4 ms·

I never said the right is more reasoned than the left. I said that currently the progressive-left is sacrificing reason and that it will lead to a rise to the r

by Knufen 9y ago

I never said the right is more reasoned than the left. I said that currently the progressive-left is sacrificing reason and that it will lead to a rise to the right. This is just natural action-reaction. You are putting quite a lot of meaning into my sentence that isn't there, projecting is never useful in a discussion.

frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
>You are putting quite a lot of meaning into my sentence that isn't there, projecting is never useful in a discussion. Okay. >I said that currently the progressive-left is sacrificing reason and that it will lead to a rise to the right. No they're not. How is it that you think the 'progressive-left' is sacrificing reason?
- Knufen 9y ago
  By sharing black lists of employees with 'wrong' political opinions. This I consider a sacrifice of reason. To broaden the discussion a bit, I think that generally there is a trend of the 'progressive-left' censoring things they don't agree on.
  - otakucode 9y ago
    That was what I was going to point out. I understand peoples problems with colleges and what is painted as a rise of postmodernist thought in those arenas (which is really a fairly meaningless farce, many in college are still establishing their identity due to being prevented from doing so in adolescence by modern schooling and parenting styles, so they're doing the typical thing of seeing how far they can push ideas). Postmodernist thought has its place but is fundamentally flawed as a tool for addressing reality generally (to such a degree that if someone adopted it as a lifestyle honestly they would find themselves incapable of being certain whether they actually need to breathe or eat and they would swiftly die out). But, reason supports freedom of speech and of ideas. It does not support censorship. It supports even the free expression of even the most odious ideas, so that they may be addressed rationally. The only exceptions to this are very few and involve our human weakness of certain speech in close physical quarters or when packed into physically close groups being able to rise above speech to reach the level of overriding the rational faculties of the listener. That's where things like not shouting 'fire' in a crowded theater lie. It results in a biological disabling of the forebrain when immediate physical mortal danger is at play. That can never, ever, ever happen when a statement is read. Not from a poster, paper, book, pamphlet, and certainly not from a screen. There is an interesting argument to be made, though it is not really being made by any significant number that I've encountered, that the psychological manipulations of social media - the intentional things they do to optimize driving people to more extreme opinions and inundating people with false information in order to maximize engagement at the expense of absolutely anything else - might need to be treated differently, but even there the issue is not the speech. It's the manipulative analysis and other practices. I don't even think the real primary motivation of most censorship of repugnant ideas online is motivated by a belief like "these ideas are wrong and we must not expose people to them, else they may adopt them". I think the mindset is more along the lines of "these ideas are wrong... I feel. But I cannot actually justify. And I fear if someone challenges me to dispute them, I will fail." Reason also supports an absolute hard line distinction between the real and the fictional, a line which is increasingly ignored, though I chalk that up to factors that mostly go across political divisions. Both sides attribute the negative traits and consequences of real examples of things to images of those things without a second thought, conflating imagery and reality to a degree that it really makes me wonder if they could even explain what the difference is... or if they believe there is any difference.
- Helmet 9y ago
  > No they're not. How is it that you think the 'progressive-left' is sacrificing reason? Where do you want to start? - They actively contributed to an increased homicide rate and made neighborhoods more dangerous for minorities by pushing a false anti-police narrative, engaged in anti-police protests, sentiment, and actions. Their actions resulted in a pullback in policing in dangerous neighborhoods and massive spikes in crime rates. This is a view shared by many minorities, who wish for the police to return to their neighborhoods, so that they can feel safe. Source? How about the right-wing rag NPR: https://www.npr.org/2017/12/31/574824963/baltimore-residents-blame-record-high-murder-rate-on-lower-police-presence https://www.npr.org/2017/12/31/574824963/baltimore-residents... - They actively push pseudo-social science into fields where rigor, exactness, and soundness is most important, such as engineering, where errors can have catastrophic consequences: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/19378629.2017.1408631 http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/19378629.2017.14... - They viciously attack on ideological grounds any attempts at objective assessment when the statistics do not fit their narrative. Examples? There are hundreds, but how about professor David Gillhorn at the University of Birmingham, who says math serves "white interests" and: “frequently encode racist perspectives beneath the facade of supposed quantitative objectivity.” - They have, particularly on college campuses, collectively lost their minds. Please see the Evergreen State College incident, along with dozens of others. - Most of their social science experiments are absolute junk: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis Do you want me to keep going?
  - frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
    >Do you want me to keep going? Yes, I'd really like to gather all this up and look into it.
ng12 9y ago
I think that's a very real thing to consider. I'm very much a classical liberal and if this election has shown me anything it's that I'm not a Democrat anymore.
- ZeroGravitas 9y ago
  I see the phrase "classical liberal" a lot these days, is there an accepted definition of what the modern usage of "classical liberal" means? Do they believe in climate change? Do they vote for Trump? Do they think universal health coverage is more efficient? etc. What kind of concrete things do they support/oppose?
  - ng12 9y ago
    When I use the term to describe myself I mean that I care most about economic issues and less about social issues. Regulating banks, fixing healthcare, worker's rights, stabilizing the working and middle class, limiting the negative affects of globalization, etc. This election made it very clear to me that establishment democrats have largely dropped those ideals (except for a few I still admire like Warren) in favor of pushing social change.
    - ZeroGravitas 9y ago
      I have to admit that's not the contex I've seen it used elsewhere, where I'd mostly roughly translate it as libertarian. The word "Liberal" and it's various derivations are all over the place generally though for weird historical reasons.
      - ng12 9y ago
        Oh, I may be fudging the terminology. Want I want to say is a pre-Obama (maybe even pre-Clinton) Democrat.
        frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
        You mean Classical Liberal to be FDR types? Usually I see it used by conservatives who don't mind gays or weed.

by Knufen 9y ago

frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago

>You are putting quite a lot of meaning into my sentence that isn't there, projecting is never useful in a discussion. Okay. >I said that currently the progressive-left is sacrificing reason and that it will lead to a rise to the right. No they're not. How is it that you think the 'progressive-left' is sacrificing reason?

