6530 words

In Favor of Nice­ness, Com­mu­nity, and Civ­i­liza­tion

Feb­ru­ary 23, 2014

Con­tent warn­ing: Dis­cus­sion of so­cial jus­tice, dis­cus­sion of vi­o­lence, spoil­ers for Jacque­line Carey books.


Edit 10/25: This post was in­spired by a de­bate with a friend of a friend on Face­book who has since be­come some­what fa­mous. I’ve re­named him here to “An­drew Cord” to pro­tect his iden­tity.

I

An­drew Cord crit­i­cizes me for my bold and con­tro­ver­sial sug­ges­tion that maybe peo­ple should try to tell slightly fewer bla­tant hurt­ful lies:

I just find it kind of darkly amus­ing and sad that the “ra­tio­nal­ist com­mu­nity” loves “ra­tio­nal­ity is win­ning” so much as a tagline and yet are clearly not win­ning. And then com­plain about los­ing rather than chang­ing their tac­tics to match those of peo­ple who are win­ning.

Which is prob­a­bly be­cause if you *re­ally* want to be the kind of per­son who wins you have to ac­tu­ally care about win­ning some­thing, which means you have to have pol­i­tics, which means you have to em­brace “pol­i­tics the mind­killer” and “pol­i­tics is war and ar­gu­ments are sol­diers”, and Scott would clearly rather spend the rest of his life los­ing than do this.

That post [ the one de­bunk­ing false rape sta­tis­tics ] is ex­actly my prob­lem with Scott. He seems to hon­estly think that it’s a worth­while use of his time, en­ergy and men­tal ef­fort to down­load evil peo­ple’s evil world­views into his mind and try to an­a­lyt­i­cally de­bate them with sta­tis­tics and cost-​benefit analy­ses.

He gets *mad* at peo­ple whom he de­tachedly in­tel­lec­tu­ally agrees with but who are will­ing to back up their be­liefs with war and fire rather than pussy­foot­ing around with debate-​team non­sense.

It hon­estly makes me kind of sick. It is ex­actly the kind of thing that “so­cial jus­tice” ac­tivists like me *in­tend* to at­tack and “trig­ger” when we use “trig­gery” catch­phrases about the mewl­ing pusil­la­nim­ity of priv­i­leged white al­lies.

In other words, if a fight is im­por­tant to you, fight nasty. If that means lying, lie. If that means in­sults, in­sult. If that means si­lenc­ing peo­ple, si­lence.

It al­ways makes me happy when my ide­o­log­i­cal op­po­nents come out and say elo­quently and openly what I’ve al­ways se­cretly sus­pected them of be­liev­ing.

My nat­ural in­stinct is to give some of the rea­sons why I think An­drew is wrong, start­ing with the his­tory of the “noble lie” con­cept and mov­ing on to some ex­am­ples of why it didn’t work very well, and why it might not be ex­pected to work so well in the fu­ture.

But in a way, that would be as­sum­ing the con­clu­sion. I wouldn’t be show­ing re­spect for An­drew’s ar­gu­ments. I wouldn’t be going halfway to meet them on their own terms.

The re­spect­ful way to rebut An­drew’s ar­gu­ment would be to spread ma­li­cious lies about An­drew to a cou­ple of media out­lets, fan the flames, and wait for them to de­stroy his rep­u­ta­tion. Then if the stress ends up burst­ing an aneurysm in his brain, I can dance on his grave, singing:

♪ ♬ I won this de­bate in a very ef­fec­tive man­ner. Now you can’t argue in favor of nasty de­bate tac­tics any more ♬ ♪

I’m not going to do that, but if I did it’s un­clear to me how An­drew could ob­ject. I mean, he thinks that sex­ism is detri­men­tal to so­ci­ety, so spread­ing lies and de­stroy­ing peo­ple is jus­ti­fied in order to stop it. I think that dis­course based on mud-​slinging and false­hoods is detri­men­tal to so­ci­ety. There­fore…

II

But re­ally, all this talk of lying and spread­ing ru­mors about peo­ple is – what was An­drew’s ter­mi­nol­ogy – “pussy­foot­ing around with debate-​team non­sense”. You know who got things done? The IRA. They didn’t agree with the British oc­cu­pa­tion of North­ern Ire­land and they weren’t afraid to let peo­ple know in that very spe­cial way only a nail-​bomb shoved through your win­dow at night can.

Why not as­sas­si­nate promi­nent racist and sex­ist politi­cians and in­tel­lec­tu­als? I won’t name names since that would be cross­ing a line, but I’m sure you can gen­er­ate sev­eral of them who are suf­fi­ciently suc­cess­ful and charis­matic that, if knocked off, there would not be an equally com­pe­tent racist or sex­ist im­me­di­ately avail­able to re­place them, and it would thus be a se­ri­ous set­back for the racism/sex­ism move­ment.

Other peo­ple can ap­peal to “the so­cial con­tract” or “the gen­eral civ­i­liza­tional rule not to use vi­o­lence”, but not An­drew:

I think that whether or not I use cer­tain weapons has zero im­pact on whether or not those weapons are used against me, and peo­ple who think they do are ei­ther ap­peal­ing to a kind of vague Kant­ian moral­ity that I think is in­valid or a spe­cific kind of “honor among foes” that I think does not exist.

