Lefty Internal Politics: How to Talk About This Stuff?

[DMC]

On 5/29/2023 at 9:14 PM, Phylum of Alexandria said:

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.

There are very obvious solutions.  One would be eliminating mandatory minimums.  Another would be reallocating some of state and local law enforcement budgets to other aspects that ensure public safety.  Such as social workers that are more qualified to deal with conflict resolution when it comes to homelessness, substance abuse, and even general disturbances in a given community.  That's, like, word for word, what defund the police actually means.  I totally agree with you that the phrase is horrible messaging.  We've been over this for years.  But the idea behind it is something I would hope we can all get behind.

On 5/29/2023 at 9:14 PM, Phylum of Alexandria said:

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.

This is just saying a bunch of random terms without understanding the context of what happened in SF at all.  Boudin was recalled because of gross incompetence and a rather perplexing unwillingness to fulfill his basic duties.  There were plenty of "lefty" internal politicians that wanted him out just as much as everyone else.

On 5/29/2023 at 9:14 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. 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.

Citation needed.  Who, or what, exactly are you talking about?  I work in academia.  I work among political scientists that teach in academia.  I go to conferences and talk and get drunk with other political scientists that teach college students in academia.  And I have little idea what the fuck you're talking about here.  Some of the Ivy Leagues have put out certain shit - and yes, sometimes there's a bit of oversensitivity at certain universities - but for about 99% of the undergraduate student body in this country, this just isn't the case.  You don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

On 5/29/2023 at 9:14 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.

Yeah, I think I had to do this about ten years ago when first applying after getting my first MA.  Interesting thing is?  Haven't any time recently.  When applying to literally hundreds of schools over the past few years.  Even if I did, how different is it than the bullshit cover letter, or teaching statement?  You think anyone actually gives a shit about those?  I've been on hiring committees, they don't.  This is whining about nothing.  Make up some bullshit and move on, it's not the end of the world.

On 5/29/2023 at 9:14 PM, Phylum of Alexandria said:

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?

Um..not sure what exactly you're referring to here.  But, if you're referring to this, it was "leftist" organizations that came to the professor's defense:

Quote

The lawsuit alleges that instead of Hamline recognizing López Prater showed the images with a proper academic purpose, the university chose to impose the student’s religious view that no one should ever view images of the prophet on all other students and employees.

On Friday, the Council on American-Islamic Relations, a national civil rights organization for Muslims, disputed the belief that López Prater’s behavior was Islamophobic. The group said professors who analyze images of the Prophet Muhammad for academic purposes are not the same as “Islamophobes who show such images to cause offense.”

 

On 5/29/2023 at 9:14 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?

Er..I really don't get your point here?  The religious right is waning among the American public.  Ok.  Sure, that's true in terms of demographics.  But it still doesn't change the fact that the rise of the religious right - and subsequently the Federalist Society - didn't ultimately result in the 6-3 Supreme Court we have right now that is intent on rolling our entire society back 50, 100, 150 years in their bullshit decisions that have already came down and promise to continue to come down starting this month.  The Evangelical Right won in terms of fundamentally changing the ideological composition of SCOTUS.  That's just an empirical fact, and I really don't get how it supports your argument.  At all.

On 5/29/2023 at 9:14 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. 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.

Ah, ok, so you're one of the pathetic people that is whining about Hollywood inserting more diverse casts.  My gods, the temerity!!!  I don't care - even though sure, there's definitely an aspect where this goes overboard.  But this is not a major political issue.  Again, at all.  It's a very "online" issue that has little to nothing to do with "leftists" in government or trying to attain elected office.  I heard Little Mermaid made a lot of money.  Good for them!  Who gives a shit?  The young woman playing Ariel seems to be perfectly fine.  Why should there ever be animus towards her or anyone else cast in these roles?  I just..honestly I don't get why this is a thing.

On 5/29/2023 at 9:14 PM, Phylum of Alexandria said:

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.

Ok, good to see you finally articulate an actual point.  The first part of your argument here boils down to "shut up and wait."  As in the backlash that the lefties invite will counteract any progress.  My response?  They've waited long enough, and history shows us that there's ALWAYS going to be backlash once you start asserting yourself.  That's how progress happens -- it disrupts.  But without the disruption, then there's just silence and the status quo.  Your thesis here is empirically wrong.

As for the second half of this statement and you bringing up the Dunning-Kruger effect, I'm not really sure what you're talking about.  Again, you're just throwing out terms it's pretty clear you don't even understand like "blinkered maximalism."  The fuck does that even mean?  I don't have a response to this nonsense.

So, to sum up, I just spent way too much time reading your bullshit.  I'm sorry, but you do not have anything worthwhile to say.  It boils down to the fact that police/criminal justice reform is politically unviable - which everybody here knows and we've been over repeatedly - and you don't like academia because you had to fill out another form when applying.

