Lefty Internal Politics: How to Talk About This Stuff?

[Varysblackfyre321]

1 hour ago, sologdin said:

the terribleness rightly or wrongly will be attached

wrongly, of course, unless the terrible arises out of an intrinsic characteristic rather than incidental deviations from principle.  no one is advocating for anthropophagist rights, but that's what rightwing panic implies.

Yeah I don’t know who the fuck I was trying to appeal to what this neutral crap generally yeah.

If Neil Patrick killed his family in a drunk rage that’d be taken as verifiable proof that gay people for the sake of the children shouldn’t be raising them if a conservative Christian thought leader did the same, it’d be discounted as a one off.

 

 

[Phylum of Alexandria]

16 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Generally speaking maybe, In this specific case I have to say based on what I’m getting from your words(and I may be misunderstanding so please correct me) I’m inclined to say I don’t think so.

I'd say mostly yes, you're misunderstanding, which is why I wanted to follow up with some specifics on what I'm trying to talk about.

I can try to give a few examples. I’ll start with one that’s a bit ambiguous.

 

Criminal justice reform:

We can all agree that mass incarceration is a huge problem. Well, I guess the right wing would not agree, because they believe that black and brown individuals in poor urban areas are animals who need to be kept in cages, away from polite society. A slightly more generous way of putting that is that they are fixated on being as tough on street crime as possible, to deter future crimes. But they take it to absurd extremes, using the justice system to create mass injustice, police tyranny, and community dysfunction. That’s one example of blinkered maximalism right there, but on the right.

For people on the left, it makes sense to reform laws and prosecution and policing standards to push for a less draconian vision of justice. What does that look like? Maybe it depends on the community at hand; it certainly depends on the DA or other politicians who are working on the problem. One thing that needs to be acknowledged is that it’s not an easy problem, and multiple considerations must be made to understand the situation before weighing in on an approach to try. For instance, a blinkered fixation on reducing incarcerations with no regard to anything else risks spikes in street crime, and the public losing faith in the elected team’s ability to competently implement law and order.

I’m don’t know what the sweet spot is here, or even expect that anyone else should know. Maybe there is no actual sweet spot to be found, just some better options and some worse ones. Regardless, there will be the need to try something and hope that it works, and learn from the results. Hopefully criminal justice reformists in San Francisco learn from the recent recall of their DA that good intentions are not good enough. If not, I’d say that’s evidence of uncritical certainty in service of blinkered maximalism. And that will almost certainly make things worse for the community, not better.

 

Accommodating and harm reduction:

I’ve alluded to this stuff before, which is most relevant in universities. Obviously the left very broadly speaking is strongly motivated by care for others and consequently driven by a mission to prevent or minimize harm, abuse, oppression, and injustice. That’s quite admirable. The right wing tends to prioritize conformity, group cohesion, hierarchy, and (sometimes) their idea of moral purity over care for others. As such, they often minimize, and sometimes even delight in the harm experienced by individuals who don’t easily fit within the status quo.

It would seem like a simple and noble goal for people on the left to eliminate or at least minimize harm to the greatest extent that’s possible, right? But, in fact, human psychology and cultural systems are more complex than meets the eye.

Stress never feels good for us, but it’s biologically significant, alerting us to potential threats to deal with. Benign stressors such as the shock of an ice cold shower are actually good for our health and our moods. Most importantly, learning to navigate stressful situations is paramount to our growth and development. Obviously a life full of stressors is a bad thing, but rearing someone in a sheltered bubble is also bad, and ironically it doesn’t make people any less stressed out, just a lot worse at stress management. Finally, healthy stress management and conflict resolution among individuals is important for a group’s ability to figure out the truth and solve problems, and to coordinate in response to a threat.

Students, teachers, and activists who use flattened language to conflate oppression, harm, aggression, discomfort, insult, and micro-aggression probably believe they are simply raising the standard for harm minimization, particularly among historically marginalized communities. But in fact, they make it more likely that people fall into states of panic or outrage. They’ve made it harder for people to understand and navigate stressful situations that earlier generations would have considered benign. These harm-absolutists often use concepts from psychotherapy to make their case, but what they recommend runs counter to what therapists recommend for stress management, particularly among traumatized persons. By implementing blanket shields from content that might elicit stress, you actually make it harder for people to work through their trauma in a healthy way. And by flattening the concept of what is and is not harmful, you encourage more fear, anxiety, and catastrophic thinking.

Unlike with criminal justice reform, I’ll be bolder here. The examples of excess in this domain are idiotic and irresponsible. This is Dunning Kruger activism. It’s reflective of little more than good intentions gone awry, loud voices, and a lot of fucking hubris.

 

Diversity initiatives:

It’s great to have diverse perspectives, to celebrate the different cultural traditions out there, and it’s important to eliminate discriminatory practices against minority groups.That said, that are definitely ways in which diversity initiatives can be overextended.

When I was applying to teaching jobs about 10 years ago, a bunch of the applications required that I write a letter explaining how I would further the school’s mission for diversity. And honestly, I was at a loss as to what I could write. How in the fuck does someone teaching statistics, cognitive neuroscience, and visual perception further the cause for diversity? More importantly, if diversity is the top priority for hiring decisions rather than expertise in a given field, how does that aid the school’s ability to cultivate the next line of experts to solve tomorrow’s problems? It was a clear overextension of the ideal, into something more like a religious mantra than the guiding principle for an institution of learning.

DEI initiatives are, at least in principle, important efforts in the larger mission for increased diversity and equality in schools and workplaces. But in practice, some growing percentage of them act like cults. The equity committee of Evergreen State College is perhaps the most egregiously creepy variation of this caught to tape, but there are also instances of professors being disinvited from lectures because they were critical of specific DEI initiatives. And this ties into the “harm” madness too, as many professors being policed by students for uncomfortable content do so with the backing of the DEI-loyal administration.

