19 ms·

I agree with the spirit of your words. I think that the subtext of your post (or at least people that espouse similar things on the internet) is that this is th

I agree with the spirit of your words. I think that the subtext of your post (or at least people that espouse similar things on the internet) is that this is the fault of a certain brand of American politics (left leaning, "SJW" types) that don't engage with many right-leaning people. The frustrating (and silly) thing is that this argument is used a lot to attack left-leaning folks who _do_ engage with many people whose experience and world view are very different from them... like people who are homeless, immigrants from other countries, people who are racially minoritized, people who are disabled. For many people who don't experience those kinds of life experiences, building relationships with those folks can be really tough and bring into question a lot of the foundations of their world view. The argument that left-leaning people won't engage with right-leaning people often feels like it's used as an excuse for right-leaning folks to use rhetoric and hold positions that routinely disenfranchise and threaten the safety of the kind of people that left-leaning people have worked to empathize with and build relationships without consequence. That the people who continue to have right-leaning views don't seem interested in putting in the same _effort_ to empathize and build relationships with people other than themselves is both hypocritical and not surprising to me. Finally, engaging with "challenging" opinions is all well and good as a mental exercise, but building and maintaining a relationship with someone is a project that requires continuous work (even as just a friendship) and I think it's worthwhile to be selective in the people who you put in that kind of work for.

