Lefty Internal Politics: How to Talk About This Stuff?

[Phylum of Alexandria]

2 minutes ago, DMC said:

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.

DanteGabriel, and you, ignored the fact that I have answered every question or critique that has come to me from other commenters that was more or less civil, including a few comments that really didn't warrant a response, like Raja's two-line quip, or Zorral's odd broadsides, at least early on.

The reason I avoided that comment of yours is because I came to distrust you as a good faith commenter. That you're actually trying now, at long last, to kind of engage with me in something like a discussion, is significant There's still a clear mistrust of me (and yet a lack of awareness that perhaps I have a good reason to mistrust you, or at least did), thus the trollish character attacks. But I'll take the improvement, if it's sincere.

So I'll give you a chance. I'll take a look at your questions and answer them. Hopefully we can have a discussion on the merits of ideas rather than cheap attacks on blurred targets. Hopefully we can actually sharpen ideas rather than just fling poo. We shall see.

[DMC]

1 hour ago, Phylum of Alexandria said:

We shall see.

The dumbass Powers That Be deleted both my and your most recent responses.  So, if you want to continue, take it to DM.  Or, ya know, just respond to the direct questions I asked repeatedly.

[Knight Of Winter]

10 hours ago, DMC said:

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. 

What's disingenuous about it? One can disagree with someone else's opinion completely and utterly, yet don't feel the need to be mean about it. These two aren't mutually exclusive.

10 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?

I'd say yes, for at least two different reasons:

1) the argument may not be that absurd or pathethic after all, but you (not "you" as DMC, but as anyone reading this - myself included) may have lack of knowledge, or bias, of different perspective that causes you to undervalue the stength of supposedly stupid argument

2) because it won't get you anywhere constructive. By being rude one is, true, safitisying their desire to vent and collecting brownie points from like-minded people; but one is also horribly limiting oneself to what is achievable from the debate. By being rude, you're preventing yourself from learning what may be valuable point of view from the other party. You're also preventing the other party to learn anything from you, since they're bound to get defensive or become rude in return. You're turning what could have been interesting and educational experience from both parties into a competition who will be most creative in dissing the other one. (again, in this paragraph "you" is impersonal, it's not aimed particularly at you).

Best debates I've either been in or saw have this great conclusion at the end, where everyone involved has this "Hey, I disagree with you a lot, but it's been great talking to you and I feel like I've learned something new and valuable. I'll ruminate about what you just said" feeling, and - at least in my experience - I feel watching and participating is such exchanges helped me and enriched me as a person. This would not have been possible if the tone of the conversation crossed the limit of rudeness. Heated - yes, passionate - yes, honest - of course; but not rude.

That said, I can sympathize with the frustration - for not every debate can be like this. Like you, I also think there's many people whose arguments lack any coherence, insight or even basic logic and who couldn't say anything remotely intelligent if their life depended on it. But if that's the case, why bother debating them at all, why not just leave (instead of dissing them) and find someone better to converse with? To paraphrase: if you're the smartest person in the debate, you're in the wrong debate. 

[DMC]

19 minutes ago, Knight Of Winter said:

These two aren't mutually exclusive.

No, they're not.  But please tell me any time you've strongly disagreed with someone politically and didn't internally think that person was stupid or..etc?

19 minutes ago, Knight Of Winter said:

1) the argument may not be that absurd or pathethic after all

If I think an argument is absurd or pathetic, that means I think the argument is absurd or pathetic.  I have an open mind, but we're talking about evaluating arguments after the fact, not before.

19 minutes ago, Knight Of Winter said:

2) because it won't get you anywhere constructive.

Of course it won't in terms of persuasion.  It's an absolutely horrible method to take.  So?  Again, I'm not concerned about that when posting on this forum.  As for "learning" from each other, I think I do that quite a bit and throughout the years on this forum when it comes to political discussions.  But when I see that's really not in the cards, I'm going to say so.

19 minutes ago, Knight Of Winter said:

But if that's the case, why bother debating them at all, why not just leave (instead of dissing them)

Same answer every time - cuz I'm bored.

Edited June 16, 2023 by DMC

[Phylum of Alexandria]

12 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

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.

I get why you’re framing it in this way. Utilitarian philosophy was crucial for the development of liberal society, and Jeremy Bentham sought to simplify the problems of society via a calculus of total pleasures/goods versus total pains/bads. It makes sense at the broad level, and in a fundamental level of individual psychology as well. It’s important stuff.

