I don’t think I’ve ever felt less confident in the information I consume. Which, being a writer, is probably as it should be. I double and triple check my sources, I spend hours poring over statistics and databases. I force myself to watch left- and right-wing media to get an idea of which parts of a story are being cherry-picked or ignored. In short, I do everything I can think of to make sure that the information I present is correct.
I have found that almost no neo-progressive is aware of Black militias, their marching publicly in various places with assault rifles, or their occassional violent threats. They are typically 100% certain that no such groups could exist. Your linked article mentions New Black Panther Party and the New Black Liberation Militia. Earlier I stumbled across the NFAC (Not F.... Around Coalition), which is similar - you can google them. There are likely others. They show up here and there around the country.
In 2020 they marched on the huge bas relief sculpture at Stone Mountain Park near Atlanta, Georgia, defying "racists" to stop them. What happened? Were they all shot or jailed? Nope. The park and the police were cooperative and supported the NFAC's first and second amendment rights, acknowledging that they were peaceful if loud.
(cue sound of smug neo-progressive heads exploding).
"I have found that almost no neo-progressive is aware of Black militias,"
Yep, because they don't exist if you only ever watch "progressive" news. The way the news filters reality is one of the biggest problems of our time in my opinion. Media organisations across the political spectrum don't report anymore, they're story tellers.
" they don't exist if you only ever watch "progressive" news."
More than that, if one is steeped in the neo-progressive narrative, Black militias would be impossible in the US - they would immediately be crushed by whites (acting as The State or as right-wing militias themselves).
I recently subscribed to The Economist, and have been enjoying their news and analysis. I'm not saying anybody is perfect, but this reporting is not slathered with obvious left wing or right wing ideological filters.
As to the story tellers - I have come to believe that the Prime Directive of neo-progressives is "Reinforce the Narrative" - primarily the moral story of oppressor and oppressed. Only evidence which supports that narrative is to be published; anything which might reduce its potency is to be buried or denies.
It's easy to see the incentives here. The Narrative is the source of their power, and it the primary tool by which they hope to reform the world into a more just and equitable place.
I see some of the roots in things like the US Civil Rights movement, including Martin Luther King. MLK made a powerful moral argument which galvanized the nation to pass legislation and change society; a moral narrative was the source of his power. However, I see MLK as invoking the larger "us", asking us all to come under the same umbrella, and to live up to our own ideals and values.
The neo-progressives, in my view, have weaponized a social tool based in part on that moral appeal. Except rather than inviting people in and challenging them to live up to their values, this time it's more based on trying to make people wrong, guilty, responsible not only for their own action but for those of anybody who "looks like them". The neo-progressive approach is more based on dividing us into competing camps, and then trying to use the assumed moral high ground to deminish one camp and build up the other. It's more about emphasing the narrower and less inclusive "us" (oppressed people and "allies") in perpetual conflict with "them" (anybody who doesn't follow the party line).
Power corrupts. Well meaning beginning sometimes become dysfunctional strategies towards mutated goals. Assumed moral superiority allows one to feel justified by non-reciprocal relations, by different moral rules for different tribes. Past injury to the tribe (in one domain) is used to justify present injury to the other tribe (in a different domain), as if that leads to a sustainable and just society. Instead, it's pushing both sides towards less tolerance and respect.
My issue with neo-progressivism is not so much with it's professed and nominal goals (many of which I support), as with the strategies employed, like emphasizing race essentialism and win/lose conflict as core principles.
So - reinforce the narrative as a source of power in a perpetual tribal conflict. Assume that X is radically less dangerous for a white person, or that doing Y would never bee allowed to a Black person, and avoid any counter-examples, because to weaken the narrative is to lose power.
If ever you wondered where the mania for imprecise language comes from, read Cynical Theories: How Activist Scholarship Made Everything About Race, Gender & Identity & Why This Harms Everybody, which should be shortened to the much more precise Everything Wrong With The Left. It's a terrifically all-encompassing explanation of critical everything theory including race, gender, queer (not a lot on trans, actually), disability, postcolonial and fat studies theory. Especially how much it's believed that you can change the world by changing discourse, i.e., the way we speak. It delves deep into how language broadens to include everything Theorists (they use a capital T to separate them from general theorists) they don't like. Also, part of the near-religion is the notion that whatever theory you favour, it's 'baked into' everything in the world so that everything is always about race, gender, fat, whatever your pet Theory is.
It's making me think how we need to reclaim language from these people and hold their feet to the fire on what words actually mean.
As for Brigit thinking she knows what life is like for all black people? It's a skewed vision based on the narrative put forth by the mainstream and social media, and she's heard the lie often enough (it's a lie when it leads one to think it's the *only* way to be black in America - constantly under attack by 'white supremacy') that, as Heinrich Himmler (or was it Goebbels?) noted, if you repeat the lie often enough people eventually believe it.
"If ever you wondered where the mania for imprecise language comes from, read Cynical Theories: How Activist Scholarship Made Everything About Race, Gender & Identity & Why This Harms"
I haven't read this yet, but yes, critical theory has infected every single social justice movement it seems. Mainly because it makes it extraordinarily easy to figure out who the bad guys and good guys are. And the good guys are *made* good by an immutable characteristic. So they can never do anything wrong, no matter how grotesque their behaviour is. It's perfect!😅
What's scary is that they're right. You *can* change the world by changing discourse. And frighteningly quickly. Language has become a Trojan horse where people who aren't paying attention are suddenly unable to define words like "racism" or "sex" or "woman". The redefinitions are slipped in under the guise of kindness and then accuracy itself becomes "oppression" (another word they struggle to define).
It's astonishing how quickly it's happened, and to be honest, I worry that we it's too late to reclaim the language.
Nahhhh, it's never too late. Back when I was a headstrong kid back in the Jurassic era (in Ohio) I used to argue with Christian fundamentalists until I realized that I've got to stop arguing on their turf....I have to argue on *my* turf (science and reason). You don't win arguments with them this way but you don't lose them either :)
We can reclaim he 'discourse' from them by insisting they stick to original meanings. It's not 'evolution' as one has argued to me, it's *de-evolution* when meaning broadens to include everything the SJW (Social Justice Warrior) doesn't like. Once we approach Critical Theory as the religion it is, we can help it destroy itself, as the Christian Right is doing with Trump support. He's not dead yet, but he will be...either figuratively or literally when he succumbs to one too many Big Mac Attacks in general.
You're challenging it *now*, Steve, by challenging CRT. I'm challenging Critical Gender Theory (i.e., 'victim feminism'). To paraphrase the Bible (badly) "Generations come and go, but Reason abideth forever." (Ecclesiastes 1:4, although I may be paraphrasing...just a bit :) )
"You're challenging it *now*, Steve, by challenging CRT."
Oh yeah, I'm not saying we can't defeat the excesses of these ideologies, but as much as I hate to be pessimistic, I worry that the battle over the words themselves, and in turn some of the concepts, are in real danger.
