I’m not sure if this is of interest to anyone - but I recently engaged with an extended discussion with a Ron Paul supporter on Reddit. A story was posted about Ron Paul winning a straw poll and various criticisms were made of Paul supporters for believing their own hype. Our discussion became an extended examination - and disagreement - on the nature of dogmatism. This isn’t exactly socratic splendor on offer here, but I think it nicely displays the huge gap of understanding that can exist between different parties.

My interlocutor Aletoledo has been quoted so you can distinguish who is speaking. The original discussion can be found here

———————-
It’s been a nice little lesson for the internet.
It should be remembered though that through online campaigning Paul got more than what he would have gotten - i.e. 0.

that is really baseless. You’re suggesting that he received 0 with his attempt in 1988 as well, which isn’t true. He received a small amount of votes back then without the internet and he likely would have received some this without the internet as well.
The internet however demonstrated that his message and principles were popular with those that were able to received his message. If not for MSM blackballing him, he may very well have reached a significantly greater number of voters than what he has by internet alone. Anti-war and reduced spending is a popular message.

People will believe what they want to. One way to tell whether your opinions are dogmatic and based on what you desire - as opposed to being determined by reality - is check for falsifiable conditions.

Receiving a minority of votes fairly conclusively falsifies the view that Rp has mainstream support - but note how you prevent any falsification by the counterfactual claim… if he had of received better MSM coverage… etc…

Im not going to argue with you over the accuracy of that claim. But I will suggest that to others it probably makes you look uncritical and dogmatic.

What you should do is this…

1) accept the reality that Ron Paul doesn’t have mainstream support

2) Begin the long - possibly life long - campaign to convince others of your views.

If you refuse to accept 1 - you’ll never get to 2.

Well there is no question that he lacks mainstream support, that is the obvious conclusion from these primaries. Your claim though was that he would have received zero support otherwise, is proven wrong by his prior presidential run, which was without the internet.

There is nothing “dogmatic” about the conclusion. Maybe it’s a question of semantics whether 10% of national support is mainstream or not. If 25% is mainstream, I don’t really see why 10% is fringe? I could see your point if he was getting <1%, but with 10% we're talking millions of people.

Obviously Paul has lost the election, I'm under no delusions here. However, I recognize that the positions he held went beyond him and were universal truths that many people feel. Anti-war and freedom are not bad ideas and while they might have been sacrificed for temporary safety, they still remain ideals to aim for.

So I find your analysis odd, for this reason. I suspect that you dismiss his "mainstream" support because of the cognitive dissonance it produces. You probably like these ideals of anti-war and freedom, but don't like the "republican package" they came in. Trying to dismiss his support as "zero" makes you feel better that you didn't do more in support of these ideas.

Sorry though, you will have to live with your level of participation. People look back on Gore and say that he was right all along and should have been supported a little bit more. When history looks back on the events of today and questions the course the US took, you'll have to be honest with yourself and look at what you supported. You'll probably try and dismiss what was tried, but the fact is you contributed nothing(?). Paul lost the campaign himself for a number of reasons, but I can at least say that I tried to help and that for me is enough to clear my conscience.

I think you’re getting hung up on a couple of semantical issues…

I’m not too concerned at where the figure would have been… 0,1,2… 9.99 - as opposed to around the 10 percent he actually got. My original point was that the internet boosted his support significantly from what it would have been without it. Your surely don’t disagree with me here.

Secondly - I’m not concerned as to to whether 10 percent constitutes mainstream or not. The point is - it’s not enough to effect change. And that’s what matters.

Your claim is that he REALLY has more support than this - in people, deep down, if only they didn’t watch fox, or if only they broke through the cognitive dissonance… or something like that… I’m pointing out that this attitude is one of denial and is a very simplistic analysis. It prevents you from really critically assessing what is wrong with Paul’s campaign, what it is that is turning so many people off.

And I’ll tell you for free, what is turning so many people off… the spammy, blind, dogmatic fervour of Ron Paul supporters. The cries of conspiracy whenever something doesn’t go paul’s way, the cries of joy because he won a 30 vote straw poll. I’m sorry but it makes you guys look like unreasoning nuts. And if you refuse to address that perception, it will doom your movement to obscurity.

And as I said - that’s a shame… because some of the ideas are really good.

As for my own involvement - I’m quite happy with it. I believe I’m helping the movement and infinite amount more by critically assessing its flaws with one of its supporters than blindly singing the ron paul mantra. That you don’t see the value of this contribution is why your movement won’t go anywhere.

im not too concerned at where the figure would have been… 0,1,2… 9.99

I responded to you because you claimed it was zero. Nice try backpedaling, but that was your original claim.

