6 ms·

> open-mindedness of the left Did you even read the article? How is cancel culture "open-minded"? I'm legitimately confused and shook at how you could come to

by svrb 6y ago

> open-mindedness of the left Did you even read the article? How is cancel culture "open-minded"? I'm legitimately confused and shook at how you could come to that conclusion... It would be really helpful if you could explain it.

krapp 6y ago
Why do you believe "the left" is entirely defined by "cancel culture?"
- svrb 6y ago
  I don't, but I believe "cancel culture" is entirely defined by the left, so again I find the notion of the left being "open-minded" entirely contrary to all lived experience. Can you point to a single piece of evidence for the left being more open-minded?
  - joshuamorton 6y ago
    Gay marriage is still openly advocated against by the right.
    - svrb 6y ago
      How does that demonstrate open-mindedness by the left? The left is (ostensibly) universally supportive of LGBT rights. Liking the in-group is not a demonstration of open-mindedness. (Unless, of course, you're saying there's something inherently out-group about LGBT; i.e., there's something inherently wrong with it. It would not be charitable of me to assume that this is what you meant, but it's the only way I can make "Supporting LGBT is a demonstration of open-mindedness" into a true sentence. Otherwise... it's never the case that supporting any group—other than the out-group, i.e., the morally wrong group—is a demonstration of open-mindedness. So I don't think it applies to LGBT.)
      - joshuamorton 6y ago
        I'm pointing out that the right is more closed minded. > Unless, of course, you're saying there's something inherently out-group about LGBT Yes, it's called being in the minority[0]. I'm not sure what gymnastics you're playing trying to make "out group" equivalent to "something wrong", but that's your addition to the conversation, and not something I ever suggested. Let me repeat that: there is nothing morally wrong about being in an outgroup. To suggest such a thing is closed minded. I would say this demonstrates my point, given that you appear to identify as part of "the right". [0]: ok there's a bit more to it than this, normally involving prejudice from the ingroup. But this still doesn't really change anything relevant. The right is certainly more of an ingroup than the LGBT community. Compare the number of right wing congressional representatives to the number of openly LGBT ones.
        svrb 6y ago
        > given that you appear to identify as part of "the right". What leads you to believe this? Because I'm asking probing questions about the left? Is asking questions in order to learn a trait of someone on the right, and not the left? Big if true, and I'm surprised that you're promoting this viewpoint. > To suggest such a thing is closed minded. First of all, this doesn't follow from any evidence in the discussion so far. But to accuse me of this also ignores the most important word in my sentence, whose formatting you've stripped: "inherently". I was saying that the way to become part of an "inherent" outgroup (i.e. not contingently) is to be morally wrong. But I did not say that LGBT is part of an inherent outgroup. In fact I said literally the exact opposite thing: I said that LGBT is not part of the outgroup of the left, implying that they're not somehow inherently an outgroup. I'm not even sure that there's any such thing as an inherent outgroup; I used the phrase only as part of a counterfactual attempt to derive meaning from your original claims. It's very frustrating to discuss anything with people who insist on deliberately (as far as I can tell, since I assume a certain baseline reading comprehension from HN commenters) misinterpreting my words, such as by dropping important qualifiers from parenthetical, counterfactual claims and then presenting the resulting manufactured sentence as if I had expressed it as a sincerely held belief! How can you justify such behavior in the pursuit of truth? ---- I can't reply any deeper, but here's my response: You: > inherent in an outgroup What I actually said from the very beginning: > inherent outgroup You: > You are now claiming that lgbt people are not an outgroup of the left What I actually said from the very beginning: > The left is universally supportive of LGBT rights. You: > To suggest moral failings due solely to being a member of an outgroup is prejudiced and closed minded. What I actually said from the very beginning: > I don't think it [being morally wrong] applies to LGBT In each of these cases, why do you feel it is a useful conversational practice to lie about what I said, when thanks to the power of the internet it's right there for anyone to see? Or is the conversation so emotionally difficult that you honestly believe that I've made claims which are the exact opposite of what I actually said? Either way, I don't think this conversation is going anywhere. I hope you too find peace. --- I see you wish to continue the conversation. I too think I have something useful to say about your new claims. However, I cannot continue with the conversation unless you repudiate and delete all of your claims about what I've said and allow my words alone to speak for me. On what other grounds could I possibly continue the conversation?! Until you do that I can only assume you wish to continue in bad faith.
