4 ms·

See, I really don't think it's about liberalism vs leftism. I agree with the article. It's about those who think critically, and those who chose not to. Unfo

See, I really don't think it's about liberalism vs leftism. I agree with the article. It's about those who think critically, and those who chose not to. Unfortunately, the Internet gives voice to both groups equally, and idiots tend to have a lot of time on their hands to be exceptionally vocal on Twitter or other forms of social media. Since journalism has suffered so severely in the past decade, social media has just taken off as a source for every tiny criticism which just gets amplified. And there's no attempt to see how deep this outrage goes because depth doesn't make money in journalism anymore. Manufactured outrage is driving the conversation because it's sexy and gets views. Culturally, the underlying problem is that certain people have spent too long in echo chambers that have atrophied their ability to interpret criticism rationally or thoughtfully. It's to the point that it's gone beyond oppression olympics to outright witch hunting. Liberals are terrified of being accused of not being liberal because apparently not being a complete extremist in your beliefs means you're not dedicated or passionate about them or have no credibility. This is so unbelievable as to be absurd. Journalism and discussion have completely broken down into whichever side can throw the most hate at the other. It's just complete nonsense.

gizmo686 9y ago
I don't disagree with you. I personally see this problem as stemming from the Two Cultures problem (sciences vs humanities), with the humanities culture leaking out of academia, into the mainstream where it can do real harm. But, the current leftist movement, as far as I can tell, is a product of the humanities culture. In the current iteration of this fight, there seems to be, at a minimum, a liberal/science coalition, but I am not sure how fundamental that is. I actually avoid talking about this, because people tend to get far more offended when I attack the humanities culture relative to the leftist culture (probably because humanities students take an attack on the humanities much more personally; while most non-activists would not have such a personal attachment to "the left").
- greglindahl 9y ago
  Maybe people are unhappy because "humanities culture" is an extremely broad term which is terrible at describing your target? I mean, I'm a scientist, but I have a lot of artsy hobbies, and my initial impression when I hear "humanities culture" is "oh great, this is the next SJW or feminism label, used to dismiss things." Probably not what you intended.
- da_chicken 9y ago
  Oh, I definitely agree that a lot of this is an outgrowth of humanities in academia. I think it's clearly originating from gender and minority studies academic programs, and the translation from social sciences and cultural anthropology to general culture loses all the nuance and technical detail as well as the historic and academic background that informs all these terms. I took a few humanities courses in the late 90s, and all these ideas were clearly already present in those student's thinking. I shouldn't have difficulty passing a physical anthropology class just because I don't believe that all humans should be hunter-gatherers like the Bushmen (San) in Namibia. That was my first exposure to some very odd groupthink. I won't deny that women and minorities still face actual discrimination, but as some minority groups are being normalized in general culture, there seems to be a drive from the same people to normalize every potential minority no matter how small or unusual. Simply put, there's a limited amount of accommodation that's reasonable to make. We're at the stage where some of the minorities that are left are well below 0.1% of the population and they don't face significant discrimination due to appearance like races and women do. Maybe someday there will be an "Other" on a form for gender, but it's not ever going to be there on a medical form where genetic sex has a real and meaningful impact on your healthcare treatment. However, I still don't think it's necessarily a good idea to separate leftists from liberals. First of all because I'm not entirely sure how large this "leftist" group actually is. I suspect that it's actually radically smaller than the group of liberals, and it's only the Internet and social media and shitty journalism that reads individual Tweets from regular citizens on the national news that amplifies their voices. Furthermore, I don't see why they wouldn't be better classified simply as radical liberals. Just because they have extreme views doesn't make them less liberal, just less centrist. In a time when being centrist and favoring compromise is apparently a sign of weak morals, I can understand the desire to instead excise that group entirely, but I really don't believe that's correct. I think it's also useful to note that in most European countries, they always seem to have four or five political parties: far left/liberal, left/liberal, central, right/conservative, and far right/conservative. Sometimes you'll see multiple parties in each area or an occasional party that breaks these -- some parties might be left/conservative or right/liberal -- but by and large most can still be pegged to one of those five, and the parties clustered around the middle always tend to get the most seats. It's possible that the geography and politics of the US has simply allowed the far left to stay hidden within the normal left, largely because our election process tends to favor rural communities slightly, and they tend toward conservative and right.
closeparen 9y ago
See, you're subscribing to the model where there is an objective truth that we access through rational methods, empiricism, and debate, where the outputs of the process you call "critical thinking" are to be privileged over other statements. The new leftism rejects your premise. According to my college classmates, the notion of objective reality is a social construct popularized by white men to reinforce their power. I don't know how much credence that particular claim gets, but the broader context is apparently a whole academic movement [0]. Guess I took the wrong philosophy sequence. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postmodernism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postmodernism
- da_chicken 9y ago
  No, I'm subscribing to the idea that relabeling things and being sectarian isn't particularly useful, especially because sectarianism is exactly the problem. Just because there are idiots who are liberals doesn't mean we need a new category for them so they aren't called liberals because they might make liberals look bad.

