Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past. It is not that they are afraid of being convinced. They fear only to appear ridiculous or to prejudice by their embarrassment their hope of winning over some third person to their side.
I'm pretty sure I've heard this argument made about the campaign for our recent President as well. HRC had to use words well because she, and her supporters, believe in them.
While DJT and his supporters believe in "LOL - just kidding - can't you take a joke? Don't be so uptight." So he was free to play with the truth. His supporters aren't trying to convince themselves - they know their arguments to be BS - instead they're trying to find the secret code to convince enough bystanders.
What's interesting to me is that reading through this thread, particularly Sartre's description of anti-Semite thinking, is that the exact same thoughts are voiced in the rightist spheres I inhabit, but referring to the left. Particularly regarding discourse and respect (or lack thereof) for it.
In fact, it gets interesting when I think about speakers being no-platformed of late. When, IDK, Richard Spencer or someone gets protested away from some university, is this an example of:
- blatant disrespect for words, as shown through Spencer's poisoning the well as Sartre describes, or
- blatant disrespect for words, as shown through him not being allowed to speak?
It is a strange world indeed where both sides, referring to the same incident, take completely different positions, both in the name of free speech.
Yeah, totally agree on that. The worse part is that you can't offer a solid argument without being called biased by the other side.
I think this is one where you just have to call them wrong and tell them to do one if they disagree. Hate speech just isn't something that we have to accommodate, nor do we have to give credence to the arguments for it.
> What's interesting to me is that reading through this thread, particularly Sartre's description of anti-Semite thinking, is that the exact same thoughts are voiced in the rightist spheres I inhabit, but referring to the left. Particularly regarding discourse and respect (or lack thereof) for it.
Probably because of postmodernism, which is perhaps best interpreted as "defense against the dark arts" for the left. The "disrespect for words" and meaning itself, a hallmark of postmodernism, has its origins in propaganda techniques developed by corporations for marketing purposes, and was weaponized by the right long before it ever got picked up by the left.
Ah, Karl Popper, interesting to see his work about tolerance make a resurgence of attention. It seems to be mingled about in various political discussions from talking heads. It's right on about lax tolerance welcoming the intolerance and the whole system crumbles. In the end we all have to make a stand for something, every robust structure needs a sound skeleton to stand upright.
Reading the "Bad Faith" section of the wikipedia entry was especially interesting when you compare the profile of your average alt-right person with the mindset Sartre is describing.
It's tough. I'd encourage you to take a step back and reflect on arguments used from many positions. Currently a lot of discourse is breaking down and polarization increasing because of a lack of reflection and understanding one's own biases and the arguments one's making and where they're coming from. No one has a monopoly on bad faith (unless you're considering humanity as a whole). I've found Jonathan Haidt's The Righteous Mind[0] to be really insightful and useful in this regard, particularly if one has a goal of effecting meaningful change.
I'm not saying anyone has a monopoly on bad faith. Your rebuke isn't overly harsh. If your criticisms were more pointed I may have a more directed response... but I'm not sure exactly what you have in mind when you say "discourse is breaking down", etc.
(EDIT: I'm perfectly aware I'm generalizing and speaking of stereotypes when I say "average alt-right person", but Sartre wasn't exactly describing separate individuals either...)
Are those generalizations useful and constructive, particularly in this case? I'd argue strongly no. In fact, I'd argue they're actively counter-productive. One of the self-described reasons for the feeling of alienation that many have expressed is exactly this type of generalization. If you have a goal of working against, this, it seems that you're actually reinforcing it when you do so.
I think if those generalizations let us draw a useful parallel to a historical example, we can note the similarities (and differences) and apply lessons learned from that era to our own.
(Not that Sartre included a chapter called "How to Have Avoided The Whole Affair" in his book...)
You may be thinking of Sartre's Anti-Semite and Jew
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Semite_and_Jew
Here's a quote:
Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past. It is not that they are afraid of being convinced. They fear only to appear ridiculous or to prejudice by their embarrassment their hope of winning over some third person to their side.
(Thanks to 'geofft and 'tptacek for this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13089118)