
The Death of Civilised Debate - Reedx
https://www.spectator.co.uk/2019/10/the-death-of-civilised-debate/
======
scelerat
Twenty years ago, people's ideas, good or bad, were not immediately published
on a broadband medium available to virtually everyone on the planet, at once.

You had a conversation with your peers. Maybe you got some new ideas from that
conversation and modified your idea. If you were to be published, at the very
least it was reviewed by a local newspaper editor before being published in
the "letters" section. Or it was reviewed by a publisher, or a group of
professional peers.

Now everyone can publish their ideas and opinions immediately, and this is the
result. We are awash in bad ideas. We are awash in misinformed reactions to
good ideas. And because everyone is on a somewhat even playing field (at least
as far as social media goes) people who once relied on authorities, editors
and tastemakers to present them with ideas, are left with few reliable
intellectual guideposts.

------
avmich
> She has been chosen and elevated precisely because she is impossible to
> oppose.

When Al Gore was chosen, he turned out too easy to oppose. Now we need
something better - and fortunately Greta makes herself heard.

I understand "chosen" here as "heard and understood to have valuable ideas by
a critical mass of people".

> I have often wondered about putting out an advert for a disabled Danish
> 14-year-old who loves fossil fuels. In a Scandi child-off with Greta would
> such a candidate win? I suspect not, though it remains unclear what the
> rules are.

Danish - or rather his ideas - would lose, and the rules are simple: respect
facts and logic.

> Last week the bishops of the Church of England called for calm and
> respectful language from parliamentarians in the Brexit debate. An appeal
> that would carry more weight if the Bishop of Leeds — to pick one example —
> had not in January used his pulpit to call Boris Johnson an ‘amoral liar’.

Isn't it a rather old invention - would similar behavior 150 years ago cause
similar response?

> There are ways through. They include us trying to interpret the words of our
> opponents, and not only our allies, in a spirit of generosity. To realise
> that ideas are difficult and that mistakes are a votive offering demanded by
> answers. To treat the past as well as the present in a spirit of toleration
> and understanding. But most of all we must once again permit ourselves the
> messy luxury of heresy, including heretical thinking.

I think it's a good approach.

------
schwartzworld
Garbage opinions:

"The invitation goes like this. ‘Here is our 16-year-old autistic girl. Listen
to her as she demands that you destroy the best system of economic growth.’"

"I have often wondered about putting out an advert for a disabled Danish
14-year-old who loves fossil fuels. In a Scandi child-off with Greta would
such a candidate win?"

This person reveals everything about their politics with this line of
thinking.

------
mark_l_watson
Yes indeed, a lack of respect for people with different opinions is messing up
politics, and general public discourse.

------
mikelyons
There's quite an interesting discussion of this phenomenon called "The War on
Sensemaking" worth watching/listening if you can sit through more than 10
minutes of discussion.

------
nabdab
One of the main hypothesis here is that people are not voicing criticism of
Greta Thunberg because of our current social media environment... at the same
time I see social media littered with conservatives calling her out for being
autistic or not being in school or the supposed double standard of people
listening to 16 year olds political opinions while at the same time having sex
with a 16 year old is statutory rape. We can agree that the civilized part of
the social media debates is under pressure. But I refuse to buy the premise
that it’s because anyone is staying silent.

~~~
blablabla123
And calling her out for being autistic means that the discussion became ad
hominem. Keeping that away from discussions is the lowest standard virtually
everybody agrees on. The article doesn't condemn this, it seems more like a
random rant.

I used to be a big fan of discussions in political talk shows, the kind you
might maybe see on PBS (or C-SPAN). Unfortunately this style is dying out in
the sense that it has no more visibility.

Most discussions visible through media seem to be pretty aggressive and
ignorant of what other people say. To be informed about a topic before joining
the discussion is no more a requirement. This wouldn't be such a big problem
but of course of this omnipresence it's a role model of how people communicate
in everyday life and in the workplace.

