughed heartily. But I think it still shook his world.
Al Gore, right?
Ricochet is just the best there is on the internet.
I’m digging Parler myself, for the most part.
Well, I didn’t think so, but there are others who appear, in their casual writing, to be calling for them sarcastically.
Franco! Welcome back!
It doesn’t.
What exactly do you think my conclusion is here?
What are you talking about? This is a topic I have not addressed in this thread, or indeed ever on Ricochet–until # 163 below!
I daresay it is fair! But it’s very likely mistaken. It has no connection at all that I can discern to anything I actually said.
Late last night I had an idea that might clear this up! Did you think that in comment # 5 I was accusing HR of making a false dilemma fallacy? It was nothing of the sort: I was accusing him of giving the wrong name to a fallacy which he correctly pointed out that others had made.
I only mentioned “trichotomy” to clarify the terms.
(Yet another summary: If you think a dichotomy correctly divides two options, but should have given us a third option–HR’s entirely correct critique in his opening post–then your critique amounts to this: “This is a dichotomy, but it should be a trichotomy.” That’s fine, but since most of us have heard the names of some fallacies, it’s better to use the safe name “false dilemma fallacy” in keeping with its etymology and the definition in every textbook that defines it. Just don’t presume that an incorrect reduction of choices makes an argument a “false dichotomy fallacy” unless you are quite comfortable abandoning the dictionary definition of a “dichotomy;” every true dichotomy divides two choices from one another.)
My analysis was on a different topic. I was talking only about the patterns of fallacious arguments and about their names.
Because those are the best kind of words for getting what whey want.
What are you suggesting, Charlotte? That I am a contrarian?
No, I’m not!
:)
I would just like to point out, for the record, that patsies vs non-patsies would indeed represent a dichotomy. If someone wants to add a third category, such as the ignorant, then either that is already part of non-patsies, or if they want to say that both patsies and non-patsies could be ignorant, then it doesn’t really change the dichotomy. WHY someone might be either a patsy or a non-patsy, doesn’t change those categories. Ignorant patsies or ignorant non-patsies, also doesn’t change the original classification.
Yes.
Even guinea pigs and skyscrapers and teacups and jacaranda trees are non-patsies.
Good point. My error was assuming that the ignorant would not fit into either patsies or non-patsies subsets. Of course, the ignorant are excellent candidates for patsyism.
The referee, having failed to adequately convey his point, and hearing the crowd buzzing something about a lynching, retires from the ring.
From I can tell, you misunderstood me. So my point was not adequately conveyed. As a result, your point was adequately conveyed but on a separate topic.
Well, I think the main point is probably that an actual dichotomy has to be either/or, really by definition. A coin is a penny, or not a penny. Nickels don’t get to argue with that, because they’re already not a penny. One of possibly many options for a false dichotomy, is where the categories are not actually exclusive/all-inclusive, even if the arguer claims they are. If someone claims that all coins – all current US coins, anyway – are either pennies, or nickels, then dimes etc have an argument. But patsies/non-patsies would not be a false dichotomy. Maybe a pointless one, but not false. :-)
That doesn’t sound like a good reason. Everyone will be dead sooner or later.
How about this for a false dichotomy: Pennies are either plastic or paper.
That seems like just a false assertion on one side. But I suppose it might qualify, technically.
A better example might be, grocery/shopping bags are either plastic or paper.
That’s actually pretty inclusive, but there are exceptions.
That’s a false dilemma.
Only on the technicality that it’s a dichotomy and also fallacious. But there’s no fallacy in the division. “You must disapprove either of Trump’s behavior, or of Biden’s; choose now!” is a false dichotomy.
Or “All coins are either pennies or made of metal.”
Okay, the will be dead sooner than later and no longer posing a violent threat to our nation. Why is that difficult to understand? You might disagree with its merit, but the idea is straightforward.
Why would you want to call something a fallacious dividing into two when the dividing into two is, as far as it goes, not even fallacious?
Because they think it supports their argument, or their candidate, etc?
That’s not a reason.
This all started with HR considering the argument “Be a patsy, or be a jerk; being a jerk/patsy is wrong; therefore, be a patsy/jerk.”
That is a terrible argument, and HR correctly named it a fallacy. Similarly, the recently considered sentences along the lines of “Pennies are either plastic or paper” have fallacies.
It’s the same fallacy: the fallacy of giving us too few choices.
It’s not the fallacy incorrectly dividing in twain two options that shouldn’t be divided: We really should not be both jerks and patsies, and coins are not made of both plastic and paper.
I’m just asking why anyone would want to give a fallacy a poorly fitting name. Why call something a “false dichotomy fallacy” when it’s not fallaciously dividing the two things it divides? Language that fits the fallacy is available; we could say, “This is a dichotomy, but it ought to be a trichotomy.” Better yet, we can use the straightforward fallacy name as defined in the logic textbooks and rooted in the etymology: false dilemma fallacy.
For those who may have found the back-and-forth about language exhausting, let me state simply what my intention was with the title of this post (without getting pulled back into a discussion of whether or not my phraseology was inspired).
Many people with whom I speak seem to believe that we have two choices: be weak, polite, civil, law-abiding patsies, and lose to the left. Or become like the left, disrespectful and dishonest and threatening and violent, and have some chance of winning against them.
I think that it is a mistake to believe that those are our choices. I think we have another choice, one that we have barely begun to exercise, and that is to speak up boldly and clearly and truthfully, even at the risk of causing offense, and then stand our ground.
That means getting over our natural tendency not to rock the boat, not to stick out, not to too obviously contradict the prevailing narrative.
That’s the point of the title, and of the post.
It was always crystal-clear, and quite correct!
(If anyone’s been thinking I disagreed, please stop: I never disagreed.)
I enjoy you. It’s a pleasure having you here, and I look forward to one day meeting you in person — and, in the meantime, to a long and rewarding online relationship. Be well.
Been there, man! In a sense I owe my older brother a lot. I was getting shouted at for saying “I don’t agree” a decade ago.