I wonder how many 18-25-year-olds can confidently and without tautology define the word "woman". I wonder how many of them haven't absorbed the race essentialism and victimhood of certain CRT infused doctrines. I wonder how many of them could (or would dare to) speak coherently about these topics.
I don't know, maybe I just need a break from the internet.😅 I'm fresh off yet another conversation, with a woman this time, who was arguing that acknowledging the biological differences between males and females is transphobic. I keep coming across people who are so deeply confused, and are convinced that their confusion is a virtue.
She's being gaslit. She's allowing brainwashing to make her deny the evidence of her own lying eyes. The proof is here: Transmen menstruate WITHOUT menstruation suppressors; transwomen NEVER get pregnant and have babies. Their bodies do what they were designed to do; they don't care what one's 'identity' is. They're still biologically whatever they were born with. Sometimes, anatomy IS destiny. This is a GREAT opportunity for you to argue on your own turf with science and reason, and hold her to it.
I can't wait to see the article on *that* conversation!
Beyond the lack of a common set of facts, we are lacking a common language. We should imitate the dialogs of Plato and agree upon definitions before the debate begins in earnest. Or perhaps the debate should be on the meaning of the word and why opposing debaters favor one definition over another.
"Beyond the lack of a common set of facts, we are lacking a common language" Absolutely. I see this especially often when discussing trans issues. There have been so many linguistic games over the years that I think many of the people I talk to sincerely don't know how to define the words they use anymore. Of course, this makes any meeting of the minds impossible.
I believe that it's common for neo-progressives to avoid real engagement through asserting control of definitions.
As one example, there was a sudden firm conclusion that "sex" and "gender" referred to physical and mental aspects. It's actually a potentially useful distinction, and I could support it as a new proposal for purposes of discussion - but the proponents didn't consider it a "proposed" new definition, they considered it a done deal: "We have decided this is what the words really MEAN, and we will correct anybody using them 'wrongly'; this is not an additional meaning to be added to dictionaries, it's now the ONLY allowed meaning which will not be disparaged". That was a scant few years ago; now they are getting sorta conflated again, maybe. For example, for many activists, self-identification alone is often today being asserted to change "sex" as well as "gender".
Then Robin DiAngelo redefined "racism" in such a way that all white people without exception are racist, and nobody else can be - by definition. Of course, there could exist racial hatred, racial discrimination, racial bias, racial prejudice, or racial stereotyping by anybody and everybody, but those don't count (unless by whites, where it's redundant since they are racist from birth already). She wants to change what the word means, but retain all of the stigma from the earlier (and still far more common) usage.
When people say "trans women are women", it appears to me that many believe they are just stating objective fact, when of course that assertion is not objectively "true" nor "false", it's a disguised attempt to redefine "woman" to now include all humans who self-identify as women, and only them; biology is irrelevant to this definition. And changing the label doesn't change any objective reality. And in this case, the goal seems to be to immediately reinterpret any usage of the word "woman" in a document, policy or law, written under the original definition, to be inherited by the new definition.
This is a bit like redefining "children under 12" to now mean "anybody who feels like a child, no matter their biological age" and then requiring that all policies originally written for "children under 12" under the old definition, should now automatically apply instead to the new definition.
Some of these folks seem to confuse "winning by smugly redefining words and insisting that you HAVE to accept our definition" with actual engagement and superior reasoning and evidence.
So yes, I agree with you that real discussion would need to include agreeing on definitions of words - AS THEY WILL BE USED IN THE UPCOMING DISCUSSION at least (whether or not one agrees with these operational definitions, when used in other contexts.) There are some discussions which need to be held in good faith, which become impossible if somebody is insistent on playing word games.
To be clear, I am in this post not stating my agreement or disagreement or undecided view regarding any of the subject content (eg: regarding appropriate trans rights). I'm talking only about the seemingly deliberate obfuscation of communication by some parties. Well, semi-deliberate; as I say, some genuinely do not seen clear on the difference between labels and reality.
I really appreciate your thoughts here. You’ve been able to put into words the frustration that I have with the neo-progressives who are also the loud and proud “cancel culture” crowd. I firmly believe that there needs to be accountability and transparency, I just don’t agree with how they’re going about it.
Add onto that that, as you stated, “sex” and “gender” are two terms that have been well-defined by biologists, anthropologists, wildlife experts, and so many others for well over a century now. To up and change those definitions because someone feels they lack inclusivity makes no logical sense to me. That would be, as you provided the example of, saying that “all children under 12” now includes anyone who identifies as a 12-year-old, no matter their biological age, and there is a whole rabbit hole of nasty that that kind of thinking can lead to.
When did we abandon intellect and common sense for burning down the world because someone got offended by what they interpreted a word to mean without actually taking the time to look up the true definition and actually try to comprehend what it means instead of demanding it be changed to what they want it to mean?
Yes, one irony for me comes from something decades ago at a family gathering, where I wound up assigned to help a Christian home-schooled relative with his homework. The particular book being used was a seemingly normal science textbook, studying the eye, with diagrams and terms. When I injected observations about the differences between the eyes of prey like deer, and those of predators like cats or primates like ourselves - he solemnly corrected me to inform me that humans are not animals. Apparently, the similarities between our species and other primates are just coincidental. (Scanning the textbook after that, it had some strange anomalies, like avoiding any concept of species per se, but that's another topic).
Now it's neo-progressives who are in effect sometimes asserting that humans are not like animals, and our *biological sex* (not just social gender roles) is not determined by genes or phenotype, but by self identification. And then smugly saying "follow the science" as if they had a lock on science, which always follows their ideology or can be dismissed.
Yeah, I have to continually work on being more generous in my framing, and I do. Scorn does not persuade anybody, it more pushes them into defending their corner. I do not want to follow their example. But I just need to let my hair down in a space like this sometimes.
The uncommon language is intentional. Refer to the comment I just left here a few minutes ago about how the left is consciously muddying 'discourse', i.e., language.
I think a lot of this stems from not knowing who to trust when the previous administration was able to get The NY Times, WaPo, and others to put up so many diversions as to focus on a certain person’s moment-by-moment tweets while ignoring all of the really terrible things going on in the world as a whole, not to mention the atrocities happening on our own soil in regards to the detention (*ahem* concentration) camps. [edit (And I do fully realize that those camps are still there and still just as terrible now under the current admin as they were under the last one. Hell, if we were any other country doing this, the US would’ve invaded to bring humanitarian relief, but because it’s on our own soil far too many people turn a blind eye.) end edit] As well the prevalence and volume of the right wing networks, and the people bending over backwards to get the opinion of the expert with decades of experience and schooling under their belt against that of the village idiot, and then actually taking the village idiot’s words over the experts.
