That’s because he’s not debating, and it certainly isn’t in good faith, all while accusing another of not debating in good faith. Face it, you folks are arguing with a lunatic who gets hung up on what he pretends your point is.
See, that’s just it: you see a guy who’s here illegally as being like into a jaywalker who made it to the other side of the road; I see him as being like unto a jaywalker who’s still in the middle of the street.
I’m happy to talk about both. It’s my understanding that, right now, there are folks who are here illegally — and we become aware of the fact that they’re here illegally, right now, while there are talks going on about maybe changing the laws.
What change should be made to the law? That’s one question.
What should we do now, with the law as it currently is? That’s another.
I have opinions about both. So do you, right? I’ll gladly discuss either.
Well, look, I’m more optimistic than you are: you say it’s one thing or another, and full stop; and I think there are other possibilities. That’s fighting the hypothetical, but I can’t believe you really think that’s “the only thing that will work.”
What difference does it make what book he has? I’m fighting your hypothetical on the other point, because I think there are other options; but, here, (a) there’s nothing but options; and (b) it’s not even really a hypothetical; there really are people who check out books, and keep them past the due date, and then get asked to pay a fee and return the book; and when we’re all agreeing on that, and explaining it to people, we don’t then ask about what book it is when we’re all getting on the same page about paying the fines and returning the book.
I believe that some situations would, as it happens, prompt me to break the law and help others break the law. I also believe that, if I got caught breaking that law, I’d of course be subject to punishment. I’m not really seeing a contradiction.
Well, (a) some folks do advocate for open borders, and I can assure you that I want to stop open borders from becoming the law of the land. Also, (b) I’m not sure I follow you: you’re saying there’s an excluded middle between “closing our borders” and “open-border legislation” — but what’s a middle option? Screen folks and let some of them in while barring others? That’s my position, right there in the middle!
Uh, okay: again, it’s my opinion that we’re pretty much full up. It’s my opinion that some amount of immigration, call it X, would get us to ‘shithole’, and we should of course stop short of that; and some amount of immigration would, though short of X, still make things worse instead of better for our country. It’s my opinion, as I’d said, that anyone who can make a case for why they’d be a net benefit to us should be screened and maybe okayed but maybe turned away, so that we can take our best shot at benefitting this country instead of making it worse.
Again, if a guy can make a case that he’ll help us “grow and compete on the world stage,” then I’m all for letting him make that case to folks who can evaluate it and decide whether he’s got a point. But if he fails to impress on those grounds, then what’s to be done when he says he still wants in?
I know my answer. What’s yours?
I don’t see any stopped traffic, I don’t see any thing that this person is doing to interfere with productivity. I don’t see any danger that this person is posing to himself or others. I don’t see how you still see them in the middle of the road.
And I have expressed my opinion on both. The law should be changed to encourage people to come here and work and to make both themselves and their new home country better.
As far as the law currently stands, I don’t think that enforcement is that high of a priority. Speeding causes far more death and economic damage than illegal immigration could ever do, and yet we only stop and charge a very, very small minority of speeders.
If there are undocumented immigrants that are causing trouble, then we have laws to deal with them both through domestic justice systems, and deportation options. If someone is working and staying productive, I don’t see any benefit to using finite resources to track them down and remove them from the community they were benefiting.
What do you think would work to eliminate all illegal immigration?
If people want to come here, they are going to come here. Any way you can think of to stop them, they can think of a way to get around. Unless you make the penalty for being caught so absolutely draconian that you are terrifying them from coming here, or you reduce the quality of life of those that are living here to that of being below where they are coming from, they will come.
You’ve not answered much in this conversation, mostly asked me questions and ignored the answers, but I do ask you this, before we can continue the conversation any further, what do you think would be needed to completely eliminate illegal immigration, and would you be willing to go through with it? You say there are other possibilities, well, lay them out, or stop claiming such.
Actually, most libraries, if you are unable or unwilling to return the book, will levy a greater fine that covers the cost of the book, the inconvenience of it being gone, and a bit of punitive to keep you from just using it as a book store. Once you’ve paid that, you can keep the book.
So, I agree with your library analogy, pay your fine for not filling out the proper paperwork, and then you get to stay as long as you follow the laws and behave otherwise.
ETA: and my point was not asking what book he has, in what the title is, but what book is missing from the library in this situation? There is no book missing from the library.
Well, you said that the laws should be enforced as they are written, then in the next quote, said that if you disagreed with a law, you would break it.
I cannot fail but to see a contradiction. Just that you don’t think that the laws as written are bad enough for you to break them, but you would judge those who feel as though they are.
You are looking for a much higher bar, one in which they have to prove that they have certain skills like being a doctor. That worked for a while, when the US was the best place to live by far, but now, many of these professionals are staying home, as they can have a similar quality of life, and they don’t have to go through our insane processes and then deal with being away from home, their family, their friends, and instead, be here with our xenophobia.
My bar is that they want to come here, and demonstrate a willingness to work hard for their family and their community. I think that we should take people who come from poverty or war stricken areas with very little question. Their loyalty and gratitude will be more useful than another professional.
Immigration is a net benefit to our country in every measurable way. There may be a point where that is no longer true, but we are no where near that point. What do you think is the “full capacity” of the US?
You are of the opinion that some amount, even if it is not enough to make us a “shithole”, would make things worse. Do you have a ballpark figure on what that amount is?
If you are of the opinion that we are pretty much full up, are you also asking people to stop having babies that may end up being a drain on society?
As a citizen of this country, I make the case on the behalf of the immigrants that their presence here would benefit the country rather than make things worse. Why does every individual immigrant have to do the same?
