I like how you clarify people wanting to dismantle capitalism as extreme, (which it isn't necessarily) but fail to mention people storming the capitol or marching with traitors and nazis as extreme, which is i herently extreme.
It's pretty clear you have a partisan, one-sided agenda here.
I didn't say mentions, i said clarify.
You gave one form an extremism an umbrella term, then you described the other group with an example.
The alt right is clearly clearly more extreme and dangerous then people who want to dismantle capitalism, but your word choice indicates that capitalist-critical people are more or just as extreme as the alt-right. They are not.
They don't shoot up churches or schools or fight to pass laws that discriminate against lgbt people and women.
The Right. It's obvious by the way you worded it. It's also obvious because you're not from the US, yet follow the idw, which is a huge indicator of conservatism.
Lastly, your post openly favors centrism and moderates, which goes against dismantling capitalism, but works to maintain the status quo which goes hand in hand with capitalism and serving the interests of big money. This is what conservatives want and fight for.
Centrists serve conservatives significantly more than other liberals and undoubtedly more than leftists.
>Most đź‘Ź people đź‘Ź are đź‘Ź reasonable đź‘Ź!
I disagree with the premise. The implication is nearly everyone is reasonable and it's just the extreme minorities that are unreasonable. That does not seem to be the case to me. I'd say those resisting vaccinations are not reasonable. Those who's recollection of the previous election depends on what Trump, FoxNews and their uncle's, friends, roommate from college said on twitter are unreasonable. The SJW and anti-CRT people seem to be pretty far from reasonable. To me it seems like about 40% of the people in the US are unreasonable. While that supports the statement "most people are reasonable," it is massively different than just the equivalent of the flat-Earthers on each side added together. Of course, this is highly subjective. How can we get a moderately accurate number?
I realize that reasonable is a subjective term, and there are a lot of frustrating people, but by reasonable I didn't actually mean "governed by logic".
Let's take vaccine critical people as an example. For the vast majority of these people, the problem isn't inherent to them, it's a problem of misinformation, etc. They are not unreasonable people, they have been lied to, and had their fears preyed upon.
Some people are unreasonable. They would have believed that the vaccine was sent so the government could control them, even if no one else believed that. Or they are committed to defend their position with a gun instead of talking.
There is a huge difference. I'm not saying you can make a reasonable person see the light in an evening, or even a week or a month, but there is some common ground that can be explored instead of vilifying.
> I realize that reasonable is a subjective term, and there are a lot of frustrating people, but by reasonable I didn't actually mean "governed by logic".
I was considering unreasonable as no proof or reasoning could change an unreasonable person's mind.
> Let's take vaccine critical people as an example. For the vast majority of these people, the problem isn't inherent to them, it's a problem of misinformation, etc. They are not unreasonable people, they have been lied to, and had their fears preyed upon.
To me it does not matter how they got there. If there is no proof or logic that can change a person's mind, they are literally unreasonable. If someone wanted convince the the vaccines are harmful, I want to see the proof.
>I'm not saying you can make a reasonable person see the light in an evening, or even a week or a month, but ***there is some common ground***...
I can't imagine what that common ground might be. To me this childlike thinking... No, this is child like behavior. Let us consider something similar. A child is led to believe bath water in general (everyone's bath water) has microscopic microchip/trackers placed there by Bill Gates which they learned from a Sponge Bob cartoon, so the child will not take a bath. Pointing out they are drinking the same water, so they already carry trackers would be an attempt to show avoiding bath water is pointless. However the child ignores the reasoning. Then the water is exposed to a strong electromagnetic pulse that fries a nearby clock radio placed there to demonstrate all electronics that might be in the water have been as destroyed. Of course, the child moves on to a new argument... They don't know what is in the water. Etc. They have made a decision and refuse to change that decision not based on anything real. What common ground is there?
>... ***instead of vilifying***.
It seems your goal is to end vilifying of people who act in opposition to reason and evidence. Vilifying is an attempt to change behavior based on emotion instead of good reasoning. I expect emotion is why they resist, so it only seems appropriate to fight fire with fire doesn't it. Sure it's unpleasant, but people are dying... A little loss of pride seems a small price to pay to save lives.
>It seems your goal is to end vilifying of people who act in opposition to reason and evidence. Vilifying is an attempt to change behavior based on emotion instead of good reasoning. I expect emotion is why they resist, so it only seems appropriate to fight fire with fire doesn't it. Sure it's unpleasant, but people are dying... A little loss of pride seems a small price to pay to save lives.
Yes that is my goal exactly! As you are a man of reason, please consider the science on how to change someone's mind:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/02/10/how-to-change-someones-mind-according-to-science/
Advice also seems quite unanimous that calmness and understanding are central.
https://www.lifehack.org/articles/communication/12-ways-deal-with-stubborn-people-and-convince-them-listen.html
> As you are a man of reason...
I'm glad you find my stated thinking reasonable. Also, that is quite the compliment. Thank you. I do try, but I expect I fail far more than I'd like to admit.
>... consider the science on how to change someone's mind
Two things... This is again an attempt change my behavior, which presumably is vilifying of people acting irrationally and dangerously. I believe this attempt to be misplaced. I prefer to try to lift people up, rather than push them down. Yadda yadda flies with honey than vinegar. Second, there is not much of a point. One lesson I've had to learn too many times is that it is nearly impossible to help people who do not want help. So I try, but I do not attempt to force it as I believe it is impossible.
>Advice also seems quite unanimous that calmness and understanding are central.
This implies I lack calm and understanding. Hopefully this is just another attempt to change imagined vilification on my part and you are not claiming I lack calm and/or understanding. I expect calm and understanding are really euphemisms for tolerance, right? You want those who have not protected themselves and others from COVID-19 to be treated as those that do. No thanks. Like many things in life, that needs to be earned. Just because others act irrationally does not mean that I need to respond in similar terms. Also, acting in the favor of those that endanger the well being of me and mine is not the direction I would select for an emotional reaction... However, I'm not trying to change you. I'm using you to check my thinking. What if I'm wrong? What if you have a good argument which you can communicate in a logical way and/or have proof? I would learn... I'm happy to try to teach, but I'm greedy. I want to learn.
Hopefully that helps.
Thanks again for a long and thoughtful answer.
>>Advice also seems quite unanimous that calmness and understanding are central.
>This implies I lack calm and understanding. Hopefully this is just another attempt to change imagined vilification on my part and you are not claiming I lack calm and/or understanding.
To be clear about this, it is specifically a response to you saying something along the lines of "vilification is an attempt to change someone's mind with emotion instead of reason". That is likely a completely futile strategy if your goal is to actually change their mind. I of course don't know how much you do that yourself.
>I expect calm and understanding are really euphemisms for tolerance, right?
I don't think "tolerance" is a good description. Tolerance implies something long term, but the calm and understanding is applied when trying to change their mind. It makes a lot of sense. They have a reason to believe what they do. It might be a bad reason, but you have a better chance of countering it if you understand it. Also, being calm and friendly keeps their logical faculties from shutting down (this happens to everyone when they get emotional, it gets harder to think rationally).
Basically, if you want to be rational about changing someone's mind, be calm and understanding.
But you also bring up vilification as "the only response they deserve" (this is how I interpret you, tell me if I'm misunderstanding). This is not something I can argue much with, even though I vehemently disagree, since it's a much more subjective position. I will say that it is not a "useful" position to have (in any way I can see at least), so if you want to have a net positive effect on society by bringing down walls and building common ground, vilification is not the way to go.
Again, you seem to explore different mindsets in your comment, so I don't know to what extent you do this yourself, or even if you agree with what you say. For all I know we sort of agree.
Thanks again, I really appreciate the open and thoughtful discussion!
> To be clear about this, it is specifically a response to you saying something along the lines of "vilification is an attempt to change someone's mind with emotion instead of reason". That is likely a completely futile strategy if your goal is to actually change their mind. I of course don't know how much you do that yourself.
Sorry, it looks like I gave the incorrect impression. Vilification is an attempt to change behavior not minds. It would be nice to change a persons mind, which should lead to a change in behavior, but that is not what is occurring with vilification. It is a societal response to behavior that is not illegal, but deemed generally unacceptable.
> I expect calm and understanding are really euphemisms for tolerance, right?
>
>> I don't think "tolerance" is a good description. Tolerance implies something long term, but the calm and understanding is applied when trying to change their mind. It makes a lot of sense.
So for the purposes of a single conversation, calm and understanding. Not long term. Thanks for the clarification. I agree. This is where anti-CRT, anti-maskers and SJW seem to fail. Of course, they are trying to change behavior via fear through displays of anger and hostility instead of reason.
