4 ms·

The rising intolerance of wrongthink on the left has been written about extensively but I’d love to read a sympathetic, anthropological investigation into it.

The rising intolerance of wrongthink on the left has been written about extensively but I’d love to read a sympathetic, anthropological investigation into it. I say sympathetic because I don’t believe you can understand anything without really seeing how a reasonable person could come to those same conclusions.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
printforest 3y ago
[flagged]
- AbrahamParangi 3y ago
  I was more talking about this kind of reaction.
  - maxbond 3y ago
    If you say something incisive to piss people off and trigger a reaction, and you get the reaction you're looking for, what we've established is that you are willing to piss people off to serve your rhetorical ends. Nothing else. This of the "stop hitting yourself" form of argumentation.
    - generalizations 3y ago
      He observed an 'intolerance of wrongthink' and got a reaction where someone was, in fact, intolerant of wrongthink. I don't see how that's anything but a confirmation.
      - maxbond 3y ago
        That's a mischaracterization, the comment was pointing out "intolerance of wrong think" on the right. There are other criticisms to be made of that comment (eg it violated the guidelines by devolving into personal attack), but "intolerance of wrong think" isn't one of them. Even if it were, it wouldn't matter. If I cared to I could construct an equivalent comment baiting right-wingers and declare victory when someone took issue with it. If you're going to take someone getting pissed off as proof of something, anyone willing to engage in such rhetoric will be able to convince you of anything.
enragedcacti 3y ago
The paradox of tolerance gets you a long way to understanding it, but you will also have to be far more specific if you want answers because practically everyone has limits to what they consider acceptable speech, even if they don't call it that. Beyond that, there is a pretty concerted effort to elevate minor grievances into the national spotlight to portray the left a certain way, e.g. the Oberlin Cafeteria scandal, where story in the college paper about the quality of the food in their college cafeteria became both a national news story and a symbol of just how deranged the left had become. Is that actually indicative of anything? Is it something the general public should actually care about? Does it even reflect "the left" as a political body? I think once you start asking those questions a lot of the "wrongthink" stories (not all!) start seeming a lot closer to college kids complaining about bad food than they are to the sands of politics and free speech shifting underfoot.
- nostromo 3y ago
  People are constantly misapplying The Paradox of Tolerance - which is an argument for protecting free speech in all cases other than one: opposition of free speech. Somehow that got contorted by modern-day activists into "I can shout down or physically attack people I don't agree with" -- which is exactly opposite of what was being argued by Popper. It's an argument for more permissive expression, not less. He notes that the best path is nearly always rational argumentation of opposing views.
  - foldr 3y ago
    I can't find any textual support for that narrow interpretation of the Paradox of Tolerance in anything that Popper wrote. Where does he say that only opposition to freedom of speech counts as 'intolerance' in the relevant sense?
    - nostromo 3y ago
      You'll need to read the book -- if you're looking for a soundbite you're doing yourself a disservice -- it's short anyway. But note that he's talking specifically about argumentation. The book is a response to Plato, who generally opposed free speech for the masses. In general, Popper strongly disagrees with Plato. And it's important to note that he described of the paradox as he understood it from Plato, but does not necessarily endorse it. The people suddenly fond of this one footnote might take a moment and read his work anyway, as they may be surprised to read his views on socialism and Marx specifically.
btreecat 3y ago
You might be interested in "The paradox of tolerance" https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance >Karl Popper described it as the seemingly self-contradictory idea that in order to maintain a tolerant society, the society must retain the right to be intolerant of intolerance.
programmarchy 3y ago
René Girard has done an anthropological investigation of this topic. The gist of it is through the psycho-social mechanism of scapegoating, opposing groups can simultaneously believe they are victims while acting as oppressors, often using their victim status as justification for their oppression of "the other". Girard explores this phenomenon of scapegoating and postulates it goes back to primitive humans e.g. during a drought tensions rise within a tribe, and a certain "witchy" tribe member is singled out to take the blame and either expelled or murdered. After this, social tensions in the tribe are relieved (even if the drought does not subside), and the scapegoat paradoxically becomes a sacred, or savior, figure. Through history, this develops into ritual and religion. It provides a useful lens to reason about messianic cults, as well as social power dynamics. There's a good overview on his Wikipedia page, but he delves into this particular topic in the book Violence and the Sacred. He also pioneered the field of Generative Anthropology, which other academics like Eric Gans have built upon, theorizing about the mechanism in much more detail, and using it to explain effects in modern culture.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- AndrewKemendo 3y ago
  Thank you for referencing Girard! Agreed that this is a compelling hypothesis Have you looked through “A thousand plateaus” from Deleuze/Guattari (I don’t know anyone who has actually read the whole thing)?
  - programmarchy 3y ago
    I timidly approached Deleuze a few years ago but didn't make it very far, haha. Should probably give it ago again... did you find it useful?
    - AndrewKemendo 3y ago
      Yes! Though if I could follow along for more than a few pages I would probably get more out of it. I’m going to actually restart with just Ch15 and see if that is a better approach
f38zf5vdt 3y ago
Yet, remarkably, many others will identify with: > The rising intolerance of wrongthink on the right has been written about extensively but I’d love to read a sympathetic, anthropological investigation into it. > I say sympathetic because I don’t believe you can understand anything without really seeing how a reasonable person could come to those same conclusions. We are diving deep into the irony of bifurcated political systems where the two groups simultaneously believe themselves to be victims of their opposing teams rather than circumstance and systemic failures.
boplicity 3y ago
> The rising intolerance of wrongthink on the left Basically, people are fed up with general bigotry, racism, misogyny, and the destruction of the environment -- all of which have real life and death consequences for many people. That, combined with polarization, has made people very reactive to which "side" they perceive things to be on.
- ralusek 3y ago
  People are just now fed up with those things, at their lowest point in history?
  - boplicity 3y ago
    Of course people are fed up with those things. They also have the ability to organize and make noise about it. That, combined with polarization, as I've said, heightens both the activism and the perception of such activism.
    - ASalazarMX 3y ago
      I think polarization is the main cause. Demagogues love to craft an "us vs them" narrative, pose as heroes of the "us" side, and plenty of gullible people fall for it with gusto. Mentally, we're still monkeys who will follow a strong leader without questioning. Mind you, demagogues are not only politicians, they can be human rights activists, teachers, businessmen, neighbors, etc. Emotion managing should be a mandatory class at basic school, so many of us need to think with our heads instead of our guts.
fluidcruft 3y ago
I can't say that I have found the right to be any more accepting of wrongthink.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

