You Should Admit Politically Inconvenient Truths

Don't lie about a subject because telling the truth sounds like agreeing with your political opponents

Recently, friend of the blog Jesse Singal did a podcast debate with a fellow named Lance, who runs the YouTube channel “The Serfs.” Apparently, the prelude was that Lance was critical of Jesse, so Jesse invited him on the podcast. Lance accepted and thus a very weird debate was born.

First for background: Lance is a fairly stereotypical ironic leftist. Just imagine the standard Twitter user who spends most of their time sneering and dunking, never admitting that an issue is complicated or that the other side might have a good point. In deBoer’s words, Lance has “mastered that irony boy leftist thing of being unblinkingly sarcastic at all times except in those moments in which social justice mores demand the right-thinking be sincere, at which point [he transitions] seamlessly to witless sincerity.”

The debate mostly consisted of Lance confronting Jesse on trans issues. Jesse’s position is roughly:

1. We don’t have very good data on the effects of so-called gender-affirming care in trans youth.

2. It should probably be given to trans youth in some cases, but only after pretty thorough evaluations.

3. Often existing evaluations are inadequately thorough.

4. The studies that have been done on the subject are generally not very good.

Much of the debate involved Lance attempting increasingly desperate and deeply strange gotchas that had odds of being persuasive so low that John Conway would need to invent ever more exotic infinitesimals to represent them.¹ For instance, Lance tried to get Jesse to admit that gender dysphoria was classified by the DSM as a mental disorder rather than a mental illness—as if this was a very substantial difference. Lance also claimed repeatedly that there was a very broad scientific consensus around the efficacy of gender-affirming care, usually citing statements from various highly-political organizations backed-up with rather shoddy evidence. Then, when Jesse levied specific and granular criticisms of the evidence base, Lance didn’t want to discuss them, preferring to make sweeping and general statements about the scientific consensus.

Lance also seemed to think there were many well-done studies demonstrating the efficacy of gender-affirming care for minors, but it seems he hadn’t read most of the studies he cited. He probably just went on Google Scholar, typed in “efficacy of gender affirming care,” found a few abstracts that agreed with him, maybe briefly skimmed the studies, and decided to wheel them out in the debate. Jesse, in contrast, had written in detail about all the studies he cited, and had detailed explanations of why they were not convincing.

But Lance’s criticism was a bit broader. The extent of their factual disagreement wasn’t huge. His bigger worry was that Jesse provided fodder for the Nancy Maces of the world—individuals trying to ban gender affirming care and pass laws that are pointlessly cruel to trans people. Jesse, by writing critically about some of the studies that had been done on the subject, allowed right-wingers to say “even many reasonable left-wingers agree with us on this—see Jesse Singal for instance.”

Lance’s view seemed to be that even if Singal was right about the science, he shouldn’t talk openly about the low quality of the studies done on the subject for fear of providing ammunition to those with genuinely noxious opinions about trans people. Jesse, in Lance’s view, was an unwitting tool of those with far-right opinions on trans issues.

Similarly, a friend of mine recently criticized me for my article on climate change, in which I argued climate change is not an existential threat. Though my friend mostly agreed with the substance of my article, he worried that describing it as non-existential provided ammunition to those who deny it’s a threat at all (though how an article where I say climate change will likely kill millions of people and provide a comprehensive 10,000-word analysis of its likely effects can be said to downplay climate risks and play into the hands of climate change deniers is beyond me!)

Attitudes like this are widespread. Lots of people think you shouldn’t express politically inconvenient truths, because if you do, you’ll provide ammunition to those who you disagree with.

I think this idea is dead wrong. And it’s extremely dangerous.

To use the example that kicked off this article, consider the likely effect of Jesse Singal criticizing studies on gender-affirming care being given to minors that he thinks are poorly done. First of all, it leaves people more informed about the subject. If gender-affirming care really does work spectacularly well, you shouldn’t need to rely on shitty studies to prove it!

If you just brazenly lie about a topic, pretending that bad studies are good, then you’ll look foolish. Your side will make worse arguments because they refuse to abandon unconvincing arguments. The people who understand those arguments will think your side has to lie to convince. You lose your credibility when you lie or mislead or play dumb to avoid admitting politically-inconvenient truths.

Second, while it’s possible that some people on the right will use Singal as ammunition for their side, they might also be influenced by Singal to have more reasonable views. A right-winger might start reading Singal, thinking of him as a reasonable and nuanced voice on the subject. Then, when he writes things they disagree with—about, for instance, the horror of Trump’s deportations, the devastating effects of draconian Republican laws targeting trans people, the mass deaths caused by foreign aid cuts, and so on—they’re more likely to change their minds.