I’m not concerned as to to whether 10 percent constitutes mainstream or not.

Again, nice try backpedaling, but you said mainstream and I refuted that as well.

Your claim is that he REALLY has more support than this - in people, deep down,

True, that is the attitude. It might be better called a hope, which I think has been proven to not be the case. Before these primaries, the American attitude towards war was an unknown really.

And I’ll tell you for free, what is turning so many people off… the spammy, blind, dogmatic fervour of Ron Paul supporters.

Thats what turning you off, but the fact still remains that the vast majority of people haven’t seen this. You seem to be thinking too much of yourself to think your opinion is shared by everyone else.

I believe I’m helping the movement and infinite amount more by critically assessing its flaws with one of its supporters than blindly singing the ron paul mantra.

Thats why you simply never believed in what he was stood for to begin with. I don’t think it was something you’d every come to accept either, because it’s who you are.

You likely have a notion that people are meant to obey an authority figure and freedom is only measured by your obedience to this figure. Thats how you equated the Paul supporters, but I suspect you were really projecting your own personal feelings into this description.

So in terms of this discussion, how can I prove that your interpretation is wrong and mine is in fact the proper view? Well thats easy really. I just need to point to the views and positions of the Founding Fathers. Paul’s following never cared about the man, thats why you never can understand the fervor surrounding the movement. The principles that were being discussed existed long before Paul ran for president, because its really a lesson in history.

So the sad part really is that you just never understood this. You saw all the commotion and wondered why people choose Paul and not some other random person. Well it’s because we knew our history and new the principles that the Founding Father lived by. Sure those are outdated, but it still represented an educated view of history. In the end, your lack of understanding on this point will likely dawn upon you someday. You’ll then scratch your head and finally understand what the point of it all was.

I actually pity you for this, because my conscience is clear and yet you will someday feel guilty for not doing more.

I’m willing to adjust certain aspects of my views. I’m willing to accept that his original support pre-internet movement might have been higher than zero. Having a critical disposition allows one to do this. You seized on this figure so you could say AHA! You’re wrong! Suffer that! When the main point I was trying to make what that regardless of what the original figure was the internet movement undoubtedly increased it. something which I’m sure no one disagrees with, including you. You’re so concerned with disagreeing with me that you don’t even seem willing to acknowledge our points of agreement.

What you call backpeddling - I call critical engagement. I did indeed say that Ron Paul did not have mainstream support. And no - I’m not convinced that you refuted that claim. But I’m willing to allow you your label - if it means that we can focus on the main point that 10 percent is not enough for your movement to effect the change that it wants to. I don’t care if this is what is called mainstream or not.

I could be wrong about what is turning people of the ron paul movement. i accept that this is my opinion and nothing more. But there is at least some evidence for my opinion. In particular, the pitched battle of downmodding that goes on against ron paul submissions. There is a significant number of people who are fed up with reddit being hijacked by the paulbots. The downvoting attests to this.

What I’m saying to you - and you still haven’t even conceded this much - is that this perception is out there. And if you deny it - you will hurt your own movement. I’m actually trying to be helpful.

This is what makes you dogmatic… in the face of ANY negative reaction, you refuse to accept the probable realities suggested by that reaction.

As for your final rant… what on earth? It reminds me of one time on my blog that I did a post critiquing some aspects of the Ron Paul movement and they deduced from this that I was a communist - when I’m nothing of the sort.

This time - I’m not being called a communist - but some kind of sycophant that believes that freedom means to obey an authority figure. And given this flaw - my interpretation of the Ron Paul movement is really just a projection of self.

sigh… what can I say? I can only really suggest that you look at this claim as another failure on your part to accept disconfirming evidence. Mine is just one voice - true. But rather than say: ‘oh - there’s one soul that we lost along the way -what can we do to win such people back?’ - you say ‘well, he was a broken unit in the first place - sods to him - viva ron paul, and viva the constitution’. Again - you’re doing yourself no favours in taking this sort of response. It again shows you up as dogmatic and unable to engage with critical views.

As for your last line. Are you religious by any chance? Cause that’s exactly the line christians use on me when I tell them I don’t believe in Christ. I tell you - it’s a strange thing to be pitied by someone when I feel in such an awesomely good mood.

if it means that we can focus on the main point that 10 percent is not enough for your movement to effect the change that it wants to

I did say that he wouldn’t get elected. My only point of contention with this was that you’re making his platform out to be somehow misguided and flat-out wrong. Yet, I would say that his goals were noble goals of peace and freedom.

