De-fluffing the fluff #0

Exploring the reason & the unreason in public debate

Fluff, fluff, every where,

Empty words, drowning reason;

Fluff, fluff, every where,

Awaits a long & silly season?

In India, as in many other countries in today’s times, everyone seems to talk but no one seems to listen — or so it seems to me.

Civil & sincere public debate is a crying need in a country like India.

What is public debate and why is it needed in a country?

Public debate could be understood as a sum total of all public arguments and counter-arguments made on an issue. The 19th century political philosopher JS Mill had eloquently described society as a ‘marketplace of ideas’. Public debate is akin to the ‘transactions’ in this ‘marketplace’.

Public debate forms the bedrock of any liberal democracy.

Without good public debate, you cannot advocate for the rights of the marginalized sections of your society (and every citizen should do it as a matter of principle is what I believe), you cannot iron out disagreements with your fellow citizens, you cannot frame inclusive policies to govern a diverse population. And if you cannot do all these things, it is not really a democracy.

Furthermore, the ability to engage in free public debate forms a fundamental part of the right to freedom of expression of a citizen which is a fundamental right. The quality of public debate is an indicator of how strongly the right is protected in a country.

By free public debate, I mean public debates that are —

• Diverse meaning they have a representation of varied arguments and different points of view on the issue at hand.
• Informed meaning the arguments need to be based on sound logic, facts & scientific research as the supporting evidence.
• Rational meaning the arguments are countered and judged based on the reason and logic behind them. Not on the basis of how well they fit in with dogmatic principles that one might choose to adhere to.
• Civil & inclusive meaning that arguments of either side of the debate are given respect and time. It also means that the debate doesn’t lead into vicious name-calling or mocking & ridiculing the opposing side. It also means that the principle of charity is followed in a debate.

In our country, we live with people very different from us.

The right to freedom of expression is crucial for self-realization of each fellow citizen of our country — however different they may be from us. It allows each individual to realize their human potential by affirming their dignity and worth.

And who does not want a society like that, right?

How would it feel to live in a society where you were not allowed to speak up against an injustice inflicted upon you? How would it feel to live in a society where your freedom to do the most basic human things that you take for granted today— like listen to music, to dance or, if we go deeper, to love a person, to marry the person you love etc — could be taken away arbitrarily? All of these are forms of self-expression protected under the right to freedom of expression available to citizens (in India).

The right to freedom of expression is, thus, an end in itself — and it deserves society’s full protection.

Two, the right is also crucial to the advancement and refinement of knowledge, and the pursuit of truth. When we live together with people so different from us, there are bound to be disagreements on issues. In such cases, an informed intellectual and/or moral judgment is possible only if one considers different facts and ideas and tests one’s conclusions against opposing ones — all based on rationality and logic, as opposed to dogma or subjective interpretations of one’s religion.

What happens in the absence of it? Heard about Galileo’s trial before the Roman Catholic Inquisition and him being found ‘vehemently suspect of heresy’? The ‘heresy’ being spoken of here was Galileo’s support for heliocentrism. Galileo was sentenced to life imprisonment in 1633.

Which is why my emphasis on logic and reason as opposed to religion and other dogmas.

What is happening in today’s public debate in India

Fluff, fluff, every where…

First, what are my avenues to observe public debate?

Several — social media like Reddit, X, LinkedIn etc, videos of speeches and debates on YouTube, op-eds and columns in various newspapers and magazines, commentaries on court hearings, Hon’ble Supreme Court Constitution Bench hearing live streams and text of the judgments, videos by journalists and other YouTube content creators seeking or giving an insight into public opinion on an issue from rural, semi-urban and urban India etc.

Based on my observations, I think public debate in India, especially on sensitive polarizing matters, suffers from a lot of ‘fluff & fallacy’. I’m sure it must suffer from similar issues in other countries & societies as well. But I am currently speaking about India because that’s where I have observed public debates the most till now.

