Paul Graham - How to Disagree

[Bootstrap]

It makes a lot of difference to me who the disagreement is with. With peripheral relationships where you rarely see the person, it's ok to smile, nod and say "I see you feel strongly about this." It's not a crisis that people somewhere disagree with me.

Yes - but look at the lower levels of this triangle. Name calling. Attacks on your character and credibility, implying that there's something wrong with you because you disagree. Taking issue with your tone.

None of that is actually about the substance of your opinion at all. It's about "what's wrong with you". Performed in public. With strong emotion. And it often makes it difficult to even understand what we agree or disagree on. Or why. It's effectively a kind of heckling that keeps us from discussing a topic. It makes the topic about you because they insist on making the topic about you. Not about the topic we are supposedly discussing.

In fact, people often seem to have no idea what the topic is. But it's very clear how they feel about various people, and how they want other people to feel about those people. And very little of this is about how we, as Christians, should act in the world we live in.

[Josh]

Boot,

Do you think "facts" and arguments can exist in a disconnected fashion? I think that arguments about facts usually come from motives of someone who actually has some other agenda. I think it's good to have everyone's motives laid out on the table and say why they are really arguing for this or that.

We can see this quite clearly in politics, when people will argue for one proposal when their candidate is in office, but when not, they will argue against the exact same thing. I find such arguments about "facts" disingenuous and a waste of time. It's better to talk about the real motives of the heart, which is what the New Testament gets to. I don't see the NT ever uplifting the idea we should argue about "facts" and "logic".

[Bootstrap]

Do you think "facts" and arguments can exist in a disconnected fashion? I think that arguments about facts usually come from motives of someone who actually has some other agenda. I think it's good to have everyone's motives laid out on the table and say why they are really arguing for this or that.

I agree - I don't think that facts and arguments can exist in a disconnected fashion, and I think it's best when each of us feels safe to explain more than just the facts we see. But that's another problem with the lower levels of the triangle - if I am arguing that way, than I am claiming I am the person who gets to speak for you, to say what your motivations are, to sow suspicion about you, and to insist I'm right no matter what you say. Often, right about what's wrong with you. Without ever taking the time to listen to you and get to know what you feel and why.

So we won't really get people's feelings and motives out on the table unless we make it safe for each of us to do that. I can't be the person who knows what you really feel and why, only you can do that. And from what I can see, people are pretty reckless in the claims they make about other people, especially in the heat of an argument.

But facts are the EASIEST thing to know. Really understanding someone else's motives takes time and sensitivity and openness, and we can only ever do that to a certain extent. If I'm arguing on the lower levels of this triangle, I do it from the perspective that I own your inner self, that I am the expert on you, and that there really doesn't seem to be much to you at all. I turn you into a strawman. So we get the worst of both worlds - we don't get to discuss the topic, and we don't really get to know and understand each other and why we feel the way we do.

Have you noticed how rare it is for people to say much about themselves and how they feel on MennoNet? It's not safe to.

We can see this quite clearly in politics, when people will argue for one proposal when their candidate is in office, but when not, they will argue against the exact same thing.

In politics, I like this approach: what is the one standard we want to apply to both, in the same way? But it's remarkably hard to discuss things that way. I think the lower levels of the triangle are to blame. In fact, I think most of the energy in politics lives at those levels. And I suspect that all of us are more manipulated by political propaganda than we realize. We know that the other side is manipulated by propaganda. We're sure that we are not. And we are wrong.

I find such arguments about "facts" disingenuous and a waste of time. It's better to talk about the real motives of the heart, which is what the New Testament gets to. I don't see the NT ever uplifting the idea we should argue about "facts" and "logic".

Politics has become a proxy for matters of the heart. We don't discuss matters of the heart much at all. We act as though the grievances of modern politicians are what we care about more.