What I’m saying to you - and you still haven’t even conceded this much - is that this perception is out there.

I’m not sure what you’re claiming “to be out there”? Your argument has appeared to be about his supporters fanaticism and nothing to do with his actual platform.

Are his supporters “out there” in terms of being passionate. Yes, of course, because they see this as an important turning point for the US.

Are his ideas themselves “out there”? I would find it incredible for anyone not to want his platform. He’s against war, both Iraq and drug, he’s for smaller government, states rights and less taxation. How can anyone not want these things?

This is what makes you dogmatic… in the face of ANY negative reaction, you refuse to accept the probable realities suggested by that reaction.

Your use of the word dogmatic is rather puzzling to me. I assume you’re referring to an adherence to the Constitution. I’m a bit surprised though that you would call adhering to the rule of law as dogmatic. The Constitution was designed to prevent tyranny similar to what we have seen demonstrated by Bush. So adhering to the law and the Constitution is a rejection of Bush’s doctrine. If that to you is dogma, then I’ll proudly call myself dogmatic!

but some kind of sycophant that believes that freedom means to obey an authority figure.

You’ve listed out your reasoning to reject Paul because he is not mainstream. Which means that you support the mainstream candidate. This fact alone tells me that you accept the group or dominant belief simply because it is dominant. There is no views of positions or principles, just who or what is the popularly recognized leader.

If that is not enough, when you look at the current mainstream choices, they all support the state over the individual. Which is authority over freedom. That’s probably why people have called you a communist, but in this discussion you haven’t suggested any candidate and only stated an acceptance of the dominant (i.e. mainstream) leader.

As for your last line. Are you religious by any chance? Cause that’s exactly the line christians use on me when I tell them I don’t believe in Christ. I tell you - it’s a strange thing to be pitied by someone when I feel in such an awesomely good mood.

Actually I’m an avowed atheist and have been for over 20 years. The reason I pity you is that you have a very narrow view of what is happening in this country. By the time that you realize what is happening, it will of course be too late. I at least have seen the writing on the wall and can plan a future accordingly. It brings to mind that ignorance is truly bliss.

The ironic thing though is that you would call me (or the majority of Paul supporters) dogmatic and you’re the critical one here. Paul’s ideas are the novel and radical ideas and using the word dogma suggests that someone is following the mainstream!

Now that you mention it, the Paul movement is the exact opposite of dogma. If you want to pay more than lip service to the idea of being impartial, you should take the time to talk with some Paul supporters. What you’ll find is that they have virtually all arrived at their stance as individuals. Dogma of course is a dictate from a group or authority that is blindly followed. However, you’ll find that Paul’s supporters all believe in different things. There are some that are nazis and like his anti-immigration position, there are some libertarians that like his smaller government position and there are some conservatives that like him for fiscal positions. So this completely destroys your notion of dogma, because you’ll likely not find two supporters that agree completely with each other.

The question then becomes, why do you view his supporters as dogmatic and fanatic? Again this is why I see you has worshiping authority figures. Likely the only time you’ve seen support of this magnitude for anyone is through an authoritative approach and you therefore attribute the response as dogma and simply not just passion.

No - I don’t believe that all of Paul’s ideas are wrong. As I said about - I think some of his ideas are good. And I’ll repeat - it’s a shame that those ideas will be associated with the kind of fanaticism that is being bred around them, as that will damage the support for those ideas.

now - you’re next question… what am I claiming to be out there? I think I’ve been clear. What is out there is a perception of Paul fans as being dogmatic spam bots. You’re absolutely right when you say I haven’t been addressing his platform. THAT’S THE WHOLE POINT… I’m not attacking his platform (at least not in this discussion) at all. What I’m saying is that this perception of Ron Paul supporters which is OUT THERE - is damaging the movement. And if you don’t address the perception, you are only doing your movement more harm. It’s because I support some of the ideas of this movement that i offer this critique and advice.

Imagine it this way (this is gonna sound a little patronising but oh well). Imagine there is a homeless person on the street. And you wanna help that homeless person. So you say: in response to your homeless condition, I’m going to offer you some food to help. But the homeless guy takes offense at being called homeless and so refuses the food.

This is kind of what is happening here. I support many of the ideas of Ron Paul - but I see the movement to be in bad shape. The food I am offering is the ability to critically engage with the negative perceptions the Paul movement has generated, as the first step in managing those poor perceptions. But you won’t accept that help - and get insulted that I would dare to critique any aspect of the Ron Paul movement. And as I point out - it’s exactly this kind of response which is causing the negative perception.

