I think that’s missing the point. Sure, it would be nice to not have collateral damage, but the goals of any public criticism should be to change the behavior we’re opposed to, and that can be either through shaming them into changing a policy, or changing the public’s opinion about a policy to change the outcome of the next election.
Public insults only serve to rile up your side and put the other side on the defensive, it doesn’t change anyone’s mind and may actually encourage those in the middle to support the one you’re attacking (i.e. if they see them as an underdog).
The proper approach is to criticize arguments in such a way that anyone who’s going to read it understands your argument. Saying Trump is unfit to be the President because he has small hands may give you and those on “your side” a few chuckles, but it’ll drive those in the middle to support him (is that their best argument??). Saying Trump is unfit to be the President because his anti-immigration policy will hurt the US economy because it limits the supply of cheap labor (and thus drives up prices and drives down production) may get someone to change their mind. If I thought a bit harder, I could probably come up with an even easier to understand argument that could change minds.
So don’t hold back because you’re worried about offending someone else entirely, hold back because that’s more likely to get the outcome you want, both now and in the future.
I really don’t agree. I mean, that may also be true, but I strongly believe that even if it were effective to do so, it would still be morally wrong to harm innocents in order to also hurt your political opponents.
I actually am totally ok with targeting your opponent themselves. That shouldn’t be the only thing you do, and when you do it needs to be carefully crafted and accurate, but I am totally ok with, for example, the recent “weird” meme being applied to MAGAists. As I explained above I think it works because it doesn’t have collateral damage, but does work surprisingly well at upsetting its targets, and also highlights a truth and a dishonesty of the targets.
But avoiding collateral damage is very important. You can’t necessarily be 100% successful at it, but at least trying is important. Society has, as a whole, agreed it’s not acceptable to say “lol that’s gay” as a criticism. Because that implies that being gay is bad and gay people should be ashamed. It’s increasingly also becoming true that fatphobic comments and comments about mental health terms being used as insults are not accepted, for the same reason. It belittles all fat or autistic or whatever people. Criticism on the basis of height or genital size really isn’t different.
Though a comment about how someone might be “compensating” rides more of a line, IMO. Because that’s a comment about their internal motivation rather than per se about the trait in question. You’re actually critiquing their own insecurity. Personally I’m still not a huge fan of them, but I can see the other side.
harm innocents in order to also hurt your political opponents
There are different levels of harm. As long as you’re attacking arguments instead of people, you’ll only hurt those who attach their identify to those arguments. For example, if you say an argument that same-sex couples shouldn’t be allowed to marry is bigoted, that may offend religious types who firmly believe homosexuality to be morally wrong, but that doesn’t make your argument any less valid. Or you could argue that increasing welfare benefits is fiscally irresponsible while running a deficit, which could imply that those who receive those benefits are also fiscally irresponsible and simultaneously not worth the benefits they receive.
Collateral damage should be avoided in a well-structured argument, but it shouldn’t prevent you from making an important argument. But as long as you attack the argument and not individuals or groups, I don’t think you have any need to feel guilty for those who take offense at your arguments.
There are also two types of arguments: arguments for something and arguments against something. For the first group, you should attack nameless “others” that are to blame for you not having nice things, such as “big tech” designing obsolescence into their products so you can’t repair your own stuff. The counter should attack that argument, not the person making that argument.
the recent “weird” meme being applied to MAGAists
But what’s the benefit? All it does is give “your side” some chuckles and causes “their side” to become defensive and attack you for something equally irrelevant.
And it does have collateral damage, because you’re implying that anyone who is considering voting for them is “weird.” If the best argument the opposition has is personal attacks, that makes the attacked party more attractive and defensible. I’d rather vote for a “weird” candidate that’s genuine instead of a “normal” establishment candidate who’s guaranteed to disappoint.
You’re actually critiquing their own insecurity.
Sure, but insecurity isn’t an argument, and it’s just going to put people who sympathize with them on the defensive.
For example, if you say “truck drivers are compensating for something,” that puts all truck drivers as well as anyone who thinks owning a truck would be cool to be on the defensive. They’re going to ignore the rest of your argument, even if it could convince them to change what they value.