    - svrb 6y ago
      (Continuing from bottom of original thread.) If you are finally willing to accept an explanation of what I originally meant, instead of once again claiming that my immediate and complete repudiation of things I never said is just further evidence that I believe—checks notes—some different things I never said, then I guess that's good enough. But I'm merely restating something I already said, so I trust that anyone acting in good faith will not turn around and claim that I've changed what I'm saying. > (Unless, of course, you're saying [snip for restatement below]) This entire parenthetical which has caused so much grief and/or hysteria is an attempt at counterfactual inductive reasoning. (I tried to set it off with "unless...you're saying...It would not be charitable of me to assume...it's the only way I can make [sense of something you said]". It was a classic ASD mistake for me to assume that this was sufficient for such an emotionally charged subject, I admit.) Maybe I can make it more clear: You claimed that left acceptance of LGBT is evidence of open-mindedness. I pointed out that you don't get open-mindedness credits for accepting something you already believe. As an exercise in inductive reasoning I was trying to figure out what it would take for your original claim to be true in light of my addendum. For my protection, what should be an unnecessary disclaimer: THE FOLLOWING IS A COUNTERFACTUAL VIEWPOINT TO EXPLORE AN IDEA SPACE, NOT SOMETHING I BELIEVE. In order for the left's acceptance of LGBT to be an example of open-mindedness, it would be necessary for LGBT really to be an outgroup of the left (inductive reasoning), so that when the left would treat LGBT like an ingroup they were really practicing open-mindedness (counterfactual). But the only way LGBT could be an outgroup of the left (which it isn't: counterfactual reasoning) is if it were (hint: subjunctive means counterfactual) so "out" that it's a natural outgroup of everyone[0]. How could some group be an outgroup of everyone? They would have to be (counterfactual! inductive!) morally wrong according to the very few shared moral principles of the left and the right. But since this is obviously not the case, we conclude that it's impossible for left acceptance of LGBT to be evidence of open-mindedness. > The right considers lgbt people to be morally wrong. The left does not. This makes the right more intolerant than the left. Yes, yes, this is just the same argument in different words. I addressed it above by pointing out that you don't get open-mindedness points for making the ingroup an ingroup, because... they're already an ingroup. No ingroup gets you open-mindedness points. Only accepting and coexisting with outgroups is open-minded. But with your new statement of the same point I can address it in a different way too: The left considers people born into wealth to be morally wrong. The right does not. This makes the left more intolerant than the right.[1] Now of course you don't agree. The usual reasoning trotted out is "but being LGBT is something you're born with, so it's not okay to discriminate on that basis, but everything that the left discriminates on is different and it's okay!" Well first of all this is why I said "people born into wealth", as awkward as it makes the argument. But the objection is wrong anyways, because the left has simply defined all the spectra along which they accept all points as part of "identity" while all the spectra along which there are some unacceptable points (e.g., along the "believes in welfare only"..."believes in charity only" spectrum, only points closer to "believes in welfare only" are acceptable for the left) as part of not-identity, "mutable" characteristics. So in the end both the original statement and also this objection are just examples of assuming the conclusion by declaring that the left's ingroups and outgroups are "right" and the right's ingroups and outgroups are "wrong". According to this way of looking at the world, making LGBT an ingroup is righteous but making wealthy people an outgroup is also righteous, and doing the opposite is wrong and intolerant. Well of course when you make that assumption, then you can only possibly conclude that the right is "more intolerant", because they have made outgroups of all the wrong groups! Neither the left or the right has a "more tolerant" or "more open-minded" set of ingroups and outgroups because, dare I repeat it again, you don't get open-mindedness points for who is in your ingroups and outgroups, only for how you treat the outgroups. How does the majority of the right treat LGBT? And how does the majority of the left treat people in their outgroups? I'd much rather be LGBT in a mostly right-leaning place than, say, publicly