So, is it a good thing that a professor was fired for showing students photos of ancient Muslim artwork that happened to depict the prophet Muhammed? Does that even count as diversity? Or it is the feverish worship of diversity run amok?

 

Representation in Media:

So, finally, to topic we had been discussing: the representation of marginalized identities in media for the sake of winning over hearts and minds.

This one is distinct from the other examples in its details, but it’s still another case of “the matter is not as simple as you might think.”

Yes, in a general sense, encountering different people and viewpoints via relatable media and other cultural artifacts does help people become more familiar and more sympathetic with those people and viewpoints. Perhaps most for children, but really anyone could potentially be swayed by a compelling, insightful, moving, or maybe even just funny story that reveals a bit of common humanity. This is not controversial.

But that being true does not mean that all attempts to do so will be equally efficacious, or that there aren’t other factors to consider. There’s an art to persuasion, and an art to propaganda. The idea that you are going to gain converts simply by mass churning out stories with some allotment of queer or trans identities will effectively shift the culture—without thinking about other factors that make for effectively persuasive media—is a recipe for failure.

Just ask evangelicals and other right wing Christians. They were some of the first people who acted on the idea that politics is downstream from culture, and they’ve been churning out their own alternative pop music, movies, and TV shows since at least the 70s, in the hope of bringing the youth closer to the values of their macho capitalist Jesus Christ. Yet in fact, church attendance, and especially right wing religious affiliation has been in major decline for decades, and continues to decline. If their culture machine is so effective at changing hearts and minds, why are people leaving?

I myself was brought up into a family with tons of CCM rock and pop playing, kids’ albums like Psalty the Singing Songbook, and shows like McGee and Me! There were many reasons why I left the church and became an atheist, but as a teenager I was absolutely disgusted by the phony, lazy, empty propaganda that these people were peddling as something to relate to.

If you don’t make a story that’s relatable, compelling, earnest, insightful, reflective of real human feelings and problems, you’re not going to enlighten anyone to new perspectives.

Not to mention, this obsession with diverse representation in media often trumps the actual pedagogic value of the story. Arguing over whether Mario is voiced by an Italian actor or some other voice talent? Absolutely inane, and the story is just fun escapism anyway, so it's pointless. Arguing over whether an established icon can be represented as black or queer? Well, it’s good for kids to have heroic models of different sorts, but still, that’s like bare minimum stuff. I contend that a story like ParaNorman would do far more good for queer kids than The Little Mermaid remake, as the story presents a moral dilemma that is directly relevant for marginalized groups, even though their representation in the movie is limited to one bit character. Moreover, the story has heart, and doesn’t treat its audience like brainless automatons, so it has more of a chance of making a deeper impression.

I’m not saying that representation is a bad thing. It’s good! But the quasi-CCM approach to mass indoctrination through entertainment that seems to have increased over the years is not just creepily transparent in its intentions, it’s lazy, and monomaniacally fixated on representation even at the expense of everything else. Conversations about representation tend to be on the most superficial details, often concerning the most superficial commercial entertainment fodder. Rather than inspire and elevate society, the loudest arguments are among two groups obsessed about representation and identity: the right wing, and people who seem dedicated to becoming mirror inversions of those creeps.

 

****

So, one last attempt to explain the general critique is this: the people advancing a simple, easy remedy to a real world problem, marching forward with unquestioned certainty as to their rightness, will likely exacerbate the problem in question or just create new problems. Human behavior and social systems are complex, and we need fewer instances of the Dunning-Kruger effect in our life, not more. We need less of this blinkered maximalism, and more approaches that at least try to acknowledge the complexity of the problems being addressed.

***

16 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

I acknowledge you’ve given the qualifier in your op on how the right is worse than the left and how offering internal criticism is necessary etc etc. I do feel you may catastrophizing cringe ‘Twitter’ lefties as the main faucet of the left when you frame the reaction to the right’s moral panics as reckless(would that be better word for what you trying to describe)  .

Least broadly. Like instead of hyperfixating internet horror stories of even big name progressive YouTubers getting canceled for  innocuous takes maybe let’s look what policies are being implemented and seriously suggested and pushed in halls of power by the “left”

And it’s usually the most milktoast shit that no one on the left who doesn’t have their reactionary baggage would get angry about.

Well, first, what I am trying to do first and foremost is find a way to distinguish and criticize the excess moral panic/Utopian purist stuff when it's relevant. Which includes one-off stories or incidents, but also more prevalent problems.

What's a one-off vs a more prevalent problem depends on what we're talking about. The harm protection shit and DEI-as-cults are more pervasive at universities than they should be. We agreed previously that progressive organizations are experiencing real dysfunction, so that's another problem. Social media is a factor in all of this amplified nuttiness, including the worst of the representation takes. I know that several commenters here have already said that I've tried to paint "the left" generally as being completely mired in craziness, and that is definitely not what I'm trying to say. It's more that in recent years, the nuttier individuals have become more vocals and more influential, and any attempt to talk about those individuals results in misunderstanding and/or paranoid pushback, so the creeps and fanatics get the protection to go on doing what they're doing. But, as I said, I do think things may be finally changing in that respect.

 

Edited May 30, 2023 by Phylum of Alexandria

[Varysblackfyre321]

30 minutes ago, Phylum of Alexandria said:

I'd say mostly yes, you're misunderstanding, which is why I wanted to follow up with some specifics on what I'm trying to talk about.

I can try to give a few examples. I’ll start with one that’s a bit ambiguous.