watwut 6y ago
> I think that the subtext of your post (or at least people that espouse similar things on the internet) is that this is the fault of a certain brand of American politics (left leaning, "SJW" types) that don't engage with many right-leaning people. I would like to know how many "right winger" did actively and honestly engaged with feminists texts. Not even with radical feminists texts, just with a mild moderate variety or with those who were radical back then and not anymore. Cause it seems to me that very little. Not that they have to, but they dont go that far in range as they pretend. They do read range where range is within what they like or where range is completely irrelevant to our lives. It is also currently right wing that seeks to suppress actual fields of study on Universities. It is also my experience is that many (not all) right people simply "know" the text is stupid without ever reading it. They also "know" that if movie pleases feminist crowd it is bad without seeing that movie. And working in more conservative environment, I was careful not to say things that could be constructed as near-feminist, because that would lower my "trustworthiness" in other arenas too.
- deathgrips 6y ago
  "Right wingers" don't have a monopoly on ignorance. People of every ideology are unwilling to listen to opposing viewpoints, read controversial books, and rate movies based on the social context rather than the artistic content. Pointing at the worse parts of only one ideology is counterproductive.
  - watwut 6y ago
    I haven't said that. Nor that they have monopoly nor that all of them are like that. But the ideological subgroup specifically who throw around "listening to other viewpoints" a lot tend to be the kind who seriously engage only with view points comfortable to them. As in, there is talk about uncomfortable viewpoints, but their idea of uncomfortable viewpoint is someone telling them they are superior and they disagreeing cause they are more egalitarian. Which is not uncomfortable at all.
    - renewiltord 6y ago
      Hahaha, this is far too true. I think anyone who says "You should listen to other viewpoints" and intends that to be "this is why you should listen to me" has some massive lack of self-awareness. Listening to other viewpoints is like invoking Crocker's Rules. You can't invoke the rules on other people. Only yourself. You just don't have the information to determine whether you're worth listening to. Because you will always think you're worth listening to.
    - deathgrips 6y ago
      Is that better or worse than saying that your own ideology has a monopoly on truth and it is impermissible to let others talk about opposing ideas?
- cik2e 6y ago
  > It is also currently right wing that seeks to suppress actual fields of study on Universities. Care to share your feelings on the far left push to suppress science and mathematics? > And working in more conservative environment, I was careful not to say things that could be constructed as near-feminist, because that would lower my "trustworthiness" in other arenas too. The opposite is certainly true today in corporate America and higher education. Making an argument for the existence of a biological basis for sex or denying that all whites are automatically racist is a no-go. The ideas that the far left is trying to suppress are very much not conservative. It’s an assault on objectivity and rational thought.
Reedx 6y ago
The bigger problem is left-leaning people getting harassed and immediately flagged as right/alt-right/-ist (i.e., "not one of us") when merely disagreeing with or challenging dogma. See Joe Rogan, JK Rowling, Sam Harris, Bret Weinstein, Richard Dawkins, Steven Pinker for some high profile examples. Don't toe the line and echo approved orthodoxy? You're the enemy! This is extreme tribal behavior. As a result, there is a chilling effect and a lot liberals no longer feel welcome on the left[1][2]. Certainly don't feel welcome to speak or think openly. This is incredibly regressive, damaging to liberalism and enlightenment values. Seriously, not being able to challenge your own side and engage in dialectic will send us back to the dark ages. 1. https://taibbi.substack.com/p/the-left-is-now-the-right https://taibbi.substack.com/p/the-left-is-now-the-right 2. https://taibbi.substack.com/p/the-left-is-now-the-right/comments#comment-344793 https://taibbi.substack.com/p/the-left-is-now-the-right/comm...
- komali2 6y ago
  This was addressed above, in the bit talking about people failing to put the same effort into empathising and understanding people who historically receive little to no empathy or understanding whatsoever. Ignore our personal feelings on the matter for a moment: do we honestly believe JK Rowling has made an effort to converse with, understand, and empathize with trans women?
  - nicoburns 6y ago
    > do we honestly believe JK Rowling has made an effort to converse with, understand, and empathize with trans women? I don't agree with JK Rowling's take on these issues. But I actually think she likely has made at least some effort to do this. Some of her open letters certainly mention her knowing trans people and sympathising with their experiences. Although in general I think the gender debate is a prime example of neither side listening to the other. There is a group of people who aren't listening to trans people when they say that they have gender feelings which are important to them. But equally trans people aren't listening to other people when they say that their physical bodies are important to them.
    - 6y ago
mc32 6y ago
On all of those issues there are at least two takes-and they’ve flip-flopped over time. People on the right have a different take on how to alleviate homelessness (self empowerment vs state dependence). On immigration (remember the time Bernie _didn't_ want immigrants to take jobs from locals?) minorities (also about the extent of state help vs other empowerment vehicles). There are varied ways to address the issues from different points of view. Parties have switched from one view to the opposing view over time, so by proxy of this we know there isn’t a “right” way and a “wrong” way but rather opposing philosophies that stress one thing over another. Why does one work better now and why will a different one work better tomorrow?
- bsanr2 6y ago
  The issue isn't that they don't have a different rationale, it's the particulars of what that rationale is built on. "State dependence" alleviates suffering when implemented in earnest, "self-empowerment" perpetuates inequality and privileges luck and momentum over innovation and (paradoxically) moment-to-moment hard work. In America, there has always been one side on the right side of history and one on the wrong, as far as health and happiness go. People and institutions switch sides, but the sides exist all the same. It comes down to how considerate you are of your neighbors, here and abroad. It's baffling that such a rich society continues to engage interpersonally with a scarcity mindset. Bootstraps are a myth; give until you can't and then ask for what you need. If we still then have racial issues, class issues, gender issues, religious issues, then the problem goes deeper than economics, and we'll need to face that with the same level of compassion.
  - mc32 6y ago
    The thing about state dependence that I don’t like is that that means the state has power over you. Follow our rules or you lose benefits. What, you’re against X? Sorry, come correct or lose your privilege to those benefits. We don’t want to have what they had in the old “second world” where the state could bend the will of the people because it held all the cards. That’s not to deny that we can serve people better. Create access to capital, lessen predatory practices on innumerate consumers, incentivize women to enter more productive areas of the economy, etc.
Aunche 6y ago
A missionary may also engage with people with different experiences than their own, but they're only doing so to cement their own world view. When they come across someone they disagree with, they'll just label them as evil without thinking about it. To be clear, I don't think that it's a right vs left thing. I think that social media incentivizes people to behave poorly. Ben Shapiro had an enlightening discussion with a founder of Vox about the nature of polarization [1], but that's not why he's famous or how he makes money. His audience wants to see him bash unprepared liberals, so that's what he's going to do. Even if he doesn't, some other pundit will simply take his place. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pMOUiWCjkn4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pMOUiWCjkn4