And don’t give me that non­sense about the po­lice. I’m sure a smart per­son like you can think of clever ex­cit­ing new ways to com­mit the per­fect mur­der. Un­less you do not be­lieve there will ever be an op­por­tu­nity to de­fect un­pun­ished, you need this sort of so­cial con­tract to take you at least some of the way.

He con­tin­ues:

When Scott calls rhetor­i­cal tac­tics he dis­likes “bul­lets” and den­i­grates them it ac­tu­ally hi­lar­i­ously plays right into this point…to be “pro-​bullet” or “anti-​bullet” is ridicu­lous. Bul­lets, as you say, are neu­tral. I am in favor of my side using bul­lets as best they can to de­stroy the enemy’s abil­ity to use bul­lets.

In a war, a real war, a war for sur­vival, you use all the weapons in your ar­se­nal be­cause you as­sume the enemy will use all the weapons in theirs. Be­cause you un­der­stand that it IS a war.

There are a lot of things I am tempted to say to this.

Like “And that is why the United States im­me­di­ately nukes every coun­try it goes to war with.”

Or “And that is why the Geneva Con­ven­tion was so ob­vi­ously im­pos­si­ble that no one even both­ered to at­tend the con­fer­ence”.

Or “And that is why, to this very day, we solve every in­ter­na­tional dis­agree­ment through total war.”

Or “And that is why Mar­tin Luther King was im­me­di­ately re­duced to a nonen­tity, and we re­mem­ber the Weath­er­men as the sole peo­ple re­spon­si­ble for the suc­cess of the civil rights move­ment”

But I think what I am ac­tu­ally going to say is that, for the love of God, if you like bul­lets so much, stop using them as a metaphor for ‘spread­ing false sta­tis­tics’ and go buy a gun.

III

So let’s de­rive why vi­o­lence is not in fact The One True Best Way To Solve All Our Prob­lems. You can get most of this from Hobbes, but this blog post will be shorter.

Sup­pose I am a rad­i­cal Catholic who be­lieves all Protes­tants de­serve to die, and there­fore go around killing Protes­tants. So far, so good.

Un­for­tu­nately, there might be some rad­i­cal Protes­tants around who be­lieve all Catholics de­serve to die. If there weren’t be­fore, there prob­a­bly are now. So they go around killing Catholics, we’re both un­happy and/or dead, our econ­omy tanks, hun­dreds of in­no­cent peo­ple end up as col­lat­eral dam­age, and our coun­try goes down the toi­let.

So we make an agree­ment: I won’t kill any more Catholics, you don’t kill any more Protes­tants. The spe­cific Irish ex­am­ple was called the Good Fri­day Agree­ment and the gen­eral case is called “civ­i­liza­tion”.

So then I try to de­stroy the hated Protes­tants using the gov­ern­ment. I go around try­ing to pass laws ban­ning Protes­tant wor­ship and pre­vent­ing peo­ple from con­demn­ing Catholi­cism.

Un­for­tu­nately, maybe the next gov­ern­ment in power is a Protes­tant gov­ern­ment, and they pass laws ban­ning Catholic wor­ship and pre­vent­ing peo­ple from con­demn­ing Protes­tantism. No one can se­curely prac­tice their own re­li­gion, no one can learn about other re­li­gions, peo­ple are con­stantly plot­ting civil war, aca­d­e­mic free­dom is se­verely cur­tailed, and once again the coun­try goes down the toi­let.

So again we make an agree­ment. I won’t use the ap­pa­ra­tus of gov­ern­ment against Protes­tantism, you don’t use the ap­pa­ra­tus of gov­ern­ment against Catholi­cism. The spe­cific Amer­i­can ex­am­ple is the First Amend­ment and the gen­eral case is called “lib­er­al­ism”, or to be dra­matic about it, “civ­i­liza­tion 2.0”.

Every case in which both sides agree to lay down their weapons and be nice to each other has cor­re­sponded to spec­tac­u­lar gains by both sides and a new era of human flour­ish­ing.

“Wait a sec­ond, no!” some­one yells. “I see where you’re going with this. You’re going to say that agree­ing not to spread ma­li­cious lies about each other would also be a civ­i­lized and ben­e­fi­cial sys­tem. Like maybe the Protes­tants could stop say­ing that the Catholics wor­shipped the Devil, and the Catholics could stop say­ing the Protes­tants hate the Vir­gin Mary, and they could both relax the whole thing about the Jews bak­ing the blood of Chris­t­ian chil­dren into their matzah.

“But your two ex­am­ples were about con­tracts writ­ten on paper and en­forced by the gov­ern­ment. So maybe a ‘no ma­li­cious lies’ amend­ment to the Con­sti­tu­tion would work if it were en­force­able, which it isn’t, but just ask­ing peo­ple to stop spread­ing ma­li­cious lies is doomed from the start. The Jews will no doubt spread lies against us, so if we stop spread­ing lies about them, all we’re doing is aban­don­ing an ef­fec­tive weapon against a re­li­gion I per­son­ally know to be hea­then­ish! Ra­tio­nal­ists should win, so put the blood libel on the front page of every news­pa­per!”

Or, as An­drew puts it:

Whether or not I use cer­tain weapons has zero im­pact on whether or not those weapons are used against me, and peo­ple who think they do are ei­ther ap­peal­ing to a kind of vague Kant­ian moral­ity that I think is in­valid or a spe­cific kind of “honor among foes” that I think does not exist.

