InnuendoStudios
patreon
How to Tell the Truth (pages 25-32) [script]
🕑 Added 2022-04-11 00:38:31 +0000 UTCThis is the final section of How to Tell the Truth. This thing still needs some kind of conclusion, not sure what form it should take yet, and that maybe doesn't need to be decided just yet since there are 2-3 completed scripts I could edit and animate before even starting this thing. I'm pondering perhaps a quick recap and then an apology to John Oliver? Or appropriating the Last Week Tonight format and ending with a skit full of famous people? I'll mull it over.
---
DON’T HOLD DEBATES
Just stop it. Stop it! Have you considered stop it? Let’s try stop it and see if it works!
Debates. Are. Not. Effective. (“But Ian, what about debate streamers?” Wait for it.)
Do you know who Nick Griffin is? From 1999-2014, Nick Griffin was the head of the British National Party, a Far Right group formed by members of the National Front. They were founded on the idea that only white people should have British citizenship and non-whites should be forcibly removed! They created a paramilitary group called Combat 18, whose logo was the totenkopf and whose name referenced the first and eighth letters of the alphabet, which are Hitler’s initials! Even after “modernizing” to appear more centrist, a la David Duke (whose Ku Klux Klan Griffin insisted was “nonviolent”), they maintained a whites-only membership policy until the government forced them to change it and launched a Campaign Against Islam!
And, in 2009, Nick Griffin was invited onto the BBC’s debate show, Question Time.
It was, by all accounts, a fucking disaster. Griffin’s statements were regularly booed by the audience. He claimed quotes attributed to him were fabricated and then had those quotes thrown back at him and agreed with them all. He couldn’t form a coherent answer to “do you believe the Holocaust happened?” He tossed out “facts” that experts on the panel immediately disproved. In the final ten minutes he went off about “militant homosexuals” and the audience yelled “disgrace!” at him. The debate ended with co-panelists all declaring Griffin had been exposed for what he was and that the British people would roundly reject him and the BNP, and, in the following days, the press agreed. Griffin himself characterized the debate as a “lynch mob.”
And what happened to the British National Party after being so thoroughly defeated in the marketplace of ideas? They saw the biggest boost in membership in the organization’s history and 22% of Britons said they’d consider voting for a BNP candidate.
Debates. Are. Not. Effective.
In a post-2016 world [Trump, Brexit] do we still believe that a Far Right politician making a fool of himself on national television turns his supporters against him? He would never have gotten there if they gave a shit he’s a buffoon. So appearing on a giant platform doesn’t cost men like Griffin anything. The BNP is not going to lose members over this. The question, then, is what does he gain? Well, listen to him getting booed: [audio]. The TV audience hearing that smattering of claps was a record high of 8 million. If a fraction of them take him seriously, that’s an audience he didn’t have before. (And we know the fraction is not tiny.)
Fringe reactionaries do debates because all they need is exposure. The more radical their views, the more people want to watch the trainwreck. It doesn’t matter how many people come away hating them, only that some come away thinking they’re not so bad. Sitting next to politicians and journalists makes them look real by extension. If they hold their own, they’re legitimate; if they crash and burn, they’re the underdog. When expectations are zero, they can only be exceeded.
If you are still citing Murrow and McCarthy as proof “sometimes a platform is a gallows,” consider that McCarthy did interviews his entire career and it never cost him anything until after he’d spent years in power doing incredible harm to people and then they turned on him. We tell it that he was brought down by Murrow or by Welch because that’s how it ought to have happened, and we are trying to operate on the way things ought to be rather than how they are.
And I sympathize! I feel it in my guts when I watch the Griffin debate. I start making corrections in my head. The problem is not debate qua debate, it’s that they’re doing debate wrong. They should have grilled him longer on specific issues instead of moving on in the interest of time; and the conservative politician is actually benefiting from his presence because he makes her anti-immigration policy look moderate by comparison, but he’s also looking good because he’s ultimately saying the same shit with fewer euphemisms, and none of these chuckleheads is calling out that Britain’s immigration laws are fundamentally xenophobic, which is what I would do; also I keep pausing the video wishing I was there to drop my sick burns [Islamophobic comments about how they’re evil to women, “yes, remind me your party’s position on feminism?”]. And that’s how quickly we go from “sunlight is the best disinfectant” to “okay maybe not best but it is still possible to disinfect a wound with sunlight.” (Jesus Christ how have we not all died of MRSA?) But, when pressed for proof it works, our go-to example is from 70 years ago, and it’s not even accurate. Conservatives have iterated on their strategy since then, why haven’t we?
In the modern day, there is such a thing as too much rope to hang yourself.