printforest 3y ago

[flagged]

AbrahamParangi 3y ago
I was more talking about this kind of reaction.
- maxbond 3y ago
  If you say something incisive to piss people off and trigger a reaction, and you get the reaction you're looking for, what we've established is that you are willing to piss people off to serve your rhetorical ends. Nothing else. This of the "stop hitting yourself" form of argumentation.
  - generalizations 3y ago
    He observed an 'intolerance of wrongthink' and got a reaction where someone was, in fact, intolerant of wrongthink. I don't see how that's anything but a confirmation.
    - maxbond 3y ago
      That's a mischaracterization, the comment was pointing out "intolerance of wrong think" on the right. There are other criticisms to be made of that comment (eg it violated the guidelines by devolving into personal attack), but "intolerance of wrong think" isn't one of them. Even if it were, it wouldn't matter. If I cared to I could construct an equivalent comment baiting right-wingers and declare victory when someone took issue with it. If you're going to take someone getting pissed off as proof of something, anyone willing to engage in such rhetoric will be able to convince you of anything.

enragedcacti 3y ago

The paradox of tolerance gets you a long way to understanding it, but you will also have to be far more specific if you want answers because practically everyone has limits to what they consider acceptable speech, even if they don't call it that. Beyond that, there is a pretty concerted effort to elevate minor grievances into the national spotlight to portray the left a certain way, e.g. the Oberlin Cafeteria scandal, where story in the college paper about the quality of the food in their college cafeteria became both a national news story and a symbol of just how deranged the left had become. Is that actually indicative of anything? Is it something the general public should actually care about? Does it even reflect "the left" as a political body? I think once you start asking those questions a lot of the "wrongthink" stories (not all!) start seeming a lot closer to college kids complaining about bad food than they are to the sands of politics and free speech shifting underfoot.

