4 ms·

I read The_Donald on reddit and they believe they are the only ones willing to entertain ideas. First, and most notably, they believe that being liberal means

I read The_Donald on reddit and they believe they are the only ones willing to entertain ideas. First, and most notably, they believe that being liberal means full embracement of leftist group think like the USSR had during its communist days. That is the most fundamental problem with reaching them since you can't unmoor the thought of leftism from liberalism with them. They believe the scientific community has become strangled by this leftist/liberal ideology. I'm not sure what happens next but I think it's bad for humanity. If half the population needs a reminder on why science is good I guess they'll get it. Usually that's mass death.

justavoice 10y ago
Funny thing is, membership in a group does not limit the spectrum of thought: there are people on both sides of the liberal/conservative divide that are rational. The problem is in the meta-group-think going on for the groups as a whole. Kinda like emergent behaviour in insects. The reasonable voices on both sides are drowned out by the crazies, on both sides.
eropple 10y ago
Your read jibes with my own when I've studied that community (and washed afterwards). I'll give what passes for a "left" in this country a lot of flak on a lot of things, but a fundamental unwillingness to work with people who disagree with them on some things but are willing to find common ground on others is not one of them. Often to their, and our, detriment.
- MichaelGG 10y ago
  >fundamental unwillingness to work with people who disagree Identity politics is even worse than this. From what I can see, among people not totally ideologically driven, this discredits the left very much, and liberal values will be caught in the backlash.
  - eropple 10y ago
    That's a can of worms, huh? I mean, yes, I would definitely say that that identity politics/bloc voting is problematic, from the perspective of "how do we best run a government?". It is also in many cases understandable, especially in the face of extant threats to a given polity. (In such a case, however, it is important to stress that "identity politics" is not the problem--the threat and disenfranchisement that led to the formation of an identity bloc is. Even for Trump voters, who I'll touch on momentarily.) But from a social/messaging perspective, I think that it is less that identity politics discredits the left and more that white people (and it's mostly white people who have an axe to grind about identity politics) feel threatened by identity politics and thus by the left. The reactionary clumping of the Trumpist bloc of whites (as evidenced both by voting patterns and the frankly shameless xenophobic pandering by Trump and his surrogates in the campaign) is no less "identity politics", and is arguably more aggressive than the identity-focused blocs that have formed prior (it's a lot less aggressive to say "we should be able to get married" than it is to say "you should not be able to get married", get me?). But that's not castigated as "identity politics". I would submit that that's because white people don't think white is an identity, but the default. Identity politics are fine, so goes the thinking, when it's your identity. In a society overwhelmingly dominated by white interests, fairness is gonna feel like you're losing. (This is the genesis of the notion of "privilege" in the first place, as I understand it.)
    - Throwaway56852 10y ago
      Couple of thoughts and questions: - The difference between discredited and threatening is academic, since both lead to the same mindset and course of action - A large swing towards Trump was noticeable amongst minority voters, the poor, and whites without a degree[0], groups who would be expected to be harmed by competition from illegal immigration - A large swing towards Hillary was observable in the rich, retirees, and whites with college degrees, groups which are generally believed to be well-to-do - If fairness feels like losing, and losing feels like losing, then how can we tell which is which? - If white people implicitly pursue identity politics even when they try not to, will making them aware of this lead to them laying aside identity, or actively pursuing it? - If race-blindness/"I don't see colour" is a myth, is it a useful myth for the purposes of causing people to get along? - Is it possible for any action taken against a group that is winning to be unfair? If yes, when might this occur? If no, are you really sure that winning justifies literally any action against you? Note that I'm not American, so I'm looking at this with an outsider's perspective. [0] http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/11/08/us/politics/election-exit-polls.html http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/11/08/us/politics/el...
return0 10y ago
> If half the population needs a reminder on why science is good I guess they'll get it. I don't know if you looked at science lately, but the majority of the science published is actually not-that-great, if not bad. The public SHOULD distrust scientists - as well as most else.
- enraged_camel 10y ago
  OK, I'll bite: who should the public trust when it comes to science then, if not scientists?
  - return0 10y ago
    The question is whether they should trust scientists about policy decisions, not whenther they should trust scientists about science. Political/ideological decisions don't have to rely on science, this "political scientism" is a very recent thing. The entire 60s revolutions for example were primarily anti-technology, anti-corporatism and anti-established science. Part of progress is breaking up with established ideas, and that includes bad science (e.g. the neoliberal economic approaches). This applies of course mostly to social sciences, it's pretty pointless to fight the laws of physics
- donut2d 10y ago
  Examples?
  - return0 10y ago
    too many to list. see here: http://www.forbes.com/sites/patrickmichaels/2014/01/09/the-latest-epidemic-to-infect-the-scientific-community-bad-science/#ea85a453c46c http://www.forbes.com/sites/patrickmichaels/2014/01/09/the-l...