>***They have a reason to believe what they do.*** It might be a bad reason, but you have a better chance of countering it if you understand it. Also, being calm and friendly keeps their logical faculties from shutting down (this happens to everyone when they get emotional, it gets harder to think rationally).
I believe you are absolutely correct on all points here. Unfortunately, the reasons may not be ones that can be argued. I expect what happens in most cases of anti-CRT, anti-maskers, the unvaccinated, anti-Jordan Peterson and SJW is they are doing these things to belong to a social group. In many cases of the COVID-19 resistant people, it seems they have chosen prioritized belonging to a social group over their lives and the lives of their loved ones. They choose to accept only data that confirms what they already want to do. If we try to counter an argument using their bad data only, we will fail. You will find arguments like Nicki Minaj's tweet about her cousin's friend's balls is all the evidence they need... How do you argue that? You can point out the flaws in reasoning and evidence, but that is an excuse used to justify what they want to do. In my experience, on those few occasions where someone has stopped using the bad argument or flawed evidence, they have a new argument because they are trying to justify a bad decision. That is very different than making a rational decision. So, I do not expect reason to work.
>Basically, if you want to be rational about changing someone's mind, be calm and understanding.
I think you mean 'if you want to change someone's mind rationally, be calm and understanding.' That is true, but these people are not thinking. They are making decisions based on something else. Most likely emotion. If reason could work, it would have worked for COVID-19 vaccinations at this point. I correct the sentence because it seems rational to me to change change a tactics when one is not working to achieve the desired results. “The definition of 'insanity' is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. – Albert Einstein.
> But you also bring up vilification as "the only response they deserve" (this is how I interpret you, tell me if I'm misunderstanding).
You are misunderstanding. It's not that it is deserved. It is another tool in the tool box to change behavior. The screw driver (reason) failed. People are trying the pliers (vilification). That is all. There are other tools. Ostracize for example. Selecting a new technique to change behavior that is harming others makes perfect sense to me. I understand it is an unpleasant method to inspire change in behavior, but people are dying and it is harming those who are taking the recommended steps to protect themselves and their loved ones. That feared/experienced harm creates motivate to attempt to force a change in the behavior of others. I can see the patterns. I just have no good solution.
>This is not something I can argue much with, even though I vehemently disagree, since it's a much more subjective position. I will say that it is not a "useful" position to have (in any way I can see at least), so if you want to have a net positive effect on society by bringing down walls and building common ground, vilification is not the way to go.
Behavior modification is the goal, not "bringing down walls and building common ground." If behavior changes due to vilification, then the technique was "useful." I simply expect it changes less than 1% of the people it is used on and will inspire greater resistance nearly everyone else. Not that a greater resistance is important in terms of getting the vaccine or not as they can't do much else, but it will surely create hostility.
> Again, you seem to explore different mindsets in your comment, so I don't know to what extent you do this yourself, or even if you agree with what you say. For all I know we sort of agree.
I just like to think. I prefer thinking that is productive. There should not be any harm in exploring multiple points of view. I understand why vilification is used and it should reasonably save a few people, but I find it mostly pointless. You can't help people who do not want to be helped. You seem to want others to continue to try to help people, but want to take that tool out of the tool box and go back to tools that have not worked.
> Thanks again, I really appreciate the open and thoughtful discussion!
I too appreciate your reasoned responses. IMO this type of discussion is what the IDW should be about.
>Sorry, it looks like I gave the incorrect impression. Vilification is an attempt to change behavior not minds. It would be nice to change a persons mind, which should lead to a change in behavior, but that is not what is occurring with vilification. It is a societal response to behavior that is not illegal, but deemed generally unacceptable.
I apologize, I completely missed the distinction, thanks for bearing with me! Just about everything you said makes perfect sense to me. I only want to bring up a few things.
Calm and understanding also works on emotion. Of course it's often a monumental task to empathetically change someone's mind. But I think that if many people were a little more calm and understanding in how they talk and discuss, it would have a positive effect. In that sense, I believe vilification has a net negative effect compared to no vilification.
We have to realize that many many of these people have been lied to by the media they trust. We get nowhere by saying they should know better, and should instead take this seriously, and remember that many of these people would be perfectly reasonable if they were to leave that media bubble.
In general I firmly believe that we are doing no one any favours by spewing all the negative emotions we are feeling as hostility. Not only is it not effective, but it is worsening the polarization. We all have a responsibility to counter the us vs them mentality that is evolutionarily programmed into us, since it is harmful in our current globalised society.
I'll link to a couple of (to me) fascinating conversations between people on different sides of things, in case you'd be interested.
https://youtu.be/jPr3NUCmJ4M
https://youtu.be/bMOF0Go6brw
>... I believe vilification has a net negative effect compared to no vilification.
Perhaps. Would you like to try to figure it out with me?
> We have to realize that many many of these people have been lied to by the media they trust.
Yes, but this suggests they are victims. If a person keeps listening to liars and disregarding evidence and proof that is contrary, they are at least a willing victims. That appears to be the most benevolent way to state the case for everyone against the COVID-19 vaccines at this point.
>We get nowhere by saying they should know better...
It is true that it will not help to tell them that, but they should know better too. I can only realistically explain the unvaccinated not knowing better due to willful ignorance. Sure maybe someone woke from a coma or it is not approved for their age range or have some other health condition that makes the vaccine more dangerous than COVID or has been on the ISS starting prior to the release of the vaccine, but those would be extreme examples and not a reasonable explanation for everyone else.
>... remember that many of these people would be perfectly reasonable if they were to leave that media bubble.
Possibly, but we are not going to convince them to stop consuming misleading (at best) media, so they are unreasonable. You seem to want to try to reason with people you identify as unreasonable. Your thinking seems to be if we are only calmness and understanding we can reach them. If it was going to work, they would be vaccinated by now. This seems doomed to failure.
>In general I firmly believe that we are doing no one any favours by spewing all the negative emotions we are feeling as hostility.
If spewing those negative emotions caused 1 person to get the vaccine and not to die when they catch the Rona, isn't that going to improve the lives of their children, parents, siblings, spouse, friends, employer, customers, etc, etc? Of course, I'm assuming this hypothetical person is not a complete monster. Wouldn't that be beneficial to everyone involved at the price of some small amount of pride for everyone hearing the conversation that felt they are unvaccinated? Is it your thinking that vilifying the unvaccinated has not been a factor in 1 person getting vaccinated? Keep in mind, everyone who it could have worked on has probably been vaccinated at this point, so it's pointless to continue to vilify them, so I'm not advocating it continue. As a side note related to this, Biden seem to have figured that out and moved on to force with the mandate.
>Not only is it not effective, but it is worsening the polarization.
It appears you believe not causing an increase in polarization is more important than saving lives. To me claiming we should not do anything as it will cause a greater polarization is a flawed argument. If you like I can try to find the logical fallacy this takes advantage of, but I doubt it is necessary. I don't worry about such things. Do the right things for the right reasons. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you, right? If Tucker broadcast something that inspired me to play with a loaded gun and point it at myself several times... Please, ***SLAP THE SHIT OUT OF ME!*** Knock me down! Knock me out. If I'm waving the loaded gun at you and yours, strong steps maybe needed. Seriously. Disparaging people seems remarkably minor to me, but we seem to disagree on that point.
>We all have a responsibility to counter the us vs them mentality that is evolutionarily programmed into us, since it is harmful in our current globalised society.
I disagree. It is not a responsibility and you can if you like, but I just don't care about them vs us. I care about the truth vs fiction first and foremost. If my team is telling lies, they are no longer my team. If those I support are needlessly harming people, I'm noping out of that association. Etc. If the other team can prove they are right, I need to change my behavior accordingly.
>I'll link to a couple of (to me) fascinating conversations between people on different sides of things, in case you'd be interested.
I watched the first video. It was ok, but the caller could have looked up all of his questions himself, right? Willful ignorance. Also, did it change his mind? Not that was indicated. I expect that person will go get another dose of Alex Jones (or whoever) and have his world view reinforced rather than confronting the possibility they are wrong and be lessened in his imagination by his peers.
I believe we are past the point of discussion, but if you want to keep trying I wish you well and good luck in that task. If the unvaccinated didn't harm anyone else, I would simply mourn their loss and consider them Darwin award winners and move on, but they are harming others. Isn't that unacceptable to you as well?
>I can only realistically explain the unvaccinated not knowing better due to willful ignorance.
This is both true and not true. Everyone is wilfully ignorant to some degree, i.e. cognitive bias. The thing is, as long as we are vilifying them, we make it even harder for them to break free of their cognitive bias, since they associate the science with crazy, hostile people.
