Everybody was Kung fu arguing

[davywavy]

For a long time now - as long as I can remember, in fact - in debates I've done something I refer to as Tai Chi arguing.

In Tai Chi one of the primary defences if your opponent is poor, or just unfocused and throws wild attacks, is to step aside and simply let them go past you. If needs be you help them on their way, letting their energy move harmlessly past you and, in doing so, nullifying it.

"God, you're a twat, David", I might have had said to me on a semi-regular basis, to which I'd nod and smile and reply "Yes. Yes I am" before asking them to engage with what I'm actually saying rather than just throwing wild punches.

In Kung fu this technique of abosirbibg or avoiding unfocused attacks forces your opponent to engage with you seriously - to commit or to quit.

Anyway, for a large part of the last decade I've been trying, with varying degrees of success, to explain to my collection of more-lefty-than-I friends the growth of dissent against their social consensus of opinions, especially online.
One thing that strikes me - and I've had it at me often enough over the years that I don't really even notice or care any more - is that there is a real tendency to shut down dissenting opinions by trying to take the moral high ground. Dismissing rather than engaging with what's being said. "That position is evil, stupid and offensive."

Anyway the victory of Brexit and Trump is widely hailed as a victory of the evil, stupid and offensive; in short, the mechanism of shutting down dissent has failed. And it has failed because your opponents have adopted Tai Chi debating en masse.

"Your opinion is evil, stupid and offensive", you may say, in an attempt to cow your opponent with the force of your attack.

"Yep", comes the reply, stepping aside and letting your energy move harmlessly past. "I'm evil, stupid and offensive. Have a picture of Pepe the Frog. What are you going to do now?"

So what *are* you going to do now?

Comments

[sesquipedality.livejournal.com]

I think that not everyone is interested in debating all the time. Sometimes people just want to express their anger. So they say that those who oppose them are evil, or they vote for Brexit, or whatever.

It's a mistake to assume that useful political discourse only happens through rational engagement. I think you're giving too much credit to the current top dogs. The pendulum swings, and people cargo cult like assume that whatever they did last caused it. It's the same argument that made "an end to boom and bust" such a huge act of hubris.

Of course the problem you highlight is a very real one. How does one persuade the irrational using logic. It can't by definition work. Pursuading the Dave Wade's of the world is not the issue here, you are statistically insignificant, even if you are to some extent (as George Monbiot or Johann Hari are to the left) the source the irrational go to to back up their unthinking prejuduce.

People just don't really think about their opinions. Advertisers and media empires can program that sort of person. So far as I can tell my interactions are limited to being burnt at the stake in the inevitable witch hunt.

[(Anonymous)]

Well, just as one bunch of lefties grow out of it, another are born. My prediction for what they are going to do about it is 'more of the same'.

[(Anonymous)]

rJp8lA Wow, amazing weblog format! How lengthy have you been blogging for? you make running a blog look easy. The whole look of your web site is fantastic, let alone the content material!