[mikestorrent]

Much as I like the elocution of Russell's letter, it's clear that it boils down to an unwillingness to continue the conversation, which is inherently somewhat an indication of weakness, even if it doesn't imply defeat. When one is resoundingly winning an argument, it's much rarer to take this position, after all.

It's entirely possible to logically respond to fascists (if you actually find one that isn't just a role-playing fool) and to push back against their extremism. The first step of that is actually understanding what it is that they really purport to believe, rather than attacking the easy strawmen that have been rhetorically established for you.

Anyone who wants to attack fascism should read Evola's critique on fascism "from the right" - really helped me fill in my understanding on what these people were trying to do, to separate the ideology-in-theory from the ideology-in-practice. Just like with communism, where "true communism has never been tried", so too nobody's ever really tried "true" fascism, or democracy for that matter.

When arguing with someone, it's usually best to actually get a mental model of how they themselves think... but that's a vulnerable moment for both parties involved, and not always something that can happen in the heat of verbal sparring.

[lostlogin]

Russell was famous for his debating, with his speeches and writing readily available. What would engaging further with Mosley have achieved?

[notahacker]

A link posted upthread indicates the context was an initially polite exchange of not completely incompatible opinions on something related to foreign policy, followed by Mosley offering him lunch.

I shall have to remember Russell's turn of phrase as a way to turn down meetings I don't want :)

[kolektiv]

Indeed, and "what Mosley believed" was pretty well known at the time given his fascist activity over the preceding thirty years. Mosley was not likely to change his mind, and while there may well sometimes be joy and enlightenment in the practice of debate and rhetoric, you don't have to do it with a fascist. Bertrand Russell had nothing to prove and was perfectly reasonable in saying, effectively, that they were never going to agree and there's no point in wasting more paper in proving that.

[lo_zamoyski]

> it's clear that it boils down to an unwillingness to continue the conversation, which is inherently somewhat an indication of weakness

Maybe, maybe not. Perhaps Russell had already responded to the fascist position elsewhere, either generally or to Mosley specifically? Perhaps it didn't make sense to dialogue with him at that particular time?

> Just like with communism, where "true communism has never been tried", so too nobody's ever really tried "true" fascism, or democracy for that matter.

I reject this claim, but even if I were to concede for the purposes of argument, they don't need to be tried to be rejected, because what makes them repellent in the first place aren't the supposed ways in which regimes and people have failed to "try them", but the very positions themselves. Both are rooted in a false anthropology and a false humanism that reduces individual persons to means, which further entails a false ethics of utilitarianism.

[kolektiv]

Absolutely, the technique of "you won't debate me so I must be right" has somehow risen from the playground to mainstream politics, but it's arrant nonsense. Not every idea is worthy of rational and moral consideration, and sometimes it is not weakness to reject even a proposition, simply humanity and a recognition of the underlying motive, which is not always to seek enlightenment, but sometimes to undermine the very idea of enlightenment.

[throw10920]

> Not every idea is worthy of rational and moral consideration

Sure they are. If you can't justify your beliefs (or rejection of other beliefs) rationally from some set of principles or axoims, you can't claim that they're valid or that anyone else should abide by (or even respect) them.

Maybe the premises are something that you or others disagree with (e.g. to take one that we probably both disagree with: human value is predicated on intelligence), but if you can't argue from some set of premises, your beliefs are meaningless and invalid (and, almost always, inconsistent and hypocritical).

> sometimes it is not weakness to reject even a proposition, simply humanity and a recognition of the underlying motive

Can you read minds to discern motives? If not, then this is a false assertion.

[scubbo]

TIL the word "arrant", thank you!