I wonder if a large chunk of the audience read this article's position that they should listen to other people, threw away this idea because they couldn't empathise with the author, and didn't watch the video, confirming the research mentioned.
It can't really be as simple as reading vs hearing though.
People watch videos of political opponents all the time and don't relate to them better afterwards. How does Jon Stewart exist if that's the case? How does Hannity?
Actually I did watch Trump for an hour once and it made me relate to him much more. It did not change my general opinion about him, but it made me understand why people support him.
There are some videos with him from a couple of years before the election (on Letterman), I watched those a week ago and found him quite likeable as well. Even with the background knowledge of the disastrous policy he is now implementing.
I think it probably would - Trump is actually a very good persuader.
I showed a clip of him speaking to a bunch of Indians who saw virtually nothing of him except whatever they read in TOI. (TOI and most other Indian English language papers can be thought of as being Indian branches of the cathedral, at least for this purpose.) They started by mocking him, yet they quickly quieted down and watched the video with rapt attention until the end.
After watching this video they were very much against Trump cutting off the rest of the world to Make America Great Again. As in, they were using Trump's language and accepting his premises, in spite of knowing they were wrong.
This is one of the great failings of democracy. People like Trump (or Obama, who had similar abilities) can blatantly lie or just say nothing meaningful, and people will relate to them and follow them.
I forced myself to watch the debates. Coming in, I despised Trump because I had only heard news about him, not from him. But after 3 hrs of hearing him in debates, I didn't disagree with him so much as I was frustrated that there was nothing of substance to disagree with. He made claims but did not back them up, he deflected rather than addressed questions, and he made judgements so broad that you could interpret them any way you wanted. I went from hating him to just being frustrated at how vacuous he was.
If you watch him critically, you'd see there's more depth than the cartoon character that you typically see. I don't agree with his politics and methods... but he isn't some bumpkin. He is genuine in his fakeness.
Supporters hear the (real) problems he describes and a commitment to fix it. The details are where it breaks down.
Many public people who are good at what they do are amazing at flattening complex problems and making people understand and agree. Bill Clinton in his prime was capable of that -- he had a Steve Jobs like magnetic force.
If you look at some of more right-wing political people, many of them lack charisma, but use speech and body language techniques that are taught to evangelical pastors and others and are really effective in those audiences, but come off creepy to others. Kinda like how Mormons are awesome telemarketers because of skills acquired on missionary work.
this, look at the 180 switch in his persona from the 80s to after his struggles in the 90s. He was fairly soft-spoken and thoughtful then transitioned to his current brash persona to build his brand to do licensing deals.
Combined with the fact he may be suffering from early Alzheimer's/dementia like his father and you have present day Trump.
I actually the more I see or hear Trump the more I empathize with his plight. Like Howard Stern I'm concerned the presidency will do serious mental harm to him.
Trump has what best can be called a serious addiction to praise. It his hard to imagine empathizing a narcissist but from an abstract level it isn't much different from many psychological ailments. When Trump is criticized he may appear to be strong to some but I now imagine based on watching him it is extremely painful for him.
He didn't face nearly the same level of scrutiny and hostility from the press and public, and he could always walk away from a business by letting it go bankrupt.
He also tended to flatter powerful people, so the most hostile people were probably the small businesses he randomly refused to pay. Now he's made many powerful enemies during the campaign.
Since a bunch of people are responding with anecdotes I'll throw in mine: most people I know who hate Trump continue to hate him after watching a bunch of footage of him.
While I don't think this is the entirety of the problem, I think the relatively advancement and pervasive use of the following article template is a big problem right now, when combined with the forces that lead to clickbait:
Those crazy idiots are up to it again! You won't believe that
you're the same species as these people once you see this.
As all right-thinking people know, the best flibbets are the ones
that gyrate. Of course you know that; everybody around you knows
that, that's why you were taught in school about how important
gyration is in flibbets. I mean, fucking duh, right?
But wait until you get a load of what these doofuses recently vomited
forth on their latest Sunday morning talk show appearance:
[very unflattering picture of the speaker here]
"Gyrating flibbets are... the worst things ever. Everyone
knows that flibbets... should wobble."
And they go on for a while, but as you can imagine they never give
any reason for their crazed beliefs about flibbets! Ha ha! I won't
even dignify their rant with a link. How could you think flibbets
should wobble? What's a flibbet experience without a bit of quality
dizziness brought on by the gyration?
Of course, in actuality, the "..."s obscure some serious (if rhetorical) argument, and the part where they went "on and on" they actually do give some sort of reason. It's really a very dangerous rhetorical pattern; it makes you feel like you understand the opposition better when in fact you actively understand them worse; not only do you still have no idea why they believe what they believe and probably a terribly inaccurate idea of what they believe, you've been inoculated against the entire idea of even trying to find out, ever, for any reason, lest you end up being socially mocked. Personally I recommend to everybody that you eschew all such sources of commentary like Stewart or Oliver... at this point I don't even think the fact that they are funny is enough to offset the very significant cognitive dangers they pose. If your news feed is hilarious, turn it off; you're being propagandized, not informed. (This is not particular to John Stewart or Oliver... due to the success of the pattern everyone is doing it! I mean, absolutely everyone is doing it now. I don't know if I just recently sensitized to it or if there really has been a huge shift in the past couple of years here.)
(I don't know if it's just me or what lately, but I've also been seeing a lot of claims lately that "there is no evidence that..." when in fact there is some sort of evidence; simple denial of existence is now substituting for even sneering dismissal. Evidence is actually pretty easy to come by in a complicated world; any time you here that there is no evidence your ears should perk up. The problem that makes the real world such a challenge is that it's too easy to find evidence to support any given position, not that there isn't any.)
> In philosophy and rhetoric, the principle of charity requires interpreting a speaker's statements to be rational and, in the case of any argument, considering its best, strongest possible interpretation. [0]
Although it seems super rare in internet conversation, a good way to practice is to keep in mind all the ways the Other Team misrepresents My Team and generalize this when the Other Team says something dreadful on the surface.
But in the absence of the charity, concise, effective communication becomes all the more crucial.
I feel the true meaning of a discussion has been lost. It has warped from "lets share our opinions to achieve a greater understanding" to "Let me show you how I'm right and try to dismiss all your opinions in every way possible".
And, in reality, what happens is "let me say my opinions to the air so the ones who already agree with me agree even more".
>I feel the true meaning of a discussion has been lost. It has warped from "lets share our opinions to achieve a greater understanding" to "Let me show you how I'm right and try to dismiss all your opinions in every way possible".
What a wonderfully astute observation. Conversations have become a competition where each side feels they need to "win", often at any cost. I grew up on the internet, having first gotten a connection in '93. I remember a time when online conversations were "let's share..." and have watched them transform into their current state. I suspect a lot of the current deteriorated state of in-person conversations came from the deterioration of the online conversation, which agrees with this articles premise. Can any older members comment on whether this was happening so much before the internet was commonly used?
>And, in reality, what happens is "let me say my opinions to the air so the ones who already agree with me agree even more".
I would add that it's also a lot of virtual signaling[0]. Making statements you know your in-group agrees with in order to increase your social standing.
I used to be a part of BBS culture. I see many parallels with today. You will find some respectable people and some bullies. I recall the need for moderators even back then. I knew a few sysops (admins) and talked to them about these challenges.
However, the application of moderation was much simpler. The rules allied to everybody. We now oppose things like whitewashing (eg. Protests at Dr Strange), but are happy to gender wash (Thor, Ghost Busters, etc). We've tied ourselves in knots with these inconsistencies.
I also agree with your comments about social standing. Excellent comment.
1. There was ten times as much carrying on about Ghostbusters than Doctor Strange.
2. Doctor Strange took an actual Asian character and cast it with a non-Asian. Ghostbusters didn't recast male characters as women, it just decided that after two movies with male ghostbusters there would be a movie with female ghostbusters.
Not that I think scrutinizing these things is of any importance or that exposing this flaw means anything in the face of the white & male supremacy mindset that causes someone to be defensive about seeing criticism of a white casting or the existence of a female casting.
