Re: sasinsea on Apr 6 @~3PM pct
It's both "hilarious" and very sad, especially in terms of the selective method of reading employed to evidently prop up some uninformed narrative rather than comprehensively allowing themselves to be informed by what is actually/factually being said. I thought Matt, as usual, did an excellent job of expla…
It's both "hilarious" and very sad, especially in terms of the selective method of reading employed to evidently prop up some uninformed narrative rather than comprehensively allowing themselves to be informed by what is actually/factually being said. I thought Matt, as usual, did an excellent job of explaining the focus of his new upcoming series; and summed up his REASONING for doing it beautifully in his closing paragraph.
"Ten years from now, people will likely not have trouble realizing that putting five or six companies in charge of regulating all content was probably not a good idea, for all but a small handful of empowered actors. At the moment, the partisan angle is clouding the issue, as ordinary people are being conned into viewing speech as a giant turf war in which they have a rooting interest. News flash: you probably don’t."
How can this level of intellectual clarity and honesty be so blindly misconstrued and deconstructed????{:-(
It's good to see, and comprehensively read, you again.
Obliged EA---One of the reasons I actually comment here (and rarely elsewhere) is people are generally thoughtful and I've had my mind changed once or twice and had some bogus info I thought was right patiently deconstructed.
Firmly believe the Brandeis line about that the answer to "bad" speech is "more speech, not enforced silence." No idea why anyone would root for other people being silenced just because they've been convinced someone else's politics are "dangerous." Have noticed the trend with a few of my more "I identify as a Democrat!" type friends and it sucks. They're still receptive to the counterargument but who knows for how long?
Self-righteousness - the idea that you are right and because you are right you are good/pure and because you are good/pure you are safe (which is what the ego wants more than anything else) - this is one the most seductive (and unfortunately reductive) mental modalities in the world. It is the modality that has driven all religious wars and oppressions and all of the politically driven slaughters. Rightness. What is going on right now is pretty similar (excepting we haven't seen a huge amount of state sponsored killings just yet).
I can't believe I am saying this having fled from fundamentalist Christianity in my young adulthood, but I am actually finding Christianity and Christians to be more tolerant than the regressive left - because they have the concept of redemption and forgiveness present in their doctrine. This and the fact that they don't single out a particular group for having sinned and fallen short. It's everyone.
Of course there are more extreme sects and beliefs - evangelicals will always be with us ;-). But your garden variety Christian, in our modern era, is typically pretty tolerant.
I wonder how many on the left *are* actually these "no mistakes ever" types, the snitchy assholes that no one can stand and who orient everything through their narrow view of the world. My hope is that they're what you alluded to---equivalently evangelical Christians, but for their politics. The loudest, shittiest people tend to get all the pub and I genuinely haven't come across this sort of person in the real world. Because, as you said, while religion is obviously a magnet for whackjobs and zealots, I find the vast majority of Christians to be decent, regular people. Most of my friends are pretty far left and don't behave in the gross ways you're reacting against. Hoping that's the case for most people. Hard to tell, especially having been pretty isolated for the year this kind of thing has really started to metastasize.
Wish I could be a fly on the wall some days. These are truly interesting questions. And it's probably true that many who lean left aren't radicals. But both social media and the MSM showcase the loudest, angriest voices—because it makes them rich, richer, richest. Note Matt's recent article regarding how media profits are down and how they are seeking a new "Trump" that they can sell. It's an ugly business.
Beyond that, I think the web and social media in particular is giant amplifier for our psyches. People can express without filters (id) more easily due to both anonymity and lack of physical proximity to their audience. It used to take quite a bit of effort to be seen and heard on a broader scale. Now, you just turn on your computer and you can express to potential millions with a few clicks. Think of what that does to the human ego.
Remember the movie "Mean Girls?" The whole point was that popularity gives people license to be a**hats. IOW, it goes to their heads. And they very often leverage this power to engage in self-aggrandizement, peer pressure tactics and bullying. I think this tendency combined with an earnest desire to shortcut to a perfect world makes people (impatient, young people in particular) more susceptible to these shallow ideologies that promise utopia if everyone will just get on board.
So the effort to sell the ideas ramps up. And selling often involves pressure - coercion, gaslighting, bullying, misrepresentation, inciting fear, seed of doubt tactics, etc. Add to this a desire on the part of oppressed groups for some revenge (or at least schadenfreude) against the culture that caused them harm. Add to this the constant barrage of advertising messaging the feeds our narcissistic egos and promises us that if we spend enough money we will have perfect lives where we don't have to work hard to get everything we want. Add to this a huge population of highly educated but unemployed young people with lots of leisure time.