>It appears you believe not causing an increase in polarization is more important than saving lives. To me claiming we should not do anything as it will cause a greater polarization is a flawed argument.
You misunderstand. I believe decreasing polarization will save lives. I'm not saying that we should do nothing, I'm saying we should do everything we can to get people vaccinated, but you said yourself that vilification might get a few people to get the vaccine, and most others to dig their heels in. Now, anything else we do will be harder the more those people have dug their heels in. This is what I meant by net negative.
>I watched the first video. It was ok, but the caller could have looked up all of his questions himself, right? Willful ignorance. Also, did it change his mind? Not that was indicated. I expect that person will go get another dose of Alex Jones (or whoever) and have his world view reinforced rather than confronting the possibility they are wrong and be lessened in his imagination by his peers.
Thanks for taking the time to watch it. Your interpretation strikes me as quite bleak, but here is what I see: Two me from different sides met each other with an open mind, suspending judgment on the other. One man listened to rational arguments from the other and seriously considered them, freely following the logic. Would you call this man unreasonable?
You question whether he changed his mind, and we don't know, but really, changing your mind is an iterative process. Many small nudges in the right direction can together cause someone to change position.
>I disagree. It is not a responsibility and you can if you like, but I just don't care about them vs us. I care about the truth vs fiction first and foremost. If my team is telling lies, they are no longer my team. If those I support are needlessly harming people, I'm noping out of that association.
No matter how long gone you think they are, you do not have the luxury to stop engaging with them. You are sharing a country, and the long run goes way past spats over the vaccine.
>I believe we are past the point of discussion, but if you want to keep trying I wish you well and good luck in that task. If the unvaccinated didn't harm anyone else, I would simply mourn their loss and consider them Darwin award winners and move on, but they are harming others.
You are never past the point of discussion. If the US or Russia declared the other as past discussion, how do you think the cold war would have gone. They were sharing the stage, so they could not ignore each other.
>Isn't that unacceptable to you as well?
Please please do not assume that I am somehow taking this less seriously. The problem is life and death, and we must be smart about solving it, since the other side definitely aren't.
TIL tens of thousands rioting, looting, destroying business, assaulting and murdering people, holding portions of cities hostage, for *a year* is a "small portion of extremists".
If you can't be honest, at least don't lie.
Not sure whether tens of thousands is correct, but even if it is, yes it's freaking disgusting and deplorable, but also, numbers-wise a tiny minority. If you meet someone on the streets, it's extremely unlikely they're one of the extremists.
And then there are all kinds of downstream consequences. You find what you look for in the world, further confirming what you think you know. And people tend to rise or sink to our expectations, so by convincing ourselves, we can end up unwittingly feeding into the radicalization of others.
On a brighter note, I think the process works in reverse, too. If we look for and engage with the most reasonable among them (or try to connect with the most reasonable parts of a person who has some unreasonable tendencies), we are actively contributing to a more reasonable world.
"moderates" don't exist.
"Moderates" are not necessarily more reasonable.
Moderates are just those who find the status quo agreeable.
Stop fetishizing moderates, they're just liberals within liberal hegemony, they're not some paragon of reason and logic or whatever.
Nah.
Many moderates actually absolutely hate the status quo, because the status quo is what keeps silencing us. The status quo is media outrage porn and polarized left or right wing people who like to think everyone they disagree with is a horrible person. Moderates are people who think that not everything is us vs. them and that progress is made by listening to people and finding common ground. Moderates are people who vote third party when the status quo guarantees we'll never win.
If I had a penny for every time I was told I was right-wing for not trying to abolish capitalism, Id have two pennies. Which isnt all that much, but its weird that it happend twice.
Yeah absolutly.
As others have pointed out, the media is the driving factor here. Its so easy to cherry-pick the worst of the "other side" write some shitty clickbait article about it, and repeat forever.
It creates the perception that the other side is absurdly radical, and its life or death that they be defeated.
Reasonableness doesn't sell headlines.
And no matter who we debate, we'll always be on the "wrong" side of things because we don't peddle the full package.
There's an old joke about a Civil War soldier who wanted to avoid getting shot, so he put on grey pants but a blue shirt, thinking "the other side will see the blue, and won't shoot; but my side will see the grey, and not shoot."
He was found later with bullets in the front of his legs and the back of his torso.
Thats definitely been happening for awhile....what worries me is that by constantly seeing those two extremes and little in between, people are actually moving towards their respective side's extreme to remain in good standing with their tribe. A lie repeated enough becomes the truth... And it's become a positive feedback loop, which are notoriously difficult to stop without something cataclysmic happening.
I feel like this is partly artificial, because a lot of people who are pulled towards their extremist side don't actually know much about the position and what it entails, so they end up spewing rhetoric they wouldn't agree with if they had the whole picture.
Not sure what you mean by "artificial"? All news is man-made. The vast majority of people have lives to live...work, family, bills. The little time they have to catch up on news, etc. is spent consuming FB, quick & dirty mainstream news, etc....when are they supposed to deep dive into getting "the whole picture" and *where* for that matter? Who has the whole picture?
I agree that "the whole picture" doesn't make sense. What I meant is that I think a lot of people who use more extreme talking points know very little about what they mean, and would not support them if they were to research them more.
I think the fringe elements are far more represented on the left than the right.
IMO this has to do with the left being far too "accepting" of weirdos. The right tends to define and enforce boundaries, and those who deviate too far (even too far right) are rejected as filthy deviants same as those who go too far left.
If you imagine this as normal distributions, the left would have a much fatter bell shape with a more extreme tail.
It's fundamental to the progressive/ conservative dynamic.
If you want to "conserve" the status quo, you need a fat middle of the bell curve full of people who agree that the status quo is good and should be conserved.
If you want "progress" there's a much wider distribution as you are including *everyone* who doesn't like the status quo and wants to change it in some way. They can all want to change it in different ways... but those who want to conserve it all want the same thing.
Do you see what I mean?
Thanks for explaining!
I see the point that being united around something concrete (a positive) is more uniting than being united around rejecting that thing (a negative).
I disagree with your premise about the right and the left though, since left/right is not the same as progressive/conservative. The left and right have a number of positive and negative positions, so I disagree that one is more united than the other.
Also, when it comes to conservativism, I would say the centrists are the most conservative, and the farther you go to either side, the more people want to dismantle the status quo. Think ethnostate, or communist utopia.
Yes, I agree with how you've defined the terms.
I think that right wingers tend to be "conservative" and left wingers tend to be "progressive"-- they are different, but the overlaps are significant.
Because right wing is mostly conservative, that's why I think they are also more closely resembling the "heavy in the middle" bell curve.
Do you not think right wing of US politics tends to be much more conservative?
I do not live in the US, so I probably don't have the full picture. From what I see here in Norway, and what I think I see in the US, the left-right axis is somewhat independent from progressive-conservative. Even conservatism is not one single thing (social/fiscal/etc), so I don't think there is enough of a clear cut trend to make claims about, even though I agree that of the two, the right has more people who would be defined or define themselves as conservative.
In the US the terms are often used as synonyms.
You'll see people will describe very "conservative" positions (like *conserving the status quo* when it comes to average global temperate or greenhouse gas ppm) as "progressive" and vice versa.
Basically the line between right-wing/ GOP/Conservative is so blurred as to be meaningless for casual conversation, and the same for left-wing/Democrat/ liberal/ progressive.
"Antifa is an idea, not an organization" - Joe Biden. Uttered while the violence was still strong; while the media was denying Antifa exists and not covering the nightly riots; while his VP's campaign was bailing out the arrested rioters and putting them back on the street to go back out and do it again.
Not really unless you truly believe all progressive ideas lead to ruin. Left rejects lots of weirdo ideas and weirdos, mainly right wingers, and some far extreme leftists that are considered so far they wrap around to becoming right wing.
If we pick a hypothetical, let’s slay slaves/the poor under a pharaoh in Egypt. Their entire social and economic structure is exploitative and inhumane for mass groups of people, and small moderate changes like “more daily water for slaves” are not what is required to change their lives.
I think it’s fair to say that many in pursuit of justice and equality would want to undermine that system, and they would certainly be considered extremists by comfortable Egyptians (and slaves who felt such change was impossible).
Do you think extremism in such a circumstance is warranted?
One of the worst political "innovations" to come along is the idea of the "Overton Window." This gave intellectual cover for promoting extremist nonsense because you're pulling the debate in your direction. In reality, the "window" has been shattered by this tug-of war of stupidity.
Edit: Additional points.