 

Criminal justice reform:

We can all agree that mass incarceration is a huge problem. Well, I guess the right wing would not agree, because they believe that black and brown individuals in poor urban areas are animals who need to be kept in cages, away from polite society. A slightly more generous way of putting that is that they are fixated on being as tough on street crime as possible, to deter future crimes. But they take it to absurd extremes, using the justice system to create mass injustice, police tyranny, and community dysfunction. That’s one example of blinkered maximalism right there, but on the right.

For people on the left, it makes sense to reform laws and prosecution and policing standards to push for a less draconian vision of justice. What does that look like? Maybe it depends on the community at hand; it certainly depends on the DA or other politicians who are working on the problem. One thing that needs to be acknowledged is that it’s not an easy problem, and multiple considerations must be made to understand the situation before weighing in on an approach to try. For instance, a blinkered fixation on reducing incarcerations with no regard to anything else risks spikes in street crime, and the public losing faith in the elected team’s ability to competently implement law and order.

I’m don’t know what the sweet spot is here, or even expect that anyone else should know. Maybe there is no actual sweet spot to be found, just some better options and some worse ones. Regardless, there will be the need to try something and hope that it works, and learn from the results. Hopefully criminal justice reformists in San Francisco learn from the recent recall of their DA that good intentions are not good enough. If not, I’d say that’s evidence of uncritical certainty in service of blinkered maximalism. And that will almost certainly make things worse for the community, not better.

 

Accommodating and harm reduction:

I’ve alluded to this stuff before, which is most relevant in universities. Obviously the left very broadly speaking is strongly motivated by care for others and consequently driven by a mission to prevent or minimize harm, abuse, oppression, and injustice. That’s quite admirable. The right wing tends to prioritize conformity, group cohesion, hierarchy, and (sometimes) their idea of moral purity over care for others. As such, they often minimize, and sometimes even delight in the harm experienced by individuals who don’t easily fit within the status quo.

It would seem like a simple and noble goal for people on the left to eliminate or at least minimize harm to the greatest extent that’s possible, right? But, in fact, human psychology and cultural systems are more complex than meets the eye.

Stress never feels good for us, but it’s biologically significant, alerting us to potential threats to deal with. Benign stressors such as the shock of an ice cold shower are actually good for our health and our moods. Most importantly, learning to navigate stressful situations is paramount to our growth and development. Obviously a life full of stressors is a bad thing, but rearing someone in a sheltered bubble is also bad, and ironically it doesn’t make people any less stressed out, just a lot worse at stress management. Finally, healthy stress management and conflict resolution among individuals is important for a group’s ability to figure out the truth and solve problems, and to coordinate in response to a threat.

Students, teachers, and activists who use flattened language to conflate oppression, harm, aggression, discomfort, insult, and micro-aggression probably believe they are simply raising the standard for harm minimization, particularly among historically marginalized communities. But in fact, they make it more likely that people fall into states of panic or outrage. They’ve made it harder for people to understand and navigate stressful situations that earlier generations would have considered benign. These harm-absolutists often use concepts from psychotherapy to make their case, but what they recommend runs counter to what therapists recommend for stress management, particularly among traumatized persons. By implementing blanket shields from content that might elicit stress, you actually make it harder for people to work through their trauma in a healthy way. And by flattening the concept of what is and is not harmful, you encourage more fear, anxiety, and catastrophic thinking.

Unlike with criminal justice reform, I’ll be bolder here. The examples of excess in this domain are idiotic and irresponsible. This is Dunning Kruger activism. It’s reflective of little more than good intentions gone awry, loud voices, and a lot of fucking hubris.

 

Diversity initiatives:

It’s great to have diverse perspectives, to celebrate the different cultural traditions out there, and it’s important to eliminate discriminatory practices against minority groups.That said, that are definitely ways in which diversity initiatives can be overextended.

When I was applying to teaching jobs about 10 years ago, a bunch of the applications required that I write a letter explaining how I would further the school’s mission for diversity. And honestly, I was at a loss as to what I could write. How in the fuck does someone teaching statistics, cognitive neuroscience, and visual perception further the cause for diversity? More importantly, if diversity is the top priority for hiring decisions rather than expertise in a given field, how does that aid the school’s ability to cultivate the next line of experts to solve tomorrow’s problems? It was a clear overextension of the ideal, into something more like a religious mantra than the guiding principle for an institution of learning.

DEI initiatives are, at least in principle, important efforts in the larger mission for increased diversity and equality in schools and workplaces. But in practice, some growing percentage of them act like cults. The equity committee of Evergreen State College is perhaps the most egregiously creepy variation of this caught to tape, but there are also instances of professors being disinvited from lectures because they were critical of specific DEI initiatives. And this ties into the “harm” madness too, as many professors being policed by students for uncomfortable content do so with the backing of the DEI-loyal administration.

So, is it a good thing that a professor was fired for showing students photos of ancient Muslim artwork that happened to depict the prophet Muhammed? Does that even count as diversity? Or it is the feverish worship of diversity run amok?

 

Representation in Media:

So, finally, to topic we had been discussing: the representation of marginalized identities in media for the sake of winning over hearts and minds.

This one is distinct from the other examples in its details, but it’s still another case of “the matter is not as simple as you might think.”

Yes, in a general sense, encountering different people and viewpoints via relatable media and other cultural artifacts does help people become more familiar and more sympathetic with those people and viewpoints. Perhaps most for children, but really anyone could potentially be swayed by a compelling, insightful, moving, or maybe even just funny story that reveals a bit of common humanity. This is not controversial.

But that being true does not mean that all attempts to do so will be equally efficacious, or that there aren’t other factors to consider. There’s an art to persuasion, and an art to propaganda. The idea that you are going to gain converts simply by mass churning out stories with some allotment of queer or trans identities will effectively shift the culture—without thinking about other factors that make for effectively persuasive media—is a recipe for failure.

