Lefty Internal Politics: How to Talk About This Stuff?

[Larry of the Lawn]

What's more effective at pruning out the discord amongst us?  The guillotine or committees?  A guillotine committee?  Fuck it, drag me up to the front of the line.  Can someone hold my phone up though, on this page?  I want the last thing I see to be this page jumping around as it reloads.

[Phylum of Alexandria]

On 6/12/2023 at 7:48 PM, Varysblackfyre321 said:

I’ve also gotten no solid argument  for the different groups on the left and liberals to consolidate or work together if not to maximize harm-reduction.

It's a good point. Harm reduction is one of the major foundations of liberal society. Clearly it needs to be cultivated, strengthened, and expanded in many avenues of life. But the reason I wrote it out as "maximizing" is because I do think that they are ways to take this good and valuable thing too far.

Both Jonathan Haidt and Jeannie Suk Gersen have written about how harm reduction policies are counterproductive at best and harmful at worst. Haidt in his book The Coddling of the American Mind, and Suk Gersen in a New Yorker article:

https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/what-if-trigger-warnings-dont-work

Both of them also sat on a discussion panel at NYU about harm reduction policies, where the school apparently found it appropriate to include a student who typifies just how silly this stuff can get when taken too far.

Now, an argument could be made that the too-far version isn't so pervasive as some people say it is, and hopefully that is the case. Maybe it was never much of a problem, or maybe things have changed for the better. But that's different from saying there's no such thing as taking it too far. There definitely is in my book.

Beyond the silliness that is definitely there in the excessive cases, there is the serious problem of flattening our language as it relates to harm, which is not just corrosive intellectually, impeding our ability to have real discussions about difficult topics, but also emotionally, as it fosters catastrophic thinking. It thus makes conflict resolution less likely, both within individuals and within groups, and thus makes us all less resilient.

On 6/12/2023 at 7:48 PM, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Yeah I’ll say not every attempt to promote equity(fairness), diversity, or harm reduction is wise, some are flat out counterproductive.

See marvel’s black Thor comic series or the constant op-Ed’s on manspreading in 2015.
should be noted some on the right often times use the concern of people not doing enough for any of this to engender attacks on entities who do anything

Oh yes. The right wing tends to be good at finding nuggets of truth about the left that they can use as breadcrumbs to lure more-or-less normal people down a path of distortion, paranoia, and then outright bigotry. Or use a similar dynamic as a strategy to impose some radical new law or policy.

It's important to keep in mind both aspects of that process though: the nuggets of truth, and the distortion/overextension. We need to own up to the bits that are true, and separate them from the distortions and spin.

I wasn't following the Mulvaney story beyond an article or two, but the right wing fervor seems to be less about persuading people into a more radical stance, and more about openly bigoted people telling themselves that "the powers that be are making the culture less like you and me." If anything, it's the later stage of the seduction dynamic: the point at which the lack of an actual good faith premise is transparently obvious if not outright acknowledged. Like a lot of MAGA frothing that's been happening recently, they seem less concerned with the very notion of persuasion, and more about getting nonstop hits of hate-crack amongst themselves and getting more and more deranged.

[Week]

2 minutes ago, Phylum of Alexandria said:

I wasn't following the Mulvaney story beyond an article or two, but the right wing fervor seems to be less about persuading people into a more radical stance, and more about openly bigoted people telling themselves that "the powers that be are making the culture less like you and me." If anything, it's the later stage of the seduction dynamic: the point at which the lack of an actual good faith premise is transparently obvious if not outright acknowledged. Like a lot of MAGA frothing that's been happening recently, they seem less concerned with the very notion of persuasion, and more about getting nonstop hits of hate-crack amongst themselves and getting more and more deranged.

By recently, do you mean since 1/6, the Trump administration, the Tea Party, the islamophobic War on Terror, Southern Strategy, or further back?

[Phylum of Alexandria]

59 minutes ago, Larry of the Lake said:

What's more effective at pruning out the discord amongst us?  The guillotine or committees?  A guillotine committee?  Fuck it, drag me up to the front of the line.  Can someone hold my phone up though, on this page?  I want the last thing I see to be this page jumping around as it reloads.

