Poll: Is Woke a new religion?

[icehorse]

That's not happening in those places. In fact, many are doing better at democracy than what America currently is.

What places are you referring to? Also, what kinds of time frames are you using to make your assessment. Eroding of liberties usually doesn't happen overnight, it happens over years or decades.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

What places are you referring to? Also, what kinds of time frames are you using to make your assessment. Eroding of liberties usually doesn't happen overnight, it happens over years or decades.

We can look at England, Canada or other comparable places.
It's like when gun nuts scream we must have gun or we'll fall into tyranny, but we have a world full of history, present and past, to show that just isn't the case.
But here we have more free speech than just about anyone else yet the government was nearly overthrown by those who glorify dictators and autocrats a couple years ago. And the only thing preventing the spread of their confusions was the policies of private companies who have established rules one must agree to to use the platform, but these boneheads made it known they don't like free markets when the free market doesn't let them do whatever they want.

 

[icehorse]

We can look at England, Canada or other comparable places.

I haven't studied these places extensively, but anecdotally I fear they are letting their free speech erode in the name of not offending anyone.

It's like when gun nuts scream we must have gun or we'll fall into tyranny, but we have a world full of history, present and past, to show that just isn't the case.

I'm not sure why you'd bring gun laws up? That seems like a VERY different category to me?

But here we have more free speech than just about anyone else yet the government was nearly overthrown by those who glorify dictators and autocrats a couple years ago.

Again, I'm confused. Are you thinking that less free speech would have made the MAGA-lunies less of a problem?

And the only thing preventing the spread of their confusions was the policies of private companies who have established rules one must agree to to use the platform, but these boneheads made it known they don't like free markets when the free market doesn't let them do whatever they want.

I assume you're talking about social media sites like Twitter? If so, because they are privately owned (and not yet considered public utilities), free speech laws don't apply to them. I think a good way to think about these social media sites is that it's like they're inviting you over to dinner, and they get to declare how you'll behave as a guest if you want to stay

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I'm not sure why you'd bring gun laws up? That seems like a VERY different category to me?

It's a similar debate where people, typically who think America is unique and special and haven't looked abroad much at all, insists these things can't happen because it will lead to tyranny. Except is isn't when we look at examples where these things have happened (gun/speech restrictions).

I haven't studied these places extensively,

That's most Americans going on about what we can or can't do lest we fall to tyranny. But guess what? Those places better protect the right to vote and make it so you don't have to travel far or wait on line to vote. Amd that's another similar issue, with Republicans screaming it must be difficult to vote to prevent fraud but these other countries don't have that problem.
Amd, no, they don't have a problem with tyranny, and do democracy better than the US.

I assume you're talking about social media sites like Twitter? If so, because they are privately owned (and not yet considered public utilities), free speech laws don't apply to them. I think a good way to think about these social media sites is that it's like they're inviting you over to dinner, and they get to declare how you'll behave as a guest if you want to stay

Yes, amd how RWers have failed to respect the rules of the house they are a guest in and insist they don't have to and their host can't do anything about it.

 

[icehorse]

It's a similar debate where people, typically who think America is unique and special and haven't looked abroad much at all, insists these things can't happen because it will lead to tyranny. Except is isn't when we look at examples where these things have happened (gun/speech restrictions).

I'm sure "some people" behave that way, but I do not. I'm sorry, but gun control is in a different category than free speech. Yes, they share the characteristic of being "liberties" to greater or lessor degrees, but other than that they are very different. FWIW, I think the US's gun laws are CRAZY bad, and we should learn from the rest of the world. I believe Australia would be a good model to follow, no?

Those places better protect the right to vote and make it so you don't have to travel far or wait on line to vote. Amd that's another similar issue, with Republicans screaming it must be difficult to vote to prevent fraud but these other countries don't have that problem.
Amd, no, they don't have a problem with tyranny, and do democracy better than the US.

And here again, I agree with you. LOTS of places do voting far better than we do. The voter suppression that happens here and the gerrymandering that happen here are horrific. But again, that's different than free speech.

To reiterate from much earlier in the thread, what I'm talking about falls more or less under the the term "cancel culture". Now "cancel culture" is a weak, ambiguous term, and it's all too easy to get distracted and derailed with semantic debates. I don't want to do that hear. So another broad way of looking at this, is the idea that speech should be limited if some people find it offensive. A bit of speech is never offensive, but some people might choose to be offended by it.

It's - broadly speaking - this form of censorship that I think is incredibly dangerous.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I'm sure "some people" behave that way, but I do not.

Yes, you are. That is your making doomsday predictions and then saying you haven't studied much places that have such laws.
That is very typical and common for an American.