I’m not looking to be impressed. Unless they are violent criminals or terrorists, then they will be a net benefit, on average. You don’t have to prove to me that you will add $X to the economy, we have already done studies that show that, on average, they will add $Y to the economy, and that’s enough for me.
Actually, what is your answer? What if the reason that he wants to get in is because he is being targeted by violence in his country, and if you deport him, he will be murdered the moment he steps foot in his country? Are you okay with sending him back to his certain death? Is there any reason we can’t just save everyone the trouble and just put a bullet in his head now, or do you think that by putting someone in a situation where they will be killed is somehow morally superior to doing the killing yourself?
Because I don’t think that.
You have talked about extending the benefit of the doubt. It does work both ways.
I am suspicious of someone who appears in an unrelated thread to call me to task for something I said several years ago. Is this some sort of rhetorical trap? Why is this person doing this?
From your perspective, I would assume that I am just some random asshole on the internet who said something that pissed you off mildly several years ago, and confirmed your beliefs about misogynistic conservatives.
I am surprised that you remember. I am surprised you want to engage me and rehash it. I am wary and suspicious, but I am here to engage and see what others who disagree with me think.
You seem very sincere, and I estimate that you are engaging with me on a high level that deserves careful consideration. I try to be candid rather just saying things to make me look good that I think you want to hear.
You appear dissatisfied with my answers, and I can’t think of anyway to explain it you. I am afraid it would seem either condescending or offensive to you if I were to try.
But you keep asking, so here it goes. This is what I think;
I believe that the offense you took was and is selective. It does not represent a carefully thought out, or objective standard, and it is not applied consistently. Therefore it is not valid. To the the extent that their is a standard, it is not necessarily my standard.
This is no reflection on you (you seem awesome.) selective perception and confirmation bias are a universal. They affect us all. Just clicking around today I saw this:
“There will be renewed calls for civility. Ignore them. They ask for civility as a way for you to grant them complicity in what they do.
Civility is for normalcy. When things are normal and working as intended, civility is part of maintaining balance. But when that balance is gone, civility does not help return it but rather, destabilize it further. Because your civility gives them cover for evil.
Note: this isn’t the same as calling for violence. But it is suggesting that you should not be shamed for using vigorous, vulgar language. Or for standing up in disobedience. Or for demanding acknowledgement and action in whatever way you must.
Fuck Trump. But he’s just the ugly fake-gold mask they’ve put on this thing. Fuck all the GOP, fuck that blubbering, bristling frat boy judge, fuck McConnell, Ryan, Grassley, Collins, every last one of them. Fuck them for how they’ve shamed victims and helped dismantle democracy.
They will tell you to smile, that we need to get back to business, that we gotta heal the rift and blah blah blah — but that’s the desire of a savvy bully, who wants you to stop crying after he hit you, who wants you not to fight back. But you can cry. And you can fight back.
They can eat shit. All of them. They can eat a boot covered in shit.
Winter is coming, you callous fucknecks, you prolapsed assholes, you grotesque monsters, you racists and rapists and wretched abusers, you vengeful petty horrors.
Sidenote: some will tell you to be civil because our rage and scorn will fuel the other side, but fuck that double standard in both its ears.
“Well, if you hadn’t said those SASSY WORDS and demonstrated ANGER at our whittled-down democracy, I for a second might’ve been convinced not to eat this baby. But fie! Fie on you! Your incivility MADE me eat this baby!”
Spoiler warning: they were always gonna eat that baby.”
That was a quote you posted from somebody else. Underneath that you wrote words to the effect of
“I endorse these words.”
Now I didn’t actually search your posts looking for hypocrisy. I just happened to see that. Also, I have to be pretty careful about calling people out for hypocrisy, because I am pretty much the king of hypocrisy. I also think that we are all hypocrites, and that hypocrisy isn’t a big deal.
So you are good. I have no problem with that post, or anything.
The fact is that you are upset with because I called one public person a “brazen slut” which is a throwaway insult that probably hasn’t been used seriously by anybody in 80 years. I might as well have called her a “a little fancy pants hussy.’ Perhaps it was thoughtless and Ill considered, but that is, I think the worst you could say about it. And my family and children were attacked over what I said.
That was several years ago, and it was notable enough that you want to continue to take me to task for it after all this time.
However, the post I quoted from you was today? Yesterday?
That could not be construed as a throwaway insult. You are agreeing with the denouncing of people as evil. You endorse the idea that they no longer should be treated fairly or civilly, and that extraordinary or offensive means can be used to attack them? Make them pay? I am not exactly sure what is being recommended but at least it states that you should stop short at violence.
I think that I’d calling any of the people named in that quote “a brazen slut” made sense and would be offensive or cause distress to any of those people, than that is the least that that quote is calling upon you to say or do (and actually seems pretty mild)
That’s what I mean about your uneven standard invalidating your complaint.
I am used to people calling ,e horrible things on this board all the time, and I am used to people attacking hatefully things and people I like. Within certain limits, that’s why I am here.
If you primarily hang out here, you are probable not used to people saying hateful things at you or people and ideas you like, simply because you are in the majority.
So, when you see me doing it it seems unusual and hurtful and you call me out and remember it. You don’t see that you are surrounded by and friends with and civil to people who are doing the same thing all the time, and that you are doing it or endorsing it yourself.
It’s not your fault. You are in an echo chamber (not a liberal echo chamber, or. Conservative one just an echo chamber. If you don’t seek out and engage with opinions you disagree with and find offensive, you run the risk of landing in one.)
