Deep Disagreement, the Dark Enlightenment, and the Rhetoric of the Red Pill

Abstract

Deep disagreements are disagreements wherein the dialectical conditions for fruitful argumentative exchange do not obtain. One view from within these disagreements is that the other side has been duped or is so deeply ignorant of and complacent with some illusion, there is no hope for exchange. The Dark Enlightenment's critique of liberal democracy and progressive politics (which gave rise to the alt‐right movement) proceeds on this premise, calling their critical philosophy ‘the red pill’ and terming the opposition's program ‘the Cathedral’. Despite the depth of their disagreement with progressives, there is evidence for an optimistic program of critical dialogue in this instance of deep disagreement.

Deep Disagreement and Patience as an Argumentative Virtue

“…Similar to Kloster, Scott Aikin favors a non-ideal approach to deep disagreement, given his skepticism that absolutely deep disagreements are anything more than a theoretical possibility (Aikin 2020). Similar to Claudio Duran, Aikin argues that we should understand disagreement as having a variety of levels of depth (Aikin 2019). This means that rather than there existing a clear boundary between deep disagreements and regular disagreements, they run along a continuum.…”

United by Rage, Self-Loathing, and Male Supremacy: The Rise of the Incel Community

“…It is a theory which originates from The Matrix Trilogy where the hero must choose between swallowing a blue pill, that will allow him to remain in a pleasant illusory world, or a red pill, which will open his eyes to the reality in which he is enslaved (Van Valkenburg, 2018). The concept of "red-pilling" is a common theme among many subgroups in the manosphere and has served as a rhetorical tool to systematically challenge liberal progressive ideas or any external perspectives contrary to the beliefs of the in-group (Aikin, 2018). According to Ging (2017), the emergence of the philosophy uniting concept among manosphere groups is believed to have originated from a subreddit thread in reddit.com known as "The Red Pill" (r/TRP).…”

What Optimistic Responses to Deep Disagreement get Right (and Wrong)

“…The same, as I see it, goes for optimistic replies to the problem of deep disagreement. (For the distinction between optimistic and pessimistic solutions, see Aikin, 2019;and Godden & Brenner, 2010). The optimistic solutions I will survey are Peter Davson-Galle's "primitive epistemic assent" (1992, p. 150) and Vesel Memedi's "third party" mediators (2007, p. 5).…”

“…To appreciate this point, a distinction is in order. Depth is a gradable concept, so disagreements may be of various depths, some more deep than others (see Aikin, 2019;Duran, 2016;and Wang, 2018). Disagreements are deeper in terms of how many dialectical steps must be traversed to address the issue, and those that are absolutely deep have no upper limit on the steps necessary.…”