5 ms·

> I want to understand why society (including a great many moderates) are only alarmed by illiberalism when it's labeled "fascism" (and conversely why we tolera

> I want to understand why society (including a great many moderates) are only alarmed by illiberalism when it's labeled "fascism" (and conversely why we tolerate illiberalism in the name of combatting 'fascism'). I suppose it's a matter of perspective. I don't know how much the sympathies for authoritarian regimes and the calls to violence on twitter would translate to people taking action. The calls for revolution just seem like role-play to me. I just don't hear this sort of rhetoric being voiced by people actually doing the work of advancing progressive political causes. Maybe it's easier for me to dismiss the illiberalism on the left because I genuinely am not exposed to that much of it. > it kind of feels like we're trading the liberal foundation of our society for some short term political expedience or catharsis, and that's deeply depressing. I feel the same way about the behavior of the right in recent months. > From the sounds of it, you think fascism is the more proximate threat? Yeah pretty much. I believe fascism is gaining political traction. I'm concerned about the increasing militancy of white nationalist groups and the significant number of people in the US who think the election was stolen.

throwaway894345 6y ago
> The calls for revolution just seem like role-play to me. I just don't hear this sort of rhetoric being voiced by people actually doing the work of advancing progressive political causes. That’s sort of how I felt as well before the BLM riots and various antifa violence (no, not all antifa or BLM protesters are violent). To be honest I think I’m more concerned about the people who implicitly or explicitly condoned the violence than the violence itself. Indeed, I think that suggested to the Capitol Hill rioters that political violence was no longer out-of-bounds; rather, it was legitimate and necessary. > Maybe it's easier for me to dismiss the illiberalism on the left because I genuinely am not exposed to that much of it. I am sympathetic to this. With cable news and now social media we’re all being “bubbled” according to what Twitter et al thinks will keep us most engaged, and it’s hard to know how skewed our information stream really is. I’m certainly concerned about my own bubble, and I try to limit the threat of bias by subscribing to a diverse stream of content rather than letting the likes of Twitter curate for me. > I feel the same way about the behavior of the right in recent months. I agree. I think the right followed the left’s lead after the media, the academy, silicon valley, Hollywood, and virtually every other prominent cultural institution either condoned or ignored the violence over the summer. It often feels like the left makes/changes the rules and the right reacts/follows suit—with respect to moral relativism, epistemological relativism, in civility, and most recently political violence. I think it’s this perception that the left “leads” the cycle (by way of dominance over the aforementioned influential institutions) that draws my criticism leftward (although I take care to avoid being unduly lenient to the right). > Yeah pretty much. I believe fascism is gaining political traction. I'm concerned about the increasing militancy of white nationalist groups and the significant number of people in the US who think the election was stolen. I sympathize and to an extent I agree. The critical difference I think is that I see the rise of the extreme right as a direct consequence of the rise of the extreme left. I don’t think we’ll have much success re-marginalizing the right so long as we continue to condone and tolerate bad behavior on the left. I think we need to reestablish non-partisan norms of honesty, civility, and non-violence and consistently enforce breaches of those ethics whether from the right or the left. I think our double-standard is a powerful driver of the radicalization of the right, and until we correct it, I fear socially censuring the right will only fuel their persecution narrative and bolster their ranks. This is a long-winded way of saying that reigning in the far left feels like a prerequisite to reigning in the far-right. Of course, I remain vigilant to the possibility that I’m wrong.
- krapp 6y ago
  >The critical difference I think is that I see the rise of the extreme right as a direct consequence of the rise of the extreme left. The rise of the extreme right arguably began with the Tea Party, or possibly as a reaction to 9/11. What leftist extremism would either have been a direct consequence of? I see the opposite - Antifa only became a thing as a reaction to the perceived extremism of Trump's base. BLM came about as a reaction to violence by the police (which as an institution is overwhelmingly right-wing.) Right-wing extremism then surged as a counter-reaction to that. Even Trump's election, itself, was a right-wing populist reaction not to any kind of leftist extremism but to the status quo, and the existence of the left in general.
  - throwaway894345 6y ago
    > The rise of the extreme right arguably began with the Tea Party, or possibly as a reaction to 9/11 ... Even Trump's election, itself, was a right-wing populist reaction not to any kind of leftist extremism but to the status quo, and the existence of the left in general. I dispute this. The Tea Party and early 2000s conservatives weren't "extreme right", they were moderate, largely civil (if only because they were late adopters of the Internet), non-violent, and roughly "liberal" in the sense that they were more-or-less on-board with the liberalism contract (individual rights, settle conflicts non-violently, due process, freedom of speech, etc). There was always a fringe far-right element, but they were successfully marginalized. The idea that Trumpism was a reaction to the existence of the left doesn't make a lot of sense--the left has always existed and yet Trumpism didn't catalyze until ~2015. That said, I suspect you disagree with this characterization, and that's fine. I don't think either of us can prove our positions, so perhaps we can agree on this much: liberalism is worth defending, and we should condemn illiberalism whether from the right or the left, irrespective of who cast the first stone?
    - krapp 6y ago
      >so perhaps we can agree on this much: liberalism is worth defending, and we should condemn illiberalism whether from the right or the left, irrespective of who cast the first stone? We can agree to that.