I’m also not one to quibble over semantics as far as preferences are concerned. But even if we take that heavily abstracted framing of harm reduction, my point still stands: real life in its details is complicated, with any one issue often involving multiple competing interests. If that’s the case, then the goal shouldn’t be maximalization of any one concern, but instead an optimal (or satisfactory, or least-bad) balance between the different concerns.

Even if we’re only talking about harms, there are different conflicting harms among individual people, there are community harms that might compete with individual interests, there are short term harms versus long-term harms, etc. Bentham’s proposed solution was basically the liberal Golden Rule of “let me do whatever the fuck I want, so long as others are not harmed.” Perhaps that’s an overall minimization of harm in a society (as if such a thing could be known), but it’s definitely a compromise of individual harm maximizations—i.e.,optimizing or satisficing—and it works at the broadest level for laws and norms securing liberties and imposing order.

When you move toward specific advocacy efforts for election reform, economic initiatives, topics of protest, etc, then it gets a lot more complicated. I just don’t find it helpful to talk about everything in terms of harm reduction, especially because plenty of people you’re trying to rally won’t see certain issues in that framework. Sometimes appealing to one’s compassion is important and effective; but sometimes it’s better to appeal to dignity, or the notion of individual liberty, or shared identity as citizens, or the notion of self-interest (“this could be you next”). But sure, maximalizing harm reduction is fine as one rhetorical framing among many possible options. Whatever works is fine by me.

Where it gets problematic is when people start to try to literally maximize one aspect of harm reduction via policies and behaviors.

To take your example of exercise, it should be noted that exercise can be unpleasant. Even in the most healthy forms of exercise, there’s exertion, strain, exhaustion, and the aches and sores that result from muscles and connective tissues that are (intentionally) damaged in the process. Using an absolutist metric of reduction of felt pain or discomfort as harm, it could be possible to advocate against exercise.

I know that sounds silly, but essentially the more extreme advocates for harm reduction in schools are (or were) doing something similar with stress and mental health. The policies advocated by the NYU student in that video is an example of this getting out of hand, to the point where harm reduction efforts can ironically start to harm the very people they aim to protect, and all come at the cost of viewpoint diversity and intellectual rigor. That’s what I’m calling maximalism. We can call it something else (Absolutism? Fundamentalism? I dunno), as long as we understand what we talking about.

12 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

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).

I lost track of Jordan Peterson since he came back from some wacky drug rehab in Russia, then licked Victor Orban's ass. Perhaps you can send me the link to what you're describing so I can have a better idea of what you're talking about here.

Edited June 16, 2023 by Phylum of Alexandria

[Larry of the Lawn]

On 6/2/2023 at 7:16 PM, DMC said:

 

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?

 

[horangi]

On 6/2/2023 at 7:05 AM, Kalnak the Magnificent said:

I do appreciate this being the Bakhmut of forum topics. Please do carry on as you were!

Given that this thread has outlasted Wagner in Bakhmut, I think we are now entering into Stalingrad territory.  A shame, because I think there could be a good faith discussion to be had on the topic if it didnt instantly devolve into bruised egos and you are with us or against us mindsets.

[DMC]

37 minutes ago, horangi said:

devolve into bruised egos

I assure you my ego is just as bruised as it was before.

[Knight Of Winter]

Don't have much to add for the rest of your comment other than "fair enough", just wanted to address this bit:

3 hours ago, DMC said:

No, they're not.  But please tell me any time you've strongly disagreed with someone politically and didn't internally think that person was stupid or..etc?

All the time. I strongly think that wokeness, generally, is a bad idea - yet several smart people I've interacted with hold the opposite view. I strongly think communism had maybe the worst track record of any ideology in history - yet I've seen educated and intelligent people who self-identify as communists. I strongly think putting Trump in charge of anything - let alone a country - is a horrifyingly bad prospect - but that doesn't mean that half of US voters are somehow dumb. 

And the second reason is that it took me shamefully long time to realize that history is full of fine people with reasonably good intentions whose ideas turned out wrong - sometimes even terribly wrong or detrimental to the society. It helps put current bad ideas (or ideas I think are bad) in context. One is bound to mess up many times through life and make awful choices - it doesn't necessarily mean they're a stupid person. Same applies to political choices.

Edited June 16, 2023 by Knight Of Winter

[DMC]

19 minutes ago, Knight Of Winter said:

All the time.

Yeah your screed here clearly seems to be missing the etc. aspect of my statement.

[Ran]

Quote

screed

Two mild short paragraphs are not a "screed".

