6 ms·

And of all the examples of "history repeats itself" to use right now why would you go with "liberals are mean!" and not the whole rising fascism thing that, yes

by and0 10y ago

And of all the examples of "history repeats itself" to use right now why would you go with "liberals are mean!" and not the whole rising fascism thing that, yes, is actually happening again.

judah 10y ago
It's not, "Liberals are mean." It's, "Leftists often dismiss diversity of thought with personal slurs." To the left, virtually every opponent is a sexist, islamophobic, xenophobic, homophobic, intolerant, racist bigot. This tactic, along with identity politics, are prime reasons why so many people voted for the current President of the United States.
- heurist 10y ago
  Intolerance from our contemporary left and right are roughly equivalent. Moderates of both camps have more in common with each other than with the provocative fringe groups spouting this nonsense. The fact that they have strong voices at all only demonstrates the hyperpartisan state our government is in.
  - dragonwriter 10y ago
    > Moderates of both camps have more in common with each other than with the provocative fringe groups spouting this nonsense. Moderates have more in common with each other in rhetorical style, but more in common with their own sides extremes in substantive policy positions. The idea of a strong policy center is a persistent myth that is popular specifically because both sides find it useful to pretend that their moderates are that center, rather than because it is actually true in any substantive way.
    - heurist 10y ago
      Sure, there is no "center". But I think most of both sides are generally inclined toward fiscal conservatism and free market solutions while ensuring people in poverty are taken care of. It's just that vocal Republican voters think all liberals want to take all their tax money to spend on abortion and welfare recipients while vocal Democratic voters think all conservatives are power-hungry and severely intolerant of variable social perspectives. Both sides have some truth but moderates of all stripes mostly just want a safe, stable, healthy economy in which to grow their businesses and families. They're willing to work with each other to achieve that. There are other reasons that our democracy is not functioning properly. (I don't personally believe the two parties produce solutions of equivalent quality at this point. Democrats have demonstrated much greater awareness of the deep problems in our governance. But I spend a lot of time trying to understand the Republican perspective and I can generally understand where they are coming from, even if I disagree.)
      - dragonwriter 10y ago
        > But I think most of both sides are generally inclined toward fiscal conservatism Only in the trivial definition where "fiscal conservatism" means government should spend money only on those things that are important for government to do, and tax no more than is needed to do that. OTOH, the left and right (even the moderate left and right) have fairly divergent views of what government should do. > and free market solutions Even moderates on both the left and right tend to favor wide areas of government-run programs for "good" things, and of absolute prohibition of "bad" things (with overlapping, but conflicting, definitions of what is "good" vs. "bad"), rather than market-based solutions. ("Free market based solutions" is somewhat incoherent: "free market" is a single, universal state; were it achievable by policy at all, it would be exactly one solution, you can't have multiple of them.) > while ensuring people in poverty are taken care of. Even moreso than "fiscal conservatism", this is only a point of disagreement if it has no coherent definition, so that it is equivocation. Sure, the and the right would agree with the phrase, but mean radically different things by it.
        heurist 10y ago
        No one wants to spend money that doesn't have to be spent. The argument is over what has to be spent. I agree that there are differing definitions at play. The free market can be contained and guided. Governments set the platforms on which the free market operates, and it can be manipulated much like water can be poured into different shape cups. Water doesn't stop being water when it's poured into a different container... The free market can absolutely be leveraged into efficient solutions for societal problems. We do it all the time. If you want to think of the free market as a singleton then you'll have to include all interconnections and energy exchange throughout the entirety of the universe, which happens to include the human forces which are capable of regulating small parts of itself the way any other sustainable system does.
