4 ms·

> Hard lines being drawn, people unwilling to even talk with others based on ideological labels, economic sanctions against ‘offenders’, propaganda clearly targ

> Hard lines being drawn, people unwilling to even talk with others based on ideological labels, economic sanctions against ‘offenders’, propaganda clearly targeted at specific identifiable groups used to raise funds and attack the ‘other’ side, fear and loathing/us vs them. You're describing today's conservatives. Liberals seem to be always willing to entertain the discussion of basically anything. It's sort of a core tenet of liberalism... Open discussion and debate. Where liberals shut discussions down is when they ask for evidence or at least sound reasoning and aren't presented with anything. That's the logical point where you can't really discuss something anymore. I've seen conservatives get extremely frustrated that liberals won't entertain their religious myths or traditions as justification for any given policy. "They just don't listen!" No, the conservative just revealed that the entire basis for whatever they believe in isn't founded in reality. No amount of arguing is going to sway them so there's no point in discussing it anymore... "Agree to disagree" is about as far as you can go.

Clubber 4y ago
>Liberals seem to be always willing to entertain the discussion of basically anything. It's sort of a core tenet of liberalism... Open discussion and debate. I'm not sure that is true anymore. Liberals have extremist wings (like Antifa) just like conservatives do. People making liberal arguments now spew the same venom that only conservative groups did 10 years ago. At least in my experience. I think part of the problem is the news likes to take extreme examples of anything and present it as the norm. I have discussions over policy with people all the time and they are quite enlightening.
- riskable 4y ago
  > Liberals have extremist wings (like Antifa) just like conservatives do. OK where's the anti-fascist extremism here in the US (which is the relevant region of this discussion) that's shutting down discussions? If you look at Wikipedia's extensive (but non-exhaustive) page about Terrorism in the United States there's just a single entry for an Antifa activist: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_the_United_States ...but there's a number of entries for: * Anti-abortion violence * Antisemitism * Right-wing and anti-government extremism * White nationalism and white supremacy There's other topics covered as well but I chose those because they seem to be most aligned with today's conservatives. There's not really, "both sides" here. Today's conservatives (aka "the right") seem to have a monopoly on violence as well as "shutting down discussion" of various topics... https://www.advocate.com/law/2022/3/29/16-states-pushing-dont-say-gay-bills-and-censorship-laws-right-now https://www.advocate.com/law/2022/3/29/16-states-pushing-don... So again, definitely not a "both sides" issue. Bringing up Antifa as some sort of equivalency is absolutely ridiculous.
  - lazide 4y ago
    On the whole, I think you’re right. It is important however to recognize that it is not what the relevant demographics see. Similar to the older and more rural generation in Russia, what they see on all the media they know is cherry picked examples of the craziest most outlandish behavior they are told is ‘the others’, and which shows things that they often had to turn down or wish they could do, but sacrificed to make something that ‘worked’ in their environment. And because they can’t know something they are not exposed to or shown, and it is a convenient tool by politicians to stoke up anger, resentment, etc. and these areas are quite poor and have lost most of their young people but still have economic and voting power…. On the liberal side, it’s getting more strident as conservatives have been getting some of what they want, and the media and feed algorithms are more than happy to play the same outlandish examples of ‘the others’ and tell them how at risk everything is (which is not false many times!), which just goes to more extremism. The conservative base has in been more violent in large part I think because they’ll fall back on what traditionally works instead of trying to reason with folks to get what they want. Especially if it sounds terrible. Personally, I’m a realist and try to look beyond whatever someone claims to want or be able to deliver to the long term track record it has of success, and what the trade offs are. Because there are always trade offs. Having babies and giving birth sucks for instance, and doing a decent job as a parent requires long term sacrifice, physical and earnings, and a huge amount of time and energy spent towards stuff that is incredibly valuable and necessary in the long term for everyone but is also often incredibly unpleasant in the short term. For instance, Thu and Fri last week I spent mopping up projectile vomit and scrubbing diarrhea out of the carpet because my youngest got sick from daycare. Having fun instead sounds way better! A society without children however is dead in a generation or two. And someone has to do the work. If someone won’t do what you want because it sucks for them, what would the person trying to make it happen do? Especially someone without a lot of resources? Well, they make it so they don’t have a choice to do it, if they can. Even if that means banning all the fun things you’d otherwise be doing. The cities don’t understand, because the cities have too many people. The rural areas understand, because everyone who could left for the city. Repeat for all the major hot button topics.