A better example than Ghost Busters might be the Battlestar Galactica reboot which shocked many fans of the original series by changing one of the main characters, Starbuck, from a man to a woman.
What use is the phrase if it follows your definition?
Say I say "Thing X is good" or "Thing Y is bad" in a public forum. How can I avoid that being called virtue signalling?
Am I only allowed to say things that annoy my in-group? Wouldn't this apply to all sorts of things e.g. the speeches of Adolf Hitler or Donald Trump's tweets? Why aren't they accused of virtue signalling?
"Virtue signalling" is mostly used to describe rhetorical devices that serve no other purpose than to give positive strokes to your in-group (which also usually serves to identify yourself as part of that in-group—at least in their minds), so that said in-group will be more willing to side with any actual arguments you make in the same debate, regardless of those arguments' objective merit.
Political speeches, and specifically political debates are indeed full of virtue signalling. The only reason it doesn't come up is that 1. it's not a term nearly anyone is familiar with; and 2. it's so universal in politics that accusing someone of it would be like accusing a bird of laying eggs. You can't find a politician who doesn't use virtue signalling (or any of a host of other rhetorical devices), so why bother calling out the 100% who do?
It's pointed out more often outside of politics, where effectively it's a way of saying "this person is playing dirty with the audience's emotions, like a politician."
"Virtue signalling" as a debate tactic is effectively a kind of "applause light" (http://lesswrong.com/lw/jb/applause_lights/), which I find a more useful general term for the kind of problematic rhetorical effect it has.
"Virtue signalling" outside of debates is isn't really a thing people care much about, though; everyone does it all the time and nobody pays it any mind (unless you're an anthropologist trying to break down why a given seemingly-useless verbal exchange occurs frequently in a culture.)
Virtue signalling is showing (signalling) that you have a certain opinion for the sole purpose of appearing virtuous.
For example, all of the people suddenly support for illegal immigration because Donald Trump is against it, even though every 'progressive' country in the world deports illegal immigrants.
Or the "Women's March", which was basically an anti-Trump protest, and had nothing to do with women's rights (if it did, it wouldn't have used a hijab as a symbol of women's rights, as women in Islamic countries generally protest the use of the hijab as a tool of oppression).
So the people who disagree with you, don't really disagree with you, they just pretend to disagree with you, because all of their peer group disagree with you?
I'm not the OP but I'm curious what do you see as the logical hole?
There is social value in disagreeing with someone who claims to have the objective truth. It's not so much about being right as it's claiming to have the truth which socially, emotionally and culturally is related to power.
If you don't want a person to have power it doesn't matter if they're right or not. All that matters is the fact that having the truth means having power.
I often get in trouble when I change my opinion during a conversation based on what we just talked about. Or when I think that the "other side" has a lot of good points too.
Personally I think this is not a direct consequence of the internet but just a better understanding of advertising and manipulation. the parties just have become smarter positioning themselves on some issues in a way that the other side is totally unacceptable. By throwing around accusations of racism, baby killing or socialism they make any kind of compromise impossible.
So do I! I'm a pretty open minded person and am willing to look at any topic from many angles. This seems to baffle people who bucket things into "us" and "them".
> By throwing around accusations of racism, baby killing or socialism they make any kind of compromise impossible.
> and try to dismiss all your opinions in every way possible
"The problem with this way of thinking is..."
Maybe people should rephrase so that they say what is right about your way of thinking first. By always framing the problem first you dismiss all the good parts as well.
Almost all internet arguments are really the members of one group loudly asserting their shared identity. The principal means are hating the outsiders (while denying that your group would ever engage in something so distasteful) and either believing without question something an outsider would consider crazy or taking your beliefs to such extremes that an outsider would consider it crazy.
And, "conversation" now means "shut up, I'm talking"
> I feel the true meaning of a discussion has been lost. It has warped from "lets share our opinions to achieve a greater understanding" to "Let me show you how I'm right and try to dismiss all your opinions in every way possible".
Given that "rhetoric" was already a subject of study in ancient rome (and its politicians were skilled in using persuasion and propaganda to manipulate public opinion), I'm not sure there was ever a time where discussion was solely about sharing opinions and archieving a greater understanding.
But it's of course important to keep the ideal of discussion in mind and not go too far down the dark side.
Interesting point. Rhetoricians and sophists appeared in ancient Greece, becoming popular along with the rise of Democracy. It's believed this is because the ability to argue convincingly lead to sway over the Demos, the people, and therefore the ability to influence law.
Put another way, these people were politicians. They argued professionally, and were trained to do so, or made their living training others to do so. I don't think their existence can be used to inform how every day people had conversations at the time.
More interestingly, maybe the problem is that everyone now thinks they're an amateur politician.
A better model for philosophy is "I'll show you mine, and you show me yours," where two or more different visions are articulated, each responding in part to the last, pointing out points of agreement or difference where illustrative, but not pretending to be able to fully deconstruct and refute the other's view. - http://partiallyexaminedlife.com/2014/09/11/against-debate/
> And, in reality, what happens is "let me say my opinions to the air so the ones who already agree with me agree even more".
In a debate on a public forum, "the air" (really, the silent majority of people reading the debate, who aren't debating themselves) are often the true target of any rhetoric deployed. If you see person A saying things that obviously wouldn't convince their interlocutor B, maybe they're just trying to make the audience think B is not worth listening to.
Mind you, getting everyone who reads a debate to understand that the other guy is not worth listening to can be a moral good—if B is giving bad legal/medical advice, A might drop convincing B or "winning" the debate as goals, to focus instead on making sure people don't come away with the perception that B's statements are factual/trustworthy, even if it means their statements aren't seen as factual/trustworthy either.
But often it's just done for the sake of playing social power games: to "get the other guy downvoted."
I've given up on steelmanning - Most attempts I've seen people get upset that I'm misrepresenting their position by improving it!
Most arguments, particularly online, aren't dictated by logical formalism. They're not even dictated by more ductile probabilism or game theory - They're done almost entirely on emotions. Saying "Let us assume all of X is Y, which would help your point by removing the need to deal with Z" only offends people, because then you're ignoring their opinion. Nobody's looking to find workable solutions or compromises, they're looking to express their feelings.
> I feel the true meaning of a discussion has been lost. It has warped from "lets share our opinions to achieve a greater understanding" to "Let me show you how I'm right and try to dismiss all your opinions in every way possible".
For my whole life I've observed that a lot of "conversation" is simply waiting for the other person's mouth to stop moving and then opening yours. The listening part rarely happens.
So very true and largely people don't have the ability to view external data and decide to change their mind. They've already done that (now granted the data could just be "because" or parents or religion or political party or...).
The easiest way to convince someone to view new data is for them to explain their position to you. Either they provide enough data for you (being so enlightened) to change your mind or they may realize they are being internally inconsistent and then they change their own mind. Then you don't have to waste any effort trying to chip at their position. Trying to do so generally results in obstinance from them.
I feel like your description of the principle of charity doesn't match Wikipedia's description. In particular, misrepresenting somebody else's position is a thing that could happen, so it is important to be able to tell whether it happened. Wikipedia's examples are all about taking claims, and interpreting them in the most reasonable way, in plain English, consistent with typical usage, word meanings, etc. The converse would seem to be like twisting somebody's words. After all, it is perfectly possible for someone to say something, in plain understandable English, mean it, and yet be wrong, so there should be no way the principle of charity can eliminate that possibility: Wikipedia's definition doesn't, whereas yours just might.
If you take a step back, there is a lot of hatred generated by much of today's media. I compared it to newspapers from 1970 and the nastiness and the sexism has increased by at least one if not two orders of magnitude. I challenge you to go to your local library or archive and compare for yourself. It's a stark contrast. I compared an entire year's worth of papers, so, I have a good basis to compare.
Here are a few examples of things that did not happen in 1970 in the papers I read and there was nothing like it at all,
Or, many of the articles about Donald Trump (lunatic is a common term used by some big media outlets, Google it, there are too many links to list). Irrespective of whether you like his policies, the personal attacks (which are even very popular on HN) are unacceptable. To disagree with policy is fine, to personally attack the man is not.
