3 ms·

I hadn’t even heard of this debate until now, but am already appalled at the polarization: “degrowthers” this, “degrowthers have no idea how..” It is possible

I hadn’t even heard of this debate until now, but am already appalled at the polarization: “degrowthers” this, “degrowthers have no idea how..” It is possible to have sensible debate without immediately putting people into the blue or red team. We can do better than this.

dash2 5y ago
There's a well-defined political argument called degrowth, which says that we need to stop economic growth in order to save the planet. There are some people who put forward this argument. Noah Smith is arguing against them. I think it would be hard to do this without giving them a collective name.
- ricardobeat 5y ago
  Well, you don’t have to. You can discuss the ideas and not the people. The only purpose of labeling people based on a particular belief/position is to make it easier to attack with generalizations, and polarize the debate. Now you have to pick a side - are you a degrowther or not?
  - dash2 5y ago
    I am not sure that doing a find/replace of "degrowthers think" with "degrowth theory says" would really contribute make the debate less polarized. Maybe. There are reasons to labeling people other than those you suggest. For example, maybe it simply was the first way to express his argument that came to mind. Or maybe, identifying a group of people who think X can be part of the debate. For example, suppose libertarians are all funded by billionaires. That might suggest a motivation for libertarian thought. You couldn't know this without identifying the people who are libertarians. Lastly, it's often good that people have to "pick a side". Do you think we should aim to stop economic growth, or don't you? It's good that you should come to a clear position on this topic. Unclear positions might be nuanced, yes. But they might also be based on unclear thinking, or a desire to please everybody.
- jcims 5y ago
  Is he arguing against the people or the idea?
ianai 5y ago
I know you’re right, but I often wonder what would initiate change. Anecdotally, I quickly tire from reading or hearing arguments full of the polarization labels (liberal/conservative/neocon/neoliberal/etc). Wonder if I’m alone in this.
- bellyfullofbac 5y ago
  Yeah, those labels are beyond useless, and it's just a shortcut for a caricature of the opponent in the mind of whoever uses them. E.g. someone who is vaccine-hesistant might be lazily pigeon-holed as a dumb racist Trump supporter. People use "socialism" to think Sweden but the other side thinks China and Nazi since they know the "zi" stood for socialism and that means Bernie Sanders wants to gas his own folk.
taneq 5y ago
> without immediately putting people into the blue or red team That’s such an anti-teamer thing to say.
thrower123 5y ago
I wouldn't take Noah Smith all that seriously. He's a classic example of "bad on purpose to make you click"
notafraudster 5y ago
You're correct; the debate is pretty arcane and the purpose of this particular post is mostly for Noah to lob bombs at other wonk bloggers he interacts with on Twitter frequently. This is a pathology of his writing on Substack, and actually of the entire Substack ecosystem more broadly. Most of the content produced in this ecosystem is basically "takes" on "stuff I heard online". See also Freddie de Boer and others. Extreme forest for trees problem. It's not just that it feels tribalistic and inaccessible to a lay audience, it's that it feels tribalistic and inaccessible to even a particularly educated and engaged audience who nevertheless don't spend all their time in this particular online bubble. I say this acknowledging that the actual criticisms here are reasonable and I don't have any particular disdain for the post or the discussion, just that I am totally unsurprised that you picked up on it being oddly insular.

dash2 5y ago

There's a well-defined political argument called degrowth, which says that we need to stop economic growth in order to save the planet. There are some people who put forward this argument. Noah Smith is arguing against them. I think it would be hard to do this without giving them a collective name.

ricardobeat 5y ago
Well, you don’t have to. You can discuss the ideas and not the people. The only purpose of labeling people based on a particular belief/position is to make it easier to attack with generalizations, and polarize the debate. Now you have to pick a side - are you a degrowther or not?
- dash2 5y ago
  I am not sure that doing a find/replace of "degrowthers think" with "degrowth theory says" would really contribute make the debate less polarized. Maybe. There are reasons to labeling people other than those you suggest. For example, maybe it simply was the first way to express his argument that came to mind. Or maybe, identifying a group of people who think X can be part of the debate. For example, suppose libertarians are all funded by billionaires. That might suggest a motivation for libertarian thought. You couldn't know this without identifying the people who are libertarians. Lastly, it's often good that people have to "pick a side". Do you think we should aim to stop economic growth, or don't you? It's good that you should come to a clear position on this topic. Unclear positions might be nuanced, yes. But they might also be based on unclear thinking, or a desire to please everybody.
jcims 5y ago
Is he arguing against the people or the idea?

ianai 5y ago

I know you’re right, but I often wonder what would initiate change. Anecdotally, I quickly tire from reading or hearing arguments full of the polarization labels (liberal/conservative/neocon/neoliberal/etc). Wonder if I’m alone in this.

bellyfullofbac 5y ago
Yeah, those labels are beyond useless, and it's just a shortcut for a caricature of the opponent in the mind of whoever uses them. E.g. someone who is vaccine-hesistant might be lazily pigeon-holed as a dumb racist Trump supporter. People use "socialism" to think Sweden but the other side thinks China and Nazi since they know the "zi" stood for socialism and that means Bernie Sanders wants to gas his own folk.

taneq 5y ago

> without immediately putting people into the blue or red team That’s such an anti-teamer thing to say.

thrower123 5y ago

I wouldn't take Noah Smith all that seriously. He's a classic example of "bad on purpose to make you click"

notafraudster 5y ago

You're correct; the debate is pretty arcane and the purpose of this particular post is mostly for Noah to lob bombs at other wonk bloggers he interacts with on Twitter frequently. This is a pathology of his writing on Substack, and actually of the entire Substack ecosystem more broadly. Most of the content produced in this ecosystem is basically "takes" on "stuff I heard online". See also Freddie de Boer and others. Extreme forest for trees problem. It's not just that it feels tribalistic and inaccessible to a lay audience, it's that it feels tribalistic and inaccessible to even a particularly educated and engaged audience who nevertheless don't spend all their time in this particular online bubble. I say this acknowledging that the actual criticisms here are reasonable and I don't have any particular disdain for the post or the discussion, just that I am totally unsurprised that you picked up on it being oddly insular.