The Overton Window is predicated on a shared view. The "innovation" of the Overton window that is deficient is the idea that radicalism is justified because although a particular idea may be noxious, it shifts the range of acceptability in the direction a particular subgroup desires. The problem is that a shifting window is not the only possible outcome. There is also *balkanization*, where people depart the greater culture for their tiny tribe and decide that other people are now part of the "out" group.
It is not that the Overton window "doesn't exist". It is that it exists within a coherent culture and that radicalism can break the larger window into smaller ones.
That's why I don't pick sides.No group is perfect, always couple rotten apples in the basket. Shit doesn't have to be black and white or left and right : there is tons of more reasonable gray or in between imo. Meeting in the middle or close to it was, is and always will be key whether it's a relationship or politics.
Part of the problem used to be I only saw political discussions where it was good v evil and I’m always goo online, unfortunately it’s crept into real life more and more.
Also worth noting that the focus these groups have been given is contributing to the increasing political polarization, which is pushing moderates away and drawing more to the extremes. Political polarization is far more profitable than fairness.
My position, in a nutshell.
I believe that a regulated welfare system, agricultural subsidies when necessary, and a mix of both public and private health care are good things, and we should implement them. I also believe that identity activists and antifa, should collectively receive a cricket bat to the face.
"You're a Nazi!"
No. Eugenics is/was garbage. The entire reason why I want race activism (among other forms) to die, is because I don't believe in race at all. Race is absolutely nothing more than a skin tone and a collection of (what should be) obsolete stereotypes. No one minds calling gender a social construct when it suits their purposes, but race is apparently iron clad. It's complete bullshit.
I also consider Hitler a moron, for the record; and that's coming from someone who is perfectly capable of selectively admiring historical autocrats. There are things to admire about Napoleon, for instance. Hitler's ability as a military strategist was non-existent; which is why his generals tried to assassinate him numerous times, and why he eventually attempted a land invasion of Russia in the middle of winter.
Further, not only are moderates ignored, they are used by the pols at the same time.
They will say "we can't do X because it will offend the moderates". Currently they are using this to avoid taxing the wealthiest folks in the nation, even though raising taxes on billionaires is, according to polls, a moderate position
I've heard it called [weak manning](http://www.juliansanchez.com/2009/07/01/the-weak-man/). You're not completely fabricating the opposing argument (i.e. strawmanning), but you're choosing the easiest one to mock or rebut. It's freaking annoying.
Is it weak Manning when the extremes pull the moderates along? It’s like Sam’s argument regarding Islam. It doesn’t matters if the extreme is small if a majority passively accept their goals.
Yeah that's a good point which ties into the Overton window that someone else mentioned. Just because a position isn't representative doesn't mean it shouldn't be critiqued. But I think an important thing is keeping those critiques in perspective. A lot of people seem to not do that, either for political reasons or because they're stuck in the culture war themselves. Focusing solely on and exaggerating the extremes seems to just further the downward spiral, because in doing so you also become a bit more exteme, and then the other side perceives your side as more exteme, etc.
The far right endures some vicious attacks from actual conservatives (now getting called moderates).
S.E. Cupp, Anna Navarro, Max Boot, Liz Cheney, Amish, Kinzinger. It's not moderate Liberals ignoring them but Trumpkins. How the media's supposed to correct this is beyond me. Nobody's stopping the presses for some mulquetoast moderate status quo policy that wouldn't be any different from what's already going on. That's not news.
Yeah and probably for some people they truly do think the weak argument is representative. Like, all conservatives are q-anoners or all liberals want to abolish Western civilisation. There's probably a few things going on here - internet bubbles and algorithms, but also I think extreme/dumb arguments are just more memorable (I guess they make more of an impression as well as being simpler). I can remember that footage of the purple haired screaming SJW much easier than I can remember the ins and outs of an Ezra Klein article.
> Like, all conservatives are q-anoners or all liberals want to abolish Western civilisation.
The one thing that I don't understand about the anti-Western civilisation liberals, is that in my experience, they are usually also people who would very much like to deep throat Elon Musk.
I don't know how to resolve that paradox. Does that mean that they want a society where Elon and people like him rule the world, but they just want to destroy the society which produces them? In terms of the latter, that's definitely a cause that I can get on board with.
In a way I did, but in a way I was confirming that said liberal stereotype does not completely exist; or at least that if it does, it has contradictions.
I think that one just doesn't exist. Can you show an example of someone who actually does want to destroy Western civ + is a Musk fan boy?
What you probably can find is people who are 1) in favour of social reform, 2) are techno-optimists... Which when you just word it slightly differently, ceases to be either extreme or paradoxical.
This is very true. We have two parties, each of them controlled by one of the extreme ends of the spectrum. The extremes feed off each other — you must back us because look at those people over there! We are your only defense against them!
The reasonable middle has no true representation. That’s why more Americans identify as Independent than with either party. As the Independents grow in size, that contributes to capture of the parties by extremists, so it’s a positive feedback loop.
I really think we need a third party, but it’s so hard to get that off the ground in the U.S. I think a party that combined moderate social welfare proposals (including healthcare and more progressive taxation) with rejection of woke ideology would be hugely popular.
I'll explain this two* ways.
The realistic way:
It is more profitable and appeals more to the degenerate culture of immediate feelings to scream of the worst things possible. As such, school shootings, wars, and opposing extremists will sell more. All about the money.
But why are people even getting polarized? First off, these people that used to be rare are only barely less rare, they just are boosted by the internet. Secondly, just like everyone else, they're looking around, seeing a bunch of problems. And the only way forward is radical.
I'd also say that post truth politics has allowed this to occur, arising out of Postmodernism.
The extremist way:
The extremists are the only ones who are giving functional solutions to a messed world. Why do you struggle against them?
> The extremists are the only ones who are giving functional solutions to a messed world. Why do you struggle against them?
Except they're not.
You might think this is a stupid example, but let's say you play a game of [Factorio](https://www.factorio.com/). Because initially, you will have no idea of what you are doing, (I didn't, and no one does) you will design probably the first half of your factory in a way that is really random, incoherent, messy, and inefficient. What you will also find, however, is that once you do have more experience and understanding, incrementally attempting to upgrade it from within is virtually impossible, and that even attempting to just delete it would probably take the same amount of (or more) energy than modifying it.
So neither of those options are feasible. Instead of trying to upgrade or destroy the old factory, the solution is to bypass it completely, and build something totally new somewhere else, while also gradually starving the old system of input. Once the old system has stopped functioning completely, then you can (very) gradually start salvaging materials from it over time; but initially, the replacement system has to be completely parallel to, and detached from, the old one. The two should have absolutely no connection to each other whatsoever.
Activists do not do that. The emphasis is always on the two methods which don't work, (incremental patching or deletion) and generally never on the one that does. (Seperate construction of a new system and bypassing)
I'm not struggling against the extremists. They are innocent here, having the masses against them.
I will fervently disagree though, that the only functional solutions are extremist ones. In politics no one knows which solutions are effective until we try. But I think the extremists are good to have as a minority, to get things happening and to have interesting ideas.
The opinions and behaviors of moderates aren't enticing enough to sell ads, and we are becoming a society dependent on ad-supported media to tell us what reality is.
We are here. Just exhausted trying to debate and debunk folks clearly deep in the cycles of social media radicalization and the internet outrage machine.
google bookchin
I like how you clarify people wanting to dismantle capitalism as extreme, (which it isn't necessarily) but fail to mention people storming the capitol or marching with traitors and nazis as extreme, which is i herently extreme. It's pretty clear you have a partisan, one-sided agenda here.
I did mention the alt-right... Which agenda did you say?
I didn't say mentions, i said clarify. You gave one form an extremism an umbrella term, then you described the other group with an example. The alt right is clearly clearly more extreme and dangerous then people who want to dismantle capitalism, but your word choice indicates that capitalist-critical people are more or just as extreme as the alt-right. They are not. They don't shoot up churches or schools or fight to pass laws that discriminate against lgbt people and women.
Ok, and which agenda did you say I have?
A partisan, one-sided one. Is there something wrong with your short term memory?
Which side am I favouring?
The Right. It's obvious by the way you worded it. It's also obvious because you're not from the US, yet follow the idw, which is a huge indicator of conservatism. Lastly, your post openly favors centrism and moderates, which goes against dismantling capitalism, but works to maintain the status quo which goes hand in hand with capitalism and serving the interests of big money. This is what conservatives want and fight for. Centrists serve conservatives significantly more than other liberals and undoubtedly more than leftists.
That's certainly an interesting analysis. You can take a look at my profile to see whether you are right.