As Christians, who are we in this world, and what are we called to? That's what keeps getting lost. And it sometimes feels like political grievances outweigh our identity as Christians. If you read MennoNet for a week, does it look like we are deeply invested in seeking first the Kingdom of God? Does it look like we are examining our hearts and asking God how we can be salt and light to the world around us? Or does it look like we think politics is where the real action is?

[Josh]

MennoNet indeed does look that way if one simply ignores the Politics group, which is, well, where political discussion happens.

A forum full of conservative Anabaptists is not a good place to go to find (a) denouncements of your political enemies, and (b) endorsements of your political allies. It doesn't matter how many "facts" you present; it's simply not going to be a place for building political allyship. I'm not sure why this concept is hard to understand.

[Bootstrap]

MennoNet indeed does look that way if one simply ignores the Politics group, which is, well, where political discussion happens.

A forum full of conservative Anabaptists is not a good place to go to find (a) denouncements of your political enemies, and (b) endorsements of your political allies.

Actually, I think MennoNet is a good place to do that if your enemies and friends line up with the majority here. On MennoNet, I think there are some people who are suspicious of anyone who seriously departs from the Fox News perspective, whether or not that's where they get it from. I see a lot more denouncements than endorsements. I see people who really seem to get upset if you respond to one of these denouncements and say that the facts do not seem to support it. Some of that comes from conservative Mennonites. Some comes from other Mennonites or people who are not at all Mennonite. And I see a lot of "how dare they investigate this person" while claiming to have no loyalty to that person.

But I also see conservative Mennonites here who either (1) try to avoid championing political things, (2) try to split everything down the middle, making both sides look the same, or (3) try to be studiously fair.

Regardless, I think I see WAY too little discussion of how we, as Christians, live in the world around us. On any topic - abortion, LGBTQ+, drugs, poverty, it's more about what's wrong with them than what we are called to as Christians. Discussions about the Kingdom of God, for instance, get a LOT less traffic than a thread exploring the latest insult that someone made about a politician.

It doesn't matter how many "facts" you present; it's simply not going to be a place for building political allyship. I'm not sure why this concept is hard to understand.

Facts are not about building partisan loyalty. They are the opposite. That's the point. To discuss facts, we first have to stop reframing every fact in partisan terms and telling everyone what we think of all the people involved. We have to stop playing the games associated with the lower levels of the triangle in order to be able to have reasonable discussions of anything.

Have you noticed that people sometimes post opinions and simultaneously tell you what's wrong with anyone who disagrees with them? And how often those opinions are calling for political loyalties? Instead of actually discussing any particular topic, things descend into long lists of grievances thrown at the political side someone particularly hates.

That makes reasonable discussion hard. I think the word reasonable is a helpful guide here. Are we engaging with the facts, using reason and discernment and judgement? Are we thinking things out together with others, open to what they have to say? Do we even know what the topic is, or is each person in a thread discussing whatever comes to mind that is vaguely associated with their side's talking points, making jabs at other people along the line?

[barnhart]

It makes a lot of difference to me who the disagreement is with. With peripheral relationships where you rarely see the person, it's ok to smile, nod and say "I see you feel strongly about this." It's not a crisis that people somewhere disagree with me.

Yes - but look at the lower levels of this triangle. Name calling. Attacks on your character and credibility, implying that there's something wrong with you because you disagree. Taking issue with your tone.

None of that is actually about the substance of your opinion at all. It's about "what's wrong with you". Performed in public. With strong emotion. And it often makes it difficult to even understand what we agree or disagree on. Or why. It's effectively a kind of heckling that keeps us from discussing a topic. It makes the topic about you because they insist on making the topic about you. Not about the topic we are supposedly discussing.

In fact, people often seem to have no idea what the topic is. But it's very clear how they feel about various people, and how they want other people to feel about those people. And very little of this is about how we, as Christians, should act in the world we live in.

When a conversation partner falls into those patterns, I understand that to mean the conversation is over or they do not wish to converse in general. It seems like a mistake to force them to do things they don't want to do.