You continually complain that I'm "dismissive" of your arguments.  This is why.  You have absolutely nothing interesting to say.  And frankly, I would suggest even if you did you do so much more succinctly.  @Varysblackfyre321 may have jumped the gun saying what you said reads like a far right rant, but he wasn't too far off.  The difference is a far right rant would have at least been interesting to read.

Edited June 2, 2023 by DMC

[Phylum of Alexandria]

9 hours ago, DMC said:

So, to sum up,

Well, points for flair, I'll give you that. If you're going to be a cranky bad faith commenter, do it with style like this!

[DMC]

3 minutes ago, Phylum of Alexandria said:

Well, points for flair, I'll give you that. If you're going to be a cranky bad faith commenter, do it with style like this!

Heh, I like how "bad faith commenter" is your crutch.  How dismissive!

[Phylum of Alexandria]

Just now, DMC said:

Heh, I like how "bad faith commenter" is your crutch.  How dismissive!

Maybe I'm using the wrong term, seems to be fairly common for me. But how else to describe someone who's default take on whatever I write leans so heavily into the negative, allowing no benefit of the doubt? It's not worth trying to defend the worst possible version of something that I wrote, or sometimes didn't write. 

As you often say, you have the right to comment how you wish. But I think only a fool or an angry drunk would seriously try to engage with that kind of commenter. If you try to do better, so will I.

[DMC]

13 minutes ago, Phylum of Alexandria said:

If you try to do better, so will I.

Likewise! 

There is plenty in my response you could try to address - for instance, why is criminal justice reform such a problem for you beyond the messaging?  Or what evidence do you have for universities actually engaging in what you are accusing them of?  Or what does it matter that you had to fill out a diversity form to apply to schools?  Or why increased diversity in entertainment constitutes "mass indoctrination"?  Or what the hell evangelicals and the rise of the religious right 40 years ago has to with your argument?  Or why progressives trying to advance solutions to real world problems shouldn't just because it upsets people?  Or what the hell the Dunning-Kruger effect has to do with any of this?

But it's very clear you don't want to answer difficult questions.  You just want a soapbox.

[Phylum of Alexandria]

10 minutes ago, DMC said:

Likewise! 

There is plenty in my response you could try to address - for instance, why is criminal justice reform such a problem for you beyond the messaging?  Or what evidence do you have for universities actually engaging in what you are accusing them of?  Or what does it matter that you had to fill out a diversity form to apply to schools?  Or why increased diversity in entertainment constitutes "mass indoctrination"?  Or what the hell evangelicals and the rise of the religious right 40 years ago has to with your argument?  Or why progressives trying to advance solutions to real world problems shouldn't just because it upsets people?  Or what the hell the Dunning-Kruger effect has to do with any of this?

But it's very clear you don't want to answer difficult questions.  You just want a soapbox.

Well, if you actually want to know the answers to those questions, a lot of them can be found in the earlier comments in the thread, usually from other commenters, or from my responses to them. You say that I just want to whine and police language, but the reality is that this thread has had some good back and forth between commenters, with only a minimum of toxicity. Some of that back and forth takes the form of clarification, or trying to expound on points where a commenter doesn't seem to be getting what the other is trying to say. It's a process, and it can take a discussion off into some topics that probably seem tangential if you're not following the progression. 

But the idea that I was ranting on a soapbox is absurd. I say in that very comment that I'm trying to isolate instances of excess, within a whole larger topic post about how tricky and complicated it can be to do so. The whole point of the topic post was conversation. It wasn't trying to be an essay or anything like a polished set of thoughts. So while it's fair to point to ways in which I may have neglected or oversimplified points, it's not fair to treat a post like it's trying to be the final word of anything. It's a fucking comment!

To me, there's a world of difference between trying to get at difficult questions in a conversation, and someone assuming that I have consented to an interrogation. I do consent to the former, not the latter.

 

[Week]

Well, checkmark on tone policing too. Some very legitimate questions were asked to bring some detail to the verbose statements made before by @Phylum of Alexandria. Seems like there could be some understanding and discussion which seemed to be the goal of this thread. Perhaps this is the dynamic that embodies how difficult these discussions are. It reminds me of some discussions I have with my liberal though more conservative (dem voting) parents. Getting into the detail of why a discussion or solution is complex is immediately me being difficult. I mean, god forbid we talk about how real people are affected by the student loan moratorium? Or, as DMC pointed out, the actual articulation of 'defund the police' which will never truly be acknowledged because the first impressions of the term are so baked in.

Edited June 2, 2023 by Week

[DMC]

5 minutes ago, Phylum of Alexandria said:

The whole point of the topic post was conversation. It wasn't trying to be an essay or anything like a polished set of thoughts. So while it's fair to point to ways in which I may have neglected or oversimplified points, it's not fair to treat a post like it's trying to be the final word of anything. It's a fucking comment!

