
It’s Easy to Make Enemies of People We Only Read About - dnetesn
http://nautil.us/blog/its-easy-to-make-enemies-of-people-we-only-read-about
======
fedups
> In philosophy and rhetoric, the principle of charity requires interpreting a
> speaker's statements to be rational and, in the case of any argument,
> considering its best, strongest possible interpretation. [0]

Although it seems super rare in internet conversation, a good way to practice
is to keep in mind all the ways the Other Team misrepresents My Team and
generalize this when the Other Team says something dreadful on the surface.

But in the absence of the charity, concise, effective communication becomes
all the more crucial.

[0]-
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity)

~~~
Vaskivo
I agree. I'd also like to add a new great concept I've learned recently:
"steelmanning"
[https://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Steel_man](https://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Steel_man).

I feel the true meaning of a discussion has been lost. It has warped from
"lets share our opinions to achieve a greater understanding" to "Let me show
you how I'm right and try to dismiss all your opinions in every way possible".

And, in reality, what happens is "let me say my opinions to the air so the
ones who already agree with me agree even more".

~~~
AlexB138
>I feel the true meaning of a discussion has been lost. It has warped from
"lets share our opinions to achieve a greater understanding" to "Let me show
you how I'm right and try to dismiss all your opinions in every way possible".

What a wonderfully astute observation. Conversations have become a competition
where each side feels they need to "win", often at any cost. I grew up on the
internet, having first gotten a connection in '93\. I remember a time when
online conversations were "let's share..." and have watched them transform
into their current state. I suspect a lot of the current deteriorated state of
in-person conversations came from the deterioration of the online
conversation, which agrees with this articles premise. Can any older members
comment on whether this was happening so much before the internet was commonly
used?

>And, in reality, what happens is "let me say my opinions to the air so the
ones who already agree with me agree even more".

I would add that it's also a lot of virtual signaling[0]. Making statements
you know your in-group agrees with in order to increase your social standing.

[0]:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtue_signalling](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtue_signalling)

~~~
ZeroGravitas
The phrase "virtue signalling" confuses me.

What use is the phrase if it follows your definition?

Say I say "Thing X is good" or "Thing Y is bad" in a public forum. How can I
avoid that being called virtue signalling?

Am I only allowed to say things that annoy my in-group? Wouldn't this apply to
all sorts of things e.g. the speeches of Adolf Hitler or Donald Trump's
tweets? Why aren't they accused of virtue signalling?

~~~
Mikeb85
Virtue signalling is showing (signalling) that you have a certain opinion for
the sole purpose of appearing virtuous.

For example, all of the people suddenly support for illegal immigration
because Donald Trump is against it, even though every 'progressive' country in
the world deports illegal immigrants.

Or the "Women's March", which was basically an anti-Trump protest, and had
nothing to do with women's rights (if it did, it wouldn't have used a hijab as
a symbol of women's rights, as women in Islamic countries generally protest
the use of the hijab as a tool of oppression).

~~~
ZeroGravitas
So the people who disagree with you, don't really disagree with you, they just
pretend to disagree with you, because all of their peer group disagree with
you?

There appears to be a logical hole here.

~~~
verylittlemeat
I'm not the OP but I'm curious what do you see as the logical hole?

There is social value in disagreeing with someone who claims to have the
objective truth. It's not so much about being right as it's claiming to have
the truth which socially, emotionally and culturally is related to power.

If you don't want a person to have power it doesn't matter if they're right or
not. All that matters is the fact that having the truth means having power.

------
isleyaardvark
>Rubio may have had on his mind what happened just a week earlier, at U.C.
Berkeley

Well, probably not, given what Rubio actually said:

[http://www.rubio.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2017/2/senate-f...](http://www.rubio.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2017/2/senate-
floor-speech-rubio-urges-both-parties-to-show-civility)

The context of the speech was regarding the vote to prevent Elizabeth Warren
from reading Coretta Scott King's letter opposing Jeff Sessions.

