The News Thread

[Dak]

http://quillette.com/2017/09/28/trump-voters-irrational/

I am afraid that my Democratic friends are just going to have to reconcile themselves to the conclusion that the cognitive science of rationality does not support their judgment of the Trump voters. You can say whatever you want about the rationality or irrationality of Trump himself, but cognitive science does not support the claim that his voters were irrational—or, more specifically, that they were any less rational than the Clinton voters. Politics is not the place to look for objective rightness or wrongness—and that is what judgments about the rationality of voting entail. Our judgments in this domain are uniquely susceptible to myside bias.

 

[CiG]

It's not a diversion, it's a reminder. I'm sorry if you find it annoying, but I'm not trying to foreclose discussion of Islamic radicalism. I'm trying to dissuade the fear-mongering that has already infected so many Americans who recoil when they see a woman wearing a burqa. It's important to balance our critique, and reminders are an effective way to do that.

That's so bourgeois. Lucky for the plebs to have people such as yourself to moderate their opposition to a culture they don't like by reminding them of the crusades.

I'm talking about legal and social prohibition. I'm not saying you can't criticize Islam; but I do believe it's the role of discourse at large to balance your criticism with skepticism. This isn't relativism, but an attempt to situate the discussion within a larger context, which I believe is absolutely necessary for having a legitimate discussion.

It's the role of progressives to always distract away from any discussion which might involve wide criticism of a coloured group. No great thinker on the topic of Islam critique does what you do as far as I'm aware, thousands of progressives do though.

If anytime someone attempts to discuss Islam, Christianity is brought up to balance criticism with skepticism (strange use of skepticism there imo) it actually retards the discussion because then you have to waste time going over the same old Christian nonsense. If you want to do that, why not do it to Christian critics of Islam?

It's idiotic to force atheists and secularists into endless side-arguments about Christianity when the religion itself has basically been mocked, ridiculed, debated and shamed into total defeat.

I don't buy that it's some altruistic attempt to balance the debate. It's a virtue-signal to those people who defend Islam as a body of non-whites and attack Christianity as synonymous with white people.

 

[Einherjar86]

That's so bourgeois. Lucky for the plebs to have people such as yourself to moderate their opposition to a culture they don't like by reminding them of the crusades.

So bourgeois? I'd think you'd be the last person to make me feel bad about my class identity. Yes, I have a pretty good education gifted to me by the relative wealth of my family. I don't feel bad about that.

It's the role of progressives to always distract away from any discussion which might involve wide criticism of a coloured group. No great thinker on the topic of Islam critique does what you do as far as I'm aware, thousands of progressives do though.

Just fyi, "great thinker" isn't some absolute category. You probably see some thinkers as "great" whom I don't view as such.

It shouldn't be a distraction. You should be able to divide your attention. How's that for bourgeois?

If anytime someone attempts to discuss Islam, Christianity is brought up to balance criticism with skepticism (strange use of skepticism there imo) it actually retards the discussion because then you have to waste time going over the same old Christian nonsense. If you want to do that, why not do it to Christian critics of Islam?

It's idiotic to force atheists and secularists into endless side-arguments about Christianity when the religion itself has basically been mocked, ridiculed, debated and shamed into total defeat.

I don't buy that it's some altruistic attempt to balance the debate. It's a virtue-signal to those people who defend Islam as a body of non-whites and attack Christianity as synonymous with white people.

If you don't buy it, then...

 

[CiG]

So bourgeois? I'd think you'd be the last person to make me feel bad about my class identity. Yes, I have a pretty good education gifted to me by the relative wealth of my family. I don't feel bad about that.

No, I mean to just look down as much as you do on the average everyday person who opposes Islamic culture and doesn't need to be reminded that they should also oppose any comparatively regressive Christian culture before they can do that.

Do you think they're that ill-equipped intellectually?

It shouldn't be a distraction.

It is one though.

Just fyi, "great thinker" isn't some absolute category. You probably see some thinkers as "great" whom I don't view as such.

Fair enough.

 

[CiG]

If you don't buy it, then...

Another problem I see here is that ex-Christians can and often do go on to criticize Christianity, as do ex-Jews (in the religious sense) but the most at-risk people in relation to Islam are ex-Muslims. I don't see how incessantly, faux-altruistically bringing up Christianity in discussions about Islam helps those people who are probably the most important factor in the secularization and reformation of Islam.

If non-Muslims cannot openly discuss Islam, there's really no hope for those who are bound by the culture and their family to keep silent about their dissent and all we're doing is fostering a culture in the west of self-censorship and attributions of bigotry to anybody who criticizes it.

 

[Einherjar86]

No, I mean to just look down as much as you do on the average everyday person who opposes Islamic culture and doesn't need to be reminded that they should also oppose any comparatively regressive Christian culture before they can do that.

Do you think they're that ill-equipped intellectually?

The average everyday person isn't you. I don't mean to sound patronizing, but you don't need to be reminded.

The average American does. The average American is that ill-equipped, intellectually. The average American doesn't care about ex-Muslims; and general anti-Islamic sentiment also doesn't help persecuted Muslims who want to maintain their beliefs and realize their own agency. This is the problem.