nostromo 3y ago
People are constantly misapplying The Paradox of Tolerance - which is an argument for protecting free speech in all cases other than one: opposition of free speech. Somehow that got contorted by modern-day activists into "I can shout down or physically attack people I don't agree with" -- which is exactly opposite of what was being argued by Popper. It's an argument for more permissive expression, not less. He notes that the best path is nearly always rational argumentation of opposing views.
- foldr 3y ago
  I can't find any textual support for that narrow interpretation of the Paradox of Tolerance in anything that Popper wrote. Where does he say that only opposition to freedom of speech counts as 'intolerance' in the relevant sense?
  - nostromo 3y ago
    You'll need to read the book -- if you're looking for a soundbite you're doing yourself a disservice -- it's short anyway. But note that he's talking specifically about argumentation. The book is a response to Plato, who generally opposed free speech for the masses. In general, Popper strongly disagrees with Plato. And it's important to note that he described of the paradox as he understood it from Plato, but does not necessarily endorse it. The people suddenly fond of this one footnote might take a moment and read his work anyway, as they may be surprised to read his views on socialism and Marx specifically.

btreecat 3y ago

You might be interested in "The paradox of tolerance" https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance >Karl Popper described it as the seemingly self-contradictory idea that in order to maintain a tolerant society, the society must retain the right to be intolerant of intolerance.

programmarchy 3y ago

René Girard has done an anthropological investigation of this topic. The gist of it is through the psycho-social mechanism of scapegoating, opposing groups can simultaneously believe they are victims while acting as oppressors, often using their victim status as justification for their oppression of "the other". Girard explores this phenomenon of scapegoating and postulates it goes back to primitive humans e.g. during a drought tensions rise within a tribe, and a certain "witchy" tribe member is singled out to take the blame and either expelled or murdered. After this, social tensions in the tribe are relieved (even if the drought does not subside), and the scapegoat paradoxically becomes a sacred, or savior, figure. Through history, this develops into ritual and religion. It provides a useful lens to reason about messianic cults, as well as social power dynamics. There's a good overview on his Wikipedia page, but he delves into this particular topic in the book Violence and the Sacred. He also pioneered the field of Generative Anthropology, which other academics like Eric Gans have built upon, theorizing about the mechanism in much more detail, and using it to explain effects in modern culture.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
AndrewKemendo 3y ago
Thank you for referencing Girard! Agreed that this is a compelling hypothesis Have you looked through “A thousand plateaus” from Deleuze/Guattari (I don’t know anyone who has actually read the whole thing)?
- programmarchy 3y ago
  I timidly approached Deleuze a few years ago but didn't make it very far, haha. Should probably give it ago again... did you find it useful?
  - AndrewKemendo 3y ago
    Yes! Though if I could follow along for more than a few pages I would probably get more out of it. I’m going to actually restart with just Ch15 and see if that is a better approach

f38zf5vdt 3y ago

Yet, remarkably, many others will identify with: > The rising intolerance of wrongthink on the right has been written about extensively but I’d love to read a sympathetic, anthropological investigation into it. > I say sympathetic because I don’t believe you can understand anything without really seeing how a reasonable person could come to those same conclusions. We are diving deep into the irony of bifurcated political systems where the two groups simultaneously believe themselves to be victims of their opposing teams rather than circumstance and systemic failures.

boplicity 3y ago

> The rising intolerance of wrongthink on the left Basically, people are fed up with general bigotry, racism, misogyny, and the destruction of the environment -- all of which have real life and death consequences for many people. That, combined with polarization, has made people very reactive to which "side" they perceive things to be on.

ralusek 3y ago
People are just now fed up with those things, at their lowest point in history?
- boplicity 3y ago
  Of course people are fed up with those things. They also have the ability to organize and make noise about it. That, combined with polarization, as I've said, heightens both the activism and the perception of such activism.
  - ASalazarMX 3y ago
    I think polarization is the main cause. Demagogues love to craft an "us vs them" narrative, pose as heroes of the "us" side, and plenty of gullible people fall for it with gusto. Mentally, we're still monkeys who will follow a strong leader without questioning. Mind you, demagogues are not only politicians, they can be human rights activists, teachers, businessmen, neighbors, etc. Emotion managing should be a mandatory class at basic school, so many of us need to think with our heads instead of our guts.

fluidcruft 3y ago

I can't say that I have found the right to be any more accepting of wrongthink.