Support NeoGAF

[Ophelion]

Was ready to agree with the piece based on the title, because there's a certain truth to it in certain quarters But based on reading it and the author's reaction. It's a pile of shit. There's a lot of maddening delusion there and that's not smug to say or think.

I agree. The subject matter itself is worthy of discussion, but the article is pretty shit.

 

[Oblivion]

Just like liberals trying to impose their beliefs and values about how I should live my life,

Conservatives don't try to impose their beliefs on liberals with things like abortions, whether gay people should be allowed to get married, whether to deport millions of people, or who's allowed to go into what bathroom, etc.?

and take the money I earn through the government?

Do you think we should eliminate all taxes entirely? Because if not, I got bad news for you, conservatives want to take your money too, but they just want to spend it on different things.

 

[kirblar]

i think there's a pretty clear difference between a brand trying to market itself and an individual person presenting an opinion

Not really. People are marketing themselves all the time to other people. We even have people referring to themselves as a "brand" unironically all the time now.

 

[aeolist]

Not really. People are marketing themselves all the time to other people. We even have people referring to themselves as a "brand" unironically all the time now.

people do that but that's not the only reason they communicate ideas. i think it's shitty to assume that just because you don't like something they're saying or the way they say it.

brands have no reason to do this other than marketing so it's safe to make that assumption.

 

[kirblar]

people do that but that's not the only reason they communicate ideas. i think it's shitty to assume that just because you don't like something they're saying or the way they say it.

brands have no reason to do this other than marketing so it's safe to make that assumption.

We make assumptions all the time based on experience and such - treating everyone like a blank slate is foolish when you have a lifetime of experiences and interactions to guide you forward.

 

[aeolist]

We make assumptions all the time based on experience and such - treating everyone like a blank slate is foolish when you have a lifetime of experiences and interactions to guide you forward.

and making the most cynical assumptions about people all the time doesn't seem like it works that well either

 

[wildfire]

I never even heard of the John Yoo interview till now.

I watched the uneditted version and the public comments both parties stated after the discussion. When the interview ended I didn't think Stewart was trying to be the smug gotcha liberal Vox was describing but his post televised commentary clearly says he was trying to be that asshole.

Even though he was trying to be superior to Yoo I feel his discussion did help broaden the understanding of what Presidential powers could be. The one mistake I wish Stewart had not made was never asking Yoo if he thought torture was effective in the first place. He was trying too hard to pin Yoo for giving Bush authority to expand his powers when Yoo is correct to consistently point out Congress is his check ( and they abandoned their responbilities for both Bush and Obama) and that his responsibility was to only advise Bush on what's possible.

...because for all the author's whining about liberals neglecting lower-class white issues, lower-class whites are the most vocal opposition to the ACA and medicaid expansion

Are they really?

I'm asking because you seem to be treading on that same smug not listening track the article talks about.

Lower class whites say repeal Obamacare, don't you dare touch my medicare.


You're decision to rephrase their usage of Obamacare as ACA is how you in the same breath say they want to repeal medicare. They clearly support the status quo with medical aid and a lot of them support the expansion. What they don't support is giving Obama credit for making their lives better. We can all speculate why.

 

[wildfire]

Was ready to agree with the piece based on the title, because there's a certain truth to it in certain quarters But based on reading it and the author's reaction. It's a pile of shit. There's a lot of maddening delusion there and that's not smug to say or think.

And some of the posters in here saying how they're so 'above the fray' and how both sides are awful are probably the worst of fucking all. The smugness and pretentious exuding from their posts makes me wanna barf. Jesus fuck, get over yourselves! It's like you can't even recognize how smug YOU come across when commenting on this fucking article? Absolutely zero self-awareness.

So who is doing it? Why are you refusing to talk to them directly?

 

[Chezzymann]

I have so much trouble with this type of thing.

I find it so difficult to believe that one side (liberals) is almost completely right and the other side is almost completely wrong. That just isn't how the world works.

On the other hand... I look at the things republicans say, and how can I not feel as though their policies are idiotic? They think that fewer gun control laws will make us safer despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, they're anti-Obama care for no reason I can actually seem to decern, and—by far most damning for me—they're somehow convinced that Global Warming is a giant hoax.

The answer to your question is that there isn't an objective truth to things. People look at information and make their own interpretation out of it that's based on their core values (individual focused, society focused, etc). The schism in this country and the reason democrats and Republicans disagree so much is that their values are different, not because one side is always right and the other is stupid

 

[BamfMeat]

The answer to your question is that there isn't an objective truth to things. People look at information and make their own interpretation out of it that's based on their core values (individual focused, society focused, etc). The schism in this country and the reason democrats and Republicans disagree so much is that their values are different, not because one side is always right and the other is stupid

That is not at all a true statement. Objective truth is something that cannot be argued. Objective truths can be proven.

It doesn't matter how you slice it, if the polar glaciers are melting at X rate, that is an objective truth. I can look at that information any way I want to, but at the end of the day, the truth is, the polar glaciers are STILL melting. We can directly attribute it to some humans doing. That is an objective truth.

Where the opinion and the uncertainty comes in is "what to do about this information and is it an issue at all?" That's there the divide is. The truths themselves are unarguable.

