4 ms·

You should read Emmett Rensin's brilliant writing on this subject: http://www.vox.com/2016/4/21/11451378/smug-american-liberalism http://www.vox.com/2016/4/21/1

You should read Emmett Rensin's brilliant writing on this subject: http://www.vox.com/2016/4/21/11451378/smug-american-liberalism http://www.vox.com/2016/4/21/11451378/smug-american-liberali... He expounds on and develops this idea much more.

linkregister 10y ago
Thanks for posting this great read. I think it belongs on the front page of HN, having witnessed HN's hyperbolic reaction to the election this morning. It does an excellent job of diagnosing the American Left's political and social ills. It left out the most important part: a solution. It never actually validated either ideology nor proposed a solution beyond "make sure to respect and empathize with the other side." I feel you never actually addressed the veracity of the parent poster's statement, just the tone. It is a valid criticism, to be sure, but I would like more.
- tanderson92 10y ago
  I tried submitting it, and I see it may have (recently!) been on the front page! https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12906783 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12906783
  - linkregister 10y ago
    It's getting some great commentary! Thanks!
adt2bt 10y ago
Not the GP but I just read it, and I feel like he hit the nail on the head of the smug style. I happen to identify with many of the things he mentioned. It left me at a loss about where to go forward, though. I hold it close to my core that critical thinking skills go hand-in-hand with a brighter individual and collective future. What do I say to someone who I think is falling into the trap of a logical fallacy that doesn't sound like I know better? If I think someone is misguided, am I supposed to listen to why they feel the way they do, then ask them to consider something not as wrong? What if they hold it true as their own set of Good Facts and are not open to conversation? Or is the point of the article that maybe I'm objectively wrong about many policies I hold dear? LGBT equality, gender equality, etc, are causes that I'm actually wrong about and I should look at the other side for inspiration, regardless of where their 'Truth' comes from? I'm deeply saddened that I not only observe and sometimes identify with the smug left, but I also have many conversations with family and friends who I would describe in a similar article with a different bent as the angry, illogical right. What do I do to reach those folks? I'm also worried that their way of life is actually dying, because it is dying. Their jobs, their biggest source of pride, are disappearing, and attempting to repatriate them will likely result in big business investing in capital (robots) over labor (rural workers). I want to support a smart policy that helps them get back on their feet. Is thinking that Donald Trump likely won't be able to bring them what they seek a smug liberal policy? If so, am I supposed to feel bad about thinking it, try to convince people about it, shut up about it, or none of the above? Additionally, I think this is the type of article that appears when both sides live in an echo chamber. Yes, this is an excoriation of the smug left, but the smug left and this article only exists if we live in our own bubbles. The thing nobody knows and everyone wants to figure out is how to break down those barriers.
- deadringerr 10y ago
  I'm with you word for word. And on top of all this self-doubt and soul-searching, I can't help but think that, should the roles have been reversed, we wouldn't be given the same level of credit we're affording to the "angry, illogical right". As long as we're the ones who are trying our best to support all of humanity, I think our heads and hearts are in the right place - Our expression of these ideas could use work.
- xerxes777 10y ago
  That's what's already happening for 25 years in my country (Russia). Even worse, liberals are much smaller group (10-20%) than in USA, but they teach everybody how to live with even more condescension. That's why people like Putin. So now you taste by yourself what you did to the world with too much left liberalism. Good luck with that and have your own Putin as a result.
  - adt2bt 10y ago
    What's the alternative? Centrism? Honestly curious.
    - xerxes777 10y ago
      I think it's conservatism. And by conservatism I mean not something archaic, stupid and with reliance only on tradition, like leftist think... It's motion to the same goals, only slower. People must have freedom. But too much freedom too fast always creates problems. Each step must not make revolutions and counterrevolutions. Each step mustn't break people's minds. Each step must consider everything (not "goal for goal"). So conservatism is much more complex because you need to consider everything and with this knowledge make hard decisions, not just run to the sun with some hope that everything will be all right, like drug addicts do. For me, leftism and all modern liberalism is infantile and conservatism is for grownups.
- blahi 10y ago
  When you converse with people don't just listen to tell them where they are wrong. That's the biggest issue. You already have an idea what s/he will say, so you just wait for them to finish so you can explain how wrong they are. There are feelings behind those opinions. And don't dare to tell me (or yourself) that smart people think only logically and are unaffected by their feelings. You are, so don't be so quick to dismiss people with different feelings than yours. Listen, really listen to them and think why do they have this opinion. What feelings are behind it. This is how you have a conversation with a person and not a lecture.
losteric 10y ago
I immediately thought of this article while reading their post. Both sides like demonizing and trivializing the other, but it's important to remember... these political parties are composed of millions of Americans. Both parties have stupid and genius members. Priorities is the only thing that separates us.
pmarreck 10y ago
This is a fantastic op-ed that I'm glad you brought my attention to, but I'm most of the way through it and I feel like I can almost sum it up as "Ode to the Backfire Effect" http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Backfire_effect http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Backfire_effect :) "Trump capturing the nomination will not dispel the smug style; if anything, it will redouble it. Faced with the prospect of an election between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, the smug will reach a fever pitch: six straight months of a sure thing, an opportunity to mock and scoff and ask, How could anybody vote for this guy? until a morning in November when they ask, What the fuck happened?" Wow, considering this was written in April, that ended up being remarkably prescient, eh?
ChemicalWarfare 10y ago
great read. one other thing that is apparent is despite this "we know better" mindset, liberals tend to operate on the emotional level (hence the name calling they resort to immediately as soon as they begin to lose an argument), whereas the republican camp typically appeals to logic.
- deadringerr 10y ago
  Interesting - This is opposite my experience. The conservative party on social issues has been almost synonymous with Christian beliefs as long as I've been alive. Many discussions around modern social issues (abortion, same-sex marriage) have boiled down to being called a "sinner", which I consider name calling, and a fundamentally impossible to argue with and actually entirely based on emotion (faith). This is not a situation I have faced with all or even most Republicans, but when I have faced the situation, it was with a Republican.
  - ChemicalWarfare 10y ago
    An argument can be made that abortion is a form of murder without resorting to religious arguments. Things having to do with sexual behavior are in the realm of irrational "out of the box" so to speak, trying to bring logic into the discussion doesn't bode well for either side and can lead down a long and treacherous path deep into the ontology of human psyche. Things I'm talking about are "simpler" things like: - gun control. most discussions with liberal anti-gun opponents end up in 2 basic scenarios: "guns are bad mmmk" or "you must be some kind of a gun-toting redneck" - illegal immigration. this is a huge can of [il]logical blunders from the liberal side. but essentially boils down to "dis rasist". - global warming or rather it's anthropological component. normally starts and ends by labeling the opponent "a climate change denier" no matter how adamant one is about trying to convey that this is specifically an anthro component of it that is being discussed. - then there's the ever present "dis rasist" and "h8r" labels used every time there is a racial component to the issue. these are applied at will. don't like Obamacare (or anything Obama)? - "rasist h8r"; think the dude had a gun and not a book when a [black] cop shot him? - "major league racist"... etc ad nauseum. there are other liberal sacred cows but these are just some of the ones talked about more often esp lately with the election and all.