FWIW, I think the US's gun laws are CRAZY bad, and we should learn from the rest of the world. I believe Australia would be a good model to follow, no?

I agree. But what makes this different that gun control isn't leading to predicted tyranny yet you claim speech restrictions will? There is no difference. The state will do what the state wants regardless.

And here again, I agree with you. LOTS of places do voting far better than we do. The voter suppression that happens here and the gerrymandering that happen here are horrific. But again, that's different than free speech.

Again, it's the claims of inevitable tyranny regarding this subject (with voting it's if we make it easier) but it doesn't happen.
RWers especially make these claims, but other countries are not supporting the claim. They scream it will lead to tyranny but are oblivious to fact it hasn't happened in those countries that have done these things.

 

[icehorse]

Yes, you are. That is your making doomsday predictions and then saying you haven't studied much places that have such laws.
That is very typical and common for an American.

I'd appreciate it if we stuck to debating ideas, and not start slipping into personal attacks. Fair enough?

That said, it would appear that your argument is limited to a very narrow time range (when viewed against all of history). Again, you cannot judge these patterns over a few years, you have to look at them over decades.

And even if we do look at a smaller time frame, we ARE seeing free speech being eroded. Given that this erosion is mostly boiling down to people choosing to be offended, I don't think ANY erosion is warranted.

Several decades ago, Nazis marched through the largely Jewish Chicago suburb of Skokie. They were allowed to do so and protected. Their messages were clearly abhorrent to almost everyone, but defending speech was rightly viewed as more important.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Sometimes I think the fundamental assumptions are different, though. I have had discussions on this forum where people were against hate speech laws, while others were for them. Some are also against socialism, while others support it. In many cases, it's not just about how to prevent that level of power from being abused or misused; it's also that some people see these measures as inherently abusive on the part of government. Once it even tries to introduce such a law, there are people who will deem it nefarious by default... and they're far from a small minority when it comes to American politics.

Yup...fair enough. Neither of us are fundamentally against hate speech laws, or other control measures on speech. We would certainly be against certain particular implementations of hate speech or control measures, though. So at that fundamental level (if not in detail) I would say we agree.

I see a lot of value in finding common ground with certain people, but this isn't always the case, and sometimes it distracts from much more pressing issues. One problem with a subset of the left is that they sometimes focus so much on finding common ground that they don't take action when it matters most, such as when Democrats became so ineffectual despite having control of Congress and the White House that they allowed Roe v. Wade to be reversed.

I tend to be a consensus builder to some degree, just my nature. But that's really not what I'm talking about here. Using the Roe v Wade example, I think the public discourse on abortion (moreso than Roe v Wade itself, which is more a US thing for obvious reasons) is actually a pretty good example of a polarised conversation where there are increased levels of self-censoring compared to 25 years ago, to be honest. People seem to be more either 'pro' or 'anti' abortion, with little nuanced conversation in between. My guess...somewhat supported by evidence actually, but more on that later...is that people's private opinions contain a lot more 'well, mostly' type statements than their public 'Yes/No' binary positions.

Anyway, long story short, I wouldn't be asking you to build consensus with the right wing on that issue. More keep in mind that left wing opinions have more shade and variance than we commonly allow for, and that right wing opposition is similarly less homogenous.

If they had instead stopped trying to find common ground with theocrats and evangelical extremists and used their control of two branches of government to the utmost extent, they could have done a lot more to protect the rights of the people who ended up being affected by Republican ideology.

Think of it this way. Understanding your opponents actual views...as opposed to only their most loudly professed ones...is fundamental to effectively building consensus with them. But it's also fundamental to effectively attack them. I'm more suggesting 'knowledge is power' than telling you to make friends with your opponents. Much like my earlier comment that white supremacists can suck an exhaust pipe, there are certain groups I have little time for.

This is perhaps one of the areas where you and I might disagree most: my worldview is influenced by Marxism, and I have no problem advocating for strong change when most necessary even if that means any common ground with those who advocate for a harmful status quo temporarily takes a back seat.

Common ground can take a back seat. But the question it's worth asking yourself is more around concepts like 'exitus ācta probat' and where you sit on that. Marxist revolutions have rarely been smooth transitions, and I'd wonder which you'd point to as a good example of the end objectives being a valid justification of that transition. Still...perhaps that is too tangential. I was a socialist-lite in college, if not a Marxist, so I might have a better understanding of your position than you think...!!

Saudi Arabia kept being steeped in theocracy and has only started reversing some of its most stringent laws, such as the ban on women's driving, not because activists liberal like Lujain al-Hathloul and Raif Badawi found common ground with the religiously extremist scholars but because of international pressure and a desire to have a better image. At state level, material conditions like economy, political relations, and trade are, in my opinion, far stronger as tools of effecting change than mere negotiations and discussions.