Just ask evangelicals and other right wing Christians. They were some of the first people who acted on the idea that politics is downstream from culture, and they’ve been churning out their own alternative pop music, movies, and TV shows since at least the 70s, in the hope of bringing the youth closer to the values of their macho capitalist Jesus Christ. Yet in fact, church attendance, and especially right wing religious affiliation has been in major decline for decades, and continues to decline. If their culture machine is so effective at changing hearts and minds, why are people leaving?

I myself was brought up into a family with tons of CCM rock and pop playing, kids’ albums like Psalty the Singing Songbook, and shows like McGee and Me! There were many reasons why I left the church and became an atheist, but as a teenager I was absolutely disgusted by the phony, lazy, empty propaganda that these people were peddling as something to relate to.

If you don’t make a story that’s relatable, compelling, earnest, insightful, reflective of real human feelings and problems, you’re not going to enlighten anyone to new perspectives.

Not to mention, this obsession with diverse representation in media often trumps the actual pedagogic value of the story. Arguing over whether Mario is voiced by an Italian actor or some other voice talent? Absolutely inane, and the story is just fun escapism anyway, so it's pointless. Arguing over whether an established icon can be represented as black or queer? Well, it’s good for kids to have heroic models of different sorts, but still, that’s like bare minimum stuff. I contend that a story like ParaNorman would do far more good for queer kids than The Little Mermaid remake, as the story presents a moral dilemma that is directly relevant for marginalized groups, even though their representation in the movie is limited to one bit character. Moreover, the story has heart, and doesn’t treat its audience like brainless automatons, so it has more of a chance of making a deeper impression.

I’m not saying that representation is a bad thing. It’s good! But the quasi-CCM approach to mass indoctrination through entertainment that seems to have increased over the years is not just creepily transparent in its intentions, it’s lazy, and monomaniacally fixated on representation even at the expense of everything else. Conversations about representation tend to be on the most superficial details, often concerning the most superficial commercial entertainment fodder. Rather than inspire and elevate society, the loudest arguments are among two groups obsessed about representation and identity: the right wing, and people who seem dedicated to becoming mirror inversions of those creeps.

 

****

So, one last attempt to explain the general critique is this: the people advancing a simple, easy remedy to a real world problem, marching forward with unquestioned certainty as to their rightness, will likely exacerbate the problem in question or just create new problems. Human behavior and social systems are complex, and we need fewer instances of the Dunning-Kruger effect in our life, not more. We need less of this blinkered maximalism, and more approaches that at least try to acknowledge the complexity of the problems being addressed.

***

 

PS: I said multiple times that I was arguing for strategy and deliberation rather than rash reactions, and you continue to paint my stance as milquetoast anti-action. That is your own distortion.

 

Yeah I’ll dig into it deeper but this reads like a far right rant.

[Phylum of Alexandria]

18 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Yeah I’ll dig into it deeper but this reads like a far right rant.

Uh...maybe don't bother? I put a lot of time into this, I don't know if I can take more bad faith at the moment. At least take more time to reflect rather than bash out a response.

Edited May 30, 2023 by Phylum of Alexandria

[Ran]

1 hour ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Yeah I’ll dig into it deeper but this reads like a far right rant.

Only someone on the far left would think that is a "rant", looks remotely anything like a rant, or has anything to do with the far right politics. Where's the nationalism, nativism, and authoritarianism?

Absurd.

[Heartofice]

3 hours ago, Phylum of Alexandria said:

But, as I said, I do think things may be finally changing in that respect

I appreciate the time taken to write your post although I doubt you will get the serious level of replies you are hoping for.

Im definitely pretty ‘anti-woke’ and yeah I’m pretty sure I know what it means and can define it.. but even I think we are past peak woke now. This might all change if you get Trump again but I’ve definitely seen a more mainstream pushback to much of the excess and there just seem to be far less incidents of lefty craziness than a few years ago.
 

We might still get the occasional bit of Disney fan baiting or stories about people getting cancelled or fired  for some minor infraction, but the wind seems to have gone out of those sails a bit.

Going back to the Witch trials thread, since listening to that podcast I now see the sort of Tumblr vs 4Chan dynamic that took over popular thinking for a small amount of time, and now hopefully there is a desire for something a bit more serious, something that works. 

Edited May 30, 2023 by Heartofice

[Phylum of Alexandria]

7 hours ago, Ran said:

Only someone on the far left would think that is a "rant", looks remotely anything like a rant, or has anything to do with the far right politics. Where's the nationalism, nativism, and authoritarianism?

Absurd.

I agree it's absurd, but it need not reflect a far left vantage point, just someone who's obviously not bothering to read it very carefully before slinging out a response. Let alone sitting with it and thinking about it seriously.

And given that, I think I've done what I can on this thread. I'm glad I started it. Overall it was far less toxic than other attempts to talk about this stuff, save for a few cameos by the usual suspects. But I'm also not going to continue to clarify my position for someone who ejaculates his first reaction to something that took me two hours to write. Varys, I'm guessing that you've got some growing up to do. Hopefully some day you'll treat these topics with the serious effort they deserve. As for me, I'm out.

Thanks everyone!

Edited May 30, 2023 by Phylum of Alexandria

[Larry of the Lawn]

Re: criminal justice reform: The San Francisco DA recall was led by Democrats to remove Boudin, no?

Who were taking advantage of corporate victimhood and pandemic related crime to get rid of someone actually trying to reform things?

