Doing actual journalism is hard and mostly unprofitable because many people diskike being told the truth about the world they live in. Selling propaganda and clickbait to the gullible masses is apparently much easier. Liberals tried to ignore the neo nazis and they simply proliferated in the shadows. Confronting their garbage ideas head on is clearly the better approach.
Such an excellent take. Probably the most formative class I took in college was Peter Novak’s “The Holocaust and the Uses of History” which essentially was a quarter-long discussion about how to deal with holocaust denial. It absolutely shaped me intellectually; and this piece has fit into that place so well. Thank you.
“Perhaps most damaging has been the acceptance of the “oxygen of publicity” theory—the idea that bad ideas spread because they receive attention, and therefore the solution is to eliminate attention. But Hassan’s performance reveals how backwards this understanding is. Bad ideas spread in the absence of good-faith scrutiny. They thrive in environments where they never have to explain themselves, justify their practical implications, or respond to basic moral questions about their consequences.”
Hassan is brilliant! I subscribe to Zeteo! Great debate, and great newsletter Michael.
You should consider going on the show and doing the same. It got 4 million views as of yesterday.
We need more intellectuals like yourself and Hassan leading the charge against these ignorant fools. I honestly feel bad for these people if they weren’t so pathetic. They are so confident in their beliefs, yet lack any true semblance of self-awareness or knowledge.
FYI: the Nazi/fascist; Connor, was fired from his job. On the bright side, he did start a gofundme campaign and raised over $25k as of yesterday. Only in America!…:)
Thanks for the "Karate Kid" moment. Watching Hassan's skill, I am reminded of Asian martial arts where the 'master' finds and always returns to their effortless 'center' from which all actions eminate.
It is this power of "knowing thy self" and moving in sureity and harmony to encounter any threat. Moral clarity is that important center point from which powerful actions can throw challengers off balance exposing their weaknesses. Moral jujitsu... an art we all need to practice.
I largely agree with John Smith's prior comment: while there is much to admire in Hasan's performance, what difference does it make that he "won" all of his conversations, or that his ideas "defeated" all of his interlocutors' ideas, BUT ONLY IN THE MINDS OF THE VIEWERS WHO ALREADY AGREED WITH HIM?
The people who surrounded and interacted with Hasan did not appear chastened, reflective, ashamed or ambivalent as a result of their conversations with him.
If anything they appeared humiliated and resentful. They repeatedly indicated that Hasan employed the equivalent of Jedi Mind Tricks to disarm them and avoid engaging with their well-founded views.
Hasan, in their view, was the dishonest and cowardly one.
Therefore, was this exercise more an exercise in futility than a master class?
It's a fair point. But I don't think the goal of this was to "win" a single debate or convince any hard-core regressives to reconsider their worldviews. In the end, all that matters is convincing the mushy middle of the electorate to think for a moment before swallowing the mountains of bullshit that the far right is shoveling at them. Learning how to do that requires learning how the bullshit is constructed and how to set it on fire.
[Ick! Sorry for the disgusting metaphor, but you get the point.]
Part of debate is you don't set out to change everyone's mind. Most people make their election choice long before election day comes up. Maybe he changed the minds of 1% of the viewers though which counts for something.
At least conservatives are willing to state their views for the world to see. We can all pick our side accordingly.
I find that practice really helps. Listening to bullshit requires not reaction but counterpoint, and it's not easy for most to slide into that chair. But practice works! Keep doing it, and find your ability grows. Keep listening to counter-arguments, and write them out in your own words, repeat to yourself. It's worth it as your confidence grows!
Ah, yes, the famous 20th Century debates to defeat fascism. Remember when we mobilized millions of men to deploy to Europe to debate Hitler? Worked like a charm. The 101st Airborne Debate Squad; those dudes debated the heck outta the fascists. Ridiculous. You cannot debate these people. And, please, spell Hasan's name correctly, at least.
True, but I think the problem is that it was left too late. Should have been 30 or 40 years earlier. And consistently. This is the fear now. There's no point debating with J D Vance et al. They have already made their Faustian bargain. But you do debate the next generation in this way, and challenge these toxic ideas. Unfortunately it takes an enormous amount of self possession and cool headedness to do it without things degenerating into a slanging match.