ask questions about the left on somewhere, like, say, HN. Because I've been both, and I am both. And the right treats me far better than the left does; in fact there's no contest because literally no one cares that I'm LGBT—I'm not even the only one in my way-to-the-right-of-me family, and no one bats an eye—but if I even have a question about leftist ideology, let alone actually identifying with an outgroup, it's end of the world level hysteria, making up wild stories about what a crazy right-wing fascist Trumpist racist misogynist Nazi like me must be dogwhistling about. What a nightmare. The right has never been anything but entirely tolerant of whatever beliefs I hold which differ from theirs; and every time I'm accused of being on the right myself, I believe it a little more and more every time. Another non-personal example is Chick-fil-a. Let's see here... Chick-fil-a serves anyone and everyone with respect and doesn't give a shit who you are as long as you just want to buy a fucking chicken sandwich. And frankly in the south LGBT people love Chick-fil-a as much as anyone; maybe more because you are fucking guaranteed never ever to be discriminated against by their employees. It's not even conceivable. But the west coast elite now... they boycott a business for the sole reason that—how terrifying—the founder believes the wrong things! And therefore every franchisee, every employee, they are all outgroup and not deserving of patronage, and anyone who patronizes them is also evil. Being seen talking to someone wearing a CFA uniform is also sacrilege I'm sure. Wow. Many tolerant, so open-mindedness, wow. [0] Even though AFAICT, as much as I dislike the guy Trump did have the most legitimately pro-LGBT post-primary presidential campaign ever in 2016; not a statement I expect you to agree with though. [1]Incidentally, this isn't counterfactual, it's just equally as meaningless as your statement.
  - krapp 6y ago
    >I don't, but I believe "cancel culture" is entirely defined by the left, so again I find the notion of the left being "open-minded" entirely contrary to all lived experience. So.. you actually do. Otherwise the idea of an open minded leftist wouldn't be incomprehensible to you. > Can you point to a single piece of evidence for the left being more open-minded? Leftist philosophy has its roots in the French Revolution and the Renaissance, it and the left/right political axis wasn't invented on Tumblr. Traditionally, leftist belief tends to be the secular and progressive counterpart to the conservatism and religious ideology of the right, so by definition, the left tends to be open to new ideas, whereas the right wants to maintain the status quo. The left was more open minded about secular science versus religion when the right was burning heretics. The left was more open minded about the viability of models of government other than rule by the Church and a King. The Magna Carta, Declaration of the Rights of Man and US Constitution are all leftist in principle. The left is more open minded about sexual identity, accepting LGBT culture and nonbinary gender identity, as opposed to the right. The left is more open minded about race and gender roles, being the side that embraces civil rights and feminism, rather than the right. The left is more open minded about sexual expression than the right, which still believes any sexual expression outside of monogamous, heterosexual marriage is immoral. The left is more open minded about cultural and artistic expression than the right. The left writes most of the books that get burned and movies that get banned, because the left is the side constantly transgressing societal norms (which makes them more open minded about than the right in that regard.) The hacker ethos[0] is entirely leftist, and I can't think of a more open minded philosophy. The right definitely would not have come up with something that threatened the gatekeepers and information brokers keeping Ma Bell, the big 3 tv networks and newspapers at the top of the information pyramid. And here's something that will blow your mind - not every leftist agrees with cancel culture. Leftists are even more open minded about that than the right, which, like yourself, seems to see the left as some kind of SJW hivemind. [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hacker_ethic https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hacker_ethic
    - svrb 6y ago
      > So.. you actually do. > like yourself, seems to see the left as some kind of SJW hivemind. I'm unable to have a meaningful discussion here as long as you are putting words in my mouth. I'm not sure why you decided it was necessary to embark on this ideological crusade due to my honest question but I hope you find peace somehow.

