The New Puritans: How the Religion of Social Justice Captured the Western World

by Andrew Doyle

We are left with a simple but crucial question: how can we argue with those who are incapable of argumentation? This is a dilemma I have been grappling with for quite some time. The new puritans are unable or unwilling to engage in debate without assuming bad faith on the part of their opponents; many of them consider dialogue to be a tool of the privileged to retain their privilege. Mudslinging is now a standard substitute for rebuttal, and anecdotal evidence is taken as gospel. But for those of us who still believe in the power of persuasion and the capacity of human beings to keep an open mind, there is a moral duty to enter into dialogue with our critics. We do so in order that we might see our own certainties challenged, on the understanding that we are often mistaken. But when our detractors are unable or unwilling to leave aside their prejudices, are convinced of their own infallibility, and perceive any dissent as a signifier of villainy, how is this duty to be undertaken? Under such circumstances, argument is no longer feasible. It’s like a boxer adhering to the Queensberry Rules only to find that his challenger has brought a machine gun into the ring.

.c1