5 minutes ago, DMC said:

the etc. aspect of my statement

Could you give some examples examples of what "etc" might entail that does not include "this person is stupid" or "this person I disagree with is not stupid but they are wrong", both of which are already covered? The closest I can think of is, "They're not stupid but they're ignorant", but that hardly needs a vague etc. What lies beyond that? 

[DMC]

19 minutes ago, Ran said:

Two mild short paragraphs are not a "screed"

It was a lot of points about people not necessarily being dumb that I didn't feel it was necessary to go over because instead of them being "stupid" or "dumb," I'd qualify what was mentioned as "absurd."  Which was clearly part of the "etc." considering past posts upthread.  Even if it wasn't, the definition of "screed" is decidedly nebulous.  But thanks, didn't know you also were the dictionary police.

26 minutes ago, Ran said:

What lies beyond that? 

Well, let's look at @Knight Of Winter's post, which apparently is how you decided to get involved.  And to be clear - Knight Of Winter - I'm not suggesting what I will say forthcoming is what you meant.  Just using it as a convenient example.  I apologize in advance, but I'm lazy.  Anyway..

One would be equating leftists with communists or even socialist regimes throughout South America.  This is an absurd equivalency that in actuality has gained traction among many voters in the US despite the fact there's no practical connection.  

Two would be equating "wokeness" with a handful of idiots that are clearly bad actors.  As if every ideology, movement, or even general value does not have a handful of bad actors within their midst.  If you wanna point that out as a gotcha, ok.  But when you present it as "how to talk to lefties," it's absurd and pathetic.

Third would be thinking all Trump voters are dumb.  Of course all of them aren't dumb.  Why they support someone that most reading this view as a demagogue may seem stupid, but very smart people can support somebody if they give them what they want.  Was just going over this in lecture with the evangelical right - they got what they wanted in terms of judges, highlighted by the three SC justices.  So, that's not "dumb" or "stupid," but it still remains an absurd arrangement on its face.

Four would be the ecological fallacy that presumably motivated this thread.  Yes, there are some leftists that behave in ways any reasonable person would object to.  But this is an infinitesimal portion of the population.  And most importantly, it's absurd and pathetic to continue whining about such when there are so much more crucial issues we all need to address.

Bottomline, throughout history, people have been motivated to abide by dumb, absurd, and/or pathetic political beliefs.  That does not necessarily mean they themselves are dumb, absurd, or pathetic.  But by the same token, it's paramount to point out when they are espousing dumb, absurd, or pathetic beliefs.

[Zorral]

1 hour ago, DMC said:

Third would be thinking all Trump voters are dumb.  Of course all of them aren't dumb

The verifiable proof of this is how very very very well they know history, particularly the history of the War of Independence and the War of the Rebellion, and how very very very good they are at grabbing anything from their opponents and making it belong to them -- and even, as a single example, outright theft, as from artists such as Bruce Springsteen, despite how many times Springsteen's lawyers have filed and cease and desist against the dumpster.  Not to mention lately taking the "Don't Tread On Me" Gadson flag -- just as the secessionists did, educated for the most part at Harvard, Yale and other northern institutions -- the movement made and implemented by the richest of the rich of the south, not the poor and uneducated and illiterate.

And a whole lot of them are fence sitters, afraid to admit to anyone -- perhaps even themselves -- what they really think and feel -- so go, "maybe yes, sometimes, maybe no sometimes, maybe too much sometimes, maybe not too much sometimes yaddah yaddah yaddah", concluding geneally with, "Why can't we all just be polite to each other and get along ?"  which has as much good faith and content as cotton candy, particularly when those we are all supposed to be polite too are inveterate lovers of cruelty for its own sake, are killing perfectly fine innocent people every single day, even and maybe particularly children, who actively propagate harm, even particularly to pregnant women and other of the most powerless among us.

Edited June 16, 2023 by Zorral

[Ran]

11 minutes ago, DMC said:

But thanks, didn't know you also were the dictionary police.

How soon we forget.

Quote

And most importantly, it's absurd and pathetic to continue whining about such when there are so much more crucial issues we all need to address.

"You care more about this thing than I do, so you are a whiner." Very cool.

14 minutes ago, DMC said:

  But by the same token, it's paramount to point out when they are espousing dumb, absurd, or pathetic beliefs.

You have basically put forward the idea that these are what all arguments you deem wrong to be motivated by, when you questioned how KoW could strongly disagree with someone and also not think any of the above. I'd guess KoW is willing to admit that maybe other people he deems smart who hold positions he disagrees with may possibly be right, or indeed that maybe both parties are right in their way. 

