Save me from people who want to "talk rationally" about Dylann Roof

[Flying Squirrel]

I posted a link to the "Anti-intellectualism" article on Facebook, (https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/our-humanity-naturally/201506/anti-intellectualism-is-killing-america), and this was the result:

Person A:

This ties directly to the notion that intellectual diversity is stunted. When ideas from an outside group are immediately rejected and label as "uninformed" opinions.

Maybe if people didn't attack this kid everytime he brought up racist points, he would have had the opportunity to hear things in a healthy conversation. Not on the Internet with all of his other buddies, spiraling down the racist portal with zero outside ideas to challenge his.

Person A (continuation):

We live in a culture of unseen levels of partisanship, where any information that is not sourced by MY select list of TV outlets and online portals, it's probably not true and you're just some idiot liberal/republican.

Me:

There used to be a wide variety of news sources to choose from, locally owned, which checked facts before reporting them and sincerely strove to be accurate and unbiased. The telecommunications act of 1996 changed all that, and now most media has become consolidated into the hands of a very few people pushing an agenda. And people bringing up racist points deserve to be attacked. Are you defending the "poor kid"?

Me (continuation):

Also known as a grown adult man?

Person B:

I think that if someone is "attacked" every time they bring up something racist, they will stop bringing it up to people who might attack them, and instead will find and bring it up to people who feel the same way, who will encourage it.

But if the people "discuss" it instead of doing so in an attacking sort of way, then maybe the door will remain open for new ideas, and maybe change the racist feelings instead of pouring fuel on the fire.

At some point before he became a murdering psychopath he was a "poor kid" who needed some direction, and didn't get it.

Me:

Aww the poor dear... So misunderstood. So it's not his fault at all, it's the fault of anyone who ever confronted his racism with anything stronger than the kindest, gentest kid gloves. This is so beautiful, the way the perpetrator becomes the victim - as long as the perpetrator is white. If he were black, and the victims white, the same people who insisted that nobody should refer to Michael Brown as a "kid" since he was 18, would make sure to refer to the perpetrator as a grown man and a thug. There would be no discussion of his childhood, no suggestion that his black acquaintances should have treated his hatred of white people with kid gloves so that he would not join with other haters of white people. No, in fact the question that would be asked is why the "good black people" did not do more to deter him from the path he was on. The double standard is repulsive, it is disgusting, and it is being proliferated by the Republican Party, Fox News, and those of their ilk. If people don't wake up to it pretty soon, there will be an uprising in this country.

Person B:

You're reading a lot of things into what I said that weren't there. I see you can't talk about this rationally. So never mind.

------------

So, apparently I was not talking about it rationally. (?)

Perhaps Person B believes that because my fiance is African-American, I'm no longer capable of rational thought with regard to race. What say ye all, was what I said irrational?

I thought I was being quite rational about it, myself.

[delrem]

1. Person A seems to be saying that perhaps Dylann Roof

would have benefited by wise council, from among his family and mentors and peers - rather than just be attacked when he mentioned his racist views.

But.
Dylann Roof quit school in gr. 9.
Where were his family and mentors and peers when he threw his life away like that?

My guess is that Dylann Roof never got "wise council" from anyone or anything - but he was given all the rope needed to do what he did.

[onecaliberal]

2. Completely rational. All great points and truth.

The racists whites do not want to hear it. They know this is one of theirs and there is simply no other way to spin it. Everything you said was spot on, you also said it respectfully. It's one of those times the truth hurts. We need to keep pounding that truth home to these people.

[Maedhros]

3. Jay Smooth actually echoes some of Person B's concerns. This video is very helpful:

[Igel]

4. Rational argumentation has been redefined a bit.

As soon as your goal is obviously "winning," the other person will immediately react defensively. Attacking people's position is precisely how not to win friends and influence enemies. Once you've drawn battle lines, you've set things up for a battle. The idea is that you have to convince the other person you're on the same side--establish common ground, even if it means being humble and conceding a point or two that you find unnecessary.

I've seen people who get argued into positions that they loathe and despise, but they get there because they will not be proven wrong. People who think they're intellectually superior or inferior are easier to corner in this way; those who think external honor matters more than internal integrity and truth are often trivial to corner.

I had one person deny that he even had grandparents. "No, I did *not* have grandparents, and I'm insulted that you think I did." The people that supported his position at that point looked at him very, very strangely and step away from him cautiously. "Then who gave birth to your parents?" "I had parents, but I didn't have any grandparents!" And his former supporters take another step away. He was deep into a honor-based culture and didn't want to betray his sense of "dignity." In so doing, he showed himself a fool.

Yes, it gets that ridiculous. This, of course, was an utterly irrational course of behavior on my part because at that point the battle lines were clearly drawn and erasing them would be nearly impossible. The point is that we argue not to establish truth, but to win. Establishing truth is sone way to win. Causing the other person to shut up is another. Getting them to accept something that may well be false is a third. If you want to argue to establish truth, you have to accept that first and foremost the other side (and your own tendency) will be to argue to win. The first target of any critical thinking has to be yourself, because you're the easiest person for you to deceive (a Richard Feynman insight).

At DU a lot of people prefer to shut it down than talk. It's easier, it's safer, it's more comfortable. They have to show their right and they have the truth--and many insist on forcing others to express adherence to the approved doctrine. They start using sarcasm unnecessarily and implying insults. (I know; I do it myself too often.) Some act like they're the lone, solitary hero standing up for truth and rightness among a population that just won't fight the good fight. Personally, I think you stopped arguing rationally in your last oration. "Aww ... the poor dear." What I interpret to be sarcasm and straw men pop up fairly often in that paragraph.

I personally think Fox is only as much of a problem as some fairly left-of-center media sources (which aren't viewed that way here because everybody thinks they're mainstream and most people need to think they're in the majority; conservatives I know think of Fox as "centrist" and the NYT as well left of center). It's damned easy to get a more balanced set of facts these days--easier than in the early '70s, to be honest, it's just that they're not all served up pre-packaged and seasoned just right. All you have to do is order from the a la carte menu for media. The problem is getting rid of the non-facts, horrible inferences and imposed implications in media sources, both right and left,and spot the same facts masquerading under different guises. Some of the quirks are due to the rush to get into print or get online; some are just confirmation bias writ large.