The Shame Game

》TOC 》

• Motivation for intellectual honesty means
• Current political climate
• Shame?
• Shame vs embarrassment
• Facets of Shame
• Expressions — Pulling it all together
• Addressing the shame game
• Whose shame?

(Reading time: 22 minutes)

Motivation for intellectual honesty

Caveat: this first section really is part of the point of the whole article.

Those of you who read my stuff might have noticed that the articles are usually long, with lots and lots of examples of a concept from every angle I could think of. (I’m also learning how to use WordPress’s Details feature to create dropdown layers of hidden, detailed information.  Such a layer is preceded by a ▶ or green and blue shading.)  I do a lot of googling and reading up on topics that are part of the topic I’m feeling the urge to write about. 

I have been too frequently surprised by how much assumption is inherent in summarized information.

I do this for a couple of reasons.  The first is intellectual honesty.  At its core, intellectual honesty is the practice of engaging with ideas fairly, transparently, and without subterfuge. It demands that one acknowledge the limitations of one’s own arguments, consider evidence regardless of personal biases, and refrain from manipulating or ignoring facts to fit a predetermined narrative. My blog is called “Talking on the think ^(About)” because I am writing as a way to think.

When I write something, I go back and challenge it: do I believe what I just said?  Why do I believe what I just said?

Why is it so difficult to maintain intellectual honesty? Because humans are wired for consistency over truth. The dissonance we feel when holding contradictory beliefs can be mentally taxing. So we take shortcuts, sidestep nuance, and sometimes conveniently overlook facts that do not fit our worldview.   

It’s about the integrity of the path you take to get there. Am I lighting your way with the torch of honest inquiry, or am I navigating by the dubious twilight of confirmation bias and selective reasoning?

The second reason is I, like most humans I know, want to avoid shame and embarrassment.  Because let’s face it, nobody wants to be the one standing in the spotlight of public discourse, only to have their argument crumble like a house of cards; or to have made an adolescent mistake that could have been avoided with a little investment in the quality of one’s thinking.  If it’s important enough to say, it’s important enough to own what I say. 

But here’s the rub: The avoidance of shame and embarrassment can either be an inhibitor of intellectual honesty or its most ardent motivator. It’s the whisper in your ear that urges you to double-check your sources, to question the soundness of your arguments. On the flip side, it’s also that same whisper that might urge you to delete that inconvenient data point or brush aside that pesky counter-argument.

So when I ask myself, “Why did I say what I just said?” it’s not just a vetting process for the words on the page; it’s a litmus test for my own integrity. Am I seeking a genuine understanding, am I connecting the dots in a way that elevates the discourse? Or am I donning a mask, presenting an idealized version of thought that sidesteps the messy, complex reality we all grapple with?

In the end, the laborious process of writing, of constructing an argument with intellectual honesty, and the will to avoid shame, isn’t just a personal endeavor — it’s a public commitment. It’s my tacit agreement with you that I’ll respect your intelligence — and mine — enough to present my case as thoroughly and as honestly as I can, shortcomings and all.

Current political climate

As of today (Sept 6, 2023), Donald Trump has been indicted on a number of highly emotional criminal charges.

》[List of criminal charges] 》

• Two charges obstruction of an official proceeding and conspiracy to defraud the United States: These charges were brought against Trump by the House Select Committee investigating the January 6th attack on the U.S. Capitol. The charges allege that Trump obstructed the committee’s investigation and conspired to defraud the United States by trying to overturn the results of the 2020 election.
• Thirteen charges of felony violations of the Georgia RICO Act were brought against Trump by the Fulton County District Attorney’s Office in Georgia.
• Litigation related to Trump University: Trump is facing litigation related to Trump University, a for-profit real estate seminar program that he founded. The litigation alleges that Trump University defrauded students by making false promises about the program.
• Felony violations of the Georgia RICO Act: These charges were brought against Trump by the Fulton County District Attorney’s Office in Georgia. The charges allege that Trump engaged in a pattern of racketeering activity, including bribery, mail fraud, and wire fraud.
• Civil suits alleging defamation: Trump is facing a number of civil suits alleging defamation. These suits were filed by people who claim that Trump defamed them by making false or misleading statements about them.
• Litigation related to Trump University: Trump is facing litigation related to Trump University, a for-profit real estate seminar program that he founded. The litigation alleges that Trump University defrauded students by making false promises about the program.
• New York Attorney General’s investigation: The New York Attorney General’s Office is investigating Trump and the Trump Organization for possible financial fraud. The investigation is ongoing, and it is possible that Trump could face charges related to this investigation.
• Manhattan District Attorney’s investigation: The Manhattan District Attorney’s Office is also investigating Trump and the Trump Organization for possible financial fraud. The investigation is ongoing, and it is possible that Trump could face charges related to this investigation.