by svrb 6y ago

krapp 6y ago

Why do you believe "the left" is entirely defined by "cancel culture?"

svrb 6y ago
I don't, but I believe "cancel culture" is entirely defined by the left, so again I find the notion of the left being "open-minded" entirely contrary to all lived experience. Can you point to a single piece of evidence for the left being more open-minded?
- joshuamorton 6y ago
  Gay marriage is still openly advocated against by the right.
  - svrb 6y ago
    How does that demonstrate open-mindedness by the left? The left is (ostensibly) universally supportive of LGBT rights. Liking the in-group is not a demonstration of open-mindedness. (Unless, of course, you're saying there's something inherently out-group about LGBT; i.e., there's something inherently wrong with it. It would not be charitable of me to assume that this is what you meant, but it's the only way I can make "Supporting LGBT is a demonstration of open-mindedness" into a true sentence. Otherwise... it's never the case that supporting any group—other than the out-group, i.e., the morally wrong group—is a demonstration of open-mindedness. So I don't think it applies to LGBT.)
    - joshuamorton 6y ago
      I'm pointing out that the right is more closed minded. > Unless, of course, you're saying there's something inherently out-group about LGBT Yes, it's called being in the minority[0]. I'm not sure what gymnastics you're playing trying to make "out group" equivalent to "something wrong", but that's your addition to the conversation, and not something I ever suggested. Let me repeat that: there is nothing morally wrong about being in an outgroup. To suggest such a thing is closed minded. I would say this demonstrates my point, given that you appear to identify as part of "the right". [0]: ok there's a bit more to it than this, normally involving prejudice from the ingroup. But this still doesn't really change anything relevant. The right is certainly more of an ingroup than the LGBT community. Compare the number of right wing congressional representatives to the number of openly LGBT ones.
      - svrb 6y ago
        > given that you appear to identify as part of "the right". What leads you to believe this? Because I'm asking probing questions about the left? Is asking questions in order to learn a trait of someone on the right, and not the left? Big if true, and I'm surprised that you're promoting this viewpoint. > To suggest such a thing is closed minded. First of all, this doesn't follow from any evidence in the discussion so far. But to accuse me of this also ignores the most important word in my sentence, whose formatting you've stripped: "inherently". I was saying that the way to become part of an "inherent" outgroup (i.e. not contingently) is to be morally wrong. But I did not say that LGBT is part of an inherent outgroup. In fact I said literally the exact opposite thing: I said that LGBT is not part of the outgroup of the left, implying that they're not somehow inherently an outgroup. I'm not even sure that there's any such thing as an inherent outgroup; I used the phrase only as part of a counterfactual attempt to derive meaning from your original claims. It's very frustrating to discuss anything with people who insist on deliberately (as far as I can tell, since I assume a certain baseline reading comprehension from HN commenters) misinterpreting my words, such as by dropping important qualifiers from parenthetical, counterfactual claims and then presenting the resulting manufactured sentence as if I had expressed it as a sincerely held belief! How can you justify such behavior in the pursuit of truth? ---- I can't reply any deeper, but here's my response: You: > inherent in an outgroup What I actually said from the very beginning: > inherent outgroup You: > You are now claiming that lgbt people are not an outgroup of the left What I actually said from the very beginning: > The left is universally supportive of LGBT rights. You: > To suggest moral failings due solely to being a member of an outgroup is prejudiced and closed minded. What I actually said from the very beginning: > I don't think it [being morally wrong] applies to LGBT In each of these cases, why do you feel it is a useful conversational practice to lie about what I said, when thanks to the power of the internet it's right there for anyone to see? Or is the conversation so emotionally difficult that you honestly believe that I've made claims which are the exact opposite of what I actually said? Either way, I don't think this conversation is going anywhere. I hope you too find peace. --- I see you wish to continue the conversation. I too think I have something useful to say about your new claims. However, I cannot continue with the conversation unless you repudiate and delete all of your claims about what I've said and allow my words alone to speak for me. On what other grounds could I possibly continue the conversation?! Until you do that I can only assume you wish to continue in bad faith.