So let’s talk about how ben­e­fi­cial game-​theoretic equi­lib­ria can come to exist even in the ab­sence of cen­tral­ized en­forcers. I know of two main ways: rec­i­p­ro­cal com­mu­ni­tar­i­an­ism, and di­vine grace.

Rec­i­p­ro­cal com­mu­ni­tar­i­an­ism is prob­a­bly how al­tru­ism evolved. Some mam­mal started run­ning TIT-​FOR-TAT, the pro­gram where you co­op­er­ate with any­one whom you ex­pect to co­op­er­ate with you. Grad­u­ally you form a suc­cess­ful com­mu­nity of co­op­er­a­tors. The de­fec­tors ei­ther join your com­mu­nity and agree to play by your rules or get out­com­peted.

Di­vine grace is more com­pli­cated. I was tempted to call it “spon­ta­neous order” until I re­mem­bered the ra­tio­nal­ist proverb that if you don’t un­der­stand some­thing, you need to call it by a term that re­minds you that don’t un­der­stand it or else you’ll think you’ve ex­plained it when you’ve just named it.

But con­sider the fol­low­ing: I am a pro-​choice athe­ist. When I lived in Ire­land, one of my friends was a pro-​life Chris­t­ian. I thought she was re­spon­si­ble for the un­nec­es­sary suf­fer­ing of mil­lions of women. She thought I was re­spon­si­ble for killing mil­lions of ba­bies. And yet she in­vited me over to her house for din­ner with­out poi­son­ing the food. And I ate it, and thanked her, and sent her a nice card, with­out smash­ing all her china.

Please try not to be in­suf­fi­ciently sur­prised by this. Every time a Re­pub­li­can and a De­mo­c­rat break bread to­gether with good will, it is a mir­a­cle. It is an equi­lib­rium as ben­e­fi­cial as civ­i­liza­tion or lib­er­al­ism, which de­vel­oped in the total ab­sence of any cen­tral en­forc­ing au­thor­ity.

When you look for these equi­lib­ria, there are lots and lots. An­drew says there is no “honor among foes”, but if you read the Iliad or any other ac­count of an­cient war­fare, there is prac­ti­cally noth­ing but honor among foes, and it wasn’t gen­er­ated by some sort of Home­ric ver­sion of the Geneva Con­ven­tion, it just sort of hap­pened. Dur­ing World War I, the Eng­lish and Ger­mans spon­ta­neously got out of their trenches and cel­e­brated Christ­mas to­gether with each other, and on the side­lines An­drew was shout­ing “No! Stop cel­e­brat­ing Christ­mas! Quick, shoot them be­fore they shoot you!” but they didn’t lis­ten.

All I will say in way of ex­plain­ing these mirac­u­lous equi­lib­ria is that they seem to have some­thing to do with in­her­it­ing a cul­tural norm and not screw­ing it up. Pun­ish­ing the oc­ca­sional de­fec­tor seems to be a big part of not screw­ing it up. How ex­actly that cul­tural norm came to be is less clear to me, but it might have some­thing to do with the rea­sons why an en­tire civ­i­liza­tion’s bu­reau­crats may sud­denly turn 100% hon­est at the same time. I’m pretty sure I’m sup­posed to say the words time­less de­ci­sion the­ory around this point too, and per­haps bring up the kind of Pla­tonic con­tract that I have writ­ten about pre­vi­ously.

I think most of our use­ful so­cial norms exist through a com­bi­na­tion of di­vine grace and rec­i­p­ro­cal com­mu­ni­tar­i­an­ism. To some de­gree they arise spon­ta­neously and are pre­served by the honor sys­tem. To an­other de­gree, they are stronger or weaker in dif­fer­ent groups, and the groups that en­force them are so much more pleas­ant than the groups that don’t that peo­ple are will­ing to go along.

The norm against ma­li­cious lies fol­lows this pat­tern. Politi­cians lie, but not too much. Take the top story on Poli­ti­fact Fact Check today. Some Re­pub­li­can claimed his supposedly-​maverick De­mo­c­ra­tic op­po­nent ac­tu­ally voted with Obama’s eco­nomic poli­cies 97 per­cent of the time. Fact Check ex­plains that the sta­tis­tic used was ac­tu­ally for all votes, not just eco­nomic votes, and that mem­bers of Con­gress typ­i­cally have to have >90% agree­ment with their pres­i­dent be­cause of the way par­ti­san pol­i­tics work. So it’s a lie, and is prop­erly listed as one. But it’s a lie based on slightly mis­in­ter­pret­ing a real sta­tis­tic. He didn’t just to­tally make up a num­ber. He didn’t even just make up some­thing else, like “My op­po­nent per­son­ally helped de­sign most of Obama’s leg­is­la­tion”.

Even the guy in the fake rape sta­tis­tics post lied less than he pos­si­bly could have. He got his fake num­bers by con­flat­ing rapes per sex act with rapes per life­time, and it’s re­ally hard for me to imag­ine some­one doing that by any­thing re­sem­bling ac­ci­dent. But he couldn’t bring him­self to go the extra step and just to­tally make up num­bers with no ground­ing what­so­ever. And part of me won­ders: why not? If you’re going to use num­bers you know are false to de­stroy peo­ple, why is it bet­ter to de­rive the num­bers through a for­mula you know is in­cor­rect, than to just skip the math and make the num­bers up in the first place? “The FBI has de­ter­mined that no false rape claims have ever been sub­mit­ted, my source is an ob­scure re­port they pub­lished, when your local li­brary doesn’t have it you will just ac­cept that li­braries can’t have all books, and sus­pect noth­ing.”