Knufen 9y ago
By sharing black lists of employees with 'wrong' political opinions. This I consider a sacrifice of reason. To broaden the discussion a bit, I think that generally there is a trend of the 'progressive-left' censoring things they don't agree on.
- otakucode 9y ago
  That was what I was going to point out. I understand peoples problems with colleges and what is painted as a rise of postmodernist thought in those arenas (which is really a fairly meaningless farce, many in college are still establishing their identity due to being prevented from doing so in adolescence by modern schooling and parenting styles, so they're doing the typical thing of seeing how far they can push ideas). Postmodernist thought has its place but is fundamentally flawed as a tool for addressing reality generally (to such a degree that if someone adopted it as a lifestyle honestly they would find themselves incapable of being certain whether they actually need to breathe or eat and they would swiftly die out). But, reason supports freedom of speech and of ideas. It does not support censorship. It supports even the free expression of even the most odious ideas, so that they may be addressed rationally. The only exceptions to this are very few and involve our human weakness of certain speech in close physical quarters or when packed into physically close groups being able to rise above speech to reach the level of overriding the rational faculties of the listener. That's where things like not shouting 'fire' in a crowded theater lie. It results in a biological disabling of the forebrain when immediate physical mortal danger is at play. That can never, ever, ever happen when a statement is read. Not from a poster, paper, book, pamphlet, and certainly not from a screen. There is an interesting argument to be made, though it is not really being made by any significant number that I've encountered, that the psychological manipulations of social media - the intentional things they do to optimize driving people to more extreme opinions and inundating people with false information in order to maximize engagement at the expense of absolutely anything else - might need to be treated differently, but even there the issue is not the speech. It's the manipulative analysis and other practices. I don't even think the real primary motivation of most censorship of repugnant ideas online is motivated by a belief like "these ideas are wrong and we must not expose people to them, else they may adopt them". I think the mindset is more along the lines of "these ideas are wrong... I feel. But I cannot actually justify. And I fear if someone challenges me to dispute them, I will fail." Reason also supports an absolute hard line distinction between the real and the fictional, a line which is increasingly ignored, though I chalk that up to factors that mostly go across political divisions. Both sides attribute the negative traits and consequences of real examples of things to images of those things without a second thought, conflating imagery and reality to a degree that it really makes me wonder if they could even explain what the difference is... or if they believe there is any difference.
Helmet 9y ago
> No they're not. How is it that you think the 'progressive-left' is sacrificing reason? Where do you want to start? - They actively contributed to an increased homicide rate and made neighborhoods more dangerous for minorities by pushing a false anti-police narrative, engaged in anti-police protests, sentiment, and actions. Their actions resulted in a pullback in policing in dangerous neighborhoods and massive spikes in crime rates. This is a view shared by many minorities, who wish for the police to return to their neighborhoods, so that they can feel safe. Source? How about the right-wing rag NPR: https://www.npr.org/2017/12/31/574824963/baltimore-residents-blame-record-high-murder-rate-on-lower-police-presence https://www.npr.org/2017/12/31/574824963/baltimore-residents... - They actively push pseudo-social science into fields where rigor, exactness, and soundness is most important, such as engineering, where errors can have catastrophic consequences: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/19378629.2017.1408631 http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/19378629.2017.14... - They viciously attack on ideological grounds any attempts at objective assessment when the statistics do not fit their narrative. Examples? There are hundreds, but how about professor David Gillhorn at the University of Birmingham, who says math serves "white interests" and: “frequently encode racist perspectives beneath the facade of supposed quantitative objectivity.” - They have, particularly on college campuses, collectively lost their minds. Please see the Evergreen State College incident, along with dozens of others. - Most of their social science experiments are absolute junk: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis Do you want me to keep going?
- frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
  >Do you want me to keep going? Yes, I'd really like to gather all this up and look into it.

ng12 9y ago

I think that's a very real thing to consider. I'm very much a classical liberal and if this election has shown me anything it's that I'm not a Democrat anymore.

ZeroGravitas 9y ago
I see the phrase "classical liberal" a lot these days, is there an accepted definition of what the modern usage of "classical liberal" means? Do they believe in climate change? Do they vote for Trump? Do they think universal health coverage is more efficient? etc. What kind of concrete things do they support/oppose?
- ng12 9y ago
  When I use the term to describe myself I mean that I care most about economic issues and less about social issues. Regulating banks, fixing healthcare, worker's rights, stabilizing the working and middle class, limiting the negative affects of globalization, etc. This election made it very clear to me that establishment democrats have largely dropped those ideals (except for a few I still admire like Warren) in favor of pushing social change.
  - ZeroGravitas 9y ago
    I have to admit that's not the contex I've seen it used elsewhere, where I'd mostly roughly translate it as libertarian. The word "Liberal" and it's various derivations are all over the place generally though for weird historical reasons.
    - ng12 9y ago
      Oh, I may be fudging the terminology. Want I want to say is a pre-Obama (maybe even pre-Clinton) Democrat.
      - frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
        You mean Classical Liberal to be FDR types? Usually I see it used by conservatives who don't mind gays or weed.