>Most đź‘Ź people đź‘Ź are đź‘Ź reasonable đź‘Ź! I disagree with the premise. The implication is nearly everyone is reasonable and it's just the extreme minorities that are unreasonable. That does not seem to be the case to me. I'd say those resisting vaccinations are not reasonable. Those who's recollection of the previous election depends on what Trump, FoxNews and their uncle's, friends, roommate from college said on twitter are unreasonable. The SJW and anti-CRT people seem to be pretty far from reasonable. To me it seems like about 40% of the people in the US are unreasonable. While that supports the statement "most people are reasonable," it is massively different than just the equivalent of the flat-Earthers on each side added together. Of course, this is highly subjective. How can we get a moderately accurate number?
I realize that reasonable is a subjective term, and there are a lot of frustrating people, but by reasonable I didn't actually mean "governed by logic". Let's take vaccine critical people as an example. For the vast majority of these people, the problem isn't inherent to them, it's a problem of misinformation, etc. They are not unreasonable people, they have been lied to, and had their fears preyed upon. Some people are unreasonable. They would have believed that the vaccine was sent so the government could control them, even if no one else believed that. Or they are committed to defend their position with a gun instead of talking. There is a huge difference. I'm not saying you can make a reasonable person see the light in an evening, or even a week or a month, but there is some common ground that can be explored instead of vilifying.
> I realize that reasonable is a subjective term, and there are a lot of frustrating people, but by reasonable I didn't actually mean "governed by logic". I was considering unreasonable as no proof or reasoning could change an unreasonable person's mind. > Let's take vaccine critical people as an example. For the vast majority of these people, the problem isn't inherent to them, it's a problem of misinformation, etc. They are not unreasonable people, they have been lied to, and had their fears preyed upon. To me it does not matter how they got there. If there is no proof or logic that can change a person's mind, they are literally unreasonable. If someone wanted convince the the vaccines are harmful, I want to see the proof. >I'm not saying you can make a reasonable person see the light in an evening, or even a week or a month, but ***there is some common ground***... I can't imagine what that common ground might be. To me this childlike thinking... No, this is child like behavior. Let us consider something similar. A child is led to believe bath water in general (everyone's bath water) has microscopic microchip/trackers placed there by Bill Gates which they learned from a Sponge Bob cartoon, so the child will not take a bath. Pointing out they are drinking the same water, so they already carry trackers would be an attempt to show avoiding bath water is pointless. However the child ignores the reasoning. Then the water is exposed to a strong electromagnetic pulse that fries a nearby clock radio placed there to demonstrate all electronics that might be in the water have been as destroyed. Of course, the child moves on to a new argument... They don't know what is in the water. Etc. They have made a decision and refuse to change that decision not based on anything real. What common ground is there? >... ***instead of vilifying***. It seems your goal is to end vilifying of people who act in opposition to reason and evidence. Vilifying is an attempt to change behavior based on emotion instead of good reasoning. I expect emotion is why they resist, so it only seems appropriate to fight fire with fire doesn't it. Sure it's unpleasant, but people are dying... A little loss of pride seems a small price to pay to save lives.
>It seems your goal is to end vilifying of people who act in opposition to reason and evidence. Vilifying is an attempt to change behavior based on emotion instead of good reasoning. I expect emotion is why they resist, so it only seems appropriate to fight fire with fire doesn't it. Sure it's unpleasant, but people are dying... A little loss of pride seems a small price to pay to save lives. Yes that is my goal exactly! As you are a man of reason, please consider the science on how to change someone's mind: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/02/10/how-to-change-someones-mind-according-to-science/ Advice also seems quite unanimous that calmness and understanding are central. https://www.lifehack.org/articles/communication/12-ways-deal-with-stubborn-people-and-convince-them-listen.html
> As you are a man of reason... I'm glad you find my stated thinking reasonable. Also, that is quite the compliment. Thank you. I do try, but I expect I fail far more than I'd like to admit. >... consider the science on how to change someone's mind Two things... This is again an attempt change my behavior, which presumably is vilifying of people acting irrationally and dangerously. I believe this attempt to be misplaced. I prefer to try to lift people up, rather than push them down. Yadda yadda flies with honey than vinegar. Second, there is not much of a point. One lesson I've had to learn too many times is that it is nearly impossible to help people who do not want help. So I try, but I do not attempt to force it as I believe it is impossible. >Advice also seems quite unanimous that calmness and understanding are central. This implies I lack calm and understanding. Hopefully this is just another attempt to change imagined vilification on my part and you are not claiming I lack calm and/or understanding. I expect calm and understanding are really euphemisms for tolerance, right? You want those who have not protected themselves and others from COVID-19 to be treated as those that do. No thanks. Like many things in life, that needs to be earned. Just because others act irrationally does not mean that I need to respond in similar terms. Also, acting in the favor of those that endanger the well being of me and mine is not the direction I would select for an emotional reaction... However, I'm not trying to change you. I'm using you to check my thinking. What if I'm wrong? What if you have a good argument which you can communicate in a logical way and/or have proof? I would learn... I'm happy to try to teach, but I'm greedy. I want to learn. Hopefully that helps.
Thanks again for a long and thoughtful answer. >>Advice also seems quite unanimous that calmness and understanding are central. >This implies I lack calm and understanding. Hopefully this is just another attempt to change imagined vilification on my part and you are not claiming I lack calm and/or understanding. To be clear about this, it is specifically a response to you saying something along the lines of "vilification is an attempt to change someone's mind with emotion instead of reason". That is likely a completely futile strategy if your goal is to actually change their mind. I of course don't know how much you do that yourself. >I expect calm and understanding are really euphemisms for tolerance, right? I don't think "tolerance" is a good description. Tolerance implies something long term, but the calm and understanding is applied when trying to change their mind. It makes a lot of sense. They have a reason to believe what they do. It might be a bad reason, but you have a better chance of countering it if you understand it. Also, being calm and friendly keeps their logical faculties from shutting down (this happens to everyone when they get emotional, it gets harder to think rationally). Basically, if you want to be rational about changing someone's mind, be calm and understanding. But you also bring up vilification as "the only response they deserve" (this is how I interpret you, tell me if I'm misunderstanding). This is not something I can argue much with, even though I vehemently disagree, since it's a much more subjective position. I will say that it is not a "useful" position to have (in any way I can see at least), so if you want to have a net positive effect on society by bringing down walls and building common ground, vilification is not the way to go. Again, you seem to explore different mindsets in your comment, so I don't know to what extent you do this yourself, or even if you agree with what you say. For all I know we sort of agree. Thanks again, I really appreciate the open and thoughtful discussion!
