The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent
vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums
here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules
document is now in effect.
Fanaticism and political movements
Posts
i left high school a jrotc officer, young republican, state champ debater in a pre-law program sympathetic to objectivism of all things.
it didn't take too long in west texas to teach me the error of my ways.
and it polarized me pretty deeply. it wasn't until many years later that i was able to let go of the sense of alienation and resentment i accumulated out there and realize that a lot of those people - while undoubtedly wrong in their political or social beliefs in many ways - were also decent, respectful, generous, considerate people in a lot of other important ways.
I'm getting a whif of "the people being intolerant of the bigots are the real bigots!" argument that we've had in a few other threads lately
I wish I could say I didn't understand this feeling, but I get it completely. Though not so much politically but in terms of pop culture and entertainment I've found that the overwhelmingly negative/toxic fans of some band/TV show/consumer device color my opinion of that thing to an alarming degree.
Kind of like Will and the animes I suppose.
Although my own college experience exposed and turned me off to the fanatics on both sides, as the college Republicans was universally smug assholes trying to play the underdog, while the left wing groups thought nothing was wrong with, say stealing thousands of copies of a student newspaper and burning them in the middle of the street. I really came out of that environment with a "both sides are bad" mindset and it's taken nearly 15 years to get over it any make up my own damn mind.
Were they Democrats, or reject-corporatist-republicrats-types?
part of this might be a generational thing
when i came up in the 80s, gay was unacceptable pretty much everywhere. it was considered something similar to what pedophelia is now - the best excuse offered was "well we shouldn't judge too harshly - they can't help how they are". the "gay rights" movement that you read about in textbooks were confined exclusively to tiny pockets of activists and advocates in a few urban cores. as a kid growing up they were nowhere to be seen.
"tolerance" was considered probably the most important liberal social value - you might disagree with the way someone lived their lives or the political beliefs they might hold or the social model or religion they were raised in, but it is your duty as a liberal to tolerate them no matter how deranged or disagreeable. that we all benefit from an open dialog even when someone's opinions were offensive bunk.
i've carried that sense with me into adulthood, though i suspect that "tolerance" as a broad principle is one that isn't particularly deeply held by the millenial cohort.
It was the era of political correctness... it was stuff like believing a melting-pot society oppressed immigrants, advocating racial separatism (I even got excluded from an anti-racism rally once because I was white), vilification of religion as unacceptable, from both directions... I mean, it was bad to be religious, and also it was good to attack religion. Some of the things... I was thoroughly silenced by a (creative writing) class, and the professor, because I found a story (written by a student and read aloud to the group) about a gay guy who graphically fisted his secretly gay catholic priest lover until he died from internal bleeding, offensive and disgusting.
I left Louisiana thinking that what I wanted more than anything was to leave the south and get away from the culture of racism and ignorance and evangelical hate, and arrived in Massachusetts to discover that trying to be being race-blind was oppressive and racist, that because I was from the south I needed to prove I didn't hate gays, and that if I didn't shit on all religion I was a mindless sheep.
Nowadays I kind of get where that mindset came from, but... it was definitely formative.
Tolerance assumes you're above those you tolerate.
I can't describe voting to repeal the ACA 55 times anything less than fanatical, or not taking the medicare expansion out of political spite, or having your state take the expansion, having your own state exchange prove to be a huge success, and having the uninsured rate drop by 40% (Kentucky) and yet, still decrying the ACA at every opportunity, on all fronts, regardless of the fact that your home state has had direct benefit. That seems fanatical.
Eating your own party alive from the inside out with the Tea Party, attempting to primary fellow republicans that dare show any signs of willingness to compromise, or "just because" they aren't uncompromising enough.
Signing on to a pledge to never ever ever raise any taxes ever, for any reason as if taxes are some kind of inherent evil that are never beneficial to the state or the citizens in any way. That to me, seems really fanatical.