Honestly, modern culture is kind of a mess. All of the old mores, values, and belief structures that used to provide some kind of framework or grounding are fragmenting and losing moral authority - justifiably so in many cases because they engaged in discriminatory behavior. It's sort of a perfect storm. Impatient young people in pursuit of utopia are throwing the baby out with the bath water. What's mystifying is that the adults in the room are abetting this behavior. That's what I don't get. That's why it is so powerful and spreading so fast. Is it white guilt? Maybe.
I think there is a deep well of white guilt in this country. My own experiences growing up in white culture in this country have illuminated the fact that white culture exhibits a tendency to avoid dealing with things head on. It sweeps things under the rug. It places a huge priority on "propriety"—what is allowed and not allowed to be addressed or expressed publicly, even privately. I was abused as a child and no one in my family will discuss it—which isolates me and makes me pariah when I do try to discuss it. And if you don't bring things into the light, they can't be healed. So, it stagnates in our subconscious and never gets addressed or healed or dealt with. And it becomes guilt. Because we know what is right and wrong. We just know. And all of our fancy rationalizations and outright lies (denials) don't change this truth.
I don't believe that every white person is racist or personally culpable for racism. However, there was a concerted effort by certain segments of white culture in the 20th century to destroy communities that were creating black wealth and to prevent black families from building generational wealth through various institutional obstacles placed in their way. They were denied the ability to join the quest for the American Dream. Imagine if you had watched your family struggle across generations - working hard, keeping their noses clean, following all of the rules - only to be pushed down and denied advancement (that they had rightly earned) or to be proscribed to certain menial roles/jobs (like black women as poorly paid nannies/maids in the old south) on top of Jim Crow proscriptions. Resentment and despair would build. And you would be tired and demoralized. And then Uncle Sam comes along and says I can solve all of your problems and gives you housing and a monthly stipend for living plus extra for kids - particularly kids with no father around? You wouldn't see that as a trap. You would see it as an opportunity to get a break for a change—not realizing the long-term impact on your family and culture.
This is our sin. I want very much to be able to support efforts to lift up and heal black culture in this country. I just can't support CRT and the way it's being done now. You can't shame and dehumanize people and expect a better world to result. It just won't work. And I am very interested in what WILL work. I am a pragmatist. But a romantic, too. “I have a dream that one day little black boys and girls will be holding hands with little white boys and girls.” —MLK
I just refuse to become an ugly or mean person to achieve this. It must come from the better angels of our nature or it won't stick. Hate never won nuthin'.
Imagine learning one day that your spouse is okay with censorship when someone says that it is misinformation. In this case, you are the conservative and your spouse is a Democrat. Then, you go off for an hour or two on how liberal values around our civil liberties is what unites Americans. But at the end of the conversation, your still not sure if you made any difference. It is fucking depressing.
My wife doesn't get it either, but she's not a Democrat. I'm trying desperately to avoid a generalized conclusion here. People in general do not think out these things very well. I'd be anti-democratic except for that Churchill bit about worst forms of government.
It is possible that my wife has always held these views but it has never come up before. It is also possible that she has been influenced by talking heads in the recent past.
I enjoy speaking with her about political issues because she is very adept at challenging me and providing me with an alternative point of view. But she doesn't appreciate that dialog as much as I do.
In the not too distant past, some outspoken members of the religious right were proponents of censoring content that they viewed as salacious and immoral. I considered them to be an outlier but I could be wrong.
I assumed that we, as a society, were well past the point where censorship would be considered to be a valid response to dissenting views by a mainstream audience. It feels like I have woken up to an alternate reality but it is possible that it has always been like this and I am the one who is the outlier.
The problem with democracy, in the abstract, is that democratic institutions are often never established or respected, before democratic elections take place.
Look at the difference between Singapore and Egypt. Both are former British possessions that gained independence post WWII. Singapore was basically a dictatorship under Lee Kwan Yew-but they also had very strict property rights laws and a judiciary that was considered effective and independent. Democratic institutions were strongly established despite a lack of electoral democracy-and have continued to this day.
Egypt, otoh, had none of these things, and when the Arab Spring happened in the wake of the Mubarak regime, the Egyptians promptly elected the Muslim Brotherhood into power, who, in the lack of any meaningful checks in the form of the courts or respected legal barriers, promptly started doing what fundamentalist whack jobs do and necessitated a military coup to stop violence against Christians and generally unpleasant jihadi type actions. Singapore had strong democratic institutions despite a lack of electoral democracy, whereas Egypt didn’t and completely spit the bit as a society and n the wake of their very first democratic elections.
