All: How has the opposing position been most or least effective in their arguments?

submitted by [deleted] from self.GCdebatesQT

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–][deleted] 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Both sides have bullies and people who can be a little mean to others, but since GC has strength in the ideology and beliefs, then I feel like this is what hurts GC the most.

I'm really glad you brought this up. Before encountering the QT-GC debates, I had the dubious pleasure of meeting one person after another in academia (some students, some instructors) who habitually mistook the search for truth as ideological blood sport, and intellectual inquiry as a means of inflicting psychological blunt force trauma. They absolutely loved the concept of Socratic inquiry and completely ignored the intertwined concept of Socratic humility. The best instructors I ever had were fluent in both.

[–][deleted] 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

They absolutely loved the concept of Socratic inquiry and completely ignored the intertwined concept of Socratic humility

Ooo I think this is the crux of GC's situation, and the solution. It's tough, I think, because woman already are expected to be humble and demure and demonstrate humility, so a lot if not most GC feminists are understandably pushing back against that. It is the furthest thing from fair, but as you say, your best instructors practiced both methods mentioned.

[–][deleted] 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

You're right about GC in particular being over . . . well, it's a long list, isn't it? Being told to "be nice" is just one item on that list. And I think a lot of pure anger and frustration comes through, and sometimes it unfairly hurts even the GC-adjacent.

Socratic humility doesn't really mean meekness, though (I think a lot of its critics might think it does). It's more about humility before the unknown -- can we admit there's a point where we don't know something? Where we cannot logically advance a given argument? That there are limits to our understanding? Can we accept it when we're proven wrong? Totally not the way it's taught in high-powered law schools and our extraverted culture, but there it is. We can be super-passionate about a line of inquiry, and quick to dispel utter nonsense, but also humble enough to admit the limits of our knowledge. And to remember the human being on the other side of the debate. It's not an easy line to walk, but I don't think it was ever meant to be easy.

(clarity edits)