  - svrb 6y ago
    (Continuing from bottom of original thread.) If you are finally willing to accept an explanation of what I originally meant, instead of once again claiming that my immediate and complete repudiation of things I never said is just further evidence that I believe—checks notes—some different things I never said, then I guess that's good enough. But I'm merely restating something I already said, so I trust that anyone acting in good faith will not turn around and claim that I've changed what I'm saying. > (Unless, of course, you're saying [snip for restatement below]) This entire parenthetical which has caused so much grief and/or hysteria is an attempt at counterfactual inductive reasoning. (I tried to set it off with "unless...you're saying...It would not be charitable of me to assume...it's the only way I can make [sense of something you said]". It was a classic ASD mistake for me to assume that this was sufficient for such an emotionally charged subject, I admit.) Maybe I can make it more clear: You claimed that left acceptance of LGBT is evidence of open-mindedness. I pointed out that you don't get open-mindedness credits for accepting something you already believe. As an exercise in inductive reasoning I was trying to figure out what it would take for your original claim to be true in light of my addendum. For my protection, what should be an unnecessary disclaimer: THE FOLLOWING IS A COUNTERFACTUAL VIEWPOINT TO EXPLORE AN IDEA SPACE, NOT SOMETHING I BELIEVE. In order for the left's acceptance of LGBT to be an example of open-mindedness, it would be necessary for LGBT really to be an outgroup of the left (inductive reasoning), so that when the left would treat LGBT like an ingroup they were really practicing open-mindedness (counterfactual). But the only way LGBT could be an outgroup of the left (which it isn't: counterfactual reasoning) is if it were (hint: subjunctive means counterfactual) so "out" that it's a natural outgroup of everyone[0]. How could some group be an outgroup of everyone? They would have to be (counterfactual! inductive!) morally wrong according to the very few shared moral principles of the left and the right. But since this is obviously not the case, we conclude that it's impossible for left acceptance of LGBT to be evidence of open-mindedness. > The right considers lgbt people to be morally wrong. The left does not. This makes the right more intolerant than the left. Yes, yes, this is just the same argument in different words. I addressed it above by pointing out that you don't get open-mindedness points for making the ingroup an ingroup, because... they're already an ingroup. No ingroup gets you open-mindedness points. Only accepting and coexisting with outgroups is open-minded. But with your new statement of the same point I can address it in a different way too: The left considers people born into wealth to be morally wrong. The right does not. This makes the left more intolerant than the right.[1] Now of course you don't agree. The usual reasoning trotted out is "but being LGBT is something you're born with, so it's not okay to discriminate on that basis, but everything that the left discriminates on is different and it's okay!" Well first of all this is why I said "people born into wealth", as awkward as it makes the argument. But the objection is wrong anyways, because the left has simply defined all the spectra along which they accept all points as part of "identity" while all the spectra along which there are some unacceptable points (e.g., along the "believes in welfare only"..."believes in charity only" spectrum, only points closer to "believes in welfare only" are acceptable for the left) as part of not-identity, "mutable" characteristics. So in the end both the original statement and also this objection are just examples of assuming the conclusion by declaring that the left's ingroups and outgroups are "right" and the right's ingroups and outgroups are "wrong". According to this way of looking at the world, making LGBT an ingroup is righteous but making wealthy people an outgroup is also righteous, and doing the opposite is wrong and intolerant. Well of course when you make that assumption, then you can only possibly conclude that the right is "more intolerant", because they have made outgroups of all the wrong groups! Neither the left or the right has a "more tolerant" or "more open-minded" set of ingroups and outgroups because, dare I repeat it again, you don't get open-mindedness points for who is in your ingroups and outgroups, only for how you treat the outgroups. How does the majority of the right treat LGBT? And how does the majority of the left treat people in their outgroups? I'd much rather be LGBT in a mostly right-leaning place