Lefty Internal Politics: How to Talk About This Stuff?

[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, 2023 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, 2023 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.

[DMC]

41 minutes ago, Phylum of Alexandria said:

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?

This - quite obviously - has nothing to do what I was talking about.  You reflexively complain about people taking your words out of context.  This is a brightline example of such.

As for Trump "degrading" political discourse, yeah, that's not his problem.  Hate is hate.  We can identify it as such because it's manifest.  Equating what I'm asserting with his rhetoric is a flagrant false equivalency and determinatively irrelevant.  Trump didn't start people being angry at each other when they have political discussions, you're giving him way too much credit.

41 minutes ago, Phylum of Alexandria said:

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?

In private/casual conversation?  Uh, yes.  Unequivocally.  I think the main problem here is we view this board in diametrically opposed ways.  This is a place for me to vent.  It's not a place for me to try to write a research paper for publication.

41 minutes ago, Phylum of Alexandria said:

I can suffer some rudeness if it’s couched in a solid argument

Yes, I was mean to you.  Are you still fishing for an apology?  I'm sorry.  Honestly, you're right, my response that generated all this was overly aggressive.  That still doesn't change the fact there was plenty in there that you continue, after weeks, to evade.  Unless or until you actually address the substance of what I said - repeatedly - the logical conclusion to reach is it just smacks of another tedious example of trolling.

Edited June 16, 2023 by DMC

[Phylum of Alexandria]

4 minutes ago, DMC said:

This - quite obviously - has nothing to do what I was talking about.  You reflexively complain about people taking your words out of context.  This is a brightline example of such.

I wasn't calling you abusive, just highlighting that blunt honesty absent anything else can take us into real dark places fast.

7 minutes ago, DMC said:

Are you still fishing for an apology?

I'm not really looking for an apology; more of a way forward. I accept if you're giving, of course.

7 minutes ago, DMC said:

I'm sorry.  Honestly, you're right, my response that generated all this was overly aggressive.  That still doesn't change the fact there was plenty in there that you continue, after weeks, to evade.  Unless or until you actually address the substance of what I said - repeatedly - the logical conclusion to reach is you're just another troll.

Given your last sentence, your apology doesn't sound very sincere. Especially because you had just typed out this comment:

8 minutes ago, DMC said:

In private/casual conversation?  Uh, yes.  Unequivocally.  I think the main problem here is we view this board in diametrically opposed ways.  This is a place for me to vent.  It's not a place for me to try to write a research paper for publication.

It's possible that we do have dramatically different expectations in how the board is used. But if so, maybe we shouldn't continue engaging. What would be the point? I'll continue to comment on the assumption that maybe we have more in common than you're saying, but I can't say I'm sure that's true.

I don't think of comment boards as research papers and have said as such, but I also don't think of them as private conversations. Casual sure, but public. There are a lot of things that people do in private that are not suitable for the public.

Specifically with respect to the comments you had made that I decided not to bother getting into, I mentioned several times that your attacks were riddled with straw man arguments, to the point where I don't even recognize the point as being mine. I pointed to a few examples of this in DM, and you said that they were distinctions without a difference. Well, I strongly disagree. Sure, people can have differing expectations of nuance, but if you're trying to make an attack on something that I would actually recognize as my own, you would need to recognize this as an issue to be resolved. Otherwise it's just shouting without a point.

As such, why not reword whatever questions or critiques you have that you would like me to address, offered as a good faith incisive critique or honest question? I would be happy to try to answer whatever you provide, though there might still be back and forth about what you are attacking relative to what I said, or relative to what I was trying to get at. If that sounds worth the effort to you, I will also take the effort to respond. If not, then we're at an impasse that likely won't be resolved.

[DMC]

19 minutes ago, Phylum of Alexandria said:

Given your last sentence, your apology doesn't sound very sincere.

It genuinely was sincere.  Seriously, I know I can go overboard and be a dick and that was one of those instances and I'm sorry.

But again, that doesn't change the fact you are demonstrably unwilling to engage in an actual substantive discussion and instead continue to belabor this point.  Which is eminently ironic considering the title and purported effort of this thread you started.  It is a sad reflection on you as a public poster.  That was my point, and will continue to be until you actually say anything worthwhile.

26 minutes ago, Phylum of Alexandria said:

I pointed to a few examples of this in DM, and you said that they were distinctions without a difference.

Just checked.  Yeah, you didn't say anything in DM that you haven't said here.  Which is fine!  Even appreciated.  But I don't know why you're bringing it up.

28 minutes ago, Phylum of Alexandria said:

As such, why not reword whatever questions or critiques you have that you would like me to address,

I did!  And for the umpteenth time you ignore the direct questions I asked you and reposted that clearly do not entail everything you're whining about.  Hell, @DanteGabriel restarted this by pointing this out.  But instead of addressing those questions, what do you do?  This.  It's a very clear reflection on your character. 

You want to know why I use such mean rhetoric?  This is why.  You keep on telling me - and other posters - that you're happy to answer questions.  But you never actually do.  Which is, ya know, blatantly obvious to anyone with a brain...Well, anyone with a brain and is willing to follow this thread.