Why we need someone who is “wrong” around us

Happy Saturday, a warm and good day in Northern Virginia. Great time to talk about a very important topic for me.

This week happened something completely new in US Politics. Most prominent US politicians of our time told the US population a story about unity, how we are all equal Americans and should unite to fight against the issue of the day, at the same time pushing that unity off the cliff. I’m talking about removing the Georgia Republican from the budget and education committees. That event helped me to think through and apply J. S. Mill argument on why we need someone who disagrees with us. But let me unwrap here what I’m talking about. It is not a crystal clear case, we need some mental exercise to come up with “right conclusions” “right conclusions” from a utilitarian ethics point of view.

Congress votes

Congress voted out of committees a lady that previously promoted the conspiracy theory, lies, hate, and other not a very pleasant thing. Well, I can bet that she is a representation of what is my friend said: “But hey, you always gotta have that weird uncle in the family” (c) I will not repeat lies which that lady promoted, you can imagine, it is not the point of that blog.

What actually happened:

The House voted 230-199 to remove Mrs. Greene from the budget and education committees, with 11 Republicans siding with Democrats. The move will diminish Mrs. Greene’s ability to shape legislation and work with other lawmakers, sidelining her just weeks into her first term in office.

To make a record straight (I really hate that social media time, when you have to state obvious things): yes, she is wrong, yes, I do think that she promoted conspiracy and hate, yes, I think it is a despicable act. Now, can we continue? Shall we?

First, it is wrong from messaging perspective (PR), Democratic leader and the president requested from the Nation UNITY, he proposed it, we wanted it (I believe him). After that vote, what I see (as independent): “Democrats just made a loud and clear statement. Look! There are insane republicans and we, Democrats, good and proud Americans. Look at them, at these Republicans. Haha, they are bunch of karens and rogers. Haha.” Believe me, many Democrats in US heard that message and appropriately felt: I do not want a unity with “crazy” people.

Second, from utilitarian perspective (yes, it is important in US politics), what precedent it is establish. What Republicans will do? In Russia we have a phrase: “А чо, так можно было?” Means: “What? I can do that?”. Exactly, just wait a 2-4-6 years to see complete bonanza of voting and removing Democrats from committees.

Third, from a justice and consistency perspective, obviously, there are double standards and consideration of some topics more important than others. What I hear loud and clear from that case: Congress and the US consider these lies/conspiracies as important and everything else as unimportant; for example, there are some congressmans that repeatedly said that Russians (not Putin, not Russian Government) but Russians are enemies of the US, that is fine for Congress and the US. Well, should we cry to kick these people who said that off? Isn’t it promoting hate and conspiracy? That ice is very thin when you think. Do you see what it does? It establishes a rank of issues. It establishes formal discrimination. Lies about a minority of one group are fine, lies about a minority of the other group are not (tell me that Russians or Slavs not a minority in the US, please).

Why did it happen? Because not enough people are talking about it, there is no platform or square to talk about anymore, everything became a culture / political war on FB/Twitter and other platforms. Every newsroom chase a rage clickbait material. What can be better than vote some insane person out of power and push the news about it? People think in binary terms (isn’t it funny, when there are nonbinary sex and binary thinking?)

There is no doubt, huge distance between being wrong and promote lies and hate. Huge distance. It is not point of the article to make it like, that the lady of interest is simply wrong; no, she lied and promoted hate.

Solution

But KC, you say, we should not have such people in congress. Hm, I do not know who we should have in Congress, people elect Congress, so be it. And let me share a text from discussion with my friend:

What that lady said, is awful, as well as many other speeches made by other congressman. It isn’t “what about it”ism, I simply recognize that is happening and it is awful. I think, indeed, the best way to kick people off congress is the ELECTION

Yes, I think the best way to remove such people, is election.

JS Mill argument 1 out of 100

In hist 19th century book, On Liberty, JS Mill provides stunning utilitarian argument about why we need people with whom we disagree. I will not explain what he said, let me provide a quote, read it, please.