Next point… here is your argument word for word:

You’ve listed out your reasoning to reject Paul because he is not mainstream. Which means that you support the mainstream candidate.

That’s a pretty poor piece of reasoning by any standard. The argument is invalid - and the conclusion false. I don’t have to explain why, because I know what I do and don’t support. If you choose not to accept that - it’s up to you.

Moving on - let’s get clear about my use of the term ‘dogmatic’, because I use it in a particular way. To be dogmatic is to believe in a particular point of view - irrespective of the evidence which disconfirms it, and further, without conception of what it would even take to falsify the view in question.

Adhering to the law, as you point out, is not dogmatic. So on this point we are in agreement. What I am pointing out is dogmatic, for instance, is your refusal to accept that mainstream america doesn’t agree with your views - among other things.

The level of your denial on this point is incredible. You can’t even imagine that people disagree with you. There are plenty of people that don’t want small government. Ever heard of…. the Democrats? Ever heard of the New Deal? Look - it’s just a fact… people don’t agree with you. Deal with it. The sooner you do - the sooner you will move onto the task of developing sophisticated and convincing arguments for your views - as opposed to just waiting like idiots for everyone to see the light (that they supposedly already see).

Perhaps Paul’s ideas are the opposite of Dogma - this is not my point. My point is that his supporters - and most especially you - behave in a dogmatic fashion. (In this case you’re being incredibly dogmatic concerning your belief about Ron Paul’s level of support) - and this is hurting your movement, because many don’t want to be associated with the likes of you.

As for your own use of the term - dogmatic - you seem to use it in a different way - and somewhat confusedly. You first equate the idea with following the mainstream and then say that Ron Paul is actually a radical and hence can’t be seen as dogmatic. (So, you’ve just admitted here that he isn’t a mainstream candidate? Yeah?)

But then you use the term in a different way when you say: ‘Dogma of course is a dictate from a group or authority that is blindly followed’. I agree with the blindly bit - but it doesn’t necessarily have to come from a singular authority - at least in the sense that I am using it.

So your claim that Paul supporters come from multifarious authorities doesn’t do much to ameliorate the perception that they are dogmatic - since as far as I’m using the concept it is neutral with respect to the social and institutional structures from which they take their orders. What matters is their beliefs.

But I do applaud you for trying to address the perception - and arguing against it. I’m just saying you’ll need to do more than this. You’ll actually need to stop behaving dogmatically.

That’s a pretty poor piece of reasoning by any standard.

Its black or white. It doesn’t get easier than that and you couldn’t even formulate a defense, thats why you moved on.

let’s get clear about my use of the term ‘dogmatic’, because I use it in a particular way.

You can’t just make up your own definitions to words. Dogma has no connotation to it that suggests validity. Yet, you spent most of your post repeatedly using the word incorrectly.

I now understand what you mean and the word you’re looking for is ignorant. Such as ignoring the obvious facts before you to believe something else.

The level of your denial on this point is incredible. You can’t even imagine that people disagree with you.

Denial of what? Or should I ask what you mean when you say “denial”?

I’ve never suggested that people agree with me, I said that I can’t believe people don’t want peace over war, small government over big government and more tax over less tax. You can prove me wrong by telling me which of these you disagree with yourself.

(So, you’ve just admitted here that he isn’t a mainstream candidate? Yeah?)

Good point, on this I can agree with you. He is popular (10% following) but radical in his views. So does mainstream mean popular support or traditional positions?

In the end your entire comment can be summarized into saying that Paul isn’t a good choice because his supporters are too passionate. I now realize why you associated the discussion to religion, because you said you don’t believe in Jesus and I can see the parallel. You don’t like Jesus because of the act of the followers, in the same manner that you don’t like Paul because of the acts of his followers.

The part that you haven’t realized though is that the movement Paul has inspired has nothing to do with Paul! You probably have no idea what this even means, but I have done my part to help you understand, the rest is up to you to try and be a little more broad minded.

I’m sorry to ask a personal question, but are you religious? I know you said you don’t believe in Jesus, but you didn’t say you were an atheist. My characterization of you would be that you believe in some form of a God figure in a deistic fashion, but that you’ve rejected traditional fashions of worship (or need thereof). I’m curious to know how close I have come to hitting the mark.

Okay - well it’s been a good discussion… and we’ve both done our best to get our points of view across… so we both get points for that. I really need to get some work done today! So I’m going to leave it there…

Just to answer your last question. I’m an agnostic. (i.e. I don’t know if god exists or not) - and take no ‘dogmatic’ position either way.

thanks for the discussion