- potta_coffee 6y ago
  You just painted all missionaries with a pretty broad brush.
- bart_spoon 6y ago
  > A missionary may also engage with people with different experiences than their own, but they're only doing so to cement their own world view. When they come across someone they disagree with, they'll just label them as evil without thinking about it. As a former Mormon missionary, I couldn't disagree more. I didn't meet many people who were interested in the Mormon church, but I didn't consider them evil. If anything, it was my views on my religion and personal spirituality that evolved enormously over the course of the two years, far more than the 19 years previous or the many since. I learned a lot about myself and my worldview. Certainly a lot more than anyone changed their worldview by talking to me.
  - Aunche 6y ago
    That's fair. I shouldn't have generalized this among all the individual missionaries. My point is to provide an example of engaging with different worldviews does not necessarily imply open-mindedness.
    - reaperducer 6y ago
philwelch 6y ago
Reminds me of “I can tolerate anything except the outgroup”: https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/09/30/i-can-tolerate-anything-except-the-outgroup/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/09/30/i-can-tolerate-anythin...
babesh 6y ago
This comment is the most conniving one I have heard in awhile. To paraphrase, your argument is convincing and it’s similar to those who blame it on the “SJW” types so let’s shift the argument on over to those supposed people. So many assumptions piled onto assumptions about people.
- read_if_gay_ 6y ago
  > So many assumptions piled onto assumptions about people. Spot on. It's basically a preemptive strike before anyone gets the idea to point at cancel culture and the like.
brianxp 6y ago
As a Colombian leftist it is quite difficult to find educated and challenging views from the "right", I work with a lot of veterans and most of them are blinded by their ideology, no matter what the government does or says they will always back it. I have come to realize that right wingers are brainwashed or people with mental problems or childhood traumas, like our ex president (Alvaro Uribe Velez), who was addicted to kill people with chainsaws, or military men that as part of their training are tortured [1], and are subject to psychological training that change the way they behave. 1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c3RDT-n6t1s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c3RDT-n6t1s Edit: I got a couple of downvotes but no one seems to really challenge my opinion, reinforcing my initial beliefs.
- qazpot 6y ago
  > I have come to realize that right wingers are brainwashed or people with mental problems or childhood traumas As a american center-rightist, I have come to realize that left wingers are brainwashed or people with mental problems or childhood traumas. Like the millenial kids who grew up without father figure or a stable family. Like college going students who have been brainwashed by leftists to seek state protection everywhere in terms of safe spaces. I feel like they are blinded by ideology to believe that there cause is just and their opinions are morally justified and anyone even questioning their beliefs is morally wrong.
  - brianxp 6y ago
    >Like the millenial kids who grew up without father figure or a stable family. Grew out in a stable family, although very corrupt one, I remember handing money to judges and other officials as a teen, and smuggling goods through the Venezuelan border, about 10 members of my family were killed and military service is mandatory here. > Like college going students who have been brainwashed by leftists to seek state protection everywhere in terms of safe spaces. College has never been free in Colombia and I've never been in one, additionally constantly the government is trying to privatize primary and secondary education so the poor can no longer educate themselves, you develop your own opinion based on your environment. All policies implemented by the right wing have had disastrous consequences and are done with malice. Additionally the Colombian government seems to fight an endless imaginary war against drugs even though every single right wing politician has ties with drug cartels, like the president [1], or the vice president (her siblings were jailed in the US) [2] and her husband was the main partner of one of the most powerful cartel leader [3], or the Colombian ambassador of Uruguay who had a cocaine lab [4], or the father of the ex president Alvaro Uribe Velez who was the main partner if not the boss of Pablo Escobar [5]. 1: https://colombiareports.com/we-got-a-president-and-we-got-friends-mafia-to-colombias-ruling-party/ https://colombiareports.com/we-got-a-president-and-we-got-fr... 2: https://elpais.com/internacional/2020-06-12/la-vicepresidenta-de-colombia-oculto-que-su-hermano-cumplio-una-condena-por-narcotrafico.html https://elpais.com/internacional/2020-06-12/la-vicepresident... 3: https://www.insightcrime.org/investigations/invisible-drug-lord-ghost/ https://www.insightcrime.org/investigations/invisible-drug-l... 4: https://es.euronews.com/2020/02/14/descubren-un-laboratorio-de-cocaina-en-la-finca-del-embajador-de-colombia-en-uruguay https://es.euronews.com/2020/02/14/descubren-un-laboratorio-... 5: https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relaciones_entre_la_familia_Uribe_V%C3%A9lez_y_el_Cartel_de_Medell%C3%ADn https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relaciones_entre_la_familia_Ur... https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB131/ https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB131/
iameli 6y ago
This is really eloquently put. A concrete example: I grew up in Minnesota in an area with a lot of Somali refugees. When the Trump travel ban went into effect, many of them were cut off from their families. I have friends that had to choose between packing up their lives to immigrate to Germany or never seeing their family again. In that context, I'm not particularly interested in engaging with the idea that the travel ban is A Good Thing Actually. And I don't think I'd maintain a friendship with someone who thinks that it is. I do not consider this a character flaw.
runarberg 6y ago
Agreed. Parent seems to think that engaging in rhetoric is universially fun and useful endeavor that will expand our mind and better us as a person. This is not true on a number of issues. Disenfranchising issues (such as gay rights, police brutality, immigration, right to abortion, etc.) is not only theoretical to some people, but a real threat to their lives and well being. A person playing the devils advocate arguing for limits on immigration to an immigrant is not only annoying but actively threatening to an immigrant at risk of being deported. A number of people have full rights to be insulted when points are raised on a number of subjects. In fact they also have the rights to react angrily if the subject is a direct threat to their lives and livelihood. People arguing things often don’t realize that there is a person on the other end of the debate, a person with feelings, like love and compassion, but also anger and disgust. If a subject threatens or belittles, them being insulted or angry is the natural response.
- read_if_gay_ 6y ago
  Some topics are sensitive, but that's not a reason to stop discussing these issues. We need dialogue or the political divide will just keep growing.
- aantix 6y ago
  Those disenfranchising issues have affected people on the other side. Those parents probably know a few. Getting angry is natural, but anger is easy. Advancement of the cause doesn't entail getting likes, hearts or clap-backs. The real work is in persuasion.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- blackflame7000 6y ago