To me, there's a world of difference between trying to get at difficult questions in a conversation, and someone assuming that I have consented to an interrogation. I do consent to the former, not the latter.

I literally just asked you clear questions.  Instead of answering them, you revert to arguing about arguing.  This is an online discussion board.  There's going to be people that strongly disagree with you no matter what you say.  Particularly considering - whether you want to admit it or not - you did post an entire screed on a host of issues.  Bolded them and everything.

For instance, do you have any response to your blatant misrepresentation of the SF recall?  Or using the Prater/Hamline case in a manifestly inaccurate way to attack leftists?  The only "good faith" reason to post your opinions on a public forum is to have them be evaluated by others.  You keep on claiming this is what you're trying to do, but evade any empirical arguments against your assertions.  It's not uncommon, but it's very amusing you don't realize that.

[Larry of the Lawn]

Please join us this time next week for Lefty Infighting Part Deux: Uncensored (mostly)and Unblinkered

[Phylum of Alexandria]

8 minutes ago, DMC said:

For instance, do you have any response to your blatant misrepresentation of the SF recall?  Or using the Prater/Hamline case in a manifestly inaccurate way to attack leftists?  The only "good faith" reason to post your opinions on a public forum is to have them be evaluated by others.  You keep on claiming this is what you're trying to do, but evade any empirical arguments against your assertions.  It's not uncommon, but it's very amusing you don't realize that.

I am being evasive with you here, I fully admit that. Why? Well, let me give you an example of why I don't think that going straight into these question is worth the energy:

10 hours ago, DMC said:

This is just saying a bunch of random terms without understanding the context of what happened in SF at all.  Boudin was recalled because of gross incompetence and a rather perplexing unwillingness to fulfill his basic duties.  There were plenty of "lefty" internal politicians that wanted him out just as much as everyone else.

You seem to be saying that I was attacking "the left" in my comments about SF, and I was not. I wasn't event mentioning this as a clear case of excess; I say this is a more ambiguous case. Maybe my statement about "good intentions" was a bit dismissive, but the gist of that sentence was IF people don't take in the feedback from their mistakes and go hard on what they think of as good governance, then that would be an example of excess.

Even the commenters who pushed back on that one were able to take it in good faith overall. Again, if my online comment was not perfectly to your liking, please enlighten as to its limitations. But the fact that you assume that this reveals something about a larger attack on the left, or my character, or whatever, is unfair and tiresome.

I don't feel like batting away straw man after straw man caricature of something I did say, or in your opinion implied. I don't have a kink for self-punishment, so I tend to reserve my energy for efforts where the prospect of actual communication and understanding seems a bit more possible.

Maybe that's tone policing to some, and I concede that the line with respect to that is not always clear. I say: you can say what you want, and I can choose to engage or not. And same goes for you. 

But if you want engagement from me, I would need some sense that your intuition about me is something a little more workable than the contempt that I'm picking up in your comments. Even Kal will tell you, there's no point in a rational discussion if someone's leaning hard in one way. If you want engagement from me rather than the evasion you're seeing now, try to indicate that you're curious to know more about what I'd say to a given rebuttal than simply being eager to demolish the points I've made. If that sounds like nothing you're interested in, that's up to you, but I'm not going to apologize for not being egged on into a pointless flame war or trollish interrogation just for the fuck of it. 

[DMC]

4 minutes ago, Phylum of Alexandria said:

if my online comment was not perfectly to your liking, please enlighten as to its limitations.

I literally just did.

5 minutes ago, Phylum of Alexandria said:

If you want engagement from me rather than the evasion you're seeing now

I don't.  Just pointing out you have no legit response to anyone challenging your "arguments."  As you've thoroughly demonstrated.

[Phylum of Alexandria]

35 minutes ago, Week said:

Well, checkmark on tone policing too. Some very legitimate questions were asked to bring some detail to the verbose statements made before by @Phylum of Alexandria. Seems like there could be some understanding and discussion which seemed to be the goal of this thread. Perhaps this is the dynamic that embodies how difficult these discussions are. It reminds me of some discussions I have with my liberal though more conservative (dem voting) parents. Getting into the detail of why a discussion or solution is complex is immediately me being difficult. I mean, god forbid we talk about how real people are affected by the student loan moratorium? Or, as DMC pointed out, the actual articulation of 'defund the police' which will never truly be acknowledged because the first impressions of the term are so baked in.

I'm not sure if what you're saying is that I am tone policing, but even if so I can admit that there's a lot of reasonable room for disagreement on what is or isn't tone policing.

