I'm extremely sympathetic to this, but I worry the people who most need to hear it will be the least receptive. The payoff you describe involves seeing political opponents more as misguided friends than as enemies. But, as far as I can tell, the people who really need to hear this message think their political opponents *are* enemies. They think coming to view them as merely misguided friends would be a mistake. So why should they want to make the move you're describing?
You are a paradigm mistake theorist. Me too. But a reason I like the SSC post so much is that it makes clear that there is an alternative approach that--at least if you're a mistake theorist--you'll think you need to persuade people out of.
First, I want to thank Bentham's Bulldog for writing this article! I see this issue come up in my social circles all the time. I've seen people at my school destroy their friendships over Harris vs Trump or Israel vs Palestine (yes, I know two people who were besties and lived together but then broke up their house and no longer talk to each other because they each think the other is a genocidal something), and people have also ended their friendships with me over my controversial views (though to be fair, I hold some views outside the Overton window).
Now, to your point, I think Bentham's argument transcends Scott's distinction. We all have a hard time being friends with people whose views we strongly despise. I tell people to tolerate my views, but then I imagine, what if a Nazi who actually wanted to murder all the Jews demanded that I be his friend? (That would be odd, because I'm Jewish. But imagine otherwise.) Or what if the Nazi wanted an e-board position in a club I'm part of and I'm faced with the dilemma of whether to vote for him? I used to think, along the lines of Scott's post, that a key question was whether the person shares my goals and is mistaken about how to achieve them, or whether they have different goals.
But here Bentham's Bulldog argues that this doesn't matter. You should tolerate anyone with any views because that would make them more receptive to your ideas. He might make an exception if he thinks the e-board position is likely to help our imaginary Nazi in his Nazi goals, but otherwise Bentham's argument seems to be that it's never good to unfriend people.
If only Cenk's conversation with Jared Taylor could have been similarly polite and civilized. I like how Jared Taylor asked Cenk "When exactly did the Great Australian Aboriginal Empire exist?"
I don't necessarily disagree with you. But I'm curious how you think this strategy fares against an opposing team enthusiastic about "playing dirty" and willing to use whatever manipulative, bad-faith tactics in conversations and interviews. I'd argue for civility and friendliness but backed by a spine, being well-prepared to combat grifters & liars with facts, and unwillingness to engage with certain people if they hit a certain threshold of "griftiness."
Bentham's example involved a vegan going on Tucker Carlson's show and engaging with Carlson in a friendly way. Do you feel that Tucker Carlson doesn't reach that threshold?
Persuasion is not accomplished by combat. The goal of appearing on Tucker Carlson is not to convert or defeat Carlson himself -- it's to reach his enormous audience and show them that you're a normal, sympathetic human being with reasonable ideas. Find places of agreement, build rapport from those, then present your point of view on the areas you disagree. That works a lot better than trying to win a debate.
Would this be the same Cenk who slandered Sam Harris as a racist for his criticism of Islam, at direct risk to Harris' life? Wonder how the Leopards Eating Faces Party membership is working out for him.
In my experience, this issue is almost completely one-sided--leftists refuse to have friendly conversations with those on the right (or often, with anyone at all who isn't as far left as they are). Many years ago, I was not nearly so partisan in my political views as I am now, and as a young adult I even started off relatively apolitical. One hundred percent of the time, when someone refused to have a friendly conversation with me and instead insisted that a political discussion must be some kind of death battle, that person was of the left, or was holding the leftist position in the interaction.
One of my first major political interactions was being viciously dog-piled as an evil bigot for making a post critical of feminism on my Facebook. I learned my lesson--I never posted about politics online under my real name, ever again! Navigating social life became trickier and trickier as Trump won his first term and liberals became ever more deranged. When COVID fell upon us, I found that all my liberal "friends" were willing to unperson me overnight for not wanting to wear a mask or stay locked in my apartment alone for 2 years plus. At that point I finally decided that enough was enough and I simply wouldn't be friends with liberals anymore, ever. It's a fool's errand to invest years into "friendships" with people who will casually discard the relationship at the first whiff of wrongthink.
I have not regretted that decision and in the years since have instead regretted that I didn't make it years earlier. Likewise, I cannot think of a single time that I was ever treated this way by anyone on the right, or by someone who was offended because my beliefs weren't right wing enough for them. Not once! And I have had plenty of spirited disagreements with people of the right, both online and in person. Even here on my Substack, so far as I know, I have only ever been blocked by people who are either leftists or who are upset by some position I hold which is to the right of their own.
These days I imagine it is common for right wingers to be hostile to the other side by default, assume bad faith, etc. I have certainly behaved that way at times. But I am old enough to remember that it was not always this way, and to remember which experiences of mine made it this way. The backstabbing and duplicitousness that I've witnessed has guaranteed that I will never "change sides," no matter how many "friendly conversations" I might have. Even if I were to somehow adopt mostly left-wing ideals, I imagine I would still feel more comfortable sitting on the right arguing with right-wingers about them.
I can think of at least one example where someone with right-coded views on an issue (despite his not being on the right overall) refuses to talk to certain people on the left: John McWhorter refuses to talk with Ibram X. Kendi, both because he feels personally insulted and because he views Kendi as a stuffed shirt with little to contribute.
