The invocation of subjectivity is one of those arguments that, as with "who gets to decide," leads me to stop reading.
Yes, there is a place for both, but it is statistically defensible to presume the invocation is dishonest and that it is a waste of my rapidly dwindling life expectancy to read any further. And in settled matters like bio…
The invocation of subjectivity is one of those arguments that, as with "who gets to decide," leads me to stop reading.
Yes, there is a place for both, but it is statistically defensible to presume the invocation is dishonest and that it is a waste of my rapidly dwindling life expectancy to read any further. And in settled matters like biological sex, the possibility of an honest argument approaches zero.
Daryl Davis did a wonderful thing and he deserves our unmitigated admiration. Note however that it took him years to change the mind of one man. His success was also extremely improbable to succeed in generality.
"And in settled matters like biological sex, the possibility of an honest argument approaches zero."
That's what I found interesting about this conversation with Jane. I think she was being absolutely sincere. She was just confused. And the fact that she was wiling to admit that she'd gotten objective and subjective confused was a rare sign of good-faith in discussions on this topic.
"Daryl Davis did a wonderful thing and he deserves our unmitigated admiration. Note however that it took him years to change the mind of one man. His success was also extremely improbable to succeed in generality."
I suspect all great successes seem improbable before they happen. The Civil Rights Act was improbable. Obama's two-term, no assassination presidency was improbable. One doesn't try because they're guaranteed to succeed. They try because they're attempting something important.
And more to the point, Davis has changed the minds of hundreds of people. Not one. And some of them have gone on to change the minds of hundreds more. The ball definitely starts rolling slowly. He had to put in time and effort to get things moving. But the momentum will carry on even without him now.
Very happy with this correction, I wish you'd said it before.
It's just that in all my years online, I have only seen two conservatives drop their ideology, out of thousands.
By the time LBJ signed the CRA the immorality of what it sought to correct had become irresistible. It was not a miracle, it was capitulation to reality.
And when he said he'd given the south to Republicans for 20 years, face in hands, his estimate was generations too low.
"Very happy with this correction, I wish you'd said it before."
I mention it in the piece.
And sadly, immorality never becomes irresistible on its own. Slavery went on just fine for longer than segregation did. Even while many Americans opposed it. Heck, it still survives today in certain parts of the world. The CRA was viciously opposed by many Americans. And it still took blood and courage and military intervention to force institutions to uphold it. A lot of very heavy balls had to get rolling before their momentum seemed "irresistible."
Perhaps my perspective is skewed, I grew up in an extremely anti-racist family. I was 10 when we moved to Virginia and I was absolutely appalled at the attitudes I encountered there.
Yes, racist attitudes persist and they will probably never go away, just as a century from now there will still be people who believe that same-sex marriage is wrong.
At least now the racists have to speak in code; Republicans can't use the N-bomb in speeches anymore, they have to talk about "quotas," my father became a Democrat in response to the Willie Horton ad.
America has a Heart of Darkness that came over on the Mayflower and which still beats in the chests of too many people, something that the most vile of us, like Trump, know how to appeal to. American slavery was just about the cruelest in history and went on a generation longer than elsewhere in the world.
What is conservative ideology? I've always thought that conservatism was resistance to (sudden) change in societal norms. If the change is not well considered, gender ideology for example, the resistance is justifiable. Of course some of the changes they oppose are changes that should be made.
Is racism, a frequent accusation, an attribute of conservatism while the self styled allyship of low expectation lower standards for black people and it's implicit, they are inferior, is not?
I do think that in the them vs. us conflict the is a bit too much of the monolithic idea that if some of them are something, all of them are something.
This goes in both directions. As a liberal, no doubt you resent the idea that all of the current illiberal traits of self proclaimed liberals should be assigned to you.
Some liberals think I'm conservative and some conservatives think I'm liberal, depending upon my thoughts on different issues. My deck is shuffled, rather than stacked red and black.
But back to my original question, what do you think conservative ideology is that is uniquely different from liberal ideology? Not shared attributes with different ratios, but defining characteristics that are different?
I've wondered if the distinctions Haidt described in The Righetous Mind have been shifting since progressivism and liberalism have been to substantial degree conquered by Critical Social Justice.