If I want to look into the past and read on the truth of the history of our nation without any of the whitewashing or sugarcoating, I know which historians and publishers to go to for thoroughly researched information. But on what’s happening in our country and the world today . . . ? For every 1 truly credible and unbiased source, there are 20 others that have cherry-picked and spun the information to their own desired outcome and called that pack of lies “truth in media”. I’ve been overwhelmed by the madness of it all for 5 years now, and I honestly don’t even know where to begin to look for information that can truly be trusted to lay out current events without bias, spin/slant, coverup, or whitewashing.
Where do you even begin? How do we find truly credible sources that aren’t the same old smokescreens they’ve become? And that’s a truly honest and sincere request. Because I don’t know where to begin or who to really trust for the dark honest truth.
"Where do you even begin? How do we find truly credible sources that aren’t the same old smokescreens they’ve become? And that’s a truly honest and sincere request. Because I don’t know where to begin or who to really trust for the dark honest truth"
Oof, if you ever find a source that fulfils this request let me know!😅 As I said, my solution is to consume a range of sources, from across the political spectrum, whenever I'm really trying to get at the truth of something. If there's a quote or a clip, I always try to find the full source and understand the context. If there's a statistic, I go and find the original research and check the quality of their data.
Obviously, this is intensely time consuming work. And not something that every body can do, or has any interest in doing. But having done it for a while, I think I've become reasonably good at piecing together a story if I think it's important.
For everything else, for the stuff I'm not super interested in, I just leave room for doubt. If I've only read one source of information, even if I've read it thoroughly, I basically consider myself to know nothing at all about the story. If I have a conversation about it and encounter a conflicting account, I try to probe to see where the difference is coming from (is the person I'm talking to misremembering what they read? Am I? Is there some obvious aspect of this new information that discounts one or both of our perspectives?).
The real problem, as perfectly illustrated by Brigit, is how certain people can be on limited information. If we can't recognise that there are always things we don't know, we sabotage our own ability to learn.
Not terribly impressed with straw man arguments about identity and trans people. Ever known a trans person? Ever spent hundreds of hours talking with trans people? Of course not. (I have: eye opening). But that doesn’t stop so many “well intentioned” people from glibly dismissing trans people’s struggles as primarily some sort of abuse of language (whose language? Who owns language?). The argument that biology equals identity seems like a strangely arbitrary bit of taxonomic laziness born primarily, as usual, of ignorance. I cannot figure out why cisgendered folk who—at this point—would never tell a gay person how they’re supposed to understand their own experience feel perfectly qualified to dismiss the trans experience from the comfortable perspective of someone who has never had to struggle with gender. Could it be because it’s just so much fun! to pick on someone in a relatively powerless minority? I would love to be wrong.
"I cannot figure out why cisgendered folk who—at this point—would never tell a gay person how they’re supposed to understand their own experience feel perfectly qualified to dismiss the trans experience from the comfortable perspective of someone who has never had to struggle with gender."
I'm glad you would love to be wrong. Because you are. I don't know about you, but I don't find it fun to pick on anybody, "relatively powerless" or not. Which is why I'm not picking on anybody.
But if you'd like an answer to the question I've quoted above, the difference is that gay people don't require everybody in society to participate in their experience. I'm not dismissing the trans experience. Not at all. I'm just not dismissing the female experience either. And there are a few places where trans rights (specifically trans women's rights) bump up against women's sex-based rights. A good example of this is prisons.
There's currently lots of controversy about cases where trans women have been housed in women's prisons and have sexually assaulted or impregnated the female prisoners. The argument for justifying this is that trans women face the danger of assault if they're imprisoned with men. But if your argument is that trans women should be housed with women, shouldn't you feel equally strongly that trans men be housed with men? With all the dangers that would bring? And yet trans men are also typically housed with women. Because, you guessed it, of the danger of assault if they're imprisoned with men.
So my question is, where's the consistency? If trans men are men, why aren't you insisting that they are housed with male prisoners? Is it perhaps because you understand that the situation is more complex than that? If so, you also understand women's objection to being imprisoned with trans women.
And, to answer your first question, yes, I have known numerous trans people. I've physically, in *real-life*, fought to defend trans people. I've had hundreds of conversations in person and online with trans people (by the way, almost all the trans people I've met in real life understand these points perfectly well). So, to come full circle, you're wrong. I have no desire to pick on trans people. I just won't stand by while women are picked on either.
Well, I’m all for spreading the not-picking-on around. Your concern about prison populations is obviously a good example of how “tran rights” can go off the rails. In that case I would argue the problem isn’t so much trans women, it’s rapists, but the fact that the two groups intersect is clearly problematic. No argument there. I think I may have entered that conversation at an inopportune point. If I had had some sense that the conversation wAs about protecting women from any(!) kind of predation, I’d have kept my mouth shut. I have no interest in dismissing any group’s experience/concerns either, certainly not women. (I have to think about whether, for example, i might be in favor of dismissing the KKK’s ‘concerns’ out of hand.)
"In that case I would argue the problem isn’t so much trans women, it’s rapists"
Oh, absolutely. And I'm not arguing that trans women are predators. The issue is the increasingly broad push for self ID, whereby male convicts can simply declare themselves women, with "no hormones, surgery or time spent living as the opposite sex required," (taken from this article: https://www.wsj.com/articles/male-inmates-in-womens-prisons-11622474215) and gain access to women's prisons.
This is so obviously dangerous that I can't believe anybody would support it. But the rush to affirm anybody who says they might be trans (and the conflation of *any* sensible guidelines for treating people who present with gender dysphoria, with "conversion therapy") has, in some cases, led to an almost pathological disdain for the rights, safety and comfort of women.
p.s. I must admit, I tend to dismiss the KKK's concerns out of hand. So far it's worked out pretty well. 😁
Well, I sure don’t support disdain for anyone’s rights, safety or even comfort. P.p.s. Yeah, I only mentioned KKK because I caught myself saying I don’t like to dismiss anyone’s POV and it didn’t take me long to see the BS in my claim.
Dear, dear, Nicole. As to equating those who are using language differently to how you chose to use it to Goebbels (it was he you paraphrase): wowzers! If only there were an award for intellectual laziness in the service of smug superiority!
First, unfounded accusations about people's intentions aren't particularly welcome here. If you disagree with somebody, by all means tell them. But explain why. I don't think Nicole's motivations are smug superiority.
And second, if you want to direct a comment at somebody, please reply to them directly. That way they get an opportunity to respond. This place is for conversations. Not for declarations.
All that said, Welcome LittleJJ! I don't think I've seen your name here before, and it seems like we might disagree on a few things, but if you take the time to engage, and resist the urge to assume bad intentions, I think you'll find that most people here are very reasonable and willing to listen/learn. I really do welcome people who have different points of view. In fact, the whole aim of this website is to bring different points of view together in an open, respectful way. I hope you'll add yours.