        dragonwriter 10y ago
        > The free market can be contained and guided. A market can be, but a free market is specifically one that is free of government intervention to "contain and guide" it.
  - judah 10y ago
    I've heard that before: that conservatives slur leftists with ugly labels as much as the left slurs the right. I don't think that's actually true. If it is, I'd love to be proven wrong. What is the right's equivalent of SIXHIRB[0]? What are the labels conservatives regularly use to shut down debate and engage in ad hominem? [0]: The labels the left commonly uses against the right: sexist, islomophobic, xenophobic, homophobic, intolerant, racist, bigot.
    - dmix 10y ago
      I believe the difference is that people online on social networks that dominate conversations are typically younger. And conservatives, on average, are older. For example: far more young people voted Hillary, far more 45+ yr olds voted for Trump: http://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/624/cpsprodpb/13D5D/production/_92354218_us_elections_2016_exit_polls_age_624-2.png http://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/624/cpsprodpb/13D5D/production/... The distribution for Bernie is probably even more young. Additionally, there are ~3x major 24/7 news networks leaning left and only 1x that is right. Online newspapers have a similar distribution. So it's easy to believe that hyper partisan nastiness is more popular on the left. But I'm not sure that's the case. Otherwise I'd be much more inclined to agree with you. I'm neither mainstream left/right but regardless I've noticed a definite trend on the internet towards left wing slander and villianization of anyone on the right. But I associate that with the media distribution bell curve pushed far to the left. Especially on places on Twitter and Reddit which largely regurgitate media to validate peoples views and the subsequent hive-mind that generates.
      - judah 10y ago
        It would be good to examine this assumption. A ripe, and quite fair ground, might be the 2 recent Women's Marches. - The (leftist) Women's March (for abortion, LGBT rights, etc.) - The conservative Women's March for Life (against abortion) Do we see equal amounts of slurs and vitriol at each march? One might examine the signs held by protesters, the videos taken, the violence that occurred.
        heurist 10y ago
- 1_2__3 10y ago
  > To the left, virtually every opponent is a sexist, islamophobic, xenophobic, homophobic, intolerant, racist bigot. Wouldn't want to paint with too broad a brush now would we.
- j2kun 10y ago
  If someone on the right (or even right-center) would say something along the lines of "I agree gender equity in the US is a problem, and we need to think hard about how to solve it, but I don't think allowing abortions would help and here's the data that convinces me," I would listen. Instead, they say things like (1) gender imbalance is not a problem or (2) the effects that you're attributing to gender imbalance are actually because of innate biological differences that make men better than women (with nothing to back that claim up except the status quo) or (3) an appeal to family values which is a quaint way to say the man should be in charge. With that being the standard, how can I _not_ think they are being sexist? Seriously, tell me what signals I should use to counteract these official policies, and conclude that in fact the people speaking them are not sexist? (the case is much the same for other injustices I see all around me)
  - idiot_stick 10y ago
    >If someone on the right (or even right-center) would say something along the lines of "I agree gender equity in the US is a problem, and we need to think hard about how to solve it, but I don't think allowing abortions would help and here's the data that convinces me," I would listen. Maybe you should try doing the work to convince them, rather than assuming your position is "correct" and everyone who disagrees is wrong. Or, you can choose to "not listen". >With that being the standard, how can I _not_ think they are being sexist? Who is they?
  - judah 10y ago
    I'm on the right, and I can answer your question. The problem is that you're defining terms wrong. To you, "If someone disagrees with my ideas on gender equality, they are sexist." It's like me saying, "If anyone disagrees with me about abortion, they're child murderers." See the problem? Not everyone who disagrees with you needs an ugly label. I'd be glad to talk to you about why we conservatives rationally oppose radical theocratic Islam. But not if you're just going to demonize me with an "islamophobe" label, I'll just avoid you and vote for people who institute conservative policies.
    - j2kun 10y ago