  You can't just label some topics as "Disenfranchising issues" and then cease to have debate on the topic. There's always going to be a debate on to what extent should society go out of its way to enfranchise people and to what extent is the onus on the individual." You can't just shutdown these topics because you want more than others are willing to give. You can't label people hateful just because they don't want to be generous and you certainly can't shutdown the debate on the extent to which people are entitled to generosity or frugality.
Vrondi 6y ago
I think the current trend of not engaging with those who are politically different cuts across the political spectrum. There is an intense trend to stay within ideological bubbles at the moment, and to try to censor voices that do not align with one's own leanings. People both liberal and conservative just get _angry_ at anyone with a different political or social idea, and write them off as "bad people", which is not productive. They also tend to leap to the conclusion that if you disagree about one idea, you must adhere to the opposite ideology on every issue. As a moderate person, this is an extremely tiresome experience I have over and over again with people of both liberal and conservative leanings.
jquery 6y ago
> I think that the subtext of your post (or at least people that espouse similar things on the internet) is that this is the fault of a certain brand of American politics (left leaning, "SJW" types) that don't engage with many right-leaning people. That wasn’t the subtext at all. Interesting that you think the shoe fits so well, though.
- lilactown 6y ago
  I tried to couch my reply as not assuming intent on your part specifically, but rather my attempt at pointing out a pattern I have seen other people engage in and be subject to. When looking at this and your other reply to me elsewhere in this thread, it does not feel like you're engaging me in good faith.
rayiner 6y ago
> The frustrating (and silly) thing is that this argument is used a lot to attack left-leaning folks who _do_ engage with many people whose experience and world view are very different from them... like people who are homeless, immigrants from other countries, people who are racially minoritized, people who are disabled I think there are a lot more people who think they do this than actually do this. Left-leaning spaces are some of the most homogenous around. I can’t tell you how many left-leaning people I know who were genuinely shocked and surprised that, when it came time to vote, “people of color” didn’t like Elizabeth Warren. Their perception of getting to know “immigrants from other countries” and “people who are racially minoritized” rested entirely on interacting with immigrants and minorities who travel in the same rarified elite circles as themselves and hold the same views. “Center people of color” during the primary became “f--k moderates” after the convention, without a hint of irony. Of course I’m painting with a very broad brush! Obviously not all left-leaning people are like that. But I do think there is a lack of appreciation for the relationships right-leaning folks have with people who are different from themselves. One of the most racially integrated places I’ve ever been is rural Texas. It’s a function of economics and geography. Left-leaning cities are highly segregated—educated left leaning people generally don’t live and work alongside immigrants and racial minorities.
- lilactown 6y ago
  I do actually agree with you. It is very easy to be radical in your beliefs (in either direction) when you don't need to interact with the people that they effect. There are plenty of "ivory tower" leftists. The difference is that I do believe that those leftists are seeking to find solidarity with the oppressed, though not always successfully. Sometimes they miss the mark, and there are plenty examples of shitty behavior, but I think that they're heading in the right direction. I also think that it's unfortunate it's so easy to mistake a critique like that as an attack of the left as a whole. Leftist policy should always have the goal of materially making peoples lives better. We should ruthlessly measure and criticize whether we are in fact succeeding in that, both by the numbers and by the lived experience of the people they effect. The current form of discourse in America is so hyper-partisan as to make that sort of critique almost impossible to do in public, as it comes off as a show of weakness rather than an opportunity for evolution. It's painful.
Viliam1234 6y ago
I don't know. Do left-wing people really put so much effort in empathizing with minorities, or is it rather that they come with a complete theory of how the minorities think, and only interact with those who agree with the theory? How much would a white left-wing person be willing to debate with e.g. a conservative immigrant? Would they treat them as an equal, or even defer to their lived experience? Or would they simply find another, less conservative immigrant, who would not oppose their world-view, and choose this one to be the speaker for the minority? In my experience, there is not much difference between left-wing and right-wing people in willingness to help oppressed people. Seems to me they mostly differ in style: a left-wing person would probably create a non-profit organization and also write about what the government should do, a right-wing person would probably work under the umbrella of some religious group and also write about how individuals should help themselves and each other. On each side, a few people would actually do something, more people would talk about how someone else should do something, and most wouldn't really care. I am not saying the sides are exactly balanced; I am just saying empathising with people (but also twisting their opinions to better fit your ideology) exists on both sides. (By coincidence, today I saw a debate where a strongly left-wing person dismissed some complaints of a marginalized person as "anti-scientific", without actually addressing the substance of their argument, just because that person disagreed with some organization that has a mission to help this marginalized community. No more detais, because it happened in a private conversation, it's just a funny coincidence that first I read this, then I switch a browser tab and read about how empathetic left-wing people are. Some of them are, some of them are not.)
- lilactown 6y ago
  I am not necessarily saying that leftists are a panacea of altruist thinking, having washed away their colonial upbringing in their dialogues with a theoretical minority. ;) Rather, I understand leftist thought to be rooted in questioning hierarchy and power structures, which I believe leads to more readily seeking solidarity with those that are not as well off as they are. > By coincidence, today I saw a debate where a strongly left-wing person dismissed some complaints of a marginalized person This does sound like a funny happenstance. My original reply was about this same sort of funny coincidence in reverse; how I often see the left critiqued as being "intolerant" when I frequently see them lifting and amplifying the voices of those who are disenfranchised by the system that they materially benefit from. > How much would a white left-wing person be willing to debate with e.g. a conservative immigrant? First, debates are not typical discourse. In my experience, debates are meant to be a show of virtue. Whose virtues you're being weighed against will greatly determine your behavior or whether you even decide to participate at all. I think that Hacker News values sound, well written arguments, which is why I am here posting. :) Therefore, I think that given the propensity toward identity politics (from both sides) and the difficulty in interrogating the root of the beliefs that immigrant without appearing to be questioning the validity of them, I (as a white leftist) would prefer not to debate them. So, yes, I would rather propose someone whose lived experience might be more similar to theirs - perhaps a left-leaning immigrant - specifically because I would be afraid of either appearing weak in the eyes of right-wing spectators by deferring to their lived experience, or seem like an asshole because I am questioning the validity of their experience. It would be a PR nightmare. :) In a private, personal setting (i.e. not a debate) I think that talking to your hypothetical conservative immigrant would probably be a great opportunity for me to learn about their experience and explore the root of their beliefs. I hope I would get to share mine as well.