gizmo686 9y ago

I don't disagree with you. I personally see this problem as stemming from the Two Cultures problem (sciences vs humanities), with the humanities culture leaking out of academia, into the mainstream where it can do real harm. But, the current leftist movement, as far as I can tell, is a product of the humanities culture. In the current iteration of this fight, there seems to be, at a minimum, a liberal/science coalition, but I am not sure how fundamental that is. I actually avoid talking about this, because people tend to get far more offended when I attack the humanities culture relative to the leftist culture (probably because humanities students take an attack on the humanities much more personally; while most non-activists would not have such a personal attachment to "the left").

greglindahl 9y ago
Maybe people are unhappy because "humanities culture" is an extremely broad term which is terrible at describing your target? I mean, I'm a scientist, but I have a lot of artsy hobbies, and my initial impression when I hear "humanities culture" is "oh great, this is the next SJW or feminism label, used to dismiss things." Probably not what you intended.
da_chicken 9y ago
Oh, I definitely agree that a lot of this is an outgrowth of humanities in academia. I think it's clearly originating from gender and minority studies academic programs, and the translation from social sciences and cultural anthropology to general culture loses all the nuance and technical detail as well as the historic and academic background that informs all these terms. I took a few humanities courses in the late 90s, and all these ideas were clearly already present in those student's thinking. I shouldn't have difficulty passing a physical anthropology class just because I don't believe that all humans should be hunter-gatherers like the Bushmen (San) in Namibia. That was my first exposure to some very odd groupthink. I won't deny that women and minorities still face actual discrimination, but as some minority groups are being normalized in general culture, there seems to be a drive from the same people to normalize every potential minority no matter how small or unusual. Simply put, there's a limited amount of accommodation that's reasonable to make. We're at the stage where some of the minorities that are left are well below 0.1% of the population and they don't face significant discrimination due to appearance like races and women do. Maybe someday there will be an "Other" on a form for gender, but it's not ever going to be there on a medical form where genetic sex has a real and meaningful impact on your healthcare treatment. However, I still don't think it's necessarily a good idea to separate leftists from liberals. First of all because I'm not entirely sure how large this "leftist" group actually is. I suspect that it's actually radically smaller than the group of liberals, and it's only the Internet and social media and shitty journalism that reads individual Tweets from regular citizens on the national news that amplifies their voices. Furthermore, I don't see why they wouldn't be better classified simply as radical liberals. Just because they have extreme views doesn't make them less liberal, just less centrist. In a time when being centrist and favoring compromise is apparently a sign of weak morals, I can understand the desire to instead excise that group entirely, but I really don't believe that's correct. I think it's also useful to note that in most European countries, they always seem to have four or five political parties: far left/liberal, left/liberal, central, right/conservative, and far right/conservative. Sometimes you'll see multiple parties in each area or an occasional party that breaks these -- some parties might be left/conservative or right/liberal -- but by and large most can still be pegged to one of those five, and the parties clustered around the middle always tend to get the most seats. It's possible that the geography and politics of the US has simply allowed the far left to stay hidden within the normal left, largely because our election process tends to favor rural communities slightly, and they tend toward conservative and right.

closeparen 9y ago

See, you're subscribing to the model where there is an objective truth that we access through rational methods, empiricism, and debate, where the outputs of the process you call "critical thinking" are to be privileged over other statements. The new leftism rejects your premise. According to my college classmates, the notion of objective reality is a social construct popularized by white men to reinforce their power. I don't know how much credence that particular claim gets, but the broader context is apparently a whole academic movement [0]. Guess I took the wrong philosophy sequence. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postmodernism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postmodernism

da_chicken 9y ago
No, I'm subscribing to the idea that relabeling things and being sectarian isn't particularly useful, especially because sectarianism is exactly the problem. Just because there are idiots who are liberals doesn't mean we need a new category for them so they aren't called liberals because they might make liberals look bad.