3 ms·

There's a lot of overreaction on the left but the right does have some real issues with race, religion, and gender. If you create policy that oppresses people o

by heurist 10y ago

There's a lot of overreaction on the left but the right does have some real issues with race, religion, and gender. If you create policy that oppresses people on any of those bases without some damn good reasons you should expect to be labeled accordingly. How would you suggest the left approach minority voter suppression? Racially biased criminal justice systems? The rise of religion and race-based hate speech and hate crimes? Perpetual Republican attempts to control what women can do with their bodies? Republican attempts to teach Christian creationism and abstinence-only sex ed in public schools? Hell, how about painfully irrepresentative gerrymandering? Disproven and destructive economic policy? The predominantly conservative military-industrial complex? The financialization of power? Global climate change? Environmental catastrophes? The dismantling of government institutions that serve millions of Americans? How should the left expose people to their subconscious biases in a way that causes change? I agree calling everyone "racist" doesn't help but at least it gets the message across.

judah 10y ago
>> "I agree calling everyone "racist" doesn't help but at least it gets the message across." By that measure, the best way to expose people to their subconscious bias about abortion is to call them murderers of innocent children. Sure, it gets the message across. It just doesn't help public discourse, and it furthers the divide between Americans of different political viewpoints. As for your political points, you asked "how should the left address [list of perceived wrongs]." Answer: that's for you to figure out. But if you simply resort to name-calling and personal attacks, we in middle America will keep voting for people who oppose you. Speaking for myself, if the left persists in personal attacks and identity politics, I'd be glad to vote for Donald Trump for a 2nd term.
- heurist 10y ago
  What I'm saying is when the left attempts to engage in rational debate they're called names or ignored just the same. The problem you're talking about doesn't only exist on the left. Case in point: lots of pro-lifers do call liberals murderers of innocent children. I'd argue that a clump of embryonic cells is no more important than the pounds of dead skin we shed in our lifetimes and that there are important benefits to allowing abortion... But I do at least try to understand where they're coming from, see things from their point of view. Another instance: I listed out several plainly-worded, well-known, evidence-supported societal issues based in race, religion, and gender and your response is to simply call them "perceived wrongs". You're clearly an intelligent person and I'm sure you can understand how many on the left make the logical leap from ignorance of systemic bias to racism. If you're a white person living in middle America you most likely aren't exposed to even half of the day-to-day issues that come up when we don't acknowledge and account for tribal ideologies. Ignoring these problems increases volatility for everyone. Vote for Trump again if you want but don't be surprised if we elect a literal communist after him...
  - judah 10y ago
    >> "I listed out several plainly-worded, well-known, evidence-supported societal issues based in race, religion, and gender and your response is to simply call them "perceived wrongs." Yes, because you perceive them to be real wrongs, and we do not. I find most of them to be very good and progress for our society towards an upright, life-honoring and wise civilization. >> How would you suggest the left approach minority voter suppression? Voter suppression? You mean like requiring identification for voters like many western nations already do? We find it insulting to minorities to say they're being supressed by asking for identification. In a fair system, each person gets 1 vote. Identification helps ensure that. It's not suppression, it's ensuring fairness. Most of your other issues are likewise based on false assumptions.
judah 10y ago
Paul Graham just tweeted a link to this Stanford article that explains the left's problem with defaulting to ad hominem, rather than rational debate: http://news.stanford.edu/2017/02/21/the-threat-from-within/ http://news.stanford.edu/2017/02/21/the-threat-from-within/ Choice quote: "[Universities in particular have] a kind of intellectual blindness that will, in the long run, be more damaging to universities than cuts in federal funding or ill-conceived constraints on immigration. It will be more damaging because we won’t even see it: We will write off those with opposing views as evil or ignorant or stupid, rather than as interlocutors worthy of consideration. We succumb to the all-purpose ad hominem because it is easier and more comforting than rational argument. But when we do, we abandon what is great about this institution we serve."
- heurist 10y ago
  Maybe I should clarify. The left does need to stop calling their opponents names and ignoring hard truths. I love talking with people who can expose me to hard truths, even if I reflexively reject them. But the right also needs to open their perspective and understand how their goals affect people who are different from themselves. The GOP has seemingly lost all compassion for their fellow humans and that's what the left is rebelling against.

by heurist 10y ago

judah 10y ago

>> "I agree calling everyone "racist" doesn't help but at least it gets the message across." By that measure, the best way to expose people to their subconscious bias about abortion is to call them murderers of innocent children. Sure, it gets the message across. It just doesn't help public discourse, and it furthers the divide between Americans of different political viewpoints. As for your political points, you asked "how should the left address [list of perceived wrongs]." Answer: that's for you to figure out. But if you simply resort to name-calling and personal attacks, we in middle America will keep voting for people who oppose you. Speaking for myself, if the left persists in personal attacks and identity politics, I'd be glad to vote for Donald Trump for a 2nd term.

heurist 10y ago
What I'm saying is when the left attempts to engage in rational debate they're called names or ignored just the same. The problem you're talking about doesn't only exist on the left. Case in point: lots of pro-lifers do call liberals murderers of innocent children. I'd argue that a clump of embryonic cells is no more important than the pounds of dead skin we shed in our lifetimes and that there are important benefits to allowing abortion... But I do at least try to understand where they're coming from, see things from their point of view. Another instance: I listed out several plainly-worded, well-known, evidence-supported societal issues based in race, religion, and gender and your response is to simply call them "perceived wrongs". You're clearly an intelligent person and I'm sure you can understand how many on the left make the logical leap from ignorance of systemic bias to racism. If you're a white person living in middle America you most likely aren't exposed to even half of the day-to-day issues that come up when we don't acknowledge and account for tribal ideologies. Ignoring these problems increases volatility for everyone. Vote for Trump again if you want but don't be surprised if we elect a literal communist after him...
- judah 10y ago
  >> "I listed out several plainly-worded, well-known, evidence-supported societal issues based in race, religion, and gender and your response is to simply call them "perceived wrongs." Yes, because you perceive them to be real wrongs, and we do not. I find most of them to be very good and progress for our society towards an upright, life-honoring and wise civilization. >> How would you suggest the left approach minority voter suppression? Voter suppression? You mean like requiring identification for voters like many western nations already do? We find it insulting to minorities to say they're being supressed by asking for identification. In a fair system, each person gets 1 vote. Identification helps ensure that. It's not suppression, it's ensuring fairness. Most of your other issues are likewise based on false assumptions.

judah 10y ago

Paul Graham just tweeted a link to this Stanford article that explains the left's problem with defaulting to ad hominem, rather than rational debate: http://news.stanford.edu/2017/02/21/the-threat-from-within/ http://news.stanford.edu/2017/02/21/the-threat-from-within/ Choice quote: "[Universities in particular have] a kind of intellectual blindness that will, in the long run, be more damaging to universities than cuts in federal funding or ill-conceived constraints on immigration. It will be more damaging because we won’t even see it: We will write off those with opposing views as evil or ignorant or stupid, rather than as interlocutors worthy of consideration. We succumb to the all-purpose ad hominem because it is easier and more comforting than rational argument. But when we do, we abandon what is great about this institution we serve."

heurist 10y ago
Maybe I should clarify. The left does need to stop calling their opponents names and ignoring hard truths. I love talking with people who can expose me to hard truths, even if I reflexively reject them. But the right also needs to open their perspective and understand how their goals affect people who are different from themselves. The GOP has seemingly lost all compassion for their fellow humans and that's what the left is rebelling against.