I wanted to avoid writing this, but you seem to have sought out my dissenting opinion and been very persistent in pursuing it, and I told you I would try to be candid.
(I told you you wouldn’t like it.)
Long post, so I’m going to just respond to the stuff that I disagree with and snip away the rest or any repetition of the same points.
Not surprisingly, I don’t think it’s hypocritical at all. I think these are entirely different rhetorical concepts. I’ll get into further detail below.
Okay, I’ll stop here first. “Denouncing people as evil”… but which people? Evil people are evil. Undoubtedly we disagree, to some degree, on whether Trump or some of his hangers-on and enablers qualify as “evil”. But what does that have to do with a deliberate dehumanizing slur? That’s just your common everyday political or philosophical difference. Not hypocrisy on either side. Sure, I’m drilling down and deep on a “throwaway” line, but that’s one of the things we do on the Dope.
“Fairly”? Where did not treating someone “fairly” come up? Certainly not in the words I quoted. I have no interest in treating anyone unfairly, and I have plenty of interest in treating everyone fairly. But I certainly agree with those words about civility. “Civility” and “fairness” are entirely different concepts. It’s entirely possible to be civil and unfair, or uncivil and fair.
Wrong – I will not use any slurs meant to dehumanize. Not ever and not against anyone. There’s a giant pile of shit that society throws at women, black people, gay people, and many other groups, and I refuse to knowingly add another tiny turd onto that giant pile. And I’d encourage you and everyone else to do the same.
There’s a massive difference in calling out bad behavior – even with vulgar language – and using dehumanizing slurs like “slut”. I would absolutely condemn liberals who call conservative women “sluts”, “bitches”, “whores”, or similar dehumanizing/misogynistic slurs (and I’m almost certain I have condemned such posters on this very board).
That you don’t see a difference makes me suspect you don’t understand either the dehumanizing nature of these slurs (and the long history of their usage to dehumanize), or the giant pile of shit that you’re adding to when you use those slurs, even in a very small way.
I appreciate your candor. I just think you’re wrong – these things really are different. I don’t care about incivility – if you want to be uncivil, fine by me. Incivility can be very useful and effective in some scenarios. I called you out for the specific “sin” of using a dehumanizing slur. I’ve called out liberals for the same “sin” on multiple occasions (including on this board, I’m almost certain, though that’s hard to find by searching).
Well Fluke wasn’t here, so it was really calling a 3rd party that in an effort to pwn the libs. To Scylla’s credit, he has veered off from such an approach, though part of him probably thinks of it as justifiable in a heated online give and take situation. [ETA: Crossposted above. Damn.]
In other news, I partially agree with Scylla’s analogy upthread about the dude complaining about his lack of romantic success. Ok, I don’t really like the analogy, but IRL when folks I know bitch and moan about the Republicans, I remind them that Trump has a 42% approval rating. Since I follow 538 obsessively, I can generally quote the latest trendline.
Ritual denouncement doesn’t move the ball very much IMHO. Moving the ball involves some combination of boosting the pro-democratic turnout, blunting the pro-Putin turnout, and swinging the swingable. There are short run and long run strategies.
That’s not all though. While Democrats think that votes automatically follow from helpful policies, Republicans perceive political fights as procedural. It isn’t a matter of argument and it isn’t a matter of policy. It’s a matter of winning. Republicans don’t care that majorities oppose Kavanaugh. It’s all about tax cuts and packing the courts with judges who will uphold gerrymandering and other undemocratic policies.
If the Dems take power, they could start off by playing nice. But following Scylla’s framework, that would be wrong: that’s just more of the same. Dems need to understand the beauty of the categorical imperative: a refusal to retaliate enables bad behavior. Democrats need to perceive power in procedural terms. Democrats should extend statehood to DC, Puerto Rico, and Guam. Divide California into 3 and seat 6 Senators. Merge North and South Dakota. Relieve the Supreme Court’s work burden by providing them with broader membership and call that the McConnell Rule. Heck, call everything the McConnell Rule. Because it’s the right thing to do and the GOP needs to understand that norms can be flouted by both sides.
Here’s an analogy. Assaulting somebody is wrong. Very wrong. But when someone punches you in the face, you punch back. Hard. And you don’t stop punching until they start learning. You could refuse to retaliate. But that is wrong, very wrong: that enables bad behavior. Regrettably, the more moral course of action when facing a bad player follows principles of determined pugilism.
It’s not something we want to do; it’s not something we enjoy or look forward to with relish. It’s about principle. Words like “Principle” are like magic insofar as they free you from the burden of considering the consequences of your policies or political behavior: I thank the Heritage Foundation for this insight.
Scylla: let me just observe that you were (are?) being exercised by members of the Shouting Class. And it’s important to recall that the Shouting Class isn’t large. It just seems that way online and in the funny papers.
I still see them as “in the middle of the road” if they’re in the middle of the road. I’ll say I see them as having “stopped traffic” if they’d “stopped traffic”.
I’m not sure whether the analogies are helping or hindering at this point — but so long as we’re doing one, that’s how I see them as “in the middle of the road”.
But, for the record: say the authorities notice that I’m speeding — not stopping traffic or anything else, just speeding — and enforce the current law against me; and then see me at it again tomorrow, and enforce the law against me again; and then see me doing it again, and enforce again. I’m okay with that; are you?
I don’t think your ‘sniper’ policy would do it, and I don’t think I can invent one that would do it either. I also can’t think of a policy to eliminate all cases of theft, or all cases of battery, and maybe that brings us back to analogies that might lead us astray but I’m just on about the general principle: I don’t usually try to eliminate all of something, even if I want the laws against it enforced.
