Why do you advise activists not to debate prohibitionists? Haven’t you argued in the past that the goal isn’t to convince your opposition but to convince the undecided/uninformed spectators? I would think a debate would help with that.
The main problem with “debating” fanatics of any stripe is that the human mind is more easily convinced by stories (however false) than facts (however solid). The only way to counter the scary tales of prohibitionists is by long, thorough exposure to boring, mundane true stories of real sex workers. Scare stories are intense & quickly told, but have shallow intellectual roots. True stories are mild & boring and have no quick, exciting climax, but have deeper intellectual roots. That’s why everyone used to believe in fanciful tales of witches, but almost nobody does now. When gay rights started to become A Thing, prohibitionists vomited out their ugly “child molester” BS, but very few believe that any more; that change didn’t come from “debating” the fanatics, but from enough gay men being “out” that only the craziest couldn’t see the truth. Similarly, note that the public’s opinion on sex worker rights is slowly shifting, as demonstrated by the fact that decriminalization is now a safe position for politicians in some places. The prohibitionists are still vomiting out their wanking fantasies, but “out” sex workers are slowly washing away those ugly paint-bombs with the clean water of truth. We are winning, and there is absolutely nothing prohibitionists can do about it in the long run; to lend them credibility by dignifying their nasty masturbatory fantasies with “debate” would only prolong the demise of their narrative.
(Have a question of your own? Please consult this page to see if I’ve answered it in a previous column, and if not just click here to ask me via email.)
Fully agree. Truth is unspectacular and people like the spectacular. That gives an inherent weaker position to truth, at least short-term. A pretty important reason of why so many people are so easily manipulated.
Well, this is where you and I disagree, in large part based on my experience participating in both formal and informal debates on everything from marriage equality to the existence of God.
Debates can be effective, under the right circumstances. I’d want the question or proposal being debated phrased correctly; I’d start off by putting the burden of proof on my opponent; I’d use visual as well as verbal methods to present my evidence; and I’d not only shoot down their tragedy porn as cherry-picked anecdotal evidence, but counter with narratives of rampant fraud within the prohibitionist movement.
Of course, that presumes debate organizers who know how to put together and mediate such an event. If they don’t, or if there are other apparent problems, then I’d decline. But if the circumstances were right, I would go — lugging a box full of articles and books for visual effect.
Well said, Desmond.
Debates can even be won, under the right circumstances.
Emphasis on “the right circumstances”.
In 2009, Intelligence Squared, which hosts and broadcasts debates by both radio and internet streaming, conducted a debate on the proposition “It’s Wrong To Pay For Sex”.
The side opposing the proposition squeaked by a victory with the radio audience, and won overwhelmingly with the online audience.
Arguing for the proposition, at least two brazen and unashamed liars: Melissa Farley, Catharine MacKinnon, and Wendy Shalit.
Arguing against the proposition, the “Mayflower Madam”, a professor of economics and a professor of anthropology: Sydney Barrows, Tyler Cowen, and Lionel Tiger.
See https://www.intelligencesquaredus.org/debates/its-wrong-pay-sex
Agreed, especially the emphasis on “right circumstances” — which is why I learned to always insist on how the question/proposition is phrased, and the format of the debate (I tend to prefer either Lincoln-Douglas format or Oxford Union chamber debating).
That being said, efficacy isn’t just about winning or losing under formal rules. It’s about how it (re)frames the discussion in the minds of the folks who attend. Raising a powerful point can shift people’s perspective, and the focus of discussion that follows.
Here in semi rural Nevada, it is the prohibitionists who do not want to debate.
It’s off topic but your reference to fanciful tales of witches reminded me of this podcast transcript I came across last week: https://digpodcast.org/2018/10/21/witches-brew-how-the-patriarchy-ruins-everything-for-women-even-beer/. It ties the witch imagery of tall hat, broom, boiling cauldron, etc. to the women brewsters of medieval Europe.