Collectively going out of your way to make it as hard as possible for people to vote, to the point of closing public restrooms so people that were already going to have to wait in line hours to vote because of your previous efforts now have no choice but to leave if they can't tough it out, also... seems kind of fanatical.
Blocking gun control reform on universal background checks that an overwhelming majority of the polled public agree with, no matter their political affiliation because it would make the NRA sad, also seems fanatical.
These are just some of the things that come to mind when I think of fanatics and politics lately.
South Park had a good episode about that.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Tolerance as a non-legal cultural value seems to be most treasured by the losing side of a culture argument. If gay marriage is unpopular, we must tolerate those with views other than our own because our view is unpopular but you should tolerate it. Gay marriage is now supported by the majority of the population? Suddenly the other side is singing the same tune, you must tolerate our religious belief!
I ran into an example of left wing fanatics in college once to.
I was literally thrown out of a political science class because I dared mention that reparations being paid to Japanese Americans that were sent to internment camps during World War II should probably take priority over reparations being paid to the descendants of slaves because some of the people that were actually sent to those interment camps were still alive.
I had the whole class booing me and telling me to get out because I was on the "wrong side".
Being somewhat politically active and turning 18 a month before the Bush / Gore election...9/11 happening my first month of college, then spending my early adulthood living through the train wreck of the Bush years, definitely is a formative experience. After a few years in Iraq / Afghanistan, it felt generous to treat the people on the right cheering the war - the war hurting and killing your friends - as anything but morons. I mean...if they weren't stupid, it felt like malice was the only option that remained.
At that point, even most Republicans had backed off open support (the huge bump in 'independents') and it felt like the only people who were openly supporting the right that I encountered were pretty much as bad as any 'lolpublican' strawman that we've seen on these boards. There pretty much was a self-affirming cycle that had a pretty heavy influence on my political opinions.
Getting older, I've lightened up a lot for a few reasons. The first is the realization that pretty much everyone thinks they are right, and everyone is wrong sometimes. Even if I may be right, that doesn't mean that someone I don't agree with completely is wrong, or even if they are that it's malicious. There are times that are hard, like when I've encountered the father of my sister's boyfriend...a dyed in the wool, Rush and Glenn Beck listening 'get the government out of my medicare' strawman.
The biggest reason though that I've lightened up is talking to people like Spool. Conservatism doesn't necessarily come bundled with racism / homophobia. Not every Republican thinks I'm a heathen because I don't go to church. And plenty of Democrats go to church every Sunday too. As obvious as it seems, talking to intelligent decent people who are quite different politically has made me realize that positions other than my own may have merit. There are even a few spots I've found myself arguing to the center / right against the lefist lefties on this board, and it really helped open my eyes to some other viewpoints.
I definitely think there are a lot of fanatics out there...and I do think that the GOP / Republicans / Conservatism is more than a few steps too far that way...but not all Republicans are fanatics, and plenty of Democrats are. I feel like being able to ask yourself if you're wrong, and being able to at least say 'what if I am' is a big first step to avoiding becoming a fanatic.
i think that's my point. the calls for "tolerance" or "coexistence" seem to only last for as long as you're a minority.
nonetheless, of my time as a young conservative, the thing i'm most ashamed of is the degree of intolerance and lack of empathy/ compassion i exhibited towards those on the "wrong side".
It can cut both ways though.
I'm pretty ashamed of how belittling and insulting I was to the religious views of some of my family members, and some of the not-unreasonable conservative views that they held.
There were things that I said to some of my (Catholic) aunts - good people who never once tried to preach to me or 'bring me around to their views' that I really wish I could take back.
I think being ashamed of how big a prick you were as a teenager / early adult is just part of growing up for many / most people. Being aware of it and trying to correct it / do better is a very good thing.
Tolerance is always a really murky cultural concept
As a legal concept, its pretty clear--the government can't arrest you for saying gay people are awesome or icky
but tolerance as applied to individual opinions and actions instead of legal enforcement is not very clear
like if Bob refuses to shop at Bill's store because the Bill is gay, and I refuse to shop at Bob's store because Bob is a homophobe, and Bob refuses to shop at my store because I'm being mean to Bob, and Bill refuses to shop at Bob's store because Bill is gay,
who's being intolerant?
PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
yeah i don't know. it's hard to fully dissect these according to some equation. obviously a liberal would look at the scenario you put down and say "clearly if bob wasn't a homophobe then there would be no problem" and a conservative might say (i don't know i'm spitballing here) "the only problem is that bill wants to make his sex life everyone's business and these liberals refuse to tolerate my right to exercise my conscience."
i guess the ideal is that bill, bob and you figure out some system in which you can all coexist and respect each other as human beings of conscience while tolerating each other's obviously wrong lifestyles and bad opinions.
we've been using homophobia as our test case in all of this because it's the victorious liberal cause du jour imbued with a fresh sense of outraged zero-tolerance, but there are thousands of other political/ social/ religious beliefs and ways of being that could use to illustrate the same principle.
I won't stand for it
Spoiler is what my nation currently looks like, in case anyone cares:
The large government concentrates mainly on Social Welfare, although Education and Healthcare are secondary priorities. The average income tax rate is 24%. A small but healthy private sector is led by the Furniture Restoration industry, followed by Gambling and Beef-Based Agriculture.
Crime is relatively low. Hahnsopolis's national animal is the Utahraptor, and its currency is the Raptor Buck.
And also for insidiously making your arguments appear to have more merit by tricking observers into conflating your positive and helpful attitude with the more ambiguously beneficial results of your positions.
maybe
tho i think it bears consideration that, almost definitionally, the progressive movement will always champion the interests of popular minorities and assorted religious/ political/ social/ economic/ ideological despised & disempowered classes.
it's definitely in our long-term interests to cultivate tolerance as a broad social value rather than decide to chuck it to the curb after breaking ahead of 50% on a particular campaign.
in addition to being the civil, decent thing to do.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Then we're presumably failing miserably at it, since the lessons from the previous equality campaign never seem to stick, i.e. "This is totally different".
Yeah imagine that, progressives seek to support people who don't have political power and are at a disadvantage.
Freedom of speech is not primarily for popular speech but un popular speech, if someone is in the majority, they probably do not need defending, especially not from the government. Like how there are not any laws about banning christianity from being practiced, but several states have resurrected sodomy legislation including lousiana recently.
pleasepaypreacher.net
Right, which just makes it more complicated
like you probably don't want to hang out with Anime Bob, who loves anime and watches it all day and writes Naruto fanfiction
even if Anime Bob is clean and healthy and intelligent, Anime Bob has interests which are not at all compelling to you
so you don't hang out with Anime Bob
is that intolerance?
Social / cultural tolerance is a poorly defined concept. Is tolerance ignoring something? Letting it exist without complaint? Letting it exist with complaint? Can you tolerate intolerance? Should you?
Ultimately, I think its a cost / benefit decision, where you need to decide if tolerating something is worthwhile. Maybe Bob's homophobia is so strong I don't want anything to do with Bob, and the price I'm willing to pay is that I miss out on any potentially great and wonderful things Bob does. That decision point will vary based on context.
Since ultimately social / cultural tolerance is a concept that can be expanded to almost anything, I don't think you can universally praise it, as you start to run into really weird scenarios like "You must tolerate the guy on the street screaming at you because tolerance!" Tolerance as a legal standard is great, but as a social standard its really just a fancy way of saying "You should put up with X."
and it's all well and good to talk tough with your progressive social clique or your like-minded internet community, but the point is that you - and probably all of us in one way or another - are begging indulgence and tolerance from a broader social cohort that would just as soon bury you and ostracise you as it would to allow you to continue existing.
or if not you, living outside san francisco or me, living in cambridge mass, then someone living on the fringes in boise idaho or jackson mississippi.