If a guy picks my pocket, I may well be okay with fining him or locking him up; and I’ll also probably be delighted to get my money back. Does my enthusiasm for that mean I need to come up with a way to eliminate all pickpocketing?
Well, then, you’re free to end the conversation, because your question strikes me as ridiculous; why does it have to be “completely eliminate” for you? If I’m okay with enforcing the existing law against speeding or pickpocketing (or kidnapping, or lying under oath, or, really, anything else), then I don’t see that saying so requires me to lay out a way to “completely eliminate” it; that seems nonsensical.
(And if I call for a higher or a lower penalty, I still don’t see that it has to be paired with a claim that it’ll “completely eliminate” the thing in question. I routinely call for stuff without shooting for, y’know, “completelt eliminate”.)
I’d break it; and, if caught, I’d expect to be punished. Is that a contradiction?
So propose ways to make the process better for them, so we get more of them, and I’m all ears; propose two or three and I’ll still keep nodding with gusto. But if you provide a fourth idea, which doesn’t really up the number of professionals but does up the number of folks who lack any special skills or whatever, then I’ll suddenly furrow my brow and say, “wait, how does that help us?”
Kind of the opposite. It’s my understanding that, for example, we could use more medical professionals; that’s not the only type of professional we could use more of, but stick with it for a bit. I don’t have a ballpark figure on that number, either; but so long as it’s so, I say we let in more medical professionals.
So here’s what I’m asking: could we, now, use more folks with no special skills? Or are such folks likely to be a net negative rather than a positive — such that we’re really looking, but, try as we might, we can’t see much of a use for them?
If the answer to that first question is ‘no’, such that each ‘net negative’ individual makes things worse — well, then, (a) there’s your answer, and (b) multiply that by however many thousands or millions it’d be to get the exact amount.
If someone is trying to decide whether to have a baby, and they think it’d probably end up being a drain on society, then, yes, I hereby so ask.
What happens if “a citizen of this country” says the opposite? Do we just defer to one citizen instead of another? Or do we say, hang on; neither of those citizens has met all those immigrants, have they? Maybe we should vet each would-be immigrant, since one might be a net positive but another a net negative, yeah?”
It’s my understanding that we have our hands pretty full with our own problems, and lack the resources to solve everyone else’s; saying ‘yes’ to each person who can say they’d die if they don’t come in would soon leave us overwhelmed, unable to help anyone else or ourselves. Again, I don’t think we’re doing well enough to ask what my country can do for them; only what they can do for my country.
Yeah, this feels right (and kudos for the username/post combo) ; but of course there’s that circular issue that in order to implement those fuck-you rules to ensure consistent winning, one must first win by enough that the opposition can’t meaningfully stop them, which means first implementing fuck-you rules etc…
And the Republicans have a hell of a head start there.
Sounds good.
I’m not follow you on what you mean by “dehumanizing.” There is nothing about “brazen slut” that suggests the person in question is not human. To me “dehumanizing” is a word that means “I don’t like what you said, and I think it should be out of bounds.” I may be wrong, but it doesn’t seem to have a lot of substance to it. In any way, I don’t get what you mean.
Next, while I don’t understand how “brazen slut” dehumanizes, it is very clear and very transparent that the quote you endorsed today is blatantly calling for literal dehumanizing os the targets it names and their supporters. It says that stopping short of violence everything else is fair game, vulgarity, they are not entitled to normal treatment. Sentiment like this does real damage. People get doxxed. Senator’s kids get bullied and threatened. People get shot at baseball games (I guess some people take the no violence thing as a legal disclaimer to be ignored.). After all, these people deserve it, they are evil.
These are people you disagree with politically. To call them evil is nothing more than a convenience that trivializes actual evil. I save “evil’ for unequivocal things. If I wanted to say the person I. Allied a ‘brazen slut’ evil, that would be an easy rationalization.
It’s always an easy rationalization.
I’ve noticed that. It’s admirable of you. It’s also unusual. Probably worthy of emulation. I’m not there with you. Slur’s have little power when directed at me, and mean little whenI utter them. I was born and raised in the Bronx and in Jersey, and a pretty constant stream of slurs from all quarters was pretty much normal discourse (and I am fluent in Fuckspeak,). I also enjoy a good insult applied without excess venom.
Again, a message board has people of all different backgrounds and conventions and assuming they all subscribe to the same code of language values and attempting to hold them to your own is unrealistic.
And these things don’t mean much to me. Doxxing senators, accosting people in restaurants, attacking them through their children. Those things are meaningful. You have it exactly backwards.
Again with the dehumanizing thing. I don’t get it. To the extent, I feel that you are engaging in a grotesque exaggeration. Slavery is dehumanizing. Genocide like the Nazis did is dehumanizing. Treating people like their group identity is more important than their individual identity (which is the root of identity politics and intersectionalism) is dehumanizing. The Stalinist and Maoist revolutions and purges that turned over 100 million in to corpses while treating the rest like cattle was dehumanizing.
You clearly mean something different (or if you don’t I find it slightly offensive,) so no. I don’t understand what you mean.
I think you are wrong. These words are not good or bad. It is and always has been about context and convention. They only have the power that you assign to them or that a group convinces everybody to assign to them. And, you are absolutely putting the cart before the horse. The whole entire reason why words get assigned offensive meaning, hell! The whole reason for the concept of something being offensive in the first place is in the service of civility. Civility is simply the conventions we agree to to get along.
