No, Not Everyone Who Disagrees With You Is an -Ist or -Phobe (and Other Argumentation Pitfalls)
The Problem
I recently came across this video about TERFs or "Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminists". What bothered me was not the video itself, but the comments section below. Now of course I know that Youtube comments are the bane of existence itself, but hear me out. I have also recently been kinda following the James Damore debacle where the same issues come up in argumentation a lot.The issue I am currently frustrated about is that anyone who disagrees with anyone else is disturbingly likely to be called a misogynist, racist, leftist, Marxist, Islamophobe, transphobe, or a bunch of other things I won't bother listing simply for disagreeing with a certain position. There is often not (read: never) any sort of actual proof or evidence to back this claim up. That's not to say, of course, that it's never true. After all, calling actual neo-Nazis racists is not a stretch. It's hard to defend the idea that one does not believe in the superiority of one's race just because one "only" wants to "peaceably" remove all people not of one's race from the country.
However, in the words of Sirius Black, "the world isn't split into good people and Death Eaters." And in my own words, the world isn't split into people one agrees with and
The Examples
Let's take the example of racists. Why would we need an all-white nation? What possible reason is there for an all-white nation except the idea that white blood might get tainted by "inferior" non-white blood? What reason is there to ensure that white people keep marrying white people except a fear that their descendants might be "inferior"? I not only cannot think of one, but none has ever been presented by white supremacists/Nazis/racists. The best I get is some mumbling and muttering about "because they need to" or "I want my genes passed down", which of course is just another way of saying that your genes don't matter if they're in a mixed-race person. Then what of affirmative action? Are there non-racist reasons to believe that affirmative action shouldn't exist? Naturally. Sowell here argues from an empirical perspective: his claim is that affirmative action does not work (well, insofar as it helps black people who have, in some sense, already made it, instead of poor black people who really need it). "Hold on" you say, "I don't agree that affirmative action does not work, Sowell must be racist." This, however, does not follow. Sowell does believe that affirmative action does not work, so in order to glean any information about his argument, one must examine it as if affirmative action works. Let's put the presumably non-racist, pro-affirmative action position in its simplest form:- I am in favor of any position that helps poor black people out of poverty
- Affirmative action helps poor black people out of poverty
3. Therefore, I am in favor of affirmative action.
This argument is perfectly valid. However, what happens if we believe 2. is false?
3. Therefore, I am in favor of affirmative action
Hmm? That doesn't follow. That doesn't follow at all. The impetus for being in favor of affirmative action has been removed if affirmative action doesn't help poor black people out of poverty! Let's look at Sowell's position instead. Once again, very simplified:
4. Therefore, I am against affirmative action.
The argument hinges entirely on the empirical effectiveness of affirmative action, not the superiority or inferiority of whites or blacks, respectively. If one believes that affirmative action should exist, then one's first job in convincing Sowell to be in favor of it is to convince him that it works, not that black people are equal to white people. There's not even any real evidence that he believes black people are unequal to whites! As a successful, Harvard-educated black man himself, it would be hard for him to believe such, as he himself is direct empirical evidence to the contrary!
Next let's look at misogyny. Are people who believe men are better than women misogynists? Indubitably. That's basically the definition anyway. Are people who think that trans women are also women misogynists? Maybe, but I'm gonna go with probably not. After all, there is pretty good (sorry you have to make an account but don't worry it's actually free) scientific evidence for a biological basis for gender identity, and reasonable people can certainly be on the "trans women have a real, innate gender identity as a woman" side of things, without resorting to some prior assumption that women are inferior to men, or that men can represent women better than women can, or anything of the sort. The evidence is far from conclusive, but that merely means that rational people can disagree, not that biologically-based gender identity does not exist. Let's also not forget that there are ftm trans people too, and they hardly fit the narrative that trans women are simply men masquerading as women to further the oppression of women. There are many other examples, and Damore comes into this in a minute, but to talk about him I'd like to talk about the two ways that reducing dissenters to various -ists and -phobes is Bad Argumentation.
"When you tear out a man's tongue, you are not proving him a liar, you're only telling the world that you fear what he might say."
Using these exclusionary tactics lends credibility to one's opponent. Why would one want to do that?
The other problem with this reduction is that it is a form of lying. Misconstruing one's opponent in this way is a type of lie where one claims to know more about the opponent's inner thoughts than one can possibly know. It is also a lie about what types of claims one's opponent is making. It is widely regarded that lying damages one's credibility. It's even a fundamental tactic of lawyers to try to make the opponent's witnesses look like liars.
