6 ms·

Name me a couple of these views which haven't changed, and qualified you as left-leaning as a teenager but alt-right today.

whatshisface 8y ago
A person who believed in socialized healthcare but did not support gay marriage could well have been considered left-leaning in the US a decade ago.
- ianai 8y ago
  That’s more of a cultural change than political on gay rights.
  - AmericanChopper 8y ago
    It certianly is a political change. We’ve only had one president in our history who entered office supporting gay marriage.
philwelch 8y ago
Not @AmericanChopper, but I can easily do that: 1. Believing in the near-absolute protection of free speech, even that which I find repugnant. 2. Acknowledging that sex differences are less than 100% culturally determined.
- nepeckman 8y ago
  Believing in near-absolute protection of free speech is a lot easier when you're not the direct target of that "free speech." Not trying to assume your specific social location, but I know a lot of centrists who feel as you do, and they are white men. They might be repulsed by Nazi's who advocate ethnic cleansing, but I have to actually worry about what those people might do if they take power. I have a vested interest in making sure they cannot radicalize more people, and as such I am firmly for censoring them.
  - ianai 8y ago
    There’s also a difference between propaganda- especially foreign propaganda and free speech.
    - AmericanChopper 8y ago
      No there isn’t. People who oppose free speech have claimed to be protecting people from just about anything you can imagine. “I’m protecting you from...” is how every censorship effort in history has been framed. It’s not the government’s job to protect you from ideas you don’t like, and people who live in a free society have the responsibility to think for themselves.
  - philwelch 8y ago
    > Believing in near-absolute protection of free speech is a lot easier when you're not the direct target of that "free speech." Which is why I have a hell of a lot of respect for David Goldberger, the Jewish lawyer for the ACLU who defended the free speech of Neo-Nazis in 1977: https://kansaspress.ku.edu/978-0-7006-0941-3.html https://kansaspress.ku.edu/978-0-7006-0941-3.html The problem with your line of reasoning is that it forces you into what most on the left consider a very difficult fork. PREMISE: Imposing both government sanctions and private sector no-platforming is a justifiable response to murderous ideologies. (This is a decent, good-faith attempt to interpret the basic principle that seems to motivate people who say the things you say. In isolation, before you read the rest of my argument, I'm willing to bet that you would accept this premise as written. If you didn't, let me know.) 1. Communism is a murderous ideology. (See: all historical records of the 20th century.) Therefore, McCarthy did nothing wrong, and the members of the Hollywood Blacklist were merely the Alex Jones of their time. 2. Communism is not actually a murderous ideology. Therefore, Stalin did nothing wrong. The fork is basically that, once you accept the premise that allows you to censor and no-platform Nazis, you either have to be a McCarthyist or a Stalinist, or at least an apologist for one of them.
    - nepeckman 8y ago
      While I do agree with your stated premise, I disagree with the notion that agreeing with the premise forces me to choose between McCarthy and Stalin. My counter point is this: McCarthy started a witch hunt that targeted nonmurdous views as well. It's my impression that people advocating socialist policies (or any policy not strictly capitalist) were also targeted. I feel I can object to this, while also objecting to horrors wrought by Stalin. I'm not advocating the censorship of conservative views in general, just the murderous views expressed by a small faction. As a personal side note, I've been enjoying this discussion with you. If you are interested in keeping it up, I'll reply sometime in the morning EST.
- wilsonnb3 8y ago
  Neither of those makes you alt right. You'll find absolute free speech advocates on both the left and the right. It's more of a libertarian/authoritarian issue than a left/right issue. Only extremists on the left would disagree that sex differences are partially/fully biological (depending on how you're defining biological and sex).
  - philwelch 8y ago
    > Only extremists on the left would disagree that sex differences are partially/fully biological (depending on how you're defining biological and sex). Unfortunately, there were enough “extremists” to get both Larry Summers and James Damore fired.
    - sagarm 8y ago
      Summers and Damore exercised their first amendment right to free speech. Their employers decided they did not want to deal with the entirely predictable controversy both caused and exercised their first amendment right to freedom of association. Seems like the first amendment is intact to me.
      - ThrowawayR2 8y ago
        > Summers and Damore exercised their first amendment right to free speech. Since the government had no part in what happened to them, this is true in a trivial sense. However, it does not support whatever argument you are trying to make. > ... first amendment right to freedom of association People like to trot this out as an defense but they forget that freedom of association is not unlimited precisely because of its use in the past for discrimination. (Deeply ironic, is it not?) For example, the Federal Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Fair Housing Act of 1968 restrict freedom of association in that they require businesses and landlords / property sellers to serve people in protected classes in a fair manner. Some states even already offer limited protection from employers who discriminate against political affiliation; see, for example http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=LAB&sectionNum=1101 http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection... .
ianai 8y ago
I can maybe think of a few. In the 90s, the Democratic line was against giving most favored trading status to China, and the republicans wanted free trade with China. Paradoxically, Clinton let that through, IIRC. The reasoning was basically the US will be dwarfed by China’s size sooner or later - the best position for the US to maneuver to was as the strongest partner of them. I’d argue that’s changed more for reasons exogenous to the US political system and not representative of the total.