"When the Franco supporter refuses to condemn the Nazi Holocaust, [Hasan*] doesn’t continue the debate as if this were a reasonable position. He identifies it as disqualifying moral failure and moves on. When participants admit they don’t believe in democracy, he doesn’t pretend this is just another policy disagreement—he points out that democratic debate requires at least minimal commitment to democratic values."
The issue is...he didn't really do that? To treat fascism as disqualifying, or to embody the principle that democratic debate requires some commitment to democratic values, you can't sit on stage and "debate" 20 nazis while they laugh at you for having anything resembling a principle. The nazis were not there to "win a debate" in the "marketplace of ideas." They were there to show contempt for Hasan and laugh at him because he's nonwhite, an immigrant, and a left-liberal. They were there to show they considered him unworthy of respect. In doing all this, they sought to invite other people to be nazis and have fun laughing at people they dislike.
I am inclined toward supporting free speech principles. I get the distaste for "deplatforming." But the truth is that Hasan did not "win" this debate, even as he made cogent and moral arguments and the nazis made inane and immoral non-arguments. No right wing fascist watched that and reconsidered his views. Nobody was considering becoming a right wing fascist based on the force of the factual and logical basis of fascism, so nobody was dissuaded on that basis. And I fear that there are guys out there who enjoyed the spectacle of contempt thrown at a left-liberal brown person from another country and thought it was great and they want more of it. The only way you win that sort of non-debate is by not participating.
I enjoy your posts and learn a lot from them. Unfortunately, It’s hard for me to find time to read long posts all in one go. Have you considered turning them into podcasts? I listen to podcasts while doing some work or home task that does not require mental focus, like exercising. Not a complaint. Just a thought.
Please keep print media. Podcasts are best for simple subjects. Not philosophy imho. Topics where you can miss a bit now and then as most podcast listeners do.
I bit the AI bullet and am listening to your post, even though I find the enunciation awkward. I’ll keep my whining to myself in the future. 🙃Thanks for your reply.
Criminalizing all symbols, slogans, & extreme ideologies post WW II has been pretty successful. You can’t really criminalize thoughts, but you can make it really morally clear & marginalize those thinkers with the criminalization. That said…
I somewhat tend to agree that driving ideologies underground can be dangerous, too, perhaps more so in a pretty fragmented social media. This brings me to the need for social media regulation, with global standards, enforced respect for sovereignty, & a way to pre-empt stochastic violence by holding platforms responsible for their stochastic terrorists.
With platforms forced to operate their products safely, so that genocidal or authoritarian ideologies can’t spread, I don’t really see the value of allowing them to be debated as if legitimate.
Good stuff. I've engaged with this argument myself, having heard many times that "amplifying" a lie just gives it power. This seems to have sprung from social psychology research that shows when subjects are presented with a lie and then the debunking of a lie, they remember the lie more than the debunking.
But that seems flawed to me. The flip side is to note that a lie unchallenged is a lie believed. The answer, I think, is in how the lie is challenged or "debunked." It also fails because it ignores the role of persistence. Most of all, it ignores the tactic of "prebunking" or "inoculating" the audience against lies by taking the offensive rather than trying to respond defensively.
Another thing that has struck me is that this reticence to confront stupidity is a feature not only of progressive orthodoxy but springs from the conventional "wisdom" of the professional political consultant industry, which argues for "dumbing down" everything into anodyne talking points.
I haven't yet watched the entirety of Hasan's ordeal, but I intend to ASAP.
Thank you! This is such a clear explanation of the reasons that cancel culture/information silos etc have in fact weakened the left. But not for the ginned up hysteria pushed by the Andrew Sullivans et al (sad - he used to be so open to debate!) - that "woke"ness has somehow been worse than fascism. Of course it hasn't been - and the momentary detours in the careers of a few right-leaning "liberals" are in any case almost all at an end.
It is exactly as you say - not debating makes it look like our arguments and positions are weak - when in fact, left-progressivism is to a large extent based on reason and logic, as well as a keen sense of historical precedent, and can WIN these arguments.
Excellent perspective. But the road back for all our institutions as described is a heavy lift, and time is short. It also requires significant long-term investments, which I am not sure the institutions are willing to make.
Hassan's obvious intelligence, and his lack of embarrassment over being intelligent, is a reproach to most American journalists.
Doing actual journalism is hard and mostly unprofitable because many people diskike being told the truth about the world they live in. Selling propaganda and clickbait to the gullible masses is apparently much easier. Liberals tried to ignore the neo nazis and they simply proliferated in the shadows. Confronting their garbage ideas head on is clearly the better approach.