I’m not sure I see the ‘unfounded accusation’ about anyone’s ‘intentions’ in my mini-tirade (referenced above) but I don’t need to quibble much over that. One thing— I mentioned neither intent nor motive; however, my characterization was obvi quite critical, so that’s probably enough of that. As to invoking Goebbels and/or Himmler to characterize that ultimate boogeymen “the media,” and “progressives” (the horror!) a/k/a someone with whom one disagrees, well that’s the stuff of Fox news: that didn’t come from me. So if I stray this way again I’ll resist the urge to bark at anyone, however much I may be annoyed. Probably best I just stay away, because I tend to call ‘em as I see ‘em. Cheers.
Common set of facts, common language, where does it come from? Do we need a new social convention where folks are expected to lay our their language and definitions, and the FACTS they will draw on for the conversations they are about to have? Then do we need to set a time limit on how long we have to present that and agree on what we have in common, or else just walk away from each other if there's not enough alignment?
I listen a lot to Braver Angels debates and presentations and they seem to be able to have civil conversations, but they have really strict rules about maintaining positive regard and don't allow people to question each other directly The discourse is generally meant to encourage understanding and it rarely gets into "what actions do we take as a result of what we learned?" Some days I despair of our citizenry being sensible enough to use these tools to make the kind of important and long-lasting decisions we need to in this crazy country.
"Common set of facts, common language, where does it come from? Do we need a new social convention where folks are expected to lay our their language and definitions, and the FACTS they will draw on for the conversations they are about to have?"
I think it's just a question of being willing to listen and have your mind changed. Being able to admit when you don't know something. To not assert things without evidence.
To use this conversation with Brigit as an example, once somebody has decided that anybody who says something other than what she believes is a liar, it makes it almost impossible to have a conversation. When I present new information, even with evidence, she can't accept them. Because the truth itself threatens her ego.
The common goal in any productive conversation has to be arriving at the truth or even better, as you say, some sort of productive action. I'm not a fan of conversations where everybody is spending 90% of their energy on not offending or challenging the other person. But of course, it's important not to trigger the other person's ego too much.
So to have a productive conversation, you need people who are genuinely motivated to get at the truth, who are willing to learn, and who have their egos at least somewhat under control. Getting all three of these in both people at the same time is, sadly, pretty rare.😅 But it's definitely possible.
Very well stated. I guess we just need to start by checking that practicing providing evidence, listening, learning, and trying to get to some shared version of "the truth" is the goal. Onward!
Steve, have you written about your own intellectual and political journey? How did you come to have the heterodox views that you have? Does it largely come from your upbringing, or have you made major shifts in perspective over time (I realize that any thinking person as you describe above will have constant minor shifts in perspective; I'm talking here more about larger changes). And in particular, what influence or experiences helped you escape the groupthink? If that is a fertile subject for you, perhaps an article on it?
You are quite right that too few discussions have a common goal of arriving at a better approximation of the truth. More commonly, people assume they already have the truth, so their goal is either (1) to convince the other people to agree or (2) to demonstrate to themselves their own moral or intellectual superiority and enjoy the feelings of self-validation that ensue.
"Steve, have you written about your own intellectual and political journey? How did you come to have the heterodox views that you have?"
That's an interesting question! I touched on it very briefly in my article, The Left's Identity (Politics) Crisis, but it was more about how the Left's politics is being overrun than my personal journey.
I mean, I really don't feel as if I've been on much of a journey. As you say, my views are always up for revision, but my values, I think, have remained pretty consistent. I recently saw somebody online describe me (as a compliment) as a conservative. It doesn't bother me, the labels never have, but I've never seen myself that way. I see myself as a left-leaning, liberal guy, who has watched discourse on pretty much every topic descend into madness around me.😅
As many other people have observed, a liberal who stayed more or less still on the political spectrum for the past ten years (even the past *five* years), is now seen by many people on the Left as Right-wing. I feel that the larger changes have been in the political landscape, not in me personally.
So yeah, insofar as my views are heterodox, I think it's just because I instinctively try to take a level-headed, honest, and forward-thinking approach to political issues. And that's become increasingly unusual. But what's really interesting to me is how many people agree with the "heterodox" things I'm saying. I really don't think any of the things I say are controversial. I think in many cases they're the majority view. It's just that I'm maybe more willing than some to say them publicly.
"More commonly, people assume they already have the truth, so their goal is either (1) to convince the other people to agree or (2) to demonstrate to themselves their own moral or intellectual superiority and enjoy the feelings of self-validation that ensue."
My spouse and I are pretty much in tune about politics and society (tho we differ on some things). We've talked about how, even as lifelong progressive liberals, we now find ourselves outside the tribe, at least in terms of the opinion leaders. For example, a lovely organization we volunteer at, has for the most laudable of reasons become woke, and we wonder how long it will be able to fulfil it's mission. For dissenting about DiAngelo's "White Fragility" a while back, we are on the periphery, not excluded but regarded with suspicion by some in leadership.
Like you, we feel that we basically have the same values we've had for decades, but there are other changes. A lot is the shift among the left, towards strategies which we strongly believe (after considerable thought and reading/viewing/talking) are counter-productive to progressive/liberal goals compatible with our values. But even with similar goals, any dissent on strategies, or even deep discussion of them, seems to be largely suppressed on the left today; it has become far more dogmatic than the subculture we joined many years ago. Some of the things which repelled us from moralistic conservatives seem to be emerging as mainstream on the left, with nearly no self-awareness.
But I have to admit, that I have also shifted. Not my values so much as my evaluation of the evidence on what works and what doesn't, which has evolved since my youth. Translating values to the real world involves connecting them with our best model of how the world works, and that latter model can change over time. I'm less optimistic that breaking things from passionate enthusiasm will somehow result in the emergence of a better order; there are far more ways to break things than to fix them, and we are not anywhere close to the worst case (ie: with nothing to lose as a society). Today I have more respect for concepts like "know why a fence was built before tearing it down" or "when remodeling, understand which walls you are removing are load-bearing walls and have a plan for that". I suppose those may be considered more "conservative" in a broad sense.
I was curious about your own path in part because my impression is that relatively fewer people of color break free of the narrative. There can be factors of peer pressure, or expected tribal loyalty to complicate the path. And of course, the role handed to them by The Oppression Narrative is superficially more attractive - they are assigned the role of the aggrieved party with the moral high ground, resenting the privilege of other other side; they can celebrate themselves, numb out any incipient criticism, and blame other people for everything. As a human being, I can see the attraction of that, but I think it's poisoned candy - albeit a slow poison whose effects on mental health are gradual and easily attributed to those same oppressors.
I realize that breaking free of that is possible for all sexes, races, sexual orientations, etc. But it's harder for those whom The Narrative elevates. We know its possible tho - we enjoy Coleman Hughes, John McWhorter, Glenn Loury, and YOU, among others. Thank you for the light you shed; I enjoy the fruits of your taking the time to think things out.