I'll go with either bad option as long as there's cake eating involved.

[Phylum of Alexandria]

8 minutes ago, Week said:

By recently, do you mean since 1/6, the Trump administration, the Tea Party, the islamophobic War on Terror, Southern Strategy, or further back?

No, I mean recently. Maybe from 1/6 onward. Or some time after it was clear that Trump never intended to take the office of the presidency seriously. I dunno exactly. But more recent than the Tea Party and earlier instances.

Not to say that their bad faith efforts aren't transparently obvious to anyone who cares to learn about any issue (they were and are), but my point was about their efforts to persuade folks who didn't have much of an opinion. More recently they seem like even these bad faith persuasion efforts are not worth it. At least, they seem to engage in them less and less.

Edited June 15 by Phylum of Alexandria

[Zorral]

IOW, the OP is like So Many: "I know nothing about this, I pay no attention to this, I haven't watched this and won't, I haven't read this and I won't, but I'm going to tell YOU what to think about it.. and you better listen to ME, rather than people who do know, pay attention, watch and read!"  Then blather on again about "providing clarity," when proven over and over that clarity is not provided.      

Edited June 15 by Zorral

[Phylum of Alexandria]

54 minutes ago, Zorral said:

IOW, the OP is like So Many: "I know nothing about this, I pay no attention to this, I haven't watched this and won't, I haven't read this and I won't, but I'm going to tell YOU what to think about it.. and you better listen to ME, rather than people who do know, pay attention, watch and read!"  Then blather on again about "providing clarity," when proven over and over that clarity is not provided.

Once again Zorral, you've missed the mark by a few miles. This sloppiness will not stand! Harumph!

[DMC]

4 hours ago, Zorral said:

IOW, the OP is like So Many: "I know nothing about this, I pay no attention to this, I haven't watched this and won't, I haven't read this and I won't, but I'm going to tell YOU what to think about it.. and you better listen to ME, rather than people who do know, pay attention, watch and read!"  Then blather on again about "providing clarity," when proven over and over that clarity is not provided.      

My favorite is "I don't pretend to be an expert on politics here -- and probably no one should."  Well, actually, the three postgraduate degrees I have in American politics were supposed to train me to be just that.  That's generally how expertise is determined in our society.  What else do you want?

[Phylum of Alexandria]

21 minutes ago, DMC said:

My favorite is "I don't pretend to be an expert on politics here -- and probably no one should."  Well, actually, the three postgraduate degrees I have in American politics were supposed to train me to be just that.  That's generally how expertise is determined in our society.  What else do you want?

Dammit, I thought I blocked you. Why do I still see your comments?

Well, anyway, I do respect your particular expertise in politics. That's clearly on display when you comment with other people on other topics. With me, it seems I just get the belligerent rants and straw men attacks, so I gave up. Or tried to, ineffectively, it seems.

 

[DMC]

1 minute ago, Phylum of Alexandria said:

Dammit, I thought I blocked you. Why do I still see your comments?

I dunno, but you're still free to ignore them if you still feel so strongly about it.

[Week]

22 minutes ago, Phylum of Alexandria said:

Dammit, I thought I blocked you. Why do I still see your comments?

Well, anyway, I do respect your particular expertise in politics. That's clearly on display when you comment with other people on other topics. With me, it seems I just get the belligerent rants and straw men attacks, so I gave up. Or tried to, ineffectively, it seems.

 

This is far ruder and out of line compared to pretty much anything I've ever seen DMC post.

[Varysblackfyre321]

6 hours ago, Phylum of Alexandria said:

It's a good point. Harm reduction is one of the major foundations of liberal society. Clearly it needs to be cultivated, strengthened, and expanded in many avenues of life. But the reason I wrote it out as "maximizing" is because I do think that they are ways to take this good and valuable thing too far.

 

True I already agreed some attempts to do harm reduction aren’t helpful or counterproductive. I disagreed with the idea the maximumnization shouldn’t be the rallying cry or the goal.

Like we’d both say there’s no optimal degree of anti-semtism or homophobia or patriarchy. 

