Thanks for using my method :) I like your metaphorical court of law.

Your most recent arguments were:

・It’s important that wrong-doers are able to be found guilty.

・The situation plays a role in the severity of the punishment, but that doesn’t change that fact a wrong-doer is guilty. (I think that’s a good description of affirmative defense)

To continue your train of thought: If a person votes for Trump, it’s important that we are able to accuse them of that evil. It’s true that they could have a good reason for doing so, but to assume that would allow evil in general to go unpunished. We have to make a judgment based on the facts we have or we can’t make progress.

After re-reading the conversation from the beginning I want to reword what I believe your core arguments to be:

・Look, people make evil decisions. They are still humans, but we can’t let that prevent us from fighting back. Ultimately, supporting someone who’s legitimately racist is pretty fucked up, you can’t deny that.

・If you haven’t heard a good reason to do an evil thing, than don’t assume there is one. This isn’t to say the reason doesn’t exist, but we have to “sentence the defendant” based on the facts we currently know.

I’ve been convinced. I have to admit that I think I could have seen your point sooner if I wasn’t affected by bias. I think I was falling to the same trap as @[email protected] because my family is very conservative. It’s difficult to accuse people you care for.

I think that @[email protected] and I both had the same gut instinct to defend someone against a seemingly brash insult. Our conversation made me realize that being “nice” in that way is flawed.

(Dark_arc and Greg, I mentioned you because I’m curious to know if you agree with where this argument went, please comment if you feel so inclined).

That being said, you and I never addressed the intercept article specifically. We discussed people who are not racist but still vote for trump. The article discusses people who are racist themselves. I’m willing to leave the conversation here, because I don’t think the article is very useful in itself.

Thank you for the thorough reply!

We’re still misunderstanding each other. Before we can have a truly productive argument we need to better understand the other’s point, (of course). I draw your attention to the fact that I summarized what I think your argument is. In general I am attempting to disprove the summery using “moderate-ism.”

“To vote for Trump requires an inherently flawed point of view; it’s important for us to be moral people. Voting for Trump would support racism. This would be so morally reprehensible that there is nothing with enough significance to out-weigh it. Therefore, do not vote for Trump.”

I find these types summaries useful for a couple reasons. First, it allows me to verify I understand your point correctly. Secondly, when I’m making a rebuttal, it allows me to attack things which are implied in your argument but not explicitly said; It allows me to take the implicit and make it explicit. I will summarize your points similarly for the rest of our discourse. Please give them your best lawyerly eye and correct me as necessary. I would appreciate if you would make similar summaries of my arguments. While this does add some overhead to our discussion, it’s easy to see why arguing against a point not fully grasped is futile; The importance of avoiding this warrants precaution. I find several rounds of revising these summaries to be common in my conversations.

This may clarify a repeated misunderstanding in the discussion.

I stated several times that I do not believe all Republicans are racist.

It’s not that all Republicans are racist, it’s that they’re supporting it. Given what you’ve said, you might also say, “To be a racist, and to support a racist, are very close on the spectrum of morality.”

In general I am attempting to disprove the summery using “moderate-ism” (Or dangerous apologism as you might say ;)

I appreciate that you chose to focus on our ideological differences. Here’s where I think the disconnect is: To say that a point-of-view could be valid is different to saying a point-of-view is correct. It follows that a point-of-view can be both valid and incorrect.

By way of example: to actively seek to harm the innocent (those who do not seek to harm) is invalid and incorrect. To prioritize it’s prevention below other things is valid, and the level of prioritization is either correct or incorrect based on how it’s being prioritized.

To take an example from religion: To assert “God is certainly real” or “God is certainly not real” is both invalid and incorrect. However, to take the stance that “he may be real”, or “may not be real” is valid. Furthermore, we simply can’t know if those statements are correct or not. (This may be highly controversial, I’m willing to argue specifically about this point of view, but it’s a different topic).

I assert that to be racist is both invalid and incorrect, but that to support a racist for office is valid, and depending on the situation may be correct or incorrect. To focus on what I believe the important part of our disagreement is, I’m willing to assume that voting for trump is the incorrect choice, on the other hand I’m arguing that it’s valid. To better define “valid” in this context: A point-of-view which takes into account the facts known by that person and draws what would be a correct conclusion given those facts. “Correct” means to understand all the necessary facts and therefore draw the conclusion which is ultimately the truth.

You’re asserting that nothing should out-weigh the fact that he’s racist. Yet, there are certainly valid points-of-view that do out-weigh the fact he’s racist.

I would like to demonstrate this concept more by addressing your other arguments.

I would assert that if you do not have a threshold for deciding that your extended good-faith-assumption is not actually correct in a given instance, you do not have a workable ideology, just dangerous apologism.

The threshold would be different for determining both validity and correctness. However to your point:

If you (or in this case, Greg) do have a threshold, I think it would be productive or even necessary to state where it lies, so that it can be openly interrogated whether that threshold has been crossed.

I admit my threshold is underdeveloped. However, I have shown above that it does exist. I can’t state specifically where it lies, at least very accurately. Can you state your own threshold both generally and accurately? I would like to point out that we may actually be arguing over whether we’ve crossed the threshold for “validity.”

On your second point

why is assuming a group is not bad, more valid than assuming it is?

My original statement was over-generic. I concede that point to you- it’s not more valid. (Valid by the dictionary definition, not my own). However, in regards to the people who will vote for Trump: Given their large quantity and diversity, we can’t assume their point of view is invalid. They could be making the “correct” choice based on the facts they understand. (Though, ultimately they are incorrect).