Or try the website equalmeansequal.com . It is very extreme in its gender prejudice and had gone without being challenged. For example, read the section about prisons/incarceration. Like Australia, even when police reports demonstrate there are many violent women (25-33% of perpetrators according to US and Australian statistics such as ABS), there is an almost universal denial in the media about domestic violence and female aggressors. Why? Why condone violence? You can't get much worse in breaching ethics and human rights. Why does it persist so universally?
The linked article at nautilus.us also defends feminism. The central theme to each of these examples above is ... feminism. Feminism does not equal female (nor equality). I currently work with mostly females (about 95%). I'm anti feminist and not anti female! I strongly disrespect prejudiced movements/ideologies (KKK, neo nazis AND feminism).
I also pointed out in another post that Hillary Clinton's exit speech was very sexist (far worse than Matt Taylor's shirt). Why were her segregating words necessary (ie. excluding boys completely in several instances)? Why did every single media outlet ignore this? Feminism. No matter how extreme or nasty, people won't condemn feminism. The absence of protests by almost every single feminist about reporting on domestic violence (or Hillary's sexism) is a clear illustration of the nature of the entire movement.
Feminism is absolutely not the only scourge we have to deal with today, however, it's the only scourge that almost no media outlet will tackle. It's like opposing the KKK 100 years ago.
Until we truly are willing to hold everyone to the same standard, hate speech will thrive. This hate speech often lives under the banner of political correctness. If I had to point 2 fingers at why the media has deteriorated so much compared to 1970, I'd put it down to feminism and political correctness and a refusal to condemn these selective prejudices. The attacks that we see (above) would rarely (if ever) have happened in the Australian media in 1970. However, today, they are the norm.
Feminism at it's core is about equal treatment of the sexes. You aren't anti-feminism if you believe that is a valid goal. Some identify themselves as feminists but don't align with the core goal and take it way further in the other direction. They also might do things that hinder the core goal of feminism but you can't equate them and the larger idea. I believe you are against what those people are doing but not against the true goal. Saying you are anti-feminism does not clearly identify your position and what you are really against.
The vast majority of people support equal treatment of the sexes, yet most people consider themselves not to be feminists.
If you subscribe to a descriptive view of linguistics, then this means that "feminism" is defined as something other than simply a belief in equality between sexes. If you do not, then from what source do you believe words derive their meaning?
A movement is defined by what it does, not by the image it puts up when people question it.
The trick of throwing up a super-acceptable cover story when questioned, while returning to hate-oriented attack patterns when secure, is called the "motte and bailey doctrine":
You can't just believe every movement is what they say. Otherwise we might as well say Kim Jong Un is a champion of economic equality, and Mexican drug cartels are brave militias defending the people.
Can we really attribute what a noisy minority does to the movement's actions, though? Even if said minority claims to be part of the movement. At what point do we draw the line?
Most feminists, admittedly talking from experience here, are moderates.
Comparing this to Kim Jong Un's actions isn't fair, as you're comparing the actions of a specific individual to those of a non-representative group of people.
Who says it's a noisy minority? I'm not talking about extremist actions like pulling fire alarms at university talks.
I'm talking about really basic things, like campaigning for more women to enter university (and not more men) despite the fact that women already greatly outnumber men in university. This isn't a fringe thing, it's core mainstream feminism. And it's exactly the opposite of "pushing for equality".
(You're right about Kim. Instead of writing his name, I should've written "North Korean government/society", to clarify that I'm talking about these groups and highlighting the gap between their stated principles and their actual actions.)
If you try to tell a decentralized group that you have them figured out based on the data you've collected from your personal surroundings, you're gonna get eye rolls.
I'm a feminist. Care to tell me what my flaws are?
Ah, the old, "We can't say X about this group because doesn't apply to every single member" fallacy?
Of course we know you don't believe that, otherwise you'd be unable to have any opinion about any large social group (which would make it impossible to be a feminist, for example).
I only ask that you apply a single standard to your beliefs, instead of "general trends OK" for things you want to believe, and "one exception disproves any general statement" for things you want to disbelieve.
You're treating a movement as a monolithic entity, and then saying it should be represented by its most extreme and vocal advocates, who inevitably make up the vast minority.
No, he's demanding that a movement be represented by the actual actions of its members instead of what they claim to be trying to achieve. He didn't restrict this to its most extreme and vocal members. He doesn't have to, because anyone whose understanding of feminism genuinely doesn't go beyond "equal treatment of the sexes" is not actually considered a feminist by other feminists; there are a whole bunch of other beliefs that feminists are expected to hold, some more important and universal than others, many of which require treating people differently based on their sex/gender. (One of the more common beliefs is that feminism's tactics and beliefs are the only way of achieving equality of the sexes, and that anyone who doesn't support them is therefore opposed to equality. Relying on this argument would, of course, be begging the question.)
It's hard to get far in this conversation, because I say "most feminists believe X", and you say "no most feminists believe Y", and is there any way to find out the truth?
Some identify themselves as feminists but don't align with the core goal and take it way further in the other direction. They also might do things that hinder the core goal of feminism but you can't equate them and the larger idea.
The problem is, these individuals seem to be the primary voice attached to that label. Which is how such labels are defined.
I usually compare feminism with the black movement. Black people are seriously disadvantaged in modern society, they are behind in everything! Wages? Check. Educational attainment? Check. Lifespan? Check. Crime rates? Check (high crime rate is a sign that you are a social outcast). Crime suspicions? Check. Sentence lengths? Check.
This is what it looks like when one group is privileged compared to the other. Note that men are behind women in many of these categories so it is hard to say that they are clearly the privileged sex. Black women have lower incarceration rates and longer lifespan than white men, so being male is even more disadvantageous than being black in some circumstances.
Yes, we have the wage gap which is a huge issue and I as a male am privileged in that regard and I think that it needs to get fixed, but I will never accept that feminism is for equality until they acknowledge that women are privileged in many categories as well. Instead what I hear from them is basically "Men are behind due to lifestyle choices while women are behind due to social structures". I don't buy that, either you say that both are social structure problems or you say that both are individual choices, you can't have your cake and eat it.
Personally I believe that feminism will never get any further until they start framing things in a male positive way. For example instead of saying "We need to force men to take more responsibility at home to allow our women to succeed with their careers" say "We need to stop judging men by their salaries so that they can take time off to bond more with friends and family without feeling guilty or stressed out". It isn't a choice if society pushes you to do it so as long society pushes men to achieve even more they will continue to work even harder. Or do people really believe that men work themselves to death for fun?
Trying to frame gay-hating as misogyny summaries quite well what is wrong with current feminism and why many avoids calling themselves feminists even though it is a noble cause in theory. Not everything is about women.
I mean, when an assertive female is called "bossy" is that misandry? She was shamed for displaying male traits, right?
Since "feminism" has no actual fixed definition, people arguing about it will define it as they see fit at any moment. When feminism is under attack, its defenders will retreat to a safely defensible position like "feminism is about equal treatment if the sexes". Once the attack has gone away, they will expand the scope of "feminism" considerably to encompass far less sensible and uncontroversial positions.
The "feminism" which gets attacked is not the same "feminism" that gets defended, making the word useless in an argument. Like "racism" the word "feminism" has become so overloaded that it no longer has any use in actual communication.
It sounds like you're comparing today's websites to the 1970s mainstream newspapers. I'm not sure that's a valid comparison. (The Verge, say, is more like the underground newspapers you'd find in a head shop in the 1970s. I doubt you can find copies of those in your library. You can, however, find copies of the New York Times. Well, if you're going to compare that, compare it to today's NYT, not to The Verge.)
We've banned this account for using HN primarily to do ideological battle after we've asked you to please stop. That's not what this site is for. We're happy to unban accounts if you email us at hn@ycombinator.com and we believe you'll post within the guidelines in the future.
Can you give an direct example of banning an accounting that primary exist to do pro-feminism ideology comments? It would bring a bit data into the statement that accounts on both sides are getting banned for this behavior.
