4 ms·

It's disappointing to me that the person being interviewed doesn't believe or understand how she's aligned with good conservatives and libertarians on this issu

by akarma 6y ago

It's disappointing to me that the person being interviewed doesn't believe or understand how she's aligned with good conservatives and libertarians on this issue, or much of 'the right' as she puts it. Those groups fear the government roughly as much as she does now, and that's by-and-large why they own guns. She doesn't seem to reach a second-order level of thinking and realize that common fear — she just sticks to "my marginalization makes me fear the government and own guns" without thinking of why they own guns. It's sad because there could be much more common ground, which leads to more considerate dialogue.

Robotbeat 6y ago
Probably because conservative groups like the NRA have (against their own propaganda) been largely silent when African American gun owners are killed by police. The reaction of conservatives to the BLM movement has confirmed for many that conservatives don’t fear government overreach but that they fear any disruption to the social (ie including racial) status quo. I think many would object to that characterization, but it’s hard to argue that there has been pretty strong resistance from conservatives to stick their neck out to oppose police brutality. (There are exceptions to this, by Romney and some more libertarian types, but they’re much too rare). So the question is, is an ideology like conservativism what it claims to outsiders or to what its adherents actually do and say to one another? Professed vs revealed preferences.
- alphabettsy 6y ago
  Why is this downvoted?
  - edbob 6y ago
    Because it's tribal propaganda that adds nothing to the discussion. There are a myriad of plausible reasons not to want to defund the police, but Robotbeat is parroting the party line that there are no possible legitimate reasons and that only racists can hold that opinion.
    - Robotbeat 6y ago
      Except that wasn’t my argument. I was merely answering the question about why this factoid (Black people buying more guns) isn’t considered vindication of conservatives. There are tons of ways to support reform of police (or otherwise vindication of the fact that government/police overreach is a problem) that don’t involve “defunding” the police, and yet conservatives chose to circle the wagons and defend the government overreach instead. That denies them the moral high ground necessary to claim that vindication. And huge respect, by the way, for conservatives like Romney that stood on principle instead of fighting the culture war.
      - edbob 6y ago
        > There are tons of ways to support reform of police (or otherwise vindication of the fact that government/police overreach is a problem) that don’t involve “defunding” the police While this is technically true, in practice support for BLM is virtually synonymous with support for defunding the police. That's why your implication: "don't support BLM -> totally discredited" is so divisive, because in the real world it means "don't support defunding police -> totally discredited". It should also be noted that the BLM corporation funnels hundreds of millions of dollars in donations to the Democratic Party through ActBlue [0], so you are actually requiring conservatives to support the Democratic Party in order not to be discredited. Progressive politicians always frame their specific policy goals as a righteous moral crusade, and always manipulate the narrative to make it seem like the the only people who could possibly think differently are "some of the worst people in the world". It's tribal bullshit designed to shut down any real discussion about whether the policies actually address the needs they are claimed to address, or whether they do more harm than good overall. People have different opinions on policy for many reasons, some good, some bad. They shouldn't have to constantly fall in line behind the latest partisan movement to be seen as having legitimate opinions. To clarify: I'm using the word "discredited" because the question you proposed "So the question is, is an ideology like conservativism what it claims to outsiders or to what its adherents actually do and say to one another? Professed vs revealed preferences." taken with your arguments seem to amount to seeing conservativism as basically bullshit. You've framed your comment as responding to a question, but akarma's comment doesn't actually ask any questions, and you kind of took over the framing with your response. I'm responding to your comment, not the line of questioning that you have been talking about (since I don't see any question for you to respond to, was the comment edited?) [1] https://secure.actblue.com/donate/ms_blm_homepage_2019 https://secure.actblue.com/donate/ms_blm_homepage_2019
- akarma 6y ago
  > is an ideology like conservativism what it claims to outsiders or to what its adherents actually do and say to one another? Professed vs revealed preferences. We could say the same about "liberalism" when we look at deadly riots, fires started at police stations with people inside, people executed on the street, ideas like "f** x" based largely on x's race or profession. It's clear that the majority on both sides are relatively moderate. They aren't the loud minority you hear the most of. Why do both sides use this defense, but neither side believes it about the other?
  - Robotbeat 6y ago
    Likewise, I was not talking about the minority of far-right extremists who murdered and attempted to murder protestors, who set some of those police station fires (see: https://amp.theguardian.com/world/2020/oct/23/texas-boogaloo-boi-minneapolis-police-building-george-floyd https://amp.theguardian.com/world/2020/oct/23/texas-boogaloo...), etc. Nor was I even pinning blame for violent police misconduct on conservatives. I was simply answering the question about why an outlet like NPR doesn’t consider this a vindication of conservatives with the answer that most conservative voices are clearly not committed to addressing clear over-reaches of the government (ie police brutality) and instead play games like “whataboutism” and doing everything possible to blame the victim of the government instead (as well as those who protest this injustice). This is the majority of conservative voices who have condemned even completely and objectively peaceful efforts to protest police brutality (like Kaepernick). It is, I fully admit, vindication of distrust of the government. It is not, however, vindication of /conservatives/, for all the reasons given here. And that is what the question was asking.
the_only_law 6y ago
Because sharing a single attribute does not make multiple groups aligned with each other. There may be multiple factions that fear the government, but not for the same reasons, nor do they necessarily have the same ideas in mind for when/if it’s disposed of.