In particular, I think I have observed an increase in Sanctity/Degradation dynamics, and in Loyalty/Betrayal framings, within CSJ influenced people. For example in cancellation dynamics.
Like the case of the immigrant businessman whose teenaged daughter had posted some bad posts many years ago while in a phase of trying to be edgy, so now the business needs to be boycotted because of a supposed moral taint (regardless of whether the business or father had ever had questionable approaches, and of the daughter's subsequent development). And then their friends want to avoid them, to avoid being associated with taint and getting some on them. Barry Weiss covered this, but I've heard of many other cases which sound like religious or superstitious magical thinking about moral taint.
And I've seen loyalty to the progressive tribe emphasized in ways the exceed my old experiences in liberalism.
If there is anything to my perceptions of a shift in the 6 moral foundations of the CSJ based left compared with the more traditional liberals being studied when those foundations were first described, maybe it's connected to the illiberalism of CSJ being different than traditional liberalism and borrowing some framings from traditional Christianity.
Thanks. I read that book and it resonated with me. I may seem a bit schizophrenic in that while I am on board with much of what is associated with liberalism, I also see value in order.
An example would be that I'm not so crazy about atonal music because it has no home and seems chaotic. The idea just popped into my mind that musical taste may have quite a bit to do with that.
Short answer ... at one time it had some principles; fiscal restraint, personal responsibility, strong defense. Since Burke it's gone through more redefinitions than a word for odor.
Now? I regard it as a synonym for cruelty. Period.
I understand a distaste for the evangelical right, but I consider them to be a subset of conservatism. Perhaps what I think, as previously stated as the foundation of conservatism is outside of the mainstream definition associated with Burke. They have a loud voice, just as the burn it down illiberals have.
There are as you note many varieites of "conservatism".
Personally, while I spent most of my life as a progressive liberal (now more independent), I can find many items of value within what I call "philosophical conservatism". "Know the reason a fence was built before tearing it down", or "there are no solutions, only tradeoffs" as a couple of succinct expressions of some facets I agree with.
I do not resonate with many social conservatives, who are more defined as a competing tribe in a war of culture and politics, than as a coherent philosophy.
The invocation of subjectivity is one of those arguments that, as with "who gets to decide," leads me to stop reading.
Yes, there is a place for both, but it is statistically defensible to presume the invocation is dishonest and that it is a waste of my rapidly dwindling life expectancy to read any further. And in settled matters like biological sex, the possibility of an honest argument approaches zero.
Daryl Davis did a wonderful thing and he deserves our unmitigated admiration. Note however that it took him years to change the mind of one man. His success was also extremely improbable to succeed in generality.
"And in settled matters like biological sex, the possibility of an honest argument approaches zero."
That's what I found interesting about this conversation with Jane. I think she was being absolutely sincere. She was just confused. And the fact that she was wiling to admit that she'd gotten objective and subjective confused was a rare sign of good-faith in discussions on this topic.
"Daryl Davis did a wonderful thing and he deserves our unmitigated admiration. Note however that it took him years to change the mind of one man. His success was also extremely improbable to succeed in generality."
I suspect all great successes seem improbable before they happen. The Civil Rights Act was improbable. Obama's two-term, no assassination presidency was improbable. One doesn't try because they're guaranteed to succeed. They try because they're attempting something important.
And more to the point, Davis has changed the minds of hundreds of people. Not one. And some of them have gone on to change the minds of hundreds more. The ball definitely starts rolling slowly. He had to put in time and effort to get things moving. But the momentum will carry on even without him now.
Very happy with this correction, I wish you'd said it before.
It's just that in all my years online, I have only seen two conservatives drop their ideology, out of thousands.
By the time LBJ signed the CRA the immorality of what it sought to correct had become irresistible. It was not a miracle, it was capitulation to reality.
And when he said he'd given the south to Republicans for 20 years, face in hands, his estimate was generations too low.
"Very happy with this correction, I wish you'd said it before."
I mention it in the piece.
And sadly, immorality never becomes irresistible on its own. Slavery went on just fine for longer than segregation did. Even while many Americans opposed it. Heck, it still survives today in certain parts of the world. The CRA was viciously opposed by many Americans. And it still took blood and courage and military intervention to force institutions to uphold it. A lot of very heavy balls had to get rolling before their momentum seemed "irresistible."