WTF? Pick any comment in any HN thread and it's likely that the poster is doing ideological battle! But of course... the difference is that those accounts are doing battle for the righteous side, the left.
Humor is the best way to learn. One side learns about the world by seeing memes, the other side by watching SNL. One thing is grassroots, the other one is paid propaganda.
And as true as that statement is, we aren't even to the point where that bias can take effect. We rarely even read what people say: we read what journalists choose to write about what people say.
...and people with skills in communication will use Dog Whistle type terminology or purposefully phrase their remarks so that journalists will hopefully pick up their statement and deliver it as intended.
Sort of like how time and again I keep hearing "This bill is about the protection of Young Boys and Girls!" regarding the Gender Identity Restroom bill, when statistically speaking, Young Boys or Girls are more at risk from abuse by their close family. Journalists aren't, in theory, supposed to point out the hollow, rather ludicrous assault on intelligence the "Think of the children!" argument is in this regard - that's for the public, you and me, to figure out. Unfortunately, I guess, considering the state of things.
The context of the speech was regarding the vote to prevent Elizabeth Warren from reading Coretta Scott King's letter opposing Jeff Sessions.
>These are the continuing rules of the Senate that have been in existence previous to this time and have carried over into this session, is that correct?
>I imagine many people were not excited about the fact that [Hillary Clinton] would be secretary of state, to my recollection, and perhaps I’m incorrect, not a single one of those horrible things that have been written said about her, some of which actually did accuse her of wrongdoing, were ever uttered on the floor of the Senate.
I lose track of the ironies here. There's the irony of Rubio lamenting we are "becoming a society incapable of having debate anymore" while in the very process of shutting down debate. There's also the irony of an article with the quote "The less we know about the mind of another, the more we use our own to fill in the blanks", that filled in blanks of Rubio's speech that didn't actually exist.
You could call it "dredged up", or you could call it a letter from a civil rights leader vigorously opposing his appointment as a judge that would still have relevance to him being appointed as AG.
As for regret, I haven't seen anything about Coretta Scott King changing her opinion, and if you're talking about whoever found that letter and spread it around, I don't see how that would be relevant. I don't know where you're getting this info.
Not entirely sure what this article is trying to say, if we heard Milo's accent when he talks about how feminism is cancer that we would believe he is a real human being?
I think this line in the article made its point well: "The less we know about the mind of another, the more we use our own to fill in the blanks."
When we form our opinions entirely based on individual quotes taken out of context (at worst) instead of actual back-and-forth conversations (at best), we're not going to have an accurate perception of reality. If we then follow-up by labeling a person as not worth talking to, or not "a real human being", then we're gating ourselves off from even the possibility of improving the accuracy of our perceptions.
I don't give a fig about "Milo", but what do you think when a noted feminist declares an entire race the "cancer of human history" [1]? How should people, whether on the left, right, or whatever, view this opinion? Scorn? Rioting? Approval? By denying her humanity? I'm guessing, if you are like most leftists, you would view such remarks with a mix of indifference and agreement.
No, but if you listened to him and understood his world view and listened to the examples of why he thinks that, rather than his provocative headline, you might be able to come to some understanding.
Arguing about "feminism" is stupid anyway because "feminism" has become a motte-and-bailey concept.
It's hard to take this seriously when the two examples are of fringe extreme leftists while mainstream conservative's hate of liberals is the main driving ideology of the party in power right now.
Unfortunately, from what I've seen support for those "fringe extreme leftists" has become an expected norm on a surprisingly wide chunk of social media, and probably a more-or-less mandatory part of leftwing activism. Opposing it marks you out as a neo-Nazi sympathizer or worse in those circles. There was even something of a backlash against the ACLU for taking the other side, though more muted and conciliatory than the treatment less prominent individuals received.
In unrelated news, I'm currently looking for better social circles.
I know a few alt-right types in real life (one unfortunately being one of my roommates). They are absolutely as insufferable face to face as they are online. If anything I hate them more because I have direct confirmation that they are despicable people and not just trolls with poor taste.
There are despicable people in all groups - left, right and center. The trick is not to assume they're all the same, and stop listening to all of them. Most importantly, they'll never learn from you and perhaps change if they have to put their guard up when you're around. They don't realize the same is true for everyone that disagrees with them too.
The problem with this idea ("you find jerks everywhere") is that it doesn't account for groups whose unifying ideologies make their members noxious. You might run into an unpleasant Lutheran or bird watcher or deficit hawk, but it's just a personality thing. A white nationalist is despicable by virtue of being a white nationalist.
Of course, you're still right that the ability to look past that and try to communicate with people regardless is sometimes the only thing that can make a difference...
Of course there are despicable people of all political stripes. There are no non-despicable white nationalists though, which is the difference I am pointing out.
I'd bet most of them were raised that way and just don't have enough outside experience. I have two data points:
1. I worked with an otherwise very bright guy who thought I was insane for wanting to visit Western Europe, because they'd slit my throat for being American. And this was 10 years ago! He's lived a sheltered life but doesn't realize it, and get too much news from one source.
2. My grandmother, one of the sweetest people ever, warned me about "negroes" and staying away from them. She was just a product of her upbringing. Over the years (and after moving out of her small town), she very much changed.
Not that many people really want to be evil. Some do, but not most. I find it's usually ignorance. Talking nicely with them is what changes them. I personally hold a belief, and someone from the opposite side of the issue has engaged with me. I ponder it quite a bit, and see their side more humanely than previously.
Are you conflating "alt right" with "white nationalist"? If so you're either falling victim to, or participating in, a propaganda campaign designed to discredit all opposition by conflating it with its least savoury elements. You can't just go around calling everyone you don't like a "white nationalist", that's a term with a specific meaning. It's like saying "all leftists are communists".
You know, I'm about to give up. There are a small number of people that can see how blinding hate is. How automatically demonizing the other side prevents any real discussion and understanding. But that minority is so small, I don't know what to do about it anymore. I occasionally try to say something like that on FB and it's drowned out by all of the quick 'gotcha' memes being posted. I don't even like having lunch with a bunch of buddies (all smart IT/programmer types) because their idea of discussion is parroting sound bites at each other. I fear we're doomed.
In what instances do you find yourself having to openly endorse or actively support others' decisions in their sexuality to avoid being labelled a bigot? My personal experience, and intuition for most other walks of life, is that simply not commenting on or interfering with others' sexuality is enough for the topic to never come up.
It might not come up on its own. But if you're asked your opinion, and you don't give the currently popular response, you're in trouble.
I find it hypocritical that you're a bigot to people today if you hold the same opinions they did 10 years ago. Were they bigots then? How many of us are horrible bigots for something we think is bad today, but will be just fine in another decade or two?
To be left-leaning in the 60s and 70s was to be alternative to the mainstream. Today, to be left leaning is to be mainstream. Saul Alinksy's work has undoubtedly been a central tool in this transition. Here are some of Saul Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals" which succinctly represent the behaviour of people today:
2. “Never go outside the expertise of your people.” It results in confusion, fear and retreat. Feeling secure adds to the backbone of anyone.
3. “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions.
13. “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions.
I just love this idea. If only I didn't get stares and outright contempt for my (leftist) political views. If only one of the two parties here in America actually ran on a social democratic platform (let alone further left) and won. If only there weren't literally ICE raids sweeping up undocumented people like its interwar europe. This position is just bizarre. Flat out bizarre. It serves only to stfile debate and keep the frame of rhetoric for anyone from the center right over squarely within "I'm in the minority, I'm the victim".
"practically every single other country in the world heavily enforces its border, and will also deport illegal immigrants"
True fact: When I moved to Norway, there wasn't a customs guard on duty when I got off the plane here. The passport was quickly stamped at the layover in Copenhagen, and that is the single stamp in it. I'm sure there are electronic records of my other travels within Europe: Only once have I had any checks getting into a country, and that was more because I was flying back from Amsterdam and they picked me to search for drugs.
It would have been somewhat easy for me to just come here, honestly. I didn't and went through immigration instead.
