3 ms·

>we're supposed to "reply to the best possible interpretation The commenter made the statement: "Women get away with too much in our society." What's "the be

>we're supposed to "reply to the best possible interpretation The commenter made the statement: "Women get away with too much in our society." What's "the best possible interpretation" of such a sweeping condemnation of a group of people? >I didn't see their comment making any "right wing" statement. Maybe it is a viewpoint that correlates with right wing politics What's the difference between making a right-wing statement and expressing a viewpoint that correlates with right-wing politics? >We should avoid sinking in to the political tribalism that puts every issue on a left vs. right axis. I don't think it's a very useful statement to say "women get away with too much" The effect of what you're doing here is playing down this hostile, openly right-wing statement as something benign by declaring that it is simply "not useful" and that it only "correlates with the right-wing" (as if that's somehow different from actually being right-wing). Then, you're suggesting that the one who pushes back on the author of that clear political expression is the one engaging in political tribalism.

smolder 5y ago
> What's "the best possible interpretation" of such a sweeping condemnation of a group of people? The best possible interpretation, to me, would be that they think women get away with too much, for whatever unstated reasons. It doesn't mean interpreting their post as good or true, but it does mean laying aside assumptions about what they mean and haven't said, like that they hate women, or that women shouldn't make as much money or have equal protections under the law, shouldn't be allowed abortions, or something like that. > What's the difference between making a right-wing statement and expressing a viewpoint that correlates with right-wing politics? I think too many things are ascribed to a left or right political leaning. Couldn't a Marxist conceivably say and believe the same thing? ...that society is too lenient towards women? I believe it's wrong to make assumptions about every political opinion someone holds based on one stated opinion or even a few of them. Why? People are constantly trying to bin me as ingroup or outgroup based on their perception of where some specific opinion lies on a single axis, and they get it wrong both ways. I'm not some stereotype of a centrist either. I have a complex model of the world that draws from a lot of places. Real people are defined on very many axis, not one. Even if the majority of people just found their spot on the left-right axis and adopted every belief they thought belonged there, it's wrong and reductive (and harmful) to assume everyone is that way. Political tribalism or hyperpartisanship or whatever you want to label it is a toxic thing, like a societal disease in need of management, and I try frequently to help other apparently intelligent people see my perspective on it. > The effect of what you're doing here is playing down this hostile, openly right-wing statement as something benign. Sorry, no. I engaged you on what you said. I didn't engage them on what they said because it didn't seem worthwhile to me at the time.
- unclebucknasty 5y ago
  >The best possible interpretation, to me, would be that they think women get away with too much. >it does mean laying aside assumptions about what they mean and haven't said My point is that the plain interpretation is problematic in its own right. It's overtly and unduly hostile towards women, so there's no need for additional assumptions. It's regrettable to me that you don't see this, but many don't. It's pernicious, which is exactly why I was compelled to comment. Because, here we have a group of people that have traditionally had to fight for equal rights in our society and are still engaged in the same. Recasting them as the villains in society or otherwise suggesting that they hold some outsized power that they're abusing is absurd and is part of a pattern of demonizing historical out-groups whenever they seek equality. Once the narrative becomes, "the real problem in our society is that women get away with too much", then what should society's response be? At a minimum, there's no empathy for their struggle or even acknowledgement that they are deprived of any rights. In fact, they are the problem and need to be somehow checked or curbed, which is a framing that can be used to deny their rights and keep sacrificing them to the political machine. This is how language shifts the narrative. If the OP had left out that sweeping allegation and just stuck to the narrow topic of differences in the treatment of women and men WRT sexual abuse, then that's a very different, on-topic, and valid conversation. So, ask yourself what the point is of instead broadening it to this general statement about women. >I think too many things are ascribed to a left or right political leaning That's a laudable sentiment and I agree. Unfortunately, however, there is a pitched battle being waged by very vocal groups that have dominated our politics and culture. In this process, the right has targeted groups that it uses as political fodder to pit against "traditional society". Pretending that's not happening doesn't make it less true. >Couldn't a Marxist conceivably say and believe the same thing? It's not about traditional political definitions involving Marxism, etc. To your point, there's nothing that's necessarily inherently left or right about hostility towards women. However, again, the right in this country has chosen hostility towards certain groups (including women) as a political strategy. And, they would suggest that the left has chosen hostility towards white men as a strategy. So, the right has taken up the cause of "under-siege white men who require protection". Whether you agree with any of these positions or have a judgment about who's to blame is irrelevant. The fact is, that's where we are. So, in a strict sense, you're right: it's not about traditional notions of left and right. But, it is about the causes that those who've defined themselves accordingly have chosen to elevate. >Sorry, no. I engaged you on what you said. In fact, this is the first time you've engaged me. My statement was referring to your reply to shephardjhon.