This is where Damore comes in. His main point is that there's reason to think women choose different careers (collectively) than men, based on some biological factors (and probably social ones too, but since the point is to argue against the "it's just sexism, sexism, sexism" claim, it's obvious why that part doesn't get too much attention). But for some reason, I can't find a single blog or article from someone remotely on the left that acknowledges his post is about innate preferences, not abilities:
"Indeed, psychological studies show that there are only the tiniest gaps, if any, between the sexes, including areas such as mathematical ability and verbal fluency" -- the Guardian, focusing on abilities, of course.
"claim[s] that women’s biology makes them less able than men to work in technology jobs" -- Recode
"argues that cognitive sex differences influence performance in software engineering, but presents no supporting evidence" -- Quora
"arguing that some large fraction of your colleagues are at root not good enough to do their jobs" -- Medium
And here's Damore on what he actually disagrees with (emphasis mine):
"I don’t think we should do arbitrary social engineering of tech just to make it appealing to equal portions of both men and women"
Damore on the actual differences between men and women that he thinks explain the gap:
"Women generally also have a stronger interest in people rather than things, relative to men"
"These two differences in part explain why women relatively prefer jobs in social or artistic areas. More men may like coding because it requires [systematizing]"
On work-related stress:
"These positions often require long, stressful hours that may not be worth it if you want a balanced and fulfilling life."
The majority of Damore's language refers to preferences, not abilities, and his suggestions for change support the idea that preference is the leading cause, not ability (when they are relevant to closing the gap itself, not other suggestions about how to change Google's culture to better accept his conclusions):
"We can make software engineering more people-oriented with pair programming and more collaboration."
"Make tech and leadership less stressful. Google already partly does this with its many stress reduction courses and benefits."
"Unfortunately, as long as tech and leadership remain high status, lucrative careers, men may disproportionately want to be in them. Allowing and truly endorsing (as part of our culture) part time work though can keep more women in tech."
- I am in favor of any position that helps poor black people out of poverty
- Affirmative action does not help poor black people out of poverty
3. Therefore, I am in favor of affirmative action
Hmm? That doesn't follow. That doesn't follow at all. The impetus for being in favor of affirmative action has been removed if affirmative action doesn't help poor black people out of poverty! Let's look at Sowell's position instead. Once again, very simplified:
- I am against positions that cost society more than they benefit society
- Affirmative action benefits society more than it costs society if and only if it helps poor black people out of poverty.
- Affirmative action does not help poor black people out of poverty.
4. Therefore, I am against affirmative action.
The argument hinges entirely on the empirical effectiveness of affirmative action, not the superiority or inferiority of whites or blacks, respectively. If one believes that affirmative action should exist, then one's first job in convincing Sowell to be in favor of it is to convince him that it works, not that black people are equal to white people. There's not even any real evidence that he believes black people are unequal to whites! As a successful, Harvard-educated black man himself, it would be hard for him to believe such, as he himself is direct empirical evidence to the contrary!
Next let's look at misogyny. Are people who believe men are better than women misogynists? Indubitably. That's basically the definition anyway. Are people who think that trans women are also women misogynists? Maybe, but I'm gonna go with probably not. After all, there is pretty good (sorry you have to make an account but don't worry it's actually free) scientific evidence for a biological basis for gender identity, and reasonable people can certainly be on the "trans women have a real, innate gender identity as a woman" side of things, without resorting to some prior assumption that women are inferior to men, or that men can represent women better than women can, or anything of the sort. The evidence is far from conclusive, but that merely means that rational people can disagree, not that biologically-based gender identity does not exist. Let's also not forget that there are ftm trans people too, and they hardly fit the narrative that trans women are simply men masquerading as women to further the oppression of women. There are many other examples, and Damore comes into this in a minute, but to talk about him I'd like to talk about the two ways that reducing dissenters to various -ists and -phobes is Bad Argumentation.
Affecting the Opponent: Ad Hominem and Strawman
(Inb4 the fallacy fallacy.) Ad hominem is a logical fallacy where one attacks the author of an argument, rather than the argument itself. A strawman argument is an argument constructed by one side to represent their opponent's argument, which is not an accurate representation of said argument but a weaker version of it that is easy to knock down. Now, these are logical fallacies, but they also have another consequence than merely making one's conclusion not follow from one's premises: they dismiss one's opponent on irrational grounds. In other words, in an argument with someone who loves to attack his or her opponent or misrepresent their arguments, the opponent has no rational recourse to ensure that his or her arguments are really being heard. It's a way to shut down one's opponent and make them feel unwelcome in the conversation. This is a terrible thing to do, because not only does it make conversion of one's opponent nearly impossible, but, as George R. R. Martin put it better than I could:"When you tear out a man's tongue, you are not proving him a liar, you're only telling the world that you fear what he might say."
Using these exclusionary tactics lends credibility to one's opponent. Why would one want to do that?
Affecting One's Own Position: Lying and Damned Lying
The other problem with this reduction is that it is a form of lying. Misconstruing one's opponent in this way is a type of lie where one claims to know more about the opponent's inner thoughts than one can possibly know. It is also a lie about what types of claims one's opponent is making. It is widely regarded that lying damages one's credibility. It's even a fundamental tactic of lawyers to try to make the opponent's witnesses look like liars.This is where Damore comes in. His main point is that there's reason to think women choose different careers (collectively) than men, based on some biological factors (and probably social ones too, but since the point is to argue against the "it's just sexism, sexism, sexism" claim, it's obvious why that part doesn't get too much attention). But for some reason, I can't find a single blog or article from someone remotely on the left that acknowledges his post is about innate preferences, not abilities:
"Indeed, psychological studies show that there are only the tiniest gaps, if any, between the sexes, including areas such as mathematical ability and verbal fluency" -- the Guardian, focusing on abilities, of course.
"claim[s] that women’s biology makes them less able than men to work in technology jobs" -- Recode
"argues that cognitive sex differences influence performance in software engineering, but presents no supporting evidence" -- Quora
"arguing that some large fraction of your colleagues are at root not good enough to do their jobs" -- Medium
And here's Damore on what he actually disagrees with (emphasis mine):
"I don’t think we should do arbitrary social engineering of tech just to make it appealing to equal portions of both men and women"
Damore on the actual differences between men and women that he thinks explain the gap:
"Women generally also have a stronger interest in people rather than things, relative to men"
"These two differences in part explain why women relatively prefer jobs in social or artistic areas. More men may like coding because it requires [systematizing]"
On work-related stress:
"These positions often require long, stressful hours that may not be worth it if you want a balanced and fulfilling life."
The majority of Damore's language refers to preferences, not abilities, and his suggestions for change support the idea that preference is the leading cause, not ability (when they are relevant to closing the gap itself, not other suggestions about how to change Google's culture to better accept his conclusions):
"We can make software engineering more people-oriented with pair programming and more collaboration."
"Make tech and leadership less stressful. Google already partly does this with its many stress reduction courses and benefits."
"Unfortunately, as long as tech and leadership remain high status, lucrative careers, men may disproportionately want to be in them. Allowing and truly endorsing (as part of our culture) part time work though can keep more women in tech."
Okay I take that back, I found one that doesn't really have to do with the differences between men and women, but it's also one that feminists are calling for themselves as far as I can tell:
"men are still very much tied to the male gender role. If we, as a society, allow men to be more “feminine,” then the gender gap will shrink"
This is all just a very long example of the fact that I think every single one of these writers hurts their own credibility by lying about either A) Damore's words in the letter, assuming they took the words at face value, or B) Their own knowledge of Damore's inner thoughts and intentions, assuming they got to their conclusions by "reading between the lines".
The Cumulative Effect
I think Damore's example is a good one because in the wake of it, he's been asked onto all sorts of conservative and alt-right media to be interviewed and such. And although the left is making it into a rationalization of their initial appraisal of him as a sexist, I think there's a more correct explanation: when one engages in Bad Argumentation, and both these exclusionary and credibility-destroying effects come into play, one effectively cedes the entire field to the opponent, in fact, the worst of one's opponents. I think Damore is willing to walk into the alt-right's arms because they're the ones who seem willing to listen and agree with him, or at least disagree reasonably in a way that acknowledges him as a rational actor.The other side of that coin of course is the outside audience. If one's opponent is being pushed further away from one's views by one's arguments, one cannot assume they are having the opposite effect on the third-party audience. In fact, it seems more reasonable to assume that the same is happening to them; anyone not already on one's side is being pushed away from one's position towards other positions one feels are undesirable.
In every way, Bad Argumentation seems like the wrong option, but what's the solution?
The Solution
The solution is, of course, the antithesis of Bad Argumentation, namely Good Argumentation. But what does that look like? Well I have a few tips:First, argue honestly. Don't make claims that you can't support, and if you want to do so, acknowledge the weaknesses of those claims. You don't always have to provide the same level of proof for every claim, but acknowledging the weakness of your premise up front goes a long way to fostering good, on-topic discussion without getting into heated debates about minor points.
Second, argue charitably. Present your opponent's arguments in their strongest possible form, so far as you understand them. Don't play the game of trying to see how much strawmanning you can get away with, it won't end well for anyone. Best case scenario is that you devolve into semantic arguments that don't solve anything.
Third, argue accessibly. Don't try to overwhelm your opponent with buzzwords, jargon, or otherwise incomprehensible language. Your opponent and your audience should both have a clear path towards becoming proponents of your position. If they don't, what was the point of arguing in the first place?
Comments
Post a Comment