Such an excellent take. Probably the most formative class I took in college was Peter Novak’s “The Holocaust and the Uses of History” which essentially was a quarter-long discussion about how to deal with holocaust denial. It absolutely shaped me intellectually; and this piece has fit into that place so well. Thank you.
“Perhaps most damaging has been the acceptance of the “oxygen of publicity” theory—the idea that bad ideas spread because they receive attention, and therefore the solution is to eliminate attention. But Hassan’s performance reveals how backwards this understanding is. Bad ideas spread in the absence of good-faith scrutiny. They thrive in environments where they never have to explain themselves, justify their practical implications, or respond to basic moral questions about their consequences.”
Hassan is brilliant! I subscribe to Zeteo! Great debate, and great newsletter Michael.
You should consider going on the show and doing the same. It got 4 million views as of yesterday.
We need more intellectuals like yourself and Hassan leading the charge against these ignorant fools. I honestly feel bad for these people if they weren’t so pathetic. They are so confident in their beliefs, yet lack any true semblance of self-awareness or knowledge.
FYI: the Nazi/fascist; Connor, was fired from his job. On the bright side, he did start a gofundme campaign and raised over $25k as of yesterday. Only in America!…:)
Thanks for the "Karate Kid" moment. Watching Hassan's skill, I am reminded of Asian martial arts where the 'master' finds and always returns to their effortless 'center' from which all actions eminate.
It is this power of "knowing thy self" and moving in sureity and harmony to encounter any threat. Moral clarity is that important center point from which powerful actions can throw challengers off balance exposing their weaknesses. Moral jujitsu... an art we all need to practice.
I largely agree with John Smith's prior comment: while there is much to admire in Hasan's performance, what difference does it make that he "won" all of his conversations, or that his ideas "defeated" all of his interlocutors' ideas, BUT ONLY IN THE MINDS OF THE VIEWERS WHO ALREADY AGREED WITH HIM?
The people who surrounded and interacted with Hasan did not appear chastened, reflective, ashamed or ambivalent as a result of their conversations with him.
If anything they appeared humiliated and resentful. They repeatedly indicated that Hasan employed the equivalent of Jedi Mind Tricks to disarm them and avoid engaging with their well-founded views.
Hasan, in their view, was the dishonest and cowardly one.
Therefore, was this exercise more an exercise in futility than a master class?
It's a fair point. But I don't think the goal of this was to "win" a single debate or convince any hard-core regressives to reconsider their worldviews. In the end, all that matters is convincing the mushy middle of the electorate to think for a moment before swallowing the mountains of bullshit that the far right is shoveling at them. Learning how to do that requires learning how the bullshit is constructed and how to set it on fire.
[Ick! Sorry for the disgusting metaphor, but you get the point.]
Part of debate is you don't set out to change everyone's mind. Most people make their election choice long before election day comes up. Maybe he changed the minds of 1% of the viewers though which counts for something.
At least conservatives are willing to state their views for the world to see. We can all pick our side accordingly.
I find that practice really helps. Listening to bullshit requires not reaction but counterpoint, and it's not easy for most to slide into that chair. But practice works! Keep doing it, and find your ability grows. Keep listening to counter-arguments, and write them out in your own words, repeat to yourself. It's worth it as your confidence grows!
Ah, yes, the famous 20th Century debates to defeat fascism. Remember when we mobilized millions of men to deploy to Europe to debate Hitler? Worked like a charm. The 101st Airborne Debate Squad; those dudes debated the heck outta the fascists. Ridiculous. You cannot debate these people. And, please, spell Hasan's name correctly, at least.
True, but I think the problem is that it was left too late. Should have been 30 or 40 years earlier. And consistently. This is the fear now. There's no point debating with J D Vance et al. They have already made their Faustian bargain. But you do debate the next generation in this way, and challenge these toxic ideas. Unfortunately it takes an enormous amount of self possession and cool headedness to do it without things degenerating into a slanging match.
"When the Franco supporter refuses to condemn the Nazi Holocaust, [Hasan*] doesn’t continue the debate as if this were a reasonable position. He identifies it as disqualifying moral failure and moves on. When participants admit they don’t believe in democracy, he doesn’t pretend this is just another policy disagreement—he points out that democratic debate requires at least minimal commitment to democratic values."
