That's just the point: it's not about retaining the moral high ground, it's about winning.
Have you ever tried to argue with one of those religious fundamentalists who tour college campuses ranting about abortion, homosexuality, whatever? They do this several days a week, fifty weeks a year, and they're very good at it. They've already heard all your facts and counter-arguments, and memorized a zinger to defuse each one. If you fight them on their preferred battlefield, with no weapons but facts, you'll lose.
Donald Trump's preferred weapons are ad hominem insults and bald-faced lies. He's been honing his skills at those things for decades, and he's very good at them. If you fight him on his preferred battlefield, you'll lose -- especially since he has a really big megaphone now.
As I read the article, it argues for trying to preserve (or revive) the ideal of respectful civil discourse, not because Trump and the Republicans deserve it, but because that's a battlefield where we can win. Where "we" is defined to include not only liberals, but sane conservatives who find Trump repulsive and dangerous.
What a lovely fantasy. They should try that out in a Yahoo comments section.
Trump and his courtiers aren't showing contempt. That's too rarefied an emotion for them. They are showing hate, fear, greed. They are absolutely worthy of contempt, and they don't understand respectful civil discourse.
When a news organization or journalist publishes something Trump doesn't like, he calls them "failing" and "third-rate". When a celebrity says something Trump doesn't like, he calls them "over-rated". Rather than addressing the substance of their statements, he throws an irrelevant insult at them, in the service of declaring them holistically unworthy of consideration. That's what the article means by "contempt". Trump's ways of expressing it may not be sophisticated, but technically it's still contempt.
Yes, they're also showing hate, fear, and greed. I think of those as internal motivations, while contempt is an external tactic.
"Worthy of contempt" is less obvious: they're doing more than enough horrible things that we can object to on substantive grounds, without globalizing it and saying "this is a totally bad person, unworthy of consideration, and he has a stupid hairstyle to boot." Contempt is unnecessary when we have so many real objections.
No, Trump and his courtiers don't understand respectful civil discourse. But they're not the target audience; we know we're not going to change their minds. The target audience is ordinary Americans and Republican officials uncomfortable with Trump.
As for Yahoo comments sections... when is the last time you actually changed somebody's mind in a Yahoo comments section by being contemptuous and insulting? (Or any other way, for that matter...)
I don't recommend showing contempt for everyone who voted for Trump, but I do recommend it for people who are actively spreading white nationalist propaganda. Show your logic and facts to the general public, but treat the alt-right, as well Trump and his hangers-on, as pariahs. They want nothing more than to be treated as serious contributors to public discourse. They aren't. When they spew stupid shit, it's perfectly reasonable to respond by saying "That's some stupid shit." And never give them a forum. There is nothing reasonable in giving a forum to evil.
Have you ever tried to argue with one of those religious fundamentalists who tour college campuses ranting about abortion, homosexuality, whatever? They do this several days a week, fifty weeks a year, and they're very good at it. They've already heard all your facts and counter-arguments, and memorized a zinger to defuse each one. If you fight them on their preferred battlefield, with no weapons but facts, you'll lose.
Donald Trump's preferred weapons are ad hominem insults and bald-faced lies. He's been honing his skills at those things for decades, and he's very good at them. If you fight him on his preferred battlefield, you'll lose -- especially since he has a really big megaphone now.
As I read the article, it argues for trying to preserve (or revive) the ideal of respectful civil discourse, not because Trump and the Republicans deserve it, but because that's a battlefield where we can win. Where "we" is defined to include not only liberals, but sane conservatives who find Trump repulsive and dangerous.
Reply
Trump and his courtiers aren't showing contempt. That's too rarefied an emotion for them. They are showing hate, fear, greed. They are absolutely worthy of contempt, and they don't understand respectful civil discourse.
Reply
Yes, they're also showing hate, fear, and greed. I think of those as internal motivations, while contempt is an external tactic.
"Worthy of contempt" is less obvious: they're doing more than enough horrible things that we can object to on substantive grounds, without globalizing it and saying "this is a totally bad person, unworthy of consideration, and he has a stupid hairstyle to boot." Contempt is unnecessary when we have so many real objections.
No, Trump and his courtiers don't understand respectful civil discourse. But they're not the target audience; we know we're not going to change their minds. The target audience is ordinary Americans and Republican officials uncomfortable with Trump.
As for Yahoo comments sections... when is the last time you actually changed somebody's mind in a Yahoo comments section by being contemptuous and insulting? (Or any other way, for that matter...)
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment