Think Again: How to Reason and Argue Read online

  Jokes about opponents are also particularly effective because they leave opponents with no good response. If they do not laugh at the jokes about themselves, then they come off as stiffs who lack a sense of humor, as arrogantly denying their own flaws, or as too dumb to get the joke. There is no way for them to win.

  In these ways, jokes about opponents work as rhetorical tricks. They can build groups, gain status for the joker, and rob the target of any way to recover. That explains why humor has become such a common weapon. However, such humor also has a dark side. Joking about someone’s position will impede understanding of that position. You cannot appreciate opponents or their reasons by making them look silly. They are almost never as silly as the jokes make them look. Moreover, if you joke about them, then they will joke about you. Each side replies in kind, so the level of discourse spirals down.

  I am not denying that humor has a place. It can lighten the atmosphere and enable good feelings for each other. Intelligent political satire can be insightful political critique when it calls attention to bad arguments and falsehoods. However, simplistic and vicious humor that abuses outsiders rarely accomplishes constructive goals in the long run. Instead, it prevents us from understanding and empathizing with each other.

  HOW LOW CAN WE GO?

  Abuse gets more vicious on the Internet, perhaps because abusers are anonymous and do not have to face their victims. Sometimes Internet trolls go so far as to threaten their targets. There are plenty of examples, but I will focus on one, because I happen to know the victim.

  A philosophy professor at Emory College in Atlanta, George Yancy, wrote a controversial piece, “Dear White America,” in The Stone (part of the New York Times) on December 24, 2015. Yancy’s letter starts,

  I have a weighty request. As you read this letter, I want you to listen with love, a sort of love that demands that you look at parts of yourself that might cause pain and terror, as James Baldwin would say. Did you hear that? You may have missed it. I repeat: I want you to listen with love. Well, at least try.

  Next, he admits to being sexist himself, and he explains what that means. Then he says,

  Just as my comfort in being male is linked to the suffering of women, which makes me sexist, so, too, you are racist.

  Yancy knew, of course, that calling his readers racist would produce negative reactions. However, the onslaught that he received was surprisingly vicious.

  Immediately after the publication of “Dear White America,” I began to receive vile and vitriolic white racist comments sent to my university email address, and verbal messages sent to my answering machine. I even received snail mail that was filled with hatred. Imagine the time put into actually sitting down and writing a letter filled with so much hate and then sending it snail mail, especially in our world of the Internet. The comments were not about pointing out fallacies in my position, but were designed to violate, to leave me psychologically broken and physically distraught. Words do things, especially words like “nigger,” or being called an animal that should go back to Africa or being told that I should be “beheaded ISIS style.” (The Stone, April 18, 2016)

  Yancy’s crucial point for our discussion of argument is that “the comments were not about pointing out fallacies in my position.” As a philosopher, he would be used to accusations of fallacies. He did not object to criticisms backed by arguments, and we can imagine countless objections to calling so many people (all of “White America”!) racist. What he received were not only objections but very personal attacks. Such vicious replies to a gentle man who asks you to listen with love are bound to lead to polarization.

  Yancy’s story is not typical, fortunately. Many people today still communicate in civil ways. They often talk with opponents, seek opposing points of view, ask questions and learn from the answers, and do not simply caricature, diagnose, abuse, joke, and threaten their opponents. We are able to talk honestly and openly, but too often we do not exercise that ability. Instead, we talk toxically—especially on the Internet. This toxic talk signals disrespect and contempt, which fuel antagonism and polarization. It also scares away moderate contributors. Some kinds of incivility to others can be amusing and can create bonds among abusers who share a common target. Nonetheless, these short-term benefits bring long-term costs that are tearing our societies apart and preventing us from solving our serious problems.

  IS EUROPE CIVILIZED?

  Maybe the situation is not so bad in good old Europe. This hope has been refuted by the recent Brexit vote in the United Kingdom (perhaps soon not to be so united). One of the champions of the movement to leave the European Union was Boris Johnson, the former mayor of London who went on to become secretary of state for foreign and commonwealth affairs. Johnson said,

  I believe we would be mad not to take this once in a lifetime chance to walk through that door because the truth is it is not we who have changed. It is the EU that has changed out of all recognition; and to keep insisting that the EU is about economics is like saying the Italian Mafia is interested in olive oil and real estate.3

  By calling his opponents “mad,” he removes any incentive to listen to their reasons. Madness precludes listening in order to learn. His reference to “once in a lifetime chance” then issues a demand: now or never. It also suggests that there cannot be any compromise, since accepting a compromise would miss the only chance and make it impossible ever to leave the European Union again. And, of course, comparing the European Union with the Mafia implies that they are criminals that need to be stopped before they kill or rob the United Kingdom. The only way to stop the Mafia is with weapons, not reasons. In all of these ways, then, Johnson’s description of the problem is fashioned to stimulate hatred and silence any balanced discussion of the arguments on both sides.

  Those who opposed Brexit were no better. They often said or implied that support for Brexit was based only on fear, anger, Islamophobia, xenophobia, and/or racism. Fear and anger often block careful reasoning, so the claim that your opponents are driven by such emotions suggests that there is no point in giving them reasons, much less listening to their reasons. The terms “Islamophobia” and “xenophobia” suggest mental illness—phobias—so there is no more point in trying to reason with an Islamophobe or a xenophobe than in telling an arachnophobe that many spiders are not really dangerous. And racism is defined by regarding or treating races differently when there is no reason to do so. It is not racist to treat people from other racial backgrounds differently when there is good reason for differential treatment, such as in testing for sickle-cell anemia, which is almost exclusively confined to people of African heritage. Thus, epithets like “racist” lead people not to expect any reason or any response to reason. Such words suggest that we need to fight these opponents instead of listening to them.

  Indeed, those who want to allow immigrants into society sometimes even seem to suggest that we should kick out their opponents. Baroness Sayeeda Warsi, former co-chair of the Conservative Party in the United Kingdom, opposed Brexit because “toxic, divisive and xenophobic political campaigning should have no place in a liberal democracy.”4 No place at all? I would have thought that liberal democracies were liberal because they allowed freedom of speech, including xenophobic political campaigning. Warsi might not have meant to say that such campaigning should be illegal or that xenophobes should be banished but only that liberal democracies would be better off without them. Still, Warsi’s vague and incendiary language suggests that we have nothing to learn from these opponents. In that way, it seems to contribute to antagonism and prevent constructive exchanges of reasons.

  Of course, not everyone resorts to such rhetorical tricks. J. K. Rowling, author of the acclaimed Harry Potter series, tried to carve out a moderate position between the poles:

  It is dishonourable to suggest, as many have, that Leavers [supporters of Brexit] are all racists and bigots: they aren’t and it is shameful to suggest that they are. Nevertheless, it is equally nonsensical to pretend that racists
and bigots aren’t flocking to the “Leave” cause, or that they aren’t, in some instances, directing it.5

  A nice distinction! Even if most Leavers are not racist, it still might be true that most racists are Leavers and even that “some” (maybe many but not all or even most) of the directors of the Brexit movement are racist. However, when reasonable people tried to calm down the rhetoric, they often ran into dismissals, like this one:

  [British liberal elites] tried to make a distinction between a rational anti-immigrant sentiment and an irrational racism, the former to be absorbed into the mainstream, the latter to be marginalized. In fact, no such distinction existed and acting as if it did had the effect of further legitimizing racism in the political mainstream.6

  Replies like this accuse all moderates of “legitimizing racism.” It is no wonder that many people did not have the courage to express moderate views, for they would be labeled “racist” by one side and “mad” by the other.

  The recent migrant crisis has also produced extreme reactions on the European continent. Although German Chancellor Angela Merkel is usually firmly centrist, she supported allowing immigration by saying, “When it comes to human dignity, we cannot make compromises.”7 This statement implies that she will not talk or listen to anyone who suggests any compromise, such as minimal limits on the number of immigrants. If preventing migration violates human dignity, then limiting migration would be comparable to allowing a little slavery.

  On the other side, Marine Le Pen, president of the National Front in France, said, “They don’t tell you this, but the immigration crisis in France is totally out of control. My aim is clear: to stop immigration both legal and illegal.” Thus, like Merkel, Le Pen also demonstrates an unwillingness to compromise. She refuses to accept even limited immigration, because then those immigrants would enter legally, contrary to her aim. Le Pen concludes, “What is at stake in this election is whether France can still be a free nation. The divide is no longer between the left and right, but between patriots and globalists!”8 Here she labels her opponents as unpatriotic and enemies of a free France, and her extreme positions were endorsed by over one third of French voters in the 2017 election.

  Of course, there are also supporters of immigration in France and opponents of immigration in Germany. Nonetheless, political leaders in both countries talk about immigration in divisive ways that signal an unwillingness to compromise or even listen to any arguments on the other side. It is no surprise that these opponents move further and further apart, and that their mutual antagonism and disrespect grow.

  HOW MUCH IS TOO MUCH?

  Why has incivility spread around the world? Why do so many people talk this way even when what they say is literally false? Part of the answer is that incivility is a useful tool for some purposes.

  Incivility attracts attention. People see civil messages as bland and boring, so they read and recommend—as well as tweet and retweet—them less than rude exaggerations.9 Opponents retweet uncivil outbursts in order to show how silly they are and how important it is to oppose such extremists. Nonetheless, they still pay more attention than if these outbursts had been balanced and reasonable.

  Incivility also energizes. Supporters retweet their own side’s incivility in order to stir up the troops and build passion and energy on their side. A movement can gather more protesters by calling their opponents “crazy” than by saying that their opponents have missed a few important points.

  Incivility also stimulates memory. It is easier to recall an extreme exaggeration that angers you than a balanced and nuanced description of the facts. To see this, just try to remember what a politician said in a speech. Most people can probably restate the uncivil portions but not the courteous and balanced portions of the speech.

  In these ways, incivility, exaggeration, and extremism increase audiences. If what you want is a big audience, this simple strategy is tempting. As marketing, it works.

  Marketing has its place. Powerless groups in society might have no other way to gain attention. Calls for them to remain civil in effect demand that they defer to authority. Movements on their behalf sometimes—especially at the start—need to use incivility. Abolitionists, suffragettes, and civil rights leaders were not always civil (or even peaceful), and their incivility sometimes served their purposes of building their movements.10 Many of us have benefited from some incivility in this way.

  This strategy has costs, however. The relevant cost here is polarization. When opponents are rude to you, it makes you angry and motivates you to retaliate. When you are uncivil to your opponents, this rarely convinces them and often makes them less willing to listen and less able to understand your position. When both sides engage in incivility, they think less of each other and of each other’s ideas.11

  This polarization harms both sides. More important, it undermines our shared society. The many moderates who really want to understand the issues and the reasons on both sides of an issue are deprived of any rational way to decide what to do, because they cannot learn from uncivil tirades. They lose faith in both sides and in news sources that align with either side. Moreover, our government becomes less able to function. Why should I work with someone who calls me stupid and crazy? How could I know how to compromise with such disrespectful opponents?

  Because incivility has both costs and benefits, it is often hard to tell when it is justified overall. Insults are bound to remain popular for those who see their benefits as greater than their costs. Meanwhile, the rest of us will suffer those costs.

  3

  THE SOUND OF SILENCING

  HOW DOES INCIVILITY FUEL POLARIZATION? Partly by increasing antagonism, but also partly by silencing reasoning in ways that prevent us from overcoming our antagonisms. There is more to the story, of course, but this chapter will focus on the part of the story that concerns silencing.

  What is silenced is reason rather than people. Many people talk long and loud, but that does not mean that they communicate or exchange ideas. Too many people talk too much without any reasoning. Often people pretend to give reasons without really supplying any decent reason whatsoever. Too many people have given up on providing, expecting, or even listening to reasons. The result is what also bothered Paul Simon and Art Garfunkel when they sang about the sound of silence in 1964: people exchanging hot air without understanding each other.

  WHY TRY?

  According to the Pew Research Center,

  Both Republicans and Democrats are about as likely to say that talking about politics with people whom they disagree with is “stressful and frustrating” as say such conversations are “interesting and informative.” And majorities in both parties (65% of Republicans, 63% of Democrats) say that when they talk to people on the other side, they usually end up finding they have less in common politically than they thought.1

  In order to avoid pointless stress, people often just give up and don’t even try to articulate or digest information or reasons.

  The resulting silence has been well documented.2 Research has also shown that disadvantaged groups are more often and more fully silenced than dominant groups.3 However, silence infects both sides in political debates. Neither side can claim to be alone in being silenced—or to be alone in being frustrated by attempts to reach the other side. As a result, they both quit trying to reason with each other.

  WHERE DID YOU HEAR THAT?

  Even without talking together, people can still access arguments on the opposing side if they listen to news and commentary from the same sources as their opponents. However, few people want to get their news from sources that abuse and distort their political views. They reject such sources as subjective or even “fake news.” Most people prefer to have their views supported, so they choose news sources that will back up their predilections.

  This trend affects both sides of the political spectrum: In 2004, Republicans and Democrats watched MSNBC and Fox News at roughly equal rates. By 2008 20% more Democrats watched MSNBC than Republicans.
On the other hand, Republicans watched Fox News 11% more than Democrats in 2004 but 30% more than Democrats in 2008.4 Both sides had turned to different news shows in only four short years!

  Many today get their news from the Internet. The most common tools for choosing which parts of the Internet to access are search engines and social media. When someone Googles a topic, search engine lists sites about that topic in a certain order determined by an algorithm. The most common search engines give priority to sites that this user has visited often and is likely to rate highly. If users go more often to sites listed on top, as most people do, then they are bound to end up visiting more sites that support their political views. Many are not even aware that algorithms can manipulate them into echo chambers.

  Another tool for selecting websites—word of mouth (so to speak) in social media—might be even more common.5 Many people use social media to recommend websites, and their friends then follow their recommendations. In this case, it is obvious why liberals with liberal friends end up visiting websites of liberal news sources whereas conservatives with conservative friends end up visiting websites of conservative news sources. Both sides end up in echo chambers, and they hear nothing that comes from outside their chambers. The edge of each person’s echo chamber is where silence begins.6