>These are the continuing rules of the Senate that have been in existence
previous to this time and have carried over into this session, is that
correct?

>I imagine many people were not excited about the fact that [Hillary Clinton]
would be secretary of state, to my recollection, and perhaps I’m incorrect,
not a single one of those horrible things that have been written said about
her, some of which actually did accuse her of wrongdoing, were ever uttered on
the floor of the Senate.

I lose track of the ironies here. There's the irony of Rubio lamenting we are
"becoming a society incapable of having debate anymore" while in the very
process of shutting down debate. There's also the irony of an article with the
quote "The less we know about the mind of another, the more we use our own to
fill in the blanks", that filled in blanks of Rubio's speech that didn't
actually exist.

~~~
dforrestwilson1
Is it a debate though? It was a dredged up letter from the 1980s, and didn't
the initial dredger express regret about doing it?

~~~
isleyaardvark
You could call it "dredged up", or you could call it a letter from a civil
rights leader vigorously opposing his appointment as a judge that would still
have relevance to him being appointed as AG.

As for regret, I haven't seen anything about Coretta Scott King changing her
opinion, and if you're talking about whoever found that letter and spread it
around, I don't see how that would be relevant. I don't know where you're
getting this info.

------
DougN7
You know, I'm about to give up. There are a small number of people that can
see how blinding hate is. How automatically demonizing the other side prevents
any real discussion and understanding. But that minority is so small, I don't
know what to do about it anymore. I occasionally try to say something like
that on FB and it's drowned out by all of the quick 'gotcha' memes being
posted. I don't even like having lunch with a bunch of buddies (all smart
IT/programmer types) because their idea of discussion is parroting sound bites
at each other. I fear we're doomed.

~~~
gydfi
Find new friends. Move to a more politically diverse area.

I do believe we should go back to the old rule that neither religion nor
politics should be discussed in polite company.

~~~
snarf21
Don't forget sex (sexuality), money and privacy too.

~~~
9q
Now you are a bigot if you don't openly endorse and actively support all the
various life-choices and decisions people make with their sexuality.

I really don't care about what sexuality or gender you identify as. It's
completely irrelevant in working together as a team to build software.

~~~
neptr
In what instances do you find yourself having to openly endorse or actively
support others' decisions in their sexuality to avoid being labelled a bigot?
My personal experience, and intuition for most other walks of life, is that
simply not commenting on or interfering with others' sexuality is enough for
the topic to never come up.

~~~
DougN7
It might not come up on its own. But if you're asked your opinion, and you
don't give the currently popular response, you're in trouble.

I find it hypocritical that you're a bigot to people today if you hold the
same opinions they did 10 years ago. Were they bigots then? How many of us are
horrible bigots for something we think is bad today, but will be just fine in
another decade or two?

------
maxforce
To be left-leaning in the 60s and 70s was to be alternative to the mainstream.
Today, to be left leaning is to be mainstream. Saul Alinksy's work has
undoubtedly been a central tool in this transition. Here are some of Saul
Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals" which succinctly represent the behaviour of
people today:

2\. “Never go outside the expertise of your people.” It results in confusion,
fear and retreat. Feeling secure adds to the backbone of anyone. 3\. “Ridicule
is man’s most potent weapon.” There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s
infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into
concessions. 13\. “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize
it.” Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go
after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions.

Source:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rules_for_Radicals](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rules_for_Radicals)

~~~
dragonwriter
> To be left-leaning in the 60s and 70s was to be alternative to the
> mainstream. Today, to be left leaning is to be mainstream.

Not really. It's true that a position left of the center _established by the
balance of the parties in government_ is mainstream in the population, but
that's because the parties in government have moved right relative to the
population (the Republican party consistently, the Democratic Party merely on
average as a result of the big rightward jump of the Clintonian "third way",
from which there has been some subsequent minor movement back toward the left,
with some ambiguous signalling that bigger moves in that direction are
possible in the near future.)

~~~
maxforce
Conservatives and religious people are unquestionably a very small minority
and openly discriminated against within academia. What you're describing may
be true of the US federal politics, what I'm referring to is more widespread
change for example in academia, media and also policy globally. This reminds
me of an article I read about a black christian academic reporting that he
suffers greater discrimination for being christian then for being black:
[https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/08/opinion/sunday/a-confessi...](https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/08/opinion/sunday/a-confession-
of-liberal-intolerance.html)

------
kolbe
And as true as that statement is, we aren't even to the point where that bias
can take effect. We rarely even read what people say: we read what journalists
choose to write about what people say.

