5 ms·

>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

>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.

Clubber 4y ago
>(Don't ask me to define the distinction between classical- and neo- liberalism, though, it never had a fully accepted distinction) Neoliberalism is an economic policy favored by both parties, it's not a socialistic policy. It leans towards unfettered capitalism. This philosophy is why we have things like outsourcing, globalization and NAFTA, things that significantly disadvantage the American worker. I didn't understand it for a while myself. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism >"Liberal" isn't a synonym for "Democrat", nor is it a strict antonym of "conservative". Yes, as I understand it, liberalism is change, conservatism is status quo. Personally I'm liberal on some policies and conservative on others. To me conservative could simply mean, "I haven't heard a good plan yet, I'll wait until I hear one." On the topics I'm conservative on, I could be persuaded to change if a plan was actually presented, rather than a vague concept (like universal healthcare, UBI, student loan debt forgiveness, etc). The only candidate in recent memory who ever discussed and laid out a plan was Bernie, and I thought it was good, well thought one one that I could support. The only issue is it would have to be a gradual implementation as to not upturn the economy. Unfortunately our current implementation of quasi-universal healthcare seems to be benefit the medical and insurance industry far more than the citizenry, though there are good things about it for the citizenry as well. >"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" I don't keep up on the latest trends of vernacular, they change like the tides. I'm also older, so people tend to stick with the terms they learn. (i.e. Blacks, vs African Americans, vs Colored People (bad) vs People of Color (good?!), and other labels that go back even further). Out of curiosity, what is the current preferred nomenclature for what used to be "transexual?" Also, who decides? Isn't that what the T in LGBTQ stands for? You should let them know they need change their acronym. FWIW, just because your circle of people want to call potato chips "crisps," doesn't mean you should expect everyone to immediately switch, or even know you've decided to describe something differently. You certainly shouldn't assume they aren't coming in good faith because they don't keep up with your group's trends, that seems fairly egocentric. An example of this would be, "You called Pluto a planet, therefore you aren't arguing in good faith about science." Seems a strange conclusion when put in a different perspective. Instead of discussing the topic, you shut down the conversation because I used a term that was common only 10 years ago. That somewhat proved my original point, though I don't believe that was your intention. Anyway, I seemed to have gotten side tracked in the long and rambling post. I think my original point was liberals have extremists too, and liberals aren't as open to discussion as they used to be and are quick to find reason to shut down discussion (like not using the current, possibly obscure nomenclature). Extremism isn't a political condition, it's a human condition and should be shunned regardless of political goal.
- LordDragonfang 4y ago
  >I don't keep up on the latest trends of vernacular [..] Out of curiosity, what is the current preferred nomenclature for what used to be "transexual"? The preferred term is "transgender", or just "trans (people)". Which might not seem like a huge distinction, but most of the people you'd be having a discussion consider "transexual" to be at least mildly offensive, due to various implications that aren't important to go over here. The point is that very few people use it except for much older trans people, aside from much older trans people who you likely won't find on the internet much. There's nothing inherently wrong with using the antiquated term - the euphemism tread is a real phenomenon, as you pointed out. But using a term that almost no one on the other side uses (and claiming no knowledge) is an indication that you haven't actually put in much effort at all in listening to and understanding the other side. Especially when your defense amounts to "I haven't checked for 10 years". When your specific criticism of liberals is that they don't "listen and consider and understand", if you and the peoples' arguments you view don't even spend enough time looking at the opposing viewpoints to be aware of which terms they'd generally prefer not to be referred to by, I would hope you can see why the people opposing them wouldn't be motivated to do the same. I didn't say these "shut down the conversation" (in fact, I think I spent enough words elaborating on everything else that that is a particularly unfair and non-understanding accusation), but rather to illustrate the reasons why you're saying the polarization you do. That being said, I am shutting down the conversation here, since I don't want to get into another HN comments flame war, and I've already pushed that line an unwise amount. You're welcome to reply further and get in the last word, if you'd like. If you're interested in continuing this topic, I'd urge you to read Scott Alexander's blog posts on Steelmanning and the culture war, as he has much smarter and more articulate things to say about it than I do. I linked one of them elsewhere in this thread, I think it's the most relevant: https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/09/30/i-can-tolerate-anything-except-the-outgroup/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/09/30/i-can-tolerate-anythin... or any of his other top posts https://slatestarcodex.com/top-posts/ https://slatestarcodex.com/top-posts/
  - Clubber 4y ago
    >The preferred term is "transgender", or just "trans (people)". Yes, now that you said it, I remember. >But using a term that almost no one on the other side uses (and claiming no knowledge) is an indication that you haven't actually put in much effort at all in listening to and understanding the other side. It's not the other side to me, I'm all for equal civil rights of all people. I'm vehemently against violence or bullying against other people and believe people should be given the benefit of the doubt and judged by the actions of their character. My only concern with any aspect of the trans movement is people born as males and aging past puberty competing with females in female sports. I don't think it's fair to females, they are just too strong biologically. Females have been fighting for rights for over a century now and this particular aspect seriously encroaches on that. We have men's and women's sports for a reason. It can also be extremely dangerous in contact sports. https://www.sportskeeda.com/mma/news-when-transgender-fighter-fallon-fox-broke-opponent-s-skull-mma-fight https://www.sportskeeda.com/mma/news-when-transgender-fighte... I'm sure I got some of the nomenclature wrong, but you get the idea. >That being said, I am shutting down the conversation here, since I don't want to get into another HN comments flame war, and I've already pushed that line an unwise amount. You're welcome to reply further and get in the last word, if you'd like. I understand, I was about to do the same. Thanks for the decency in our discussion, I learned some stuff.

