Retired Professor, Writing Center Director, Scholar of train wrecks in public deliberation
I used to have a colleague who got all of his information from Fox News. Whenever we got into a political disagreement (which wasn’t frequent), he would make some claim to me, and I would show it was wrong. It never changed his reliance on Fox. This isn’t just an issue with Fox—I have the … Continue reading “The Chosen One”
[Image from here] This class is about how to argue whether a text or action of some kind is racist; this is not about going through the semester stamping things RACIST or NOT RACIST. That’s a waste of time, largely because it isn’t a neat binary between racist and non-racist things (there are degrees and … Continue reading “Rhetoric and Racism: How to argue about whether something is racist (revised)”
There are, loosely, two ways to think about what disagreement means in a democracy (or, really, any other group). For some people disagreement is productive because, in fact, we really do disagree, and disagreement means that those different ways of thinking about a problem are being openly discussed. These people view disagreement in a democracy … Continue reading “The political power of the irrational rhetor”
There aren’t two sides on abortion. There aren’t two sides on gun control. There aren’t two sides on immigration. There are far more than two. But reducing a complicated issue to two sides is politically useful—as Hitler noted, it’s easier to persuade people if you make issues very simple, and as people have noted about … Continue reading “There aren’t two sides on political issues”
[Image from here] Russell Brand once said: “When I was poor and complained about inequality they said I was bitter; now that I’m rich and I complain about inequality they say I’m a hypocrite. I’m beginning to think they just don’t want to talk about inequality.” In other words, people dismissed his arguments on the … Continue reading “How the fallacy of motivism tricks us into demagoguery”
When I was teaching first year courses in argumentation, one of my favorite texts for sparking interesting arguments about poverty, homelessness, and working conditions was George Orwell’s Down and Out in Paris and London. His description of poverty usefully vexed a tendency to approach the issues in “liberal v. conservative” ways, and helped students move … Continue reading “Avocado toast, Orwell, homelessness, and prosperity gospel”
I believe in democracy, and that means that I believe that we reason best when we reason together. A good government strives to find the best ways to get good policies is to consider the impact of a policy from the point of view of all the citizens in our diverse world. I don’t think … Continue reading “When GOP rabid factionalists discover the concept of a qualifying phrase or clause”
I was talking with a colleague who exclusively consumes right-wing media, and mentioned a study, and he said, “Is it a good study? A lot of those people are biased.” I was stunned. He doesn’t mind bias; he consumes nothing but biased media. I mentioned this to him once, and he said, “Oh, so the … Continue reading “Argutainment, bias, and democratic deliberation”
[I cut this from the book about demagoguery, but other academics might find it interesting.] 1. Classical uses of the term demagogue The term “demagogue” is originally Greek, and it’s conventional to rely on Greek sources in order to ground a definition, often with the assertion that there is a binary between demagogues and statesmen … Continue reading “Classical uses of the term demagogue/ry”
You can’t get a good answer if you ask a bad question. And one of the best ways to shut out any substantial criticism of your position is to ensure that the questions asked about it are softball questions. If your policy isn’t very good, make sure the debate isn’t on the stasis of “is … Continue reading “Stasis shifts (distracting people from how bad your argument is)”