So, it should come as no surprise that when the level of debate devolves to ad hominem, physical violence often erupts. In the United States today, the level of debate is quite bad when it comes to just about anything political. On the left there is a lot of: "Anyone right of me is a racist Nazi and Trump is Hitler. And on the right there is a lot of: "Anyone left of me is a globalist new-world-order shill, godless commie who wants to put me in a gulag."
Since the establishment media (as well as academia) in the U.S. is left wing in bias, it consistently shuts down debate that challenges left wing ideology and so replaces debate with straw men. Even the establishment right wing media (Fox News) is careful not to stray too far right. Therefore, in a Dostoevsky-esque fashion, the right in its many forms is driven underground to mostly the internet.
Balancing the narratives between the left and right to carry out a debate in my own mind follows a very simple formula: the Golden Rule. I ask myself: does what these people are advocating allow for and support the initiation of force (aggression against non-aggressors)? If so, these people advocate force and so ultimately advocate their own demise. Debate over, they lose. Because if aggression against non-aggressors is okay, then it's also okay when you are on the wrong end of the very aggression you support.
When I run these left vs. right debates in my mind I consistently concluded that the left and the right are both inherently violent creeps that support the initiation of force lol. That doesn't necessarily make them bad people but it does make them very bad philosophers and so dangerous. Bad philosophers tend not to appreciate the value of legitimate debate and logical consistency.
The 8/12/17 Charlottesville, Virginia incident was a prime example of lack of debate. The event arose over an old inanimate statue in a public space and escalated into violent conflict leading to death (one of many reasons I'm against public property). It was a little civil war that never would have happened if nobody came to make it two sided. In the lefty guilt projection fantasy of the Charlottesville incident, everyone there from the left was an angel, everyone there from the right was a violent Nazi, including regular people who just like old statues, and Trump is Hitler. In the right wing guilt projection fantasy of the Charlottesville incident, everyone there from the right, except for a handful of Nazi/KKK types, was peaceful and lawful and it was the left (paticularly Antifa) that provoked the violence. Obviously, the truth is somewhere in between those two guilt-projection fantasies to anyone not blinded by their own guilt projection. That's even what Trump said, but any excuse to feed the Trump is Hitler confirmation bias is grasped by the guilt projectors to create hysteria and manipulate the guilty lol. Nonetheless, just as the loser in any debate is he who resorts to ad hominem first, once debate is abandoned and violence breaks out he who kills someone first is the loser. In this instance, the Nazis lost against Antifa because the one killer was on the Nazi side.
It's pretty easy to win a debate against a Nazi in the eyes of rational people (emotional people too but only through persuasion not logic). Nazis believe in initiating force and therefore their arguments support force. But as long as Nazis don't actually initiate force, their beliefs are hypothetical. Thought can't be made a crime and in the U.S. it is part of first amendment freedom of speech to express thoughts. Nazism is just one of many ideologies born out of the human drive to project guilt; it's a fantasy that says if I could just get rid of these certain people from having control over me I'd be happy, free, and prosperous. On the flip side, multiculturalism is another ideology that appeals to the human drive to project guilt; it's a fantasy that says if I could just get rid of racists and bigots from having control over me I'd be happy, free, and prosperous. In both instances, people want freedom from a perceived force that has detrimental control of them. One group wants to control race the other thought. Instead, they should concentrate on simply eliminating force, which is the common foe of both projected on the other. Guilt projection appeals to emotion not reason and so those driven by emotion tend to do what they would defend against.
If you initiate force against a Nazi to silence a Nazi you are being a Nazi. Which is why the Antifa left is so often a walking contradiction and those supporting them are deluded. Antifa is supposed to stand for Anti-fascism, but too often Antifa takes on the role of anti-first-amendment by being violent fascists themselves to shut down free speech they don't like. And although the left wing media doesn't like to criticize Antifa (yet), in the age of the internet anyone can look up videos of Antifa being violent creeps pepper spraying people (including journalists), hurling feces and bricks, vandalizing, etc. Nazis don't have a monopoly on being violent creeps lol. But when did hypocrisy ever matter in the realm of politics?
Unfortunately, most people are bad philosophers and believe in force (aggression against non-aggressors). For instance, if you believe in taxation, you believe in aggression against non-aggressors. But at least most people do not believe in force when it comes to race. Yes, when force meets race, such as in instances like white nationalism, that is dumb. But black nationalism, Chicano nationalism, etc. are also just as dumb. Government and the force that comes with it is alone dangerous enough; add race to government and it can get nuclear.
Even though I personally believe we are all one mind/spirit and bodies are ultimately meaningless, I know most people have other ideas and put a lot of importance on special bodies. Identifying with race is one of many ways humans indulge in ego specialness. And that's fine as long as there is no force involved. I've never known a person who I'd describe as a true racist but I've also never known anyone who didn't have some in-group preferences that sometimes overlapped with race. That's just how it is. Realistically, language alone often makes for in-group preferences that often overlap with race. Overall, similarities facilitate social cohesion, differences social conflict. You can't force people to get along.
Anyone with even just a minor understanding of human psychology knows there is a whole lot of truth to the Shakespeare line: "The lady doth protest too much, methinks." That's the nature of guilt projection. Just as the latent homosexual is often the biggest homophobe, the latent racist is often the biggest racistphobe, and the latent fascist is often the biggest anti-fascist. That's the nature of guilt projection. You don't project guilt unless you've got it to project. In that sense, stifling debate is often just a form of repression to stop from facing the guilt. Stifling debate pushes out reason so ego emotion can run wild.
Freedom of speech is key to a healthy society. It takes force to stop free speech. So societies with less free speech have more force. Those without arguments use force to stop speech. And when free speech is forced to a stop, force is what comes right back. So, forgive debate, because it is lack of debate that leads to where people start killing each other. Lack of debate is force. Force and bad ideas go hand in hand because without force bad ideas go away. Force is the ultimate bad idea. After all, this whole universe is an attempt at forcing something that isn't oneness.
Remember, force is just a way the insane call for love. Rise above the battlefield!
In closing, I'm amending the original commandments of debate list I included with the first "Forgiving Debate" post by adding another two commandments.
The 14 Commandments of Rational Debate and (Logical Fallacies)
- Thou shall not kill your opponent. ("Lack of Opposition Fallacy")
- Thou shall not initiate force to silence or manipulate your opponent. ("Might Makes Right Fallacy")
- Thou shall not attack the person’s character, only the argument itself. (“Ad Hominem”)
- Thou shall not misrepresent or exaggerate a person’s arguments in order to make he or she easier to attack. (“Straw Man Fallacy”)
- Thou shall not use small samples to represent the whole. (“Hasty Generalization”)
- Thou shall not argue thy position by assuming one of its premises is true. (“Begging the Question”)
- Thou shall not claim that because something occurred before, it must be the cause. (“Post Hoc/False Cause”)
- Thou shall not reduce the argument down to two possibilities. (“False Dichotomy”)
- Thou shall not argue that because of our ignorance, claim must be true or false. (“Ad Ignorantiam”)
- Thou shall not lay burden of proof onto he or she that is questioning the claim. (“Burden of Proof Reversal”)
- Thou shall not assume “this” follows “that,” when “it” has no logical connection. (“Non sequitur”)
- Thou shall not claim that because a premises is popular, therefore, it must be true. (“Bandwagon Fallacy”)
- Thou shall not appeal to an outside party to claim support. (“Appeal to Authority”)
- Thou shall not claim moral authority. (“Moral High Ground Fallacy”)