As I just said to DMC, I mostly judge whether a given comment or discussion is worth the energy. If I get the sense that someone is actually trying to convince me of something rather than simply shut me down or impugn my character, I am more inclined to take some energy into it, even if they seem incensed or less-than-trusting of me. Ultimately, it's a judgment call, and it's subject to my own moods and temperament. Not a perfect system.

Obviously, disagreements in face-to-face settings are more worthwhile, because even someone like DMC would (probably) be compelled to tone down his approach if we were to talk in person. With online exchanges, the gloves of decorum are off, which makes it a lot dicier as an avenue for communication. It's hard enough to articulate this stuff via text posts, I don't want things to be harder by engaging with someone who paints what I write in the worst or most unforgiving light. Again, a judgment call, but that doesn't mean that I don't accept pushback or can't learn from other commenters. Just that some approaches seem downright hopeless to me.

[Phylum of Alexandria]

9 minutes ago, DMC said:

I don't.  Just pointing out you have no legit response to anyone challenging your "arguments."  As you've thoroughly demonstrated.

Okay, you've pwned me, sir. Do you feel better? 

[Raja]

I commend DMC for making it through that post and having the patience to reply to it.

An application to apply for a job was extended to DEI initiatives being 'cults'. In addition, you then get statements like 'obsession with diverse representation', like really?

Is this what you have? Telling people of colour we're obsessed with diverse representation? Forgive us for having the temerity of being like 'Hey, maybe it migh be cool if this movie/ tv show looked a little bit like the world we inhabit'

It's a bunch of nonsense - 'mass indoctirination through entertainment' was a particular highlight as to the intellectual vaccum of that post.

[DMC]

14 minutes ago, Phylum of Alexandria said:

Do you feel better? 

No, not at all.  Because bullshit that you present on the internet is propagated as legitimate political discourse, in spite of the fact it's not.

[Phylum of Alexandria]

1 minute ago, Raja said:

I commend DMC for making it through that post and having the patience to reply to it.

An application to apply for a job was extended to DEI initiatives being 'cults'. In addition, you then get statements like 'obsession with diverse representation', like really?

Is this what you have? Telling people of colour we're obsessed with diverse representation? Forgive us for having the temerity of being like 'Hey, maybe it migh be cool if this movie/ tv show looked a little bit like the world we inhabit'

It's a bunch of nonsense - 'mass indoctirination through entertainment' was a particular highlight as to the intellectual vaccum of that post.

My online comments are full of mistakes, oversimplifications, and possibly poor rhetoric. Thankfully, I'm not expecting to get them published in a professional journal. I'm happy to take feedback, and I apologize if my language seemed rude or thoughtless.

Still, I didn't say that all or even most DEI efforts are cultlike, I just cited cultlike behavior in certain (yes, often but not always Ivy League) DEI efforts as an example of excess/overcorrection/going really hard on one principal at the cost of all others.

Even if you disagree with my example, can you at least understand that I am trying to articulate the idea that certain people can take a well-intentioned principle too far?

Even if it may be very different from what I see as a problem, are there instances where you think that someone can take an admirable principle and push it into excess? If so, what does it look like. If you don't think so, why not?

That's what I'm trying to articulate in the most general sense.

 

[Phylum of Alexandria]

4 minutes ago, DMC said:

No, not at all.  Because bullshit that you present on the internet is propagated as legitimate political discourse, in spite of the fact it's not.

I'm happy to have the discourse face to face with you, if you'd like. I'll bring cupcakes. Those will be legit.

Edited June 2, 2023 by Phylum of Alexandria

[DMC]

1 minute ago, Phylum of Alexandria said:

I'm happy to have the discourse face to face with you, if you'd like. I'll bring cupcakes. Those will be legit.

I like cupcakes.  But if you are happy to have a discourse, ya know, do so instead of this elongated argument about arguing that I imagine some mods will step in about.  Always happy to discuss anything about politics with anyone.  If you don't feel comfortable doing so on your own thread, feel free to PM me.

[Phylum of Alexandria]

2 minutes ago, DMC said:

I like cupcakes.  But if you are happy to have a discourse, ya know, do so instead of this elongated argument about arguing that I imagine some mods will step in about.  Always happy to discuss anything about politics with anyone.  If you don't feel comfortable doing so on your own thread, feel free to PM me.

I hope mods wouldn't step in about this talk about how to argue, and the limits of online argumentation. It's very much germane to the topic post of why it's so hard to have these types of internal political discussions. Much more so than any given exchange about San Francisco DAs. 

As for engaging the discourse, I already told you how I define discourse as opposed to an interrogation. If you're up for something closer to that definition, I'm all for it. I am not at all into batting away straw men based on ungenerous motivated reading, or wasting time attempting a discourse with someone who sees me as illegitimate.

[DMC]

1 minute ago, Phylum of Alexandria said:

I am not at all into batting away straw men