At the root of most forms of bigotry is the belief that all members of a certain group are the same. Sometimes you can recognise members of that group by the colour of their skin. Sometimes by who they pray to. And lately, by how they think. In my article, The Left’s Identity (Politics) Crisis, I criticised the political Left’s growing intolerance for challenging ideas. Our fear of saying the wrong thing is reaching a point where talking honestly about matters of race or sexuality or gender is all but impossible.
Decades old, but somehow fresh - the Sowell trilogy: "compared to what?", "at what cost?", and "what hard evidence do you have for that?". I'm not at all a conservative, whatever that means anymore, but these are questions that distinguish fantasy from reality. Thanks for linking to it!
I stopped referring to the American political left as liberals long ago since they have become very illiberal. I understand that "leftist" sounds like political insult, but it is actually accurate (in my opinion) because "leftist" is often associated with "Marxist", a divisive philosophy pitting the bourgeoisie (capitalist business owners) against the proletariat (workers). With the modern leftist it is pitting anyone who can claim disadvantage against the "privileged." In that, it is cultural Marxism, but the frequent criticism of capitalism remains.
Your charge of "True Leftists are still children" relates (in my thinking) to their constant cries of "not fair." What parent has not had to remind their children that life is not fair. Scott Adams calls fairness a child's argument. I don't write that as approval of unfairness, but there is the world we live in and the world we wish it to be. We can do our part to bring fairness, but we must understand that it is the quest of Sisyphus. Subsets of humanity pitted as rivals against each other are less likely to work together.
I don't tell people what to feel or think, but I do often recommend that people assess their tactics to see if they are effective in their goal, or they are just ranting in anger which may be making it worse. Calling me a racist because I am a right leaning white man is less likely to make me become a virtue signaling SJW than to make me think about the obscene sex act you should perform on yourself. I see you (Steve) as trying to bring a realistic adult viewpoint to the issue.
"Your charge of "True Leftists are still children"
Hmm, I think I need to have a think about how these conversations are presented as Dan also thought this is was me who was saying this. The title of this post (and almost all the posts here) is a quote from the person I'm tolling to in the conversation. Stefan in this case. He says that "true leftists are still children" in his first comment and I thought it was a snappy title.
Interesting... My bad, I normally am not confused by the format. However, I walk behind my words in my agreement, it turns out with Stefan.
The world is not fair. Adults may try to reduce that unfairness, at least I hope so, but not whine about it like a child that discovered his sister got a cookie. Of course, the left doesn't have a monopoly on that, it's part of the spectrum of human emotion and behavior. At this point in time the political right whines about "mah freedom" where the government is the oppressor. So perhaps I should discard my bias as if the left does have a monopoly on that stuff.
“ However, I walk behind my words in my agreement, it turns out with Stefan.”
Yeah, as I said to Stefan, this depends on how you’re defining “leftist”.
It’s true that the world isn’t fair, of course, but that doesn’t mean we can’t make it fairer. Indeed, we *have* made it fairer.
Most of us who have time to debate these matters on the internet have nothing to whine about. Life has already been more than fair to us. This is what’s so infuriating about the whiners on Medium. They act as if their lives are hell when they are objectively better than most people’s.
But the point is that the majority of people who genuinely *are* less fortunate than us aren’t “whining”. They simply struggle in ways and for reasons that we often fail to consider. Partly because they don’t really have a voice. And partly because our lives, with whatever challenges they include, are still far better.
Hi Erica, hmm, it should be pretty clear. is it just in your email that you're having trouble, are are you also unsure when you're reading them here on the website?
Hey Erica, sorry for the delay, Substack doesn't seem to be notifying me about new comments for some reason...
The italicised text is a quote from the previous reply. So when italicised text appears at the top of a comment, it's highlighting something the previous person said.
Medium's comment system formats it a little more clearly. This was the only way I could replicate it here.
If there's italicised text in the very first reply, it'll be a quote from the article the reader is replying to. I hope that's clear.
It occurs to me that this is probably another consequence of you being less familiar with Medium's system than some of the other readers here. Please do keep pointing things like this out Erica. It's very helpful and you're clearly not alone.
I'll have a good think about how I can make this clearer. Any suggestions are very welcome.
Thx Steve, what I'm referring to isn't in the comments section, it's your article, when you quote comments, your own or others -- I think the problem might be that both are italicized so the quote attribution isn't clear to me.
The title of this post reads like an ad hominem attack. As I think about it, I don't think it IS such an attack since the reasoning behind it is logically grounded in the behavior of the person you are describing. Indeed I agree with the caricature of the left as a valid and important criticism.