linkregister 10y ago

Thanks for posting this great read. I think it belongs on the front page of HN, having witnessed HN's hyperbolic reaction to the election this morning. It does an excellent job of diagnosing the American Left's political and social ills. It left out the most important part: a solution. It never actually validated either ideology nor proposed a solution beyond "make sure to respect and empathize with the other side." I feel you never actually addressed the veracity of the parent poster's statement, just the tone. It is a valid criticism, to be sure, but I would like more.

tanderson92 10y ago
I tried submitting it, and I see it may have (recently!) been on the front page! https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12906783 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12906783
- linkregister 10y ago
  It's getting some great commentary! Thanks!

adt2bt 10y ago

Not the GP but I just read it, and I feel like he hit the nail on the head of the smug style. I happen to identify with many of the things he mentioned. It left me at a loss about where to go forward, though. I hold it close to my core that critical thinking skills go hand-in-hand with a brighter individual and collective future. What do I say to someone who I think is falling into the trap of a logical fallacy that doesn't sound like I know better? If I think someone is misguided, am I supposed to listen to why they feel the way they do, then ask them to consider something not as wrong? What if they hold it true as their own set of Good Facts and are not open to conversation? Or is the point of the article that maybe I'm objectively wrong about many policies I hold dear? LGBT equality, gender equality, etc, are causes that I'm actually wrong about and I should look at the other side for inspiration, regardless of where their 'Truth' comes from? I'm deeply saddened that I not only observe and sometimes identify with the smug left, but I also have many conversations with family and friends who I would describe in a similar article with a different bent as the angry, illogical right. What do I do to reach those folks? I'm also worried that their way of life is actually dying, because it is dying. Their jobs, their biggest source of pride, are disappearing, and attempting to repatriate them will likely result in big business investing in capital (robots) over labor (rural workers). I want to support a smart policy that helps them get back on their feet. Is thinking that Donald Trump likely won't be able to bring them what they seek a smug liberal policy? If so, am I supposed to feel bad about thinking it, try to convince people about it, shut up about it, or none of the above? Additionally, I think this is the type of article that appears when both sides live in an echo chamber. Yes, this is an excoriation of the smug left, but the smug left and this article only exists if we live in our own bubbles. The thing nobody knows and everyone wants to figure out is how to break down those barriers.