Agreeing with your political enemies might make your political enemies more confident in the things you agree with them about. But crucially, it will make them respect you more. They’re more likely to listen to you if you and they have some common ground. One of the big things that made me less libertarian in middle school was listening a lot to David Pakman. But I only respected him enough to listen to his takes on things I thought he was wrong about because he told the truth about Reza Aslan being a crazy liar.

Admitting to politically inconvenient truths gives everyone a more nuanced perspective. People on the other side come to think that your side is more reasonable, and willing to admit to obvious truths. People on your side will come to see the issue as more complicated. A world with less pompous, condescending preening, and greater understanding of nuance is less dogmatic.

Early in the pandemic, Fauci lied about masks. He said they didn’t work when he believed they did, so that people wouldn’t buy out all the masks, leaving fewer for healthcare providers. Then, shortly after, he reversed his position. This kind of deceit, even if well-intentioned, hurts one’s credibility. Probably the biggest anti-vaccine talking point is that we can’t trust a medical establishment that admits to knowingly lying. Had Fauci not lied, many more people would have been vaccinated.

The Democratic cover-up of Biden’s cognitive impairment is one of the big reasons Trump is the president. If Biden’s handlers hadn’t believed that they had a moral duty to cover up his mental decline, so as to keep him around as a candidate, there could have been a far more vibrant primary process. Perhaps a more palatable Democrat could have been elected and beaten Trump.

The people covering-up Biden’s mental decline weren’t bad people. They had an agenda that was, in various ways, admirable. They wanted Biden to win—and didn’t want the election to be given to the malevolent buffoon who is our current president. But because of this, they were willing to lie, to distort, to mislead, all in order to prevent the voters from having an accurate picture of what Biden was like. Because they thought they knew better than the voters, they covered-up Biden’s mental decline. This majorly damaged trust in the Democratic establishment—who could trust such duplicitous liars?

There’s a kind of hubris behind the idea that you shouldn’t admit to politically inconvenient truths. It relies on the notion that you know what is correct better than others, you know which conclusions are correct and which ones should be suppressed. But you shouldn’t be so certain that you are correct. Likely the best process for coming to the truth will be one in which everyone is informed.

Yes, perhaps admitting to inconvenient truths will result in people on the other side amplifying your admission. But it’s better to amplify the admission of a nuanced, reasonable moderate, than to only amplify extremists. If moderates admit to inconvenient truths and respond to them in a nuanced way, then others who recognize those inconvenient truths will be less likely to drift into extremism. It will no longer be true that all the people who admit to those inconvenient truths are radical right-wingers.

One of the reasons so many people respect

Richard Hanania

is that he’s willing to attack his own side. He’ll write a giant essay about how stupid Trumpism is, and then at the end say that you should still vote for him because the Democrats are maybe, possibly, slightly worse (though he now regrets his Trump vote). If you’re honest and critical of your own side, the other side will take your criticisms a lot more seriously. Partisan hackery is not a recipe for persuasion.

I’ve been doing a lot of preaching here, so let me admit to some inconvenient truths. As a pro-gender-affirming care, pro-immigration, anti-Trump, vegan, capitalist, let me admit to 8 inconvenient truths:

1. The Nordic countries have a shockingly large degree of control over the economy and yet still function pretty well.

2. Lots of immigrants from Muslim countries, bring bad and unamerican values (though to tell the truth, I think a lot of Americans also have bad and unamerican values).

3. Rapid onset gender dysphoria is pretty plausible.

4. It’s not super clear that wild-caught fish or beef increase animal suffering when wild-animals are taken into account. I think they probably do, but it’s not super obvious.

5. There might be something to the madman theory of international relations, where a president who is nutty and erratic can deter foreign adversaries.

6. Operation Warp Speed was very good.

7. The Soviet Union had remarkably quick GDP growth in its early years of industrialization.

8. Pasture-raised animals might have nice lives overall (though maybe not because of genetic engineering, and even if they do I think you probably shouldn’t eat them).

While there’s some chance that sharing these truths will result in people doing things I think are bad, like eating meat or voting for Trump, I think it’s more likely it will prompt good behavior. Sunlight is generally the best disinfectant. If you find yourself needing to mislead others to get them to agree with you, you should seriously worry that the arguments for your position just aren’t good enough. If you want to bring about a more informed and reasonable world, you shouldn’t lie all the time or cover up the truth.

1. This joke was made to me by Aron Wall over email. I have stolen it!