by and0 10y ago

And of all the examples of "history repeats itself" to use right now why would you go with "liberals are mean!" and not the whole rising fascism thing that, yes, is actually happening again.

judah 10y ago

It's not, "Liberals are mean." It's, "Leftists often dismiss diversity of thought with personal slurs." To the left, virtually every opponent is a sexist, islamophobic, xenophobic, homophobic, intolerant, racist bigot. This tactic, along with identity politics, are prime reasons why so many people voted for the current President of the United States.

heurist 10y ago
Intolerance from our contemporary left and right are roughly equivalent. Moderates of both camps have more in common with each other than with the provocative fringe groups spouting this nonsense. The fact that they have strong voices at all only demonstrates the hyperpartisan state our government is in.
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  > Moderates of both camps have more in common with each other than with the provocative fringe groups spouting this nonsense. Moderates have more in common with each other in rhetorical style, but more in common with their own sides extremes in substantive policy positions. The idea of a strong policy center is a persistent myth that is popular specifically because both sides find it useful to pretend that their moderates are that center, rather than because it is actually true in any substantive way.
  - heurist 10y ago
    Sure, there is no "center". But I think most of both sides are generally inclined toward fiscal conservatism and free market solutions while ensuring people in poverty are taken care of. It's just that vocal Republican voters think all liberals want to take all their tax money to spend on abortion and welfare recipients while vocal Democratic voters think all conservatives are power-hungry and severely intolerant of variable social perspectives. Both sides have some truth but moderates of all stripes mostly just want a safe, stable, healthy economy in which to grow their businesses and families. They're willing to work with each other to achieve that. There are other reasons that our democracy is not functioning properly. (I don't personally believe the two parties produce solutions of equivalent quality at this point. Democrats have demonstrated much greater awareness of the deep problems in our governance. But I spend a lot of time trying to understand the Republican perspective and I can generally understand where they are coming from, even if I disagree.)
    - dragonwriter 10y ago
      > But I think most of both sides are generally inclined toward fiscal conservatism Only in the trivial definition where "fiscal conservatism" means government should spend money only on those things that are important for government to do, and tax no more than is needed to do that. OTOH, the left and right (even the moderate left and right) have fairly divergent views of what government should do. > and free market solutions Even moderates on both the left and right tend to favor wide areas of government-run programs for "good" things, and of absolute prohibition of "bad" things (with overlapping, but conflicting, definitions of what is "good" vs. "bad"), rather than market-based solutions. ("Free market based solutions" is somewhat incoherent: "free market" is a single, universal state; were it achievable by policy at all, it would be exactly one solution, you can't have multiple of them.) > while ensuring people in poverty are taken care of. Even moreso than "fiscal conservatism", this is only a point of disagreement if it has no coherent definition, so that it is equivocation. Sure, the and the right would agree with the phrase, but mean radically different things by it.
      - heurist 10y ago
        No one wants to spend money that doesn't have to be spent. The argument is over what has to be spent. I agree that there are differing definitions at play. The free market can be contained and guided. Governments set the platforms on which the free market operates, and it can be manipulated much like water can be poured into different shape cups. Water doesn't stop being water when it's poured into a different container... The free market can absolutely be leveraged into efficient solutions for societal problems. We do it all the time. If you want to think of the free market as a singleton then you'll have to include all interconnections and energy exchange throughout the entirety of the universe, which happens to include the human forces which are capable of regulating small parts of itself the way any other sustainable system does.
        dragonwriter 10y ago
        > The free market can be contained and guided. A market can be, but a free market is specifically one that is free of government intervention to "contain and guide" it.
- judah 10y ago
  I've heard that before: that conservatives slur leftists with ugly labels as much as the left slurs the right. I don't think that's actually true. If it is, I'd love to be proven wrong. What is the right's equivalent of SIXHIRB[0]? What are the labels conservatives regularly use to shut down debate and engage in ad hominem? [0]: The labels the left commonly uses against the right: sexist, islomophobic, xenophobic, homophobic, intolerant, racist, bigot.
  - dmix 10y ago
    I believe the difference is that people online on social networks that dominate conversations are typically younger. And conservatives, on average, are older. For example: far more young people voted Hillary, far more 45+ yr olds voted for Trump: http://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/624/cpsprodpb/13D5D/production/_92354218_us_elections_2016_exit_polls_age_624-2.png http://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/624/cpsprodpb/13D5D/production/... The distribution for Bernie is probably even more young. Additionally, there are ~3x major 24/7 news networks leaning left and only 1x that is right. Online newspapers have a similar distribution. So it's easy to believe that hyper partisan nastiness is more popular on the left. But I'm not sure that's the case. Otherwise I'd be much more inclined to agree with you. I'm neither mainstream left/right but regardless I've noticed a definite trend on the internet towards left wing slander and villianization of anyone on the right. But I associate that with the media distribution bell curve pushed far to the left. Especially on places on Twitter and Reddit which largely regurgitate media to validate peoples views and the subsequent hive-mind that generates.
    - judah 10y ago
      It would be good to examine this assumption. A ripe, and quite fair ground, might be the 2 recent Women's Marches. - The (leftist) Women's March (for abortion, LGBT rights, etc.) - The conservative Women's March for Life (against abortion) Do we see equal amounts of slurs and vitriol at each march? One might examine the signs held by protesters, the videos taken, the violence that occurred.
      - heurist 10y ago
1_2__3 10y ago
> To the left, virtually every opponent is a sexist, islamophobic, xenophobic, homophobic, intolerant, racist bigot. Wouldn't want to paint with too broad a brush now would we.
j2kun 10y ago
If someone on the right (or even right-center) would say something along the lines of "I agree gender equity in the US is a problem, and we need to think hard about how to solve it, but I don't think allowing abortions would help and here's the data that convinces me," I would listen. Instead, they say things like (1) gender imbalance is not a problem or (2) the effects that you're attributing to gender imbalance are actually because of innate biological differences that make men better than women (with nothing to back that claim up except the status quo) or (3) an appeal to family values which is a quaint way to say the man should be in charge. With that being the standard, how can I _not_ think they are being sexist? Seriously, tell me what signals I should use to counteract these official policies, and conclude that in fact the people speaking them are not sexist? (the case is much the same for other injustices I see all around me)
- idiot_stick 10y ago
  >If someone on the right (or even right-center) would say something along the lines of "I agree gender equity in the US is a problem, and we need to think hard about how to solve it, but I don't think allowing abortions would help and here's the data that convinces me," I would listen. Maybe you should try doing the work to convince them, rather than assuming your position is "correct" and everyone who disagrees is wrong. Or, you can choose to "not listen". >With that being the standard, how can I _not_ think they are being sexist? Who is they?
- judah 10y ago
  I'm on the right, and I can answer your question. The problem is that you're defining terms wrong. To you, "If someone disagrees with my ideas on gender equality, they are sexist." It's like me saying, "If anyone disagrees with me about abortion, they're child murderers." See the problem? Not everyone who disagrees with you needs an ugly label. I'd be glad to talk to you about why we conservatives rationally oppose radical theocratic Islam. But not if you're just going to demonize me with an "islamophobe" label, I'll just avoid you and vote for people who institute conservative policies.
  - j2kun 10y ago