No, and again, I'm not suggesting those on the far left should be trying to reach consensus with those on the far right. I would argue strongly that Badawi is an example of someone who very much WAS trying to introduce some nuance and gray to the conversation, and was trying to communicate with his fellow man at a level where a level of mutual understanding could be fostered. He was suggesting liberalism wasn't anti-Islamic, in simple terms. What he didn't do was take a reactionary position that was in polar opposition to his opponents just because, and hammer it home through repetitive and ritualistic messaging. His discourse was much more nuanced. Now, is a part of the reason for that because he was trying to tread the line between activism and safety? I would assume yes, and as already agreed, much of this consideration in terms of cancellation applies more to Western liberal democracies than 'everyone'.

I can comment less on al-Hathloul, as I am simple not educated on her to any degree beyond basic name recognition and headlines.

What I don't think is that people who are trying to introduce some nuance to a conversation need to build concensus with those who are not. Introducing nuance is to make your own argument more complete, more convincing, and more applicable to the world. Not to connect with your polar opposites, or end if metaphorically around a campfire singing kumbayah.

I'm going to snip out some of your comments about how much agreement matters, etc. In a democracy it matters a lot...but more when you're talking about convincing the rest of the left, or the centrists, or the independents. It's not about convincing the most extreme and polar positions on the other side. Indeed, I largely discount the extreme positions on BOTH side of politics as non-representative, self-important, and squeaky hinges. That...again...is more about liberal democracies in general, not more fundamental and formational arguments between theocracy and democracy, or Marxist dictatorships and healthy societies. Sorry, couldn't help tweaking your metaphorical nipples there.

However, when we're talking about government and legislation chambers where officials have the power to affect people's lives, things change drastically: in my opinion, protecting people's rights should take priority over almost everything else in that context. If it means finding common ground with legislators from another party, so be it. If it means tossing aside common ground as a distraction and assertively pushing for required changes where one can, so be it. Finding common ground becomes a secondary consideration rather than a primary one in that context.

Kind of. Politicians are kind of a crappy example of this, since so much of what they support is based on quid pro quo. Even getting agreement within one's own party to take a position can be a process of bargaining, and leverage. Just look at how Kevin McCarthy managed to get the Speakership, and what occurred within the GOP for that to happen. Mostly my points are related to common public discourse, and if anything I'm suggesting we need to be less polarised in spite of the politicians, celebrities, and other figureheads around us. They will change...but only if we do first. If that sounds idealistic, that's because it is. But I'm speaking to a Marxist, so you should allow me a degree of idealism too, even old and cynical as I am.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

(Continued.)
I strongly agree here. This is where the personal anecdote about meeting a TERF comes in for me.

So, around two years ago, I joined an atheist Discord server to find company. I was particularly lonely at the time, and I wanted to meet more like-minded people where I live. It turns out that the place ran the gamut from alt-right trolls (yes, they existed on the server just to troll and offend others) to pro-USSR communists. Needless to say, there was a lot of friction in the politics channel.

One of the most active members on the server was a TERF. She was strongly progressive in practically all other ways besides that: socialist, supportive of religious freedom and reproductive rights, supportive of same-sex marriage, etc. She also had a very traumatic family life and history of religious oppression, which multiple members empathized with and related to. As soon as she expressed her views on trans issues, though, a lot of members shunned her, gossiped about her, and refused to talk to her at all. At one point, someone tried to imply that I was a bad person for not shunning her.

I asked that person and a few others what their own beliefs had been like just a few years earlier. One had been a literal, self-admitted fascist, while others had been fundamentalist Muslims but then changed their mind thanks to the internet... like the vast majority on the server. I then asked whether they believed they would have changed if progressives and other liberals had shunned them and gossiped about them due to their beliefs, and almost all of them said no.

This is an example where I would definitely classify what happened from some people as narrow-minded, unnuanced, and unempathetic. I say "some people" because I fully understand why some people wouldn't want to hang out with a TERF, and I don't think they're obligated to. But the way some others went far beyond that was petty at best, and it made it seem like we had all been perfect from the start even though most of us had been very conservative and held hateful views prior to talking to people online and changing our minds.

We're not talking about a public figure with significant social influence or a legislator who can impose their will on people's lives. This was just a regular person with no power and a traumatic past that was strongly relatable to ours in multiple ways. Is it really reasonable or empathetic to treat her like she's the next incarnation of Ted Cruz? Who does it help? When a progressive circle from her own country mistreats her in that manner, I'm not sure what they expect to happen other than her being restricted to communities with other TERFs where her problematic beliefs will only be amplified.