  - Clubber 4y ago
    >page about Terrorism I said extremist wings, not terrorist. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds like you are defending left wing extremism by pointing out that there is more right wing extremism. I don't dispute that there is more right wing extremism, but you seem to be ignoring left wing extremism. I'm of the opinion that extremism and violence for any cause is unjust. >There's not really, "both sides" here. Today's conservatives (aka "the right") seem to have a monopoly on violence as well as "shutting down discussion" Only if you completely ignore the actions of one side. There were quite a few left wing extremist actions in 2020 during the BLM/police brutality protests, including rioting, arson, and CHAZ. You might believe in what they are fighting for (as do I) but I certainly don't condone some of the tactics employed. >Today's conservatives (aka "the right") seem to have a monopoly on violence as well as "shutting down discussion" of various topics... As I pointed out, they certainly don't have a monopoly on violence, unless you are intentionally ignoring it. You might want to check your biases and understand that extremism on either side stands to destabilize our civilization and push us into barbarism. You shouldn't excuse or ignore either.
- LordDragonfang 4y ago
  >Liberals have extremist wings (like Antifa) Antifa[1] generally aren't Liberals, except in the overly-broad definition where anyone who opposed fascism is antifa. American Antifa is based on the German Antifa, which is explicitly leftist and anticapitalist, and the majority of self-identified American Antifa are the same. GP is talking about political Liberalism[2], of which open discussion is a core tenet. US politics has muddied the term "liberalism" to be essentially meaningless, but as far as words have actual meanings, GP is correct. (The word you're looking for might be "progressives", if you're trying to describe "people left of what the US calls conservatives") [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antifa_(United_States) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antifa_(United_States) [2]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism
  - Clubber 4y ago
    >GP is talking about political Liberalism[2], of which open discussion is a core tenet. It's really not though. Here are some issues off the top of my head that many modern liberals, at least on the internet, have no desire to honestly discuss. By discuss I mean listen and consider and understand the other side's opinion in good faith: - Abortion - Effectiveness of gun control - Maybe Trump wasn't a Russian asset - Transexual rights v. women's rights - Drug Policy - Benefits of free market capitalism Most don't even understand the actual counter arguments and just understand the counter arguments as other liberals explain it to them. It seems both sides are in their corners and just shouting past each other. This is the polarization every is talking about. I think liberals see conservatives as a caricature of that conservatives actually are and vice versa. It reminds me of the same propaganda/caricatures that the US used during WWII to try to make the Japanese and German armies look foolish and weak.
    - LordDragonfang 4y ago
      >By discuss I mean listen and consider and understand the other side's opinion in good faith Based on everything I've seen on the internet, that's a definition that sets the bar so high it's almost comical. Especially when it comes to "culture war" topics like you've listed. Very, very few individuals are willing to actually try to understand what their opponents believe, on either side of the issue, and the exceptions are truly exceptional. That being said, the Liberal concept of "open discussion" doesn't require anyone to actually understand their opponents'' positions. In fact, it implicitly discourages it. That's because the purpose of open debate, according to Liberal ideal, is to allow "everyone's voice to be heard" in the "marketplace of ideas" so that "the best ideas will naturally float to the top". If one really believes that their idea is the best, they have a vested internet in making sure it is heard loudly and frequently in that market. You're correct that this has led to polarization, because that is precisely a failure mode of these Liberal ideals. A couple of side notes: - "Liberal" isn't a synonym for "Democrat", nor is it a strict antonym of "conservative". A lot of the Republican platform is and has been Liberalism/neoliberalism (though this has lessened in the past few decades, especially in the post-Trump era). Indeed, lots of (pre-Trump) Republicans are Liberals/neoliberals, though many would be offended to be called that due to the aforementioned American muddying of the term. (Don't ask me to define the distinction between classical- and neo- liberalism, though, it never had a fully accepted distinction) - "Transexual" hasn't been the preferred term for over a decade. That and the fact that you listed it in opposition to "women's rights" makes me think that you aren't actually coming to these discussions to "understand the other side's opinion in good faith", on that idea or others, and that might be affecting your perception of what these "liberals on the internet" are willing to do.
