Agree. But that’s not what I’m advocating. Once you have a good sense that certain people are “bad faith actors” who consistently lie about their beliefs and motivations, it probably won’t benefit you to put them on stage or listen to them. But the only way you could have rightly judged whether or not they were “bad faith actors” who “co…
Agree. But that’s not what I’m advocating. Once you have a good sense that certain people are “bad faith actors” who consistently lie about their beliefs and motivations, it probably won’t benefit you to put them on stage or listen to them.
But the only way you could have rightly judged whether or not they were “bad faith actors” who “consistently lie about their motives” was to have listened to them at some point in an open, honest and objective way.
I do accept that it is an available method, when combined with reliable information about the things they say in other contexts and to other people, and/or their actions.
But we can also discern whether people are acting in bad faith using various other techniques, such as observing their actions and reading reports from others who we have good reason to trust regarding those actions, their words, etc. Even their associations - who they are willing to spend time with, ally with, support and succour, can be a sufficiently strong source of information to make useful judgements when combined with other information.
Humans make judgements all the time, using the available information. In conversations like this, some (present company excluded of course) will insist that when dealing with bigots, fascists or otherwise malicious political operatives we must be absolutely certain of their ill intent and moral corruption beyond a shadow of a doubt before making any decisions on how much attention to pay them. I see this as absurd special pleading. It’s okay to just observe that someone is making the same arguments that have been tediously trotted out as justifications for every last genocide, make a judgement that they are very likely to be villainous, and spend your time and resources engaging with one of the billions of other people on the planet with better ideas.
Listening thoughtfully to every demagogue is not necessarily the optimal strategy for finding truth. Dismissing ideas because they are unfamiliar would be a shame, but dismissing ideas because they are shallow, transparent pablum from a highly motivated grifter is rational. Remember, the start of this thread was about Tucker Carlson, and the article we’re all replying to is about Kyle Duncan.
Ok, sure, I can accept that it may not be necessary for everyone to have actually listened to or read people directly to determine that they’re vile and not worth spending time listening to or reading. It’s just as a researcher, it’s drilled in to me to read the first-hand account whenever possible, even with highly trusted second hand sources. But I don’t think it’s necessary for everyone to require such strict standards before judging someone. Most people don’t have that kind of time anyway. I don’t really know much about Kyle Duncan except for the views related in the OP. So I’m inclined to think he’s a bully but until I see the video of what happened, I’ll decide to hold off on making a final judgement. I have no problem if just reading that much is enough for most other people to judge him. As for Tucker, I had heard enough of him to judge with a reasonable amount of certainty what kind of a person he was. And even though the Chris Hayes’ clip of his “villain origin story” didn’t make me think better of him, it did help me learn some interesting things about his motivations which I was totally not expecting.
Again, I wouldn’t attend a talk by either of these people in the hopes of solidifying my beliefs or hoping to learn something new about theirs (I might do that for someone like Tim Scott maybe) and I wouldn’t suggest anyone else do so either. I was talking in more general terms. But I do strongly believe if someone has invited any of them to speak at a private event, that they have the right to do so.
Agree. But that’s not what I’m advocating. Once you have a good sense that certain people are “bad faith actors” who consistently lie about their beliefs and motivations, it probably won’t benefit you to put them on stage or listen to them.
But the only way you could have rightly judged whether or not they were “bad faith actors” who “consistently lie about their motives” was to have listened to them at some point in an open, honest and objective way.
I don’t *quite agree*.
I do accept that it is an available method, when combined with reliable information about the things they say in other contexts and to other people, and/or their actions.
But we can also discern whether people are acting in bad faith using various other techniques, such as observing their actions and reading reports from others who we have good reason to trust regarding those actions, their words, etc. Even their associations - who they are willing to spend time with, ally with, support and succour, can be a sufficiently strong source of information to make useful judgements when combined with other information.
Humans make judgements all the time, using the available information. In conversations like this, some (present company excluded of course) will insist that when dealing with bigots, fascists or otherwise malicious political operatives we must be absolutely certain of their ill intent and moral corruption beyond a shadow of a doubt before making any decisions on how much attention to pay them. I see this as absurd special pleading. It’s okay to just observe that someone is making the same arguments that have been tediously trotted out as justifications for every last genocide, make a judgement that they are very likely to be villainous, and spend your time and resources engaging with one of the billions of other people on the planet with better ideas.
Listening thoughtfully to every demagogue is not necessarily the optimal strategy for finding truth. Dismissing ideas because they are unfamiliar would be a shame, but dismissing ideas because they are shallow, transparent pablum from a highly motivated grifter is rational. Remember, the start of this thread was about Tucker Carlson, and the article we’re all replying to is about Kyle Duncan.
Ok, sure, I can accept that it may not be necessary for everyone to have actually listened to or read people directly to determine that they’re vile and not worth spending time listening to or reading. It’s just as a researcher, it’s drilled in to me to read the first-hand account whenever possible, even with highly trusted second hand sources. But I don’t think it’s necessary for everyone to require such strict standards before judging someone. Most people don’t have that kind of time anyway. I don’t really know much about Kyle Duncan except for the views related in the OP. So I’m inclined to think he’s a bully but until I see the video of what happened, I’ll decide to hold off on making a final judgement. I have no problem if just reading that much is enough for most other people to judge him. As for Tucker, I had heard enough of him to judge with a reasonable amount of certainty what kind of a person he was. And even though the Chris Hayes’ clip of his “villain origin story” didn’t make me think better of him, it did help me learn some interesting things about his motivations which I was totally not expecting.
Again, I wouldn’t attend a talk by either of these people in the hopes of solidifying my beliefs or hoping to learn something new about theirs (I might do that for someone like Tim Scott maybe) and I wouldn’t suggest anyone else do so either. I was talking in more general terms. But I do strongly believe if someone has invited any of them to speak at a private event, that they have the right to do so.
Nicely put, thank you ^_^