 Not sure what lesson is to be learned here other than that a large portion of the Democratic party doesn't want reform or is incredibly reluctant to change the status quo, even when the status quo sucks.  Maybe part of the issue is that the real "lefty infighting" is actually a disagreement on policy and not merely strategy or aesthetics.  A good number of Dems are invested in the status quo.

I guess my point is that I think pointing to the failure of a progressive DA in San Francisco as an example here is a bad fit.  It failed because Dems either freaked out that the reforms were too unpopular or they were too invested in the way things were before Boudin.  The lesson I take from this is that a lot of Dems don't have the same goals, are not particularly bothered by our criminal justice system, and are not going to be allies in any kind of meaningful structural reform.  

 

[Phylum of Alexandria]

11 minutes ago, Larry of the Lake said:

Re: criminal justice reform: The San Francisco DA recall was led by Democrats to remove Boudin, no?

Who were taking advantage of corporate victimhood and pandemic related crime to get rid of someone actually trying to reform things?

 Not sure what lesson is to be learned here other than that a large portion of the Democratic party doesn't want reform or is incredibly reluctant to change the status quo, even when the status quo sucks.  Maybe part of the issue is that the real "lefty infighting" is actually a disagreement on policy and not merely strategy or aesthetics.  A good number of Dems are invested in the status quo.

I guess my point is that I think pointing to the failure of a progressive DA in San Francisco as an example here is a bad fit.  It failed because Dems either freaked out that the reforms were too unpopular or they were too invested in the way things were before Boudin.  The lesson I take from this is that a lot of Dems don't have the same goals, are not particularly bothered by our criminal justice system, and are not going to be allies in any kind of meaningful structural reform.  

Well, I did cite that one as more ambiguous. But at least there are multiple considerations to be made when trying to solve such a problem.

[TrackerNeil]

1 hour ago, Larry of the Lake said:

The lesson I take from this is that a lot of Dems don't have the same goals, are not particularly bothered by our criminal justice system, and are not going to be allies in any kind of meaningful structural reform.  

Also possible that SF Dems just didn't like the way Boudin was pursuing reform. There is more than one way to fix the system.

[Larry of the Lawn]

4 hours ago, Phylum of Alexandria said:

Well, I did cite that one as more ambiguous. But at least there are multiple considerations to be made when trying to solve such a problem.

 

3 hours ago, TrackerNeil said:

Also possible that SF Dems just didn't like the way Boudin was pursuing reform. There is more than one way to fix the system.

I'm sure that's part of it.  

Let me try another way of putting it- I don't think there is actually that much support within elected Democrats for reducing incarceration rates.  Or at least they don't seem very committed to bail reform, or asking prosecutors to share evidence against a defendant in a timely manner, or reducing plea bargaining.  Or reducing police funding or the number of police on the streets.  I think a lot of Democratic voters support these things (and I know that many do not support them as well) but I think the party has very little commitment or interest in these issues if they get any negative press whatsoever, even if it's just regurgitated corporate concerns and uncritically repeated without examination quotes from police departments.  

 

Edited May 30, 2023 by Larry of the Lake

[TrackerNeil]

30 minutes ago, Larry of the Lake said:

Let me try another way of putting it- I don't think there is actually that much support within elected Democrats for reducing incarceration rates.  Or at least they don't seem very committed to bail reform, or asking prosecutors to share evidence against a defendant in a timely manner, or reducing plea bargaining.  Or reducing police funding or the number of police on the streets.  I think a lot of Democratic voters support these things (and I know that many do not support them as well) but I think the party has very little commitment or interest in these issues if they get any negative press whatsoever, even if it's just regurgitated corporate concerns and uncritically repeated without examination quotes from police departments.  

I think Democrats have demonstrated support for police reform in general, but when it comes to the specific questions you post, it gets complicated. Should there just be fewer plea bargains, or are we really talking about the way prosecutors can overcharge to screw over defendants of little means? Is it necessarily a good idea to have few police on the streets? Should we reduce police funding at all? These are tough questions, and I am not surprised there's not a strong Democratic consensus on the answers.

Also, I like to be very careful when estimating support for general progressive goals by measuring responses to specific questions. I'm a stalwart Democrat who's never voted Republican in this life, and I'm not onboard with Defund the Police. Does that mean I don't care about police misconduct? Or that I think bail should be higher? Or that I am pro-incarceration? I sometimes think comparing general sympathies to support for specific policies is an apples-to-oranges situation.

[Gorn]

44 minutes ago, Larry of the Lake said:

 

I'm sure that's part of it.  

Let me try another way of putting it- I don't think there is actually that much support within elected Democrats for reducing incarceration rates.  Or at least they don't seem very committed to bail reform, or asking prosecutors to share evidence against a defendant in a timely manner, or reducing plea bargaining.  Or reducing police funding or the number of police on the streets.  I think a lot of Democratic voters support these things (and I know that many do not support them as well) but I think the party has very little commitment or interest in these issues if they get any negative press whatsoever, even if it's just regurgitated corporate concerns and uncritically repeated without examination quotes from police departments.  

 

I don't think there is as much support among Democratic voters as you think either. Or rather, there is mild "I guess" support up to the point where the voter, or their friend or family member, becomes the victim of any type of crime, and then it turns into vehement opposition.

[Kalbear]

It's one of the earliest things to hit the road. Dems support it but it's not a core concern the way that...uh...um...hmm.

Maybe climate is? Honestly, thinking on it I'm not sure what the main concern would be of the Dem party today. Resisting fascism?

[Larry of the Lawn]

2 minutes ago, Kalnestk Oblast said:

It's one of the earliest things to hit the road. Dems support it but it's not a core concern the way that...uh...um...hmm.

Maybe climate is? Honestly, thinking on it I'm not sure what the main concern would be of the Dem party today. Resisting fascism?