This would have been a more be­liev­able claim than the one he made. Be­cause he showed his work, it was easy for me to de­bunk it. If he had just said it was in some ob­scure re­port, I wouldn’t have gone through the trou­ble. So why did he go the harder route?

Peo­ple know lying is wrong. They know if they lied they would be pun­ished. More spon­ta­neous so­cial order mirac­u­lous di­vine grace. And so they want to hedge their bets, be able to say “Well, I didn’t ex­actly lie, per se.”

And this is good! We want to make it po­lit­i­cally un­ac­cept­able to have peo­ple say that Jews bake the blood of Chris­t­ian chil­dren into their matzah. Now we build on that suc­cess. We start hound­ing around the edges of cur­rently ac­cept­able lies. “Okay, you didn’t lit­er­ally make up your sta­tis­tics, but you still lied, and you still should be cast out from the com­mu­nity of peo­ple who have rea­son­able dis­cus­sions and never trusted by any­one again.”

It might not to­tally suc­ceed in mak­ing a new norm against this kind of thing. But at least it will pre­vent other peo­ple from see­ing their suc­cess, tak­ing heart, and hav­ing the num­ber of lies which are so­cially ac­cept­able grad­u­ally ad­vance.

So much for pro­tect­ing what we have been given by di­vine grace. But there is also rec­i­p­ro­cal com­mu­ni­tar­i­an­ism to think of.

I seek out peo­ple who sig­nal that they want to dis­cuss things hon­estly and ra­tio­nally. Then I try to dis­cuss things hon­estly and ra­tio­nally with those peo­ple. I try to con­cen­trate as much of my so­cial in­ter­ac­tion there as pos­si­ble.

So far this project is going pretty well. My friends are nice, my ro­man­tic re­la­tion­ships are low-​drama, my de­bates are pro­duc­tive and I am learn­ing so, so much.

And peo­ple think “Hm, I could hang out at 4Chan and be called a ‘fag’. Or I could hang out at Slate Star Codex and dis­cuss things ra­tio­nally and learn a lot. And if I want to be al­lowed in, all I have to do is not be an in­tel­lec­tu­ally dis­hon­est jerk.”

And so our com­mu­nity grows. And all over the world, the mys­te­ri­ous di­vine forces fa­vor­ing hon­est and kind equi­lib­ria gain a lit­tle bit more power over the mys­te­ri­ous di­vine forces fa­vor­ing lying and ma­li­cious equi­lib­ria.

An­drew thinks I am try­ing to fight all the evils of the world, and doing so in a stu­pid way. But some­times I just want to cul­ti­vate my gar­den.

IV

An­drew goes on to com­plain:

Scott… seems to [dis­pas­sion­ately de­bate] evil peo­ple’s evil world­views … with sta­tis­tics and cost-​benefit analy­ses.

He gets mad at peo­ple whom he de­tachedly in­tel­lec­tu­ally agrees with but who are will­ing to back up their be­liefs with war and fire rather than pussy­foot­ing around with debate-​team non­sense.

I ac­cept this crit­i­cism as an ac­cu­rate de­scrip­tion of what I do.

Com­pare to the fol­low­ing two cri­tiques: “The Catholic Church wastes so much en­ergy get­ting upset about heretics who be­lieve mostly the same things as they do, when there are lit­er­ally mil­lions of Hin­dus over in India who don’t be­lieve in Catholi­cism at all! What dumb pri­or­i­ties!”

Or “How could Joseph Mc­Carthy get angry about a cou­ple of peo­ple who might have been Com­mu­nists in the US movie in­dus­try, when over in Moscow there were thou­sands of peo­ple who were openly super Com­mu­nist all the time?”

There might be foot-​long giant cen­tipedes in the Ama­zon, but I am a lot more wor­ried about boll wee­vils in my walled gar­den.

Cre­ation­ists lie. Home­opaths lie. Anti-​vaxxers lie. This is part of the Great Cir­cle of Life. It is not nec­es­sary to call out every lie by a cre­ation­ist, be­cause the sort of per­son who is still lis­ten­ing to cre­ation­ists is not the sort of per­son who is likely to be moved by call-​outs. There is a role for or­ga­nized ac­tion against cre­ation­ists, like pre­vent­ing them from get­ting their opin­ions taught in schools, but the mar­ginal blog post “de­bunk­ing” a cre­ation­ist on some­thing is a waste of time. Every­body who wants to dis­cuss things ra­tio­nally has al­ready formed a walled gar­den and locked the cre­ation­ists out­side of it.

Anti-​Semites fight nasty. The Ku Klux Klan fights nasty. Neo-​Nazis fight nasty. We dis­miss them with equa­nim­ity, in ac­cor­dance with the an­cient proverb: “Haters gonna hate”. There is a role for or­ga­nized op­po­si­tion to these groups, like mak­ing sure they can’t ac­tu­ally ter­ror­ize any­one, but the mar­ginal blog post con­demn­ing Nazism is a waste of time. Every­body who wants to dis­cuss things char­i­ta­bly and com­pas­sion­ately has al­ready formed a walled gar­den and locked the Nazis out­side of it.