When you say you don’t care about civility but care about “dehumanizing words”. What you are saying to me is the same thing as if you said you care deeply about seat belts and insist on vehicles having them, but you don’t care about people wearing them.
You are missing the whole point.
It’s funny you say that. I think i’m Talking to individuals. So far, they haven’t pigeonholed me into a category. I’m going to return the favor.
It’s not like I called her a ‘limey bastard.”
Under the status quo, there’s a tick-tock of political power. Game theory says that democratic norms are propped by the fear of what would happen if the opposition takes power. But for that to work, threats have to be credible. That means that there have to be phases of punishment. When the Dems get their chance, they should grab it. Demographic forces are in their favor after all, as is policy.
David Faris, program director of Political Science at Roosevelt University in Chicago, reflects upon this dynamic in his acclaimed work, It’s Time To Fight Dirty: How Democrats Can Build a Lasting Majority in American Politics. The book has some shortcomings - he doesn’t consider merging North Dakota, South Dakota, and Alabama for example - but he does outline a plan that patriots can line up behind.
No, I haven’t read it. I’ll repeat the Vox link though: Why the Democratic Party has to “fight dirty” if they want to beat the Republicans - Vox
Commentary on evil, sluts, and evil sluts. Without discussing shades of gray, the absolute worst sort of rhetoric is… eliminationist rhetoric. That has an ugly history in Central Europe, the USSR, Cambodia, and Rwanda. I don’t see it too much of that here (pit rules help) but that’s the gold standard for speech to be curbed via social sanction. I’m not saying there aren’t other bad things in the world; I’m just identifying the muck at the bottom of the pond.
Face it Scylla you, me, iiandyiiii, and everyone who has ever posted on this message board more than five times per day are members of the Shouting Class. It has a tiny membership which only seems large. Noah Smith from my above link: It’s important to realize that the Shouting Class isn’t really that large. Most of the people out there in the world are not the kind of people you see commenting on your tweets or posting in your Facebook politics group.
In August of 2016, NPR disabled comments on their website, after finding the following:
[INDENT] I did find the numbers quite startling. In July, NPR.org recorded nearly 33 million unique users, and 491,000 comments. But those comments came from just 19,400 commenters, Montgomery said. That’s 0.06 percent of users who are commenting, a number that has stayed steady through 2016.
When NPR analyzed the number of people who left at least one comment in both June and July, the numbers showed an even more interesting pattern: Just 4,300 users posted about 145 comments apiece, or 67 percent of all NPR.org comments for the two months. More than half of all comments in May, June and July combined came from a mere 2,600 users. The conclusion: NPR's commenting system — which gets more expensive the more comments that are posted, and in some months has cost NPR twice what was budgeted — is serving a very, very small slice of its overall audience.
This is why people say “Don’t read the comments” - they recognize that blog comments are the domain of the Shouting Class. But social media, and especially Twitter, is like one giant comments section.
Twitter, especially, acts as an incredible force multiplier for the Shouting Class. A study by the Anti-Defamation League found that two out of three anti-semitic tweets sent in 2015 were sent by just 1600 accounts. That’s an insanely powerful bullhorn for an incredibly small number of people. The advent of bots, of course, just makes the bullhorn even bigger.
My own Portland thread shows that even on Twitter, whose users are probably far more likely than the average American to belong to the Shouting Class, the ratio of quiet approvers to vocal complainers was something like 20 to 1. That’s not as lopsided as the ratios for NPR comments, but it’s striking.
In other words, the Shouting Class is a tiny minority of society that dominates much of our political discourse, thanks in part to the bullhorn created by the technology of social media.[/INDENT] Noahpinion: The Shouting Class
Okay, so at least we’ve found the substantive point of disagreement. This is what I mean by dehumanization:
Our society (the West in general and America in particular) has a long history of relegating people who aren’t straight white males into various lesser roles. These lesser roles (subservience, restricted sexual mores for one gender, relegation to the home and childcare, etc.) were enforced by many institutions and concepts in society, and one of the strongest ways they were enforced was through language. Dehumanizing slurs like “slut”, which have no counterpart for men, reinforce these roles from childhood on – good girls aren’t “sluts”, and sluts can be treated disrespectfully by men – and further, when they are, it’s the fault of the slut far more than the men. If a woman complains of a sexual assault, she better not be a “slut”, because for most of our history sexually assaulting a “slut” was no crime. Even in modern times, if a girl is thought of as a “slut” she’s much less likely to be treated justly if she is sexually assaulted. So slurs like “slut” reinforce the societal view that women are lesser than men – less worthy of respect, less free to engage in consensual behavior, less capable of making good decisions, and far more likely to be blamed if they are victimized.
Just like racial slurs originated and function to reinforce feelings of inferiority and lesser status. Misogynistic slurs are no different in that regard.
As for what I quoted, I don’t understand what in it could possibly be seen as “dehumanizing”. Incivility has nothing to do with dehumanizing language. Racial slurs aren’t taboo (really only slightly taboo, in my experience) because they’re uncivil – they’re taboo because society is less tolerant of dehumanizing language than it used to be. But it’s still pretty tolerant, especially of misogynistic dehumanization.
And a slur is different than an insult. “Asshole” is just an insult, for example. It’s never been used to reinforce societal hierarchies and greater/lesser status for certain groups. But there’s a very clear history with slurs like “slut” – to reinforce the restrictive roles society places on women, and that women who fall outside those roles are fair game for mistreatment – both to deter other women from going outside the box, and to allow the powerful an underclass to exploit (sexually and otherwise). I don’t see such slurs as being put into place by mustache twirling villains, but rather evolving “naturally” in systems in which the powerful strongly incentivize the maintenance of these roles (such as wealthy plantation owners in the antebellum South working hard to ensure slavery remains viable, and that slaves are repeatedly and brutally reminded of their lack of status or power).
