3 ms·

> This quote from the article could be the motto of progressive cities everywhere, it certainly applies to the ones near me: > "...making the citizens of our c

> This quote from the article could be the motto of progressive cities everywhere, it certainly applies to the ones near me: > "...making the citizens of our city miserable in service of an ideology that made sense everywhere but in reality" It should be the motto of more than just those cities. I think people often get blinkered by ideologies that are "satisfyingly simple" and fall into a kind of "ideology-X realism" trap, where they confuse the ideological formulations for reality, and so stop paying attention to actual reality. You see the same thing lot with "econ 101" style thinking that omits the rough edges and complexity of reality to make a "free market" ideological program feel silky-smooth and perfect.

colpabar 4y ago
Exactly. I think a lot of people ignore the realities of progressive policies, because to them, progressive policy means fighting systemic racism/sexism/etc. It doesn't have to work - all that matters is the intention. And you can't even argue, because then you're just a racist/sexist/etc, because who else would argue against them?
- zozbot234 4y ago
  There's a whole lot of wishful thinking in that sort of attitude - Progressives used to be pro-eugenics (even explicitly arguing for racially supremacist views) and against gender equity as late as the 1950s. People will say anything to support their preferred ideological stance.
xtiansimon 4y ago
I want to push back on your use of the word “ideology” in this context. The original comment and your response seems to react to what some academics call “complex systems”—people and preferences (in this case). If I’m reading this response correctly, there is a charge that simple models are being applied to complex systems. And some peoples don’t like the outcomes. (I have to be careful here myself, making such a simple statement lest I go from the pan into the fire-—I recognize some people who “don’t like outcomes” are fighting for social recognition and civil rights). Back to my point…the definition of ‘ideology’ which I find useful comes from Peter Sloterdijk's 1983 book, “Critique of Cynical Reason” where he explored the rationale of cynicism and social discontent. Sloterdijk describes the difficulty of an argument with someone intent on lying to you. Take that a step further. Its an order of magnitude more difficult to find agreement with someone who has a false belief (ie. a witness to an event who has a false belief because of a unconscious bias). Finally, he defines “ideology” as an personal and internal idea—unexpressed—of how the world works. In the above example of a queer woman of color objecting to the appointment of a queer white person, that’s not an internal and unexpressed personal belief driving their argument. Her argument is right there in the open. The first one is impossible problem and the second one is a complex problem. [1]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex_system https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex_system [2]: https://www.google.com/books/edition/Critique_of_Cynical_Reason/wDNyQgAACAAJ https://www.google.com/books/edition/Critique_of_Cynical_Rea...

colpabar 4y ago

Exactly. I think a lot of people ignore the realities of progressive policies, because to them, progressive policy means fighting systemic racism/sexism/etc. It doesn't have to work - all that matters is the intention. And you can't even argue, because then you're just a racist/sexist/etc, because who else would argue against them?

zozbot234 4y ago
There's a whole lot of wishful thinking in that sort of attitude - Progressives used to be pro-eugenics (even explicitly arguing for racially supremacist views) and against gender equity as late as the 1950s. People will say anything to support their preferred ideological stance.

xtiansimon 4y ago

I want to push back on your use of the word “ideology” in this context. The original comment and your response seems to react to what some academics call “complex systems”—people and preferences (in this case). If I’m reading this response correctly, there is a charge that simple models are being applied to complex systems. And some peoples don’t like the outcomes. (I have to be careful here myself, making such a simple statement lest I go from the pan into the fire-—I recognize some people who “don’t like outcomes” are fighting for social recognition and civil rights). Back to my point…the definition of ‘ideology’ which I find useful comes from Peter Sloterdijk's 1983 book, “Critique of Cynical Reason” where he explored the rationale of cynicism and social discontent. Sloterdijk describes the difficulty of an argument with someone intent on lying to you. Take that a step further. Its an order of magnitude more difficult to find agreement with someone who has a false belief (ie. a witness to an event who has a false belief because of a unconscious bias). Finally, he defines “ideology” as an personal and internal idea—unexpressed—of how the world works. In the above example of a queer woman of color objecting to the appointment of a queer white person, that’s not an internal and unexpressed personal belief driving their argument. Her argument is right there in the open. The first one is impossible problem and the second one is a complex problem. [1]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex_system https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex_system [2]: https://www.google.com/books/edition/Critique_of_Cynical_Reason/wDNyQgAACAAJ https://www.google.com/books/edition/Critique_of_Cynical_Rea...