Open-minded, closed for debate

I think I'm done debating most important things.

It doesn't mean that debate in itself is bad. But it requires a lot of conditions to come off effectively, and expectations have to be managed.

Generally, I'll only really want to engage in discourse if these conditions are met:

(1) Each of us can clearly articulate our assumptions, going as fundamental as necessary (but only if necessary); 

(2) Each of us can set up a reasonably sound logical chain that leads to some conclusion that is contentious or otherwise interesting;

(3) Each person is willing and able to start from alternative assumptions and work forward in a logical manner, ideally to gain insight into the other perspective, but minimally, in order to test the logical structure of the other argument;

(4) Each has time and temperament to make sure the discourse is civil;

and, for expectations,

(5) No one expects to either change their view, or change the other person's.

*(6) If evidence is presented that shows one's opinion is wrong, they will admit it.

*This was added by Alex, and as a meta-example, I edited the list to include it.

Needless to say, these conditions are met rarely, though I'd like to think, happily, they are met more frequently by my circle of friends than could be expected elsewhere.

It seems like a lot of conditions, but they seem to all be required for the process to make any sense and have any value, and not devolve into a shouting match.

I realize, belatedly, what Professor Hal Barron at Harvey Mudd College was talking about at the height of the cross-burning/Kerri Dunn car vandalism bait-and-switch madness in 2004. He called for civility in the discussions we were having on the 5-C about race and social equity issues. But the emotional tenor of that particular meeting was just too damn high -- we had a professor cry on stage, and plenty of us cried too (including me, who, to my lasting shame, gave a rambling rant about more worldliness in our tech campus). The then-diversity coordinator gave an angry speech about her own experiences, which probably did not help reduce the temperature.

All of this is prologue to say that yes, I think I understand what it means to have a meaningful discussion with someone of opposing views. But I'm tired, and relatively content with where I am when it comes to political philosophy and general policy platform. I'll revisit and update that view, hopefully, as new data (or new to me) comes to the fore. But in general, I'm not sure I see any value in continuing to seek out opportunities to engage people with different political views.

This sounds closed-minded. And, despite the title of this post, it might be. But I'm still willing to read, and have my views challenged. In the last few months, I can remember three things I thought were "true" challenged. 

As it turns out, the increase in federal debt is driven mostly by a fall in revenues, and not a rise in spending--even I had believed the Fox narrative, though as a Keynesian, I took a positive view of that false narrative. 

I also started to appreciate that there is some statistical evidence indicating the deterrent value for crimes like burglary of having a publicly-known firearm in the house. (I haven't tracked down the specific study from Nashville, but I trust the reports referencing it.) I have to accept that, at least for a certain class of crimes, guns actually do behave as a deterrent, and that some actors, at some levels, are rationally deterred. I don't think this has changed my stance on guns tremendously, as the self-contradictory statements from gun advocates indicate. (In this case, gun advocates believe in its deterrent value, yet claimed that the publication of gun owner residences make it more likely for them to be targets for robbery. This, despite the statistical evidence to the contrary that, if they could be self-consistent, would actually make a case for gun ownership.)

Finally, regarding the Prop 38 37 GMO initiative, I eventually got convinced through some running dialogues (often involving dozens of highly intelligent people on FB) that while I still opposed the proposition on its execution, I did get a reframed perspective. I had approached the issue in terms of a referendum on the safety of GMOs (which I believe evidence supports), but my good friend clarified that I should approach it as a consumer choice problem. Even if I believe that GMOs are safe to eat and generally a good thing in our world, not everyone may agree, and it may be worth a small price to pay for labeling such that those who choose to, can opt out. My views on this are still evolving, but that's the point -- they are evolving thanks to an actual dialogue (or, more accurately, an heptadecalogue).

I should note that only the last is an example of an actual debate leading to changing views. The first two were prompted by questions raised by friends, which spurred me to research the questions on my own.

Look, I've debated American politics, gay marriage, American foreign policy, America's relationship with Israel, the death penalty, Benghazi, healthcare, gun ownership, Biblical literalism, libertarian philosophy, and a number of other things with intelligent people who happen to believe differently than I do.

Sometimes it was fun. Sometimes it was exhausting and frustrating, and changed my overall regard for the other person negatively. Sometimes one or both of us would duck out, just because it didn't seem to accomplish anything or one or the other just seemed extremely underprepared to have a real discussion about something.

At this point, however, I think that, even if it hasn't always been a waste of time in the past, it will be a waste of time going forward. My views are pretty well-formed, and I'm largely comfortable with them. They probably will evolve, perhaps radically, perhaps due to personal tragedy or more positive events (my view on taxes might change if I start making over $1 million a year). But I'm somewhat, cautiously confident in my ability to adapt given those changes, or new information, without subjecting myself to the torment of engaging for the sake of engaging.

