8 ms·

What's the Matter with Kansas? is a lovely example of contempt disguised as gentle inquiry, with a touch of worry over another, and it starts even with the titl

What's the Matter with Kansas? is a lovely example of contempt disguised as gentle inquiry, with a touch of worry over another, and it starts even with the title itself. "Why those poor, naive, uneducated conservatives in the flyover states, they simply do not understand that they are voting against their own interests." It's concern-trolling with a mask of pity. Once you begin looking for it, you can see it more and more. On a rather left-leaning forum, an article appeared discussing authoritarianism and how pervasive it is in society. One commenter, without a hint of irony or self-awareness, wondered if there were some way to hook into this tendency to get people to get behind gun control or get vaccinated. I will at least take naked, open contempt over that sort of thing.

watwut 5y ago
Trigger the libs and snowflakes would be another nice example. And not even trying to hide. Or like, the notion of real Americams and those who live on cost as not counting as real.
CoastalCoder 5y ago
I find those two forms of contempt to be equally frustrating, because (AFAICT) they have the same root cause: Judging an un-nuanced, possibly straw-man version of another's views. Without any effort to check that they truly understand what the other person believes, let alone what reasons that person has for holding those views. I've seen this from both conservatives and liberals, and especially from those with mass-media audiences.
- coffeecat 5y ago
  It's impossible for us to understand the beliefs/priorities/values of others from any perspective other than our own. Actually, my conjecture is that the only way to see things from another perspective is to internalize some aspects that perspective. Let's say Alice holds some internalized ideal of traditional family values, and Bob holds some internalized ideal of tolerance and inclusion of LGBT people. When Alice looks at Bob's views, all she sees is that it's an affront to an ideal that she cares about, and when Bob looks at Alice's views, all he sees is that it's an affront to an ideal that he cares about. But how can Alice possibly understand Bob's point of view, unless she's able to tentatively drop her concern for traditional family values? I expect that even with effort to understand the other's perspective, unless that other perspective is internalized, Alice's thoughts on Bob's views will be centered around what she cares about: "I guess I understand what motivates Bob to hate family values", "I guess I understand what motivates Alice's bigoted views on LGBT issues", etc.
  - coffeecat 5y ago
    Building on my previous comment, I think it's more useful to say not that we caricaturize opposing viewpoints, but that we compress them using our own internal, lossy compression algorithms. And the original viewpoint is inaccessible to us; we only have access to the compressed representation that our minds generate.
Pxtl 5y ago
It's nice to know the actual factual content of "What's The Matter With Kansas" is completely irrelevant. It doesn't matter who's correct, it matters who hurt their feelings. Which is pretty consistent - conservatives have become utterly disconnected from reality, and their absurd COVID policy has demonstrated what happens when reality doesn't give a crap how you feel.
- at_a_remove 5y ago
  See, there's that contempt again. You should know that this is what began to pry me away from being your basic leftist template. I said, "Wow, I better make sure I am not voting against my own interests. Wouldn't I feel like a fool if I supported people who had contempt for me." After that, I would hear "Ugh, men are awful" in a curious new light. Or someone would say "White people ruin everything" and I would realize, hey, I'm white. This sort of thing began to add up and it became clear that "going left" meant supporting people who had contempt for me, purely on the basis of things like skin color and sex. Wow, I really have been going against my own interests, all this time. I am no better than those "fools" in Kansas.
  - Pxtl 5y ago
    Again, you're talking about feelings instead of policy. About "contempt" instead of dollars and rights and lives. I can't help but see this as every bit as ridiculous as the anti-vaxxers who dig their heels in even as the people around them are dying, because they don't want to give in to The Left on vaccines.
    - at_a_remove 5y ago
      Well hell, let's talk about facts! Do you think the left is particularly supportive of men? ("In fact, more women as a whole now graduate from college than men ... This is a great accomplishment—not just for one sport or one college or even just for women but for America. And this is what Title IX is all about." President Barack Obama.) If they are not, then that is the error of What's the Matter with Kansas?, the error of supporting those who do not have your best interests at heart. If feelings don't matter to you, then why are you engaging with a discussion about contempt?
BitwiseFool 5y ago
I can't help but think this sense is so prevalent on 'The Left' because they have established an image for themselves that is rational, empathetic, and humanist above all else. They actively frame their positions and actions in terms of "justice" and "fairness". They love to declare that "Reality has a well known liberal bias" and frame people who see the world different as rejecting reality itself. With motivations so unquestionably good, and so unquestionably rational, anyone who is in opposition to their proposals must have something wrong with them, no? How else could someone be opposed to such righteous actions? Well, the answer is that they have been deceived by Fox News, they are ignorant, they are voting against their best interest without realizing it, they are reactionaries, they have no empathy, or they are just plan bad people. Take your pick.
- abbub 5y ago
  I mean...it's not 'The Left' that's pushing the 'fake news' and 'alternate facts' agenda when they come up against anything they disagree with...
  - BitwiseFool 5y ago
    As loathe as people are to hear "both sides", 'The Left' absolutely does this as too. They just use different names and insinuations to communicate the same point, that sources presented by the other side is not to be trusted.
    - mrtesthah 5y ago
      >'The Left' absolutely does this as too. Remember when Biden claimed that COVID-19 was invented by the Republicans to make his presidency look bad? Remember when Obama refused to acknowledge that Trump won the presidency and when CNN aired nonstop coverage from conspiracy theorists claiming that the entire election was fraudulent? Remember when Obama claimed months in advance that any election in which a Democrat lost was necessarily fraudulent, and then incited a mob to take over the US Capitol building during the electoral vote count? And then when Obama refused to authorize the national guard to prevent US senators and house representatives from being taken hostage? You're damn right -- they're both totally the same.
VictorPath 5y ago
> What's the Matter with Kansas? is a lovely example of contempt disguised as gentle inquiry, with a touch of worry over another, and it starts even with the title itself On the contrary. The title is from the 19th century, from an editorial asking why the populists in Kansas were so left wing, something the book goes into detail about in the second chapter.
- h2odragon 5y ago
  Such trolling isn't new, its just the causes for which its used change
dang 5y ago
I haven't read that book but I think you may be misassessing Thomas Frank, who of course is from Kansas and whose main interest is rehabilitating progressive populism. Wasn't the title ironic? Having read/heard other things, I assumed he was really trying to explain what was the matter with the people who ask that.

