Comment by timr

Hi timr

I'm going to engage with you a bit because this situation does read to me like people talking past each other and I personally don't like when I see that happening

I'm going to state some assumptions up front and I appreciate if they seem incredibly simple and or naive but I find it's useful to have a common frame of reference in these situations

Reading what you wrote, I think it's plausible that you don't seem to realise that the disagreement that your getting into with people is one that's deeply emotionally charged and the current zeitgeist of how we engage in disagreement these days being predominantly meta disagreement means the vast majority of people are pattern matching on situation, context and vibes than what's said is the norm

I'm not a fan, but I absolutely can recognise and acknowledge that for a lot of the people who are coming into forums like this looking for civil discussion, this meta argument is very much what they retreat to unless they feel like it's worthwhile engaging with someone else honestly and vulnerably, because the dominant tactics of online disagreement are all about managing and depleting the energy of the person who you disagree with instead of engaging with them, while at times doing so in a way that makes them look unreasonable or foolish to the wider audience or signalling to that wider audience so that they're in on the joke as it were

So given that context, your argument will read to many as engaging in that style, and as a result they really don't want to engage with you on the merits of what your saying

If you want to really get engagement from people now, which I believe you want to on charged topics like this, you usually have to act in a way that falls outside the pattern, which requires some thought and effort

We're really cynical these days and dislike wasting our time and energy, not so much because I think we care about the time or the energy, I've seen a lot of people still just arguing back and forth and can't help thinking to myself that if they were willing to put that energy into arguing so much why didn't they try something else that might have had a higher likelihood of success

But at least in my view, we don't want to be as vulnerable anymore, too many people have put in the time and the energy of disagreeing in good faith sincerely believing that they were speaking with someone and reaching for understanding only to later realise that the other person they were speaking with was just running an algorithm, probably not even a very sophisticated one at that

And I'm not immune to this either, it's not fun, this dominant cynical strategy of our age

It stifles legitimate and interesting discourse and prevents us from working towards better understanding each other in what I don't think anyone will disagree with saying are trying and difficult times

My personal reaction to it is stuff like what I'm doing here, jumping into a discussion when I see people speaking past each other and when I've got the capacity arguing for a pause and a change in approach and then leaving it up to them as to whether they want to do that

I'm directing this at you not because I think you're particularly at fault, just that I think you've got the most capability to shift the conversation by changing how you are responding

I could be wrong, maybe you don't want to, as is your right, or if you do people will still engage with you poorly believing that you aren't speaking in good faith, as is theirs

Thank you for your time if you read this, hopefully it leads to a more productive discourse

> What "evasions"?

You kicked off this subthread by saying (among other things):

> the other side actually has reasons that you haven’t bothered to consider?

In response, it's entirely reasonable for someone to ask you to speculate what those specific reasons might be whether or not you agree with those reasons. You suggested those reasons exist, asking someone who expresses confidence they exist is a reasonable place to start.

Here's one of the ways that you're evading answering that question:

> I have repeatedly said that I don't support the policy.

No one here required you to publicly marry yourself to the policy. We're all aware of situations where we can speculate on possible reasons for a position without agreeing with it in the end. So saying "I don't support the policy" is a non-sequitur.

If you don't want to answer the question "what reasons have I failed to consider?" one way of resolving the tension left by your assertion that such reasons exist would be to say something like "I don't want to speculate on specifics, I acknowledge that this weakens any assertion that such reasons exist, but I still think we shouldn't just call the reasons given dishonest." Perhaps there are other ways of resolving that tension.

But saying "I don't support the policy" is not in any way adequate. You were not asked whether you support the policy, you were asked to back up your assertion that "the other side actually has reasons that you haven’t bothered to consider."

> I want you to tell me why you believe that

I don't think I've personally staked a position in this discussion regarding the administration's policy, much less whether or not they're lying, so it's not clear why I'd have any obligation to defend a position before we hear what your reasons are for asserting the administration "actually has reasons that you haven’t bothered to consider."

It's also not clear why someone who has staked a position that the administration's reasons are pretextual and dishonest would be obligated tell you why they think that before asking you to back up your assertion that other reasons exist, though of course you are also free to ask people why they believe something (and some people have at least mildly elaborated on specific reasons they believe the administration is not honest).

And I understand perfectly well what Motte and Bailey means. I specified exactly what I identified as your Motte (“maybe they have honest reasons that aren’t anti-immigrant, ever think of that even though I won’t speculate on what those would be”) and your Bailey (disavowing any investment in defending the new policy). Repeating your Bailey does not defend your Motte. Insisting that people are misrepresenting your Motte as a defense of the new policy does not defend your Motte, it is simply repeating your Bailey.

Your original position was "the other side actually has reasons that you haven’t bothered to consider?" and you have retreated to "I don't defend this policy so I have no obligation to defend my assertion that the other side has actual reasons I just want better discussion."

If you want better discussion, an explicitly acknowledged retreat from "the other side actually has reasons that you haven’t bothered to consider" will look more honest and less evasive. You could also speculate on what those reasons might be, and that would also strengthen your asserted position that "the other side actually has reasons" to the extent those reasons look credible.

Some people may also be considering the possibility that your claim that you disagree with the administration's position is not honest (as well as approaching the admin as dishonest actors). That's always discouraging of course -- we certainly want to be perceived as honest when we believe we are, and it's also convenient to be perceived as honest even when we are not. I haven't staked my criticisms of your engagement on whether or not you are dishonest: I allow room for the possibility that you're honestly wrong, and even some for the possibility that you may eventually make a substantial counterargument as yet unconsidered. Still, dishonesty is a real possibility to be reckoned with, and bringing it under consideration is reasonable enough. In that light, reducing reckoning with that possibility to "just screaming 'liar!'" also looks like rhetorical evasion.