I have found that almost no neo-progressive is aware of Black militias, their marching publicly in various places with assault rifles, or their occassional violent threats. They are typically 100% certain that no such groups could exist. Your linked article mentions New Black Panther Party and the New Black Liberation Militia. Earlier I stumbled across the NFAC (Not F.... Around Coalition), which is similar - you can google them. There are likely others. They show up here and there around the country.
In 2020 they marched on the huge bas relief sculpture at Stone Mountain Park near Atlanta, Georgia, defying "racists" to stop them. What happened? Were they all shot or jailed? Nope. The park and the police were cooperative and supported the NFAC's first and second amendment rights, acknowledging that they were peaceful if loud.
(cue sound of smug neo-progressive heads exploding).
EG: https://www.newsweek.com/armed-black-demonstrators-challenge-white-supremacist-militia-georgias-stone-mountain-park-1515494
NFAC alone claims to be able to mobilize 1000 armed militia.
"I have found that almost no neo-progressive is aware of Black militias,"
Yep, because they don't exist if you only ever watch "progressive" news. The way the news filters reality is one of the biggest problems of our time in my opinion. Media organisations across the political spectrum don't report anymore, they're story tellers.
" they don't exist if you only ever watch "progressive" news."
More than that, if one is steeped in the neo-progressive narrative, Black militias would be impossible in the US - they would immediately be crushed by whites (acting as The State or as right-wing militias themselves).
I recently subscribed to The Economist, and have been enjoying their news and analysis. I'm not saying anybody is perfect, but this reporting is not slathered with obvious left wing or right wing ideological filters.
As to the story tellers - I have come to believe that the Prime Directive of neo-progressives is "Reinforce the Narrative" - primarily the moral story of oppressor and oppressed. Only evidence which supports that narrative is to be published; anything which might reduce its potency is to be buried or denies.
It's easy to see the incentives here. The Narrative is the source of their power, and it the primary tool by which they hope to reform the world into a more just and equitable place.
I see some of the roots in things like the US Civil Rights movement, including Martin Luther King. MLK made a powerful moral argument which galvanized the nation to pass legislation and change society; a moral narrative was the source of his power. However, I see MLK as invoking the larger "us", asking us all to come under the same umbrella, and to live up to our own ideals and values.
The neo-progressives, in my view, have weaponized a social tool based in part on that moral appeal. Except rather than inviting people in and challenging them to live up to their values, this time it's more based on trying to make people wrong, guilty, responsible not only for their own action but for those of anybody who "looks like them". The neo-progressive approach is more based on dividing us into competing camps, and then trying to use the assumed moral high ground to deminish one camp and build up the other. It's more about emphasing the narrower and less inclusive "us" (oppressed people and "allies") in perpetual conflict with "them" (anybody who doesn't follow the party line).
Power corrupts. Well meaning beginning sometimes become dysfunctional strategies towards mutated goals. Assumed moral superiority allows one to feel justified by non-reciprocal relations, by different moral rules for different tribes. Past injury to the tribe (in one domain) is used to justify present injury to the other tribe (in a different domain), as if that leads to a sustainable and just society. Instead, it's pushing both sides towards less tolerance and respect.
My issue with neo-progressivism is not so much with it's professed and nominal goals (many of which I support), as with the strategies employed, like emphasizing race essentialism and win/lose conflict as core principles.
So - reinforce the narrative as a source of power in a perpetual tribal conflict. Assume that X is radically less dangerous for a white person, or that doing Y would never bee allowed to a Black person, and avoid any counter-examples, because to weaken the narrative is to lose power.
If ever you wondered where the mania for imprecise language comes from, read Cynical Theories: How Activist Scholarship Made Everything About Race, Gender & Identity & Why This Harms Everybody, which should be shortened to the much more precise Everything Wrong With The Left. It's a terrifically all-encompassing explanation of critical everything theory including race, gender, queer (not a lot on trans, actually), disability, postcolonial and fat studies theory. Especially how much it's believed that you can change the world by changing discourse, i.e., the way we speak. It delves deep into how language broadens to include everything Theorists (they use a capital T to separate them from general theorists) they don't like. Also, part of the near-religion is the notion that whatever theory you favour, it's 'baked into' everything in the world so that everything is always about race, gender, fat, whatever your pet Theory is.
It's making me think how we need to reclaim language from these people and hold their feet to the fire on what words actually mean.
As for Brigit thinking she knows what life is like for all black people? It's a skewed vision based on the narrative put forth by the mainstream and social media, and she's heard the lie often enough (it's a lie when it leads one to think it's the *only* way to be black in America - constantly under attack by 'white supremacy') that, as Heinrich Himmler (or was it Goebbels?) noted, if you repeat the lie often enough people eventually believe it.
"If ever you wondered where the mania for imprecise language comes from, read Cynical Theories: How Activist Scholarship Made Everything About Race, Gender & Identity & Why This Harms"
I haven't read this yet, but yes, critical theory has infected every single social justice movement it seems. Mainly because it makes it extraordinarily easy to figure out who the bad guys and good guys are. And the good guys are *made* good by an immutable characteristic. So they can never do anything wrong, no matter how grotesque their behaviour is. It's perfect!😅
What's scary is that they're right. You *can* change the world by changing discourse. And frighteningly quickly. Language has become a Trojan horse where people who aren't paying attention are suddenly unable to define words like "racism" or "sex" or "woman". The redefinitions are slipped in under the guise of kindness and then accuracy itself becomes "oppression" (another word they struggle to define).
It's astonishing how quickly it's happened, and to be honest, I worry that we it's too late to reclaim the language.
Nahhhh, it's never too late. Back when I was a headstrong kid back in the Jurassic era (in Ohio) I used to argue with Christian fundamentalists until I realized that I've got to stop arguing on their turf....I have to argue on *my* turf (science and reason). You don't win arguments with them this way but you don't lose them either :)
We can reclaim he 'discourse' from them by insisting they stick to original meanings. It's not 'evolution' as one has argued to me, it's *de-evolution* when meaning broadens to include everything the SJW (Social Justice Warrior) doesn't like. Once we approach Critical Theory as the religion it is, we can help it destroy itself, as the Christian Right is doing with Trump support. He's not dead yet, but he will be...either figuratively or literally when he succumbs to one too many Big Mac Attacks in general.
You're challenging it *now*, Steve, by challenging CRT. I'm challenging Critical Gender Theory (i.e., 'victim feminism'). To paraphrase the Bible (badly) "Generations come and go, but Reason abideth forever." (Ecclesiastes 1:4, although I may be paraphrasing...just a bit :) )
We will win. The truth always comes out.
"You're challenging it *now*, Steve, by challenging CRT."
Oh yeah, I'm not saying we can't defeat the excesses of these ideologies, but as much as I hate to be pessimistic, I worry that the battle over the words themselves, and in turn some of the concepts, are in real danger.
I wonder how many 18-25-year-olds can confidently and without tautology define the word "woman". I wonder how many of them haven't absorbed the race essentialism and victimhood of certain CRT infused doctrines. I wonder how many of them could (or would dare to) speak coherently about these topics.