justavoice 10y ago

Funny thing is, membership in a group does not limit the spectrum of thought: there are people on both sides of the liberal/conservative divide that are rational. The problem is in the meta-group-think going on for the groups as a whole. Kinda like emergent behaviour in insects. The reasonable voices on both sides are drowned out by the crazies, on both sides.

eropple 10y ago

Your read jibes with my own when I've studied that community (and washed afterwards). I'll give what passes for a "left" in this country a lot of flak on a lot of things, but a fundamental unwillingness to work with people who disagree with them on some things but are willing to find common ground on others is not one of them. Often to their, and our, detriment.

MichaelGG 10y ago
>fundamental unwillingness to work with people who disagree Identity politics is even worse than this. From what I can see, among people not totally ideologically driven, this discredits the left very much, and liberal values will be caught in the backlash.
- eropple 10y ago
  That's a can of worms, huh? I mean, yes, I would definitely say that that identity politics/bloc voting is problematic, from the perspective of "how do we best run a government?". It is also in many cases understandable, especially in the face of extant threats to a given polity. (In such a case, however, it is important to stress that "identity politics" is not the problem--the threat and disenfranchisement that led to the formation of an identity bloc is. Even for Trump voters, who I'll touch on momentarily.) But from a social/messaging perspective, I think that it is less that identity politics discredits the left and more that white people (and it's mostly white people who have an axe to grind about identity politics) feel threatened by identity politics and thus by the left. The reactionary clumping of the Trumpist bloc of whites (as evidenced both by voting patterns and the frankly shameless xenophobic pandering by Trump and his surrogates in the campaign) is no less "identity politics", and is arguably more aggressive than the identity-focused blocs that have formed prior (it's a lot less aggressive to say "we should be able to get married" than it is to say "you should not be able to get married", get me?). But that's not castigated as "identity politics". I would submit that that's because white people don't think white is an identity, but the default. Identity politics are fine, so goes the thinking, when it's your identity. In a society overwhelmingly dominated by white interests, fairness is gonna feel like you're losing. (This is the genesis of the notion of "privilege" in the first place, as I understand it.)
  - Throwaway56852 10y ago
    Couple of thoughts and questions: - The difference between discredited and threatening is academic, since both lead to the same mindset and course of action - A large swing towards Trump was noticeable amongst minority voters, the poor, and whites without a degree[0], groups who would be expected to be harmed by competition from illegal immigration - A large swing towards Hillary was observable in the rich, retirees, and whites with college degrees, groups which are generally believed to be well-to-do - If fairness feels like losing, and losing feels like losing, then how can we tell which is which? - If white people implicitly pursue identity politics even when they try not to, will making them aware of this lead to them laying aside identity, or actively pursuing it? - If race-blindness/"I don't see colour" is a myth, is it a useful myth for the purposes of causing people to get along? - Is it possible for any action taken against a group that is winning to be unfair? If yes, when might this occur? If no, are you really sure that winning justifies literally any action against you? Note that I'm not American, so I'm looking at this with an outsider's perspective. [0] http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/11/08/us/politics/election-exit-polls.html http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/11/08/us/politics/el...

return0 10y ago

> If half the population needs a reminder on why science is good I guess they'll get it. I don't know if you looked at science lately, but the majority of the science published is actually not-that-great, if not bad. The public SHOULD distrust scientists - as well as most else.

enraged_camel 10y ago
OK, I'll bite: who should the public trust when it comes to science then, if not scientists?
- return0 10y ago
  The question is whether they should trust scientists about policy decisions, not whenther they should trust scientists about science. Political/ideological decisions don't have to rely on science, this "political scientism" is a very recent thing. The entire 60s revolutions for example were primarily anti-technology, anti-corporatism and anti-established science. Part of progress is breaking up with established ideas, and that includes bad science (e.g. the neoliberal economic approaches). This applies of course mostly to social sciences, it's pretty pointless to fight the laws of physics
donut2d 10y ago
Examples?
- return0 10y ago
  too many to list. see here: http://www.forbes.com/sites/patrickmichaels/2014/01/09/the-latest-epidemic-to-infect-the-scientific-community-bad-science/#ea85a453c46c http://www.forbes.com/sites/patrickmichaels/2014/01/09/the-l...