Fluff comes in various forms —

1. Loaded language — arguing with emotionally triggering words or phrases instead of reasons or evidence.

• For instance, consider this sentence — “Homosexuals are perverted scoundrels who are out to destroy our society by morally corrupting our children.”. The use of such a sentence in public debate is not only obnoxious and in bad taste, but also does not serve any logical purpose. You can see in the sentence an obvious lack of any substantive point, evidence, logic and most importantly, civility.
• Consider another sentence — “People who oppose same sex marriages are heartless demonic scoundrels who enjoy watching homosexual people live miserable lives and die in pain.” The use of this sentence too in public debate in problematic for the very same reasons as above.
• Disclaimer: The above sentences are ONLY used as an example to drive home a point. Neither of them reflect my views on the issue in any way. I have used two sentences on either sides of the issue to avoid allegations of biasedness.
• The above examples are simplistic ones. In practice however, many a times they are used in more subtle ways to manipulate an audience by charging them emotionally. This is done when a person does not have a substantive argument to make.

2. Obvious truisms & generic platitudes —

• Consider the sentence — “The felt indignities of persons belonging to the LGBTQIA+ community need no proof, of the forensic kind; it does have to meet a quantifiable threshold…”
• The above is a sentence from the recent same-sex marriage judgment by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The sentence says nothing new. When seen in light of the ultimate relief provided in the judgment, this sentence seems like an apt example of a generic judicial platitude.

3. Unsubstantiated overarching statements —

• Consider this paragraph — “Social culture develops over time because of the worth that is ascribed to certain behaviors by the social circle in all of its scales, from the most intimate to the broadest possible circle. These are not random developments, arbitrarily “assigned.” These are roles and behaviors that are worked out within a social context and those that pass muster among ones contemporaries “make it” and are emulated and repeated because they are exemplary modes of conduct.”
• There’s a technical term for sentences like these. It is called bullshit.
• The speaker/writer seems to be concocting up their own theory of development of culture. There is absolutely no basis for the idea being conveyed in this paragraph in either anthropology or cognitive science. In other words, this is just verbal jugglery meant to masquerade a wholly fabricated idea as a profound one. In fact, contrary to what is conveyed in the paragraph above, norms in a culture many a times are indeed arbitrary solutions to a problem. Consider for example, the use of a language to communicate in a given society. As shown by the great diversity of languages & dialects across the world, there could have been many possible solutions to the problem of communication. The choice of the language to be used as a norm in a society is indeed an arbitrary solution to the problem of communication.

4. Social media fluff —

• Today, within minutes of any event or announcement, we get thousands of arguments and reactions instantly via social media. While there are constant reactions they often are just the same arguments and information being repeated on and on. Social media maybe a great medium for immediacy and reach, but it has serious limitations in conveying tenor, nuance and veracity. There’s just so much noise that it’s difficult to make complex nuanced arguments, check the reliability of information or judge the validity of arguments.
• The other problem is the sheer lack of civility & tolerance when people engage in arguments at a distance. The rise of the cancel culture is detrimental to public debate. In fact, it becomes a potent deterrent for many sensible well-meaning arguments. Most people have little idea of the effect of their actions when the results are not immediate. Bullshit and profundity thus seem to have equal rights on social media, sadly.

5. Lack of civility — includes ad hominem attacks, name-calling etc.

6. Genetic fallacy — arguing that a view is wrong because it originated from a morally bad or problematic source

• Consider the sentence, “So you’re saying that smoking is bad for your health. Do you know who else said that? Adolf Hitler! I rest my case.”
• The above sentence does not give any valid argument against smoking being bad for health. All it does is discredit the argument by linking it to Adolf Hitler somehow — without the link serving any real purpose in the argument.

7. Grandstanding — the act or practice of behaving or performing in a showy way in an attempt to impress & manipulate others.

The above is in no way an exhaustive list of what I would categorize as ‘fluff’ being thrown around in public debate but is indicative of where I’m getting at, I hope.

For a meaningful public debate, the fluff needs de-fluffing. And this de-fluffing needs to happen in clearer and hopefully simpler arguments.

Which is what I intend to do in the upcoming series of articles. In light of the recent Supreme Court judgment on marriage equality, I shall start with the simmering debate on homosexuality (or queerness, in general) and same-sex marriage in the Indian society — where I will try to address the various arguments offered against it.

Until then, ❤