Instead of that, attack the people selling these products to insecure people. Say something like, “truck companies want you to think ‘real men’ buy big trucks, but the truth is they’re just trying to manipulate you to take your money. Look at average truck sale prices, they’re getting more and more expensive. Look past the marketing BS and get something more reasonable that still meets your needs so you can afford to do more cool stuff, like trips with the family or home improvement projects. A ‘real man’ makes his own choices, so make yours.” That way you turn their insecurity into a way for them to take control, while also painting the thing you want to discourage in a bad light. So instead of “you’re a fool for buying that stupid truck,” it’s “you’re smart for seeing through their lies and manipulation”).
I probably could have worded it better, but hopefully my point is clear. It could be that people are hurt by this type of argument (i.e. “you’re saying I’m stupid because I fell for their marketing? I made that choice”), but if avoiding that reduces your reach, it’s worth breaking a few eggs to get the message out there. But the message needs to be constructive and shift the blame to be effective.
But what’s the benefit? All it does is give “your side” some chuckles and causes “their side” to become defensive and attack you for something equally irrelevant.
You’re neglecting the third “side”. Those who are neutral. Criticising an opponent—so long as those criticisms are well-grounded and don’t cause a neutral observer to say “wtf are you on about, you’re obviously making stuff up”—weakens their ability to convert others to their cause.
you’re implying that anyone who is considering voting for them is “weird.”
Someone voting for them isn’t collateral damage. They’re the intended targets.
wtf are you on about, you’re obviously making stuff up
And that’s not a personal attack, that’s an attack on the argument. If someone is spouting complete nonsense, point out how a handful of their arguments are nonsense, and then argue that this person is consistently spouting nonsense. Then it’s on them to defend the ones you pointed out, or at least show that those are outliers (defend their other arguments), and if they instead resort to personal attacks, you use that as further evidence that their arguments don’t have substance.
What I’m against is stuff like, “Trump is a fascist” with no actual evidence of support for fascism. Discredit him because of what he’s said and done (there’s plenty of material there), not because of party affiliation or the way he talks.
This should go for all public discourse. I honestly don’t care about Trump or Harris, and they’ll be gone one way or another after several years. What I do care about is the longer-term direction of organized groups, and that is based on arguments, not people.
that’s not a personal attack, that’s an attack on the argument
No you misunderstood me. That bit you quoted wasn’t your argument against your opponent. It’s a response that someone might make to your personal attacks, if those attacks are not well-grounded. Calling Trump a sex pest is a personal attacks, but well-grounded in his actual behaviour. Calling Tim Walz a sex pest would not be well-grounded, to my knowledge.
As for the F word…fascist shouldn’t be used as a mere insult, but using it where it’s applicable is important. It’s about predicting the kinds of behaviours you might expect from one person in the future based on the similarity of their current behaviours to other historical groups with a similar ideology. People should be concerned about Trump and the MAGA movement within the Republicans not “because they’re fascists”, but because the rhetoric they use is fascistic and it, along with some of their actual actions and policies, are eerily reminiscent of historical fascist movements. This is a criticism deeply rooted in ideas and as such isn’t really relevant in this discussion.
Calling Trump a sex pest is a personal attacks, but well-grounded in his actual behaviour
I disagree, it’s inflammatory, based on some sketchy evidence, and has absolutely nothing to do with his ability to govern. So there’s absolutely no reason to make that argument.
People should be concerned about Trump and the MAGA movement
Oh, I absolutely agree people should be worried, but if they’re going to call them fascist, they need some really compelling evidence. And in almost every case, that evidence just doesn’t exist. The stronger the accusation, the stronger your evidence needs to be.
I don’t call them fascist because I don’t have the evidence for that, even assuming Jan 6 was intentionally sparked by former Pres. Trump. The furthest I’ll go is to say he’s anti-democratic (he attacked the election with zero success) and that his policies would be harmful (high tariffs cause inflation, unfunded tax cuts cause inflation, etc). I then speculate about possible motivations (Trump is a narcissist, wants to benefit himself and other rich people, etc), and indicate that the average person will be worse off because of his policies. If you attack the person directly, you’ll put them on the defensive (you’re being unfair, or whatever). If you attack the policies and demonstrate that they help some group the listener/reader doesn’t like (say, billionaires) at their expense, you might convince them to consider alternatives.