 

[TechnicalBarbarity]

The average American does. The average American is that ill-equipped, intellectually.

Again, this is just so YOU. Disgusting tbh. This is what i mean when i say he is a brainwashed child of frankfurt @CASSETTEISGOD

 

[CiG]

White saviour complex.

 

[Einherjar86]

White saviour complex.

White savior? Most of the people I'm talking about are white.

 

[TechnicalBarbarity]

I cant beleive someone so brainwashed can constantly toot his own horn about being "SO EDUCATEDZ" Hilarious tbh.

 

[CiG]

White savior? Most of the people I'm talking about are white.

Indeed and you're talking down to them on behalf of Islam, a culture so timid and weak it needs you to be a white saviour for it.

We'll probably never agree on this subject man.

 

[Einherjar86]

Oh, so I can't defend them at all? Any effort on my part is automatically a "complex" because I'm white?

That's pretty racist dude.

EDIT: you're right, we probably won't. But we can keep going in circles forever.

 

[CiG]

But we can keep going in circles forever.

I'm not into you like that.

That's pretty racist dude.

I'll be honest, white progressives make it an effort at times for me to quell my racism against white people in general. When I was much younger I held very toxic anti-white views which actually left me very vulnerable to the SJW progressive-stack worldview.

Oh, so I can't defend them at all? Any effort on my part is automatically a "complex" because I'm white?

I'm just teasing you, Mr. Martyr.

it actually makes logical sense and i've been waiting for this to show up for quite some time.

africans who immigrate here are usually wealthy and educated and are on another privilege level than indigenous blacks here. it's interesting seeing a plethora of black film stars coming from england and i've been hilariously waiting until they all start getting shit on because they aren't american blacks, the truest of the ill privileged

I don't know what it's like in America, but the anti-immigrant sentiment among my indigenous Australian family is pretty heated. Especially with welfare benefits and waiting lists for government housing, oftentimes immigrant families jump ahead of citizens in the queue and the amount of cursing out that goes on towards Asian, African and Indian families who get housing first...

Legitimately, my family hate them, especially since upwards of 90% of my family live in government housing, are unemployed etc.

 

[Einherjar86]

I'm not into you like that.

I'll be honest, white progressives make it an effort at times for me to quell my racism against white people in general. When I was much younger I held very toxic anti-white views which actually left me very vulnerable to the SJW progressive-stack worldview.

Well, I genuinely believe that there's a significant intellectual difference between me and most uneducated individuals (most, not all). I can't help it if I've actually studied certain topics and others haven't, and I can't help it if some of that research has to do with race studies. I cannot claim to know minority experience firsthand, nor would I claim that my theoretical understanding captures the totality of that experience; but I do think I have some knowledge about it, and that I'm authorized to talk about it (somewhat, at least).

I don't think this is strictly an example of racial disparity, but class disparity.

Additionally, I believe that one reason why Trump won the election is that some people don't want to believe there's an intellectual difference between them and "academic elites." People want to believe that their individual experience is as authoritative as years of scholarship. I simply don't think that's true.

I'm just teasing you, Mr. Martyr.

 

[Dak]

Years of reading about guns won't make you a better shot than someone who has spent years working marksmanship. Reading about how indoor plumbing works doesn't mean you know what it's like to crawl around under a house. Etc.

It may be that the problem is "academic elites" get lumped together, when they should not. There's a big difference in being an "intellectual" in gender studies and being an intellectual in organic chemistry. It may also be the problem that people think a postsecondary education and a NYT subscription places them among the academic elite.

The degree to which education is a good thing depends on the degree to which the information learned is both valid and reliable. Tradesmen may have less total education than "academic elites", but they can be sure what they have learned is valid and reliable, because they apply it directly on a daily basis, with immediate and personal consequences. Academic elites rarely apply (and I don't count "talking about it") their knowledge (fortunately), and when they do consequences are rarely immediate or personal, which allows them to carry on blissfully ignorant of the poor quality of their knowledge.

 

[Einherjar86]

Years of reading about guns won't make you a better shot than someone who has spent years working marksmanship. Reading about how indoor plumbing works doesn't mean you know what it's like to crawl around under a house. Etc.

It may be that the problem is "academic elites" get lumped together, when they should not. There's a big difference in being an "intellectual" in gender studies and being an intellectual in organic chemistry. It may also be the problem that people think a postsecondary education and a NYT subscription places them among the academic elite.

The degree to which education is a good thing depends on the degree to which the information learned is both valid and reliable. Tradesmen may have less total education than "academic elites", but they can be sure what they have learned is valid and reliable, because they apply it directly on a daily basis, with immediate and personal consequences. Academic elites rarely apply (and I don't count "talking about it") their knowledge (fortunately), and when they do consequences are rarely immediate or personal, which allows them to carry on blissfully ignorant of the poor quality of their knowledge.

I agree with a lot of this.