lazide 4y ago
Clearly you’ve never tried to talk to someone on the liberal side about if what they want will actually work or produce an outcome that is desirable for the rest of the population! Hah. SF is a prime example of when someone can use reason and argument and ‘helping others’ to convince people to do things that just don’t actually work. Conservatives definitely have a bent that most intellectuals and folks in tech find offensive, and for reasons that are often due to fundamental differences in worldview and environment. But a lot of the rational arguments for things going on right now, for those who have actual experience in the real world, are bullshit if you start challenging the assumptions. But that is hard, be will get you nailed. And frankly, no one like that is going to try to do that right now because it isn’t even about rationality. It’s a different set of beliefs and feelings with attached justifications. But, any sizable group of people randomly selected will have similar differences. The reason we have social rules, is people have found over time when to talk and not talk about certain topics ,because for a society to function, we need to agree to some common ground and not actively antagonize each other over these fundamental differences. Because you can’t reason someone out of a position they didn’t reason themselves into, and very, very few people have actually reasoned themselves into much of anything. No amount of talking is likely to change anyones mind about these things. For instance, I believe that the best way to resolve a problem is to talk openly about it, directly discuss the range of impacts this problem will have, discuss our own capabilities and successes/failures in resolving the problem openly, and then prioritize it against other open problems and likely risks. That makes me great for engineering leadership it turns out. Near as I can tell, also emergency response. It apparently makes me absolutely terrifying to a decent swath of the population, especially when they are screwing up and don’t know how to stop. So I’ve learned that I need to not do this to certain people if I want them to not run away screaming. It also means I’ve learned some people are useful to partner with and some people are radioactive bad to do so with. And in a society, especially a country so diverse and over such an area, that means picking which fights to have, and dialing back the rhetoric, but that requires both sides to do that. If one side won’t, then it is a war. No one can maintain sensible boundaries with appeasement - which is fundamentally different than compromise.

Clubber 4y ago

>Liberals seem to be always willing to entertain the discussion of basically anything. It's sort of a core tenet of liberalism... Open discussion and debate. I'm not sure that is true anymore. Liberals have extremist wings (like Antifa) just like conservatives do. People making liberal arguments now spew the same venom that only conservative groups did 10 years ago. At least in my experience. I think part of the problem is the news likes to take extreme examples of anything and present it as the norm. I have discussions over policy with people all the time and they are quite enlightening.

riskable 4y ago
> Liberals have extremist wings (like Antifa) just like conservatives do. OK where's the anti-fascist extremism here in the US (which is the relevant region of this discussion) that's shutting down discussions? If you look at Wikipedia's extensive (but non-exhaustive) page about Terrorism in the United States there's just a single entry for an Antifa activist: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_the_United_States ...but there's a number of entries for: * Anti-abortion violence * Antisemitism * Right-wing and anti-government extremism * White nationalism and white supremacy There's other topics covered as well but I chose those because they seem to be most aligned with today's conservatives. There's not really, "both sides" here. Today's conservatives (aka "the right") seem to have a monopoly on violence as well as "shutting down discussion" of various topics... https://www.advocate.com/law/2022/3/29/16-states-pushing-dont-say-gay-bills-and-censorship-laws-right-now https://www.advocate.com/law/2022/3/29/16-states-pushing-don... So again, definitely not a "both sides" issue. Bringing up Antifa as some sort of equivalency is absolutely ridiculous.
