3 ms·

The original claim was that the left hadn't moved. The response was "prove it". I provided examples of movement by the institutional left. No, those examples

by anamax 4y ago

The original claim was that the left hadn't moved. The response was "prove it". I provided examples of movement by the institutional left. No, those examples don't have numbers, but they do show movement. Besides, how do you apply numbers to this sort of stuff in any reasonable fashion? Whether or not I like those things or they're "general" has nothing to do with whether they're movement. That's likely why you didn't comment on whether they were in fact movement. That said, as long as we're lecturing one another on meta-discussion, it's nice of you to provide an opportunity to quote Hannah Arendt: "The elite is not composed of ideologists; its members’ whole education is aimed at abolishing their capacity for distinguishing between truth and falsehood, between reality and fiction. Their superiority consists in their ability immediately to dissolve every statement of fact into a declaration of purpose."

lapcat 4y ago
> The original claim was that the left hadn't moved. The response was "prove it". No, the original claim was actually this: "political animosity may be based particularly on partisans’ overestimation of the prevalence of extreme, egregious views held by only a minority of opponents but imagined to be widespread." The counterclaim was: "There's objective measurements that the democrats moved far left creating the polarization." My suggestion was that this counterclaim seems to be exhibiting the same fallacy discussed in the paper. Both the Democratic and Republican parties are very large, and its members have a wide variety of views. If you pay close attention, you'll see that there's quite a bit of infighting, sometimes very bitter, even within each party. Broad generalizations about Democrats or "the left" — and likewise about Republicans or "the right" — are often going to be grossly inaccurate. You can't just treat huge groups as uniform when they're demonstrably not uniform. The American people — well over 300 million of them — have diverse political views. But we have a political duopoly. Which means that these diverse views held by Americans have to somehow fit mostly within these 2 parties. It's a mistake to overgeneralize about political parties and similar groups. I personally find the terms "left", "right", "liberal", "conservative" to be practically meaningless. They've lost all of their original meaning and become opaque cudgels for the political parties to pretend they have some kind of coherent ideology. But this is a bit of a tangent. Anyway, I would bet that most Democrats and most Republicans don't even know WTF CRT is. Even the ones who complain about it!
klyrs 4y ago
> The original claim was that the left hadn't moved. The response was "prove it". Nope. The top-level post claimed the existence of objective measures of "the left" moving "far left", of which I haven't seen evidence. And, I'd never claim that "the left" hasn't moved. The left/right terminology is rather sloppy, so I've tried to use the language of TFA: Democratic and Republican voters. But, let's look at "progressives" for a moment. The goal of progressives is to identify oppression in the world, and work towards overcoming it. That is to say, the goal of progressives is to change with the times, which is why, for example, today's progressives hate Margaret Sanger but still support Planned Parenthood. The goal of social conservatives is to resist change and as we're seeing with Roe v. Wade, undo past progressive changes (which, I think, is technically "regressive") which is why, for example, we see today's social conservatives rallying around statues of Robert E. Lee. But that's not what the article about. The article is about how each side sees the other. It's nicely summarized by this SMBC comic: https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/2013-04-07 https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/2013-04-07 What's going on today is that Democratic voters increasingly identify Republican voters as the nazi-flag bearing Charlottesville rioters, and Republican voters increasingly identify Democratic with murderers like Kermit Gosnell and Christopher Dorner.

by anamax 4y ago

lapcat 4y ago

> The original claim was that the left hadn't moved. The response was "prove it". No, the original claim was actually this: "political animosity may be based particularly on partisans’ overestimation of the prevalence of extreme, egregious views held by only a minority of opponents but imagined to be widespread." The counterclaim was: "There's objective measurements that the democrats moved far left creating the polarization." My suggestion was that this counterclaim seems to be exhibiting the same fallacy discussed in the paper. Both the Democratic and Republican parties are very large, and its members have a wide variety of views. If you pay close attention, you'll see that there's quite a bit of infighting, sometimes very bitter, even within each party. Broad generalizations about Democrats or "the left" — and likewise about Republicans or "the right" — are often going to be grossly inaccurate. You can't just treat huge groups as uniform when they're demonstrably not uniform. The American people — well over 300 million of them — have diverse political views. But we have a political duopoly. Which means that these diverse views held by Americans have to somehow fit mostly within these 2 parties. It's a mistake to overgeneralize about political parties and similar groups. I personally find the terms "left", "right", "liberal", "conservative" to be practically meaningless. They've lost all of their original meaning and become opaque cudgels for the political parties to pretend they have some kind of coherent ideology. But this is a bit of a tangent. Anyway, I would bet that most Democrats and most Republicans don't even know WTF CRT is. Even the ones who complain about it!

klyrs 4y ago

> The original claim was that the left hadn't moved. The response was "prove it". Nope. The top-level post claimed the existence of objective measures of "the left" moving "far left", of which I haven't seen evidence. And, I'd never claim that "the left" hasn't moved. The left/right terminology is rather sloppy, so I've tried to use the language of TFA: Democratic and Republican voters. But, let's look at "progressives" for a moment. The goal of progressives is to identify oppression in the world, and work towards overcoming it. That is to say, the goal of progressives is to change with the times, which is why, for example, today's progressives hate Margaret Sanger but still support Planned Parenthood. The goal of social conservatives is to resist change and as we're seeing with Roe v. Wade, undo past progressive changes (which, I think, is technically "regressive") which is why, for example, we see today's social conservatives rallying around statues of Robert E. Lee. But that's not what the article about. The article is about how each side sees the other. It's nicely summarized by this SMBC comic: https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/2013-04-07 https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/2013-04-07 What's going on today is that Democratic voters increasingly identify Republican voters as the nazi-flag bearing Charlottesville rioters, and Republican voters increasingly identify Democratic with murderers like Kermit Gosnell and Christopher Dorner.