whatshisface 8y ago

A person who believed in socialized healthcare but did not support gay marriage could well have been considered left-leaning in the US a decade ago.

ianai 8y ago
That’s more of a cultural change than political on gay rights.
- AmericanChopper 8y ago
  It certianly is a political change. We’ve only had one president in our history who entered office supporting gay marriage.

philwelch 8y ago

Not @AmericanChopper, but I can easily do that: 1. Believing in the near-absolute protection of free speech, even that which I find repugnant. 2. Acknowledging that sex differences are less than 100% culturally determined.

nepeckman 8y ago
Believing in near-absolute protection of free speech is a lot easier when you're not the direct target of that "free speech." Not trying to assume your specific social location, but I know a lot of centrists who feel as you do, and they are white men. They might be repulsed by Nazi's who advocate ethnic cleansing, but I have to actually worry about what those people might do if they take power. I have a vested interest in making sure they cannot radicalize more people, and as such I am firmly for censoring them.
- ianai 8y ago
  There’s also a difference between propaganda- especially foreign propaganda and free speech.
  - AmericanChopper 8y ago
    No there isn’t. People who oppose free speech have claimed to be protecting people from just about anything you can imagine. “I’m protecting you from...” is how every censorship effort in history has been framed. It’s not the government’s job to protect you from ideas you don’t like, and people who live in a free society have the responsibility to think for themselves.
- philwelch 8y ago
  > Believing in near-absolute protection of free speech is a lot easier when you're not the direct target of that "free speech." Which is why I have a hell of a lot of respect for David Goldberger, the Jewish lawyer for the ACLU who defended the free speech of Neo-Nazis in 1977: https://kansaspress.ku.edu/978-0-7006-0941-3.html https://kansaspress.ku.edu/978-0-7006-0941-3.html The problem with your line of reasoning is that it forces you into what most on the left consider a very difficult fork. PREMISE: Imposing both government sanctions and private sector no-platforming is a justifiable response to murderous ideologies. (This is a decent, good-faith attempt to interpret the basic principle that seems to motivate people who say the things you say. In isolation, before you read the rest of my argument, I'm willing to bet that you would accept this premise as written. If you didn't, let me know.) 1. Communism is a murderous ideology. (See: all historical records of the 20th century.) Therefore, McCarthy did nothing wrong, and the members of the Hollywood Blacklist were merely the Alex Jones of their time. 2. Communism is not actually a murderous ideology. Therefore, Stalin did nothing wrong. The fork is basically that, once you accept the premise that allows you to censor and no-platform Nazis, you either have to be a McCarthyist or a Stalinist, or at least an apologist for one of them.
  - nepeckman 8y ago
    While I do agree with your stated premise, I disagree with the notion that agreeing with the premise forces me to choose between McCarthy and Stalin. My counter point is this: McCarthy started a witch hunt that targeted nonmurdous views as well. It's my impression that people advocating socialist policies (or any policy not strictly capitalist) were also targeted. I feel I can object to this, while also objecting to horrors wrought by Stalin. I'm not advocating the censorship of conservative views in general, just the murderous views expressed by a small faction. As a personal side note, I've been enjoying this discussion with you. If you are interested in keeping it up, I'll reply sometime in the morning EST.
wilsonnb3 8y ago
Neither of those makes you alt right. You'll find absolute free speech advocates on both the left and the right. It's more of a libertarian/authoritarian issue than a left/right issue. Only extremists on the left would disagree that sex differences are partially/fully biological (depending on how you're defining biological and sex).
- philwelch 8y ago
  > Only extremists on the left would disagree that sex differences are partially/fully biological (depending on how you're defining biological and sex). Unfortunately, there were enough “extremists” to get both Larry Summers and James Damore fired.
  - sagarm 8y ago
    Summers and Damore exercised their first amendment right to free speech. Their employers decided they did not want to deal with the entirely predictable controversy both caused and exercised their first amendment right to freedom of association. Seems like the first amendment is intact to me.
    - ThrowawayR2 8y ago
      > Summers and Damore exercised their first amendment right to free speech. Since the government had no part in what happened to them, this is true in a trivial sense. However, it does not support whatever argument you are trying to make. > ... first amendment right to freedom of association People like to trot this out as an defense but they forget that freedom of association is not unlimited precisely because of its use in the past for discrimination. (Deeply ironic, is it not?) For example, the Federal Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Fair Housing Act of 1968 restrict freedom of association in that they require businesses and landlords / property sellers to serve people in protected classes in a fair manner. Some states even already offer limited protection from employers who discriminate against political affiliation; see, for example http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=LAB&sectionNum=1101 http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection... .

ianai 8y ago

I can maybe think of a few. In the 90s, the Democratic line was against giving most favored trading status to China, and the republicans wanted free trade with China. Paradoxically, Clinton let that through, IIRC. The reasoning was basically the US will be dwarfed by China’s size sooner or later - the best position for the US to maneuver to was as the strongest partner of them. I’d argue that’s changed more for reasons exogenous to the US political system and not representative of the total.