There's a very zero-sum quality to the way you engage with people, and often it's plainly informative, but other times it's just belligerence for the sake of belligerence. 

But, go ahead, have the last word.

 

[DMC]

1 minute ago, Ran said:

How soon we forget.

LOL.  I definitely did not forget the other time you were annoyingly anal.

1 minute ago, Ran said:

"You care more about this thing than I do, so you are a whiner." Very cool.

I don't know if it's "cool," but anyone trying to tell me that "wokeism" or leftist politics or whatever is a problem anywhere near the level of actual concerns we have with American democracy clearly does not have their priorities straight.  And, yes, for the most part that usually is whining about outlier or ineffectual cases.  If you disagree, please specify.

4 minutes ago, Ran said:

You have basically put forward the idea that these are what all arguments you deem wrong to be motivated by, when you questioned how KoW could strongly disagree with someone and also not think any of the above. I'd guess KoW is willing to admit that maybe other people he deems smart who hold positions he disagrees with may possibly be right, or indeed that maybe both parties are right in their way.

Er, no I haven't.  I pointed out why I think all of the ideas I listed are not only dumb, but also absurd and/or pathetic.  Which is exactly what you asked me to do.  Now you're playing the game of not actually engaging with any of those topics, but instead arguing about arguing.  Apparently it's contagious.  And frankly very sad you're echoing such horseshit.

But, go ahead, have the last word.

[Varysblackfyre321]

6 hours ago, Phylum of Alexandria said:

get why you’re framing it in this way. Utilitarian philosophy was crucial for the development of liberal society, and Jeremy Bentham sought to simplify the problems of society via a calculus of total pleasures/goods versus total pains/bads. It makes sense at the broad level, and in a fundamental level of individual psychology as well. It’s important stuff.

I’m also not one to quibble over semantics as far as preferences are concerned. But even if we take that heavily abstracted framing of harm reduction, my point still stands: real life in its details is complicated, with any one issue often involving multiple competing interests. If that’s the case, then the goal shouldn’t be maximalization of any one concern, but instead an optimal (or satisfactory, or least-bad) balance between the different concerns.

It’s not simply a matter of quibbling over semantics as ascertaining what exactly people are striving for.

Going the ‘optimal’  as the goal instead of method to progress to said goal,can lead people to the motif that there a level of homophobia we need to accept. I reject this.

Or that induce a sort of apathy, or stagnation on a lot important thingS or even hostility towards any change even positive.

I believe you’re looking at “harm-reduction” as a singular thing when it’s more an umbrella term for a diverse group of things that can intersect or contradict.

6 hours ago, Phylum of Alexandria said:

Even if we’re only talking about harms, there are different conflicting harms among individual people, there are community harms that might compete with individual interests, there are short term harms versus long-term harms, etc. Bentham’s proposed solution was basically the liberal Golden Rule of “let me do whatever the fuck I want, so long as others are not harmed.” Perhaps that’s an overall minimization of harm in a society (as if such a thing could be known), but it’s definitely a compromise of individual harm maximizations—i.e.,optimizing or satisficing—and it works at the broadest level for laws and norms securing liberties and imposing order

Sounds a bit naive and libertarian in some cases

There’s no direct harm towards anyone with someone who doesn’t need need it can lead to antibiotic resistance.

6 hours ago, Phylum of Alexandria said:

When you move toward specific advocacy efforts for election reform, economic initiatives, topics of protest, etc, then it gets a lot more complicated. I just don’t find it helpful to talk about everything in terms of harm reduction, especially because plenty of people you’re trying to rally won’t see certain issues in that framework. Sometimes appealing to one’s compassion is important and effective; but sometimes it’s better to appeal to dignity, or the notion of individual liberty, or shared identity as citizens, or the notion of self-interest (“this could be you next”).

If you’re trying to utilize someone’s most primal forms of thinking to get them to move to help or at least stop doing something bad—and more importantly you’ve adequate reason to think you’ll be successful—then do it.

I’m fine whatever advocacy produces the best results at a given time, even appeals to vapid tribalism that long term we should get rid of.

But advocates and activists should try approach things with the mindset of reducing harm—what arguments that are presently effective for one audience may not be effective to a different audience.

 

6 hours ago, Phylum of Alexandria said:

To take your example of exercise, it should be noted that exercise can be unpleasant. Even in the most healthy forms of exercise, there’s exertion, strain, exhaustion, and the aches and sores that result from muscles and connective tissues that are (intentionally) damaged in the process. Using an absolutist metric of reduction of felt pain or discomfort as harm, it could be possible to advocate against exercise.