watwut 5y ago

Trigger the libs and snowflakes would be another nice example. And not even trying to hide. Or like, the notion of real Americams and those who live on cost as not counting as real.

CoastalCoder 5y ago

I find those two forms of contempt to be equally frustrating, because (AFAICT) they have the same root cause: Judging an un-nuanced, possibly straw-man version of another's views. Without any effort to check that they truly understand what the other person believes, let alone what reasons that person has for holding those views. I've seen this from both conservatives and liberals, and especially from those with mass-media audiences.

coffeecat 5y ago
It's impossible for us to understand the beliefs/priorities/values of others from any perspective other than our own. Actually, my conjecture is that the only way to see things from another perspective is to internalize some aspects that perspective. Let's say Alice holds some internalized ideal of traditional family values, and Bob holds some internalized ideal of tolerance and inclusion of LGBT people. When Alice looks at Bob's views, all she sees is that it's an affront to an ideal that she cares about, and when Bob looks at Alice's views, all he sees is that it's an affront to an ideal that he cares about. But how can Alice possibly understand Bob's point of view, unless she's able to tentatively drop her concern for traditional family values? I expect that even with effort to understand the other's perspective, unless that other perspective is internalized, Alice's thoughts on Bob's views will be centered around what she cares about: "I guess I understand what motivates Bob to hate family values", "I guess I understand what motivates Alice's bigoted views on LGBT issues", etc.
- coffeecat 5y ago
  Building on my previous comment, I think it's more useful to say not that we caricaturize opposing viewpoints, but that we compress them using our own internal, lossy compression algorithms. And the original viewpoint is inaccessible to us; we only have access to the compressed representation that our minds generate.