There is a wide range of perspectives among Trump’s supporters regarding the criminal charges against him. Some Trump supporters believe that the criminal charges against him are politically motivated and that he is innocent of any wrongdoing. They point to the fact that the charges were brought by Democrats who have been critical of Trump since his election. They also argue that the charges are based on flimsy evidence and that Trump is being targeted because he is a political outsider.

Some Trump supporters argue that even if he committed crimes, he shouldn’t be held accountable because he was acting in the nation’s best interest, particularly in combating voter fraud. Others contend that the charges are politically motivated to silence him and bar future runs for office. This includes views that Trump is a victim of cancel culture and infringement on conservative free speech. Some even see the charges as a smokescreen to distract from Biden’s shortcomings or deepen political divisions.

A separate faction believes that, guilty or not, Trump should be immune from prosecution as a former president, arguing that such a move would set a dangerous legal precedent.

All that context is to highlight the breadth and depth of issues that feed into strong feelings, whether or not they are based on fact or even reasonableness, as reflected in this Facebook post I ran across, which the author entitled: 

》”HAVE YOU NO SHAME? (A political Op-Ed)” 》

It is literally shocking to watch these democrat politicians and corrupt bureaucrats knowingly deny obvious evidence and stoop to new lows like some sort of odious lawn slug. If you voted for one of these elected officials who stomped all over our rights during the scam-demic, and actively colluded to put corrupt treasonous officials in office like pelosi, shift, testicle, Harris, and Biden, you should be ashamed of yourself. You should admit out loud with the same vociferous intensity that you screamed against Trump and shouted the praises of these corrupt scum. You should be apologizing to every one of us who warned you not to vote for that damn fool and crooked bastard. You should fall on your sword lest you repeat you’re foolishness with your vote in 2024. While you didn’t have to vote for Trump, you sure didn’t have to vote for Biden and dirty rotten bastards like them. But you did! You had three choices and you chose the wrong one. Shame on you. Look at the devastating results.

When a child or any individual shows they are irresponsible and incapable of safely handling matches, knives, or guns, we usually take those away as some sort of punishment. What is your punishment for doing such damage to our country by advocating and supporting masks, lockdowns, forced vaccinations, and voting for evil corrupt individuals?

Should your vote be taken away because you’re so reckless? Short of that you should at least admit you were wrong. Now, God only hopes that you make a wise decision this time and stop being so smug with your condescending crap about the orange man, because you don’t like mean tweets from a typical brash and rude New Yorker.

Have you no shame? Those corrupt bureaucrats and politicians you support continue to illustrate that they have no shame. The FBI continues to be corrupt beyond anything we could have imagined. The DOJ is beyond reprehensible and biased. They’re on the verge of being comparable to the KGB and Gestapo of pre-World war II Germany. The only solution is to put them out to pasture if not in jail. Regardless , it’s time for you to take responsibility. Be accountable and admit you were wrong and do the right thing in 2024. And if you respond by telling us one more time about some fake news, or the fact that you hate Trump, and use that as some sort of excuse, you’re going to get kicked to the curb for just being too damn dumb, ignorant, or stubborn to continue to carry a lethal weapon like your vote. Own it!!!

Shame?

