8 Comments
User's avatar
тна Return to thread
Steve QJ's avatar

You really don't think this is at least very similar to the way you routinely talk about conservatives? And non-binary people for that matter?

Expand full comment
Chris Fox's avatar

First of all I have conceded that the entire "non-binary" thing makes me too angry to talk about with equanimity or objectivity and so I am not talking about the topic anymore.

Second, there is a world of difference between lumping together all the members of a race and lumping together all the members of an ideology noted for the extreme rigidity of its orthodoxy. No, they are not as homogenous as ants but it sure isn't for lack of trying. Behold the expulsions of the two participants on the Jan6 committee; who would ever have thought in 2015 that Liz Cheney would be anathema? She's going to lose her primary to some lunatic who obediently says "Trump won."

Expand full comment
Steve QJ's avatar

"First of all I have conceded that the entire "non-binary" thing makes me too angry to talk about with equanimity or objectivity"

Yes you have. I'm not trying to throw it in your face. I'm just saying that this is a dangerous instinct. Because it requires oversimplification in the same way the left is oversimplified by some on the right. And when that happens, we get the team sports approach to politics that's so popular at the moment.

When I'm dealing with the kinds of people who call me a "leftist," I'm regularly, confidently informed that I think men can be women and that kids should go to drag shows and that I think white people are all racist.

This isn't because of anything I've said of course, it's because anybody who is a liberal must automatically believe all of these things according to everything they see on Twitter and Fox News.

Liberal politicians are almost unanimously engaged in certain things I disagree with. Particularly around gender and race. Yet I still vote liberal because, on balance, I think they're the least worst option.

A criticism I've been aiming at the left for years is that the entire platform is pretty much, "we're not as bad as the other guys," whereas the right runs on platforms like crime and taxation and jobs. Or better yet, stopping their kids from being brainwashed in schools.

We could have a long and fruitful conversation about how successful conservatives are at *fulfilling* those promises. But I can see reasons for voting that way that aren't rooted in racism or bad faith or a lack of concern about the environment etc, etc.

Expand full comment
Chris Fox's avatar

This is what I refer to as ideological syndromes. We differ in seeing a symmetry; outside the "woke" culture our side actually is diverse; I hold some views congruent with the "left syndrome" such as reining in corporate power and wealth inequality but at the same time I am not on board with the pronouns and bathrooms.

But. The symmetry is broken; left-as-woke is a *stereotype* promoted by the right, whereas in reality a lot of us are disgusted with the uh trans activists and their absolutist stridency.

OTOHтАФand I expect you will disagreeтАФthe right-syndrome is much more homogenous and much less tolerant of any deviation. Sure there are conservatives who think we should leave a little room for orangutans but they don't get invited to CPAC. You're all in for "Trump won" or you get primaried.

Expand full comment
Steve QJ's avatar

Haha, yeah, I don't think we're going to agree on this. But I have to say, I see the identity politics aspect of the left as being just as indispensable politically speaking.

What do you think would happen if a liberal politician started saying "all lives matter" during campaign speeches? Or that there are important differences between men and women that can't be erased with a declaration of pronouns and cross-sex hormones?

It's not necessarily about homogeneity, I strongly suspect most politicians, in private, understand that Trump lost. Just as they understand that there are differences between males and females. But in public, yes, they're all in (or at least silent) because that's the stupid game we're playing. To be extremely clear, I don't endorse this. I find the dishonesty repugnant. I guess we just disagree about the size of the asymmetry.

Expand full comment
Chris Fox's avatar

*Of course* they know Trump lost (a recording of the committee was saying the same as I typed). But they say the words anyway because it's a qualification of membership. So intense is the need to belong that the plain truth recedes to the background. That membership is promoted by the necessity of homogenity.

We are not like that.

Just look at us here. You and I disagree. We don't attack each other for it. We don't call each other names. We continue to respect each other.

(I hope)

Expand full comment
Steve QJ's avatar

"I hope"

Of course! As you said here recently, "if two people agree on everything, one of them is redundant."ЁЯШБ

Expand full comment
Chris Fox's avatar

My contribution to the corpus of memorable quotes.

Far behind Maxwell Smart and HL Mencken

Expand full comment