deadringerr 10y ago
I'm with you word for word. And on top of all this self-doubt and soul-searching, I can't help but think that, should the roles have been reversed, we wouldn't be given the same level of credit we're affording to the "angry, illogical right". As long as we're the ones who are trying our best to support all of humanity, I think our heads and hearts are in the right place - Our expression of these ideas could use work.
xerxes777 10y ago
That's what's already happening for 25 years in my country (Russia). Even worse, liberals are much smaller group (10-20%) than in USA, but they teach everybody how to live with even more condescension. That's why people like Putin. So now you taste by yourself what you did to the world with too much left liberalism. Good luck with that and have your own Putin as a result.
- adt2bt 10y ago
  What's the alternative? Centrism? Honestly curious.
  - xerxes777 10y ago
    I think it's conservatism. And by conservatism I mean not something archaic, stupid and with reliance only on tradition, like leftist think... It's motion to the same goals, only slower. People must have freedom. But too much freedom too fast always creates problems. Each step must not make revolutions and counterrevolutions. Each step mustn't break people's minds. Each step must consider everything (not "goal for goal"). So conservatism is much more complex because you need to consider everything and with this knowledge make hard decisions, not just run to the sun with some hope that everything will be all right, like drug addicts do. For me, leftism and all modern liberalism is infantile and conservatism is for grownups.
blahi 10y ago
When you converse with people don't just listen to tell them where they are wrong. That's the biggest issue. You already have an idea what s/he will say, so you just wait for them to finish so you can explain how wrong they are. There are feelings behind those opinions. And don't dare to tell me (or yourself) that smart people think only logically and are unaffected by their feelings. You are, so don't be so quick to dismiss people with different feelings than yours. Listen, really listen to them and think why do they have this opinion. What feelings are behind it. This is how you have a conversation with a person and not a lecture.

losteric 10y ago

I immediately thought of this article while reading their post. Both sides like demonizing and trivializing the other, but it's important to remember... these political parties are composed of millions of Americans. Both parties have stupid and genius members. Priorities is the only thing that separates us.

pmarreck 10y ago

This is a fantastic op-ed that I'm glad you brought my attention to, but I'm most of the way through it and I feel like I can almost sum it up as "Ode to the Backfire Effect" http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Backfire_effect http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Backfire_effect :) "Trump capturing the nomination will not dispel the smug style; if anything, it will redouble it. Faced with the prospect of an election between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, the smug will reach a fever pitch: six straight months of a sure thing, an opportunity to mock and scoff and ask, How could anybody vote for this guy? until a morning in November when they ask, What the fuck happened?" Wow, considering this was written in April, that ended up being remarkably prescient, eh?

ChemicalWarfare 10y ago

great read. one other thing that is apparent is despite this "we know better" mindset, liberals tend to operate on the emotional level (hence the name calling they resort to immediately as soon as they begin to lose an argument), whereas the republican camp typically appeals to logic.

deadringerr 10y ago
Interesting - This is opposite my experience. The conservative party on social issues has been almost synonymous with Christian beliefs as long as I've been alive. Many discussions around modern social issues (abortion, same-sex marriage) have boiled down to being called a "sinner", which I consider name calling, and a fundamentally impossible to argue with and actually entirely based on emotion (faith). This is not a situation I have faced with all or even most Republicans, but when I have faced the situation, it was with a Republican.
- ChemicalWarfare 10y ago
  An argument can be made that abortion is a form of murder without resorting to religious arguments. Things having to do with sexual behavior are in the realm of irrational "out of the box" so to speak, trying to bring logic into the discussion doesn't bode well for either side and can lead down a long and treacherous path deep into the ontology of human psyche. Things I'm talking about are "simpler" things like: - gun control. most discussions with liberal anti-gun opponents end up in 2 basic scenarios: "guns are bad mmmk" or "you must be some kind of a gun-toting redneck" - illegal immigration. this is a huge can of [il]logical blunders from the liberal side. but essentially boils down to "dis rasist". - global warming or rather it's anthropological component. normally starts and ends by labeling the opponent "a climate change denier" no matter how adamant one is about trying to convey that this is specifically an anthro component of it that is being discussed. - then there's the ever present "dis rasist" and "h8r" labels used every time there is a racial component to the issue. these are applied at will. don't like Obamacare (or anything Obama)? - "rasist h8r"; think the dude had a gun and not a book when a [black] cop shot him? - "major league racist"... etc ad nauseum. there are other liberal sacred cows but these are just some of the ones talked about more often esp lately with the election and all.