,
8 tweets,
2 min read
Read on Twitter
A crucial mistake Singal is making, by the way, is conflating argument with debate. A person who refuses to debate someone may yet be offering arguments against the positions that person holds. You can engage with ideas without engaging with a person.
Singal likes to say that "I refuse to defend my right to exist" is a preposterous position to take. But do a google search for that term—you'll find it used over and over by people who go on to DEFEND THEIR RIGHT TO EXIST.
Hundreds of essays, likely thousands, in which people explain what they mean by "I refuse to defend my right to exist," why it's the position they've landed on, and why they think it's appropriate. They're out there making the argument. In public.
How many of those essays do you think Jesse Singal, who mocks and deprecates the phrase regularly, has read? If he's read half a dozen of them, I'll eat my hat.
And why am I saying all this to y'all, rather than to him? Why am I engaging with his ideas in the public sphere rather than debating him face to face? Because when I've debated him face to face we've both found the experience unpleasant and unhelpful.
I am, to the chagrin of friends and family, notoriously willing to debate randos on the internet. But even I won't debate Jesse Singal. Maybe that's because I'm afraid, or weak, or insecure in my views. Or maybe it's something else.
Just remembered that I gave a whole huge speech a few months ago about why it's actually sometimes a bad idea to debate people, a speech whose arguments I am more than happy to debate. DEBATE IS (SOMETIMES) BAD! PROVE ME WRONG!
(Note that the speech is not actually nearly three hours long. There was a very prolonged Q&A after, with a lot of spirited debate.)