Peo­ple who want to dis­cuss things ra­tio­nally and char­i­ta­bly have not yet looked over the false rape sta­tis­tics ar­ti­cle and de­cided to lock Charles Cly­mer out of their walled gar­den.

He is not a hea­then, he is a heretic. He is not a for­eigner, he is a trai­tor. He comes in talk­ing all lib­er­al­ism and sta­tis­tics, and then he be­trays the sig­nals he has just sent. He is not just some guy who de­fects in the Pris­oner’s Dilemma. He is the guy who de­fects while wear­ing the “I CO­OP­ER­ATE IN PRIS­ON­ERS DILEM­MAS” t-​shirt.

What re­ally, re­ally both­ered me wasn’t Cly­mer at all: it was that ra­tio­nal­ists were tak­ing him se­ri­ously. Smart peo­ple, kind peo­ple! I even said so in my ar­ti­cle. Boll wee­vils in our beau­ti­ful walled gar­den!

Why am I al­ways harp­ing on fem­i­nism? I feel like we’ve got a good thing going, we’ve rat­i­fied our Pla­tonic con­tract to be in­tel­lec­tu­ally hon­est and char­i­ta­ble to each other, we are going about perma-​cooperating in the Pris­oner’s Dilemma and reap­ing gains from trade.

And then some­one says “Ex­cept that of course re­gard­less of all that I re­serve the right to still use lies and in­sults and ha­rass­ment and dark epis­te­mol­ogy to spread fem­i­nism”. Some­times they do this ex­plic­itly, like An­drew did. Other times they use a more nu­anced ar­gu­ment like “Surely you didn’t think the same rules against lies and in­sults and ha­rass­ment should apply to op­pressed and priv­i­leged peo­ple, did you?” And other times they don’t say any­thing, but just show their true col­ors by re­blog­ging an awful ar­ti­cle with false sta­tis­tics.

(and still other times they don’t do any of this and they are won­der­ful peo­ple whom I am glad to know)

But then some­one else says “Well, if they get their ex­cep­tion, I de­serve my ex­cep­tion,” and then some­one else says “Well, if those two get ex­cep­tions, I’m out”, and you have no idea how dif­fi­cult it is to suc­cess­fully rene­go­ti­ate the terms of a time­less Pla­tonic con­tract that doesn’t lit­er­ally exist.

No! I am Ex­cep­tion Nazi! NO EX­CEP­TION FOR YOU! Civ­i­liza­tion didn’t con­quer the world by for­bid­ding you to mur­der your en­e­mies un­less they are ac­tu­ally un­right­eous in which case go ahead and kill them all. Lib­er­als didn’t give their lives in the bat­tle against tyranny to end dis­crim­i­na­tion against all re­li­gions ex­cept Jansenism be­cause se­ri­ously fuck Jansenists. Here we have built our Schelling fence and here we are de­fend­ing it to the bit­ter end.

V

Con­trary to how it may ap­pear, I am not try­ing to doom fem­i­nism.

Fem­i­nists like to mock the naivete of any­one who says that clas­si­cal lib­er­al­ism would suf­fice to sat­isfy fem­i­nist de­mands. And true, you can­not sim­ply as­sume Adam Smith and de­rive An­drea Dworkin. Not being an ass­hole to women and not writ­ing laws de­clar­ing them of­fi­cially in­fe­rior are both good starts, but it not enough if there’s still cul­tural bag­gage and en­trenched gen­der norms.

But here I am, de­fend­ing this prin­ci­ple – kind of a su­per­charged ver­sion of lib­er­al­ism – of “It is not okay to use lies, in­sults, and ha­rass­ment against peo­ple, even if it would help you en­force your pre­ferred so­cial norms.”

And I no­tice that this gets us a heck of a lot closer to fem­i­nism than An­drew’s prin­ci­ple of “Go ahead and use lies, in­sults, and ha­rass­ment if they are ef­fec­tive ways to en­force your pre­ferred so­cial norms.”

Fem­i­nists are very con­cerned about slut-​shaming, where peo­ple ha­rass women who have too much pre­mar­i­tal sex. They point out that this is very hurt­ful to women, that men might un­der­es­ti­mate the amount of hurt it causes women, and that the standard-​classical-liberal so­lu­tion of re­mov­ing rel­e­vant gov­ern­ment op­pres­sion does noth­ing. All ex­cel­lent points.

But one as­sumes the ha­rassers think that women hav­ing pre­mar­i­tal sex is detri­men­tal to so­ci­ety. So they apply their gen­eral prin­ci­ple: “I should use lies, in­sults, and ha­rass­ment to en­force my pre­ferred so­cial norms.”

But this is the prin­ci­ple An­drew is as­sert­ing, against my­self and lib­er­al­ism.

Fem­i­nists think that women should be free from fear of rape, and that, if raped, no one should be able to ex­cuse them­selves with “well, she was ask­ing for it”.

But this is the same anti-​violence prin­ci­ple as say­ing that the IRA shouldn’t throw nail-​bombs through peo­ple’s win­dows or that, nail bombs hav­ing been thrown, the IRA can’t use as an ex­cuse “Yeah, well, they were com­plicit with the evil British oc­cu­pa­tion, they de­served it.” Again, I feel like I’m de­fend­ing this prin­ci­ple a whole lot more strongly and con­sis­tently than An­drew is.