If you believe his presidency would push us toward fascism, show the evidence. And then indicate what your preferred alternative (I assume Harris?) would do differently. If you can communicate that succinctly and in simple words, you could actually change peoples’ opinions. If you come off as calling names (i.e. sex pest fascist), you’ll just put people on the defensive. Don’t attack the individual, attack the ideas that individual espouses, and show how those ideas will benefit others you don’t like at your expense.
I think that’s missing the point. Sure, it would be nice to not have collateral damage, but the goals of any public criticism should be to change the behavior we’re opposed to, and that can be either through shaming them into changing a policy, or changing the public’s opinion about a policy to change the outcome of the next election.
Public insults only serve to rile up your side and put the other side on the defensive, it doesn’t change anyone’s mind and may actually encourage those in the middle to support the one you’re attacking (i.e. if they see them as an underdog).
The proper approach is to criticize arguments in such a way that anyone who’s going to read it understands your argument. Saying Trump is unfit to be the President because he has small hands may give you and those on “your side” a few chuckles, but it’ll drive those in the middle to support him (is that their best argument??). Saying Trump is unfit to be the President because his anti-immigration policy will hurt the US economy because it limits the supply of cheap labor (and thus drives up prices and drives down production) may get someone to change their mind. If I thought a bit harder, I could probably come up with an even easier to understand argument that could change minds.
So don’t hold back because you’re worried about offending someone else entirely, hold back because that’s more likely to get the outcome you want, both now and in the future.
I really don’t agree. I mean, that may also be true, but I strongly believe that even if it were effective to do so, it would still be morally wrong to harm innocents in order to also hurt your political opponents.
I actually am totally ok with targeting your opponent themselves. That shouldn’t be the only thing you do, and when you do it needs to be carefully crafted and accurate, but I am totally ok with, for example, the recent “weird” meme being applied to MAGAists. As I explained above I think it works because it doesn’t have collateral damage, but does work surprisingly well at upsetting its targets, and also highlights a truth and a dishonesty of the targets.
But avoiding collateral damage is very important. You can’t necessarily be 100% successful at it, but at least trying is important. Society has, as a whole, agreed it’s not acceptable to say “lol that’s gay” as a criticism. Because that implies that being gay is bad and gay people should be ashamed. It’s increasingly also becoming true that fatphobic comments and comments about mental health terms being used as insults are not accepted, for the same reason. It belittles all fat or autistic or whatever people. Criticism on the basis of height or genital size really isn’t different.
Though a comment about how someone might be “compensating” rides more of a line, IMO. Because that’s a comment about their internal motivation rather than per se about the trait in question. You’re actually critiquing their own insecurity. Personally I’m still not a huge fan of them, but I can see the other side.
There are different levels of harm. As long as you’re attacking arguments instead of people, you’ll only hurt those who attach their identify to those arguments. For example, if you say an argument that same-sex couples shouldn’t be allowed to marry is bigoted, that may offend religious types who firmly believe homosexuality to be morally wrong, but that doesn’t make your argument any less valid. Or you could argue that increasing welfare benefits is fiscally irresponsible while running a deficit, which could imply that those who receive those benefits are also fiscally irresponsible and simultaneously not worth the benefits they receive.
Collateral damage should be avoided in a well-structured argument, but it shouldn’t prevent you from making an important argument. But as long as you attack the argument and not individuals or groups, I don’t think you have any need to feel guilty for those who take offense at your arguments.
There are also two types of arguments: arguments for something and arguments against something. For the first group, you should attack nameless “others” that are to blame for you not having nice things, such as “big tech” designing obsolescence into their products so you can’t repair your own stuff. The counter should attack that argument, not the person making that argument.
But what’s the benefit? All it does is give “your side” some chuckles and causes “their side” to become defensive and attack you for something equally irrelevant.
And it does have collateral damage, because you’re implying that anyone who is considering voting for them is “weird.” If the best argument the opposition has is personal attacks, that makes the attacked party more attractive and defensible. I’d rather vote for a “weird” candidate that’s genuine instead of a “normal” establishment candidate who’s guaranteed to disappoint.
Sure, but insecurity isn’t an argument, and it’s just going to put people who sympathize with them on the defensive.
For example, if you say “truck drivers are compensating for something,” that puts all truck drivers as well as anyone who thinks owning a truck would be cool to be on the defensive. They’re going to ignore the rest of your argument, even if it could convince them to change what they value.