I'll only say that immediate consequences aren't complete or necessarily accurate measurements of the "quality" of a particular form of knowledge. Again, this is my problem with the folk political and the myth of immediate experience. I'm not saying that immediate experience isn't important, but it's not the standard meter functionality.

Accounting for immediate experiences of disenfranchisement (which affects minority communities as well as white communities) needs to be an ethical imperative, not a functional one.

 

[CiG]

Well, I genuinely believe that there's a significant intellectual difference between me and most uneducated individuals (most, not all). I can't help it if I've actually studied certain topics and others haven't, and I can't help it if some of that research has to do with race studies. I cannot claim to know minority experience firsthand, nor would I claim that my theoretical understanding captures the totality of that experience; but I do think I have some knowledge about it, and that I'm authorized to talk about it (somewhat, at least).

I don't think this is strictly an example of racial disparity, but class disparity.

Additionally, I believe that one reason why Trump won the election is that some people don't want to believe there's an intellectual difference between them and "academic elites." People want to believe that their individual experience is as authoritative as years of scholarship. I simply don't think that's true.

Or they're willing to accept the intellectual difference but are none-the-less tired of the elitism itself. America, from an outsider's perspective, seems to have a problem with middle America, the working class and the fly-over states being pissed on by everybody else for no apparent reason.

 

[Dak]

I agree with a lot of this.

I'll only say that immediate consequences aren't complete or necessarily accurate measurements of the "quality" of a particular form of knowledge. Again, this is my problem with the folk political and the myth of immediate experience. I'm not saying that immediate experience isn't important, but it's not the standard meter functionality.

Well there are limits to the ability to generalize from personal and/or immediate experience. But the reverse is true as well: it is difficult to be accurately specific from generalities. I would argue that when a trucker in Kentucky and some NYT subscriber in Oregon disagree with each other about any number of issues, they are both merely working from personal experience (and/or personal inclinations). The difference is that the Oregonite is paying someone in another city to tell them they are right, while the trucker listens to AM radio for free.

Accounting for immediate experiences of disenfranchisement (which affects minority communities as well as white communities) needs to be an ethical imperative, not a functional one.

Freedom of association means not presuming to tell people where they must enfranchise.

 

[Einherjar86]

Or they're willing to accept the intellectual difference but are none-the-less tired of the elitism itself. America, from an outsider's perspective, seems to have a problem with middle America, the working class and the fly-over states being pissed on by everybody else for no apparent reason.

Ha, well, there definitely are reasons (personal and social, for me at least). That doesn't mean their experiences don't matter, but I've had to deal with some shockingly misogynist, racist, and generally dismissive language among my extended family (much of which I recall happening before I was old enough to properly address it)

And please bear in mind that my family is not poor, generally speaking. They're the products of Middle-American, post-WWII exceptionalist sentiment. And some of them were just pissed that a black guy won the 2008 election.

Now that's personal and anecdotal, so I'm not making the snap judgment that all Middle Americans are like that; my impression of that demographic stems from conversations, experiences, and research beyond that. And I don't think it's very controversial to suggest that the intolerance of middle-class America isn't purely some recent symptom of feeling disowned by the coastal elites. It's a product of deep-seated values that go back to the years after World War II.

This country has made impressive strides when it comes to black rights, gay rights, women's rights, etc.; but those successes have also left a lot of pissed off people, and that resentment has been handed down the generations.

Well there are limits to the ability to generalize from personal and/or immediate experience. But the reverse is true as well: it is difficult to be accurately specific from generalities. I would argue that when a trucker in Kentucky and some NYT subscriber in Oregon disagree with each other about any number of issues, they are both merely working from personal experience (and/or personal inclinations). The difference is that the Oregonite is paying someone in another city to tell them they are right, while the trucker listens to AM radio for free.

Sure, it goes both ways. And in my case, theoretical knowledge and study counts as experience, which is difficult and something I grapple with.

Freedom of association means not presuming to tell people where they must enfranchise.

I don't think my assumptions about enfranchisement are that controversial, and I do think that many people behave in ways that are antithetical to their best interests (and I'm absolutely sure that you'd agree).

I think there is merit to instituting policies that assist poor families, even if they don't want to be given handouts. Maybe they don't want handouts, but they're also simply not motivated to acquire what they need to support themselves or their families. In a case like that, I have to think that instituting policies to help them supersedes their personal feelings/freedoms on the matter.

 

[Dak]

I don't think my assumptions about enfranchisement are that controversial, and I do think that many people behave in ways that are antithetical to their best interests (and I'm absolutely sure that you'd agree).

We all have different conceptualizations of what "best interests" are though, as the rest of your post shows.

I think there is merit to instituting policies that assist poor families, even if they don't want to be given handouts. Maybe they don't want handouts, but they're also simply not motivated to acquire what they need to support themselves or their families.

Hunger is a powerful motivator.

In a case like that, I have to think that instituting policies to help them supersedes their personal feelings/freedoms on the matter.

"Instituting polices" is a nice washing of "forcibly extracting funds from one person for the benefit of another". Assuming you will not ever be amongst those who would benefit from such policies, one might suggest being in favor of such a policy is behaving in a way that is antithetical to your best interests.