People within the EU can pretty freely find work in any country and live there as well, and outside the refugee crisis, I think this likely cuts down on illegal immigration.
The EU is an obvious special case because they have allowances for members of EU to easily travel between the countries.
And I can't speak for your one example, because that could have been a case of negligent border security. I could just as easily give an example of a person traveling to another country and having a lot of difficulty at customs, with them questioning why you are there, and forcing you to provide justification.
And also, if you happened to go to Norway as you say, staying there illegally, would you have felt justified to just live there indefinitely? Or do you agree the country has a right to deport you because you are illegally there and abusing the systems in that country.
"And also, if you happened to go to Norway as you say, staying there illegally, would you have felt justified to just live there indefinitely? Or do you agree the country has a right to deport you because you are illegally there and abusing the systems in that country."
I never actually considered it for myself, honestly. If I'm not working, yet not needing unnecessary assistance (except through trauma, nature's wrath, and so forth), I'm not sure there is an issue. It isn't about being justified or not, just that you don't have the level of interaction to really require much formality.
I'm not sure I can answer your question to your satisfaction, however. I'm a supporter of open borders, with minimal requirements to live somewhere legally (without getting all rights as citizens). I think health care, for example, is a human right and everyone should have it. Same with shelter and food. Beyond that, it is hard to "abuse" a system. Deportation should generally be used as a last resort (violent crime - first resort). Some other things are hard to abuse, and other things - consuming, paying taxes assuming quasi-legal work - contribute to society. To me, the proper response for most folks is to get them legal in a simple manner.
For the record, however, I've drained more resources than I've contributed at this point. Language classes were provided free of charge as was the civics class. I have health care on par with a Norwegian due to my immigration status. These things aren't actually drains on the system, though, they actually help folks adjust and a healthy population is a benefit for the government. I've not yet worked to contribute more.
I was just having this conversation with a lawyer friend this morning. I'm personally on the fence on this issue - I'm very much pro-immigration (my dad was an immigrant, as are both of my wife's parents), but I'm pro-legal-immigrant, and on some level think it's a smack in the face to those who work very hard to get legitimate visas when people just walk over the border.
My friend pointed out that U.S. immigration law - and its history - is basically institutionalized racism. Take a look at the countries in the Visa Waiver Program:
Notice a pattern? Basically, if you're white (or Japanese or South Korean), we have no problem with you being in the country. If you're any other ethnicity, fuck you. Canada gets completely visa-free entry, but Mexico gets nothing.
If you look at the history of immigration laws, almost all of them had an explicit racial bias to them:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_Act_of_1924 ("aimed at further restricting immigration of Southern Europeans and Eastern Europeans, especially Italians and Eastern European Jews, and severely restricted the immigration of Africans and outright banned the immigration of Arabs and Asians")
It did get somewhat better with the acts of 1952 and 1965, which set up the current occupation/skills-based system instead of blanket national bans, but even they had some clauses that are pretty embarrassing in hindsight (eg. the 1952 McCarran act banned anyone suspected of associating with Communist, which among others included Michel Foucault, Gabriel Garcia Marquez, Pablo Neruda, and Pierre Trudeau).
It's very hard to argue for these from a framework of justice and individual liberty, because they all operate under the assumption that incidental characteristics like where someone is born and what color their skin is are more important than motivational characteristics like do they want to be in the U.S, do they agree with American values, and will they be a contributing citizen here. If you believe in judging people based on what they do rather than who they are, it's a pretty tough argument that the illegal Mexican immigrant who works 14 hours a day cleaning toilets so she can give a better life to her children is less deserving of being an American than the guy who runs a website spreading hate.
It's easy to form an argument based on justice and individual liberty. Allow entry to people with low chance of staying illegally. Visa waiver enhances liberty for people that meet that probability in a bureaucratically implementable way.
Also, let's suppose our immigration system limits permanent residence intake to N people per year. Because all people are equal, why is it any better to accept N people from all nations instead of N people from fewer nations? Either way you're still depriving the same number of people the ability to live here. Unless you think people from country X are more worthy than country Y, you should regard substituting a Y person with an X as a morally neutral act. It makes practical sense to invite people we like the most, which for example might mean people that are not interested in enslaving humanity or who associate with that crowd.
because they all operate under the assumption that incidental characteristics like where someone is born and what color their skin is are more important than motivational characteristics like do they want to be in the U.S, do they agree with American values, and will they be a contributing citizen here.
If you had to leave the US forever, which of these places would you most and least want to move to? What would be your ranking of desirability? Canada, Mexico, Australia, Hong Kong, Lagos, Costa Rica, Belize.
For me, I would most want to move to Canada and least Lagos. I'd also prefer Costa Rica over Belize. And Australia over Hong Kong over Belize over Lagos.
What makes Australia and Hong Kong more desirable than Lagos and Belize? What makes Canada more desirable than Mexico? Why do all the liberals who hate Trump threaten to move to Canada and not Mexico? It's not the geography. It's not like Canada has better weather. It's the people. (People will say it is things like the government dysfunction or the culture or the language, but of course, those are just properties of a group of people, not the land).
We're more likely to have liberal immigration policies with regards from countries that we see as desirable places to live. That is because 1) being desirable places, most people in those countries won't want to leave, and thus we won't be overwhelmed by their numbers. 2) since those people have made their country a desirable place, if large numbers of those people move here, it won't decrease our quality of life. I won't fear a decrease in government quality or cultural alienation if a large number of Canadians move to the United States.
In other words, country of origin is heuristic that will correlate with do they agree with American values, and will they be a contributing citizen here. Could we find a better heuristic? Maybe. Do you have any ideas?
> To be left-leaning in the 60s and 70s was to be alternative to the mainstream. Today, to be left leaning is to be mainstream.
Not really. It's true that a position left of the center established by the balance of the parties in government is mainstream in the population, but that's because the parties in government have moved right relative to the population (the Republican party consistently, the Democratic Party merely on average as a result of the big rightward jump of the Clintonian "third way", from which there has been some subsequent minor movement back toward the left, with some ambiguous signalling that bigger moves in that direction are possible in the near future.)
Conservatives and religious people are unquestionably a very small minority and openly discriminated against within academia. What you're describing may be true of the US federal politics, what I'm referring to is more widespread change for example in academia, media and also policy globally. This reminds me of an article I read about a black christian academic reporting that he suffers greater discrimination for being christian then for being black: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/08/opinion/sunday/a-confessi...
This reminds me of a problem I have in my day to day life, where I am told something negative about such and such person's character/ability/personality and I immediately subconsciously accept this as an absolute fact, even when I've never met this person!
(one example I can think of is believing hearsay personality portrayals of Joe Lonsdale online. I've never met the guy so who knows what he's actually like!)
Still looking for the best ways to counteract this flinch reaction I seem to have of hearing hearsay about a person.
The irony is that Milo is a classical liberal. Lots of his headlines are provocative, once upon a time people understood what rhetoric was. Now people just want an echo chamber, and rail against anyone who disagrees with their group.
Also, kudos to the ACLU for supporting Milo's right to free speech. Liberalism is about freedom, not forcing everyone to agree with you.
Is Rubio part of the apocalypse cult advocating a confrontation with Russia to "punish" it for transgressions for which no proof has been brought forward?
132 comments
[ 4.6 ms ] story [ 220 ms ] threadThat Rubio quote is completely nonsensical though. Uh, Marco, the 1960s were worse...
People watch videos of political opponents all the time and don't relate to them better afterwards. How does Jon Stewart exist if that's the case? How does Hannity?
What's missing?
Kudos for trying to understand someone else.
I showed a clip of him speaking to a bunch of Indians who saw virtually nothing of him except whatever they read in TOI. (TOI and most other Indian English language papers can be thought of as being Indian branches of the cathedral, at least for this purpose.) They started by mocking him, yet they quickly quieted down and watched the video with rapt attention until the end.
After watching this video they were very much against Trump cutting off the rest of the world to Make America Great Again. As in, they were using Trump's language and accepting his premises, in spite of knowing they were wrong.
