Grilling a Red Herring
A true statement is true: who said it or how it was delivered is irrelevant.
Not all discussions about conflicting perspectives are direct arguments: frequently conflicts are discussed through raising proxy statements. Proxy statements are totems of larger arguments without explicitly making them.
Sometimes people raise these totems for the purpose of declaring their allegiance in a wider conversation while not getting into the weeds of the argument. Perhaps the argument is boring and intractable. Perhaps the argument is won in theory but there’s no practical way to implement the clearly correct position. Perhaps people just want to talk about something else.
Sometimes people raise these totems for the more nefarious purpose of casting a protective spell on themselves. This spell protects one or more internal mental contradictions which, if resolved, may reconfigure their world view to an unknown, scary state. People generally have accepted the way things are in their life right now, and if their mind is changed that could ruin everything. The risk isn’t work the reward.
Thus frequently we find ourselves fighting about technical proxy issues, rather than substantial issues, so how can we get interlocutors to lower totems?
The argument below is a sketch of how to convince someone to lower the totem:
The X amendment to the constitution is wrong because it was written by old dead immoral white guys who were writing in a time that’s not the same as ours.
Q1. Will some things be true in 300 years? (Example: oppression of minorities is bad)
A1. Yes
(If no, so then oppressing minorities is good? Or will be good in 300 years?)
Q2. Does writing the false statement down make it true in 300 years?
A2. Yes
(If no, so what does writing it down have to do with its truth?)
Q3. If a rapist & murder wrote that statement down now would it still be true in 300 years?
A3. Yes
(If no, So a bad person writing a statement makes it eventually false?)
Q4. So the statements written in a document are true independent from when they were written, or who wrote them down?
A4. Yes
(If no, which of Q1,2, or 3 do you now disagree with?)
Questions 5 through 8 are pedantic, they’re just Q1-Q4 again but with “false” instead of “true”. Skip them if you like.
Q5. Will some things be false in 300 years? (Example: oppression of minorities is good)
A5. Yes
(If no, so then oppressing minorities is good, that contradicts what you said before. Or will it will be bad in 300 years but not also now?)
Q6. If you don't write the statement down, will it still be true in 300 years?
A6. Yes
(If no, so what does writing it down have to do with its truth?)
Q7. If a very moral person wrote that statement down now would it still be false in 300 years?
A7. Yes
(If no, so a good person writing a statement makes it true?)
Q8. So the statements written in a document are false independent from when they were written, or who wrote them down?
A8. Yes
(If no, Which of Q5,6, or 7 do you now disagree with?)
End of pedantic part
Q9. Is the US constitution a document?
A9. Yes.
(If no, What's a document?)
Q10. So we can't establish the truth or falsehood the statements made in one particular document, the constitution, based on who wrote them or when they were written.
A10. Yes
(If no, which part of Q1-Q9 do you now disagree with?)
Q11. So now you would agree that statements like "The constitution was written by white slave owning rich cis men 300 years ago and times have changed" does not tell us anything about the truth or falsehood of statements written in the constitution?
A11. An Intense emotional response followed by total evasion, changing the conversation, more red herrings, Ad Hominems, and random talking points.
You need to stay calm and wait for them to either calm down and prepare to have this argument again when they forget that they won’t be able to distract you with this talking point. After a few times you will be able to debate the merits of the arguments red herring free, or you will have identified them as incapable of argument and find a way to steer the conversation away from arguments totemic or actual.
See you next week!
- EL 🌞