by akarma 6y ago

Robotbeat 6y ago

Probably because conservative groups like the NRA have (against their own propaganda) been largely silent when African American gun owners are killed by police. The reaction of conservatives to the BLM movement has confirmed for many that conservatives don’t fear government overreach but that they fear any disruption to the social (ie including racial) status quo. I think many would object to that characterization, but it’s hard to argue that there has been pretty strong resistance from conservatives to stick their neck out to oppose police brutality. (There are exceptions to this, by Romney and some more libertarian types, but they’re much too rare). So the question is, is an ideology like conservativism what it claims to outsiders or to what its adherents actually do and say to one another? Professed vs revealed preferences.

alphabettsy 6y ago
Why is this downvoted?
- edbob 6y ago
  Because it's tribal propaganda that adds nothing to the discussion. There are a myriad of plausible reasons not to want to defund the police, but Robotbeat is parroting the party line that there are no possible legitimate reasons and that only racists can hold that opinion.
  - Robotbeat 6y ago
    Except that wasn’t my argument. I was merely answering the question about why this factoid (Black people buying more guns) isn’t considered vindication of conservatives. There are tons of ways to support reform of police (or otherwise vindication of the fact that government/police overreach is a problem) that don’t involve “defunding” the police, and yet conservatives chose to circle the wagons and defend the government overreach instead. That denies them the moral high ground necessary to claim that vindication. And huge respect, by the way, for conservatives like Romney that stood on principle instead of fighting the culture war.
    - edbob 6y ago
      > There are tons of ways to support reform of police (or otherwise vindication of the fact that government/police overreach is a problem) that don’t involve “defunding” the police While this is technically true, in practice support for BLM is virtually synonymous with support for defunding the police. That's why your implication: "don't support BLM -> totally discredited" is so divisive, because in the real world it means "don't support defunding police -> totally discredited". It should also be noted that the BLM corporation funnels hundreds of millions of dollars in donations to the Democratic Party through ActBlue [0], so you are actually requiring conservatives to support the Democratic Party in order not to be discredited. Progressive politicians always frame their specific policy goals as a righteous moral crusade, and always manipulate the narrative to make it seem like the the only people who could possibly think differently are "some of the worst people in the world". It's tribal bullshit designed to shut down any real discussion about whether the policies actually address the needs they are claimed to address, or whether they do more harm than good overall. People have different opinions on policy for many reasons, some good, some bad. They shouldn't have to constantly fall in line behind the latest partisan movement to be seen as having legitimate opinions. To clarify: I'm using the word "discredited" because the question you proposed "So the question is, is an ideology like conservativism what it claims to outsiders or to what its adherents actually do and say to one another? Professed vs revealed preferences." taken with your arguments seem to amount to seeing conservativism as basically bullshit. You've framed your comment as responding to a question, but akarma's comment doesn't actually ask any questions, and you kind of took over the framing with your response. I'm responding to your comment, not the line of questioning that you have been talking about (since I don't see any question for you to respond to, was the comment edited?) [1] https://secure.actblue.com/donate/ms_blm_homepage_2019 https://secure.actblue.com/donate/ms_blm_homepage_2019
akarma 6y ago
> is an ideology like conservativism what it claims to outsiders or to what its adherents actually do and say to one another? Professed vs revealed preferences. We could say the same about "liberalism" when we look at deadly riots, fires started at police stations with people inside, people executed on the street, ideas like "f** x" based largely on x's race or profession. It's clear that the majority on both sides are relatively moderate. They aren't the loud minority you hear the most of. Why do both sides use this defense, but neither side believes it about the other?
- Robotbeat 6y ago
  Likewise, I was not talking about the minority of far-right extremists who murdered and attempted to murder protestors, who set some of those police station fires (see: https://amp.theguardian.com/world/2020/oct/23/texas-boogaloo-boi-minneapolis-police-building-george-floyd https://amp.theguardian.com/world/2020/oct/23/texas-boogaloo...), etc. Nor was I even pinning blame for violent police misconduct on conservatives. I was simply answering the question about why an outlet like NPR doesn’t consider this a vindication of conservatives with the answer that most conservative voices are clearly not committed to addressing clear over-reaches of the government (ie police brutality) and instead play games like “whataboutism” and doing everything possible to blame the victim of the government instead (as well as those who protest this injustice). This is the majority of conservative voices who have condemned even completely and objectively peaceful efforts to protest police brutality (like Kaepernick). It is, I fully admit, vindication of distrust of the government. It is not, however, vindication of /conservatives/, for all the reasons given here. And that is what the question was asking.

the_only_law 6y ago

Because sharing a single attribute does not make multiple groups aligned with each other. There may be multiple factions that fear the government, but not for the same reasons, nor do they necessarily have the same ideas in mind for when/if it’s disposed of.