This is one of the great failings of democracy. People like Trump (or Obama, who had similar abilities) can blatantly lie or just say nothing meaningful, and people will relate to them and follow them.
Supporters hear the (real) problems he describes and a commitment to fix it. The details are where it breaks down.
Many public people who are good at what they do are amazing at flattening complex problems and making people understand and agree. Bill Clinton in his prime was capable of that -- he had a Steve Jobs like magnetic force.
If you look at some of more right-wing political people, many of them lack charisma, but use speech and body language techniques that are taught to evangelical pastors and others and are really effective in those audiences, but come off creepy to others. Kinda like how Mormons are awesome telemarketers because of skills acquired on missionary work.
Combined with the fact he may be suffering from early Alzheimer's/dementia like his father and you have present day Trump.
Trump has what best can be called a serious addiction to praise. It his hard to imagine empathizing a narcissist but from an abstract level it isn't much different from many psychological ailments. When Trump is criticized he may appear to be strong to some but I now imagine based on watching him it is extremely painful for him.
He also tended to flatter powerful people, so the most hostile people were probably the small businesses he randomly refused to pay. Now he's made many powerful enemies during the campaign.
I have to imagine this is wildly more stressful.
(I don't know if it's just me or what lately, but I've also been seeing a lot of claims lately that "there is no evidence that..." when in fact there is some sort of evidence; simple denial of existence is now substituting for even sneering dismissal. Evidence is actually pretty easy to come by in a complicated world; any time you here that there is no evidence your ears should perk up. The problem that makes the real world such a challenge is that it's too easy to find evidence to support any given position, not that there isn't any.)
This is the Facebook/Snapchat era, scan headlines or memes for 5 seconds of outrage in bite size nuggets and then move on to the next outrage.
Have you seen the movie Idiocracy? Probably some variation of that, but worse.
Although it seems super rare in internet conversation, a good way to practice is to keep in mind all the ways the Other Team misrepresents My Team and generalize this when the Other Team says something dreadful on the surface.
But in the absence of the charity, concise, effective communication becomes all the more crucial.
[0]- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity
I feel the true meaning of a discussion has been lost. It has warped from "lets share our opinions to achieve a greater understanding" to "Let me show you how I'm right and try to dismiss all your opinions in every way possible".
And, in reality, what happens is "let me say my opinions to the air so the ones who already agree with me agree even more".
What a wonderfully astute observation. Conversations have become a competition where each side feels they need to "win", often at any cost. I grew up on the internet, having first gotten a connection in '93. I remember a time when online conversations were "let's share..." and have watched them transform into their current state. I suspect a lot of the current deteriorated state of in-person conversations came from the deterioration of the online conversation, which agrees with this articles premise. Can any older members comment on whether this was happening so much before the internet was commonly used?
>And, in reality, what happens is "let me say my opinions to the air so the ones who already agree with me agree even more".
I would add that it's also a lot of virtual signaling[0]. Making statements you know your in-group agrees with in order to increase your social standing.
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtue_signalling
I also agree with your comments about social standing. Excellent comment.
2. Doctor Strange took an actual Asian character and cast it with a non-Asian. Ghostbusters didn't recast male characters as women, it just decided that after two movies with male ghostbusters there would be a movie with female ghostbusters.
Not that I think scrutinizing these things is of any importance or that exposing this flaw means anything in the face of the white & male supremacy mindset that causes someone to be defensive about seeing criticism of a white casting or the existence of a female casting.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lieutenant_Starbuck
... or The Social Network, which replaced Travis Kalanick with Edwardo's fictional crazy girlfriend at the meeting with Sean Parker.
What use is the phrase if it follows your definition?
Say I say "Thing X is good" or "Thing Y is bad" in a public forum. How can I avoid that being called virtue signalling?
Am I only allowed to say things that annoy my in-group? Wouldn't this apply to all sorts of things e.g. the speeches of Adolf Hitler or Donald Trump's tweets? Why aren't they accused of virtue signalling?
Political speeches, and specifically political debates are indeed full of virtue signalling. The only reason it doesn't come up is that 1. it's not a term nearly anyone is familiar with; and 2. it's so universal in politics that accusing someone of it would be like accusing a bird of laying eggs. You can't find a politician who doesn't use virtue signalling (or any of a host of other rhetorical devices), so why bother calling out the 100% who do?
It's pointed out more often outside of politics, where effectively it's a way of saying "this person is playing dirty with the audience's emotions, like a politician."
"Virtue signalling" as a debate tactic is effectively a kind of "applause light" (http://lesswrong.com/lw/jb/applause_lights/), which I find a more useful general term for the kind of problematic rhetorical effect it has.
"Virtue signalling" outside of debates is isn't really a thing people care much about, though; everyone does it all the time and nobody pays it any mind (unless you're an anthropologist trying to break down why a given seemingly-useless verbal exchange occurs frequently in a culture.)
For example, all of the people suddenly support for illegal immigration because Donald Trump is against it, even though every 'progressive' country in the world deports illegal immigrants.
Or the "Women's March", which was basically an anti-Trump protest, and had nothing to do with women's rights (if it did, it wouldn't have used a hijab as a symbol of women's rights, as women in Islamic countries generally protest the use of the hijab as a tool of oppression).
There appears to be a logical hole here.
There is social value in disagreeing with someone who claims to have the objective truth. It's not so much about being right as it's claiming to have the truth which socially, emotionally and culturally is related to power.
If you don't want a person to have power it doesn't matter if they're right or not. All that matters is the fact that having the truth means having power.
Personally I think this is not a direct consequence of the internet but just a better understanding of advertising and manipulation. the parties just have become smarter positioning themselves on some issues in a way that the other side is totally unacceptable. By throwing around accusations of racism, baby killing or socialism they make any kind of compromise impossible.
> By throwing around accusations of racism, baby killing or socialism they make any kind of compromise impossible.
Agreed.
"The problem with this way of thinking is..."
Maybe people should rephrase so that they say what is right about your way of thinking first. By always framing the problem first you dismiss all the good parts as well.
And, "conversation" now means "shut up, I'm talking"
Given that "rhetoric" was already a subject of study in ancient rome (and its politicians were skilled in using persuasion and propaganda to manipulate public opinion), I'm not sure there was ever a time where discussion was solely about sharing opinions and archieving a greater understanding.
But it's of course important to keep the ideal of discussion in mind and not go too far down the dark side.
Put another way, these people were politicians. They argued professionally, and were trained to do so, or made their living training others to do so. I don't think their existence can be used to inform how every day people had conversations at the time.
More interestingly, maybe the problem is that everyone now thinks they're an amateur politician.
In a debate on a public forum, "the air" (really, the silent majority of people reading the debate, who aren't debating themselves) are often the true target of any rhetoric deployed. If you see person A saying things that obviously wouldn't convince their interlocutor B, maybe they're just trying to make the audience think B is not worth listening to.
Mind you, getting everyone who reads a debate to understand that the other guy is not worth listening to can be a moral good—if B is giving bad legal/medical advice, A might drop convincing B or "winning" the debate as goals, to focus instead on making sure people don't come away with the perception that B's statements are factual/trustworthy, even if it means their statements aren't seen as factual/trustworthy either.
But often it's just done for the sake of playing social power games: to "get the other guy downvoted."
Most arguments, particularly online, aren't dictated by logical formalism. They're not even dictated by more ductile probabilism or game theory - They're done almost entirely on emotions. Saying "Let us assume all of X is Y, which would help your point by removing the need to deal with Z" only offends people, because then you're ignoring their opinion. Nobody's looking to find workable solutions or compromises, they're looking to express their feelings.
For my whole life I've observed that a lot of "conversation" is simply waiting for the other person's mouth to stop moving and then opening yours. The listening part rarely happens.
The easiest way to convince someone to view new data is for them to explain their position to you. Either they provide enough data for you (being so enlightened) to change your mind or they may realize they are being internally inconsistent and then they change their own mind. Then you don't have to waste any effort trying to chip at their position. Trying to do so generally results in obstinance from them.