Around a month ago, she told me that she was deeply thankful I didn't give up on her and that she was glad to have someone to talk to while her family pushed her into an arranged marriage. Sometimes I wonder whether the people who treated her in the way I mentioned saw anything about her more deeply than the level of her views on trans issues (which were indeed extremely problematic).

Boom. This is exactly what I'm talking about. You can disagree with her position on transgender issues as stridently as you wish, and there is no mandate for you to engage with her on it. But discarding someone because of their opinion...even one we find distasteful...is to discard the entire person, and to lock them at a set stage of their development in our mind. It's kinda the easy option. What you did is much the better path. To be clear, I'm not suggesting people pretend to like who they don't. Or see their job as being a one person liberaliser of opinions. But some honesty and transparency are important. Saying things like 'You damn piece of crap, how dare you dehumanise people' always strikes me as a little ironic and lacking in self-reflection. It's everyday conversations and behaviour (moreso than from celebs, politicians, companies) that interest me. We are the people...they are at best trying to reflect what they think we want to hear, often inaccurately.

From what I see, there's also a lot of freedom to have similar discussions in much of Europe, but it doesn't seem to be as huge of a deal as it is in the US. I think that may have to do with the increased polarization in the latter in recent years.

Yup. Hence my trends comment. I find it a challenge to get younger people to engage in deep investigation of topics, because there is so much noise, so much of their information comes from social media and other short-form and unverified sources, and because there is so much immediate judgement of positions based on conformity. If our teens are over-conforming...albeit only with other teens, celebs or at a macro-level...I don't like the trend.

The Papua New Guinea example is an excellent one, and it applies to almost anywhere outside the developed world, in my opinion, albeit to varying extents. Talking about social-media "cancel culture" as a major issue in countries where "blasphemy" is still a capital crime seems a bit premature.

Agreed.

I definitely wouldn't say that I'm pretending here, especially not that things are binary. The positions I listed also don't seem to me to be outliers at all, at least if we're talking about American politics. The GOP platform includes explicit rhetoric against LGBT people, for instance, and they have millions of supporters who align with their ideology on such things. Add to that the fact that rates of vaccination were lower and COVID fatality rates were significantly higher in conservative-majority states and I don't think we're talking about outliers at all.

Things aren't binary, but sometimes they're also far from being ambiguous.

Had to reread my post to see what the heck would have led me to suggest you were 'pretending'. I meant 'we' in the largest sense. The human race, basically. Let's consider COVID for a moment. A LOT of public discourse was at the level of 'isolation - good or bad'. 'Mask mandates - good or bad'. 'Vaccinations - good or bad'.
I lived in the city that was arguably THE most locked down. Our mask mandates included strong outdoor masking, and extreme social distancing. At it's peak, we were under a strict curfew. Vaccines were mandatory to do almost anything.
All of those rules I complied with, and the government which instituted them I voted for in a recent election, which they won, incidentally.
However, the vast majority of public discourse was reduced to 'pro or anti'. I was such a limited conversation. There was an interesting inflection moment here, where the ability of the government to enforce mask mandates was tied to a medical state of emergency declaration, and that state of emergency was legally time limited. People arguing against a legislative change to allow a longer state of emergency to be declared became this strange alliance of civil libertarians, sticklers for legislative process, anti-vaxxers and straight-out anarchists.

The government sought a 12 month extension, and ended up winning a 6 month extension following deals with independents, and a Green senator returning early from maternity leave to vote. But almost NONE of the nuance of how and why those independents were convinced to vote for it, the legislative tweaks it entailed, or the meaningful impact they had in terms of protections from government overreach were much reported on. Instead the liberal media reported on how the anti-vaxxers had lost, and how abusive they had been towards the independents (who received death threats, and threats of rape) and the right-wing media spoke about 'Dictator Dan' and his fascist government controlling Victorians.

The vast majority of normal people felt compelled to support one side or the other, almost without prevarication, and it's the lack of nuance in those personal, publicly stated positions I feel are unhelpful, and trending in the wrong direction.