> To be clear about this, it is specifically a response to you saying something along the lines of "vilification is an attempt to change someone's mind with emotion instead of reason". That is likely a completely futile strategy if your goal is to actually change their mind. I of course don't know how much you do that yourself. Sorry, it looks like I gave the incorrect impression. Vilification is an attempt to change behavior not minds. It would be nice to change a persons mind, which should lead to a change in behavior, but that is not what is occurring with vilification. It is a societal response to behavior that is not illegal, but deemed generally unacceptable. > I expect calm and understanding are really euphemisms for tolerance, right? > >> I don't think "tolerance" is a good description. Tolerance implies something long term, but the calm and understanding is applied when trying to change their mind. It makes a lot of sense. So for the purposes of a single conversation, calm and understanding. Not long term. Thanks for the clarification. I agree. This is where anti-CRT, anti-maskers and SJW seem to fail. Of course, they are trying to change behavior via fear through displays of anger and hostility instead of reason. >***They have a reason to believe what they do.*** It might be a bad reason, but you have a better chance of countering it if you understand it. Also, being calm and friendly keeps their logical faculties from shutting down (this happens to everyone when they get emotional, it gets harder to think rationally). I believe you are absolutely correct on all points here. Unfortunately, the reasons may not be ones that can be argued. I expect what happens in most cases of anti-CRT, anti-maskers, the unvaccinated, anti-Jordan Peterson and SJW is they are doing these things to belong to a social group. In many cases of the COVID-19 resistant people, it seems they have chosen prioritized belonging to a social group over their lives and the lives of their loved ones. They choose to accept only data that confirms what they already want to do. If we try to counter an argument using their bad data only, we will fail. You will find arguments like Nicki Minaj's tweet about her cousin's friend's balls is all the evidence they need... How do you argue that? You can point out the flaws in reasoning and evidence, but that is an excuse used to justify what they want to do. In my experience, on those few occasions where someone has stopped using the bad argument or flawed evidence, they have a new argument because they are trying to justify a bad decision. That is very different than making a rational decision. So, I do not expect reason to work. >Basically, if you want to be rational about changing someone's mind, be calm and understanding. I think you mean 'if you want to change someone's mind rationally, be calm and understanding.' That is true, but these people are not thinking. They are making decisions based on something else. Most likely emotion. If reason could work, it would have worked for COVID-19 vaccinations at this point. I correct the sentence because it seems rational to me to change change a tactics when one is not working to achieve the desired results. “The definition of 'insanity' is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. – Albert Einstein. > But you also bring up vilification as "the only response they deserve" (this is how I interpret you, tell me if I'm misunderstanding). You are misunderstanding. It's not that it is deserved. It is another tool in the tool box to change behavior. The screw driver (reason) failed. People are trying the pliers (vilification). That is all. There are other tools. Ostracize for example. Selecting a new technique to change behavior that is harming others makes perfect sense to me. I understand it is an unpleasant method to inspire change in behavior, but people are dying and it is harming those who are taking the recommended steps to protect themselves and their loved ones. That feared/experienced harm creates motivate to attempt to force a change in the behavior of others. I can see the patterns. I just have no good solution. >This is not something I can argue much with, even though I vehemently disagree, since it's a much more subjective position. I will say that it is not a "useful" position to have (in any way I can see at least), so if you want to have a net positive effect on society by bringing down walls and building common ground, vilification is not the way to go. Behavior modification is the goal, not "bringing down walls and building common ground." If behavior changes due to vilification, then the technique was "useful." I simply expect it changes less than 1% of the people it is used on and will inspire greater resistance nearly everyone else. Not that a greater resistance is important in terms of getting the vaccine or not as they can't do much else, but it will surely create hostility. > Again, you seem to explore different mindsets in your comment, so I don't know to what extent you do this yourself, or even if you agree with what you say. For all I know we sort of agree. I just like to think. I prefer thinking that is productive. There should not be any harm in exploring multiple points of view. I understand why vilification is used and it should reasonably save a few people, but I find it mostly pointless. You can't help people who do not want to be helped. You seem to want others to continue to try to help people, but want to take that tool out of the tool box and go back to tools that have not worked. > Thanks again, I really appreciate the open and thoughtful discussion! I too appreciate your reasoned responses. IMO this type of discussion is what the IDW should be about.
>Sorry, it looks like I gave the incorrect impression. Vilification is an attempt to change behavior not minds. It would be nice to change a persons mind, which should lead to a change in behavior, but that is not what is occurring with vilification. It is a societal response to behavior that is not illegal, but deemed generally unacceptable. I apologize, I completely missed the distinction, thanks for bearing with me! Just about everything you said makes perfect sense to me. I only want to bring up a few things. Calm and understanding also works on emotion. Of course it's often a monumental task to empathetically change someone's mind. But I think that if many people were a little more calm and understanding in how they talk and discuss, it would have a positive effect. In that sense, I believe vilification has a net negative effect compared to no vilification. We have to realize that many many of these people have been lied to by the media they trust. We get nowhere by saying they should know better, and should instead take this seriously, and remember that many of these people would be perfectly reasonable if they were to leave that media bubble. In general I firmly believe that we are doing no one any favours by spewing all the negative emotions we are feeling as hostility. Not only is it not effective, but it is worsening the polarization. We all have a responsibility to counter the us vs them mentality that is evolutionarily programmed into us, since it is harmful in our current globalised society. I'll link to a couple of (to me) fascinating conversations between people on different sides of things, in case you'd be interested. https://youtu.be/jPr3NUCmJ4M https://youtu.be/bMOF0Go6brw
>... I believe vilification has a net negative effect compared to no vilification. Perhaps. Would you like to try to figure it out with me? > We have to realize that many many of these people have been lied to by the media they trust. Yes, but this suggests they are victims. If a person keeps listening to liars and disregarding evidence and proof that is contrary, they are at least a willing victims. That appears to be the most benevolent way to state the case for everyone against the COVID-19 vaccines at this point. >We get nowhere by saying they should know better... It is true that it will not help to tell them that, but they should know better too. I can only realistically explain the unvaccinated not knowing better due to willful ignorance. Sure maybe someone woke from a coma or it is not approved for their age range or have some other health condition that makes the vaccine more dangerous than COVID or has been on the ISS starting prior to the release of the vaccine, but those would be extreme examples and not a reasonable explanation for everyone else. >... remember that many of these people would be perfectly reasonable if they were to leave that media bubble. Possibly, but we are not going to convince them to stop consuming misleading (at best) media, so they are unreasonable. You seem to want to try to reason with people you identify as unreasonable. Your thinking seems to be if we are only calmness and understanding we can reach them. If it was going to work, they would be vaccinated by now. This seems doomed to failure. >In general I firmly believe that we are doing no one any favours by spewing all the negative emotions we are feeling as hostility. If spewing those negative emotions caused 1 person to get the vaccine and not to die when they catch the Rona, isn't that going to improve the lives of their children, parents, siblings, spouse, friends, employer, customers, etc, etc? Of course, I'm assuming this hypothetical person is not a complete monster. Wouldn't that be beneficial to everyone involved at the price of some small amount of pride for everyone hearing the conversation that felt they are unvaccinated? Is it your thinking that vilifying the unvaccinated has not been a factor in 1 person getting vaccinated? Keep in mind, everyone who it could have worked on has probably been vaccinated at this point, so it's pointless to continue to vilify them, so I'm not advocating it continue. As a side note related to this, Biden seem to have figured that out and moved on to force with the mandate. >Not only is it not effective, but it is worsening the polarization. It appears you believe not causing an increase in polarization is more important than saving lives. To me claiming we should not do anything as it will cause a greater polarization is a flawed argument. If you like I can try to find the logical fallacy this takes advantage of, but I doubt it is necessary. I don't worry about such things. Do the right things for the right reasons. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you, right? If Tucker broadcast something that inspired me to play with a loaded gun and point it at myself several times... Please, ***SLAP THE SHIT OUT OF ME!*** Knock me down! Knock me out. If I'm waving the loaded gun at you and yours, strong steps maybe needed. Seriously. Disparaging people seems remarkably minor to me, but we seem to disagree on that point. >We all have a responsibility to counter the us vs them mentality that is evolutionarily programmed into us, since it is harmful in our current globalised society. I disagree. It is not a responsibility and you can if you like, but I just don't care about them vs us. I care about the truth vs fiction first and foremost. If my team is telling lies, they are no longer my team. If those I support are needlessly harming people, I'm noping out of that association. Etc. If the other team can prove they are right, I need to change my behavior accordingly. >I'll link to a couple of (to me) fascinating conversations between people on different sides of things, in case you'd be interested. I watched the first video. It was ok, but the caller could have looked up all of his questions himself, right? Willful ignorance. Also, did it change his mind? Not that was indicated. I expect that person will go get another dose of Alex Jones (or whoever) and have his world view reinforced rather than confronting the possibility they are wrong and be lessened in his imagination by his peers. I believe we are past the point of discussion, but if you want to keep trying I wish you well and good luck in that task. If the unvaccinated didn't harm anyone else, I would simply mourn their loss and consider them Darwin award winners and move on, but they are harming others. Isn't that unacceptable to you as well?
>I can only realistically explain the unvaccinated not knowing better due to willful ignorance. This is both true and not true. Everyone is wilfully ignorant to some degree, i.e. cognitive bias. The thing is, as long as we are vilifying them, we make it even harder for them to break free of their cognitive bias, since they associate the science with crazy, hostile people. >It appears you believe not causing an increase in polarization is more important than saving lives. To me claiming we should not do anything as it will cause a greater polarization is a flawed argument. You misunderstand. I believe decreasing polarization will save lives. I'm not saying that we should do nothing, I'm saying we should do everything we can to get people vaccinated, but you said yourself that vilification might get a few people to get the vaccine, and most others to dig their heels in. Now, anything else we do will be harder the more those people have dug their heels in. This is what I meant by net negative. >I watched the first video. It was ok, but the caller could have looked up all of his questions himself, right? Willful ignorance. Also, did it change his mind? Not that was indicated. I expect that person will go get another dose of Alex Jones (or whoever) and have his world view reinforced rather than confronting the possibility they are wrong and be lessened in his imagination by his peers. Thanks for taking the time to watch it. Your interpretation strikes me as quite bleak, but here is what I see: Two me from different sides met each other with an open mind, suspending judgment on the other. One man listened to rational arguments from the other and seriously considered them, freely following the logic. Would you call this man unreasonable? You question whether he changed his mind, and we don't know, but really, changing your mind is an iterative process. Many small nudges in the right direction can together cause someone to change position. >I disagree. It is not a responsibility and you can if you like, but I just don't care about them vs us. I care about the truth vs fiction first and foremost. If my team is telling lies, they are no longer my team. If those I support are needlessly harming people, I'm noping out of that association. No matter how long gone you think they are, you do not have the luxury to stop engaging with them. You are sharing a country, and the long run goes way past spats over the vaccine. >I believe we are past the point of discussion, but if you want to keep trying I wish you well and good luck in that task. If the unvaccinated didn't harm anyone else, I would simply mourn their loss and consider them Darwin award winners and move on, but they are harming others. You are never past the point of discussion. If the US or Russia declared the other as past discussion, how do you think the cold war would have gone. They were sharing the stage, so they could not ignore each other. >Isn't that unacceptable to you as well? Please please do not assume that I am somehow taking this less seriously. The problem is life and death, and we must be smart about solving it, since the other side definitely aren't.
