CoVID-19 Diary – Week 13

I’ve spent some time today not winning arguments, not that I should have expected to win any. Within education, arguments consist of putting forward different cases with a view to one being predominent. Its neither a row nor a fight that seeks to win through force of tone or the pitch of one’s voice. For the argument to be meaningful, all cases should share common assumptions, otherwise there is no measure against which the cases can be compared. In a court of law the judge takes the place of arbiter ensuring that such rules are adhered to.

Even in Parliament debates are expected to be reasoned though Prime Minister’s Questions might suggest otherwise. Of course PMQ is not a debate as the name suggests. You would hope that elections were fought on the principle that everyone is on an equal footing and that each party would conduct their campaign according to set rules, the Electoral Commission being arbiter in this case. One problem with regulating elections is that the conduct isn’t judged in real time and sanctions applied afterwards rarely match the consequence of the offence. In order to have fair elections its incumbent on each party to abide by conventions and regulate themselves as its nigh impossible to right wrongs committed during the campaign period or following the ballot.

Its unreasonable to expect everyday disagreements to abide by a set of agreed rules and electoral campaigns are, by nature, factional and biased. So while institutions can insist on setting terms and rules for debate, in politics and life in general there needs to be a different and more fluid framework, especially seeing that debating skills will be vastly unequal. This raises some interesting questions and conflicting thoughts in terms of the online discussions I’ve been having.

On the one hand I am more than equal to the task of debating facts and ideas with others who have little or no meaningful experience of reasoned debate. On the other hand I have one hand tied behind my back when my position depends on the other party agreeing to fundamentals they refuse to accept or don’t understand (or both). Unless I’m debating with a friend, exchanging friendly fire and in pursuit of beating my opponent, my objective is generally to get across a point or correct an error. I’m generally happy to concede defeat if I can see that I’m wrong or call it quits when the point is no longer worth arguing over. I usually give up when its patently obvious I’m hitting a brick wall.

Today’s discussion has suffered from the central tenet requiring the participants to go away and consider it in depth before coming back to the table, not that they would if they had opportunity to. The upshot is that those who understood the principle took one position and those who didn’t took another. It was effectively an echo chamber. However it got me to consider different approaches which I can adopt in future discussions. As for those who couldn’t agree with the central theme of my argument, I hope some will, nervertheless, refer back to the discussion in their further encounters and maybe soften their position.

Winning an argument is an unhealthy obsession as an argument is rarely an end in itself and losing an argument is [arguably] a better learning tool. The argument was over ‘all lives matter’ being a racist trope with many insisting they had every right to use it because for them it meant we are all equal and of equal value. For some this is PC gone mad while for others its an assault on the English language whereby the Black Lives Matter movement can appropriate one term and censure another. Of course this narrow discussion belies the depth and breadth of the race debate and the imperialist history of two nations for which its said: when one sneezes the other catches a cold. The answer is clearly not to debate but to educate though even this poses significant challenges for those of a certain age.

One of those I challenged refused to consider my plea that she reflect on her reaction to the BLM movement, doubling down on her presumption that being opposed to racism let her off the hook. She appealed to someone I presume she knows, even though he reiterated my point, and went on to ask what should be done about racism. Like poetic justice overseeing the thread, he suggested “A start would be to respect their campaign and not try to put it down with statements like all lives matter when at the moment all lives aren’t being put in danger or suffering prejudice”. I do wonder if the truth will ever hit home for her.

I believe the 80:20 rule applies to the outcome of these debates and factious battles in that by winning over and joining with 20% who understand the challenge and desire to move forward, the 80% will inevitably cave to progress eventually. This being the case we would only need to have a minority working group to further our goals. So though we still need to present the argument to all who will at least hear us, we don’t need to win them over in the debate. Winning the argument is really only necessary when engaging those who accept the precepts. Rather than making these discussions seem futile it can free us from the obsession to win the race and allow us to enjoy the competition.

With so many existential issues hitting us at the same time, struggling over just one of them feels overwhelming. If we could only agree on one thing without the depressing push back it would be more bearable. The one sign of hope has to compete with four reasons to despair when all you ask is that optimism be more than 50%. Yet a room of complete darkness can be lit up with one small candle. No progressive movement began in a room flooded with light and just a few shadows.

Black Lives Matter has never been obsessed with winning an argument, it’s goal has always been to change the narrative and that’s why ‘all lives matter’ is so destructive. Black Lives Matter seeks to shine a light on institutional racism, not to flood the room with light but to accentuate the shadows and when those shadows disturb us its working. Acknowledging racism and wishing the shadows away simply bleaches history and allows the machinary of oppression to keep operating. Those monuments to slave traders prove this by hiding the truth in plain sight for so long.

There is little so deflating as having an adversary agree with you when they have obviously not given a millimetre or irritating when they insist you have so much in common. There is little satisfaction to be had by being right but much to treasure knowing you have done the right thing, even when you lose.