Re : Dr Jay Bhattacharya, I think your overall response to my question was pretty reasonable. My main issue with that topic can probably be summarised pretty quickly;
1. Twitter blacklisted and throttled a large number of accounts without explicitly announcing they were doing so, why they were doing so, or clearly articulating the impact of their decisions. They're a commercial business, so the legalities become difficult. However, I don't think companies keen to insert themselves large into communications should also be able to curate content without notice or clarity (beyond what Twitter provided). I had issues when Facebook suddenly removed Australian emergency service accounts a while back too.
2. There has to be room for discussion on topics. So, whether I agree with Dr Bhattacharya is less important than whether I think he should be de-platformed. And if I think he should be de-platformed, why do I think the cost of that is worthwhile? I get...truly...that allowing dissenting voices makes clear messaging to the public more difficult in the short term. But I think we run the risk of making our pandemic response better at the risk of making future responses worse, due to increasingly polarised and mistrusted public discourse.
3. His position (rightly or wrongly) wasn't an extreme expression aligned with anti-vaxxers. And whilst there were idealogical components to his argument, it might be fair to suggest he had some ability to measure his comments against the prevailing medical advice better than some, given his background. So I wouldn't see his qualifications as 'entirely irrelevant'. Figures like Anders Tegnell were similarly given audience in Australia, then not, then again, and was presented in either positive or negative light as numbers of infections moved. His responsiveness to changing information and pandemic numbers was used against him, as if to prove he couldn't make up his mind.

Basically, my take was that the position of the government here could have been more simply stated. People are going to get sick. People are going to die. We need to protect our healthcare system from being overwhelmed, and give our healthcare professionals a chance to save as many as is possible. Therefore our current advice is...
Is that a slam dunk, or brilliant, or amazing? Nope, not at all. I'd just love for local and everyday conversations to have more often considered issues of pragmatic importance moreso than idealogial polarization.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

@Debater Slayer

Wow...sorry, I think that was really me getting tangential. Ultimately, whilst I was interested in your opinion I think social media is more causative of simplistic discussions than representative of much. I don't care much about Dr Jay Bhattacharya or Twitter personally. In the interests of better representing my general thoughts on this issue in an evidentiary based manner, I'm going to offer up a podcast. I know...listening to a podcast based on a link from RF is a bridge too far most likely, and I'm cool if you just say 'Thanks, no thanks...'

But I'm not offering this in terms of 'hey, this is brilliant'. It was literally what I listened to on my commute this morning, and was eerily targeted towards this conversation. It's absolutely NOT controversial, or wacky, or at odds to your general worldview, I think. It does offer some interesting conversation on what I mean by the variance between public and private discourse, how we know this is happening, and what steps are being taken to understand the trends. It's slightly left-leaning if anything, but part of a podcast network I really enjoy for their willingness to at least acknowledge nuance.

What Americans Really Think with Todd Rose - YouTube

It's long...and American focused despite neither of us being Americans. So...up to you. I really like this podcast network.

 

[Debater Slayer]

I tend to be a consensus builder to some degree, just my nature. But that's really not what I'm talking about here. Using the Roe v Wade example, I think the public discourse on abortion (moreso than Roe v Wade itself, which is more a US thing for obvious reasons) is actually a pretty good example of a polarised conversation where there are increased levels of self-censoring compared to 25 years ago, to be honest. People seem to be more either 'pro' or 'anti' abortion, with little nuanced conversation in between. My guess...somewhat supported by evidence actually, but more on that later...is that people's private opinions contain a lot more 'well, mostly' type statements than their public 'Yes/No' binary positions.

Anyway, long story short, I wouldn't be asking you to build consensus with the right wing on that issue. More keep in mind that left wing opinions have more shade and variance than we commonly allow for, and that right wing opposition is similarly less homogenous.

I agree. This is also something I see even in Islamic discussions around abortion. Some schools of thought allow it up to four months into pregnancy, which is far longer than most conservative Christian positions I have encountered. On the other hand, some scholars argue that life begins much earlier than four months into pregnancy.

At the end of the day, though, I look at the collective result of conservative legislation in an example like that of Roe v. Wade and find that it has resulted in immense harm. Whatever shades of gray are present among conservative opinions on abortion didn't manifest much in abortion bans; the result was that the position that made it into state law was one of the most rigid and unforgiving. I wouldn't expect many who were in need of a medical abortion but unable to get it to be significantly consoled by the shades of gray that didn't matter much in the end.

Think of it this way. Understanding your opponents actual views...as opposed to only their most loudly professed ones...is fundamental to effectively building consensus with them. But it's also fundamental to effectively attack them. I'm more suggesting 'knowledge is power' than telling you to make friends with your opponents. Much like my earlier comment that white supremacists can suck an exhaust pipe, there are certain groups I have little time for.

Agreed. It's also why I think ex-Muslims are among the best-equipped people to address and analyze Islamism and Islamic extremism in general. They don't just have familiarity with the religion; they know what it's like to be a believer and what kinds of effects that could have on one's worldview.

Common ground can take a back seat. But the question it's worth asking yourself is more around concepts like 'exitus ācta probat' and where you sit on that. Marxist revolutions have rarely been smooth transitions, and I'd wonder which you'd point to as a good example of the end objectives being a valid justification of that transition. Still...perhaps that is too tangential. I was a socialist-lite in college, if not a Marxist, so I might have a better understanding of your position than you think...!!