Still I am not convinced the tone or framing is so helpful. It is a broad and sweeping generalization... indeed reminiscent of the very kind that you correctly claim the left sometimes does. that is not ideal. Also, presumably our goal here is to affect positive change within the liberal side of the world here. But calling someone a child is perhaps not the best starting point.
Now maybe this 'commentary' substack is not really the audience you hope to affect, so it is ok to "let your hair down" among kindred spirits. I guess so. But for me, the million dollar question is how can one affect positive change away from this behavior that we all agree is quite damaging?
my very partial thought on that question is that one needs to acknowledge this tendency to simplify and attack is pretty universal, so nothing to be ashamed of, but still something to be corrected.... promoting positivity around the admission that everyone is human, and any raising of any group above such status is in accurate and ultimately destructive.
I am not sure here. The push back I get when I speak to a leftie is usually denial, or an argument that two wrongs can indeed make right. that injustices of the past legitimizes bad behavior of the aggrieved group in the present. Of course I don't support either argument, but the question is how to be highlight its flaws in a way the listener 'gets it'. (no answers here, just questions)
"Still I am not convinced the tone or framing is so helpful."
Haha, no, I don't think the tone and framing are helpful at all! Note, the title of the post is a quote from Stefan. Those aren't my words and it's framing I would be extremely unlikely to use with regards to any group. It's just a bit of a tradition here to use a snippet from the conversation (usually from the commenter) as a title.
I have been engaging with some of the videos at The Daily Evolver which looks at woke ideology through the lens of human evolution and spirituality. It is very interesting and thought provoking.
He steps back to look at the bigger view of what is going on in woke ideology. He talks about it in terms of paradigm shifts - specifically in terms of consciousness and expansion of sensitivity - which are necessarily chaotic and often violent. I find that it makes a great deal of sense to me but that is likely because I agree with his basic premise that life is a spiritual journey.
Decades old, but somehow fresh - the Sowell trilogy: "compared to what?", "at what cost?", and "what hard evidence do you have for that?". I'm not at all a conservative, whatever that means anymore, but these are questions that distinguish fantasy from reality. Thanks for linking to it!
I stopped referring to the American political left as liberals long ago since they have become very illiberal. I understand that "leftist" sounds like political insult, but it is actually accurate (in my opinion) because "leftist" is often associated with "Marxist", a divisive philosophy pitting the bourgeoisie (capitalist business owners) against the proletariat (workers). With the modern leftist it is pitting anyone who can claim disadvantage against the "privileged." In that, it is cultural Marxism, but the frequent criticism of capitalism remains.
Your charge of "True Leftists are still children" relates (in my thinking) to their constant cries of "not fair." What parent has not had to remind their children that life is not fair. Scott Adams calls fairness a child's argument. I don't write that as approval of unfairness, but there is the world we live in and the world we wish it to be. We can do our part to bring fairness, but we must understand that it is the quest of Sisyphus. Subsets of humanity pitted as rivals against each other are less likely to work together.
I don't tell people what to feel or think, but I do often recommend that people assess their tactics to see if they are effective in their goal, or they are just ranting in anger which may be making it worse. Calling me a racist because I am a right leaning white man is less likely to make me become a virtue signaling SJW than to make me think about the obscene sex act you should perform on yourself. I see you (Steve) as trying to bring a realistic adult viewpoint to the issue.
"Your charge of "True Leftists are still children"
Hmm, I think I need to have a think about how these conversations are presented as Dan also thought this is was me who was saying this. The title of this post (and almost all the posts here) is a quote from the person I'm tolling to in the conversation. Stefan in this case. He says that "true leftists are still children" in his first comment and I thought it was a snappy title.
It's not a reflection of my personal views😅
Interesting... My bad, I normally am not confused by the format. However, I walk behind my words in my agreement, it turns out with Stefan.
The world is not fair. Adults may try to reduce that unfairness, at least I hope so, but not whine about it like a child that discovered his sister got a cookie. Of course, the left doesn't have a monopoly on that, it's part of the spectrum of human emotion and behavior. At this point in time the political right whines about "mah freedom" where the government is the oppressor. So perhaps I should discard my bias as if the left does have a monopoly on that stuff.
“ However, I walk behind my words in my agreement, it turns out with Stefan.”
Yeah, as I said to Stefan, this depends on how you’re defining “leftist”.
It’s true that the world isn’t fair, of course, but that doesn’t mean we can’t make it fairer. Indeed, we *have* made it fairer.
Most of us who have time to debate these matters on the internet have nothing to whine about. Life has already been more than fair to us. This is what’s so infuriating about the whiners on Medium. They act as if their lives are hell when they are objectively better than most people’s.