Re: sasinsea on Apr 6 @~3PM pct
It's both "hilarious" and very sad, especially in terms of the selective method of reading employed to evidently prop up some uninformed narrative rather than comprehensively allowing themselves to be informed by what is actually/factually being said. I thought Matt, as usual, did an excellent job of explaining the focus of his new upcoming series; and summed up his REASONING for doing it beautifully in his closing paragraph.
"Ten years from now, people will likely not have trouble realizing that putting five or six companies in charge of regulating all content was probably not a good idea, for all but a small handful of empowered actors. At the moment, the partisan angle is clouding the issue, as ordinary people are being conned into viewing speech as a giant turf war in which they have a rooting interest. News flash: you probably don’t."
How can this level of intellectual clarity and honesty be so blindly misconstrued and deconstructed????{:-(
It's good to see, and comprehensively read, you again.
As Usual,
EA
Obliged EA---One of the reasons I actually comment here (and rarely elsewhere) is people are generally thoughtful and I've had my mind changed once or twice and had some bogus info I thought was right patiently deconstructed.
Firmly believe the Brandeis line about that the answer to "bad" speech is "more speech, not enforced silence." No idea why anyone would root for other people being silenced just because they've been convinced someone else's politics are "dangerous." Have noticed the trend with a few of my more "I identify as a Democrat!" type friends and it sucks. They're still receptive to the counterargument but who knows for how long?
Self-righteousness - the idea that you are right and because you are right you are good/pure and because you are good/pure you are safe (which is what the ego wants more than anything else) - this is one the most seductive (and unfortunately reductive) mental modalities in the world. It is the modality that has driven all religious wars and oppressions and all of the politically driven slaughters. Rightness. What is going on right now is pretty similar (excepting we haven't seen a huge amount of state sponsored killings just yet).
I can't believe I am saying this having fled from fundamentalist Christianity in my young adulthood, but I am actually finding Christianity and Christians to be more tolerant than the regressive left - because they have the concept of redemption and forgiveness present in their doctrine. This and the fact that they don't single out a particular group for having sinned and fallen short. It's everyone.
Of course there are more extreme sects and beliefs - evangelicals will always be with us ;-). But your garden variety Christian, in our modern era, is typically pretty tolerant.
I wonder how many on the left *are* actually these "no mistakes ever" types, the snitchy assholes that no one can stand and who orient everything through their narrow view of the world. My hope is that they're what you alluded to---equivalently evangelical Christians, but for their politics. The loudest, shittiest people tend to get all the pub and I genuinely haven't come across this sort of person in the real world. Because, as you said, while religion is obviously a magnet for whackjobs and zealots, I find the vast majority of Christians to be decent, regular people. Most of my friends are pretty far left and don't behave in the gross ways you're reacting against. Hoping that's the case for most people. Hard to tell, especially having been pretty isolated for the year this kind of thing has really started to metastasize.
Wish I could be a fly on the wall some days. These are truly interesting questions. And it's probably true that many who lean left aren't radicals. But both social media and the MSM showcase the loudest, angriest voices—because it makes them rich, richer, richest. Note Matt's recent article regarding how media profits are down and how they are seeking a new "Trump" that they can sell. It's an ugly business.
Beyond that, I think the web and social media in particular is giant amplifier for our psyches. People can express without filters (id) more easily due to both anonymity and lack of physical proximity to their audience. It used to take quite a bit of effort to be seen and heard on a broader scale. Now, you just turn on your computer and you can express to potential millions with a few clicks. Think of what that does to the human ego.
Remember the movie "Mean Girls?" The whole point was that popularity gives people license to be a**hats. IOW, it goes to their heads. And they very often leverage this power to engage in self-aggrandizement, peer pressure tactics and bullying. I think this tendency combined with an earnest desire to shortcut to a perfect world makes people (impatient, young people in particular) more susceptible to these shallow ideologies that promise utopia if everyone will just get on board.
So the effort to sell the ideas ramps up. And selling often involves pressure - coercion, gaslighting, bullying, misrepresentation, inciting fear, seed of doubt tactics, etc. Add to this a desire on the part of oppressed groups for some revenge (or at least schadenfreude) against the culture that caused them harm. Add to this the constant barrage of advertising messaging the feeds our narcissistic egos and promises us that if we spend enough money we will have perfect lives where we don't have to work hard to get everything we want. Add to this a huge population of highly educated but unemployed young people with lots of leisure time.