I absolutely don't believe in "the ends justify the means" as a general principle. This is more of a defining feature of Marxism-Leninism and its offshoots than Marxism in general. I find Lenin to be an abhorrent person, especially when I read about how he had his aides commit crimes that sometimes resulted in killing innocent people in order to fund his activities "for the greater good."

I have discussed my own views on Marxism here. In a nutshell, I borrow some core elements from it—the main one being dialectical materialism—but I'm not a communist, and I don't believe in indiscriminate violence in pursuit of end goals.

Still, I also think it's worth noting that Marxism is a relatively new ideology on a historical scale, and there haven't been many examples of Marxist revolutions as a whole. The nastiest examples are the most popular perhaps because their leaders stopped at nothing in order to gain far-reaching power and influence, such as Lenin, Stalin, and Mao. There are practically no notable examples of Marxist revolutions led by followers of milder varieties of Marxism, but many of us exist.

No, and again, I'm not suggesting those on the far left should be trying to reach consensus with those on the far right. I would argue strongly that Badawi is an example of someone who very much WAS trying to introduce some nuance and gray to the conversation, and was trying to communicate with his fellow man at a level where a level of mutual understanding could be fostered. He was suggesting liberalism wasn't anti-Islamic, in simple terms. What he didn't do was take a reactionary position that was in polar opposition to his opponents just because, and hammer it home through repetitive and ritualistic messaging. His discourse was much more nuanced. Now, is a part of the reason for that because he was trying to tread the line between activism and safety? I would assume yes, and as already agreed, much of this consideration in terms of cancellation applies more to Western liberal democracies than 'everyone'.

I can comment less on al-Hathloul, as I am simple not educated on her to any degree beyond basic name recognition and headlines.

What I don't think is that people who are trying to introduce some nuance to a conversation need to build concensus with those who are not. Introducing nuance is to make your own argument more complete, more convincing, and more applicable to the world. Not to connect with your polar opposites, or end if metaphorically around a campfire singing kumbayah.

I'm going to snip out some of your comments about how much agreement matters, etc. In a democracy it matters a lot...but more when you're talking about convincing the rest of the left, or the centrists, or the independents. It's not about convincing the most extreme and polar positions on the other side. Indeed, I largely discount the extreme positions on BOTH side of politics as non-representative, self-important, and squeaky hinges. That...again...is more about liberal democracies in general, not more fundamental and formational arguments between theocracy and democracy, or Marxist dictatorships and healthy societies. Sorry, couldn't help tweaking your metaphorical nipples there.

I see agreement as mattering or not only based on the context. I think it's much better to consider such things on a case-by-case basis instead of trying to formulate a general rule, because there's too much variation in the real world.

Among lawmakers or other officials, it seems to me that the dynamic around the value of agreement or lack thereof significantly changes from how it is between, say, politicians and the general voting population. In the latter case, I think reaching across the aisle and being more diplomatic can be an essential skill, but not necessarily in the former (although, again, this depends on context more than anything else).

You're also correct in identifying that these conversations differ based on the circumstances at hand. Raif Badawi indeed had to play his cards safely, and he was partially talking to the general public and not just state officials. I see diplomacy as crucial in his situation. This doesn't necessarily apply to other liberals, and even his diplomacy didn't spare him arrest and imprisonment. International pressure was still needed.

Furthermore, I also think it's worth keeping in mind that most of today's liberal democracies had to go through extremely dire periods at one point or another in order to reach stability, democracy, and freedom. France had a bloody revolution, the US had a revolution and a civil war, and Britain... well, I don't think I need to introduce that one—just for a few examples. The way I see it, liberal democracy is usually a luxury built on multiple necessary prior steps.

Kind of. Politicians are kind of a crappy example of this, since so much of what they support is based on quid pro quo. Even getting agreement within one's own party to take a position can be a process of bargaining, and leverage. Just look at how Kevin McCarthy managed to get the Speakership, and what occurred within the GOP for that to happen. Mostly my points are related to common public discourse, and if anything I'm suggesting we need to be less polarised in spite of the politicians, celebrities, and other figureheads around us. They will change...but only if we do first. If that sounds idealistic, that's because it is. But I'm speaking to a Marxist, so you should allow me a degree of idealism too, even old and cynical as I am.

I agree with everything except the bit about change, but yes, I'll allow you the idealism!