Pxtl 5y ago

It's nice to know the actual factual content of "What's The Matter With Kansas" is completely irrelevant. It doesn't matter who's correct, it matters who hurt their feelings. Which is pretty consistent - conservatives have become utterly disconnected from reality, and their absurd COVID policy has demonstrated what happens when reality doesn't give a crap how you feel.

at_a_remove 5y ago
See, there's that contempt again. You should know that this is what began to pry me away from being your basic leftist template. I said, "Wow, I better make sure I am not voting against my own interests. Wouldn't I feel like a fool if I supported people who had contempt for me." After that, I would hear "Ugh, men are awful" in a curious new light. Or someone would say "White people ruin everything" and I would realize, hey, I'm white. This sort of thing began to add up and it became clear that "going left" meant supporting people who had contempt for me, purely on the basis of things like skin color and sex. Wow, I really have been going against my own interests, all this time. I am no better than those "fools" in Kansas.
- Pxtl 5y ago
  Again, you're talking about feelings instead of policy. About "contempt" instead of dollars and rights and lives. I can't help but see this as every bit as ridiculous as the anti-vaxxers who dig their heels in even as the people around them are dying, because they don't want to give in to The Left on vaccines.
  - at_a_remove 5y ago
    Well hell, let's talk about facts! Do you think the left is particularly supportive of men? ("In fact, more women as a whole now graduate from college than men ... This is a great accomplishment—not just for one sport or one college or even just for women but for America. And this is what Title IX is all about." President Barack Obama.) If they are not, then that is the error of What's the Matter with Kansas?, the error of supporting those who do not have your best interests at heart. If feelings don't matter to you, then why are you engaging with a discussion about contempt?

BitwiseFool 5y ago

I can't help but think this sense is so prevalent on 'The Left' because they have established an image for themselves that is rational, empathetic, and humanist above all else. They actively frame their positions and actions in terms of "justice" and "fairness". They love to declare that "Reality has a well known liberal bias" and frame people who see the world different as rejecting reality itself. With motivations so unquestionably good, and so unquestionably rational, anyone who is in opposition to their proposals must have something wrong with them, no? How else could someone be opposed to such righteous actions? Well, the answer is that they have been deceived by Fox News, they are ignorant, they are voting against their best interest without realizing it, they are reactionaries, they have no empathy, or they are just plan bad people. Take your pick.

abbub 5y ago
I mean...it's not 'The Left' that's pushing the 'fake news' and 'alternate facts' agenda when they come up against anything they disagree with...
- BitwiseFool 5y ago
  As loathe as people are to hear "both sides", 'The Left' absolutely does this as too. They just use different names and insinuations to communicate the same point, that sources presented by the other side is not to be trusted.
  - mrtesthah 5y ago
    >'The Left' absolutely does this as too. Remember when Biden claimed that COVID-19 was invented by the Republicans to make his presidency look bad? Remember when Obama refused to acknowledge that Trump won the presidency and when CNN aired nonstop coverage from conspiracy theorists claiming that the entire election was fraudulent? Remember when Obama claimed months in advance that any election in which a Democrat lost was necessarily fraudulent, and then incited a mob to take over the US Capitol building during the electoral vote count? And then when Obama refused to authorize the national guard to prevent US senators and house representatives from being taken hostage? You're damn right -- they're both totally the same.

VictorPath 5y ago

> What's the Matter with Kansas? is a lovely example of contempt disguised as gentle inquiry, with a touch of worry over another, and it starts even with the title itself On the contrary. The title is from the 19th century, from an editorial asking why the populists in Kansas were so left wing, something the book goes into detail about in the second chapter.

h2odragon 5y ago
Such trolling isn't new, its just the causes for which its used change

dang 5y ago

I haven't read that book but I think you may be misassessing Thomas Frank, who of course is from Kansas and whose main interest is rehabilitating progressive populism. Wasn't the title ironic? Having read/heard other things, I assumed he was really trying to explain what was the matter with the people who ask that.