Note: I don't have anyone in mind when I say all this. It's just a general conclusion I've reached over the last few months. Those of you who believe differently, and with whom I've had many conversations over the years, I love you. And we'll still talk about many, many things. And I can't say you're wrong for you. But I've concluded what you believe in would be wrong for me. And I need energy that would go toward honing debating points elsewhere right now.

CA-29 election flyer targets Asian-Americans

Updated 14:22 PDT: I uploaded low-resolution copies of the entire flyer. Some of the text is illegible. But given that there's nothing especially controversial in the flyer, I think the low-res images still convey the interesting approach taken in these political direct mailings. Let me know if you want high-resolution copies.

Interesting - Adam Schiff (D-CA 29th) just sent an update that contained Chinese characters and stated that he was "proud to represent such a large and vibrant Asian community". It also shows Schiff standing with an Asian-American winner of an art competition.

I wonder if the 34% of Whites and 26% of Hispanics (both larger fractions of the population, according to 2000 Census/Wikipedia) received the same flier.

Shirley Sherrod Part 2: Telling the Story

This was going to be an analysis of the politics, the decision trees, the steps that led to the present debacle, and the possible options going forward for the players in the Shirley Sherrod saga. Then, I realized that the internet will be filled with that tomorrow. How will it play in November? Can Obama afford to hire her back? Can he afford not to? The talking heads that charged headlong into a wrongheaded conclusion will continue to charge, unabated, without my help, and in spite of my protest. I may return to these thoughts, but not now.

There’s a story here that has to be told, and, I fear, won’t be, at least not broadly. I’ll do my best here, and hope that others notice it, too.

Shirley Sherrod, Part 1: Summary of the controversy, and notes on full speech

Note: Timestamp embedding doesn't work for the CNN clips because of the advertising code. To view the clip from that time, you will have to manually move the playback control to the referenced timestamp.

CNN summarizes the main issues and timeline of the Shirley Sherrod controversy.

Briefly, Shirley Sherrod, the Georgia director of rural development for the USDA, was forced to resign on Monday because of controversy stemming from a 38-second clip from a 2009 talk at a NAACP chapter in southern Georgia. During that clip, she mentions that she decided to limit her help to a white farmer, Roger Spooner, who came to her for help. The NAACP and USDA condemned her immediately. Subsequent investigation indicates she was instrumental in helping save that family's farm. The NAACP has recanted its original condemnation. Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack has maintained that USDA has a zero tolerance policy on racism. It is also reported that he is fully supported by the White House.

The Atlantic: "Societal Forces and 'The Daily Show' "

An interesting article from the Atlantic on gender and the Daily Show. It brings up a point or three about women in comedy. But I still have a feeling that I'm pretty (but not completely) sure isn't grounded in sexism that tells me that Olivia Munn's delivery isn't meshing well with what I enjoy about The Daily Show.

In college, I once felt guilty for being annoyed by a Jewish guy in my department. But I eventually came to terms that I disliked him not because he was Jewish, but because he was annoying, insensitive, kind of arrogant, and not a really effective person to work with.

If we can't distinguish that race/gender is one (albeit very important) of many components of identity, then progressivism is doomed. I think it'll be a good day when people can hate on, say, Obama or Pelosi or Sarah Palin without it either being intended as racist/sexist, or being perceived as racist/sexist. But it'll be a long, long time before that happens. And I question whether that should even be the goal. So a question for all of you: how do YOU reconcile the need to acknowledge and correct for institutional and personal discrimination without losing your ability to make reasonable critiques of a person?

A letter to Asian-Americans in California Regarding Proposition 8

Update 05/27/2009: Thanks to David Coyne for catching an error I made. I had stated that Asian-Americans were the only minority group to have voted as a majority for Proposition 8. This is false. According to a CNN exit poll, Asian-Americans were evenly split for and against Proposition 8, with a slight plurality voting no. The post has been edited to account for this.

That said, the post's intent and content remain valid; it is still troubling to me that a full 49% of Asian-Americans supported Proposition 8, given this history.


To my friends in California -

I heard about the Supreme Court ruling. And while it may have been consistent with expectations, I know it was not consistent with your hopes.

I am reminded of the many instances of separate but equal justice that California in particular, and nations in general, have visited upon their citizens.

What’s in a Name?

What’s in a Name? Weighing in on Texas State Rep. Betty Brown comments

I decided to write about the case involving Texas State Representative Betty Brown, (R-Terrell) (homepage), because I think it’s important to address events that might trigger emotional rather than nuanced reactions in as calm a manner as possible. There are way too many issues to take the eye off the ball and rant about a case which only serves to reinforce preexisting notions of an imagined “other”.

The Houston Chronicle reports that Rep. Brown made some controversial comments during a session of the House Elections Committee in response to testimony delivered by Ramey Ko, a representative of the Organization of Chinese Americans.