Fem­i­nists are, shall we say, di­vided about trans­gen­der peo­ple, but let’s allow that the cor­rect so­lu­tion is to re­spect their rights.

When I was young and stu­pid, I used to be­lieve that trans­gen­der was re­ally, re­ally dumb. That they were look­ing for at­ten­tion or mak­ing it up or some­thing along those lines.

Luck­ily, since I was a clas­si­cal lib­eral, my re­ac­tion to this mis­take was – to not bother them, and to get very very angry at peo­ple who did bother them. I got upset with peo­ple try­ing to fire Phil Robert­son for being ho­mo­pho­bic even though ho­mo­pho­bia is stu­pid. You bet­ter bet I also got upset with peo­ple try­ing to fire trans­gen­der peo­ple back when I thought trans­gen­der was stu­pid.

And then I grew older and wiser and learned – hey, trans­gen­der isn’t stu­pid at all, they have very im­por­tant rea­sons for what they do and go through and I was atro­ciously wrong. And I said a mea culpa.

But it could have been worse. I didn’t like trans­gen­der peo­ple, and so I left them alone while still stand­ing up for their rights. My epis­temic struc­ture failed grace­fully. For any­one who’s not over­con­fi­dent, and so who ex­pects mas­sive epis­temic fail­ure on a va­ri­ety of im­por­tant is­sues all the time, grace­ful fail­ure modes are a re­ally im­por­tant fea­ture for an epis­temic struc­ture to have.

God only knows what An­drew would have done, if through bad luck he had ac­ci­den­tally got­ten it into his head that trans­gen­der peo­ple are bad. From his own words, we know he wouldn’t be “pussy­foot­ing around with debate-​team non­sense”.

I admit there are many fem­i­nist prin­ci­ples that can­not be de­rived from, or are even op­posed to my own lib­eral prin­ci­ples. For ex­am­ple, some fem­i­nists have sug­gested that pornog­ra­phy be banned be­cause it in­creases the like­li­hood of vi­o­lence against women. Oth­ers sug­gest that re­search into gen­der dif­fer­ences should be banned, or at least we should stig­ma­tize and ha­rass the re­searchers, be­cause any dis­cov­er­ies made might lend aid and com­fort to sex­ists.

To the first, I would point out that there is now strong ev­i­dence that pornog­ra­phy, es­pe­cially vi­o­lent ob­jec­ti­fy­ing pornog­ra­phy, very sig­nif­i­cantly de­creases vi­o­lence against women. I would ask them whether they’re happy that we did the nice lib­eral thing and waited until all the ev­i­dence came in so we could dis­cuss it ra­tio­nally, rather than im­me­di­ately mov­ing to ha­rass and si­lence any­one tak­ing the pro-​pornography side.

And to the sec­ond, well, we have a gen­uine dis­agree­ment. But I won­der whether they would pre­fer to dis­cuss that dis­agree­ment rea­son­ably, or whether we should both try to ha­rass and de­stroy the other until one or both of us are too dam­aged to con­tinue the strug­gle.

And if fem­i­nists agree to have that rea­son­able dis­cus­sion, but lose, I would tell them that they get a con­so­la­tion prize. Hav­ing joined lib­eral so­ci­ety, they can be sure that no mat­ter what those re­searchers find, I and all of their new liberal-​society bud­dies will fight tooth and nail against any­one who uses any tiny dif­fer­ences those re­searchers find to chal­lenge the cen­tral lib­eral be­lief that every­one of every gen­der has basic human dig­nity. Any vic­tory for me is going to be a vic­tory for fem­i­nists as well; maybe not a per­fect vic­tory, but a heck of a lot bet­ter than what they have right now.

VI

I am not try­ing to fight all the evils of the world. I am just try­ing to cul­ti­vate my gar­den.

And you argue: “But isn’t that self­ish and op­pres­sive and priv­i­leged? Isn’t that con­fin­ing every­one out­side of your walled gar­den to racism and sex­ism and nas­ti­ness?

But there is a fa­mous comic which demon­strates what can hap­pen to cer­tain walled gar­dens.

Why yes, it does sound like I’m mak­ing the un­shake­able as­sump­tion that lib­er­al­ism al­ways wins, doesn’t it? That peo­ple who vol­un­tar­ily re­lin­quish cer­tain forms of bar­barism will be able to grad­u­ally ex­pand their ter­ri­tory against the hordes out­side, in­stead of im­me­di­ately being con­quered by their less scrupu­lous neigh­bors? And it looks like An­drew isn’t going to let that as­sump­tion pass.

He writes:

The *whole his­tory* of why the in­sti­tu­tional Left in our so­ci­ety is a party of tooth­less, spine­less, gut­less losers and they’ve spent two gen­er­a­tions doing noth­ing but lose.

One is re­minded of the old joke about the Nazi pa­pers. The rabbi catches an old Jew­ish man read­ing the Nazi news­pa­per and de­mands to know how he could look at such garbage. The man an­swers “When I read our Jew­ish new­pa­pers, the news is so de­press­ing – op­pres­sion, death, geno­cide! But here, every­thing is great! We con­trol the banks, we con­trol the media. Why, just yes­ter­day they said we had a plan to kick the Gen­tiles out of Ger­many en­tirely!”