- lazide 4y ago
  On the whole, I think you’re right. It is important however to recognize that it is not what the relevant demographics see. Similar to the older and more rural generation in Russia, what they see on all the media they know is cherry picked examples of the craziest most outlandish behavior they are told is ‘the others’, and which shows things that they often had to turn down or wish they could do, but sacrificed to make something that ‘worked’ in their environment. And because they can’t know something they are not exposed to or shown, and it is a convenient tool by politicians to stoke up anger, resentment, etc. and these areas are quite poor and have lost most of their young people but still have economic and voting power…. On the liberal side, it’s getting more strident as conservatives have been getting some of what they want, and the media and feed algorithms are more than happy to play the same outlandish examples of ‘the others’ and tell them how at risk everything is (which is not false many times!), which just goes to more extremism. The conservative base has in been more violent in large part I think because they’ll fall back on what traditionally works instead of trying to reason with folks to get what they want. Especially if it sounds terrible. Personally, I’m a realist and try to look beyond whatever someone claims to want or be able to deliver to the long term track record it has of success, and what the trade offs are. Because there are always trade offs. Having babies and giving birth sucks for instance, and doing a decent job as a parent requires long term sacrifice, physical and earnings, and a huge amount of time and energy spent towards stuff that is incredibly valuable and necessary in the long term for everyone but is also often incredibly unpleasant in the short term. For instance, Thu and Fri last week I spent mopping up projectile vomit and scrubbing diarrhea out of the carpet because my youngest got sick from daycare. Having fun instead sounds way better! A society without children however is dead in a generation or two. And someone has to do the work. If someone won’t do what you want because it sucks for them, what would the person trying to make it happen do? Especially someone without a lot of resources? Well, they make it so they don’t have a choice to do it, if they can. Even if that means banning all the fun things you’d otherwise be doing. The cities don’t understand, because the cities have too many people. The rural areas understand, because everyone who could left for the city. Repeat for all the major hot button topics.
- Clubber 4y ago
  >page about Terrorism I said extremist wings, not terrorist. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds like you are defending left wing extremism by pointing out that there is more right wing extremism. I don't dispute that there is more right wing extremism, but you seem to be ignoring left wing extremism. I'm of the opinion that extremism and violence for any cause is unjust. >There's not really, "both sides" here. Today's conservatives (aka "the right") seem to have a monopoly on violence as well as "shutting down discussion" Only if you completely ignore the actions of one side. There were quite a few left wing extremist actions in 2020 during the BLM/police brutality protests, including rioting, arson, and CHAZ. You might believe in what they are fighting for (as do I) but I certainly don't condone some of the tactics employed. >Today's conservatives (aka "the right") seem to have a monopoly on violence as well as "shutting down discussion" of various topics... As I pointed out, they certainly don't have a monopoly on violence, unless you are intentionally ignoring it. You might want to check your biases and understand that extremism on either side stands to destabilize our civilization and push us into barbarism. You shouldn't excuse or ignore either.
LordDragonfang 4y ago
>Liberals have extremist wings (like Antifa) Antifa[1] generally aren't Liberals, except in the overly-broad definition where anyone who opposed fascism is antifa. American Antifa is based on the German Antifa, which is explicitly leftist and anticapitalist, and the majority of self-identified American Antifa are the same. GP is talking about political Liberalism[2], of which open discussion is a core tenet. US politics has muddied the term "liberalism" to be essentially meaningless, but as far as words have actual meanings, GP is correct. (The word you're looking for might be "progressives", if you're trying to describe "people left of what the US calls conservatives") [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antifa_(United_States) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antifa_(United_States) [2]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism
- Clubber 4y ago
  >GP is talking about political Liberalism[2], of which open discussion is a core tenet. It's really not though. Here are some issues off the top of my head that many modern liberals, at least on the internet, have no desire to honestly discuss. By discuss I mean listen and consider and understand the other side's opinion in good faith: - Abortion - Effectiveness of gun control - Maybe Trump wasn't a Russian asset - Transexual rights v. women's rights - Drug Policy - Benefits of free market capitalism Most don't even understand the actual counter arguments and just understand the counter arguments as other liberals explain it to them. It seems both sides are in their corners and just shouting past each other. This is the polarization every is talking about. I think liberals see conservatives as a caricature of that conservatives actually are and vice versa. It reminds me of the same propaganda/caricatures that the US used during WWII to try to make the Japanese and German armies look foolish and weak.