[Josh]

Actually, I think MennoNet is a good place to do that if your enemies and friends line up with the majority here. On MennoNet, I think there are some people who are suspicious of anyone who seriously departs from the Fox News perspective, whether or not that's where they get it from.

Let's be clear about who these people are. temporal1 and Valerie are two people who seem to usually have this worldview, maybe MaxPC does as well although I don't see him delve into political back-and-forths quite as much, but they also have never claimed to be Anabaptists. They just enjoy posting/reading on MennoNet. It seems fruitless to me to endlessly argue with people who aren't Anabaptists about political issues. They both have a "standard" right wing perspective on politics, and are not ashamed to express that view here.

I decided some time ago it is pointless to argue with two women online about finer points of politics when we don't share the same overall Christian worldview (I am Anabaptist, they are not).

I see a lot more denouncements than endorsements. I see people who really seem to get upset if you respond to one of these denouncements and say that the facts do not seem to support it. Some of that comes from conservative Mennonites. Some comes from other Mennonites or people who are not at all Mennonite. And I see a lot of "how dare they investigate this person" while claiming to have no loyalty to that person.

Some conservative Mennonites (such as myself) like to point out inconsistency, like I used to do when people would endless complain about Obama back in the 2014 era. I did it back then, and I continue to do it now.

There are no CMs on this forum stumping for a particular candidate, as far as I know. There are some CMs who do feel free to say "This particular investigation is highly politicised and not focused on gathering the truth." I think it's fine for CMs to say that and have that opinion.

But I also see conservative Mennonites here who either (1) try to avoid championing political things, (2) try to split everything down the middle, making both sides look the same, or (3) try to be studiously fair.

Regardless, I think I see WAY too little discussion of how we, as Christians, live in the world around us. On any topic - abortion, LGBTQ+, drugs, poverty, it's more about what's wrong with them than what we are called to as Christians. Discussions about the Kingdom of God, for instance, get a LOT less traffic than a thread exploring the latest insult that someone made about a politician.

We could actually start those discussions. Simply ask to leave politics and culture war out of it. I think the current Kensington thread is going well; it's not a political discussion there.

It doesn't matter how many "facts" you present; it's simply not going to be a place for building political allyship. I'm not sure why this concept is hard to understand.

Facts are not about building partisan loyalty. They are the opposite. That's the point. To discuss facts, we first have to stop reframing every fact in partisan terms and telling everyone what we think of all the people involved. We have to stop playing the games associated with the lower levels of the triangle in order to be able to have reasonable discussions of anything.

I think the problem you are facing, Boot, is that we don't have agreement on what constitutes "facts". There isn't a wellspring of trust in MennoNet for certain institutions because some of us believe those institutions are compromised and being used for political ends. The same goes for some journalistic outlets. I might read CNN or the New York Times, but I read them with a note of scepticism. I don't read Fox News, but if I did, I would view it very sceptically.

Have you noticed that people sometimes post opinions and simultaneously tell you what's wrong with anyone who disagrees with them? And how often those opinions are calling for political loyalties? Instead of actually discussing any particular topic, things descend into long lists of grievances thrown at the political side someone particularly hates.

That makes reasonable discussion hard. I think the word reasonable is a helpful guide here. Are we engaging with the facts, using reason and discernment and judgement? Are we thinking things out together with others, open to what they have to say? Do we even know what the topic is, or is each person in a thread discussing whatever comes to mind that is vaguely associated with their side's talking points, making jabs at other people along the line?

Perhaps you could simply frame your discussions that would like you like them to be from an Anabaptist perspective, and respectfully ask non-Anabaptist people to refrain from posting non-Anabaptist viewpoints (such as the standard Fox News viewpoint, the standard mainstream left wing viewpoint, and so on) - which frankly seem to dominate any political discussion around here.

