3 ms·

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

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.

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.