 

[Debater Slayer]

Boom. This is exactly what I'm talking about. You can disagree with her position on transgender issues as stridently as you wish, and there is no mandate for you to engage with her on it. But discarding someone because of their opinion...even one we find distasteful...is to discard the entire person, and to lock them at a set stage of their development in our mind. It's kinda the easy option. What you did is much the better path. To be clear, I'm not suggesting people pretend to like who they don't. Or see their job as being a one person liberaliser of opinions. But some honesty and transparency are important. Saying things like 'You damn piece of crap, how dare you dehumanise people' always strikes me as a little ironic and lacking in self-reflection. It's everyday conversations and behaviour (moreso than from celebs, politicians, companies) that interest me. We are the people...they are at best trying to reflect what they think we want to hear, often inaccurately.



Yup. Hence my trends comment. I find it a challenge to get younger people to engage in deep investigation of topics, because there is so much noise, so much of their information comes from social media and other short-form and unverified sources, and because there is so much immediate judgement of positions based on conformity. If our teens are over-conforming...albeit only with other teens, celebs or at a macro-level...I don't like the trend.



Agreed.



Had to reread my post to see what the heck would have led me to suggest you were 'pretending'. I meant 'we' in the largest sense. The human race, basically. Let's consider COVID for a moment. A LOT of public discourse was at the level of 'isolation - good or bad'. 'Mask mandates - good or bad'. 'Vaccinations - good or bad'.
I lived in the city that was arguably THE most locked down. Our mask mandates included strong outdoor masking, and extreme social distancing. At it's peak, we were under a strict curfew. Vaccines were mandatory to do almost anything.
All of those rules I complied with, and the government which instituted them I voted for in a recent election, which they won, incidentally.
However, the vast majority of public discourse was reduced to 'pro or anti'. I was such a limited conversation. There was an interesting inflection moment here, where the ability of the government to enforce mask mandates was tied to a medical state of emergency declaration, and that state of emergency was legally time limited. People arguing against a legislative change to allow a longer state of emergency to be declared became this strange alliance of civil libertarians, sticklers for legislative process, anti-vaxxers and straight-out anarchists.

The government sought a 12 month extension, and ended up winning a 6 month extension following deals with independents, and a Green senator returning early from maternity leave to vote. But almost NONE of the nuance of how and why those independents were convinced to vote for it, the legislative tweaks it entailed, or the meaningful impact they had in terms of protections from government overreach were much reported on. Instead the liberal media reported on how the anti-vaxxers had lost, and how abusive they had been towards the independents (who received death threats, and threats of rape) and the right-wing media spoke about 'Dictator Dan' and his fascist government controlling Victorians.

The vast majority of normal people felt compelled to support one side or the other, almost without prevarication, and it's the lack of nuance in those personal, publicly stated positions I feel are unhelpful, and trending in the wrong direction.

Re : Dr Jay Bhattacharya, I think your overall response to my question was pretty reasonable. My main issue with that topic can probably be summarised pretty quickly;
1. Twitter blacklisted and throttled a large number of accounts without explicitly announcing they were doing so, why they were doing so, or clearly articulating the impact of their decisions. They're a commercial business, so the legalities become difficult. However, I don't think companies keen to insert themselves large into communications should also be able to curate content without notice or clarity (beyond what Twitter provided). I had issues when Facebook suddenly removed Australian emergency service accounts a while back too.
2. There has to be room for discussion on topics. So, whether I agree with Dr Bhattacharya is less important than whether I think he should be de-platformed. And if I think he should be de-platformed, why do I think the cost of that is worthwhile? I get...truly...that allowing dissenting voices makes clear messaging to the public more difficult in the short term. But I think we run the risk of making our pandemic response better at the risk of making future responses worse, due to increasingly polarised and mistrusted public discourse.
3. His position (rightly or wrongly) wasn't an extreme expression aligned with anti-vaxxers. And whilst there were idealogical components to his argument, it might be fair to suggest he had some ability to measure his comments against the prevailing medical advice better than some, given his background. So I wouldn't see his qualifications as 'entirely irrelevant'. Figures like Anders Tegnell were similarly given audience in Australia, then not, then again, and was presented in either positive or negative light as numbers of infections moved. His responsiveness to changing information and pandemic numbers was used against him, as if to prove he couldn't make up his mind.

Basically, my take was that the position of the government here could have been more simply stated. People are going to get sick. People are going to die. We need to protect our healthcare system from being overwhelmed, and give our healthcare professionals a chance to save as many as is possible. Therefore our current advice is...
Is that a slam dunk, or brilliant, or amazing? Nope, not at all. I'd just love for local and everyday conversations to have more often considered issues of pragmatic importance moreso than idealogial polarization.