This is probably a pretty good example of one of the main disagreements, in general, between the left and right in the US. I see societal roles and mores over history as, generally, tools to oppress and exploit for the benefit of the wealthy and powerful. And this is reinforced every year, to me. From what I can tell from your posts, you see these roles and mores as, generally, benign traditions, mostly either neutral or even beneficial, whether to keep kids on the “straight and narrow” or to stay within the boundaries of religious beliefs (not sure which would be closer to the truth for you). If I’m wrong on this, feel free to correct me – I’m just trying to read between the lines of your posts.
Dehumanization is a poor word for what you are describing. Do you mean “subjugation?”
What you are describing is basic identity politics. It’s an attractive and compelling philosophy, particularly if you are in one of the grievance groups, and it niftier refutes anyone in the non-grievance group as invalid if they object to it as simply defending their privilege.
It’s repackaged racism, designed to create a divide. You can see that clearly in its effects 9 how much has identity politics improved race and gender relations over the last decade? It fails the most basic rationale analysis, and it is a tool that has been designed and pushed for an evil purpose, and I don’t throw that word around lightly.
I have studied it and understand it, and could argue it as if I were a true believer. I understand a good bit of it’s genesis and history and have watched it evolve. I’ve even got sucked into it.
You should take a deep dive into the cogent criticism. Not the Trumpian masses bullshit, the serious critiques from the likes of Jordan Peterson et al. I’ve think if you dove into that culture the way that i’ve dove into leftism, you might have some problems with the philosophy. (Certainly my 20 year dive into liberalism leftism has caused me to abandon much of what I perceive to be wrong with Republicanism conservatism and embrace a lot of what I find admirable in liberalism, and i’m A better and more informed person for it.)
I think it behooves you to understand the oppositions argument.
The most basic refutation is that these groups are drawn along arbitrary lines, and attributes are assigned to them that are not implicit in the group.
Language is not subjugating. People are. It is all dependent on the context.
I pretty much disagree with everything you said, and again I feel that I have achieved a full understanding of the arguments on both sides. I would guess (perhaps incorrectly) that you have not studied the serious critical rebuttals, and I would urge you to do so.
I try to take them one at a time rather than make blanket generalizations. Sometimes what seems like an arbitrary and maybe even hurtful tradition is in place for very good reasons, other times not so much. I was serious about liberals and conservatives needing each other. Liberals tend to challenge these things periodically. Doing so, either reinforces the valid ones or shows that the invalid ones can be discarded.
For example, the hippies of haughty-asbury (sp?) threw away a whole bunch of conventions as they explored communalism. As Tom Wolfe, humorously pointed they learned pretty quickly that ownership was still very important and there were some things you shouldn’t share… like toothbrushes.
On the other side of the coin, a portion of the historical plight of women can be assigned to biological necessity. A progression of science to where we overcame biology, meant that male aggression, disagreeableness, and tendency towards superior strength was no longer as valuable as it had been. At the same time the disadvantages of monthlies, a control over their reproductive processes, and greater social acumen, reduced the need for those conventions inflicted by biology. Those conventions changed far later than necessity would dictate because they had to be challenged and fought for. The fact that they have changed is one of the reasons that Western culture had such an ascendency. There is surely further to go, but men have had it tough, too. History was tough on everybody. Men outnumber women in jails by a vast degree, they have historically fought the wars, and worked the most dangerous jobs, and still do. Women live an average of 8 years longer.
Scylla, I think I understand your point, and think it was very well explained. That said, why are you so worried about the “lunatic fringe” on the left instead of that fringe on the right? It seems to me that we are much more likely headed to the facist side of the spectrum than the communist one. We literally have Nazis holding rallies in the streets.
My real fear is totalitarianism. It doesn’t matter if it’s from the right or the left, either is horrible. I think we agree on this. In this political climate, which do you think is more likely, left or right totalitarianism? Your post seems to indicate that “constructivism, identity politics, and intersectionality” are leading us to the left fringe. Constructivism is a new one to me, and I’m not sure what you mean by it. I agree identity politics is dangerous, but it’s certainly not exclusive to the left. Identity politics is one reason we have Trump, after all.
Intersectionality? Really? The way I understand intersectionality in the current political mindset of the left is the opposite of what you are asserting. It has become a buzzword and conservative talking point, much like social justice warrior, but it’s the same false appropriation of valid concepts like “fake news”. Both intersectionality and social justice seem to me to be positive things, seeking inclusiveness. I understand that intersectionality has some Marxist undertones, but that’s not how I see it used now on the left. Your assertion that we are headed toward communism is reliant on an argument that the left is being exclusionary, but what I see is further and further inclusiveness.
Compare that to the right. Can you really argue that the right is seeking to be more inclusive?
The right is increasingly claiming victimhood. You say that communists attack free speech, and that the left is guilty of this, but the only real examples I can think of this actually happening are when some speakers were shouted down or excluded from speaking at colleges. These were self-espoused white supremacists. Many of them were also recently banned from social network sites like Facebook and Twitter, and the right rallied around their right to “free speech”, so maybe this qualifies too. This isn’t communism, or virtue signaling, or an alarming trend for leftist group-think. This is society deciding they don’t need to tolerate hate. Again, this is the opposite of what you fear. It isn’t ostracizing those with more “free” views, it’s deciding we don’t want those who view oppression as acceptable to be accepted as normal.
