Not sure how often I will do this, but I'd like to try something called "fisking," though what I actually produce will usually be a poor example of it. I would rather get my thoughts out, in a broken form, than miss getting them out there while I wait for the opportunity to more clearly articulate them.
My first one is based on an article that I encountered in my Del.icio.us network (that links to my own bookmarks, but I'm referring to a bookmark somebody else in my network posted.) The article is: How to Respond to Conservatives, and my response to it is:
The first half of this document is basic conversation/debate tactics. It makes the claim that conservatives are emotional and unreasonable, even though you could easily swap in a person with any ideology for that. They are attacks on the person, not the topic. They highlight the flow of the conversation over the content. The problem is he slides in content: i.e., diverting a pro-lifer by saying "by all means then, you should not have one". You should be careful what you learn from this article, because it provides no means for dialog, and very little means for reason.
The second half of this document is entirely about persuasion. It establishes liberals as a wall of truth, and teaches you how to extend your territory without ever giving any up. Amazingly, it again makes no space for honest 2-way dialog with "truth" being the goal. Instead, your own ideas, the vague ideas behind liberalism, are the goal.
The fact of the matter is, dividing the world into two camps: liberals/progressives/leftists and conservatives/rightists, is no better than dividing the world into democrats and republicans, which creates absolutely no real "progress", because it both polarizes people, and obscures ideas.
7 comment(s):
Its interesting, I read the article, then your post, and had to go back an re-read that article to see your points. Not that they weren't there the first time, particularly the portrayal of individuals with conservative positions as being emotional, but for whatever reason, I didn't pick that up the first time.
My initial reaction was that to agree that framing the language used in a dialogue is very important to ensure that the most amount of communication and understanding can take place, but that the author approached the dialogue with an arrogance and condescending attitude that was unfortunate.
I still think that "semantics" is a huge part of a discussion, because people have to agree on the language they are using in order to agree on the ideas the language is expressing. But people also need to always be respectful and open when discussing, which the author did not seem to care about.
I am intrigued, again, by the fact that our initial reaction to the article took us different places...which I think lends credibility to agreeing on the language used during a discussion.
Anyway, sorry for the long comment, just found your "fisking" interesting and hope that you will continue to share the thoughts in the blogosphere, if for nothing else than for reasonable and civil discussions and not name throwing and other ad hominen attacks.
Both of your comments on the article make me think about the Scripture about being as wise as serpents, as gentle as doves.
Sometimes even though the person discussing or debating is speaking the Truth, yet they are bowled over by their "opponent's" expertise in arguing.
Talking politically and arguing like a lawyer are skills that every debater can acquire and hone with use. Even conservatives. Especially conservatives. Persuasion can be used for the good, too.
To me it was obvious that the author of the article was not interested in being fair, rather, in winning with rhetoric. Reframing issues purposely to throw the debate back into your own court is a tactic we should recognize and, sometimes, employ. Do you agree?
from Calvin & Hobbes:
Calvin: "When a person pauses in mid-sentence to choose a word, that's the best time to jump in and change the subject! It's like an interception in football! You grab the other guy's idea and run the opposite way with it! The more sentences you complete, the higher your score! The idea is to block the other guy's thoughts and express your own! That's how you win!"
Hobbes: "Conversations aren't contests!"
Calvin: "OK, a point for you, but I'm still ahead."
For starters, your statement about getting thoughts out rather than waiting for an opportunity to articulate them is quite interesting and so noted. I say this because, from my own experience, over thinking can occur while pondering an opinion and preparing to wax lyrical. Thus leaving open the opportunity to withdraw from displaying one's convictions in lieu of presenting a more tactical argument. Though I never want to mask my convictions they have, at times, succumbed my inability to articulate them within the context of a debate.
Regarding the article; the context of which have caught my attention. It brings to mind the unfortunate direction of our national debates. Whereas the political actors engage more in tactics rather than ideology. The article, as its title so eloquently puts it, focuses on how to re-frame a debate as to gain an upper-hand and shift the argument to one's side. Although the author focused on the liberal side of issues, the same tactics can be, and are, applied by conservatives. It seems, we've arrived at a point where the context has become more important than the contents.
Of course everyone has their own beliefs on what is the proper and appropriate agenda. Even the political actors hold their own beliefs and, to some degree articulate them. However, when debating issues it is more a matter of winning the debate rather than presenting their ideologies. Many races have been won by the candidate who didn't, necessarily, speak about or debate the issues. Rather it was the candidate who was able to re-frame the race based on subverting the issues and confounding the electorate. Tactics.
Often times we hear the question "Who won that debate?" This fits snuggly into our current state of politics because candidates do not stand with conviction on issues. Unfortunately, often times, the "winner" is the one who simply presented the more tactical debate.
"Reframing issues purposely to throw the debate back into your own court is a tactic we should recognize and, sometimes, employ."
Anne: I do mostly agree. I suppose I should be careful in conceptualizing this tactic; when I think about tactics and "throwing" in general, I think of a battlefield. :) I personally see more challenge in being innocent as a dove than as being wise as a serpent. But that's just me, because I already naturally try to be wise as a serpent, so I need to balance out. :-P
Debates can be fun, but until you've both established that you will happily submit to reason, and to love, then the debate will - among any number of other good or bad results - not particularly arrive at truth for both participants.
I have been blessed to have several different jobs over the years working with Christians, even POP brothers and sisters. Discussions in those situations stem from the practice of accumulated wisdom and years of teaching and tradition, so naturally the ground rules there would be unique.
But I live in a world that's got some real problems and, even as I pray for its healing, I muster all my intellectual (and other) forces to persuade and dissuade, to encourage and advise, to confront and question those with whom I have contact. If I can help someone to see more clearly or to choose the good, or contain their sin, then I've got to make the effort.
For ten years I worked for a woman professor of economics (with whom I had considerable ideological differences), but whom I greatly respect. She astounded me by her dogged energy, her compassion, and her kindness as she worked tirelessly to instruct and persuade others of what she believed.
I watched "Once" last night and I've been thinking about the importance of consciously doing the little things for others' benefit. Something we might not even recall may impact another person's life forever.
I made a promise to myself to write down all the good things my parents did during their lifetimes, so that I wouldn't forget them and so that I could savor their goodness and stir up gratitude.
Too many topics. Work to do!
Anne, thanks for the reminder that we should work with whatever we've got. There are many unique situations that we can affect for good, all of them different in little ways, different in how ideal they may seem to us. Thanks for the reminder that some people need their hand held while others simply need to see logic. Most importantly, that the uniting perspective is that it's about what "good" is. A more useful understanding than simply "truth".
Post a Comment