(“But Ian, what about debate streamers?” Wait for it.)
Okay, so PragerU does actually host debates on their channel. Not many! But they exist. (There are a lot more things tagged with the word “debate” than actual debates, which is funny, given how many times Dennis Prager has tried to neg John Oliver into debating him.) I say “debate,” though, for a lot of these, that’s being a bit generous with the word. They fall into four rough categories:
Unrehearsed Confrontational: a guy sticks a microphone in the face of someone from the Left and asks a bunch of loaded, leading questions [“have you stopped eating orphans?” “losers say what?”] that would require a lot of context to be engaged with fairly, so, when she tries to provide that context, she looks evasive.
College Q&A: a conservative student group invites someone from Prager to their college campus, puts him up on stage with people who agree with him, but lets progressive nineteen-year-olds ask questions, which the fully-grown adult who does this for a living handles with confidence.
Controlled Curation: a debate takes place somewhere - possibly off-site - and the debater hosts the most flattering clip from that debate or hosts the debate in full or part while commentating it.
An Actual Conversation: these are not that common, and are mostly reserved for episodes of the Candace Owens show with a liberal guest or Dennis Prager himself debating a major issue with someone who disagrees with him.
The first precept of these debates goes back to the very beginning of this series: control the conversation. I have listed these in descending order of how much control Prager has over the mechanics of discussion itself, and, as that control is relinquished, they assert control in other areas. Candace Owens interviews a liberal who could say anything, but: there is usually a clip of the 2-6 minutes where she feels she looks the smartest that is uploaded out of context and has more views than the full debate. A debate with Dennis Prager could go either way, so he chooses debate partners with whom he has commonalities. He’ll discuss the existence of God with an atheist, but: they’re both Randian conservatives; he’ll discuss Israel with a liberal, but: they’re both Zionists.
Another precept is to never pick an opponent who stands to benefit from the debate. The obvious reason why no one from Prager has brought on one of the Left’s debate streamers (keep waiting) is because it would help the streamer far more than it would help Prager. PragerU is an enormous platform. That’s a ton of exposure for a mid-sized YouTube channel. It’s the Nick Griffin rule: if even a fraction of Prager’s audience finds the streamer convincing, that’s a big boost. Whereas, if the same fraction goes the other way, well, a fraction of 400k just isn’t that much at Prager’s scale. They don’t actually give a shit about the marketplace of ideas; if the marketplace of ideas mattered there wouldn’t be a PragerU. It’s all about exposure.
Since there aren’t that many people bigger than Prager who would talk to them, Prager contents itself with… nobodies. I’m not being dismissive, I assume these people do good work, I mean they have no brand. These are random college students, an unnamed “progressive Muslim” at a convention. Probably the most prestigious of these is the Israel debate with Alan Elsner; I mean, he works for J Street and they’re a pretty big deal. Alan Elsner has 1000 Twitter followers and goes months between tweets. At the time of the debate, his website was owned by domain squatters. It’s still owned by domain squatters! Not that it matters, because they didn’t link to his socials! There’s no mechanism to capitalize on exposure.
Another precept: talk on your own turf. Don’t play away games. The audience for the Israel debate is clearly stacked with Pragerites, because they laugh at Elsner when he mentions Russian interference with the 2016 election and applaud Prager when he says “that never happened.” The clips and commentaries are ways of repackaging conversations they don’t control into contexts they do. And keep in mind, most of these debates are being filmed by Prager, so, if they come off looking like dicks, they can just spike the video.
People defend debate on the grounds that ideas need to be tested, interrogated by their opposites, before you can trust their quality. Which, can I just say, is weird? I get that it sounds sensible in the abstract, but is that your actual lived experience? It’s not mine. Like, I was a depressed teenaged boy on the early internet, and a male feminist during GamerGate. I have spent a lot of time arguing with people. But I look at my core beliefs, and I can’t say many were formed by debates. And, as a vegan, polyamorous, anti-capitalist atheist, I can tell you my core beliefs have gone through a lot of changes! While I can point to a couple of conversations that were lynchpins in my development - one with my sister about animal cruelty and one with a close friend about God - they weren’t adversarial. They were with people I loved and respected, whose beliefs were very much like my own. And they were culminating moments after a lot of introspection, of talking and listening and questioning and reading, much of it done in isolation. My thoughts about the ethics of eating animals or the existence of God were formed over the course of years, not 90 minutes of statement, rebuttal, and rejoinder. What I believe is true has, in my experience, very little to do with what survives the crucible of debate. And I would ask you, really and truly, whether that’s how you formed your beliefs.