I don’t believe your response answers my question—if not for the maximum of harm reduction why should different groups of people on the left unify? What’s the pressing need?

Is it so no one has to worry from getting canceled from their friend circle for having more conservative or moderate take on a topic? Because I’m trying to see another reason and not getting anything.

 a call for unity, for unity’s sake is pointless in my eyes and not convincing to anyone who doesn’t fetishize the idea of compromise for compromise’s sake.

6 hours ago, Phylum of Alexandria said:

No, I mean recently. Maybe from 1/6 onward

Yeah there’s been a real significant radicalization that I don’t see the point in denying.

Ex.a lot of the right wing response to liberals protesting Qatar a non white muslim slave state for executing gays. 

[Phylum of Alexandria]

7 minutes ago, Week said:

This is far ruder and out of line compared to pretty much anything I've ever seen DMC post.

Okay, maybe we really are dwelling in separate dimensions, but describing comments as belligerent, and full of straw men attacks is in no way rude to me. Heck, I'll admit that my dismissal of Zorral recently was fairly rude, though it was pretty much tit for tat. But this? I am puzzled.

[Ran]

Is it too much to just ask people to be polite to one another?

[Raja]

7 hours ago, Larry of the Lake said:

What's more effective at pruning out the discord amongst us?  The guillotine or committees?  A guillotine committee?  Fuck it, drag me up to the front of the line.  Can someone hold my phone up though, on this page?  I want the last thing I see to be this page jumping around as it reloads.

This really made me laugh a lot

[Phylum of Alexandria]

33 minutes ago, Ran said:

Is it too much to just ask people to be polite to one another?

I certainly hope not! I am all for extending a truce to the commenters who I have been a little heated with and vice versa. But it has to go both ways. 

[Phylum of Alexandria]

1 hour ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

I don’t believe your response answers my question—if not for the maximum of harm reduction why should different groups of people on the left unify? What’s the pressing need?

I’ll try to answer more directly in a sec, but wanted to note that your question was posed in the abstract. What do you mean, practically speaking, by the question of why should they unify? Unify for what, and when? We don’t need everyone to unify at all times or for all occasions. Just unify to vote for relevant measures and get others to vote, unify to advocate for or protest specific policies or positions, unify to contribute to specific causes or movements, etc. People can clash on one topic and unify on another. It all depends on what you mean.

Lots of those specific causes to rally around will relate to harm reduction, and so it’s important to appeal to that principle when getting people on your side. But it’s not the only possible concern. There’s the concern to secure elections to make sure future votes actually count, or to give formerly disenfranchised people a voice. There’s the ideal of promoting equal opportunities, and economic policies where people actually get a fair share. There are civil liberties to protect, and rights that may be infringed no matter the perceived harm. And even if some groups emphasize it less than others, self-expression and freethought are still popular ideals throughout the left.

Now back to the question in the abstract: I agree that—whatever the cause or policy may be—getting people dedicated enough to spend their time, energy, and money on a cause does require some real rallying power. The more you can inspire people, the more you mobilize them into action. As one of the bedrock principals of liberal society, harm reduction has plenty of power to mobilize. But I don’t think it has to be, or even should be, the only rallying point for people on the left to unify. There’s justice, there’s fairness, there’s dignity and common humanity, there’s the aspiration of coming closer to actually fulfilling the country’s lofty promises. Harm reduction is vital to the left, but it’s not the totality.

Moreover, as I tried to say before, the furtherance of harm reduction, or appealing to those principles or related sentiments for specific goals, does not necessitate a maximalist approach wherein a standard is adopted that’s so high the word “harm” becomes essentially meaningless.

I'm not trying to say that the question of how much is too much is an easy question to answer; it's not. Yet I can point to some obviously silly and self-destructive examples to illustrate that the virtue can in fact devolve into a vice at some point, and make the case that simple maximalization is not the best way. How to proceed from there is much more difficult, but I think it should start from a conversation about balancing multiple principles, in addition to harm reduction.

[DMC]

2 hours ago, Ran said:

Is it too much to just ask people to be polite to one another?