Winning elections

Eta:

And fundraising 

Edited May 30, 2023 by Larry of the Lake

[James Arryn]

On Criminal justice, an ongoing problem is that media, particularly tv and movies from the 80’s-90’s served up a tipsy-turvy version of the dynamic of justice in America. All the laconic cop heroes hamstrung by camera-hungry politicians, slimy journalists and corrupt court officials who have to burn the village to save it…that really had an impact. That’s how the average person thinks of the justice system; rigged for the criminals. Even now, at an era-defining low point in the judicial system where “only” 42-48% of Americans think that the laws should be tougher…that’s still over 2-1 to Americans who think it’s too tough. In the most incarcerated country on the planet, with a huge chunk behind bars for laws most Americans don’t even support, yet those who think the system needs changing are overwhelmingly likely to think that change ought to have more people locked up longer. Or killed. 
 

Anyone who has ever come up against the CJS, or been close to someone who has knows that unless you happen to be seriously wealthy, the game IS rigged…against the accused. Court appointed council are overworked and frustrated with how little time they get to even go over each case, the pleading negotiations are naturally weighted by the fact that one side is negotiating something that is a small part of their job that day and the other person is negotiating for their life/family/freedom. A surprisingly high percentage of cases that have been overturned on DNA evidence had plea bargains and confessions…because it’s one person betting their life against a machine with relatively unlimited resources and populated by people who are, by the time it gets into court at least, basically assuming guilt as a working hypothesis until something dramatic suggests otherwise. We all have bad days at work…bad days at work in the CJS costs people their lives. And no one really cares. Once you’re convicted, the world views you as a criminal…studies show that’s almost as true once you’re charged…and it’s expected that you’ll complain about getting railroaded. Yeah, every now and then a dramatic discovery will overturn a case and get high profile for a while, but people still generally think the courts are built to help crooks and hinder honest cops, and it’s going to take a long time to change that. 

[Varysblackfyre321]

On 5/29/2023 at 6:14 PM, Phylum of Alexandria said:

I'd say mostly yes, you're misunderstanding,

I think you’re follow up solidified my initial understanding and rejection of your conclusion in this specific instance.

I wondered if maybe your grievance(here at least) was more with an overzealous or counterproductive tactic/strategy towards a specific goal rather than lack of respect towards the goal itself but it appears more grievance with the goals themselves as being untenable to try and pursue.

Pursing Optimization is significantly different maximization.
It can mean accepting a degree of something as not only inevitable—but preferable.

For example there’s an optimal weight a male miner of relatively decent health could carry without getting overwhelmed. I believe it’s around 20 pounds, anything more or less wouldn’t be optimal.

I don’t think there’s an optimal level of acceptance to queer people and gender non-conforming folk that we need to stick to.

On 5/29/2023 at 6:14 PM, Phylum of Alexandria said:

For people on the left, it makes sense to reform laws and prosecution and policing standards to push for a less draconian vision of justice. What does that look like? Maybe it depends on the community at hand; it certainly depends on the DA or other politicians who are working on the problem. One thing that needs to be acknowledged is that it’s not an easy problem, and multiple considerations must be made to understand the situation before weighing in on an approach to try. For instance, a blinkered fixation on reducing incarcerations with no regard to anything else risks spikes in street crime, and the public losing faith in the elected team’s ability to competently implement law and order.

One of my fantasy book series  had a plot where angels came to a world and summarily looked at pronouncements of repentance and the genuineness of their mind at the time. 

This lead to a people taking extrajudicial matters in their own hands and killing and torturing and summarily being killed by the angels when they showed no repentance.

I understand there’s nuance towards how we deal with prisoners.

On 5/29/2023 at 6:14 PM, Phylum of Alexandria said:

e alluded to this stuff before, which is most relevant in universities. Obviously the left very broadly speaking is strongly motivated by care for others and consequently driven by a mission to prevent or minimize harm, abuse, oppression, and injustice. That’s quite admirable. The right wing tends to prioritize conformity, group cohesion, hierarchy, and (sometimes) their idea of moral purity over care for others. As such, they often minimize, and sometimes even delight in the harm experienced by individuals who don’t easily fit within the status quo.

Yeah I know this gets trotted out to inspire empathy towards the right—empathy as in understanding not agreeing. It does in me. Hence annoyance towards much of the right and calls to casual dismiss them when they act like they’re not operating on a base level of disgust and have grander more sophisticated reasons for their bigotry.

An example that springs to mind is the current outrage over Ted Cruz saying Uganda murdering gay people for being gay is bad with people pretending to worry about us imperialism and pedophilia as reason for their genocide apologia.

It’d be really bad to greet these complaints seriously instead of virulent mockery.

Too often liberals at the slightest show of anger by the culture right break down and treat their sycophancy as pragmatic politics.

On 5/29/2023 at 6:14 PM, Phylum of Alexandria said:

It would seem like a simple and noble goal for people on the left to eliminate or at least minimize harm to the greatest extent that’s possible, right? But, in fact, human psychology and cultural systems are more complex than meets the eye.

 Yeah dude this is like the third time I asked now, but what exactly is the point of the coalition you’re trying to advocate for for?

If it’s not maximizing harm-reduction I see little point with groups on the left with different specific goals and putting aside specific idealogical gripes to work together.

On 5/29/2023 at 6:14 PM, Phylum of Alexandria said:

Stress never feels good for us, but it’s biologically significant, alerting us to potential threats to deal with. Benign stressors such as the shock of an ice cold shower are actually good for our health and our moods. Most importantly, learning to navigate stressful situations is paramount to our growth and development. Obviously a life full of stressors is a bad thing, but rearing someone in a sheltered bubble is also bad, and ironically it doesn’t make people any less stressed out, just a lot worse at stress management. Finally, healthy stress management and conflict resolution among individuals is important for a group’s ability to figure out the truth and solve problems, and to coordinate in response to a threat.