Instead of that, attack the people selling these products to insecure people. Say something like, “truck companies want you to think ‘real men’ buy big trucks, but the truth is they’re just trying to manipulate you to take your money. Look at average truck sale prices, they’re getting more and more expensive. Look past the marketing BS and get something more reasonable that still meets your needs so you can afford to do more cool stuff, like trips with the family or home improvement projects. A ‘real man’ makes his own choices, so make yours.” That way you turn their insecurity into a way for them to take control, while also painting the thing you want to discourage in a bad light. So instead of “you’re a fool for buying that stupid truck,” it’s “you’re smart for seeing through their lies and manipulation”).
I probably could have worded it better, but hopefully my point is clear. It could be that people are hurt by this type of argument (i.e. “you’re saying I’m stupid because I fell for their marketing? I made that choice”), but if avoiding that reduces your reach, it’s worth breaking a few eggs to get the message out there. But the message needs to be constructive and shift the blame to be effective.
You’re neglecting the third “side”. Those who are neutral. Criticising an opponent—so long as those criticisms are well-grounded and don’t cause a neutral observer to say “wtf are you on about, you’re obviously making stuff up”—weakens their ability to convert others to their cause.
Someone voting for them isn’t collateral damage. They’re the intended targets.
And that’s not a personal attack, that’s an attack on the argument. If someone is spouting complete nonsense, point out how a handful of their arguments are nonsense, and then argue that this person is consistently spouting nonsense. Then it’s on them to defend the ones you pointed out, or at least show that those are outliers (defend their other arguments), and if they instead resort to personal attacks, you use that as further evidence that their arguments don’t have substance.
What I’m against is stuff like, “Trump is a fascist” with no actual evidence of support for fascism. Discredit him because of what he’s said and done (there’s plenty of material there), not because of party affiliation or the way he talks.
This should go for all public discourse. I honestly don’t care about Trump or Harris, and they’ll be gone one way or another after several years. What I do care about is the longer-term direction of organized groups, and that is based on arguments, not people.
No you misunderstood me. That bit you quoted wasn’t your argument against your opponent. It’s a response that someone might make to your personal attacks, if those attacks are not well-grounded. Calling Trump a sex pest is a personal attacks, but well-grounded in his actual behaviour. Calling Tim Walz a sex pest would not be well-grounded, to my knowledge.
As for the F word…fascist shouldn’t be used as a mere insult, but using it where it’s applicable is important. It’s about predicting the kinds of behaviours you might expect from one person in the future based on the similarity of their current behaviours to other historical groups with a similar ideology. People should be concerned about Trump and the MAGA movement within the Republicans not “because they’re fascists”, but because the rhetoric they use is fascistic and it, along with some of their actual actions and policies, are eerily reminiscent of historical fascist movements. This is a criticism deeply rooted in ideas and as such isn’t really relevant in this discussion.
I disagree, it’s inflammatory, based on some sketchy evidence, and has absolutely nothing to do with his ability to govern. So there’s absolutely no reason to make that argument.
Oh, I absolutely agree people should be worried, but if they’re going to call them fascist, they need some really compelling evidence. And in almost every case, that evidence just doesn’t exist. The stronger the accusation, the stronger your evidence needs to be.
I don’t call them fascist because I don’t have the evidence for that, even assuming Jan 6 was intentionally sparked by former Pres. Trump. The furthest I’ll go is to say he’s anti-democratic (he attacked the election with zero success) and that his policies would be harmful (high tariffs cause inflation, unfunded tax cuts cause inflation, etc). I then speculate about possible motivations (Trump is a narcissist, wants to benefit himself and other rich people, etc), and indicate that the average person will be worse off because of his policies. If you attack the person directly, you’ll put them on the defensive (you’re being unfair, or whatever). If you attack the policies and demonstrate that they help some group the listener/reader doesn’t like (say, billionaires) at their expense, you might convince them to consider alternatives.
If you believe his presidency would push us toward fascism, show the evidence. And then indicate what your preferred alternative (I assume Harris?) would do differently. If you can communicate that succinctly and in simple words, you could actually change peoples’ opinions. If you come off as calling names (i.e. sex pest fascist), you’ll just put people on the defensive. Don’t attack the individual, attack the ideas that individual espouses, and show how those ideas will benefit others you don’t like at your expense.