I had an Libertarian acquaintance who shared some of your views that the State shouldn’t be (or at least should severely limit) regulating things like civil rights. His argument, as you’ve also put forward, is that public shaming would help cause those who cared about whatever issue (sexual orientation, race, gender, etc.) to choose not to do business with a bigot. If public shaming, or rather informed capitalism, is such a good thing, why is it bad when applied to speech?
You see evil from the left. I find that ironic, and a little sad. I don’t think you’re a bad person based on your posts in this thread, but you ask those on the left to try to put themselves in the mindset of those on the right and understand where they are coming from. Have you done the same yourself? Do you understand where the left is coming from? If you’re being fair, do you really think that the majority on the left really want communism, or do they just want a just society and prosperity for all?
As for the OP, there are “better conservatives” out there. I count some of my friends and family among them. Most hate Trump almost as much as I do, but some are supporters, or really, more apologists because they always have a “but”. I think it’s fair to them to say that they all have some view I find abhorrent, but they are good people, and have what they view as valid reasons for being conservative. I have absolutely no sympathy for any Trump support, but the conclusion I’ve come to is that the “good” ones are either ignorant of who he really is, or are willing to just look the other way because they subscribe to one or more of the conservative platform ideas.
It’s really disheartening at this point, but I bet if I were personal friends with every Republican member of congress I would attest that some, or even most, loved this country and wanted the best for it. I also understand that they are fucked by the 30% or whatever of the base that wants fascism. They’ll lose their seats and power if they so much as buck the system once. I think they are shit people because they could band together and fix this. They could have done it prior to Trump being elected. That’s a collective thing, though, and each is out for themselves. It makes them shit as a collective, and individually for being collaborators, but the GOP is the real evil.
But also, I have to say, McConnell is a shit human all by himself.
This is the disgusting, fucked up, fascist attitude that’s ruining this country. This is what convinces the left that there are no good Republicans. I’ve been watching the West Wing recently just to remind myself that back in the early 2000s we respected the office of the President. One of the running themes of that show is that politicians would put the country ahead of themselves if necessary. The first job of an elected politician isn’t to fucking win. They were elected to represent their constituents. That’s their first and only job. If they lose then the electorate decided someone else would do it better. It should never be about them personally, although we all realize the system isn’t perfect and they’ll fight for their own power, but that’s a weakness in the system, not a feature. Jesus fuck, if this “the first job of a politician is to win” mindset if prevalent on the right, then they deserve to be discounted as ignorant about how a democracy works. That’s how totalitarianism works.
I don’t think anyone has really taken you up on the challenge of trying to express the conservative viewpoint in a way that they would agree with. That’s probably because the other posters sensed it was a gotcha trap that you finally revealed in the above “constructivism, identity politics, and intersectionality” post. You seem to want leftists to acknowledge that advocating for the rights of the disadvantaged, and shouting down those who disagree, is uniting the right. Very well, I admit this is true and should be very concerning to the right. These circumstances, with the proletariat rising up, have historically led to violent revolution that should scare the ruling class. It’s not going to happen in this country unless the oligarchs completely take over first, though, but I can understand that they’re afraid.
Now, I don’t think that’s what you meant, and I admit that it’s a strawman I set up, mostly because I wanted to rage against oligarchs. I get the impression from this thread that you are one of the “better conservatives” willing to post on this board because you are willing to debate the real issues, unlike the usual group of rightist partisan trolls like Steophan.
Do you think these items are valid representations of current conservative thinking, that they would agree with?
- I pay too much in taxes. I worked hard for my money, but the government is taking more than they should. I pay so much between income taxes, social security, FICA, and then sales taxes on top of that. What are they using all my money for?
1a) I know my employer also pays some extra taxes which is decreasing my income. If I really think about it, everything I buy was also taxed. The company that made the product I purchases was taxed on profits, and everyone’s income who worked to make this product was also taxed. It’s amazing we have any money at all. We need massive tax reform. If the corporations didn’t have to pay such obscene taxes things would be cheaper and the workers (and I) would make more.
1b) The left just spends and spends. They will build bridges to nowhere, and give money to people who refuse to work. If we could cut down on government waste, my taxes would be a lot lower.
- The government let all the jobs go overseas. How am I supposed to get a job and make ends meet when I’m competing with some guy in India or China? They’ll work for nothing, but I have kids and a mortgage. I pay my taxes. Why is the government letting this happen to me?
2a) My industry is important (coal mining, farming, oil, steel). The other countries are subsiding and dumping their products to undermine us. They shouldn’t be allowed to do that. Globalism is hurting me directly, and people don’t understand that.
- The left wants to marginalize my religion, which is fundamental to my way of life. We are a Christian Nation, but they don’t recognize that. They do things like ban prayer and want us to ignore that Christmas is a Christian Holiday. Why is this so important to them unless they have an anti-Christian agenda?
3b) My religion teaches me that homosexuality is a sin. I mean, it’s disgusting, but some people choose to do it. Fine, “love the sinner and hate the sin”, but why do they demand that they be allowed to get married, and why should we forced to legitimize their choice?
-
We’re killing babies in this country. Literally killing babies. How is this happening, and why is it legal?
-
The left wants outlaw private gun ownership, despite the 2nd amendment. Nancy Pelosi wants to institute a complete ban, and confiscate our guns.* It’s my right to own a gun, for both functional and recreational uses. Hunting is good for the environment, and how will I do that without guns? How should I protect my home from both human and animal predators? Guns have been necessary and normal in the US for so long, why doesn’t the left understand their utility? They don’t understand what life in rural America is really like.
