The past week or so we’ve been visited by a couple commenters who have come here to condemn us. My mistake, apparently, is in not throwing up my hands and surrendering immediately.
Let me be clear: at Iowa Liberal, we have a feisty spirit but a respect for the principles of logic and intellectual honesty. We really dislike dishonesty and try our best not to practice it ourselves.
If somebody wants to make an accusation, they will be allowed all the longitude and latitude they need to make their case. They will not be banned. Any specific criticisms made will be addressed to the best of our abilities. If we are told we are still ignoring something, we will address that very thing.
What we will not do is surrender without good cause. As we allow ourselves to be questioned, we expect the exact same thing of those who come here swinging away.
I forged my argumentative style in the fires of the ISCA BBS, often surrounded by half a dozen righties and libertarians, enduring continuous attacks on me, my abilities, and everything I represented. Yet I always had the same tricks up my sleeve: Sift through the attacks, find the substantive points made, address them, and wait for the favor to be returned.
Boy, you can clear out a room with that method, real quick.
Or very slowly. A few times over the years I found truly worthy adversaries, intellectual warriors who would not scamper off, who felt their views trumped mine and were ready to showdown. A couple exchanges stand out in my memory, but the six-month battle with user Astaroth, an actual CATO employee who refused to back down on taxation being theft, remains my most rewarding. He wouldn’t settle for huffing off with a stream of insults as I’m used to. He was going to stand his ground and show me the error of my ways.
But he didn’t. And soon he left ISCA, never to engage me again. After six months of back-and-forth, he was spent, and I felt my fundamental premises and conclusion remained sound.
I confess, I do have another secret technique: I actually concede points when I cannot win, and avoid arguing about things I lack confidence in. You will not, trust me, find me engaged in ferocious debate over the minutae of tax policy or the root causes of the War of 1812. It’s part of the reason I don’t blog every day. Sometimes I simply trust others to say things better than I can.
If somebody wants to visit Iowa Liberal and tell me what a big poopyhead I am, I will respond with, “Prove it.” And if they can’t bring it, they will be disregarded. Should their case prove to be especially thin, they may even receive a bit of condemnation themselves.
But for gosh sakes, don’t come in here swinging, and then start bawling about what meanies we are when you get a crack on the jaw in return. Stand up and fight for what you believe in, and if you can’t hack it, then perhaps you should reconsider your stance.
It certainly seems that is what is expected of me, so I apply the expectation in return. It seems to be the most elementary, basic standard of debate, and I treat others exactly as I wish to be treated. It is a definition of intellectual honesty that actually incorporates an understanding of intellect and honesty.
My honest opinion is that most people simply do not hold themselves to the same standards they hold others to. For whatever reason, they expect to speak and be listened to, and they have their techniques for attacking and condemning those who do not easily comply (for an explanation of why the right tends to be dominated by such types, observe Rush Limbaugh). Such people will find their going here difficult, but we can only apologize so much for refusing to bend over for a bunch of bluster. The key to honest argument is to concede up front what it would take to prove one wrong, and this is my effort to make it clear what standards Iowa Liberal operates by, and how we expect ourselves to be judged.
If you come here assuming we are doing our best to describe the world as we see it via techniques that are open and falsifiable, and understand that we are willing to assign doubt where it exists, you’ll be just fine. Even if you lose the argument.
-jb