than, say, publicly ask questions about the left on somewhere, like, say, HN. Because I've been both, and I am both. And the right treats me far better than the left does; in fact there's no contest because literally no one cares that I'm LGBT—I'm not even the only one in my way-to-the-right-of-me family, and no one bats an eye—but if I even have a question about leftist ideology, let alone actually identifying with an outgroup, it's end of the world level hysteria, making up wild stories about what a crazy right-wing fascist Trumpist racist misogynist Nazi like me must be dogwhistling about. What a nightmare. The right has never been anything but entirely tolerant of whatever beliefs I hold which differ from theirs; and every time I'm accused of being on the right myself, I believe it a little more and more every time. Another non-personal example is Chick-fil-a. Let's see here... Chick-fil-a serves anyone and everyone with respect and doesn't give a shit who you are as long as you just want to buy a fucking chicken sandwich. And frankly in the south LGBT people love Chick-fil-a as much as anyone; maybe more because you are fucking guaranteed never ever to be discriminated against by their employees. It's not even conceivable. But the west coast elite now... they boycott a business for the sole reason that—how terrifying—the founder believes the wrong things! And therefore every franchisee, every employee, they are all outgroup and not deserving of patronage, and anyone who patronizes them is also evil. Being seen talking to someone wearing a CFA uniform is also sacrilege I'm sure. Wow. Many tolerant, so open-mindedness, wow. [0] Even though AFAICT, as much as I dislike the guy Trump did have the most legitimately pro-LGBT post-primary presidential campaign ever in 2016; not a statement I expect you to agree with though. [1]Incidentally, this isn't counterfactual, it's just equally as meaningless as your statement.
- krapp 6y ago
  >I don't, but I believe "cancel culture" is entirely defined by the left, so again I find the notion of the left being "open-minded" entirely contrary to all lived experience. So.. you actually do. Otherwise the idea of an open minded leftist wouldn't be incomprehensible to you. > Can you point to a single piece of evidence for the left being more open-minded? Leftist philosophy has its roots in the French Revolution and the Renaissance, it and the left/right political axis wasn't invented on Tumblr. Traditionally, leftist belief tends to be the secular and progressive counterpart to the conservatism and religious ideology of the right, so by definition, the left tends to be open to new ideas, whereas the right wants to maintain the status quo. The left was more open minded about secular science versus religion when the right was burning heretics. The left was more open minded about the viability of models of government other than rule by the Church and a King. The Magna Carta, Declaration of the Rights of Man and US Constitution are all leftist in principle. The left is more open minded about sexual identity, accepting LGBT culture and nonbinary gender identity, as opposed to the right. The left is more open minded about race and gender roles, being the side that embraces civil rights and feminism, rather than the right. The left is more open minded about sexual expression than the right, which still believes any sexual expression outside of monogamous, heterosexual marriage is immoral. The left is more open minded about cultural and artistic expression than the right. The left writes most of the books that get burned and movies that get banned, because the left is the side constantly transgressing societal norms (which makes them more open minded about than the right in that regard.) The hacker ethos[0] is entirely leftist, and I can't think of a more open minded philosophy. The right definitely would not have come up with something that threatened the gatekeepers and information brokers keeping Ma Bell, the big 3 tv networks and newspapers at the top of the information pyramid. And here's something that will blow your mind - not every leftist agrees with cancel culture. Leftists are even more open minded about that than the right, which, like yourself, seems to see the left as some kind of SJW hivemind. [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hacker_ethic https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hacker_ethic
  - svrb 6y ago
    > So.. you actually do. > like yourself, seems to see the left as some kind of SJW hivemind. I'm unable to have a meaningful discussion here as long as you are putting words in my mouth. I'm not sure why you decided it was necessary to embark on this ideological crusade due to my honest question but I hope you find peace somehow.