And I have two thoughts about this.

First, it ar­gues that “Evil peo­ple are doing evil things, so we are jus­ti­fied in using any weapons we want to stop them, no mat­ter how nasty” suf­fers from a cer­tain flaw. Every­one be­lieves their en­e­mies are evil peo­ple doing evil things. If you’re a Nazi, you are just de­fend­ing your­self, in a very pro­por­tion­ate man­ner, against the Vast Jew­ish Con­spir­acy To De­stroy All Ger­mans.

But sec­ond, be­fore tak­ing An­drew’s words for how dis­as­trously lib­er­al­ism is doing, we should check the news­pa­pers put out by lib­er­al­ism’s en­e­mies. Here’s Men­cius Mold­bug:

Cthulhu may swim slowly. But he only swims left. Isn’t that in­ter­est­ing?

In each of the fol­low­ing con­flicts in Anglo-​American his­tory, you see a vic­tory of left over right: the Eng­lish Civil War, the so-​called “Glo­ri­ous Rev­o­lu­tion,” the Amer­i­can Rev­o­lu­tion, the Amer­i­can Civil War, World War I, and World War II. Clearly, if you want to be on the win­ning team, you want to start on the left side of the field.

Where is the John Birch So­ci­ety, now? What about the NAACP? Cthulhu swims left, and left, and left. There are a few brief pe­ri­ods of true re­ac­tion in Amer­i­can his­tory – the post-​Reconstruction era or Re­demp­tion, the Re­turn to Nor­malcy of Hard­ing, and a cou­ple of oth­ers. But they are un­usual and fee­ble com­pared to the great left­ward shift. Mc­Carthy­ism is es­pe­cially no­tice­able as such. And you’ll note that Mc­Carthy didn’t ex­actly win.

In the his­tory of Amer­i­can democ­racy, if you take the main­stream po­lit­i­cal po­si­tion (Over­ton Win­dow, if you care) at time T1, and place it on the map at a later time T2, T1 is al­ways way to the right, near the fringe or out­side it. So, for in­stance, if you take the av­er­age seg­re­ga­tion­ist voter of 1963 and let him vote in the 2008 elec­tion, he will be way out on the wacky right wing. Cthulhu has passed him by.

I’ve got to say Men­cius makes a much more con­vinc­ing ar­gu­ment than An­drew does.

Robert Frost says “A lib­eral is a man too broad-​minded to take his own side in a quar­rel”. Ha ha ha.

And yet, out­side of Saudi Ara­bia you’ll have a hard time find­ing a coun­try that doesn’t at least pay lip ser­vice to lib­eral ideas. Stranger still, many of those then go on to ac­tu­ally im­ple­ment them, ei­ther vol­un­tar­ily or after suc­cumb­ing to strange pres­sures they don’t un­der­stand. In par­tic­u­lar, the his­tory of the past few hun­dred years in the United States has been a his­tory of de­creas­ing cen­sor­ship and in­creas­ing tol­er­ance.

Con­tra the Re­ac­tionar­ies, fem­i­nism isn’t an ex­cep­tion to that, it’s a ca­su­alty of it. 1970s fem­i­nists were say­ing that all women need to rise up and smash the pa­tri­archy, pos­si­bly with lit­eral smashing-​implements. 2010s fem­i­nists are say­ing that if some women want to be house­wives, that’s great and their own choice be­cause in a lib­eral so­ci­ety every­one should be free to pur­sue their own self-​actualization.

And that has cor­re­sponded to spec­tac­u­lar suc­cesses of the spe­cific causes lib­er­als like to push, like fem­i­nism, civil rights, gay mar­riage, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.

A lib­eral is a man too broad-​minded to take his own side in a quar­rel. And yet when lib­er­als enter quar­rels, they al­ways win. Isn’t that in­ter­est­ing?

VII

An­drew thinks that lib­er­als who vol­un­tar­ily re­lin­quish any form of fight­ing back are just ig­nor­ing per­fectly ef­fec­tive weapons. I’ll pro­vide the quote:

In a war, a real war, a war for sur­vival, you use all the weapons in your ar­se­nal be­cause you as­sume the enemy will use all the weapons in theirs. Be­cause you un­der­stand that it IS a war… Any en­ergy spent men­tally de­bat­ing how, in a per­fect world run by a Law­ful Neu­tral Cos­mic Ar­biter that will never exist, we could set­tle wars with­out bul­lets is en­ergy you could bet­ter spend down at the range im­prov­ing your marks­man­ship… I am amazed that the “ra­tio­nal­ist com­mu­nity” finds it to still be so opaque.

Let me name some other peo­ple who mys­te­ri­ously man­aged to miss this per­fectly ob­vi­ous point.

The early Chris­t­ian Church had the slo­gan “re­sist not evil” (Matthew 5:39), and in­deed, their idea of Burn­ing The Fuck­ing Sys­tem To The Ground was to go un­protest­ingly to mar­tyr­dom while pub­licly for­giv­ing their ex­e­cu­tion­ers. They were up against the Roman Em­pire, pos­si­bly the most ef­fec­tive mil­i­tary ma­chine in his­tory, ruled by some of the cru­elest men who have ever lived. By An­drew’s reck­on­ing, this should have been the biggest smack­down in the en­tire his­tory of smack­downs.