I mean your friends don't have to be the united nations of awkward people because you don't want to appear intolerant.
pleasepaypreacher.net
and should not tolerate views that are malignant
in the non-legally-binding sense of the word tolerate
that does not necessarily include "hang out with"
because Anime Bob has a figurine collection and a bunch of posters of 12 year old girls in short skirts and its just too creepy I can't deal
And those ladies are all legal they just look young for their age!
pleasepaypreacher.net
But maybe you do!
Maybe your family is nice and sweet and caring and loving but they just say terrible things about Jews and no matter how polite you are in asking them to change its a huge argument
So do you call a truce and enjoy Thanksgiving Dinner with a flawed but functional family
or boycott the dinner because you can't tolerate anti-Semitism?
My point being that tolerance as a non-legal concept is basically worthless
because it is basically "Should you put up with X?" and the answer to that is "Uhh, maybe? Depends."
pleasepaypreacher.net
Should you tolerate incontinence?
Eh... Depends.
#avface
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
In general, I try to follow a couple of guidelines for when I disagree with people (especially those who aren't on forums to respond to me):
- Don't put words in other peoples' mouths ("What they really wanted to say was...")
- Don't ascribe actions to people that they haven't taken ("I bet they go home and...")
- Don't assign motivation where it's not readily apparent (I'll admit this can be a grey area)
- Don't confuse ideological belief with mental capacity (i.e. "If people disagree with this thing that seems obvious to me, then they're idiots")
- Try not to assign stereotypes to individuals, or make sweeping generalizations for groups that are comprised of diverse subgroups.
- Try not to flippantly dismiss opinions because they're expressed by a person belonging to a group with which you generally disagree.
- Try not to use belittling nicknames for people or groups with whom you generally disagree.
(That doesn't mean I'm always successful in following these guidelines myselfI think it's important to stand up against actions and beliefs which you find morally reprehensible, but I think it's equally important that the punishment fits the crime as it were. It's sometimes necessary to get your hands dirty in these fights, but for me indulging others to revel in the excess of their (perceived) moral righteousness is what tends to lead to fanaticism and unwillingness to listen to criticism.
Being an educated liberal working in a progressive environment but raised in a deeply conservative, rural, religious small town, one thing that always strikes me is how very hard the middle and upper classes work to avoid even the appearance of rancor. In a small town, intolerance is everywhere. If someone thinks you are liberal, tons of people will get a serious kick out of saying racist shit to your face. Conservative environments are not freethinking, live-and-let-live paradises. You can easily get your ass kicked for believing the wrong thing and saying it aloud.
One big positive I see in the younger generation of liberals is that they have been angered enough by both the Republicans and Democrats that they are willing to get in people's faces and say what they think. When it comes to politics, I think a measured degree of confrontation and line drawing is healthier than passive aggressive go-alongism.
i don't think it's useless as a non-legal concept. it's just not a simple rule-based concept.
like we could advocate for other principles - kindness or compassion or justice or courtesy or equality - and spring up scenarios in which competing interests outweigh those concerns. should you be compassionate to hitler? should you regard a fool or a child as an equal?
there is social value in tolerating the articulation of bad ideas (and rejecting them! sure! that's part of the value!)
now, right - there's the question of what exactly "tolerance" includes - do i need to be courteous to people i despise? should i make conversation with my religious colleague in such a way as to not talk about things that would divide us? should i show up to a dinner invitation from my racist uncle? should i publicly make fun of the anime nerd or the furry? should i call out the scientologist for his wacky beliefs at every opportunity? how about the mormon?
these are all different articulations of the principle, and you mention several others. i think the fact that there's not a bright line makes it a more important principle to consider and discuss, and not a useless one, though.
i'm not advocating against confrontation or disagreement.
i am advocating against silencing or shouting down or making people with unpopular views or social statuses to feel unsafe. one of the bigger points of tolerating disagreeable or unpopular opinions or lifestyles is to have the conversation.
this is to say, i think, that what is wrong with those working-class conservative environs you mention is not that they are conservative, but that they are intolerant. and i guess to take it a step further, we (progressives) shouldn't look to emulate a mirror-image of that.