Clubber 4y ago

>(Don't ask me to define the distinction between classical- and neo- liberalism, though, it never had a fully accepted distinction) Neoliberalism is an economic policy favored by both parties, it's not a socialistic policy. It leans towards unfettered capitalism. This philosophy is why we have things like outsourcing, globalization and NAFTA, things that significantly disadvantage the American worker. I didn't understand it for a while myself. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism >"Liberal" isn't a synonym for "Democrat", nor is it a strict antonym of "conservative". Yes, as I understand it, liberalism is change, conservatism is status quo. Personally I'm liberal on some policies and conservative on others. To me conservative could simply mean, "I haven't heard a good plan yet, I'll wait until I hear one." On the topics I'm conservative on, I could be persuaded to change if a plan was actually presented, rather than a vague concept (like universal healthcare, UBI, student loan debt forgiveness, etc). The only candidate in recent memory who ever discussed and laid out a plan was Bernie, and I thought it was good, well thought one one that I could support. The only issue is it would have to be a gradual implementation as to not upturn the economy. Unfortunately our current implementation of quasi-universal healthcare seems to be benefit the medical and insurance industry far more than the citizenry, though there are good things about it for the citizenry as well. >"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" I don't keep up on the latest trends of vernacular, they change like the tides. I'm also older, so people tend to stick with the terms they learn. (i.e. Blacks, vs African Americans, vs Colored People (bad) vs People of Color (good?!), and other labels that go back even further). Out of curiosity, what is the current preferred nomenclature for what used to be "transexual?" Also, who decides? Isn't that what the T in LGBTQ stands for? You should let them know they need change their acronym. FWIW, just because your circle of people want to call potato chips "crisps," doesn't mean you should expect everyone to immediately switch, or even know you've decided to describe something differently. You certainly shouldn't assume they aren't coming in good faith because they don't keep up with your group's trends, that seems fairly egocentric. An example of this would be, "You called Pluto a planet, therefore you aren't arguing in good faith about science." Seems a strange conclusion when put in a different perspective. Instead of discussing the topic, you shut down the conversation because I used a term that was common only 10 years ago. That somewhat proved my original point, though I don't believe that was your intention. Anyway, I seemed to have gotten side tracked in the long and rambling post. I think my original point was liberals have extremists too, and liberals aren't as open to discussion as they used to be and are quick to find reason to shut down discussion (like not using the current, possibly obscure nomenclature). Extremism isn't a political condition, it's a human condition and should be shunned regardless of political goal.

LordDragonfang 4y ago
>I don't keep up on the latest trends of vernacular [..] Out of curiosity, what is the current preferred nomenclature for what used to be "transexual"? The preferred term is "transgender", or just "trans (people)". Which might not seem like a huge distinction, but most of the people you'd be having a discussion consider "transexual" to be at least mildly offensive, due to various implications that aren't important to go over here. The point is that very few people use it except for much older trans people, aside from much older trans people who you likely won't find on the internet much. There's nothing inherently wrong with using the antiquated term - the euphemism tread is a real phenomenon, as you pointed out. But using a term that almost no one on the other side uses (and claiming no knowledge) is an indication that you haven't actually put in much effort at all in listening to and understanding the other side. Especially when your defense amounts to "I haven't checked for 10 years". When your specific criticism of liberals is that they don't "listen and consider and understand", if you and the peoples' arguments you view don't even spend enough time looking at the opposing viewpoints to be aware of which terms they'd generally prefer not to be referred to by, I would hope you can see why the people opposing them wouldn't be motivated to do the same. I didn't say these "shut down the conversation" (in fact, I think I spent enough words elaborating on everything else that that is a particularly unfair and non-understanding accusation), but rather to illustrate the reasons why you're saying the polarization you do. That being said, I am shutting down the conversation here, since I don't want to get into another HN comments flame war, and I've already pushed that line an unwise amount. You're welcome to reply further and get in the last word, if you'd like. If you're interested in continuing this topic, I'd urge you to read Scott Alexander's blog posts on Steelmanning and the culture war, as he has much smarter and more articulate things to say about it than I do. I linked one of them elsewhere in this thread, I think it's the most relevant: https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/09/30/i-can-tolerate-anything-except-the-outgroup/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/09/30/i-can-tolerate-anythin... or any of his other top posts https://slatestarcodex.com/top-posts/ https://slatestarcodex.com/top-posts/
- Clubber 4y ago
  >The preferred term is "transgender", or just "trans (people)". Yes, now that you said it, I remember. >But using a term that almost no one on the other side uses (and claiming no knowledge) is an indication that you haven't actually put in much effort at all in listening to and understanding the other side. It's not the other side to me, I'm all for equal civil rights of all people. I'm vehemently against violence or bullying against other people and believe people should be given the benefit of the doubt and judged by the actions of their character. My only concern with any aspect of the trans movement is people born as males and aging past puberty competing with females in female sports. I don't think it's fair to females, they are just too strong biologically. Females have been fighting for rights for over a century now and this particular aspect seriously encroaches on that. We have men's and women's sports for a reason. It can also be extremely dangerous in contact sports. https://www.sportskeeda.com/mma/news-when-transgender-fighter-fallon-fox-broke-opponent-s-skull-mma-fight https://www.sportskeeda.com/mma/news-when-transgender-fighte... I'm sure I got some of the nomenclature wrong, but you get the idea. >That being said, I am shutting down the conversation here, since I don't want to get into another HN comments flame war, and I've already pushed that line an unwise amount. You're welcome to reply further and get in the last word, if you'd like. I understand, I was about to do the same. Thanks for the decency in our discussion, I learned some stuff.