Perhaps my perspective is skewed, I grew up in an extremely anti-racist family. I was 10 when we moved to Virginia and I was absolutely appalled at the attitudes I encountered there.
Yes, racist attitudes persist and they will probably never go away, just as a century from now there will still be people who believe that same-sex marriage is wrong.
At least now the racists have to speak in code; Republicans can't use the N-bomb in speeches anymore, they have to talk about "quotas," my father became a Democrat in response to the Willie Horton ad.
America has a Heart of Darkness that came over on the Mayflower and which still beats in the chests of too many people, something that the most vile of us, like Trump, know how to appeal to. American slavery was just about the cruelest in history and went on a generation longer than elsewhere in the world.
What is conservative ideology? I've always thought that conservatism was resistance to (sudden) change in societal norms. If the change is not well considered, gender ideology for example, the resistance is justifiable. Of course some of the changes they oppose are changes that should be made.
Is racism, a frequent accusation, an attribute of conservatism while the self styled allyship of low expectation lower standards for black people and it's implicit, they are inferior, is not?
I do think that in the them vs. us conflict the is a bit too much of the monolithic idea that if some of them are something, all of them are something.
This goes in both directions. As a liberal, no doubt you resent the idea that all of the current illiberal traits of self proclaimed liberals should be assigned to you.
Some liberals think I'm conservative and some conservatives think I'm liberal, depending upon my thoughts on different issues. My deck is shuffled, rather than stacked red and black.
But back to my original question, what do you think conservative ideology is that is uniquely different from liberal ideology? Not shared attributes with different ratios, but defining characteristics that are different?
I really enjoyed Jonathan haidt’s ted talk on the moral roots of liberals and conservatives as an attempt to answer your question. https://www.ted.com/talks/jonathan_haidt_the_moral_roots_of_liberals_and_conservatives
I've wondered if the distinctions Haidt described in The Righetous Mind have been shifting since progressivism and liberalism have been to substantial degree conquered by Critical Social Justice.
In particular, I think I have observed an increase in Sanctity/Degradation dynamics, and in Loyalty/Betrayal framings, within CSJ influenced people. For example in cancellation dynamics.
Like the case of the immigrant businessman whose teenaged daughter had posted some bad posts many years ago while in a phase of trying to be edgy, so now the business needs to be boycotted because of a supposed moral taint (regardless of whether the business or father had ever had questionable approaches, and of the daughter's subsequent development). And then their friends want to avoid them, to avoid being associated with taint and getting some on them. Barry Weiss covered this, but I've heard of many other cases which sound like religious or superstitious magical thinking about moral taint.
And I've seen loyalty to the progressive tribe emphasized in ways the exceed my old experiences in liberalism.
If there is anything to my perceptions of a shift in the 6 moral foundations of the CSJ based left compared with the more traditional liberals being studied when those foundations were first described, maybe it's connected to the illiberalism of CSJ being different than traditional liberalism and borrowing some framings from traditional Christianity.
Thanks. I read that book and it resonated with me. I may seem a bit schizophrenic in that while I am on board with much of what is associated with liberalism, I also see value in order.
An example would be that I'm not so crazy about atonal music because it has no home and seems chaotic. The idea just popped into my mind that musical taste may have quite a bit to do with that.
Short answer ... at one time it had some principles; fiscal restraint, personal responsibility, strong defense. Since Burke it's gone through more redefinitions than a word for odor.
Now? I regard it as a synonym for cruelty. Period.
Burke?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edmund_Burke
I understand a distaste for the evangelical right, but I consider them to be a subset of conservatism. Perhaps what I think, as previously stated as the foundation of conservatism is outside of the mainstream definition associated with Burke. They have a loud voice, just as the burn it down illiberals have.
There are as you note many varieites of "conservatism".
Personally, while I spent most of my life as a progressive liberal (now more independent), I can find many items of value within what I call "philosophical conservatism". "Know the reason a fence was built before tearing it down", or "there are no solutions, only tradeoffs" as a couple of succinct expressions of some facets I agree with.
I do not resonate with many social conservatives, who are more defined as a competing tribe in a war of culture and politics, than as a coherent philosophy.
It's sad that people do often are voting against someone/something rather than an inspired for.