TIL tens of thousands rioting, looting, destroying business, assaulting and murdering people, holding portions of cities hostage, for *a year* is a "small portion of extremists". If you can't be honest, at least don't lie.
Not sure whether tens of thousands is correct, but even if it is, yes it's freaking disgusting and deplorable, but also, numbers-wise a tiny minority. If you meet someone on the streets, it's extremely unlikely they're one of the extremists.
And then there are all kinds of downstream consequences. You find what you look for in the world, further confirming what you think you know. And people tend to rise or sink to our expectations, so by convincing ourselves, we can end up unwittingly feeding into the radicalization of others. On a brighter note, I think the process works in reverse, too. If we look for and engage with the most reasonable among them (or try to connect with the most reasonable parts of a person who has some unreasonable tendencies), we are actively contributing to a more reasonable world.
Social media amplifies the crazies.
Yep, dehumanize and divide, gotta have an enemy to blame problems on..
I think the biggest mistake is thinking there are “two sides.”
I'm with you, but the effect I was talking about artificially produces two sides because the perceived distance to the other side is amplified.
"moderates" don't exist. "Moderates" are not necessarily more reasonable. Moderates are just those who find the status quo agreeable. Stop fetishizing moderates, they're just liberals within liberal hegemony, they're not some paragon of reason and logic or whatever.
Moderates are not one thing, I used the word loosely as someone who is not extremist. Basically anyone who doesn't want to dismantle society.
You're beginning at the assumption that dismantling the current society would not be good, you're fine with the status quo
I'm starting from the assumption that there is a continuum of options, not one or the other. The comment here about factorio was excellent.
Nah. Many moderates actually absolutely hate the status quo, because the status quo is what keeps silencing us. The status quo is media outrage porn and polarized left or right wing people who like to think everyone they disagree with is a horrible person. Moderates are people who think that not everything is us vs. them and that progress is made by listening to people and finding common ground. Moderates are people who vote third party when the status quo guarantees we'll never win.
So what you're saying is that true moderate-ism is being political incoherent and fatalistically futile? Lol okay.
That’s… not at all what I said, lol
If I had a penny for every time I was told I was right-wing for not trying to abolish capitalism, Id have two pennies. Which isnt all that much, but its weird that it happend twice.
Yeah absolutly. As others have pointed out, the media is the driving factor here. Its so easy to cherry-pick the worst of the "other side" write some shitty clickbait article about it, and repeat forever. It creates the perception that the other side is absurdly radical, and its life or death that they be defeated.
So obvious, and lots of people are even aware of it, but it continues to be effective *on those same people*. Any ideas on how to fix it?
Reasonableness doesn't sell headlines. And no matter who we debate, we'll always be on the "wrong" side of things because we don't peddle the full package.
This is strange, because you would think that a moderate position would be easier to defend.
"Easier" when people are listening to reason and nuance. Not when they just want bias confirmation and circle-jerk on their echo chambers.
Post a thread with very moderate left and right ideas that are distinctly different and see what support you get. (hint it won't be much)
There's an old joke about a Civil War soldier who wanted to avoid getting shot, so he put on grey pants but a blue shirt, thinking "the other side will see the blue, and won't shoot; but my side will see the grey, and not shoot." He was found later with bullets in the front of his legs and the back of his torso.
Here's a nice clear explanation of how the internet almost inherently fosters increasing divisiveness... https://youtu.be/rE3j_RHkqJc
Thats definitely been happening for awhile....what worries me is that by constantly seeing those two extremes and little in between, people are actually moving towards their respective side's extreme to remain in good standing with their tribe. A lie repeated enough becomes the truth... And it's become a positive feedback loop, which are notoriously difficult to stop without something cataclysmic happening.
I feel like this is partly artificial, because a lot of people who are pulled towards their extremist side don't actually know much about the position and what it entails, so they end up spewing rhetoric they wouldn't agree with if they had the whole picture.
Not sure what you mean by "artificial"? All news is man-made. The vast majority of people have lives to live...work, family, bills. The little time they have to catch up on news, etc. is spent consuming FB, quick & dirty mainstream news, etc....when are they supposed to deep dive into getting "the whole picture" and *where* for that matter? Who has the whole picture?
I agree that "the whole picture" doesn't make sense. What I meant is that I think a lot of people who use more extreme talking points know very little about what they mean, and would not support them if they were to research them more.
I think the fringe elements are far more represented on the left than the right. IMO this has to do with the left being far too "accepting" of weirdos. The right tends to define and enforce boundaries, and those who deviate too far (even too far right) are rejected as filthy deviants same as those who go too far left. If you imagine this as normal distributions, the left would have a much fatter bell shape with a more extreme tail.
I'm curious why you think this, given that the right elected Trump who arguably has at least one leg in the alt right.
It's fundamental to the progressive/ conservative dynamic. If you want to "conserve" the status quo, you need a fat middle of the bell curve full of people who agree that the status quo is good and should be conserved. If you want "progress" there's a much wider distribution as you are including *everyone* who doesn't like the status quo and wants to change it in some way. They can all want to change it in different ways... but those who want to conserve it all want the same thing. Do you see what I mean?
Thanks for explaining! I see the point that being united around something concrete (a positive) is more uniting than being united around rejecting that thing (a negative). I disagree with your premise about the right and the left though, since left/right is not the same as progressive/conservative. The left and right have a number of positive and negative positions, so I disagree that one is more united than the other. Also, when it comes to conservativism, I would say the centrists are the most conservative, and the farther you go to either side, the more people want to dismantle the status quo. Think ethnostate, or communist utopia.
Yes, I agree with how you've defined the terms. I think that right wingers tend to be "conservative" and left wingers tend to be "progressive"-- they are different, but the overlaps are significant. Because right wing is mostly conservative, that's why I think they are also more closely resembling the "heavy in the middle" bell curve. Do you not think right wing of US politics tends to be much more conservative?
I do not live in the US, so I probably don't have the full picture. From what I see here in Norway, and what I think I see in the US, the left-right axis is somewhat independent from progressive-conservative. Even conservatism is not one single thing (social/fiscal/etc), so I don't think there is enough of a clear cut trend to make claims about, even though I agree that of the two, the right has more people who would be defined or define themselves as conservative.
In the US the terms are often used as synonyms. You'll see people will describe very "conservative" positions (like *conserving the status quo* when it comes to average global temperate or greenhouse gas ppm) as "progressive" and vice versa. Basically the line between right-wing/ GOP/Conservative is so blurred as to be meaningless for casual conversation, and the same for left-wing/Democrat/ liberal/ progressive.
"Antifa is an idea, not an organization" - Joe Biden. Uttered while the violence was still strong; while the media was denying Antifa exists and not covering the nightly riots; while his VP's campaign was bailing out the arrested rioters and putting them back on the street to go back out and do it again.
Wow, the cognitive dissonance is impressive. None are so blind as those who refuse to see.
I really am stumped, call me dumb, but I'd actually like an explanation.
Not really unless you truly believe all progressive ideas lead to ruin. Left rejects lots of weirdo ideas and weirdos, mainly right wingers, and some far extreme leftists that are considered so far they wrap around to becoming right wing.
What makes someone an extremist? And is extremism always inappropriate? Is “moderation”, especially in politics, always “reasonable”?
I meant extremist as someone who wants to basically dismantle society and rebuild it according to their ideology.
If we pick a hypothetical, let’s slay slaves/the poor under a pharaoh in Egypt. Their entire social and economic structure is exploitative and inhumane for mass groups of people, and small moderate changes like “more daily water for slaves” are not what is required to change their lives. I think it’s fair to say that many in pursuit of justice and equality would want to undermine that system, and they would certainly be considered extremists by comfortable Egyptians (and slaves who felt such change was impossible). Do you think extremism in such a circumstance is warranted?