Yes, actually, it is when it comes to political discussions.  Now, could we all be "polite" and "civil" in terms of political disagreements?  Sure.  You can ostensibly be polite and civil with those you strongly disagree with, but it still doesn't change the fact you're going to be just as condescending and dismissive of the others' opinions as the more blunt tack.  And frankly the "polite" form of discourse nauseates me because it's entirely disingenuous. 

If I think your argument is dumb or absurd or pathetic I am going to tell you I think your argument is dumb or absurd or pathetic.  Would it be more "polite" to frame it in a different way?  Of course, but that doesn't change the fact that behind that person's back I'm going to say the argument is dumb, absurd, or pathetic.  That's just human nature.  (And perhaps you're a paragon of courtesy, but trust me I ain't the only one.)  So..why exactly am I couching it in "polite" verbiage on a goddamn message board instead of saying it to the poster directly? 

I prefer honesty over civility.  Perhaps, most importantly, because resolving political disagreements - whether it's on this board or in the legislative arena or in international diplomacy - is not achieved through "polite" discourse.  Indeed, that's what parties revert to when they don't want to make any actual progress.  It's achieved through people hashing out their honest disagreements.  I'm reminded of one of my favorite scenes from The Big Kahuna:

 

[Varysblackfyre321]

1 hour ago, Phylum of Alexandria said:

I’ll try to answer more directly in a sec, but wanted to note that your question was posed in the abstract. What do you mean, practically speaking, by the question of why should they unify? Unify for what, and when? We don’t need everyone to unify at all times or for all occasions. Just unify to vote for relevant measures and get others to vote, unify to advocate for or protest specific policies or positions, unify to contribute to specific causes or movements, etc. People can clash on one topic and unify on another. It all depends on what you mean.

 

It was proposed to ask for specifics.

1 hour ago, Phylum of Alexandria said:

Lots of those specific causes to rally around will relate to harm reduction, and so it’s important to appeal to that principle when getting people on your side. But it’s not the only possible concern. There’s the concern to secure elections to make sure future votes actually count, or to give formerly disenfranchised people a voice. There’s the ideal of promoting equal opportunities, and economic policies where people actually get a fair share. There are civil liberties to protect, and rights that may be infringed no matter the perceived harm.

Yeah this all seems things that’d be justified through want of harm-reduction.unless we’re going a spiritual, it matters because the conservative route of just saying because my religious book or my great grand papa says so 

1 hour ago, Phylum of Alexandria said:

As one of the bedrock principals of liberal society, harm reduction has plenty of power to mobilize. But I don’t think it has to be, or even should be, the only rallying point for people on the left to unify. There’s justice, there’s fairness, there’s dignity and common humanity, there’s the aspiration of coming closer to actually fulfilling the country’s lofty promises. Harm reduction is vital to the left, but it’s not the totality.

 

Those are all pretty words strung together nicely—and I like them.

Honest. 
This all seems to fall under the purview of harm reduction.

Unfairness? That’s a harm.

injustice? Harm.

Disrespect to human dignity? Possible harm depending on what’s being referred. 

I’d like to maximize good things and minimize  bad things. The only feasible way you can expect get alliances where they’d have to overlook an unfairness or injustice a group or person committed for a greater good instead prioritizing that in a given moment. Otherwise you get treating politics as exercise in liberal virtue signaling or vapid support of political parties because they want to be seen winning and civil/intellectual/virtuous.

1 hour ago, Phylum of Alexandria said:

Moreover, as I tried to say before, the furtherance of harm reduction, or appealing to those principles or related sentiments for specific goals, does not necessitate a maximalist approach wherein a standard is adopted that’s so high the word “harm” becomes essentially meaningless.

Jorden Peterson made some comments a couple weeks ago, on how gay people where being oppressed by heterosexuals than than they are by trans people

He’s wrong and lying of course but I noticed how people on the left didn’t seem to pick up on one part of what he was trying to do—make it seem as though the previous mode of how society dealt with gay people was the most optimal option for them as well. There’s needs to be a controlled burn fire for the bigotry—otherwise it spirals out of control. 

Having a maximalist approach allows for more flexibility, experimenting(sometimes the experiment will fail) while the optimization increase the possibility of discontentment, apathy, and rigidity(gays don’t need to get married they’re not being castrated forcefully by the state for sodomy anymore).