Come now that’s an absurdist argument.

[Varysblackfyre321]

3 hours ago, Knight Of Winter said:

All the time. I strongly think that wokeness,

Define wokeness.

I’ve seen it’s most often meant as anything  people, especially conservatives, find disconcerting with their more traditional or even reactionary values/viewing of the world.

Edited June 16, 2023 by Varysblackfyre321

[Zorral]

Wokeness = teaching the history of the United States that includes the primary role the Atlantic slave trade, slavery, the domestic slave trade (and the Native American genocide) played in turning the North American colonies into an economic powerhouse, and the adjacent history which the unplumbable personal horror and cruelty that enslaving and being enslaved was.  This makes (some) White people uncomfortable* (until they get their next bespoke latte) so it must be disappeared from classrooms, libraries, media and conversation, to be replaced by discussions and materials in classroom, libraries, media and conversation that tell us how awful the non-existent antifa is and how any well meaning person must resist, which is how we all get along and sing kumbya.  Which is important, not that They are killing women and children and other powerless people every single day.

* For example tourist companies on Lake Windermere have written the fact that many of the estates and mansions built there were built out of the fortunes of the Atlantic slave trade and the sugar slavery in the Caribbean, because some people on the boats complained about being so informed.  While, here, tourists are shrieking that Thomas Jefferson the slaver is included in the tour of  Monticello -- though that's a separate tour that they don't have to take.  While calling out this stuff is 'mean' i.e. woke.

Edited June 16, 2023 by Zorral

[Varysblackfyre321]

11 hours ago, Phylum of Alexandria said:

That’s what I’m calling maximalism. We can call it something else (Absolutism? Fundamentalism? I dunno), as long as we understand what we talking about.

23 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

You can just use more words to explain why it’s counterproductive—I understand the want for a simple, one word catchy quick-phrase 

But sometimes it’s better to be specific on what exactly you’ve a problem with as to avoid the stigmatization of the very concept of harm reduction.

I agree some measures taken in its name can be counterproductive—the analysis and criticism can and should  be purely to the effect of highlighting that and proposing more productive alternatives.

11 hours ago, Phylum of Alexandria said:

I lost track of Jordan Peterson since he came back from some wacky drug rehab in Russia, then licked Victor Orban's ass. Perhaps you can send me the link to what you're describing so I can have a better idea of what you're talking about here.

 

[Varysblackfyre321]

23 hours ago, Knight Of Winter said:

By being rude, you're preventing yourself from learning what may be valuable point of view from the other party. You're also preventing the other party to learn anything from you, since they're bound to get defensive or become rude in return. You're turning what could have been interesting and educational experience from both parties into a competition who will be most creative in dissing the other one. (again, in this paragraph "you" is impersonal, it's not aimed particularly at you).

Best debates I've either been in or saw have this great conclusion at the end, where everyone involved has this "Hey, I disagree with you a lot, but it's been great talking to you and I feel like I've learned something new and valuable. I'll ruminate about what you just said" feeling, and - at least in my experience - I feel watching and participating is such exchanges helped me and enriched me as a person. This would not have been possible if the tone of the conversation crossed the limit of rudeness. Heated - yes, passionate - yes, honest - of course; but not rude.

That said, I can sympathize with the frustration - for not every debate can be like this. Like you, I also think there's many people whose arguments lack any coherence, insight or even basic logic and who couldn't say anything remotely intelligent if their life depended on it. But if that's the case, why bother debating them at all, why not just leave (instead of dissing them) and find someone better to converse with?

Oh because they may need to be made into a pariah.

This is a perfectly fine reason to debate with someone especially on a public stage.

instead hemming and hawing on trying to convince an interlocutor  who wants to do a fascism  and pretending they’re positions are respectable and grounded in reason it’s okay to destroy them with facts and logic.

See here? This is a good debate between a leftist and fascist.

No strawmaning, engaging what’s being said calmly and an explanation on why the fascist is scum worthy of being hated and mocked. 
Forgive me it often seems to me a lot of liberals and some on the left  see debate as just way they can show they’re smart, totally able to remain calm and civil and goodnatured in a dialogue no matter the subject and a fun little exercise they should do with no worry about the consequences for anyone outside the debate. 

But that’s not universal and I’ll fully admit there being well intentioned, good people who’ve a more idealistic view of the nature of debates than I do. Destiny(a YouTuber who periodically debates the worst and best) is one of them even though I don’t listen to him much because I find his voice insufferable.
 

Edited June 17, 2023 by Varysblackfyre321