Students, teachers, and activists who use flattened language to conflate oppression, harm, aggression, discomfort, insult, and micro-aggression probably believe they are simply raising the standard for harm minimization, particularly among historically marginalized communities.

I understand the benefit towards giving challenges to people where they can fail and grow 
 
I think you’d agree there’s no optimal level of bullying a boy should get for expressing a crush with another boy in the name of building his character. 
 

Like you’d clearly see there’s no optimal homophobia right? Or Optimal slut-shaming or optimal racism?

 

Also if a degree of suffering should be seen as necessary would we do a disservice for not adequately reproving someone for an expressed bigoted sentiment when they’re younger as to not get so easily panicked when called out for it when they’re older?

On 5/29/2023 at 6:14 PM, Phylum of Alexandria said:

They’ve made it harder for people to understand and navigate stressful situations that earlier generations would have considered benign.

Ehh, I think it’s a bit more that now there’s a bit more expectation for people to think of their feelings, their possible good will intent in a situation.

Like a white man in the 1940s probably would think nothing of it if he referred to a black man of older age as boy while thanking him or complimenting his vocabulary and cleanliness. 

 

On 5/29/2023 at 6:14 PM, Phylum of Alexandria said:

When I was applying to teaching jobs about 10 years ago, a bunch of the applications required that I write a letter explaining how I would further the school’s mission for diversity. And honestly, I was at a loss as to what I could write. How in the fuck does someone teaching statistics, cognitive neuroscience, and visual perception further the cause for diversity? More importantly, if diversity is the top priority for hiring decisions rather than expertise in a given field, how does that aid the school’s ability to cultivate the next line of experts to solve tomorrow’s problems? It was a clear overextension of the ideal, into something more like a religious mantra than the guiding principle for an institution of learning.

Or they want to be able to point to this and say they screened people out  in case you’re found to be a bigot.

Like that’s kinda the main reason most businesses do these sorts of things.

On 5/29/2023 at 6:14 PM, Phylum of Alexandria said:

The equity committee of Evergreen State College is perhaps the most egregiously creepy variation of this caught to tape, but there are also instances of professors being disinvited from lectures because they were critical of specific DEI initiatives. And this ties into the “harm” madness too, as many professors being policed by students for uncomfortable content do so with the backing of the DEI-loyal administration.

Eh depending on the initivies that can be fine or really bad

I hope this response is seen as reasonable given Neither of us are free speech absolutists or think everyone needs to be given attention/a platform to be destroyed with facts and logic.

On 5/29/2023 at 6:14 PM, Phylum of Alexandria said:

So, finally, to topic we had been discussing: the representation of marginalized identities in media for the sake of winning over hearts and minds

I’d say  more searing a imprint on what is acceptable and what isn’t unacceptable on someone’s brain in ways people have traditionally have done in formulating a culture since forever.

I think it’s important for us to practice some humbleness and actually take some lessons on how to encode a society’s moral from past generations. 
 

On 5/29/2023 at 6:14 PM, Phylum of Alexandria said:

Yes, in a general sense, encountering different people and viewpoints via relatable media and other cultural artifacts does help people become more familiar and more sympathetic with those people and viewpoints. Perhaps most for children, but really anyone could potentially be swayed by a compelling, insightful, moving, or maybe even just funny story that reveals a bit of common humanity. This is not controversial.

But that being true does not mean that all attempts to do so will be equally efficacious, or that there aren’t other factors to consider. There’s an art to persuasion, and an art to propaganda.

I’m fine with both though neither are really distinct.

On 5/29/2023 at 6:14 PM, Phylum of Alexandria said:

The idea that you are going to gain converts simply by mass churning out stories with some allotment of queer or trans identities will effectively shift the culture—without thinking about other factors that make for effectively persuasive media—is a recipe for failure.

 

Oooh of course not. A lot of villains in media are  queer coded if not queer.

On 5/29/2023 at 6:14 PM, Phylum of Alexandria said:

Just ask evangelicals and other right wing Christians. They were some of the first people who acted on the idea that politics is downstream from culture, and they’ve been churning out their own alternative pop music, movies, and TV shows since at least the 70s, in the hope of bringing the youth closer to the values of their macho capitalist Jesus Christ. Yet in fact, church attendance, and especially right wing religious affiliation has been in major decline for decades, and continues to decline. If their culture machine is so effective at changing hearts and minds, why are people leaving?

Oh because they don’t have the whip of the state to keep populace in a moral line and their membership actively discourages the type of thinking that would land someone in a namby-pamby art school or college or any educational  path that’s associated with  towards making them gay atheist communists which tends to be the artsy ones.

On 5/29/2023 at 6:14 PM, Phylum of Alexandria said:

myself was brought up into a family with tons of CCM rock and pop playing, kids’ albums like Psalty the Singing Songbook, and shows like McGee and Me! There were many reasons why I left the church and became an atheist, but as a teenager I was absolutely disgusted by the phony, lazy, empty propaganda that these people were peddling as something to relate to.

If you don’t make a story that’s relatable, compelling, earnest, insightful, reflective of real human feelings and problems, you’re not going to enlighten anyone to new perspectives.

Jesus Christ remember we were talking about drag queens reading children’s books to  little kids to help them get inoculated to certain modes of gender nonconformity not recreating Shakespeare.

On 5/29/2023 at 6:14 PM, Phylum of Alexandria said:

Not to mention, this obsession with diverse representation in media often trumps the actual pedagogic value of the story.