The issue is...he didn't really do that? To treat fascism as disqualifying, or to embody the principle that democratic debate requires some commitment to democratic values, you can't sit on stage and "debate" 20 nazis while they laugh at you for having anything resembling a principle. The nazis were not there to "win a debate" in the "marketplace of ideas." They were there to show contempt for Hasan and laugh at him because he's nonwhite, an immigrant, and a left-liberal. They were there to show they considered him unworthy of respect. In doing all this, they sought to invite other people to be nazis and have fun laughing at people they dislike.
I am inclined toward supporting free speech principles. I get the distaste for "deplatforming." But the truth is that Hasan did not "win" this debate, even as he made cogent and moral arguments and the nazis made inane and immoral non-arguments. No right wing fascist watched that and reconsidered his views. Nobody was considering becoming a right wing fascist based on the force of the factual and logical basis of fascism, so nobody was dissuaded on that basis. And I fear that there are guys out there who enjoyed the spectacle of contempt thrown at a left-liberal brown person from another country and thought it was great and they want more of it. The only way you win that sort of non-debate is by not participating.
_____
*Also, it's Hasan, spelled with with one S.
Do the people he debated think they lost the debate?
I enjoy your posts and learn a lot from them. Unfortunately, It’s hard for me to find time to read long posts all in one go. Have you considered turning them into podcasts? I listen to podcasts while doing some work or home task that does not require mental focus, like exercising. Not a complaint. Just a thought.
You can listen to posts as a podcast using AI voiceover in Substack app. Many people do! I sometimes do for other Subtacks!
Please keep print media. Podcasts are best for simple subjects. Not philosophy imho. Topics where you can miss a bit now and then as most podcast listeners do.
I agree. My comment was more about using different media to reach more people with the same message.
I bit the AI bullet and am listening to your post, even though I find the enunciation awkward. I’ll keep my whining to myself in the future. 🙃Thanks for your reply.
I’ve seen that. I usually hate the AI voice. But I’ll check it out. Not trying to add to your day.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=W8iKWyyvu1c
Following up with Tim Miller’s reaction to the Jubilee segment.
Mehdi Hassan made a bold move starting Zeteo when it became clear that MSNBC took the path of least resistance and let him go.
Criminalizing all symbols, slogans, & extreme ideologies post WW II has been pretty successful. You can’t really criminalize thoughts, but you can make it really morally clear & marginalize those thinkers with the criminalization. That said…
I somewhat tend to agree that driving ideologies underground can be dangerous, too, perhaps more so in a pretty fragmented social media. This brings me to the need for social media regulation, with global standards, enforced respect for sovereignty, & a way to pre-empt stochastic violence by holding platforms responsible for their stochastic terrorists.
With platforms forced to operate their products safely, so that genocidal or authoritarian ideologies can’t spread, I don’t really see the value of allowing them to be debated as if legitimate.
Good stuff. I've engaged with this argument myself, having heard many times that "amplifying" a lie just gives it power. This seems to have sprung from social psychology research that shows when subjects are presented with a lie and then the debunking of a lie, they remember the lie more than the debunking.
But that seems flawed to me. The flip side is to note that a lie unchallenged is a lie believed. The answer, I think, is in how the lie is challenged or "debunked." It also fails because it ignores the role of persistence. Most of all, it ignores the tactic of "prebunking" or "inoculating" the audience against lies by taking the offensive rather than trying to respond defensively.
Another thing that has struck me is that this reticence to confront stupidity is a feature not only of progressive orthodoxy but springs from the conventional "wisdom" of the professional political consultant industry, which argues for "dumbing down" everything into anodyne talking points.
I haven't yet watched the entirety of Hasan's ordeal, but I intend to ASAP.
Thank you! This is such a clear explanation of the reasons that cancel culture/information silos etc have in fact weakened the left. But not for the ginned up hysteria pushed by the Andrew Sullivans et al (sad - he used to be so open to debate!) - that "woke"ness has somehow been worse than fascism. Of course it hasn't been - and the momentary detours in the careers of a few right-leaning "liberals" are in any case almost all at an end.
It is exactly as you say - not debating makes it look like our arguments and positions are weak - when in fact, left-progressivism is to a large extent based on reason and logic, as well as a keen sense of historical precedent, and can WIN these arguments.
Excellent perspective. But the road back for all our institutions as described is a heavy lift, and time is short. It also requires significant long-term investments, which I am not sure the institutions are willing to make.