But even if that’s what debate was for, it’s not what Prager is doing. Picking an opponent you know you can defeat, before an audience you selected, under terms you control is not stress-testing an ideology. It is ritually burning the Left in effigy. They don’t give a damn about truth. They care about theatrics. And debate-as-performance is the primary mode of debate on the Right, entire careers have been built on it, it’s centered around dominance and provocation, and it is wildly more successful than whatever you think debate is supposed to be.
And the fact is, it’s not even hard. To win a performative debate, all you have to do is speak with confidence, never admit to fault or fallacy, and cultivate an audience that cares about you winning more than they care about you being right.
And that is what debate streamers do.
I’m not saying it doesn’t work. I don’t have hard data, but there is enough anecdotal evidence of conservatives becoming liberals and liberals becoming lefties after watching debate streamers that I find the argument plausible. I want to stress this is not about truth any more than it is for Prager; truth is often told, but it’s incidental. This is about defeating people; the argument goes that slaughtering sacred cows in public turns conservatives against their idols. I would question whether catering the conservative need to see one’s enemies laid low is actually deconverting people out of a toxic mindset or just creating pockets of toxicity on the Left. Swapping new in- and out-groups doesn’t strike me as very leftist. It sounds, to me, like yet another dominance harky.
So my position remains: just fucking stop it. Whatever you feel debate is supposed to accomplish, it’s probably not what’s happening. If you’re trying to demonstrate whose argument is best, that’s not what conservatives are there to do, and you can’t do it without their participation! If they thought there was a chance you could succeed, they wouldn’t walk through the door with you. And, if you’re just trying to wreck people, you probably won’t be very good at it, because the things that make a good lefty - like the desire to break up authority, share power, and build healthy community - make you bad at developing a cult of personality.
…
Unfortunately, I know you’re not all going to listen to me.
I am nervous to give you advice on the thing I don’t want you to do, because I worry it’ll sound like I’m giving you permission. But, then, that’s how conservatives think of drugs and sex work, and I support decrim. So I’m going to do something radical here: I’m going to trust you.
I think public debates with conservatives are high risk and of nominal value. I think they are dangerous at worst and a waste of time and energy at best. It stands to benefit them more than it does us, which is why they keep offering to do them. I concede there are occasions where such a debate may be defensible. I concede it is technically possible to get a positive result. And I acknowledge some of you are going to do it no matter what I say. So I ask you, please, to be wise in your judgments.
Let’s consider the three scenarios in which public debate with a conservative may take place: in front of a general audience, in front of a conservative audience, and in front of a left-ish audience. We’ll take them one at a time.
General Audience
It’s worth remembering that a general audience is not a neutral audience; viewers come in with opinions. Most debate-watchers probably have someone they’re rooting for. And, since who wins the debate is a matter of opinion, unless their side gets absolutely crushed, they’re probably going to come away thinking their person won. [Jarman, “Political Affiliation and Presidential Debates”] It’s like if who won the ballgame was decided by audience vote; how often would ‘niners fans vote for the Rams? (Did I do that right? Please tell me they play the same sport.)
By and large, debates do not change minds; in fact, they increase polarization. Viewers end up more committed to whomever they already supported. They may view some things the opposition says charitably, but, typically, they rate the thing they hated most from their own side slightly higher than the thing they liked best from the other side. [Jarman, ibid] So, if you’re trying to reach the other side, what you’ve got to work with is the stretches of time where they dislike you less than usual. (Or you could take this opportunity to rally your base, but, then, why even have a debate? Just talk to your people, they already listen to you.)
If you look at a debate audience’s approval over time, Left and Right are almost mirror images; any time you’re currying favor with the Right, you’re losing favor with the Left, which makes me wonder whether it’s worth it! [Jarman, ibid] But, if you are committed to doing this, you might look into an issue the Right is invested in that the Left has few strong opinions about and steer the conversation that way.
Also keep in mind that, by default, debate tends to be friendly. Pre- and post-debate, people use much more aggressive language in describing their opponent than they do to their opponent’s face. During debate, they also tend to mirror each other’s word choices. [Hart, Jarvis, “Political Debate: Forms, Styles, and Media”] This can benefit people like Nick Griffin, where, even though panelists were quite critical of him, none said they wanted to smack him in the face the way they did to the press after the fact. Because they are treating him with respect, he looks respectable. They all appear to be speaking the same language, because that’s literally true.
This reflex is also being hijacked in the opposite direction: while most of us are still defaulting to social niceties, a new crop of conservatives comes to debates with open aggression. Be it smarmy, condescending, or chaotic [Shapiro, Peterson, Trump], they are not reigning in the rudeness as much as the other side. Other side either tries to play nice and gets steamrolled, or gets frustrated and has an uncontrolled emotional reaction. Neither is a good look.