E.g. I thought the guy in the video sounded less likely to be the barer of truth when he mispronounced divisive, compared to when I read the text.
Here are a few examples of things that did not happen in 1970 in the papers I read and there was nothing like it at all,
The Verge lead a nasty attack on Matt Taylor for wearing a shirt designed by a woman, http://www.theverge.com/platform/amp/2014/11/13/7213819/your...
Or, many of the articles about Donald Trump (lunatic is a common term used by some big media outlets, Google it, there are too many links to list). Irrespective of whether you like his policies, the personal attacks (which are even very popular on HN) are unacceptable. To disagree with policy is fine, to personally attack the man is not.
Or try the website equalmeansequal.com . It is very extreme in its gender prejudice and had gone without being challenged. For example, read the section about prisons/incarceration. Like Australia, even when police reports demonstrate there are many violent women (25-33% of perpetrators according to US and Australian statistics such as ABS), there is an almost universal denial in the media about domestic violence and female aggressors. Why? Why condone violence? You can't get much worse in breaching ethics and human rights. Why does it persist so universally?
The linked article at nautilus.us also defends feminism. The central theme to each of these examples above is ... feminism. Feminism does not equal female (nor equality). I currently work with mostly females (about 95%). I'm anti feminist and not anti female! I strongly disrespect prejudiced movements/ideologies (KKK, neo nazis AND feminism).
I also pointed out in another post that Hillary Clinton's exit speech was very sexist (far worse than Matt Taylor's shirt). Why were her segregating words necessary (ie. excluding boys completely in several instances)? Why did every single media outlet ignore this? Feminism. No matter how extreme or nasty, people won't condemn feminism. The absence of protests by almost every single feminist about reporting on domestic violence (or Hillary's sexism) is a clear illustration of the nature of the entire movement.
Feminism is absolutely not the only scourge we have to deal with today, however, it's the only scourge that almost no media outlet will tackle. It's like opposing the KKK 100 years ago.
Until we truly are willing to hold everyone to the same standard, hate speech will thrive. This hate speech often lives under the banner of political correctness. If I had to point 2 fingers at why the media has deteriorated so much compared to 1970, I'd put it down to feminism and political correctness and a refusal to condemn these selective prejudices. The attacks that we see (above) would rarely (if ever) have happened in the Australian media in 1970. However, today, they are the norm.
If you subscribe to a descriptive view of linguistics, then this means that "feminism" is defined as something other than simply a belief in equality between sexes. If you do not, then from what source do you believe words derive their meaning?
The trick of throwing up a super-acceptable cover story when questioned, while returning to hate-oriented attack patterns when secure, is called the "motte and bailey doctrine":
http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/11/03/all-in-all-another-bric...
You can't just believe every movement is what they say. Otherwise we might as well say Kim Jong Un is a champion of economic equality, and Mexican drug cartels are brave militias defending the people.
Can we really attribute what a noisy minority does to the movement's actions, though? Even if said minority claims to be part of the movement. At what point do we draw the line?
Most feminists, admittedly talking from experience here, are moderates.
Comparing this to Kim Jong Un's actions isn't fair, as you're comparing the actions of a specific individual to those of a non-representative group of people.
I'm talking about really basic things, like campaigning for more women to enter university (and not more men) despite the fact that women already greatly outnumber men in university. This isn't a fringe thing, it's core mainstream feminism. And it's exactly the opposite of "pushing for equality".
(You're right about Kim. Instead of writing his name, I should've written "North Korean government/society", to clarify that I'm talking about these groups and highlighting the gap between their stated principles and their actual actions.)
If you try to tell a decentralized group that you have them figured out based on the data you've collected from your personal surroundings, you're gonna get eye rolls.
I'm a feminist. Care to tell me what my flaws are?
Of course we know you don't believe that, otherwise you'd be unable to have any opinion about any large social group (which would make it impossible to be a feminist, for example).
I only ask that you apply a single standard to your beliefs, instead of "general trends OK" for things you want to believe, and "one exception disproves any general statement" for things you want to disbelieve.
I don't understand what kind of standard you expect to have. Can you please give me an example, and say, how it might have applied to civil rights?
The problem is, these individuals seem to be the primary voice attached to that label. Which is how such labels are defined.
This is what it looks like when one group is privileged compared to the other. Note that men are behind women in many of these categories so it is hard to say that they are clearly the privileged sex. Black women have lower incarceration rates and longer lifespan than white men, so being male is even more disadvantageous than being black in some circumstances.
Yes, we have the wage gap which is a huge issue and I as a male am privileged in that regard and I think that it needs to get fixed, but I will never accept that feminism is for equality until they acknowledge that women are privileged in many categories as well. Instead what I hear from them is basically "Men are behind due to lifestyle choices while women are behind due to social structures". I don't buy that, either you say that both are social structure problems or you say that both are individual choices, you can't have your cake and eat it.
Personally I believe that feminism will never get any further until they start framing things in a male positive way. For example instead of saying "We need to force men to take more responsibility at home to allow our women to succeed with their careers" say "We need to stop judging men by their salaries so that they can take time off to bond more with friends and family without feeling guilty or stressed out". It isn't a choice if society pushes you to do it so as long society pushes men to achieve even more they will continue to work even harder. Or do people really believe that men work themselves to death for fun?
http://m.imgur.com/h2bYMVE?r
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/1d/98/fd/1d98fd34b...
I mean, when an assertive female is called "bossy" is that misandry? She was shamed for displaying male traits, right?
Those two links were meant to demonstrate that many feminists are already trying to frame things in a male positive way.
(Personally, I identify with about one and one-half waves of feminism, and see a lot of overreach coming out of other waves.)
Since "feminism" has no actual fixed definition, people arguing about it will define it as they see fit at any moment. When feminism is under attack, its defenders will retreat to a safely defensible position like "feminism is about equal treatment if the sexes". Once the attack has gone away, they will expand the scope of "feminism" considerably to encompass far less sensible and uncontroversial positions.
The "feminism" which gets attacked is not the same "feminism" that gets defended, making the word useless in an argument. Like "racism" the word "feminism" has become so overloaded that it no longer has any use in actual communication.
>it’s easy to make enemies of people we only read about.
Your entire post embodies this. Are you seriously comparing feminists to the KKK?
Am I falling victim to Poe's Law here?
How many left-wing accounts have you banned for similar reasons?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rE3j_RHkqJc
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meme
Sort of like how time and again I keep hearing "This bill is about the protection of Young Boys and Girls!" regarding the Gender Identity Restroom bill, when statistically speaking, Young Boys or Girls are more at risk from abuse by their close family. Journalists aren't, in theory, supposed to point out the hollow, rather ludicrous assault on intelligence the "Think of the children!" argument is in this regard - that's for the public, you and me, to figure out. Unfortunately, I guess, considering the state of things.
Well, probably not, given what Rubio actually said:
http://www.rubio.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2017/2/senate-f...
The context of the speech was regarding the vote to prevent Elizabeth Warren from reading Coretta Scott King's letter opposing Jeff Sessions.
>These are the continuing rules of the Senate that have been in existence previous to this time and have carried over into this session, is that correct?
>I imagine many people were not excited about the fact that [Hillary Clinton] would be secretary of state, to my recollection, and perhaps I’m incorrect, not a single one of those horrible things that have been written said about her, some of which actually did accuse her of wrongdoing, were ever uttered on the floor of the Senate.
I lose track of the ironies here. There's the irony of Rubio lamenting we are "becoming a society incapable of having debate anymore" while in the very process of shutting down debate. There's also the irony of an article with the quote "The less we know about the mind of another, the more we use our own to fill in the blanks", that filled in blanks of Rubio's speech that didn't actually exist.
As for regret, I haven't seen anything about Coretta Scott King changing her opinion, and if you're talking about whoever found that letter and spread it around, I don't see how that would be relevant. I don't know where you're getting this info.
When we form our opinions entirely based on individual quotes taken out of context (at worst) instead of actual back-and-forth conversations (at best), we're not going to have an accurate perception of reality. If we then follow-up by labeling a person as not worth talking to, or not "a real human being", then we're gating ourselves off from even the possibility of improving the accuracy of our perceptions.