  - LordDragonfang 4y ago
    >By discuss I mean listen and consider and understand the other side's opinion in good faith Based on everything I've seen on the internet, that's a definition that sets the bar so high it's almost comical. Especially when it comes to "culture war" topics like you've listed. Very, very few individuals are willing to actually try to understand what their opponents believe, on either side of the issue, and the exceptions are truly exceptional. That being said, the Liberal concept of "open discussion" doesn't require anyone to actually understand their opponents'' positions. In fact, it implicitly discourages it. That's because the purpose of open debate, according to Liberal ideal, is to allow "everyone's voice to be heard" in the "marketplace of ideas" so that "the best ideas will naturally float to the top". If one really believes that their idea is the best, they have a vested internet in making sure it is heard loudly and frequently in that market. You're correct that this has led to polarization, because that is precisely a failure mode of these Liberal ideals. A couple of side notes: - "Liberal" isn't a synonym for "Democrat", nor is it a strict antonym of "conservative". A lot of the Republican platform is and has been Liberalism/neoliberalism (though this has lessened in the past few decades, especially in the post-Trump era). Indeed, lots of (pre-Trump) Republicans are Liberals/neoliberals, though many would be offended to be called that due to the aforementioned American muddying of the term. (Don't ask me to define the distinction between classical- and neo- liberalism, though, it never had a fully accepted distinction) - "Transexual" hasn't been the preferred term for over a decade. That and the fact that you listed it in opposition to "women's rights" makes me think that you aren't actually coming to these discussions to "understand the other side's opinion in good faith", on that idea or others, and that might be affecting your perception of what these "liberals on the internet" are willing to do.

lazide 4y ago

Clearly you’ve never tried to talk to someone on the liberal side about if what they want will actually work or produce an outcome that is desirable for the rest of the population! Hah. SF is a prime example of when someone can use reason and argument and ‘helping others’ to convince people to do things that just don’t actually work. Conservatives definitely have a bent that most intellectuals and folks in tech find offensive, and for reasons that are often due to fundamental differences in worldview and environment. But a lot of the rational arguments for things going on right now, for those who have actual experience in the real world, are bullshit if you start challenging the assumptions. But that is hard, be will get you nailed. And frankly, no one like that is going to try to do that right now because it isn’t even about rationality. It’s a different set of beliefs and feelings with attached justifications. But, any sizable group of people randomly selected will have similar differences. The reason we have social rules, is people have found over time when to talk and not talk about certain topics ,because for a society to function, we need to agree to some common ground and not actively antagonize each other over these fundamental differences. Because you can’t reason someone out of a position they didn’t reason themselves into, and very, very few people have actually reasoned themselves into much of anything. No amount of talking is likely to change anyones mind about these things. For instance, I believe that the best way to resolve a problem is to talk openly about it, directly discuss the range of impacts this problem will have, discuss our own capabilities and successes/failures in resolving the problem openly, and then prioritize it against other open problems and likely risks. That makes me great for engineering leadership it turns out. Near as I can tell, also emergency response. It apparently makes me absolutely terrifying to a decent swath of the population, especially when they are screwing up and don’t know how to stop. So I’ve learned that I need to not do this to certain people if I want them to not run away screaming. It also means I’ve learned some people are useful to partner with and some people are radioactive bad to do so with. And in a society, especially a country so diverse and over such an area, that means picking which fights to have, and dialing back the rhetoric, but that requires both sides to do that. If one side won’t, then it is a war. No one can maintain sensible boundaries with appeasement - which is fundamentally different than compromise.