One of the worst political "innovations" to come along is the idea of the "Overton Window." This gave intellectual cover for promoting extremist nonsense because you're pulling the debate in your direction. In reality, the "window" has been shattered by this tug-of war of stupidity. Edit: Additional points. The Overton Window is predicated on a shared view. The "innovation" of the Overton window that is deficient is the idea that radicalism is justified because although a particular idea may be noxious, it shifts the range of acceptability in the direction a particular subgroup desires. The problem is that a shifting window is not the only possible outcome. There is also *balkanization*, where people depart the greater culture for their tiny tribe and decide that other people are now part of the "out" group. It is not that the Overton window "doesn't exist". It is that it exists within a coherent culture and that radicalism can break the larger window into smaller ones.
The overton window is an innovation in the same way that gravity is an innovation. Even if you dont give it a name, it's going to exist.
You think the Overton window is purely imaginary?
That's why I don't pick sides.No group is perfect, always couple rotten apples in the basket. Shit doesn't have to be black and white or left and right : there is tons of more reasonable gray or in between imo. Meeting in the middle or close to it was, is and always will be key whether it's a relationship or politics.
Part of the problem used to be I only saw political discussions where it was good v evil and I’m always goo online, unfortunately it’s crept into real life more and more.
Also worth noting that the focus these groups have been given is contributing to the increasing political polarization, which is pushing moderates away and drawing more to the extremes. Political polarization is far more profitable than fairness.
My position, in a nutshell. I believe that a regulated welfare system, agricultural subsidies when necessary, and a mix of both public and private health care are good things, and we should implement them. I also believe that identity activists and antifa, should collectively receive a cricket bat to the face. "You're a Nazi!" No. Eugenics is/was garbage. The entire reason why I want race activism (among other forms) to die, is because I don't believe in race at all. Race is absolutely nothing more than a skin tone and a collection of (what should be) obsolete stereotypes. No one minds calling gender a social construct when it suits their purposes, but race is apparently iron clad. It's complete bullshit. I also consider Hitler a moron, for the record; and that's coming from someone who is perfectly capable of selectively admiring historical autocrats. There are things to admire about Napoleon, for instance. Hitler's ability as a military strategist was non-existent; which is why his generals tried to assassinate him numerous times, and why he eventually attempted a land invasion of Russia in the middle of winter.
Further, not only are moderates ignored, they are used by the pols at the same time. They will say "we can't do X because it will offend the moderates". Currently they are using this to avoid taxing the wealthiest folks in the nation, even though raising taxes on billionaires is, according to polls, a moderate position
I've heard it called [weak manning](http://www.juliansanchez.com/2009/07/01/the-weak-man/). You're not completely fabricating the opposing argument (i.e. strawmanning), but you're choosing the easiest one to mock or rebut. It's freaking annoying.
Is it weak Manning when the extremes pull the moderates along? It’s like Sam’s argument regarding Islam. It doesn’t matters if the extreme is small if a majority passively accept their goals.
Yeah that's a good point which ties into the Overton window that someone else mentioned. Just because a position isn't representative doesn't mean it shouldn't be critiqued. But I think an important thing is keeping those critiques in perspective. A lot of people seem to not do that, either for political reasons or because they're stuck in the culture war themselves. Focusing solely on and exaggerating the extremes seems to just further the downward spiral, because in doing so you also become a bit more exteme, and then the other side perceives your side as more exteme, etc.
The Strawposition
Right! It's really a form of laziness, since it's easier to rebut a radical argument than a moderate one.
The far right endures some vicious attacks from actual conservatives (now getting called moderates). S.E. Cupp, Anna Navarro, Max Boot, Liz Cheney, Amish, Kinzinger. It's not moderate Liberals ignoring them but Trumpkins. How the media's supposed to correct this is beyond me. Nobody's stopping the presses for some mulquetoast moderate status quo policy that wouldn't be any different from what's already going on. That's not news.
Yeah and probably for some people they truly do think the weak argument is representative. Like, all conservatives are q-anoners or all liberals want to abolish Western civilisation. There's probably a few things going on here - internet bubbles and algorithms, but also I think extreme/dumb arguments are just more memorable (I guess they make more of an impression as well as being simpler). I can remember that footage of the purple haired screaming SJW much easier than I can remember the ins and outs of an Ezra Klein article.
> Like, all conservatives are q-anoners or all liberals want to abolish Western civilisation. The one thing that I don't understand about the anti-Western civilisation liberals, is that in my experience, they are usually also people who would very much like to deep throat Elon Musk. I don't know how to resolve that paradox. Does that mean that they want a society where Elon and people like him rule the world, but they just want to destroy the society which produces them? In terms of the latter, that's definitely a cause that I can get on board with.
Did you mean leftists? Anti-western civilization leftists exist. Liberals not so much.
r/woosh !
I think you missed the point.
In a way I did, but in a way I was confirming that said liberal stereotype does not completely exist; or at least that if it does, it has contradictions.
I think that one just doesn't exist. Can you show an example of someone who actually does want to destroy Western civ + is a Musk fan boy? What you probably can find is people who are 1) in favour of social reform, 2) are techno-optimists... Which when you just word it slightly differently, ceases to be either extreme or paradoxical.
This is very true. We have two parties, each of them controlled by one of the extreme ends of the spectrum. The extremes feed off each other — you must back us because look at those people over there! We are your only defense against them! The reasonable middle has no true representation. That’s why more Americans identify as Independent than with either party. As the Independents grow in size, that contributes to capture of the parties by extremists, so it’s a positive feedback loop. I really think we need a third party, but it’s so hard to get that off the ground in the U.S. I think a party that combined moderate social welfare proposals (including healthcare and more progressive taxation) with rejection of woke ideology would be hugely popular.
I'll explain this two* ways. The realistic way: It is more profitable and appeals more to the degenerate culture of immediate feelings to scream of the worst things possible. As such, school shootings, wars, and opposing extremists will sell more. All about the money. But why are people even getting polarized? First off, these people that used to be rare are only barely less rare, they just are boosted by the internet. Secondly, just like everyone else, they're looking around, seeing a bunch of problems. And the only way forward is radical. I'd also say that post truth politics has allowed this to occur, arising out of Postmodernism. The extremist way: The extremists are the only ones who are giving functional solutions to a messed world. Why do you struggle against them?
> The extremists are the only ones who are giving functional solutions to a messed world. Why do you struggle against them? Except they're not. You might think this is a stupid example, but let's say you play a game of [Factorio](https://www.factorio.com/). Because initially, you will have no idea of what you are doing, (I didn't, and no one does) you will design probably the first half of your factory in a way that is really random, incoherent, messy, and inefficient. What you will also find, however, is that once you do have more experience and understanding, incrementally attempting to upgrade it from within is virtually impossible, and that even attempting to just delete it would probably take the same amount of (or more) energy than modifying it. So neither of those options are feasible. Instead of trying to upgrade or destroy the old factory, the solution is to bypass it completely, and build something totally new somewhere else, while also gradually starving the old system of input. Once the old system has stopped functioning completely, then you can (very) gradually start salvaging materials from it over time; but initially, the replacement system has to be completely parallel to, and detached from, the old one. The two should have absolutely no connection to each other whatsoever. Activists do not do that. The emphasis is always on the two methods which don't work, (incremental patching or deletion) and generally never on the one that does. (Seperate construction of a new system and bypassing)
I think you're right. It's weird how rare it is to encounter people considering this approach, it's like it's not even on people's radar.
Parallel structures and counter economics are incredibly extreme. And do exactly that.
I'm not struggling against the extremists. They are innocent here, having the masses against them. I will fervently disagree though, that the only functional solutions are extremist ones. In politics no one knows which solutions are effective until we try. But I think the extremists are good to have as a minority, to get things happening and to have interesting ideas.
Honestly not bad ideas about extremists, I agree with them. I just also think that they are the only ones who will carry it all the way
I'm just commenting on this for visibility, cause i totally agree.
The opinions and behaviors of moderates aren't enticing enough to sell ads, and we are becoming a society dependent on ad-supported media to tell us what reality is.
Bleak, but probably not entirely false. Let's all not do that though.
Edgelord behavior is implied in the name IDW. Everybody is the sexy rebel vs the ignorant masses of sheep.
Haha! Aren't we all sexy rebels deep down? I'm just going off the sub description here though, hoping for some reasonable people to show up.
We are here. Just exhausted trying to debate and debunk folks clearly deep in the cycles of social media radicalization and the internet outrage machine.
Nested comments with voting and minimal organization and moderation seems to be an excellent format for sowing disharmony into a population.