Honestly, modern culture is kind of a mess. All of the old mores, values, and belief structures that used to provide some kind of framework or grounding are fragmenting and losing moral authority - justifiably so in many cases because they engaged in discriminatory behavior. It's sort of a perfect storm. Impatient young people in pursuit of utopia are throwing the baby out with the bath water. What's mystifying is that the adults in the room are abetting this behavior. That's what I don't get. That's why it is so powerful and spreading so fast. Is it white guilt? Maybe.
I think there is a deep well of white guilt in this country. My own experiences growing up in white culture in this country have illuminated the fact that white culture exhibits a tendency to avoid dealing with things head on. It sweeps things under the rug. It places a huge priority on "propriety"—what is allowed and not allowed to be addressed or expressed publicly, even privately. I was abused as a child and no one in my family will discuss it—which isolates me and makes me pariah when I do try to discuss it. And if you don't bring things into the light, they can't be healed. So, it stagnates in our subconscious and never gets addressed or healed or dealt with. And it becomes guilt. Because we know what is right and wrong. We just know. And all of our fancy rationalizations and outright lies (denials) don't change this truth.
I don't believe that every white person is racist or personally culpable for racism. However, there was a concerted effort by certain segments of white culture in the 20th century to destroy communities that were creating black wealth and to prevent black families from building generational wealth through various institutional obstacles placed in their way. They were denied the ability to join the quest for the American Dream. Imagine if you had watched your family struggle across generations - working hard, keeping their noses clean, following all of the rules - only to be pushed down and denied advancement (that they had rightly earned) or to be proscribed to certain menial roles/jobs (like black women as poorly paid nannies/maids in the old south) on top of Jim Crow proscriptions. Resentment and despair would build. And you would be tired and demoralized. And then Uncle Sam comes along and says I can solve all of your problems and gives you housing and a monthly stipend for living plus extra for kids - particularly kids with no father around? You wouldn't see that as a trap. You would see it as an opportunity to get a break for a change—not realizing the long-term impact on your family and culture.
This is our sin. I want very much to be able to support efforts to lift up and heal black culture in this country. I just can't support CRT and the way it's being done now. You can't shame and dehumanize people and expect a better world to result. It just won't work. And I am very interested in what WILL work. I am a pragmatist. But a romantic, too. “I have a dream that one day little black boys and girls will be holding hands with little white boys and girls.” —MLK
I just refuse to become an ugly or mean person to achieve this. It must come from the better angels of our nature or it won't stick. Hate never won nuthin'.
Imagine learning one day that your spouse is okay with censorship when someone says that it is misinformation. In this case, you are the conservative and your spouse is a Democrat. Then, you go off for an hour or two on how liberal values around our civil liberties is what unites Americans. But at the end of the conversation, your still not sure if you made any difference. It is fucking depressing.
My wife doesn't get it either, but she's not a Democrat. I'm trying desperately to avoid a generalized conclusion here. People in general do not think out these things very well. I'd be anti-democratic except for that Churchill bit about worst forms of government.
It is possible that my wife has always held these views but it has never come up before. It is also possible that she has been influenced by talking heads in the recent past.
I enjoy speaking with her about political issues because she is very adept at challenging me and providing me with an alternative point of view. But she doesn't appreciate that dialog as much as I do.
In the not too distant past, some outspoken members of the religious right were proponents of censoring content that they viewed as salacious and immoral. I considered them to be an outlier but I could be wrong.
I assumed that we, as a society, were well past the point where censorship would be considered to be a valid response to dissenting views by a mainstream audience. It feels like I have woken up to an alternate reality but it is possible that it has always been like this and I am the one who is the outlier.
The problem with democracy, in the abstract, is that democratic institutions are often never established or respected, before democratic elections take place.
Look at the difference between Singapore and Egypt. Both are former British possessions that gained independence post WWII. Singapore was basically a dictatorship under Lee Kwan Yew-but they also had very strict property rights laws and a judiciary that was considered effective and independent. Democratic institutions were strongly established despite a lack of electoral democracy-and have continued to this day.
Egypt, otoh, had none of these things, and when the Arab Spring happened in the wake of the Mubarak regime, the Egyptians promptly elected the Muslim Brotherhood into power, who, in the lack of any meaningful checks in the form of the courts or respected legal barriers, promptly started doing what fundamentalist whack jobs do and necessitated a military coup to stop violence against Christians and generally unpleasant jihadi type actions. Singapore had strong democratic institutions despite a lack of electoral democracy, whereas Egypt didn’t and completely spit the bit as a society and n the wake of their very first democratic elections.