1 hour ago, Phylum of Alexandria said:

I'm not trying to say that the question of how much is too much is an easy question to answer; it's not. Yet I can point to some obviously silly and self-destructive examples to illustrate that the virtue can in fact devolve into a vice at some point,

It’s good for people to try and be as healthy as they can. This can mean doing exercise—we can all acknowledge someone can injure themselves by working out  too hard. I don’t think it’s reasonable to say they ditch this goal of being as healthy as they can.

[Phylum of Alexandria]

8 hours ago, DMC said:

If I think your argument is dumb or absurd or pathetic I am going to tell you I think your argument is dumb or absurd or pathetic.  Would it be more "polite" to frame it in a different way?  Of course, but that doesn't change the fact that behind that person's back I'm going to say the argument is dumb, absurd, or pathetic.  That's just human nature.  (And perhaps you're a paragon of courtesy, but trust me I ain't the only one.)  So..why exactly am I couching it in "polite" verbiage on a goddamn message board instead of saying it to the poster directly? 

I prefer honesty over civility.  Perhaps, most importantly, because resolving political disagreements - whether it's on this board or in the legislative arena or in international diplomacy - is not achieved through "polite" discourse.  Indeed, that's what parties revert to when they don't want to make any actual progress.  It's achieved through people hashing out their honest disagreements.  I'm reminded of one of my favorite scenes from The Big Kahuna:

I don’t think of bluntness or raw honesty as inherently good or bad on their own. They can do good, in certain circumstances, but they can also serve aggression, abuse, or just general toxic social dynamics. There need to be a few other considerations beyond raw venting of personal feelings if we want any hope of hashing anything out.

In relationships with partners, honesty is important, and sometimes arguments are needed to air out feelings that have been unvoiced. In my own experience in such moments, the desire to voice my feelings unfiltered often led to a lot more miscommunication and hurt than I had ever expected. True, those moments of friction eventually led to resolution, but it’s by no means guaranteed.

That Big Kahuna clip you provided concludes with the notion of getting to the point where you actually notice your regrettable behavior. Blunt honesty alone won’t get you there. In terms of relationships, plenty devolve into bitter toxicity and constant fighting. Without some higher purpose beyond splenetic venting, people grow into the ugliness they spew rather than grow out of it.

To that extent, I can’t help think of all the times that “straight talk” and “just telling it like it is” has been used as justification for outright hostility, bigotry, and abuse. Is it a good thing for a parent to degrade their child for being fat, or gay, if that’s the parent’s honest feelings? If not, then how do we take blunt honesty into somewhere less toxic and more constructive?

As far as politics goes, we have a compulsive liar on the national stage whose followers nevertheless praise him for his honesty. Crucially, what they consider his honesty is specifically his unfiltered aggression and contempt toward groups that they don’t like. Has that helped our politics at all? No, in fact, such aggressive tactics are done to bypass debate, not sharpen it.

Even in your own academic field of political science, do people debate and challenge ideas by venting their personal emotions unfiltered, flinging insults and character attacks? Obviously not, but do you wish that they would? Do you think that the intellectual rigor of the field would be sharpened by such childish behavior? I sincerely hope not, because that would be insane.

If we’re really talking about hashing things out and solving problems, I am all for putting down dumb ideas and weak arguments. Even when the stuff being put down comes from me. A well constructed argument based on solid facts can be absolutely devastating. I’ve encountered some in my field that were entirely emotionally neutral, and some that were a little more pointed or heated, but always civil, and always sticking to careful logic and careful attention to details.

If anyone wants to take down a weak argument or faulty point I’ve made, please do so. Just don’t attack me as a person, and make sure you get the details right. If I don't even recognize the thing that you're attacking as something I've said, your attack is a failure. Also, given the limited nature of text posting, maybe give people the benefit of the doubt, and let them explain themselves a bit more before jumping to conclusions about what argument they’re actually making?

I can suffer some rudeness if it’s couched in a solid argument, but the laziness, the sloppiness, and the easy self-certainty despite it all make such interactions a complete waste of time and energy for me. It’s just toxicity without a point.