smolder 5y ago

> What's "the best possible interpretation" of such a sweeping condemnation of a group of people? The best possible interpretation, to me, would be that they think women get away with too much, for whatever unstated reasons. It doesn't mean interpreting their post as good or true, but it does mean laying aside assumptions about what they mean and haven't said, like that they hate women, or that women shouldn't make as much money or have equal protections under the law, shouldn't be allowed abortions, or something like that. > What's the difference between making a right-wing statement and expressing a viewpoint that correlates with right-wing politics? I think too many things are ascribed to a left or right political leaning. Couldn't a Marxist conceivably say and believe the same thing? ...that society is too lenient towards women? I believe it's wrong to make assumptions about every political opinion someone holds based on one stated opinion or even a few of them. Why? People are constantly trying to bin me as ingroup or outgroup based on their perception of where some specific opinion lies on a single axis, and they get it wrong both ways. I'm not some stereotype of a centrist either. I have a complex model of the world that draws from a lot of places. Real people are defined on very many axis, not one. Even if the majority of people just found their spot on the left-right axis and adopted every belief they thought belonged there, it's wrong and reductive (and harmful) to assume everyone is that way. Political tribalism or hyperpartisanship or whatever you want to label it is a toxic thing, like a societal disease in need of management, and I try frequently to help other apparently intelligent people see my perspective on it. > The effect of what you're doing here is playing down this hostile, openly right-wing statement as something benign. Sorry, no. I engaged you on what you said. I didn't engage them on what they said because it didn't seem worthwhile to me at the time.

unclebucknasty 5y ago
>The best possible interpretation, to me, would be that they think women get away with too much. >it does mean laying aside assumptions about what they mean and haven't said My point is that the plain interpretation is problematic in its own right. It's overtly and unduly hostile towards women, so there's no need for additional assumptions. It's regrettable to me that you don't see this, but many don't. It's pernicious, which is exactly why I was compelled to comment. Because, here we have a group of people that have traditionally had to fight for equal rights in our society and are still engaged in the same. Recasting them as the villains in society or otherwise suggesting that they hold some outsized power that they're abusing is absurd and is part of a pattern of demonizing historical out-groups whenever they seek equality. Once the narrative becomes, "the real problem in our society is that women get away with too much", then what should society's response be? At a minimum, there's no empathy for their struggle or even acknowledgement that they are deprived of any rights. In fact, they are the problem and need to be somehow checked or curbed, which is a framing that can be used to deny their rights and keep sacrificing them to the political machine. This is how language shifts the narrative. If the OP had left out that sweeping allegation and just stuck to the narrow topic of differences in the treatment of women and men WRT sexual abuse, then that's a very different, on-topic, and valid conversation. So, ask yourself what the point is of instead broadening it to this general statement about women. >I think too many things are ascribed to a left or right political leaning That's a laudable sentiment and I agree. Unfortunately, however, there is a pitched battle being waged by very vocal groups that have dominated our politics and culture. In this process, the right has targeted groups that it uses as political fodder to pit against "traditional society". Pretending that's not happening doesn't make it less true. >Couldn't a Marxist conceivably say and believe the same thing? It's not about traditional political definitions involving Marxism, etc. To your point, there's nothing that's necessarily inherently left or right about hostility towards women. However, again, the right in this country has chosen hostility towards certain groups (including women) as a political strategy. And, they would suggest that the left has chosen hostility towards white men as a strategy. So, the right has taken up the cause of "under-siege white men who require protection". Whether you agree with any of these positions or have a judgment about who's to blame is irrelevant. The fact is, that's where we are. So, in a strict sense, you're right: it's not about traditional notions of left and right. But, it is about the causes that those who've defined themselves accordingly have chosen to elevate. >Sorry, no. I engaged you on what you said. In fact, this is the first time you've engaged me. My statement was referring to your reply to shephardjhon.