I don't know, maybe I just need a break from the internet.😅 I'm fresh off yet another conversation, with a woman this time, who was arguing that acknowledging the biological differences between males and females is transphobic. I keep coming across people who are so deeply confused, and are convinced that their confusion is a virtue.
She's being gaslit. She's allowing brainwashing to make her deny the evidence of her own lying eyes. The proof is here: Transmen menstruate WITHOUT menstruation suppressors; transwomen NEVER get pregnant and have babies. Their bodies do what they were designed to do; they don't care what one's 'identity' is. They're still biologically whatever they were born with. Sometimes, anatomy IS destiny. This is a GREAT opportunity for you to argue on your own turf with science and reason, and hold her to it.
I can't wait to see the article on *that* conversation!
Beyond the lack of a common set of facts, we are lacking a common language. We should imitate the dialogs of Plato and agree upon definitions before the debate begins in earnest. Or perhaps the debate should be on the meaning of the word and why opposing debaters favor one definition over another.
"Beyond the lack of a common set of facts, we are lacking a common language" Absolutely. I see this especially often when discussing trans issues. There have been so many linguistic games over the years that I think many of the people I talk to sincerely don't know how to define the words they use anymore. Of course, this makes any meeting of the minds impossible.
I believe that it's common for neo-progressives to avoid real engagement through asserting control of definitions.
As one example, there was a sudden firm conclusion that "sex" and "gender" referred to physical and mental aspects. It's actually a potentially useful distinction, and I could support it as a new proposal for purposes of discussion - but the proponents didn't consider it a "proposed" new definition, they considered it a done deal: "We have decided this is what the words really MEAN, and we will correct anybody using them 'wrongly'; this is not an additional meaning to be added to dictionaries, it's now the ONLY allowed meaning which will not be disparaged". That was a scant few years ago; now they are getting sorta conflated again, maybe. For example, for many activists, self-identification alone is often today being asserted to change "sex" as well as "gender".
Then Robin DiAngelo redefined "racism" in such a way that all white people without exception are racist, and nobody else can be - by definition. Of course, there could exist racial hatred, racial discrimination, racial bias, racial prejudice, or racial stereotyping by anybody and everybody, but those don't count (unless by whites, where it's redundant since they are racist from birth already). She wants to change what the word means, but retain all of the stigma from the earlier (and still far more common) usage.
When people say "trans women are women", it appears to me that many believe they are just stating objective fact, when of course that assertion is not objectively "true" nor "false", it's a disguised attempt to redefine "woman" to now include all humans who self-identify as women, and only them; biology is irrelevant to this definition. And changing the label doesn't change any objective reality. And in this case, the goal seems to be to immediately reinterpret any usage of the word "woman" in a document, policy or law, written under the original definition, to be inherited by the new definition.
This is a bit like redefining "children under 12" to now mean "anybody who feels like a child, no matter their biological age" and then requiring that all policies originally written for "children under 12" under the old definition, should now automatically apply instead to the new definition.
Some of these folks seem to confuse "winning by smugly redefining words and insisting that you HAVE to accept our definition" with actual engagement and superior reasoning and evidence.
So yes, I agree with you that real discussion would need to include agreeing on definitions of words - AS THEY WILL BE USED IN THE UPCOMING DISCUSSION at least (whether or not one agrees with these operational definitions, when used in other contexts.) There are some discussions which need to be held in good faith, which become impossible if somebody is insistent on playing word games.
To be clear, I am in this post not stating my agreement or disagreement or undecided view regarding any of the subject content (eg: regarding appropriate trans rights). I'm talking only about the seemingly deliberate obfuscation of communication by some parties. Well, semi-deliberate; as I say, some genuinely do not seen clear on the difference between labels and reality.
I have decided to henceforth call this neo-progressive tactic "The Humpty Dumpty Stratagem", referencing this:
'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.'
'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean so many different things.'
"'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.'"
😁 I absolutely love this!
“The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master—that’s all.”
I really appreciate your thoughts here. You’ve been able to put into words the frustration that I have with the neo-progressives who are also the loud and proud “cancel culture” crowd. I firmly believe that there needs to be accountability and transparency, I just don’t agree with how they’re going about it.
Add onto that that, as you stated, “sex” and “gender” are two terms that have been well-defined by biologists, anthropologists, wildlife experts, and so many others for well over a century now. To up and change those definitions because someone feels they lack inclusivity makes no logical sense to me. That would be, as you provided the example of, saying that “all children under 12” now includes anyone who identifies as a 12-year-old, no matter their biological age, and there is a whole rabbit hole of nasty that that kind of thinking can lead to.
When did we abandon intellect and common sense for burning down the world because someone got offended by what they interpreted a word to mean without actually taking the time to look up the true definition and actually try to comprehend what it means instead of demanding it be changed to what they want it to mean?
Yes, one irony for me comes from something decades ago at a family gathering, where I wound up assigned to help a Christian home-schooled relative with his homework. The particular book being used was a seemingly normal science textbook, studying the eye, with diagrams and terms. When I injected observations about the differences between the eyes of prey like deer, and those of predators like cats or primates like ourselves - he solemnly corrected me to inform me that humans are not animals. Apparently, the similarities between our species and other primates are just coincidental. (Scanning the textbook after that, it had some strange anomalies, like avoiding any concept of species per se, but that's another topic).
Now it's neo-progressives who are in effect sometimes asserting that humans are not like animals, and our *biological sex* (not just social gender roles) is not determined by genes or phenotype, but by self identification. And then smugly saying "follow the science" as if they had a lock on science, which always follows their ideology or can be dismissed.
Yeah, I have to continually work on being more generous in my framing, and I do. Scorn does not persuade anybody, it more pushes them into defending their corner. I do not want to follow their example. But I just need to let my hair down in a space like this sometimes.
https://youtu.be/-wkdH_wluhw
The uncommon language is intentional. Refer to the comment I just left here a few minutes ago about how the left is consciously muddying 'discourse', i.e., language.
I think a lot of this stems from not knowing who to trust when the previous administration was able to get The NY Times, WaPo, and others to put up so many diversions as to focus on a certain person’s moment-by-moment tweets while ignoring all of the really terrible things going on in the world as a whole, not to mention the atrocities happening on our own soil in regards to the detention (*ahem* concentration) camps. [edit (And I do fully realize that those camps are still there and still just as terrible now under the current admin as they were under the last one. Hell, if we were any other country doing this, the US would’ve invaded to bring humanitarian relief, but because it’s on our own soil far too many people turn a blind eye.) end edit] As well the prevalence and volume of the right wing networks, and the people bending over backwards to get the opinion of the expert with decades of experience and schooling under their belt against that of the village idiot, and then actually taking the village idiot’s words over the experts.