This again leads to my rebuttal to your main argument stated above. (Rather, to what I believe your argument to be. I’m emphasizing the importance of the summery). You can’t assume that nothing out-weighs the morality of voting for a racist. We don’t know what other “facts” they think they’re working with. Even if they know he’s racist, that’s not enough to condemn their point of view to invalidity.

Granted, I understand that you’ve had many conversations with conservatives. But that’s not enough to claim that every possible point-of-view, which would result in voting for trump, is invalid.

On your third point

[People who vote for Trump] are part of … a group that should in fact be alienated.

It’s not very useful to assume the ignorance of others, except to quash or dismiss criticism.

I assert that based on the size of this group we don’t have enough information to alienate all of them. Similarly we can assume that a notable portion of them are ignorant. I’m not attempting to dismiss your criticism of their correctness. I’m attempting to dismiss your criticism of the validity of their point-of-view.

In any case, thanks for the earnest discussion, as always. :)

Hi! I’d like to budge in here, because while I think that the discourse you’re having is extremely useful, I think you’re missing @[email protected] 's point. I’ve spent a few hours considering your discussion so far, and I have a lot to say about it, so bear with me. If at any point I mischaracterize what has been said, please correct me.

I believe that Greg was arguing for what I’m going to call “moderate-ism.” If that name doesn’t suit you, feel free to change it. The idea he’s trying to convey is complex enough to warrant a name.

As some background, I consider myself agnostic, but I have both religious and atheist friends with strong points-of-view. Your discussion was similar in style to the conversations I’ve had with them. I say this to point out that “moderate-ism” is an idea about how to think about ideas, and is beyond any singular ideology.

I’d like to start by remaking your argument, move onto what the “moderate-ism” idea is, and then how it applies to your situation. Finally I’ll point out where I think the misunderstandings in your conversation were, and how they are similar to other “moderatist” debates that I’ve had.

These are the important points you’ve made: (You made a few others, but I think they were ancillary. I do address some of them later).

“If you “disagree less” with vocal racists who have personal ties with White Nationalist groups… I might have some bad news for you.”

And:

“The problem is, “racism is not as important to me as some other issue” is still a position with its own moral implications.”

As well as:

“[I’m] not saying simply that all Republican voters are racist, [I’m] saying that Trumpism and the surging Christian-Nationalist movement is.”

So, to more accurately convey your point: (and this is where the “correct me” part comes in).

“To vote for Trump requires an inherently flawed point of view; it’s important for us to be moral people. Voting for Trump would support racism. This would be so morally reprehensible that there is nothing with enough significance to out-weigh it. Therefore, do not vote for Trump.”

Note that neither I nor Greg are actually arguing for Trump. We’re arguing for moderate-ism. Assuming that there could be a valid point-of-view is different from believing them.

Lets boil the situation down more: Imagine we have two candidates running for president, but we only know one thing: One is racist; The other is not. The question is: how many valid points-of-view are there that end in voting for the racist? Your statements imply that there are none, but you’re assuming too much. A single point of view is extremely complex, and takes time to digest. If we’re talking about the millions of people who will vote for Trump, and their millions of different points-of-view, you certainly can’t assume most of them are invalid.

To put this in more mathematical terms: Imagine that each point-of-view is a vector. There is a set of point-of-view’s that could be considered valid. We don’t know very much about this set, only that it’s large. Therefore, to assume that this set of valid points-of-view doesn’t contain any which involve voting for Trump, would be to act on knowledge you don’t have.

The idea is more complicated than it seems at first glance. It’s more than just saying “other points-of-view could be valid.” A better simplification would be: Don’t assume that there isn’t a valid point-of-view involving ‘X’ type of belief. In more humanistic terms I’m saying, don’t completely rule out a system of beliefs because there’s a lot you might not understand.

The part of your conversation that reeled me in was when Greg made the following statement: “… Imagine … you were an immigrant from a country that was heavily drone attacked by the US. You might make your voting decisions based on the party that bombed your homeland less.” To which you made an argument as to why that specific statement would be incorrect. Gregg then called this rebuttal a straw-man.

There was a major misunderstanding here. Greg wasn’t actually making that argument. He was simply illustrating that there could be a point-of-view that you haven’t considered; One which is also valid. The difficulty of trying to make the argument in that way, and one that I’ve run into frequently, is that neither he nor I know specifically what that point of view is. If we did, we would believe it, or have disproved it. Rather, we assume that a valid point-of-view may exist; It’s possible we just haven’t come across it yet.

The reason the idea of “moderate-ism” is important, is that it helps a person avoid making broad assumptions about what can and can’t be true. I think this is what Greg meant when he said “Keep an open mind,” and “not everything is black and white.” Moderate-ism also avoids alienating the people in the group you aren’t a part of.

Ultimately most of us want the same things, we just have different idea’s about how to get there; Believing that is called “good faith.” Moderate-ism ties in by helping us work together instead of against each other.

Based on what you’ve already said you may have the following rebuttal:

“[I’m not arguing that their point of view isn’t valid, or that to vote for Trump is inherently wrong. I’m simply saying that] Trump is openly, unapologetically racist and sexist. If you choose to associate with him, you do have to own that.”

Based on the prior discourse, this could be restated: “It’s okay to vote for Trump, if you own that you are a morally reprehensible person.” Most people don’t want to be morally reprehensible. This is effectively making the same argument as I did (for you) above.

(I thought I would have more counter-counter arguments…)

Anyway, I appreciate that you’ve made it this far, and your willingness to discuss your opinions. I’m extremely interested in your thoughts on my “essay”. xD Again, I understand I’m cutting in. Please point out any and all mischaracterizations of your discussion.