slug.com slug.com

1 0

The line keeps moving politically, the left moves to the edge of the line they create and then push that to an extreme.

Democrats from 20 or 30 years ago are considered moderate at best and radical right wingers or "neo-nazis" at worst!
Since it's not a question of will they ever stop pushing that line, is there a better way to try to get a rational opinion across to them?

For example, the right has been destroying them in debates and using facts and knowledge for years but that's not slowing The left down; it's actually mostly giving them more incentive to fight back in stubbornness and violence.

Is there a better way to get through to the people who are fighting for the left without causing an even greater divide between the two sides?

Gilmore22 5 Apr 17
Share

Be part of the movement!

Welcome to the community for those who value free speech, evidence and civil discourse.

Create your free account

1 comment

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

2

First, try to better understand your adversary.

@WilyRickWiles, okay. So, who is her adversary? Without accusing the right of anything, can you put who you are and what you're trying to get in the world? Can you give us some idea who you--as an adversay--are? What kind of world are you seeing when you're pushing the things you describe? People can't know the adversary if the adversary is unwilling to get past all of the political noise and have a conversation.

@chuckpo Interesting reply, I will give this some thought and try to reply later.

@WilyRickWiles, cool. Thank you. I'll do the same, if you're interested. Not fair to ask you to do something I'm not willing to do.

@chuckpo I think this might get at your questions.

Liberalism largely appeals to people because it is the predominant political philosophy in the world, it seems to work better than anything else that has been tried, it is more liberatory than what preceded it (e.g., feudalism), it is validated by the Constitution, and it is what makes capitalism work. It endlessly upends traditions in order to generate more profits. You can't have global capitalism if there isn't a shared professional class culture and consumer base across nations. Hence multiculturalism. The success of multiculturalism, meritocracy, and markets is part of the everyday reality of the professional class. They are so career driven that they take that success as a given and become somewhat disengaged from politics, recoiling at nativist backlash, blinded from class differences, and trying to impose the elite values of the workplace (their version of common sense) on the entirety of public life. Nevertheless, they feel a civic commitment rooted in republicanism to provide social insurance to help the poor and to some degree seek to prevent inequality from reconstituting an aristocracy.

Socialism might appeal to a person because they are alienated at the atomization of society under capitalism. I imagine that a nativist might respond to that same alienation by retreating to real or imagined ethnic or religious communities. Just as liberals before them upended the aristocracy, socialists want to upend the professional class and the remnants of the aristocracy, therefore leveling class differences. Moreover, they want to democratize the workplace so that they can be freed to pursue their creative impulses, enjoy the direct fruits of their labor, bring their whole selves into their work, and realize a genuine sense of community among their coworkers and neighbors. This would be a world where people treat each other as ends rather than means, to paraphrase Kant, where one's relationships in the workplace where they spend most of their lives wouldn't be restricted or made problematic by power differentials. They seek solidarity with all people.

There are of course many grades in between liberalism and socialism as described. And keep in mind that there are moral and economic philosophies that support these forms of politics, just as there is for the brand of right-wing libertarianism that might be more popular around here. If I were OP, the first thing I would probably do is read Wikipedia articles about the entire spectrum of political philosophies and their shared history.

I would also spend some time grappling with things like ethnic and gender studies. Such fields are influential not necessarily because they are rooted in fundamental truths but because they give us language to describe the world, debate, and understand each other, just like Freud's theories did. As you start to understand the ideas, seek out and listen to people in the world who represent them. There's more to such ideas than SJW caricatures. Sometimes, however, how one connects them to a political philosophy can result in hypocrisy. And the atomized nature of our society sometimes results in advocacy groups not being as grounded in the grassroots and universal solidarity as would be ideal. Personally, having observed and sometimes experienced bullying as a child in school, I feel more secure in a world that can talk about these things and accept non-conformists and other minorities.

Final advice: think for yourself and always look for the nuggets of truth.

@WilyRickWiles, okay, not what I expected. Want to paraphrase my questions back to me so I can check if you interpreted correctly what I intended to communicate? Something seems amiss.

I'm trying to stay away from where we disagree to focus on what you actually want in the world, rather than justifying various positions you have taken. Also, you've focused a lot onto economics and power from your perspective. That's somewhat fair, but I'm looking for more of a human appeal for what drives you to set up the world in that way.

For example, I imagine there ultimately will be a lot of similarities. You believe the left wants to be charitable, right? Well, I believe the right wants to be charitable too (so do independents). We want the same thing, but we have differing views of how to do that and what it looks like doing it. Make sense?