I'm extremely sympathetic to this, but I worry the people who most need to hear it will be the least receptive. The payoff you describe involves seeing political opponents more as misguided friends than as enemies. But, as far as I can tell, the people who really need to hear this message think their political opponents *are* enemies. They think coming to view them as merely misguided friends would be a mistake. So why should they want to make the move you're describing?
The whole issue is strongly reminiscent of Scott Alexander's distinction between conflict theory and mistake theory: https://slatestarcodex.com/2018/01/24/conflict-vs-mistake/
You are a paradigm mistake theorist. Me too. But a reason I like the SSC post so much is that it makes clear that there is an alternative approach that--at least if you're a mistake theorist--you'll think you need to persuade people out of.
First, I want to thank Bentham's Bulldog for writing this article! I see this issue come up in my social circles all the time. I've seen people at my school destroy their friendships over Harris vs Trump or Israel vs Palestine (yes, I know two people who were besties and lived together but then broke up their house and no longer talk to each other because they each think the other is a genocidal something), and people have also ended their friendships with me over my controversial views (though to be fair, I hold some views outside the Overton window).
Now, to your point, I think Bentham's argument transcends Scott's distinction. We all have a hard time being friends with people whose views we strongly despise. I tell people to tolerate my views, but then I imagine, what if a Nazi who actually wanted to murder all the Jews demanded that I be his friend? (That would be odd, because I'm Jewish. But imagine otherwise.) Or what if the Nazi wanted an e-board position in a club I'm part of and I'm faced with the dilemma of whether to vote for him? I used to think, along the lines of Scott's post, that a key question was whether the person shares my goals and is mistaken about how to achieve them, or whether they have different goals.
But here Bentham's Bulldog argues that this doesn't matter. You should tolerate anyone with any views because that would make them more receptive to your ideas. He might make an exception if he thinks the e-board position is likely to help our imaginary Nazi in his Nazi goals, but otherwise Bentham's argument seems to be that it's never good to unfriend people.
If only Cenk's conversation with Jared Taylor could have been similarly polite and civilized. I like how Jared Taylor asked Cenk "When exactly did the Great Australian Aboriginal Empire exist?"
I don't necessarily disagree with you. But I'm curious how you think this strategy fares against an opposing team enthusiastic about "playing dirty" and willing to use whatever manipulative, bad-faith tactics in conversations and interviews. I'd argue for civility and friendliness but backed by a spine, being well-prepared to combat grifters & liars with facts, and unwillingness to engage with certain people if they hit a certain threshold of "griftiness."
Bentham's example involved a vegan going on Tucker Carlson's show and engaging with Carlson in a friendly way. Do you feel that Tucker Carlson doesn't reach that threshold?
Persuasion is not accomplished by combat. The goal of appearing on Tucker Carlson is not to convert or defeat Carlson himself -- it's to reach his enormous audience and show them that you're a normal, sympathetic human being with reasonable ideas. Find places of agreement, build rapport from those, then present your point of view on the areas you disagree. That works a lot better than trying to win a debate.
Would this be the same Cenk who slandered Sam Harris as a racist for his criticism of Islam, at direct risk to Harris' life? Wonder how the Leopards Eating Faces Party membership is working out for him.
In my experience, this issue is almost completely one-sided--leftists refuse to have friendly conversations with those on the right (or often, with anyone at all who isn't as far left as they are). Many years ago, I was not nearly so partisan in my political views as I am now, and as a young adult I even started off relatively apolitical. One hundred percent of the time, when someone refused to have a friendly conversation with me and instead insisted that a political discussion must be some kind of death battle, that person was of the left, or was holding the leftist position in the interaction.
One of my first major political interactions was being viciously dog-piled as an evil bigot for making a post critical of feminism on my Facebook. I learned my lesson--I never posted about politics online under my real name, ever again! Navigating social life became trickier and trickier as Trump won his first term and liberals became ever more deranged. When COVID fell upon us, I found that all my liberal "friends" were willing to unperson me overnight for not wanting to wear a mask or stay locked in my apartment alone for 2 years plus. At that point I finally decided that enough was enough and I simply wouldn't be friends with liberals anymore, ever. It's a fool's errand to invest years into "friendships" with people who will casually discard the relationship at the first whiff of wrongthink.
I have not regretted that decision and in the years since have instead regretted that I didn't make it years earlier. Likewise, I cannot think of a single time that I was ever treated this way by anyone on the right, or by someone who was offended because my beliefs weren't right wing enough for them. Not once! And I have had plenty of spirited disagreements with people of the right, both online and in person. Even here on my Substack, so far as I know, I have only ever been blocked by people who are either leftists or who are upset by some position I hold which is to the right of their own.
These days I imagine it is common for right wingers to be hostile to the other side by default, assume bad faith, etc. I have certainly behaved that way at times. But I am old enough to remember that it was not always this way, and to remember which experiences of mine made it this way. The backstabbing and duplicitousness that I've witnessed has guaranteed that I will never "change sides," no matter how many "friendly conversations" I might have. Even if I were to somehow adopt mostly left-wing ideals, I imagine I would still feel more comfortable sitting on the right arguing with right-wingers about them.
I can think of at least one example where someone with right-coded views on an issue (despite his not being on the right overall) refuses to talk to certain people on the left: John McWhorter refuses to talk with Ibram X. Kendi, both because he feels personally insulted and because he views Kendi as a stuffed shirt with little to contribute.
opposed to atheism, Mormonism, Islam, and the like......hmmmmmm . Like Jews?