[Bootstrap]

But I also see conservative Mennonites here who either (1) try to avoid championing political things, (2) try to split everything down the middle, making both sides look the same, or (3) try to be studiously fair.

Regardless, I think I see WAY too little discussion of how we, as Christians, live in the world around us. On any topic - abortion, LGBTQ+, drugs, poverty, it's more about what's wrong with them than what we are called to as Christians. Discussions about the Kingdom of God, for instance, get a LOT less traffic than a thread exploring the latest insult that someone made about a politician.

We could actually start those discussions. Simply ask to leave politics and culture war out of it. I think the current Kensington thread is going well; it's not a political discussion there.

I'm trying to start threads along these lines. Here are all of the threads that I have started:

search.php?keywords=&terms=all&author=B ... mit=Search

I think at least a lot of them are trying to do exactly the kinds of things that I cam calling for here. I'm not the only one doing that by any means.

These threads aren't the ones that get the most energy. They require thought. They require examining ourselves.

[Bootstrap]

Let's be clear about who these people are.

Some conservative Mennonites (such as myself) like to point out inconsistency, like I used to do when people would endless complain about Obama back in the 2014 era. I did it back then, and I continue to do it now.

I don't think this is about whether people are conservative Mennonites or not. I suspect that some conservative Mennonites may be inconsistent themselves. I imagine we all are. Which means that the people who point out hypocrisy in others are often hypocrites themselves. I often see people claim hypocrisy in others using things they made up that don't seem to be true of the other person. And of course, the forum rules say we are each supposed to speak for OURSELVES and not go on attack at others.

I would rather not make a list of the people who do this, I would rather focus on what Christians should and should not be doing. And making a list of the people we want to accuse, including people who are not participating in this thread, can get into this same territory:

Yes - but look at the lower levels of this triangle. Name calling. Attacks on your character and credibility, implying that there's something wrong with you because you disagree. Taking issue with your tone.

None of that is actually about the substance of your opinion at all. It's about "what's wrong with you". Performed in public. With strong emotion. And it often makes it difficult to even understand what we agree or disagree on. Or why. It's effectively a kind of heckling that keeps us from discussing a topic. It makes the topic about you because they insist on making the topic about you. Not about the topic we are supposedly discussing.

In fact, people often seem to have no idea what the topic is. But it's very clear how they feel about various people, and how they want other people to feel about those people. And very little of this is about how we, as Christians, should act in the world we live in.

[Bootstrap]

Facts are not about building partisan loyalty. They are the opposite. That's the point. To discuss facts, we first have to stop reframing every fact in partisan terms and telling everyone what we think of all the people involved. We have to stop playing the games associated with the lower levels of the triangle in order to be able to have reasonable discussions of anything.

I think the problem you are facing, Boot, is that we don't have agreement on what constitutes "facts". There isn't a wellspring of trust in MennoNet for certain institutions because some of us believe those institutions are compromised and being used for political ends. The same goes for some journalistic outlets. I might read CNN or the New York Times, but I read them with a note of scepticism. I don't read Fox News, but if I did, I would view it very sceptically.

Facts are not the same thing as sources.

But I think there's a deep skepticism that facts exist at all. Not that anyone would actually say that out loud. But people act as though the latest hysterical Internet video is just as reliable as 2 + 2 = 4, and there's no such thing as determining what is true unless people belong to the same political faction in the first place. People post loud claims and insist that they are facts with no evidence at all. It's like shouting FACTS means something without taking the time to look for facts.

Sources make claims. Those claims can be evaluated using whatever sources are available. But that takes time and thought and willingness to consider what someone else is saying. It's so much easier to say "I hate your source - you shouldn't use it". It takes time and effort to actually evaluate what was said.

The lowest levels in the triangle don't require any of that. The energy we spend there floods out facts and reasonable discussion. I think the thread about Trump's eligibility for office is a good example of that, but there are so many.