If I want to look into the past and read on the truth of the history of our nation without any of the whitewashing or sugarcoating, I know which historians and publishers to go to for thoroughly researched information. But on what’s happening in our country and the world today . . . ? For every 1 truly credible and unbiased source, there are 20 others that have cherry-picked and spun the information to their own desired outcome and called that pack of lies “truth in media”. I’ve been overwhelmed by the madness of it all for 5 years now, and I honestly don’t even know where to begin to look for information that can truly be trusted to lay out current events without bias, spin/slant, coverup, or whitewashing.
Where do you even begin? How do we find truly credible sources that aren’t the same old smokescreens they’ve become? And that’s a truly honest and sincere request. Because I don’t know where to begin or who to really trust for the dark honest truth.
"Where do you even begin? How do we find truly credible sources that aren’t the same old smokescreens they’ve become? And that’s a truly honest and sincere request. Because I don’t know where to begin or who to really trust for the dark honest truth"
Oof, if you ever find a source that fulfils this request let me know!😅 As I said, my solution is to consume a range of sources, from across the political spectrum, whenever I'm really trying to get at the truth of something. If there's a quote or a clip, I always try to find the full source and understand the context. If there's a statistic, I go and find the original research and check the quality of their data.
Obviously, this is intensely time consuming work. And not something that every body can do, or has any interest in doing. But having done it for a while, I think I've become reasonably good at piecing together a story if I think it's important.
For everything else, for the stuff I'm not super interested in, I just leave room for doubt. If I've only read one source of information, even if I've read it thoroughly, I basically consider myself to know nothing at all about the story. If I have a conversation about it and encounter a conflicting account, I try to probe to see where the difference is coming from (is the person I'm talking to misremembering what they read? Am I? Is there some obvious aspect of this new information that discounts one or both of our perspectives?).
The real problem, as perfectly illustrated by Brigit, is how certain people can be on limited information. If we can't recognise that there are always things we don't know, we sabotage our own ability to learn.
Not terribly impressed with straw man arguments about identity and trans people. Ever known a trans person? Ever spent hundreds of hours talking with trans people? Of course not. (I have: eye opening). But that doesn’t stop so many “well intentioned” people from glibly dismissing trans people’s struggles as primarily some sort of abuse of language (whose language? Who owns language?). The argument that biology equals identity seems like a strangely arbitrary bit of taxonomic laziness born primarily, as usual, of ignorance. I cannot figure out why cisgendered folk who—at this point—would never tell a gay person how they’re supposed to understand their own experience feel perfectly qualified to dismiss the trans experience from the comfortable perspective of someone who has never had to struggle with gender. Could it be because it’s just so much fun! to pick on someone in a relatively powerless minority? I would love to be wrong.
"I cannot figure out why cisgendered folk who—at this point—would never tell a gay person how they’re supposed to understand their own experience feel perfectly qualified to dismiss the trans experience from the comfortable perspective of someone who has never had to struggle with gender."
I'm glad you would love to be wrong. Because you are. I don't know about you, but I don't find it fun to pick on anybody, "relatively powerless" or not. Which is why I'm not picking on anybody.
But if you'd like an answer to the question I've quoted above, the difference is that gay people don't require everybody in society to participate in their experience. I'm not dismissing the trans experience. Not at all. I'm just not dismissing the female experience either. And there are a few places where trans rights (specifically trans women's rights) bump up against women's sex-based rights. A good example of this is prisons.
There's currently lots of controversy about cases where trans women have been housed in women's prisons and have sexually assaulted or impregnated the female prisoners. The argument for justifying this is that trans women face the danger of assault if they're imprisoned with men. But if your argument is that trans women should be housed with women, shouldn't you feel equally strongly that trans men be housed with men? With all the dangers that would bring? And yet trans men are also typically housed with women. Because, you guessed it, of the danger of assault if they're imprisoned with men.
So my question is, where's the consistency? If trans men are men, why aren't you insisting that they are housed with male prisoners? Is it perhaps because you understand that the situation is more complex than that? If so, you also understand women's objection to being imprisoned with trans women.
And, to answer your first question, yes, I have known numerous trans people. I've physically, in *real-life*, fought to defend trans people. I've had hundreds of conversations in person and online with trans people (by the way, almost all the trans people I've met in real life understand these points perfectly well). So, to come full circle, you're wrong. I have no desire to pick on trans people. I just won't stand by while women are picked on either.
Well, I’m all for spreading the not-picking-on around. Your concern about prison populations is obviously a good example of how “tran rights” can go off the rails. In that case I would argue the problem isn’t so much trans women, it’s rapists, but the fact that the two groups intersect is clearly problematic. No argument there. I think I may have entered that conversation at an inopportune point. If I had had some sense that the conversation wAs about protecting women from any(!) kind of predation, I’d have kept my mouth shut. I have no interest in dismissing any group’s experience/concerns either, certainly not women. (I have to think about whether, for example, i might be in favor of dismissing the KKK’s ‘concerns’ out of hand.)
"In that case I would argue the problem isn’t so much trans women, it’s rapists"
Oh, absolutely. And I'm not arguing that trans women are predators. The issue is the increasingly broad push for self ID, whereby male convicts can simply declare themselves women, with "no hormones, surgery or time spent living as the opposite sex required," (taken from this article: https://www.wsj.com/articles/male-inmates-in-womens-prisons-11622474215) and gain access to women's prisons.
This is so obviously dangerous that I can't believe anybody would support it. But the rush to affirm anybody who says they might be trans (and the conflation of *any* sensible guidelines for treating people who present with gender dysphoria, with "conversion therapy") has, in some cases, led to an almost pathological disdain for the rights, safety and comfort of women.
p.s. I must admit, I tend to dismiss the KKK's concerns out of hand. So far it's worked out pretty well. 😁
Well, I sure don’t support disdain for anyone’s rights, safety or even comfort. P.p.s. Yeah, I only mentioned KKK because I caught myself saying I don’t like to dismiss anyone’s POV and it didn’t take me long to see the BS in my claim.
The cognitive dissonance. Never ceases to amaze.
Dear, dear, Nicole. As to equating those who are using language differently to how you chose to use it to Goebbels (it was he you paraphrase): wowzers! If only there were an award for intellectual laziness in the service of smug superiority!
Also, just two housekeeping points.
First, unfounded accusations about people's intentions aren't particularly welcome here. If you disagree with somebody, by all means tell them. But explain why. I don't think Nicole's motivations are smug superiority.
And second, if you want to direct a comment at somebody, please reply to them directly. That way they get an opportunity to respond. This place is for conversations. Not for declarations.
All that said, Welcome LittleJJ! I don't think I've seen your name here before, and it seems like we might disagree on a few things, but if you take the time to engage, and resist the urge to assume bad intentions, I think you'll find that most people here are very reasonable and willing to listen/learn. I really do welcome people who have different points of view. In fact, the whole aim of this website is to bring different points of view together in an open, respectful way. I hope you'll add yours.