And it kind of was. Just not the way most peo­ple ex­pected.

Ma­hatma Gandhi said “Non-​violence is the great­est force at the dis­posal of mankind. It is might­ier than the might­i­est weapon of de­struc­tion de­vised by the in­ge­nu­ity of man.” An­other guy who fought one of the largest em­pires ever to exist and won re­sound­ingly. And he was pretty in­sis­tent on truth too: “Non-​violence and truth are in­sep­a­ra­ble and pre­sup­pose one an­other.”

Also skilled at miss­ing the ob­vi­ous: Mar­tin Luther King. Desmond Tutu. Aung San Suu Kyi. Nel­son Man­dela was smart and ef­fec­tive at the be­gin­ning of his ca­reer, but fell into a pat­tern of miss­ing the ob­vi­ous when he was older. Maybe it was Alzheimers.

Of course, there are coun­terex­am­ples. Jews who non­vi­o­lently re­sisted the Nazis didn’t have a very good track record. You need a cer­tain pre-​existing level of civ­i­liza­tion for lib­er­al­ism to be a good idea, and a cer­tain pre-​existing level of lib­er­al­ism for su­per­charged lib­er­al­ism where you don’t spread ma­li­cious lies and ha­rass other peo­ple to be a good idea. You need to have pre-​existing com­mu­nity norms in place be­fore try­ing to sum­mon mys­te­ri­ous ben­e­fi­cial equi­lib­ria.

So per­haps I am being too harsh on An­drew, to con­trast him with Aung San Suu Kyi and her ilk. After all, all Aung San Suu Kyi had to do was fight the Burmese junta, a cabal of in­cred­i­bly bru­tal mil­i­tary dic­ta­tors who killed sev­eral thou­sand peo­ple, tor­tured any­one who protested against them, and sent eight hun­dred thou­sand peo­ple they just didn’t like to forced labor camps. An­drew has to deal with peo­ple on Face­book who aren’t as fem­i­nist as he is. Clearly this re­quires much stronger mea­sures!

VIII

Lib­er­al­ism does not con­quer by fire and sword. Lib­er­al­ism con­quers by com­mu­ni­ties of peo­ple who agree to play by the rules, slowly grow­ing until even­tu­ally an equi­lib­rium is dis­turbed. Its bat­tle cry is not “Death to the un­be­liev­ers!” but “If you’re nice, you can join our cud­dle pile!”

But some peo­ple, through lack of imag­i­na­tion, fail to find this bat­tle cry suf­fi­ciently fear-​inspiring.

I hate to in­voke fic­tional ev­i­dence, es­pe­cially since per­haps An­drew’s strongest point is that the real world doesn’t work like fic­tion. But these peo­ple need to read Jacque­line Carey’s Kushiel’s Avatar.

Elua is the god of kind­ness and flow­ers and free love. All the other gods are gods of blood and fire, and Elua is just like “Love as thou wilt” and “All knowl­ege is worth hav­ing”. He is the pa­tron deity of ex­actly the kind of sick­en­ingly sweet namby-​pamby char­i­ta­ble lib­er­al­ism that An­drew is com­plain­ing about.

And there is a cer­tain com­mon­al­ity to a lot of the Kushiel books, where some tyrant or sor­cerer thinks that a god of flow­ers and free love will be a pushover, and starts ha­rass­ing his fol­low­ers. And the only Eluite who shows up to stop him is Phèdre nó De­lau­nay, and the tyrant thinks “Ha! A woman, who doesn’t even know how to fight, doesn’t have any magic! What a wuss!”

But here is an im­por­tant rule about deal­ing with fan­tasy book char­ac­ters.

If you ever piss off Sauron, you should prob­a­bly find the Ring of Power and take it to Mount Doom.

If you ever get piss off Volde­mort, you should prob­a­bly start look­ing for Hor­cruxes.

If you ever piss off Phèdre nó De­lau­nay, run and never stop run­ning.

Elua is the god of flow­ers and free love and he is ter­ri­fy­ing. If you op­pose him, there will not be enough left of you to bury, and it will not mat­ter be­cause there will not be enough left of your city to bury you in.

And Jacque­line Carey and Men­cius Mold­bug are both wiser than An­drew Cord.

Carey por­trays lib­er­al­ism as Elua, a ter­ri­fy­ing un­speak­able Elder God who is fun­da­men­tally good.

Mold­bug por­trays lib­er­al­ism as Cthulhu, a ter­ri­fy­ing un­speak­able Elder God who is fun­da­men­tally evil.

But An­drew? He doesn’t even seem to re­al­ize lib­er­al­ism is a ter­ri­fy­ing un­speak­able Elder God at all. It’s like, what?

An­drew is the poor shmuck who is sit­ting there say­ing “Ha ha, a god who doesn’t even con­trol any hell-​monsters or com­mand his wor­ship­pers to be­come killing ma­chines. What a weak­ling! This is going to be so easy!”

And you want to scream: “THERE IS ONLY ONE WAY THIS CAN POS­SI­BLY END AND IT IN­VOLVES YOU BEING EATEN BY YOUR OWN LE­GIONS OF DE­MON­AICALLY CON­TROLLED ANTS”

(uh, spoil­ers)

Lib­er­al­ism And its En­e­miesHomePromis­ing The Moon
long post is longpol­i­ticsra­tio­nal­ity