Do you want equality of opportunity? The right does (and so do independents). It's a key idea in liberalism. Western philosophy and its politics are based on it. We obfuscate the term liberalism by stretching it to serve several purposes.

So, the questions are, to what degree do we want the same things? If we do want the same things, how specifically do we each believe is the best method to achieve those things? What does it mean to you that the 'other side' wants the same things you do? Do you believe it? I believe the OP (and I could be wrong) doesn't believe you really want the things you say you want. I also believe the left (and maybe you) don't believe the right wants the things I'm saying they want.

I believe on this path, we start seeing the human beings behind the rivalry charade. Reasonable people with reasonable intentions trying to achieve a better world. If THAT'S the case, what in the holy f is getting in the way? Probably the charade, and we can talk about whether or not that's intentional.

HUGE topic we absolutely should parse in order to have an orderly conversation. That's not easy to do AND maintain some kind of direction that remains useful. But, we can try.

@chuckpo

NOTE: I've scrambled the questions around a bit

okay. So, who is her adversary?

I assumed her adversary to be either liberals, socialists, or academics, so I addressed all of them.

Without accusing the right of anything

I think I mostly avoided accusing the right of anything, though I did get a light jab in at nativists.

What kind of world are you seeing when you're pushing the things you describe?

I think this is what I focused on in my original reply.

can you put who you are and what you're trying to get in the world? Can you give us some idea who you--as an adversay--are?

I may have dodged saying what my personal politics are, but if you read between the lines you'll probably see that it lies somewhere between liberal and socialist. My worldview and my frame of what I believe is legitimate US politics is based on the philosophies behind liberalism and socialism. I realize now that you may have been more interested in what material things I want, but ultimately the things I want most are intangible. I want to learn, create, engage in community with people, travel, and make the world better. I am fortunate to have enough income and savings to take care of my basic necessities (I wish government did more to provide a baseline for those less fortunate), I've been saving enough to have a comfortable retirement, and I now want to find ways to reclaim my time, receive a greater share of the fruits of my labor, and find more community. And I want to minimize the exploitation caused by my choices and not be party to systemic injustices.

Do you want equality of opportunity?

I did touch on a socialist concept of equality, but I did not say what my personal view was or really get into the liberal take. This could get thorny so maybe I'll come back to it later.

People can't know the adversary if the adversary is unwilling to get past all of the political noise and have a conversation.

My intent was to provide the perspectives of a liberal, a socialist, and an academic so that an outsider could better understand where they're coming from and have that kind of conversation. I believe that most people are well-intentioned, but everyone has blind spots.

I believe on this path, we start seeing the human beings behind the rivalry charade.

I'm not sure what your politics or OP's politics are, so please don't take this personally, but I see a few things that would be obstacles with a large number of people in this community.

The first one is nativist* discrimination. Civility takes a huge hit when one party wishes or votes harm upon entire groups of people, especially when constitutionally problematic. The other side of the coin, but not nearly morally equivalent in my opinion, is SJW outrage and identity politics.

The second thing is that while I recognize that there are plenty of good faith nativists, I believe that there are a lot of bad faith actors in the media who are boosted by people in online communities. And of course bad faith kills civility. I may very well share wants with a nativist, but I often won't know for sure. On the other hand, it is very easy to find out what these media figures and their backers want. Of course there are bad faith actors of all stripes, but again I don't see them as morally equivalent.

Finally, I believe in giving people a bit of a pass on civility when the social contract has been broken for them. A lot of liberals and those on the right have a problem with that--they place civility above everything.

I'm looking for more of a human appeal for what drives you to set up the world in that way.

Ultimately, I agree that many of us want the same things and that reasonable people can reason with each other to find those commonalities. Hashing it out, in my opinion, requires drilling into morality, power, history and economics. I'm sure I haven't gotten enough into the morality issues and human appeal, but perhaps later.

*When I use this word I'm referring to political nativism

@WilyRickWiles, great response. You know what I didn't see? Evil. And THAT'S my point. It would also be my point to you in some of our other discussions. There are a lot of good people in almost all categories doing the best they can to make themselves better and the world a better place.

This is my version of an answer to the OP. How do we reach people? We start by recognizing them as human, and we assume people are mostly good until proven otherwise.

I feel like I know you better now, and I can use that knowledge in future conversations with you where we disagree--sometimes strongly. You may think I'm a complete nut, but somewhere in there I'm asking you to remember however misguided you think I am that I'm trying to be a good person, and I'm trying to make the world better. It's a pretty good place to start.

You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:31387
Slug does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.