Nor is it enough that he should hear the arguments of adversaries from his own teachers, presented as they state them, and accompanied by what they offer as refutations. That is not the way to do justice to the arguments, or bring them into real contact with his own mind. He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them; who defend them in earnest, and do their very utmost for them. He must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form; he must feel the whole force of the difficulty which the true view of the subject has to encounter and dispose of; else he will never really possess himself of the portion of truth which meets and removes that difficulty. Ninety-nine in a hundred of what are called educated men are in this condition; even of those who can argue fluently for their opinions. Their conclusion may be true, but it might be false for anything they know: they have never thrown themselves into the mental position of those who think differently from them, and considered what such persons may have to say; and consequently they do not, in any proper sense of the word, know the doctrine which they themselves profess. They do not know those parts of it which explain and justify the remainder; the considerations which show that a fact which seemingly conflicts with another is reconcilable with it, or that, of two apparently strong reasons, one and not the other ought to be preferred. All that part of the truth which turns the scale, and decides the judgment of a completely informed mind, they are strangers to; nor is it ever really known, but to those who have attended equally and impartially to both sides, and endeavoured to see the reasons of both in the strongest light. So essential is this discipline to a real understanding of moral and human subjects, that if opponents of all important truths do not exist, it is indispensable to imagine them, and supply them with the strongest arguments which the most skilful devil’s advocate can conjure up.

This is simply brilliant. Read the book :)

My understanding of the argument

Clear and simple: you need experience someone who thinks differently, you have to try to sympathize with their position and understand why they think so, and in a best ability to make their argument for them and try to provide, facts, system of arguments to why it is wrong or what that positions is missing out of the picture, or to understand that it is you who are wrong.

I would say (for me personally) it is the following steps that can help to understand and have a great conversation:

1. Agree about facts and systems of ethics when you start discussion (if earth flat or not flat? Is your judgement lays in Christian morality or utilitarian ethics? etc.)
2. Try to make argument of opposite side as best as the opposite side can do in your words (or even help them to think things through)
3. Try to understand facts and logic behind the argument (some times there is no logic, well, be cool)
4. Make your case, not to win the argument, but to make a new version of your own argument (permutation) to learn a new thing
5. Think, talk, respect, enjoy (I mean it, have a habit to enjoy thoughtful and productive arguments and conversation)

It is seems very familiar to our old friend “dialectic”.

Recent example, of why we need someone who wrong around us

Consider this. NYT, yes, NYT wants and propose Orwellian Ministry of Truth. I’m not kidding, I’m not adding anything. Read this.

Should I explain why it is a universally stupid idea and how it will benefit anyone with bad intentions and no-one with a good one? Three arguments:

1. Some complicated cases required discussion among experts and cross-domain professionals, “truth” provided by the government will be beneficial to whoever holds power. It is an empirical law bulletproofed by reality checks for last thousands of years and confirmed with a blood bath of 20th century. Here a couple of people to read about: Stalin, Hitler, Mao, what was a common mechanism that helped stay in power, besides violence? It was “Ministry of Truth”.
2. The argument that an authoritarian position will help to reduce misinformation and misunderstanding is based on a fallacy. The fallacy of that less information is better. No, more information, more discussion, more speech is better. Promotion of critical thinking, reading, following logical conclusions, and comparing things to each other help. “Commission of Truth” will provide an onside view and will not allow discussion, it will do more damage and promote more conspiracy because everyone will search for an explanation, why government lies to us, and what next step to screw us. It will achieve the opposite of what it intended.
3. Final from me, but not last argument against that proposal, it is so funny that people kicked off Trump who was “almost Hitler”, wants to give the president the power to define truth. Hey, very very smart intellectuals, what if someone who “almost Hitler” will be elected again? Can you think even 4 years ahead? It is not so difficult, right?

But you see, I support such articles in a sense that if someone publishes or promotes a bad idea, you have the ability to tell that the idea or proposed mechanism would fail, and you formulate your arguments better, you can explain things to more people and the world became a better place because we can figure out a better way to live. More speech and arguments about what is important are always promoting a better version of us. For example, I constantly read someone with who I disagree and it makes me think better and I can rationally argue about things that I care about. It requires a lot of brainpower and energy, but otherwise, it will be a simulation of thinking or some idiotic repetition of talking points (which I personally consider as being not a human, but some bio-machine that repeat something after someone, we got a lot of such back in Russia and even more here in the US).

Conclusions

1. We benefit from discussion and thinking, we became a better person when we can talk through what we previously did not discuss or did not understand
2. To have that discussion, it is crucial to be with some one who have opposite or different position
3. That discussion should be in a form of dialectic (try to learn something new, not to win a debate)
4. Even if you think that person “nuts” it is better to ignore, than silence, because soon you will find yourself silencing someone to whom you talked just yesterday

That is it so far. That topic is very important for the Western society and me personally. Follow dialectic and try to learn something from others. It works.

Thank you for your time.

I will return to that topic from different angle very soon.

Follow up on the issues after discussion

1. Order of magnitude of lies and conspiracies
2. People can elect with who to sit around the table
3. Difference between rule and case-by-case vote