This is what's so insane to me about how willing people are to throw away the foundations of civilized society for short-term political victories. Especially for those who claim to be fighting for the marginalized, it should be obvious to anyone who's not a complete idiot that the marginalized are those who suffer in the long run when dissenting speech is punished.
Not to get nakedly political, but for someone who became old enough to start being aware of politics in the early 2000s, it was pretty easy to look at the GWB and Obama administrations and fall into the narrative of "oh, our side are clearly the good guys" as a kid and early in college (as I think most kids do). The last few years have made it clear to me that this amoral, either-with-me-or-my-enemy approach to politics is pretty independent of where you lie on the political spectrum. Every part of the spectrum has its shitty people and unfortunately we're in a cycle where those people are the ones dominating the discourse everywhere you look.
There's a reason wars of religion and ideology are always the bloodiest. If it's 1600s Europe and you're a soldier in a war of conquest, it's a lot easier to see the enemy soldiers and civilians as just trying to get by in the world buffeted by the same forces you are. On the other hand, if their entire existence and belief system are an affront to God, it was a hell of a lot easier for the worst and most bloodthirsty parts of the human psyche to kick in. The social technologies we've developed to handle pluralism nonviolently have been incredibly successful by the standards of most of human history. I guess all it takes is enough stupid, myopic, and/or amoral people to sacrifice the stability they engender for short-term political gain.
I see the same thing playing out (in much less dramatic fashion) among many of my nominally compassionate, kind-hearted friends. The other side isn't considered misguided, or to have a different understanding of the world (or heaven forbid, possibly more correct than you): they're just evil. Every dirty rhetorical trick to twist their words is fair game, and attempts from decent people to even point out that the other side is being misrepresented is giving aid and comfort to the enemy.
It happened just this weekend: my friend mocked one of the points the essay author made, and when I pointed out that he was misrepresenting (or misunderstanding) it, his response was something like "I don't think men are the ones who need help in the world at this point in time". There's no such thing as truth or honesty to most people, just "how can I spin this to support what I already know the answer _should_ be"
> Every dirty rhetorical trick to twist their words is fair game, and attempts from decent people to even point out that the other side is being misrepresented is giving aid and comfort to the enemy.
I avoid a lot of liberal "popular" sites because of this BS. It's not right.
It's become a moral situation for many people. in fairness, some of the social politics are literal life and death for certain subcommunities, so that is as deeply moral a question as it gets.
I think a lot of the reason for this is there's been a strong drift into separate parties by certain communities. so there's no diverse viewpoint in each (US) party and a consensus in-party that they can present...
E.g., if you believe trans people shouldn't be able to choose a restroom, you're probably Republican or affiliated. And if you're trans, you're probably Democrat. That's kind of a big deal in terms of public health to the transperson! Very much a moral question to them!
And that should be considered in why it's so hardcore of an issue.
Eh, I pretty strongly disagree. My complaint is against people who claim the mantle of being obviously, factually correct while being so incredibly dismissive of attempts to figure out what's true vs what's convenient. Judging facts on how they contribute to your ideology is a way of approaching the world that's precisely ass-backwards.
This is entirely independent of how morally-weighted the question is: in fact, the more morally-weighted an issue is, the more you should want to make sure that you're being conscientious in your approach to it, and the more disgusting I find this lack of interest in the concept of honesty vs "do what you need to in order to win". The worst part is that, if you're wrong, what you're "winning" isn't a good thing at all!
My point was that I have a big sympathy for people who do see it as a moral issue, because of the very real consequences.
I do understand what you're saying. I think I disagree with some what you're saying, but I think I significantly agree with you in spirit. Anyway. I have to head out and stop reading internet forums. :)
Couldn't agree more. The polarization I've seen in the last two years is just insane to me. I've always been pretty firmly in the center, and I feel like it's a lot of work to stay there.
Google seems to be culturally ahead of the curve, for better or worse: some of the craziest things I've heard in the last few years (eg explicit denial of the value of innocent-until-proven-guilty and idea pluralism), I heard internally from other Googlers _years_ before I would've expected to hear it outside. (Now, of course, both of those things are routine).
Similarly, there's been a bit of a turning of the tide publicly back towards sanity: the first thing I can recall seeing that signaled a defense of basic liberal tenets was The Atlantic's "The Coddling of the American Mind". No one with a baker's dozen of brain cells found anything new in that, but for the vast majority of people who only consider an idea when their chosen publications grant their approval,
it was a huge step. (Pres Obama pushed back against this kind of barbarity in his own half of the political spectrum much earlier, but he was politely ignored).
It's kind of interesting to see Google culture out in front of the pendulum's swing back, too. I can't imagine this kind of an essay being published in most "blue tribe" fora.
Not to get nakedly political, but for someone who became old enough to start being aware of politics in the early 2000s, it was pretty easy to look at the GWB and Obama administrations and fall into the narrative of "oh, our side are clearly the good guys" as a kid and early in college (as I think most kids do). The last few years have made it clear to me that this amoral, either-with-me-or-my-enemy approach to politics is pretty independent of where you lie on the political spectrum. Every part of the spectrum has its shitty people and unfortunately we're in a cycle where those people are the ones dominating the discourse everywhere you look.
There's a reason wars of religion and ideology are always the bloodiest. If it's 1600s Europe and you're a soldier in a war of conquest, it's a lot easier to see the enemy soldiers and civilians as just trying to get by in the world buffeted by the same forces you are. On the other hand, if their entire existence and belief system are an affront to God, it was a hell of a lot easier for the worst and most bloodthirsty parts of the human psyche to kick in. The social technologies we've developed to handle pluralism nonviolently have been incredibly successful by the standards of most of human history. I guess all it takes is enough stupid, myopic, and/or amoral people to sacrifice the stability they engender for short-term political gain.
I see the same thing playing out (in much less dramatic fashion) among many of my nominally compassionate, kind-hearted friends. The other side isn't considered misguided, or to have a different understanding of the world (or heaven forbid, possibly more correct than you): they're just evil. Every dirty rhetorical trick to twist their words is fair game, and attempts from decent people to even point out that the other side is being misrepresented is giving aid and comfort to the enemy.
It happened just this weekend: my friend mocked one of the points the essay author made, and when I pointed out that he was misrepresenting (or misunderstanding) it, his response was something like "I don't think men are the ones who need help in the world at this point in time". There's no such thing as truth or honesty to most people, just "how can I spin this to support what I already know the answer _should_ be"