I’m not sure I see the ‘unfounded accusation’ about anyone’s ‘intentions’ in my mini-tirade (referenced above) but I don’t need to quibble much over that. One thing— I mentioned neither intent nor motive; however, my characterization was obvi quite critical, so that’s probably enough of that. As to invoking Goebbels and/or Himmler to characterize that ultimate boogeymen “the media,” and “progressives” (the horror!) a/k/a someone with whom one disagrees, well that’s the stuff of Fox news: that didn’t come from me. So if I stray this way again I’ll resist the urge to bark at anyone, however much I may be annoyed. Probably best I just stay away, because I tend to call ‘em as I see ‘em. Cheers.
Common set of facts, common language, where does it come from? Do we need a new social convention where folks are expected to lay our their language and definitions, and the FACTS they will draw on for the conversations they are about to have? Then do we need to set a time limit on how long we have to present that and agree on what we have in common, or else just walk away from each other if there's not enough alignment?
I listen a lot to Braver Angels debates and presentations and they seem to be able to have civil conversations, but they have really strict rules about maintaining positive regard and don't allow people to question each other directly The discourse is generally meant to encourage understanding and it rarely gets into "what actions do we take as a result of what we learned?" Some days I despair of our citizenry being sensible enough to use these tools to make the kind of important and long-lasting decisions we need to in this crazy country.
"Common set of facts, common language, where does it come from? Do we need a new social convention where folks are expected to lay our their language and definitions, and the FACTS they will draw on for the conversations they are about to have?"
I think it's just a question of being willing to listen and have your mind changed. Being able to admit when you don't know something. To not assert things without evidence.
To use this conversation with Brigit as an example, once somebody has decided that anybody who says something other than what she believes is a liar, it makes it almost impossible to have a conversation. When I present new information, even with evidence, she can't accept them. Because the truth itself threatens her ego.
The common goal in any productive conversation has to be arriving at the truth or even better, as you say, some sort of productive action. I'm not a fan of conversations where everybody is spending 90% of their energy on not offending or challenging the other person. But of course, it's important not to trigger the other person's ego too much.
So to have a productive conversation, you need people who are genuinely motivated to get at the truth, who are willing to learn, and who have their egos at least somewhat under control. Getting all three of these in both people at the same time is, sadly, pretty rare.😅 But it's definitely possible.
Very well stated. I guess we just need to start by checking that practicing providing evidence, listening, learning, and trying to get to some shared version of "the truth" is the goal. Onward!
Steve, have you written about your own intellectual and political journey? How did you come to have the heterodox views that you have? Does it largely come from your upbringing, or have you made major shifts in perspective over time (I realize that any thinking person as you describe above will have constant minor shifts in perspective; I'm talking here more about larger changes). And in particular, what influence or experiences helped you escape the groupthink? If that is a fertile subject for you, perhaps an article on it?
You are quite right that too few discussions have a common goal of arriving at a better approximation of the truth. More commonly, people assume they already have the truth, so their goal is either (1) to convince the other people to agree or (2) to demonstrate to themselves their own moral or intellectual superiority and enjoy the feelings of self-validation that ensue.
"Steve, have you written about your own intellectual and political journey? How did you come to have the heterodox views that you have?"
That's an interesting question! I touched on it very briefly in my article, The Left's Identity (Politics) Crisis, but it was more about how the Left's politics is being overrun than my personal journey.
I mean, I really don't feel as if I've been on much of a journey. As you say, my views are always up for revision, but my values, I think, have remained pretty consistent. I recently saw somebody online describe me (as a compliment) as a conservative. It doesn't bother me, the labels never have, but I've never seen myself that way. I see myself as a left-leaning, liberal guy, who has watched discourse on pretty much every topic descend into madness around me.😅
As many other people have observed, a liberal who stayed more or less still on the political spectrum for the past ten years (even the past *five* years), is now seen by many people on the Left as Right-wing. I feel that the larger changes have been in the political landscape, not in me personally.
So yeah, insofar as my views are heterodox, I think it's just because I instinctively try to take a level-headed, honest, and forward-thinking approach to political issues. And that's become increasingly unusual. But what's really interesting to me is how many people agree with the "heterodox" things I'm saying. I really don't think any of the things I say are controversial. I think in many cases they're the majority view. It's just that I'm maybe more willing than some to say them publicly.
"More commonly, people assume they already have the truth, so their goal is either (1) to convince the other people to agree or (2) to demonstrate to themselves their own moral or intellectual superiority and enjoy the feelings of self-validation that ensue."
And yes, this nails it I think.
That describes my own history pretty well too.
My spouse and I are pretty much in tune about politics and society (tho we differ on some things). We've talked about how, even as lifelong progressive liberals, we now find ourselves outside the tribe, at least in terms of the opinion leaders. For example, a lovely organization we volunteer at, has for the most laudable of reasons become woke, and we wonder how long it will be able to fulfil it's mission. For dissenting about DiAngelo's "White Fragility" a while back, we are on the periphery, not excluded but regarded with suspicion by some in leadership.
Like you, we feel that we basically have the same values we've had for decades, but there are other changes. A lot is the shift among the left, towards strategies which we strongly believe (after considerable thought and reading/viewing/talking) are counter-productive to progressive/liberal goals compatible with our values. But even with similar goals, any dissent on strategies, or even deep discussion of them, seems to be largely suppressed on the left today; it has become far more dogmatic than the subculture we joined many years ago. Some of the things which repelled us from moralistic conservatives seem to be emerging as mainstream on the left, with nearly no self-awareness.
But I have to admit, that I have also shifted. Not my values so much as my evaluation of the evidence on what works and what doesn't, which has evolved since my youth. Translating values to the real world involves connecting them with our best model of how the world works, and that latter model can change over time. I'm less optimistic that breaking things from passionate enthusiasm will somehow result in the emergence of a better order; there are far more ways to break things than to fix them, and we are not anywhere close to the worst case (ie: with nothing to lose as a society). Today I have more respect for concepts like "know why a fence was built before tearing it down" or "when remodeling, understand which walls you are removing are load-bearing walls and have a plan for that". I suppose those may be considered more "conservative" in a broad sense.
I was curious about your own path in part because my impression is that relatively fewer people of color break free of the narrative. There can be factors of peer pressure, or expected tribal loyalty to complicate the path. And of course, the role handed to them by The Oppression Narrative is superficially more attractive - they are assigned the role of the aggrieved party with the moral high ground, resenting the privilege of other other side; they can celebrate themselves, numb out any incipient criticism, and blame other people for everything. As a human being, I can see the attraction of that, but I think it's poisoned candy - albeit a slow poison whose effects on mental health are gradual and easily attributed to those same oppressors.
I realize that breaking free of that is possible for all sexes, races, sexual orientations, etc. But it's harder for those whom The Narrative elevates. We know its possible tho - we enjoy Coleman Hughes, John McWhorter, Glenn Loury, and YOU, among others. Thank you for the light you shed; I enjoy the fruits of your taking the time to think things out.