watwut 6y ago

> I think that the subtext of your post (or at least people that espouse similar things on the internet) is that this is the fault of a certain brand of American politics (left leaning, "SJW" types) that don't engage with many right-leaning people. I would like to know how many "right winger" did actively and honestly engaged with feminists texts. Not even with radical feminists texts, just with a mild moderate variety or with those who were radical back then and not anymore. Cause it seems to me that very little. Not that they have to, but they dont go that far in range as they pretend. They do read range where range is within what they like or where range is completely irrelevant to our lives. It is also currently right wing that seeks to suppress actual fields of study on Universities. It is also my experience is that many (not all) right people simply "know" the text is stupid without ever reading it. They also "know" that if movie pleases feminist crowd it is bad without seeing that movie. And working in more conservative environment, I was careful not to say things that could be constructed as near-feminist, because that would lower my "trustworthiness" in other arenas too.

deathgrips 6y ago
"Right wingers" don't have a monopoly on ignorance. People of every ideology are unwilling to listen to opposing viewpoints, read controversial books, and rate movies based on the social context rather than the artistic content. Pointing at the worse parts of only one ideology is counterproductive.
- watwut 6y ago
  I haven't said that. Nor that they have monopoly nor that all of them are like that. But the ideological subgroup specifically who throw around "listening to other viewpoints" a lot tend to be the kind who seriously engage only with view points comfortable to them. As in, there is talk about uncomfortable viewpoints, but their idea of uncomfortable viewpoint is someone telling them they are superior and they disagreeing cause they are more egalitarian. Which is not uncomfortable at all.
  - renewiltord 6y ago
    Hahaha, this is far too true. I think anyone who says "You should listen to other viewpoints" and intends that to be "this is why you should listen to me" has some massive lack of self-awareness. Listening to other viewpoints is like invoking Crocker's Rules. You can't invoke the rules on other people. Only yourself. You just don't have the information to determine whether you're worth listening to. Because you will always think you're worth listening to.
  - deathgrips 6y ago
    Is that better or worse than saying that your own ideology has a monopoly on truth and it is impermissible to let others talk about opposing ideas?
cik2e 6y ago
> It is also currently right wing that seeks to suppress actual fields of study on Universities. Care to share your feelings on the far left push to suppress science and mathematics? > And working in more conservative environment, I was careful not to say things that could be constructed as near-feminist, because that would lower my "trustworthiness" in other arenas too. The opposite is certainly true today in corporate America and higher education. Making an argument for the existence of a biological basis for sex or denying that all whites are automatically racist is a no-go. The ideas that the far left is trying to suppress are very much not conservative. It’s an assault on objectivity and rational thought.

Reedx 6y ago

The bigger problem is left-leaning people getting harassed and immediately flagged as right/alt-right/-ist (i.e., "not one of us") when merely disagreeing with or challenging dogma. See Joe Rogan, JK Rowling, Sam Harris, Bret Weinstein, Richard Dawkins, Steven Pinker for some high profile examples. Don't toe the line and echo approved orthodoxy? You're the enemy! This is extreme tribal behavior. As a result, there is a chilling effect and a lot liberals no longer feel welcome on the left[1][2]. Certainly don't feel welcome to speak or think openly. This is incredibly regressive, damaging to liberalism and enlightenment values. Seriously, not being able to challenge your own side and engage in dialectic will send us back to the dark ages. 1. https://taibbi.substack.com/p/the-left-is-now-the-right https://taibbi.substack.com/p/the-left-is-now-the-right 2. https://taibbi.substack.com/p/the-left-is-now-the-right/comments#comment-344793 https://taibbi.substack.com/p/the-left-is-now-the-right/comm...

komali2 6y ago
This was addressed above, in the bit talking about people failing to put the same effort into empathising and understanding people who historically receive little to no empathy or understanding whatsoever. Ignore our personal feelings on the matter for a moment: do we honestly believe JK Rowling has made an effort to converse with, understand, and empathize with trans women?
- nicoburns 6y ago
  > do we honestly believe JK Rowling has made an effort to converse with, understand, and empathize with trans women? I don't agree with JK Rowling's take on these issues. But I actually think she likely has made at least some effort to do this. Some of her open letters certainly mention her knowing trans people and sympathising with their experiences. Although in general I think the gender debate is a prime example of neither side listening to the other. There is a group of people who aren't listening to trans people when they say that they have gender feelings which are important to them. But equally trans people aren't listening to other people when they say that their physical bodies are important to them.
  - 6y ago

mc32 6y ago

On all of those issues there are at least two takes-and they’ve flip-flopped over time. People on the right have a different take on how to alleviate homelessness (self empowerment vs state dependence). On immigration (remember the time Bernie _didn't_ want immigrants to take jobs from locals?) minorities (also about the extent of state help vs other empowerment vehicles). There are varied ways to address the issues from different points of view. Parties have switched from one view to the opposing view over time, so by proxy of this we know there isn’t a “right” way and a “wrong” way but rather opposing philosophies that stress one thing over another. Why does one work better now and why will a different one work better tomorrow?