~~~
6stringmerc
...and people with skills in communication will use Dog Whistle type
terminology or purposefully phrase their remarks so that journalists will
hopefully pick up their statement and deliver it as intended.

Sort of like how time and again I keep hearing "This bill is about the
protection of Young Boys and Girls!" regarding the Gender Identity Restroom
bill, when statistically speaking, Young Boys or Girls are more at risk from
abuse by their close family. Journalists aren't, in theory, supposed to point
out the hollow, rather ludicrous assault on intelligence the "Think of the
children!" argument is in this regard - that's for the public, you and me, to
figure out. Unfortunately, I guess, considering the state of things.

~~~
gukov
It's 2017 and people still prefer to look at the world through someone else's
lens.

~~~
6stringmerc
Probably more a human nature / social hierarchical / evolutionary thing than
we'd care to admit. It's a weakness on an individual level, it may seem.

------
hkmurakami
This reminds me of a problem I have in my day to day life, where I am told
something negative about such and such person's character/ability/personality
and I immediately subconsciously accept this as an absolute fact, even when
I've never met this person!

(one example I can think of is believing hearsay personality portrayals of Joe
Lonsdale online. I've never met the guy so who knows what he's actually like!)

Still looking for the best ways to counteract this flinch reaction I seem to
have of hearing hearsay about a person.

------
nailer
I wonder if a large chunk of the audience read this article's position that
they should listen to other people, threw away this idea because they couldn't
empathise with the author, and didn't watch the video, confirming the research
mentioned.

~~~
aaron-lebo
It can't really be as simple as reading vs hearing though.

People watch videos of political opponents all the time and don't relate to
them better afterwards. How does Jon Stewart exist if that's the case? How
does Hannity?

What's missing?

~~~
nailer
Political pundits generally play small soundbytes of their opposition, then
afford themselves a 10 minute rant.

~~~
aaron-lebo
Would you relate to Trump more if you had to watch him for an hour? Would
anyone but supporters?

~~~
Spooky23
If you watch him critically, you'd see there's more depth than the cartoon
character that you typically see. I don't agree with his politics and
methods... but he isn't some bumpkin. He is genuine in his fakeness.

Supporters hear the (real) problems he describes and a commitment to fix it.
The details are where it breaks down.

Many public people who are good at what they do are amazing at flattening
complex problems and making people understand and agree. Bill Clinton in his
prime was capable of that -- he had a Steve Jobs like magnetic force.

If you look at some of more right-wing political people, many of them lack
charisma, but use speech and body language techniques that are taught to
evangelical pastors and others and are really effective in those audiences,
but come off creepy to others. Kinda like how Mormons are awesome
telemarketers because of skills acquired on missionary work.

~~~
u_wot_m8
this, look at the 180 switch in his persona from the 80s to after his
struggles in the 90s. He was fairly soft-spoken and thoughtful then
transitioned to his current brash persona to build his brand to do licensing
deals.

Combined with the fact he may be suffering from early Alzheimer's/dementia
like his father and you have present day Trump.

------
LoonyBalloony
Can I share a video that (IMO) is relevant?

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rE3j_RHkqJc](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rE3j_RHkqJc)

~~~
dtech
More relevant: this is the theory of memes [1], which the author avoids
because that word has a very different connotation because of the internet.