[1] https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Susan_Sontag
Arguing about "feminism" is stupid anyway because "feminism" has become a motte-and-bailey concept.
In unrelated news, I'm currently looking for better social circles.
Of course, you're still right that the ability to look past that and try to communicate with people regardless is sometimes the only thing that can make a difference...
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/26/opinion/sunday/why-i-left...
1. I worked with an otherwise very bright guy who thought I was insane for wanting to visit Western Europe, because they'd slit my throat for being American. And this was 10 years ago! He's lived a sheltered life but doesn't realize it, and get too much news from one source.
2. My grandmother, one of the sweetest people ever, warned me about "negroes" and staying away from them. She was just a product of her upbringing. Over the years (and after moving out of her small town), she very much changed.
Not that many people really want to be evil. Some do, but not most. I find it's usually ignorance. Talking nicely with them is what changes them. I personally hold a belief, and someone from the opposite side of the issue has engaged with me. I ponder it quite a bit, and see their side more humanely than previously.
I do believe we should go back to the old rule that neither religion nor politics should be discussed in polite company.
I really don't care about what sexuality or gender you identify as. It's completely irrelevant in working together as a team to build software.
I find it hypocritical that you're a bigot to people today if you hold the same opinions they did 10 years ago. Were they bigots then? How many of us are horrible bigots for something we think is bad today, but will be just fine in another decade or two?
2. “Never go outside the expertise of your people.” It results in confusion, fear and retreat. Feeling secure adds to the backbone of anyone. 3. “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions. 13. “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions.
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rules_for_Radicals
The illegal immigrants obviously understood it was a risk when they came, and any country is entitled to enforce its border security.
Practically every single other country in the world heavily enforces its border, and will also deport illegal immigrants.
And deporting illegal immigrants doesn't bar you from trying again to enter as a legal immigrant.
True fact: When I moved to Norway, there wasn't a customs guard on duty when I got off the plane here. The passport was quickly stamped at the layover in Copenhagen, and that is the single stamp in it. I'm sure there are electronic records of my other travels within Europe: Only once have I had any checks getting into a country, and that was more because I was flying back from Amsterdam and they picked me to search for drugs.
It would have been somewhat easy for me to just come here, honestly. I didn't and went through immigration instead.
People within the EU can pretty freely find work in any country and live there as well, and outside the refugee crisis, I think this likely cuts down on illegal immigration.
https://www.google.com/search?sclient=psy-ab&site=&source=hp...
And I can't speak for your one example, because that could have been a case of negligent border security. I could just as easily give an example of a person traveling to another country and having a lot of difficulty at customs, with them questioning why you are there, and forcing you to provide justification.
And also, if you happened to go to Norway as you say, staying there illegally, would you have felt justified to just live there indefinitely? Or do you agree the country has a right to deport you because you are illegally there and abusing the systems in that country.
I never actually considered it for myself, honestly. If I'm not working, yet not needing unnecessary assistance (except through trauma, nature's wrath, and so forth), I'm not sure there is an issue. It isn't about being justified or not, just that you don't have the level of interaction to really require much formality.
I'm not sure I can answer your question to your satisfaction, however. I'm a supporter of open borders, with minimal requirements to live somewhere legally (without getting all rights as citizens). I think health care, for example, is a human right and everyone should have it. Same with shelter and food. Beyond that, it is hard to "abuse" a system. Deportation should generally be used as a last resort (violent crime - first resort). Some other things are hard to abuse, and other things - consuming, paying taxes assuming quasi-legal work - contribute to society. To me, the proper response for most folks is to get them legal in a simple manner.
For the record, however, I've drained more resources than I've contributed at this point. Language classes were provided free of charge as was the civics class. I have health care on par with a Norwegian due to my immigration status. These things aren't actually drains on the system, though, they actually help folks adjust and a healthy population is a benefit for the government. I've not yet worked to contribute more.
My friend pointed out that U.S. immigration law - and its history - is basically institutionalized racism. Take a look at the countries in the Visa Waiver Program:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visa_Waiver_Program
Notice a pattern? Basically, if you're white (or Japanese or South Korean), we have no problem with you being in the country. If you're any other ethnicity, fuck you. Canada gets completely visa-free entry, but Mexico gets nothing.
If you look at the history of immigration laws, almost all of them had an explicit racial bias to them:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalization_Act_of_1790 ("free white persons of good character")
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_Exclusion_Act
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_Act_of_1924 ("aimed at further restricting immigration of Southern Europeans and Eastern Europeans, especially Italians and Eastern European Jews, and severely restricted the immigration of Africans and outright banned the immigration of Arabs and Asians")
It did get somewhat better with the acts of 1952 and 1965, which set up the current occupation/skills-based system instead of blanket national bans, but even they had some clauses that are pretty embarrassing in hindsight (eg. the 1952 McCarran act banned anyone suspected of associating with Communist, which among others included Michel Foucault, Gabriel Garcia Marquez, Pablo Neruda, and Pierre Trudeau).
It's very hard to argue for these from a framework of justice and individual liberty, because they all operate under the assumption that incidental characteristics like where someone is born and what color their skin is are more important than motivational characteristics like do they want to be in the U.S, do they agree with American values, and will they be a contributing citizen here. If you believe in judging people based on what they do rather than who they are, it's a pretty tough argument that the illegal Mexican immigrant who works 14 hours a day cleaning toilets so she can give a better life to her children is less deserving of being an American than the guy who runs a website spreading hate.
Also, let's suppose our immigration system limits permanent residence intake to N people per year. Because all people are equal, why is it any better to accept N people from all nations instead of N people from fewer nations? Either way you're still depriving the same number of people the ability to live here. Unless you think people from country X are more worthy than country Y, you should regard substituting a Y person with an X as a morally neutral act. It makes practical sense to invite people we like the most, which for example might mean people that are not interested in enslaving humanity or who associate with that crowd.
If you had to leave the US forever, which of these places would you most and least want to move to? What would be your ranking of desirability? Canada, Mexico, Australia, Hong Kong, Lagos, Costa Rica, Belize.
For me, I would most want to move to Canada and least Lagos. I'd also prefer Costa Rica over Belize. And Australia over Hong Kong over Belize over Lagos.
What makes Australia and Hong Kong more desirable than Lagos and Belize? What makes Canada more desirable than Mexico? Why do all the liberals who hate Trump threaten to move to Canada and not Mexico? It's not the geography. It's not like Canada has better weather. It's the people. (People will say it is things like the government dysfunction or the culture or the language, but of course, those are just properties of a group of people, not the land).
We're more likely to have liberal immigration policies with regards from countries that we see as desirable places to live. That is because 1) being desirable places, most people in those countries won't want to leave, and thus we won't be overwhelmed by their numbers. 2) since those people have made their country a desirable place, if large numbers of those people move here, it won't decrease our quality of life. I won't fear a decrease in government quality or cultural alienation if a large number of Canadians move to the United States.
In other words, country of origin is heuristic that will correlate with do they agree with American values, and will they be a contributing citizen here. Could we find a better heuristic? Maybe. Do you have any ideas?
Not really. It's true that a position left of the center established by the balance of the parties in government is mainstream in the population, but that's because the parties in government have moved right relative to the population (the Republican party consistently, the Democratic Party merely on average as a result of the big rightward jump of the Clintonian "third way", from which there has been some subsequent minor movement back toward the left, with some ambiguous signalling that bigger moves in that direction are possible in the near future.)
The left isn't what it used to be: Ronald Reagan would be considered on the left today with his EPA-loving ways.
(one example I can think of is believing hearsay personality portrayals of Joe Lonsdale online. I've never met the guy so who knows what he's actually like!)
Still looking for the best ways to counteract this flinch reaction I seem to have of hearing hearsay about a person.
Also, kudos to the ACLU for supporting Milo's right to free speech. Liberalism is about freedom, not forcing everyone to agree with you.
If so, "rational" isn't really his strongpoint.