3 ms·

(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 tha

by 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.

joshuamorton 6y ago
I actually already addressed this argument: claiming that to be tolerant you must be tolerant of people you are intolerant of is a circular argument. The LGBT community is an outgroup in society, and by being more open to said societal outgroups, the left is more open minded in general. To rephrase, your assumption that to demonstrate open mindedness, one must act a certain way towards the outgroup is a self defeating premise. As soon as you provide the requisite amount of acceptance to the outgroup, they are no longer the outgroup, so you are no longer being open minded. Under this framing, everyone is exactly equally open-minded because open mindedness is encoded in our preexisting personal prejudices. A more useful definition of open mindedness is less relative to the person under the lens. And under this lens, the left is significantly more open minded. Progressives have been the side of social progress since the beginning of politics. That's why they're called conservatives and progressives. Arguing that conservatives are more open to new ideas than progressives seems challenging, given the definitions of the words. > The left considers people born into wealth to be morally wrong. The right does not. This is a straw argument. The left does not claim it is immoral to be born into wealth. There are claims about certain systems that pereptuate wealth being immoral, but those arguments don't ascribe some sort of original sin to babies of wealthy people.
- svrb 6y ago
  > As soon as you provide the requisite amount of acceptance to the outgroup, they are no longer the outgroup, so you are no longer being open minded. This may seem true if one can't conceive of being accepting of an outgroup. But if we apply this claim to my multiple examples of LGBT acceptance by the right (e.g., my family, Chick-fil-a) then we would (counterfactually) have to conclude that LGBT is an ingroup of the right. This contradicts your claim that "The LGBT community is an outgroup in society". It cannot simultaneously be true that LGBT is an outgroup of the right (surely a subset of society), that treating someone with respect and acceptance makes them an ingroup, and that LGBT are treated with respect and acceptance by at least some people on the right. How do you explain this contradiction? An argument based on the definitions of "progressive" and "conservative" is no better than saying North Korea is a democracy. In the past twenty years the left has had a shocking reversion to moral puritanism, such as by policing speech. This again contradicts the definitions, so unless we claim that it's reality which is wrong, then we must abandon the original meaning of the words. Finally, I frankly don't know how to respond to the notion that open-mindedness in the sense we're using it here, or the sense I thought we were using it here (viz. as a rough synonym of "tolerance"), has anything to do with the age of ideas. Moreover I dispute the claim that the left's ideas are primarily new, because they again seem to be a reversion to older ideas; for example, socialism (late 18th century) and the idea that society and history can only be properly be viewed through the lens of race (early to mid 20th century Germany).

by svrb 6y ago

joshuamorton 6y ago

I actually already addressed this argument: claiming that to be tolerant you must be tolerant of people you are intolerant of is a circular argument. The LGBT community is an outgroup in society, and by being more open to said societal outgroups, the left is more open minded in general. To rephrase, your assumption that to demonstrate open mindedness, one must act a certain way towards the outgroup is a self defeating premise. As soon as you provide the requisite amount of acceptance to the outgroup, they are no longer the outgroup, so you are no longer being open minded. Under this framing, everyone is exactly equally open-minded because open mindedness is encoded in our preexisting personal prejudices. A more useful definition of open mindedness is less relative to the person under the lens. And under this lens, the left is significantly more open minded. Progressives have been the side of social progress since the beginning of politics. That's why they're called conservatives and progressives. Arguing that conservatives are more open to new ideas than progressives seems challenging, given the definitions of the words. > The left considers people born into wealth to be morally wrong. The right does not. This is a straw argument. The left does not claim it is immoral to be born into wealth. There are claims about certain systems that pereptuate wealth being immoral, but those arguments don't ascribe some sort of original sin to babies of wealthy people.

svrb 6y ago
> As soon as you provide the requisite amount of acceptance to the outgroup, they are no longer the outgroup, so you are no longer being open minded. This may seem true if one can't conceive of being accepting of an outgroup. But if we apply this claim to my multiple examples of LGBT acceptance by the right (e.g., my family, Chick-fil-a) then we would (counterfactually) have to conclude that LGBT is an ingroup of the right. This contradicts your claim that "The LGBT community is an outgroup in society". It cannot simultaneously be true that LGBT is an outgroup of the right (surely a subset of society), that treating someone with respect and acceptance makes them an ingroup, and that LGBT are treated with respect and acceptance by at least some people on the right. How do you explain this contradiction? An argument based on the definitions of "progressive" and "conservative" is no better than saying North Korea is a democracy. In the past twenty years the left has had a shocking reversion to moral puritanism, such as by policing speech. This again contradicts the definitions, so unless we claim that it's reality which is wrong, then we must abandon the original meaning of the words. Finally, I frankly don't know how to respond to the notion that open-mindedness in the sense we're using it here, or the sense I thought we were using it here (viz. as a rough synonym of "tolerance"), has anything to do with the age of ideas. Moreover I dispute the claim that the left's ideas are primarily new, because they again seem to be a reversion to older ideas; for example, socialism (late 18th century) and the idea that society and history can only be properly be viewed through the lens of race (early to mid 20th century Germany).