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meme](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meme)

~~~
gukov
Humor is the best way to learn. One side learns about the world by seeing
memes, the other side by watching SNL. One thing is grassroots, the other one
is paid propaganda.

------
Mikeb85
The irony is that Milo is a classical liberal. Lots of his headlines are
provocative, once upon a time people understood what rhetoric was. Now people
just want an echo chamber, and rail against anyone who disagrees with their
group.

Also, kudos to the ACLU for supporting Milo's right to free speech. Liberalism
is about freedom, not forcing everyone to agree with you.

------
guelo
It's hard to take this seriously when the two examples are of fringe extreme
leftists while mainstream conservative's hate of liberals is the main driving
ideology of the party in power right now.

~~~
makomk
Unfortunately, from what I've seen support for those "fringe extreme leftists"
has become an expected norm on a surprisingly wide chunk of social media, and
probably a more-or-less mandatory part of leftwing activism. Opposing it marks
you out as a neo-Nazi sympathizer or worse in those circles. There was even
something of a backlash against the ACLU for taking the other side, though
more muted and conciliatory than the treatment less prominent individuals
received.

In unrelated news, I'm currently looking for better social circles.

~~~
AstralStorm
The problem is, even-handed people don't form circles, they form networks.

------
Sideloader
Is Rubio part of the apocalypse cult advocating a confrontation with Russia to
"punish" it for transgressions for which no proof has been brought forward?

If so, "rational" isn't really his strongpoint.

~~~
AstralStorm
But it's what you're saying his actual position or an interpretation of it?

------
daleharvey
Not entirely sure what this article is trying to say, if we heard Milo's
accent when he talks about how feminism is cancer that we would believe he is
a real human being?

~~~
mynameishere
I don't give a fig about "Milo", but what do you think when a noted feminist
declares an entire race the "cancer of human history" [1]? How should people,
whether on the left, right, or whatever, view this opinion? Scorn? Rioting?
Approval? By denying her humanity? I'm guessing, if you are like most
leftists, you would view such remarks with a mix of indifference and
agreement.

[1]
[https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Susan_Sontag](https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Susan_Sontag)

~~~
mirimir
Well, she did declare that in 1967. It was an understandable reaction to the
whole "white man's burden" thing behind colonialism.

------
MrsPeaches
Did they control for accents and pronunciation?

E.g. I thought the guy in the video sounded less likely to be the barer of
truth when he mispronounced divisive, compared to when I read the text.

~~~
uxp100
An uncommon pronunciation. I believe its the one Obama used though.

------
aaron-lebo
delete: misread article, being a pedant, ignore

That Rubio quote is completely nonsensical though. Uh, Marco, the 1960s were
worse...

~~~
nerdponx
I read this the other way around. This behavior of hating people you've never
met is nothing new. It's a familiar pattern.

------
kmicklas
I know a few alt-right types in real life (one unfortunately being one of my
roommates). They are absolutely as insufferable face to face as they are
online. If anything I hate them more because I have direct confirmation that
they are despicable people and not just trolls with poor taste.

~~~
DougN7
There are despicable people in all groups - left, right and center. The trick
is not to assume they're all the same, and stop listening to all of them. Most
importantly, they'll never learn from you and perhaps change if they have to
put their guard up when you're around. They don't realize the same is true for
everyone that disagrees with them too.

~~~
kmicklas
Of course there are despicable people of all political stripes. There are no
non-despicable white nationalists though, which is the difference I am
pointing out.

~~~
DougN7
I'd bet most of them were raised that way and just don't have enough outside
experience. I have two data points:

1\. I worked with an otherwise very bright guy who thought I was insane for
wanting to visit Western Europe, because they'd slit my throat for being
American. And this was 10 years ago! He's lived a sheltered life but doesn't
realize it, and get too much news from one source.

2\. My grandmother, one of the sweetest people ever, warned me about "negroes"
and staying away from them. She was just a product of her upbringing. Over the
years (and after moving out of her small town), she very much changed.

Not that many people really want to be evil. Some do, but not most. I find
it's usually ignorance. Talking nicely with them is what changes them. I
personally hold a belief, and someone from the opposite side of the issue has
engaged with me. I ponder it quite a bit, and see their side more humanely
than previously.

