You’re totally right.
One thing, though. You wrote: “people are happy to make some noise, but are usually uninterested in taking the time to really listen and try to understand, and to really explain their point of view.”
I think what makes this happen isn’t really a question of interest. It’s more like, you see something you strongly disagree with, and you get emotional and want to just cancel out the dangerous idea as quickly as possible.
Going for the accusation of hidden agenda is easy because it cancels out anything the other side says and you can do it almost automatically, since it’s about the whole other side, not just one point or incident.
When people do this a lot, something very dangerous happens: the space of acceptable discussion becomes narrower.
Basically, if there’s some opinion that will often get you accused of, say, racism, chances are you’re going to be more quiet about that opinion. Most people will just keep it to themselves and not let anybody know they think it.
In some cases, this might seem like a good thing, because certain ideas actually are racism and actually can lead people to violence. (Even in those cases, there’s a lot to be said for the liberal-democratic principle of allowing even the most outrageous opinions in public debate.)
But it’s actually very dangerous, because it makes certain things unsayable, not because they’re false but because they are associated with some hidden agenda.
The thing about hidden agendas is, well, they’re hidden. You can’t usually prove someone has a hidden agenda. As a result, you might be wrong, and the debate can exclude ideas that might make sense.
Let me make this all more concrete:
Being critical of Israel’s security policy can be a cover for antisemitism, and it can be used to harm Israel and Israelis. It can, but sometimes it’s not.
Equally, supporting Israel’s security policy can be a cover for anti-Arab or Western colonial ideologies, and it can be used to further some colonial aspirations. It can, but sometimes it’s not.
If we automatically snap at anyone who’s critical/supportive of Israel’s security policy, we’re saying that there’s no situation in which it’s kosher to criticize/support it. Or in other words, we’re saying that Israel’s military can do no right, or that it can do no wrong.
I don’t think this is what people actually believe, but it seems to be what’s happening in this polarized debate.
By the way, Paul Graham also has a long and excellent essay titled What You Can’t Say. I should probably read more of his essays, the ones I’ve read seem to be so insightful and relevant.
]]>Second, Paul Graham, an amazing essayist, wrote up an essay on how to disagree, detailing a hierarchy of seven levels of disagreement, from name-calling to refuting the central point. It’s well worth reading.
]]>