throwaway894345 6y ago

> The calls for revolution just seem like role-play to me. I just don't hear this sort of rhetoric being voiced by people actually doing the work of advancing progressive political causes. That’s sort of how I felt as well before the BLM riots and various antifa violence (no, not all antifa or BLM protesters are violent). To be honest I think I’m more concerned about the people who implicitly or explicitly condoned the violence than the violence itself. Indeed, I think that suggested to the Capitol Hill rioters that political violence was no longer out-of-bounds; rather, it was legitimate and necessary. > Maybe it's easier for me to dismiss the illiberalism on the left because I genuinely am not exposed to that much of it. I am sympathetic to this. With cable news and now social media we’re all being “bubbled” according to what Twitter et al thinks will keep us most engaged, and it’s hard to know how skewed our information stream really is. I’m certainly concerned about my own bubble, and I try to limit the threat of bias by subscribing to a diverse stream of content rather than letting the likes of Twitter curate for me. > I feel the same way about the behavior of the right in recent months. I agree. I think the right followed the left’s lead after the media, the academy, silicon valley, Hollywood, and virtually every other prominent cultural institution either condoned or ignored the violence over the summer. It often feels like the left makes/changes the rules and the right reacts/follows suit—with respect to moral relativism, epistemological relativism, in civility, and most recently political violence. I think it’s this perception that the left “leads” the cycle (by way of dominance over the aforementioned influential institutions) that draws my criticism leftward (although I take care to avoid being unduly lenient to the right). > Yeah pretty much. I believe fascism is gaining political traction. I'm concerned about the increasing militancy of white nationalist groups and the significant number of people in the US who think the election was stolen. I sympathize and to an extent I agree. The critical difference I think is that I see the rise of the extreme right as a direct consequence of the rise of the extreme left. I don’t think we’ll have much success re-marginalizing the right so long as we continue to condone and tolerate bad behavior on the left. I think we need to reestablish non-partisan norms of honesty, civility, and non-violence and consistently enforce breaches of those ethics whether from the right or the left. I think our double-standard is a powerful driver of the radicalization of the right, and until we correct it, I fear socially censuring the right will only fuel their persecution narrative and bolster their ranks. This is a long-winded way of saying that reigning in the far left feels like a prerequisite to reigning in the far-right. Of course, I remain vigilant to the possibility that I’m wrong.

krapp 6y ago
>The critical difference I think is that I see the rise of the extreme right as a direct consequence of the rise of the extreme left. The rise of the extreme right arguably began with the Tea Party, or possibly as a reaction to 9/11. What leftist extremism would either have been a direct consequence of? I see the opposite - Antifa only became a thing as a reaction to the perceived extremism of Trump's base. BLM came about as a reaction to violence by the police (which as an institution is overwhelmingly right-wing.) Right-wing extremism then surged as a counter-reaction to that. Even Trump's election, itself, was a right-wing populist reaction not to any kind of leftist extremism but to the status quo, and the existence of the left in general.
- throwaway894345 6y ago
  > The rise of the extreme right arguably began with the Tea Party, or possibly as a reaction to 9/11 ... Even Trump's election, itself, was a right-wing populist reaction not to any kind of leftist extremism but to the status quo, and the existence of the left in general. I dispute this. The Tea Party and early 2000s conservatives weren't "extreme right", they were moderate, largely civil (if only because they were late adopters of the Internet), non-violent, and roughly "liberal" in the sense that they were more-or-less on-board with the liberalism contract (individual rights, settle conflicts non-violently, due process, freedom of speech, etc). There was always a fringe far-right element, but they were successfully marginalized. The idea that Trumpism was a reaction to the existence of the left doesn't make a lot of sense--the left has always existed and yet Trumpism didn't catalyze until ~2015. That said, I suspect you disagree with this characterization, and that's fine. I don't think either of us can prove our positions, so perhaps we can agree on this much: liberalism is worth defending, and we should condemn illiberalism whether from the right or the left, irrespective of who cast the first stone?
  - krapp 6y ago
    >so perhaps we can agree on this much: liberalism is worth defending, and we should condemn illiberalism whether from the right or the left, irrespective of who cast the first stone? We can agree to that.