- I don’t think she’s actually stated that, but many believe it.
-
Being a mid-america, small town resident used to be a positive thing. People watched Andy Griffith and wished they lived in Mayberry. Now the left calls us “fly-over country”, and all the while our towns are dying and our kids are addicted to drugs. The left has forgotten about us. At least the right understands that it’s not just the big cities that have problems, but we do too.
-
When I go into McDonalds all the staff are speaking Spanish. Where is my son supposed to work when he’s 16 and needs his first job? He doesn’t speak Spanish. They might be illegal, or maybe not, but they could at least learn the language.
-
There are many foreigners, mostly Arabs, who seek to harm the US by any means possible. It just makes sense to vet some people more thoroughly than others. Coming to this country is a privilege, not a right.
I think many of these are issues are understandable, and some might be valid. I could probably come up with more. I went ahead and listed them to show that many of us on the left have thought about them, even from the right’s perspective. Notice I didn’t list anything about intersectionality. I could have, but I wouldn’t know how to phrase it in a way that was neutral. It would have been something like, “I’m afraid my white male privilege is being diluted.” The above listed items I can at least understand, even if I disagree and could rebut most of them. Being scared that one might be accused of rape, or that one might be shouted down for being a white supremacist, not so much.
Scylla, let’s take your assertions about the fringes at face value for a moment. Let’s assume that all this stuff about intersectionality leading to gulags is, in fact, accurate (LOL btw).
Is the American left wing in any way represented by this fringe? Upthread someone (I think Smapti?) detailed the actual problems with communism, and they do not seem to fit the dems. The democrats are very hesitant to put firebrands in charge. In fact, the most common leftist critique of the current dem leadership is that they’re tio measured, too willing to play by the rules. They’re certainly not anywhere near as far left as even conservative European parties.
So how do you get to this fear of the left suddenly becoming communists?
Dehumanization is an excellent word for what he’s describing:
“the process of depriving a person or group of positive human qualities.”
It’s what you did when you labelled her a “brazen slut” because she was advocating a position you disagreed with. And for the life of me I don’t understand why you’d do that, as you’re more than capable of arguing against someone’s stance without resorting to misogynistic ad hominems.
Oh, you mean like if I used my conservative transmogrifier Ray, shot it through the message board at this lady who it’s doubtful reads here, or would even care if she did, and it sucked out some portion of her humanity, and this ray spilled out and did the same thing to all women everywhere?
You are suggesting I did something like that?
That’s a notion worthy of ridicule.
Let’s pretend for a second that I agree with this (which I don’t. I am just trying it on for size)
Here’s how my thinking would go:
Three, four, five years ago? I said something mean on the SDMB that I shouldn’t have. People saying mean things that they shouldn’t, on message boards, particularly the SDMB is not an unusual occurence. I think that’s a pretty safe statement. In fact, it might be the understatement of the year.
Now, all these years later, in a completely unrelated thread, a couple of people show up and call me out on this long past event. They would like to discuss it, or presume to educate me in my error, or remind me of it.
Hmm I wonder if there is an ulterior motive? It seems like an asshole move to me. There are countless occurrences of this going on on this board all the time, why are they singling me out for some minor issue in the past instead of being concerned with the present?
At the same time that one of these persons is calling me to task, that person is simultaneously posting that they “endorse these words” underneath a quote, which (granted is not calling names) is describing a planned strategy to literally dehumanize this group they disagree with. Further, and this is really interesting: that strategy is about derailing them, calling them to task in whatever way you can, through vulgarity or ignoring the normal rules.
Hmmm. I wonder if randomly calling somebody to task for a faux pas they committed several years ago, thus hijacking the thread and stopping them from talking about what they want to talk about, would qualify as a use of this strategy?
Gary: let’s say you regrettably pissed in the sink several years ago. If I walked up to in an unrelated context and started calling you out on that (again, several years later) you would think I am a total asshole and you’d be right.
So, if you think that I am unaware of all this, and that there is some sort of point being made that is giving me food for thought, I think that’s pretty delusional.
Absolutely not. Dehumanization is necessary for long-term subjugation – so they can be related concepts. But language doesn’t subjugate – actions and systems subjugate. Language can dehumanize (rhetorically, which is what we’re talking about) – it can reinforce roles and hierarchies. If, from birth, a child hears over and over again that the group they are in is inferior and subservient to the dominant group, then that child is being rhetorically “dehumanized” continuously by the language of society.
Most of this has very little to do with anything I’ve written. Accurately describing history and language isn’t “identity politics”. Further, I’ve read Peterson extensively (as well as many other critics of contemporary liberal politics and social justice activism) and I find his criticism extremely weak, unscientific, ahistorical, and often unintelligible.
None of this actually refutes or addresses the specific words I’ve written – it reads to me like a pre-packaged, “standard” response, but not anything about my specific words and arguments. I’d appreciate if you could address my specific words, not your preconceived notions about liberal beliefs. If you think something Peterson has written specifically refutes my specific words, as opposed to some supposed liberal belief in general, then I’d be happy to read it – but if it’s just straw man takedowns, then my eyes will probably glaze over.
Agreed. Language can be dehumanizing, however. If, for example, a group is frequently referred to as vermin (or a synonym), as the Nazis referred to many groups, then those groups are being dehumanized by the language of that society.
This doesn’t address my actual words, and I’ve read plenty of criticism, including from Peterson. I find that they usually misstate and mischaracterize the views of liberals and social justice advocates.