bsanr2 6y ago
The issue isn't that they don't have a different rationale, it's the particulars of what that rationale is built on. "State dependence" alleviates suffering when implemented in earnest, "self-empowerment" perpetuates inequality and privileges luck and momentum over innovation and (paradoxically) moment-to-moment hard work. In America, there has always been one side on the right side of history and one on the wrong, as far as health and happiness go. People and institutions switch sides, but the sides exist all the same. It comes down to how considerate you are of your neighbors, here and abroad. It's baffling that such a rich society continues to engage interpersonally with a scarcity mindset. Bootstraps are a myth; give until you can't and then ask for what you need. If we still then have racial issues, class issues, gender issues, religious issues, then the problem goes deeper than economics, and we'll need to face that with the same level of compassion.
- mc32 6y ago
  The thing about state dependence that I don’t like is that that means the state has power over you. Follow our rules or you lose benefits. What, you’re against X? Sorry, come correct or lose your privilege to those benefits. We don’t want to have what they had in the old “second world” where the state could bend the will of the people because it held all the cards. That’s not to deny that we can serve people better. Create access to capital, lessen predatory practices on innumerate consumers, incentivize women to enter more productive areas of the economy, etc.

Aunche 6y ago

A missionary may also engage with people with different experiences than their own, but they're only doing so to cement their own world view. When they come across someone they disagree with, they'll just label them as evil without thinking about it. To be clear, I don't think that it's a right vs left thing. I think that social media incentivizes people to behave poorly. Ben Shapiro had an enlightening discussion with a founder of Vox about the nature of polarization [1], but that's not why he's famous or how he makes money. His audience wants to see him bash unprepared liberals, so that's what he's going to do. Even if he doesn't, some other pundit will simply take his place. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pMOUiWCjkn4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pMOUiWCjkn4

potta_coffee 6y ago
You just painted all missionaries with a pretty broad brush.
bart_spoon 6y ago
> A missionary may also engage with people with different experiences than their own, but they're only doing so to cement their own world view. When they come across someone they disagree with, they'll just label them as evil without thinking about it. As a former Mormon missionary, I couldn't disagree more. I didn't meet many people who were interested in the Mormon church, but I didn't consider them evil. If anything, it was my views on my religion and personal spirituality that evolved enormously over the course of the two years, far more than the 19 years previous or the many since. I learned a lot about myself and my worldview. Certainly a lot more than anyone changed their worldview by talking to me.
- Aunche 6y ago
  That's fair. I shouldn't have generalized this among all the individual missionaries. My point is to provide an example of engaging with different worldviews does not necessarily imply open-mindedness.
  - reaperducer 6y ago

philwelch 6y ago

Reminds me of “I can tolerate anything except the outgroup”: https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/09/30/i-can-tolerate-anything-except-the-outgroup/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/09/30/i-can-tolerate-anythin...

babesh 6y ago

This comment is the most conniving one I have heard in awhile. To paraphrase, your argument is convincing and it’s similar to those who blame it on the “SJW” types so let’s shift the argument on over to those supposed people. So many assumptions piled onto assumptions about people.

read_if_gay_ 6y ago
> So many assumptions piled onto assumptions about people. Spot on. It's basically a preemptive strike before anyone gets the idea to point at cancel culture and the like.

brianxp 6y ago

As a Colombian leftist it is quite difficult to find educated and challenging views from the "right", I work with a lot of veterans and most of them are blinded by their ideology, no matter what the government does or says they will always back it. I have come to realize that right wingers are brainwashed or people with mental problems or childhood traumas, like our ex president (Alvaro Uribe Velez), who was addicted to kill people with chainsaws, or military men that as part of their training are tortured [1], and are subject to psychological training that change the way they behave. 1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c3RDT-n6t1s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c3RDT-n6t1s Edit: I got a couple of downvotes but no one seems to really challenge my opinion, reinforcing my initial beliefs.