Just noting that I'm not skipping this; I'm just falling asleep in front of my PC, so I'll address this later. Thanks for putting so much thought into it.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Boom. This is exactly what I'm talking about. You can disagree with her position on transgender issues as stridently as you wish, and there is no mandate for you to engage with her on it. But discarding someone because of their opinion...even one we find distasteful...is to discard the entire person, and to lock them at a set stage of their development in our mind. It's kinda the easy option. What you did is much the better path. To be clear, I'm not suggesting people pretend to like who they don't. Or see their job as being a one person liberaliser of opinions. But some honesty and transparency are important. Saying things like 'You damn piece of crap, how dare you dehumanise people' always strikes me as a little ironic and lacking in self-reflection. It's everyday conversations and behaviour (moreso than from celebs, politicians, companies) that interest me. We are the people...they are at best trying to reflect what they think we want to hear, often inaccurately.



Yup. Hence my trends comment. I find it a challenge to get younger people to engage in deep investigation of topics, because there is so much noise, so much of their information comes from social media and other short-form and unverified sources, and because there is so much immediate judgement of positions based on conformity. If our teens are over-conforming...albeit only with other teens, celebs or at a macro-level...I don't like the trend.



Agreed.



Had to reread my post to see what the heck would have led me to suggest you were 'pretending'. I meant 'we' in the largest sense. The human race, basically. Let's consider COVID for a moment. A LOT of public discourse was at the level of 'isolation - good or bad'. 'Mask mandates - good or bad'. 'Vaccinations - good or bad'.
I lived in the city that was arguably THE most locked down. Our mask mandates included strong outdoor masking, and extreme social distancing. At it's peak, we were under a strict curfew. Vaccines were mandatory to do almost anything.
All of those rules I complied with, and the government which instituted them I voted for in a recent election, which they won, incidentally.
However, the vast majority of public discourse was reduced to 'pro or anti'. I was such a limited conversation. There was an interesting inflection moment here, where the ability of the government to enforce mask mandates was tied to a medical state of emergency declaration, and that state of emergency was legally time limited. People arguing against a legislative change to allow a longer state of emergency to be declared became this strange alliance of civil libertarians, sticklers for legislative process, anti-vaxxers and straight-out anarchists.

The government sought a 12 month extension, and ended up winning a 6 month extension following deals with independents, and a Green senator returning early from maternity leave to vote. But almost NONE of the nuance of how and why those independents were convinced to vote for it, the legislative tweaks it entailed, or the meaningful impact they had in terms of protections from government overreach were much reported on. Instead the liberal media reported on how the anti-vaxxers had lost, and how abusive they had been towards the independents (who received death threats, and threats of rape) and the right-wing media spoke about 'Dictator Dan' and his fascist government controlling Victorians.

The vast majority of normal people felt compelled to support one side or the other, almost without prevarication, and it's the lack of nuance in those personal, publicly stated positions I feel are unhelpful, and trending in the wrong direction.

Re : Dr Jay Bhattacharya, I think your overall response to my question was pretty reasonable. My main issue with that topic can probably be summarised pretty quickly;
1. Twitter blacklisted and throttled a large number of accounts without explicitly announcing they were doing so, why they were doing so, or clearly articulating the impact of their decisions. They're a commercial business, so the legalities become difficult. However, I don't think companies keen to insert themselves large into communications should also be able to curate content without notice or clarity (beyond what Twitter provided). I had issues when Facebook suddenly removed Australian emergency service accounts a while back too.
2. There has to be room for discussion on topics. So, whether I agree with Dr Bhattacharya is less important than whether I think he should be de-platformed. And if I think he should be de-platformed, why do I think the cost of that is worthwhile? I get...truly...that allowing dissenting voices makes clear messaging to the public more difficult in the short term. But I think we run the risk of making our pandemic response better at the risk of making future responses worse, due to increasingly polarised and mistrusted public discourse.
3. His position (rightly or wrongly) wasn't an extreme expression aligned with anti-vaxxers. And whilst there were idealogical components to his argument, it might be fair to suggest he had some ability to measure his comments against the prevailing medical advice better than some, given his background. So I wouldn't see his qualifications as 'entirely irrelevant'. Figures like Anders Tegnell were similarly given audience in Australia, then not, then again, and was presented in either positive or negative light as numbers of infections moved. His responsiveness to changing information and pandemic numbers was used against him, as if to prove he couldn't make up his mind.

Basically, my take was that the position of the government here could have been more simply stated. People are going to get sick. People are going to die. We need to protect our healthcare system from being overwhelmed, and give our healthcare professionals a chance to save as many as is possible. Therefore our current advice is...
Is that a slam dunk, or brilliant, or amazing? Nope, not at all. I'd just love for local and everyday conversations to have more often considered issues of pragmatic importance moreso than idealogial polarization.

I would like to continue this conversation, so I'll message you. I just don't have enough energy at the moment to keep pursuing it in this thread.

I'll be in touch soon.