But the point is that the majority of people who genuinely *are* less fortunate than us aren’t “whining”. They simply struggle in ways and for reasons that we often fail to consider. Partly because they don’t really have a voice. And partly because our lives, with whatever challenges they include, are still far better.
The Left has gone from uplifting the disadvantaged to policing free speech. Many of us are politically homeless now because of this.
hehe.... this is a great way to put it!
Newbie question here: I'm not sure from the formating of these kinds of articles which passages are Steve QJ's and which are by commenters.
Hi Erica, hmm, it should be pretty clear. is it just in your email that you're having trouble, are are you also unsure when you're reading them here on the website?
I read it on the website. Is the italicized text you or the commenter?
Hey Erica, sorry for the delay, Substack doesn't seem to be notifying me about new comments for some reason...
The italicised text is a quote from the previous reply. So when italicised text appears at the top of a comment, it's highlighting something the previous person said.
Medium's comment system formats it a little more clearly. This was the only way I could replicate it here.
If there's italicised text in the very first reply, it'll be a quote from the article the reader is replying to. I hope that's clear.
At first, I had to think about it a bit. The format is as follows:
Stefan = who's talking
| The statement in Steves's story comment being commented on
Stefan's comment about Steve's story
Steve = who's talking
| The comment from Stefan being commented on
Steve's comment about the comment
Stefan = who's talking
| The comment from Steve being commented on
Stefan's comment about Steve's comment
etc.
Thanks but I have to admit I still don't get it.
It occurs to me that this is probably another consequence of you being less familiar with Medium's system than some of the other readers here. Please do keep pointing things like this out Erica. It's very helpful and you're clearly not alone.
I'll have a good think about how I can make this clearer. Any suggestions are very welcome.
Thx Steve, what I'm referring to isn't in the comments section, it's your article, when you quote comments, your own or others -- I think the problem might be that both are italicized so the quote attribution isn't clear to me.
Did you see the message I left you above? Is it still unclear?
Basically, italicised text is always a quote.
A quote by you or a quote from a commenter?
Thank you. This helps a great deal!
I am confused as well.
The title of this post reads like an ad hominem attack. As I think about it, I don't think it IS such an attack since the reasoning behind it is logically grounded in the behavior of the person you are describing. Indeed I agree with the caricature of the left as a valid and important criticism.
Still I am not convinced the tone or framing is so helpful. It is a broad and sweeping generalization... indeed reminiscent of the very kind that you correctly claim the left sometimes does. that is not ideal. Also, presumably our goal here is to affect positive change within the liberal side of the world here. But calling someone a child is perhaps not the best starting point.
Now maybe this 'commentary' substack is not really the audience you hope to affect, so it is ok to "let your hair down" among kindred spirits. I guess so. But for me, the million dollar question is how can one affect positive change away from this behavior that we all agree is quite damaging?
my very partial thought on that question is that one needs to acknowledge this tendency to simplify and attack is pretty universal, so nothing to be ashamed of, but still something to be corrected.... promoting positivity around the admission that everyone is human, and any raising of any group above such status is in accurate and ultimately destructive.
I am not sure here. The push back I get when I speak to a leftie is usually denial, or an argument that two wrongs can indeed make right. that injustices of the past legitimizes bad behavior of the aggrieved group in the present. Of course I don't support either argument, but the question is how to be highlight its flaws in a way the listener 'gets it'. (no answers here, just questions)
"Still I am not convinced the tone or framing is so helpful."
Haha, no, I don't think the tone and framing are helpful at all! Note, the title of the post is a quote from Stefan. Those aren't my words and it's framing I would be extremely unlikely to use with regards to any group. It's just a bit of a tradition here to use a snippet from the conversation (usually from the commenter) as a title.
Also, this: https://www.dailyevolver.com/2021/12/the-lefts-split-woke-and-anti-woke/
"Evolutions is beautiful, but not pretty." –Jeff Salzman
I have been engaging with some of the videos at The Daily Evolver which looks at woke ideology through the lens of human evolution and spirituality. It is very interesting and thought provoking.
I recommend in particular, this one: https://www.dailyevolver.com/2020/08/whats-so-good-about-woke/ Transcript if you prefer to read. https://www.dailyevolver.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/WOKE-PODCAST-1.pdf
He steps back to look at the bigger view of what is going on in woke ideology. He talks about it in terms of paradigm shifts - specifically in terms of consciousness and expansion of sensitivity - which are necessarily chaotic and often violent. I find that it makes a great deal of sense to me but that is likely because I agree with his basic premise that life is a spiritual journey.
It might help if you read this: https://www.dailyevolver.com/jeff-salzman/ and this https://www.dailyevolver.com/theory/ to understand his color references.