The knack for modulating hostility is another thing debate streamers have picked up on that the rest of us haven’t yet cottoned to. So you might want to research your opponent in advance and see what affect they’re likely to employ, and consider, if needs must, being more of a dick. (But, like, in a cool way.)
Conservative Audience
If you’re playing on the conservative court, you are probably expected to grant them legitimacy and/or to get rekt. Regarding the first thing, I would say this runs on opposite rules to what I said earlier about the most famous lefty making a statement about a conservative topic so they’re the first hit on Google; if a fringe conservative group is inviting lefties to a debate, you want to send the least famous lefty. Like, ideally, this debate doesn’t take place at all, but we don’t control that. If we know they’re going to keep inviting people til someone says yes, we can at least send someone with a strategy. It should be someone who can hold their own, but doesn’t have a big brand; someone who isn’t going to gift reactionaries with extra eyeballs and clout. That’s what they’re after; deny it.
As for what the strategy should be: well, you are dealing with a hostile audience that is primed to disagree with you. Even if they don’t like you, you can bring information they don’t have and leave them with a better understanding of a particular issue, though evidence suggests that, while they may feel they understand the issue better, actual understanding typically evaporates within a week. [McKinney, Chattopadhyay, “Political Engagement through Debate”] But maybe you’ll plant a seed?
Studies suggest you can make inroads with conservatives by framing your arguments in their preferred language. [Feinberg, Willer, “From Gulf to Bridge: When Do Moral Arguments Facilitate Political Influence?”] The Left’s framework values things like fairness, equality, and support for the vulnerable, and, in debate, they tend to use words like “people,” “cooperation,” “friendship,” and “care,” where the Right’s framework values loyalty, moral purity, and respect for authority, and they use words like “freedom,” “enterprise,” “law,” and “resourcefulness.” [Hart, Jarvis, “Political Debate: Forms, Styles, and Media”] So, if you package your issue in their language - like, if you describe fighting climate change as “defending our resources” - you can sometimes gain support. The effects of this strategy are measurable, but they’re not large. And, keep in mind, you are trying to move people on a single issue by otherwise reinforcing their conservatism, which is just kicking the can. Something I’ve tried to stress in this series is that the problems with conservatism are endemic; as long as folks are conservative, they will, overwhelmingly, oppose the things we stand for. So it is, at best, a marginal and short-term gain.
Now, this could be a good durational strategy, using conservative language to scootch people into supporting lefty policies one by one until they are largely functioning as lefties, because changing behavior is how you actually minds, but duration is something you don’t have in a debate. I also don’t recommend doing this in front of a general or lefty audience - or having it recorded and hosted on a major platform - because, by packaging left ideas in conservative bubble wrap, you might nudge some unwitting member of your own side to the right. (If we were immune to that, my job would be a lot easier.)
It may be beneficial to defy their expectations, stress points of commonality, like if you come from a similar background as your opponent or enjoy some of the same art. Conservatism depends on a lot of stereotypes and willful ignorance about how the other side lives, so demystifying how a person not unlike them could come to your way of thinking may accomplish something.
Alternately, you might try embracing everything they hate about you. Just be your weird-ass self! They call you a commie, sing the praises of socialism. They call you a degenerate, talk about your love of modern art and gay sex. They can’t shame you if you’re not ashamed! They love a cowboy affect? Be the anarcho-cowboy you want to see in the world.
I don’t have any evidence this works… I just want it to happen.
Lefty Audience
If you are hosting a conservative in a space that is unreceptive to them, be aware: they are only doing this because they think they’ll get something out of it. They want to reach your audience, or clip their best two minutes, or take your statements out of context after the fact, or get known as someone who triggers the libs on stream. They are not interested in an open dialogue. You need to have a pretty good idea of what’s in it for them so you can keep them from getting it.
We’ve talked about the Prager precepts, follow them to the best of your abilities while staying honorable.
Now: I want to talk about your responsibility to your own audience. Whenever you say something the people invested in you disagree with, most of them don’t lose respect for you; they update their beliefs to match yours so they can keep liking you. Yes. That’s what happens. [Abramowitz, “Impact of a Presidential Debate on Voter Rationality”] So you have to know your shit. If you speak in ignorance, or say something half thought-out just cuz it’ll sting your debate partner, your audience is gonna keep that. You may not want this responsibility, but you have it. Accept that.
Alright, I’ve tried to base this advice in published research with only a light peppering of my own opinions, links in the down-there part.