qazpot 6y ago
> I have come to realize that right wingers are brainwashed or people with mental problems or childhood traumas As a american center-rightist, I have come to realize that left wingers are brainwashed or people with mental problems or childhood traumas. Like the millenial kids who grew up without father figure or a stable family. Like college going students who have been brainwashed by leftists to seek state protection everywhere in terms of safe spaces. I feel like they are blinded by ideology to believe that there cause is just and their opinions are morally justified and anyone even questioning their beliefs is morally wrong.
- brianxp 6y ago
  >Like the millenial kids who grew up without father figure or a stable family. Grew out in a stable family, although very corrupt one, I remember handing money to judges and other officials as a teen, and smuggling goods through the Venezuelan border, about 10 members of my family were killed and military service is mandatory here. > Like college going students who have been brainwashed by leftists to seek state protection everywhere in terms of safe spaces. College has never been free in Colombia and I've never been in one, additionally constantly the government is trying to privatize primary and secondary education so the poor can no longer educate themselves, you develop your own opinion based on your environment. All policies implemented by the right wing have had disastrous consequences and are done with malice. Additionally the Colombian government seems to fight an endless imaginary war against drugs even though every single right wing politician has ties with drug cartels, like the president [1], or the vice president (her siblings were jailed in the US) [2] and her husband was the main partner of one of the most powerful cartel leader [3], or the Colombian ambassador of Uruguay who had a cocaine lab [4], or the father of the ex president Alvaro Uribe Velez who was the main partner if not the boss of Pablo Escobar [5]. 1: https://colombiareports.com/we-got-a-president-and-we-got-friends-mafia-to-colombias-ruling-party/ https://colombiareports.com/we-got-a-president-and-we-got-fr... 2: https://elpais.com/internacional/2020-06-12/la-vicepresidenta-de-colombia-oculto-que-su-hermano-cumplio-una-condena-por-narcotrafico.html https://elpais.com/internacional/2020-06-12/la-vicepresident... 3: https://www.insightcrime.org/investigations/invisible-drug-lord-ghost/ https://www.insightcrime.org/investigations/invisible-drug-l... 4: https://es.euronews.com/2020/02/14/descubren-un-laboratorio-de-cocaina-en-la-finca-del-embajador-de-colombia-en-uruguay https://es.euronews.com/2020/02/14/descubren-un-laboratorio-... 5: https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relaciones_entre_la_familia_Uribe_V%C3%A9lez_y_el_Cartel_de_Medell%C3%ADn https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relaciones_entre_la_familia_Ur... https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB131/ https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB131/

iameli 6y ago

This is really eloquently put. A concrete example: I grew up in Minnesota in an area with a lot of Somali refugees. When the Trump travel ban went into effect, many of them were cut off from their families. I have friends that had to choose between packing up their lives to immigrate to Germany or never seeing their family again. In that context, I'm not particularly interested in engaging with the idea that the travel ban is A Good Thing Actually. And I don't think I'd maintain a friendship with someone who thinks that it is. I do not consider this a character flaw.

runarberg 6y ago

Agreed. Parent seems to think that engaging in rhetoric is universially fun and useful endeavor that will expand our mind and better us as a person. This is not true on a number of issues. Disenfranchising issues (such as gay rights, police brutality, immigration, right to abortion, etc.) is not only theoretical to some people, but a real threat to their lives and well being. A person playing the devils advocate arguing for limits on immigration to an immigrant is not only annoying but actively threatening to an immigrant at risk of being deported. A number of people have full rights to be insulted when points are raised on a number of subjects. In fact they also have the rights to react angrily if the subject is a direct threat to their lives and livelihood. People arguing things often don’t realize that there is a person on the other end of the debate, a person with feelings, like love and compassion, but also anger and disgust. If a subject threatens or belittles, them being insulted or angry is the natural response.

read_if_gay_ 6y ago
Some topics are sensitive, but that's not a reason to stop discussing these issues. We need dialogue or the political divide will just keep growing.
aantix 6y ago
Those disenfranchising issues have affected people on the other side. Those parents probably know a few. Getting angry is natural, but anger is easy. Advancement of the cause doesn't entail getting likes, hearts or clap-backs. The real work is in persuasion.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
blackflame7000 6y ago
You can't just label some topics as "Disenfranchising issues" and then cease to have debate on the topic. There's always going to be a debate on to what extent should society go out of its way to enfranchise people and to what extent is the onus on the individual." You can't just shutdown these topics because you want more than others are willing to give. You can't label people hateful just because they don't want to be generous and you certainly can't shutdown the debate on the extent to which people are entitled to generosity or frugality.

Vrondi 6y ago

I think the current trend of not engaging with those who are politically different cuts across the political spectrum. There is an intense trend to stay within ideological bubbles at the moment, and to try to censor voices that do not align with one's own leanings. People both liberal and conservative just get _angry_ at anyone with a different political or social idea, and write them off as "bad people", which is not productive. They also tend to leap to the conclusion that if you disagree about one idea, you must adhere to the opposite ideology on every issue. As a moderate person, this is an extremely tiresome experience I have over and over again with people of both liberal and conservative leanings.

jquery 6y ago

> I think that the subtext of your post (or at least people that espouse similar things on the internet) is that this is the fault of a certain brand of American politics (left leaning, "SJW" types) that don't engage with many right-leaning people. That wasn’t the subtext at all. Interesting that you think the shoe fits so well, though.

lilactown 6y ago
I tried to couch my reply as not assuming intent on your part specifically, but rather my attempt at pointing out a pattern I have seen other people engage in and be subject to. When looking at this and your other reply to me elsewhere in this thread, it does not feel like you're engaging me in good faith.