Eh at times sure
 

A YouTuber Verilybitchy made a interesting take down of media with pro-trans messages being boring due to its attempts to be inoffensive.

Good people or people with good politics.

300 is fascist propaganda—still thoroughly enjoy it.

On 5/29/2023 at 6:14 PM, Phylum of Alexandria said:

Arguing over whether Mario is voiced by an Italian actor or some other voice talent? Absolutely inane, and the story is just fun escapism anyway, so it's pointless.

Yeah this sounds like catastrophizing fringe internet discourse.

As a centrist on the issue I just thought hearing Pratt would play Mario is  if they were going to do an accent go all the way or don’t. I’m not going to watch the movie so idc.

On 5/29/2023 at 6:14 PM, Phylum of Alexandria said:

I contend that a story like ParaNorman would do far more good for queer kids than The Little Mermaid remake, as the story presents a moral dilemma that is directly relevant for marginalized groups, even though their representation in the movie is limited to one bit character. Moreover, the story has heart, and doesn’t treat its audience like brainless automatons, so it has more of a chance of making a deeper impression.

I do wonder about that— Disney villains tend to be very popular in the lgbt community because they tended to be queer-coded(Ursula is literally based off a drag queen( and the the funnest part of the movie.

On 5/29/2023 at 6:14 PM, Phylum of Alexandria said:

I’m not saying that representation is a bad thing. It’s good! But the quasi-CCM approach to mass indoctrination through entertainment that seems to have increased over the years is not just creepily transparent in its intentions, it’s lazy, and monomaniacally fixated on representation even at the expense of everything else.

Please can we not mystify and demonfy  normal ways of inoculating people into certain beliefs that have been done since humans had the capacity to weave a story when progressives do it.

On 5/29/2023 at 6:14 PM, Phylum of Alexandria said:

Well, first, what I am trying to do first and foremost is find a way to distinguish and criticize the excess moral panic/Utopian purist stuff when it's relevant. Which includes one-off stories or incidents, but also more prevalent problems.

 

I understand you’re not referring to all the left.

On 5/29/2023 at 6:14 PM, Phylum of Alexandria said:

What's a one-off vs a more prevalent problem depends on what we're talking about. The harm protection shit and DEI-as-cults are more pervasive at universities than they should be

Tactfully disagree.

On 5/29/2023 at 6:14 PM, Phylum of Alexandria said:

We agreed previously that progressive organizations are experiencing real dysfunction, so that's another problem.

Sure.

On 5/29/2023 at 6:14 PM, Phylum of Alexandria said:

Social media is a factor in all of this amplified nuttiness, including the worst of the representation takes. I know that several commenters here have already said that I've tried to paint "the left" generally as being completely mired in craziness, and that is definitely not what I'm trying to say. It's more that in recent years, the nuttier individuals have become more vocals and more influential, and any attempt to talk about those individuals results in misunderstanding and/or paranoid pushback,

You still haven’t pointed to any specific policy being seriously proposed or implemented by those on the left.

 

[Varysblackfyre321]

On 5/30/2023 at 12:05 PM, Larry of the Lake said:

Winning elections

Eta:

And fundraising 

I’ve recently been watching the west wing thing a podcast going over the west wing(a  political soap opera inspired by the Clinton White House) hosted by two anarchists.

During an episode they go over one where a liberal White House aid has to defend the president gentle treatment of a cop who killed an old black homeless man to a progressive democratic congressman. The Congressmen argued the president was disrespecting the groups that got the president into power. The aid stated bluntly would never leave the democrats. The entitlement was nauseating to listen to.

 

[Varysblackfyre321]

On 5/29/2023 at 8:23 PM, Ran said:

Only someone on the far left would think that is a "rant", looks remotely anything like a rant, or has anything to do with the far right politics. Where's the nationalism, nativism, and authoritarianism?

Absurd.

You’re characterization of my political placement isn’t unwarranted and a good reminder to keep things in perspective.

Second I do think my labeling  over what skimmed originally wasn’t fair and I apologize for that. 
 

[DMC]

10 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

During an episode they go over one where a liberal White House aid has to defend the president gentle treatment of a cop who killed an old black homeless man to a progressive democratic congressman. The Congressmen argued the president was disrespecting the groups that got the president into power. The aid stated bluntly would never leave the democrats. The entitlement was nauseating to listen to.

I mean, this is neither here nor there - and there are plenty of things to criticize about West Wing in terms of being a fantasy and in particular a Sorkin-esque "centrist" fantasy - but as a devotee of the show you should really watch the episode.  Instead of listening to some dumbass people with a podcast that are framing it for their political agenda.

In the episode (2.14 titled "The War at Home"), it is made clear that the cop (played by the great character actor Richard Riehle) was entirely innocent of wrongdoing.  More importantly, he didn't kill the black assailant nor was the assailant described as homeless.  Dunno where in the hell you're getting that from.

The assailant had broke his leg in the process of committing a crime and the cop was accused of breaking his leg.  The cop explains to CJ that the only way his old fat white ass could have ever caught up to him was because his leg was already broken.

This then dovetails to Toby meeting with the Seth Gillette character (played by Ed Begley Jr.), a leftist Senator threatening to wage a primary challenge against the President at the time.  Gillette exploits the cop being honored during the State of the Union to threaten Toby about his electoral viability in gaining the black vote.  Toby's response, along with a Sorkin-y analogy, is if you come at us from the left, I'll own your ass.

Based on the context of the episode, there's absolutely nothing wrong with Toby's strong posture against a recalcitrant Senator he's trying to get to join the blue ribbon commission the president announced on Social Security.  Long story short, it's a really stupid example to use for much of anything in reality.

Edited June 1, 2023 by DMC