Aside from being a study in how many fallacies you can commit in one post (Ad Hominem, Appeal to Emotion (Pathos), Hasty Generalizations, False Dilemma, False Analogy, Slippery Slope, Straw Man Fallacy, Reductio ad Hitlerum, Appeal to Authority (God), No True Scotsman) and the obvious spin on events, facts, and history, the author repeats the question of “have you no shame”. 

Epistemic closure is an act of will

Just reviewing what epistemic closure is…a good 2010 NYTimes article: “‘Epistemic Closure’? Those Are Fighting Words”

It’s a very good read.

Then I read a logical analysis of ‘epistemic closure’ — the logic topic — on http://plato.stanford.edu, there is an argument against the existence of epistemic closure: 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘈𝘳𝘨𝘶𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵 f𝘳𝘰𝘮 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘈𝘯𝘢𝘭𝘺𝘴𝘪𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘒𝘯𝘰𝘸𝘭𝘦𝘥𝘨𝘦.  That argument seemed weird to me.

I think we MUST concede that there is a logical definition, and then there’s its non-logical application. It’s precisely 𝘣𝘦𝘤𝘢𝘶𝘴𝘦 there is lack of analysis of knowledge that there is closure.

Or better still, you can “analyze” what you 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘬 is knowledge (when it’s not knowledge) and simply reinforce “truth” of what you believe (bias confirmation) or just add volume to the muck of what you believe is fact.

What we mean by closure is that new knowledge based on analysis of facts (existing “knowledge”?) or even the willingness to consider facts outside your echo chamber is non-existent or seriously (willfully) inhibited.

With epistemic closure, when there is cognitive dissonance, people “resolve” the dissonance in favor of what fits the narrative they want to believe or that fits within what they think they “know.”

The existence of “death panels” was a shining example. Without critical evaluation of facts (like actually reading the bill), you hear “death panels” from a demagogue; and no amount of presenting facts works to dissuade you from believing such a thing exists. It echoes well with both what you want to believe and what you think it fits “logically” into what you think you “know.”

Understanding epistemic closure

Re: Epistemic closure comes back to haunt the GOP

Epistemology is the investigation of what distinguishes justified belief from opinion, or what we call “knowledge.” Epistemic has to do with knowledge or the degree to which to which we validate it.

When you limit what constitutes truth, even the possibility of truth, or where truth can be found, you have closed off an important part of how you gain knowledge and introduce bias into your understanding of the world.

When you use ways of thinking that don’t follow implications (what is logically implied by honestly evaluating how one thing leads to another or what needs to be true for something to exist [entails]), you have effectively created an echo chamber, where you only hear ideas that align with your preconceptions, and ignore alternative perspectives.

In an echo chamber, you only allow yourself to consider a narrow set of ideas and actively avoid or reject ideas that do not align with your existing beliefs.  You rationalize away a possible truth (cognitive dissonance) because it doesn’t fit what you want to believe (bias) by either distorting the implications to fit your beliefs or denying it outright.

This system of thought ultimately prevents us from gaining a deeper understanding of the world and can lead to a narrow-minded and dogmatic perspective. This is epistemic closure: you have built a seal around what you allow yourself to know.

Can You Advocate Violence & Not Mean It?

Words have impact, especially on non-critical-thinking hordes & minions. People with aggressive tendencies (whether overt or just in their daydreams) are particularly susceptible. Rhetoric that borrows from the vocabulary of violence & war BREEDS thoughts of violence in these same hordes.

I often bring up how the words one chooses to convey or understand his world are from a vocabulary that aligns with how one thinks about his world.  If you believe that time comes in finite chunks and time you dedicate to yourself is holy, then giving up that time is “sacrifice.”  It’s a “frame,” a way of thinking.  Like a box.  If you’re thinking something is a war (your frame), you’ll refer to that thing in warlike terms.  And you can pass that frame along.

You cannot say “we don’t advocate violence” but imply armed conflict if you don’t get your way, blatantly say the opposition (the Left) is preparing for armed conflict against you (the Right), use images and frames of war and violence, and speak in terms of revolution.  If you do these things, you ARE advocating violence by framing your message (and, therefore, the solutions) in terms of violence.