rayiner 6y ago

> The frustrating (and silly) thing is that this argument is used a lot to attack left-leaning folks who _do_ engage with many people whose experience and world view are very different from them... like people who are homeless, immigrants from other countries, people who are racially minoritized, people who are disabled I think there are a lot more people who think they do this than actually do this. Left-leaning spaces are some of the most homogenous around. I can’t tell you how many left-leaning people I know who were genuinely shocked and surprised that, when it came time to vote, “people of color” didn’t like Elizabeth Warren. Their perception of getting to know “immigrants from other countries” and “people who are racially minoritized” rested entirely on interacting with immigrants and minorities who travel in the same rarified elite circles as themselves and hold the same views. “Center people of color” during the primary became “f--k moderates” after the convention, without a hint of irony. Of course I’m painting with a very broad brush! Obviously not all left-leaning people are like that. But I do think there is a lack of appreciation for the relationships right-leaning folks have with people who are different from themselves. One of the most racially integrated places I’ve ever been is rural Texas. It’s a function of economics and geography. Left-leaning cities are highly segregated—educated left leaning people generally don’t live and work alongside immigrants and racial minorities.

lilactown 6y ago
I do actually agree with you. It is very easy to be radical in your beliefs (in either direction) when you don't need to interact with the people that they effect. There are plenty of "ivory tower" leftists. The difference is that I do believe that those leftists are seeking to find solidarity with the oppressed, though not always successfully. Sometimes they miss the mark, and there are plenty examples of shitty behavior, but I think that they're heading in the right direction. I also think that it's unfortunate it's so easy to mistake a critique like that as an attack of the left as a whole. Leftist policy should always have the goal of materially making peoples lives better. We should ruthlessly measure and criticize whether we are in fact succeeding in that, both by the numbers and by the lived experience of the people they effect. The current form of discourse in America is so hyper-partisan as to make that sort of critique almost impossible to do in public, as it comes off as a show of weakness rather than an opportunity for evolution. It's painful.

Viliam1234 6y ago

I don't know. Do left-wing people really put so much effort in empathizing with minorities, or is it rather that they come with a complete theory of how the minorities think, and only interact with those who agree with the theory? How much would a white left-wing person be willing to debate with e.g. a conservative immigrant? Would they treat them as an equal, or even defer to their lived experience? Or would they simply find another, less conservative immigrant, who would not oppose their world-view, and choose this one to be the speaker for the minority? In my experience, there is not much difference between left-wing and right-wing people in willingness to help oppressed people. Seems to me they mostly differ in style: a left-wing person would probably create a non-profit organization and also write about what the government should do, a right-wing person would probably work under the umbrella of some religious group and also write about how individuals should help themselves and each other. On each side, a few people would actually do something, more people would talk about how someone else should do something, and most wouldn't really care. I am not saying the sides are exactly balanced; I am just saying empathising with people (but also twisting their opinions to better fit your ideology) exists on both sides. (By coincidence, today I saw a debate where a strongly left-wing person dismissed some complaints of a marginalized person as "anti-scientific", without actually addressing the substance of their argument, just because that person disagreed with some organization that has a mission to help this marginalized community. No more detais, because it happened in a private conversation, it's just a funny coincidence that first I read this, then I switch a browser tab and read about how empathetic left-wing people are. Some of them are, some of them are not.)

lilactown 6y ago
I am not necessarily saying that leftists are a panacea of altruist thinking, having washed away their colonial upbringing in their dialogues with a theoretical minority. ;) Rather, I understand leftist thought to be rooted in questioning hierarchy and power structures, which I believe leads to more readily seeking solidarity with those that are not as well off as they are. > By coincidence, today I saw a debate where a strongly left-wing person dismissed some complaints of a marginalized person This does sound like a funny happenstance. My original reply was about this same sort of funny coincidence in reverse; how I often see the left critiqued as being "intolerant" when I frequently see them lifting and amplifying the voices of those who are disenfranchised by the system that they materially benefit from. > How much would a white left-wing person be willing to debate with e.g. a conservative immigrant? First, debates are not typical discourse. In my experience, debates are meant to be a show of virtue. Whose virtues you're being weighed against will greatly determine your behavior or whether you even decide to participate at all. I think that Hacker News values sound, well written arguments, which is why I am here posting. :) Therefore, I think that given the propensity toward identity politics (from both sides) and the difficulty in interrogating the root of the beliefs that immigrant without appearing to be questioning the validity of them, I (as a white leftist) would prefer not to debate them. So, yes, I would rather propose someone whose lived experience might be more similar to theirs - perhaps a left-leaning immigrant - specifically because I would be afraid of either appearing weak in the eyes of right-wing spectators by deferring to their lived experience, or seem like an asshole because I am questioning the validity of their experience. It would be a PR nightmare. :) In a private, personal setting (i.e. not a debate) I think that talking to your hypothetical conservative immigrant would probably be a great opportunity for me to learn about their experience and explore the root of their beliefs. I hope I would get to share mine as well.