 

[M0nochromatic]

The answer to your question is that there isn't an objective truth to things. People look at information and make their own interpretation out of it that's based on their core values (individual focused, society focused, etc). The schism in this country and the reason democrats and Republicans disagree so much is that their values are different, not because one side is always right and the other is stupid

Centuries of philosophical debate, scientific achievement, and technological advancement seem to indicate otherwise.

 

[Chezzymann]

That is not at all a true statement. Objective truth is something that cannot be argued. Objective truths can be proven.

It doesn't matter how you slice it, if the polar glaciers are melting at X rate, that is an objective truth. I can look at that information any way I want to, but at the end of the day, the truth is, the polar glaciers are STILL melting. We can directly attribute it to some humans doing. That is an objective truth.

Where the opinion and the uncertainty comes in is "what to do about this information and is it an issue at all?" That's there the divide is. The truths themselves are unarguable.

I guess I meant "answer' not truth. My mind was more in economic or social policies and what is the most optimal path.

 

[Prax]

I really liked this quote:

The smug style, at bottom, is a failure of empathy. Further: It is a failure to believe that empathy has any value at all. It is the notion that anybody worthy of liberal time and attention and respect must capitulate, immediately, to the Good Facts.

I think it's important to be mindful of how people prioritize things differently in their lives, and a lot of compromises have to be made even if all of us are "on the same boat" and want to make the best of it.

Overall, I really enjoyed reading the article and now.. I have to read all this discussion!
Wish me luck!

 

[kirblar]

I guess I meant "answer' not truth. My mind was more in economic or social policies and what is the most optimal path.

There's a lot where there's not a lot of consensus on what's optimal.

However, there's often a lot of consensus on what not to do.

 

[Yamauchi]

I agree with most of the article, and it is largely the reason I have shifted from a liberal position over the last few years. It's not something new, however. You can read political journals and books from the 19th century and they talk about the same fundamental contradiction in the progressive view -- that they claimed to have broad views but in fact were only open to those who held the same world view as theirs. Progressivisms golden age in the early 20th century was an anomaly, not the norm, and given the climate of American politics it is not a surprise it has become as polluted by the culture wars as American conservatism.

 

[Abstrusity]

Personally, I don't see the issue with treating people who vote against their own rational self-interest like irrational people. Remember: Rational self-interest is only that when they have the full range of information about whatever they're doing. So either they don't, and need education(and thus don't have the information to vote their own interest succinctly), or they do, and are voting against their own interest. Either way, it imposes their own ignorance or irrationality on the rest of the country.

Funnily enough, a parliamentary system might help with this, too, especially because voting today revolves around certain key issues, not the whole. Where's my pro-gun, pro-science, Keynesian econ spouting masterwork of a party? If guns are the most important thing to me, why would I vote for anything else, regardless of my position on it? At what point should I care about others before myself? If my family is starving, or drug abuse run rampant within, and the promised land of the status quo isn't going to help, why wouldn't I vote for Drumpf or Sanders?

The whole system is broken.

Democracy was a mistake. It's all trash.

 

[freethoughtbubble]

People wonder how Republicans managed to turn "liberal" into a four letter word so effectively. I don't wonder that, at all. Completely aside from the substantive issues, this smug affectation so many of us have (some more consistently than others) turns people right the fuck off.

 

[timetokill]

This is objectively dumb. It's the same spacious reasoning that has conservatives wailing when they are called out on their racism.

No-one is looking to ban Christians from going to church, or getting married in church, or not having abortions. It is only the Christian right who seek to impose their beliefs and values onto other people, and thus they are the ones called out on it. They *are* intolerant, they *are* bigoted, and they will be called that because it's simply the truth.

I mean, I think this is the entire point of the article. You can't even recognize that yes, you too are seeking to impose your beliefs and values on other people! That's what politics is. But you don't see it that way -- in the article's argument, the "smug liberal" doesn't even see themselves as arguing for beliefs and values. They see themselves as the knowers of truth.

These are beliefs and values: abortion isn't murder. Gay people should be able to marry. Trans people should be able to use whatever bathroom they want. The rich should pay more in taxes. Heathcare should be free. Etc etc.

You want to live in a society where those things are law. It is impossible to do so without imposing these beliefs on society at large, including people that believe that life begins at conception, that homosexuality is a moral wrong, that there is a clear biological divide between the sexes that shouldn't be crossed, that taxes are too high on the rich already, that healthcare is best served as a market than a government service.

The smug liberal is so afraid of the concept of "imposing their beliefs" that they delude themselves into thinking they're not imposing their beliefs at all, they're simply doing what is True.

 

[Gotchaye]

Like a few other people here I went in to this more-or-less sympathetic to what I imagined would be the point of the essay, but it's got a lot of problems.

I can't help but feel like the unstated angle here is "deemphasize the civil rights and gay rights stuff and go all-in on economic populism". The author's failure to talk about race much at all in explaining how we got to where we are in politics seems telling. He seems to think that the Democrats lost the white working class by moving to the right economically, but the Democrats had to move to the center because they were getting beaten by Republicans who were already winning white voters. This is all presented as if the contempt some liberals exhibit for poor white conservatives translates into Democrats not pursuing policies that are good for poor people, but, like, that's just obviously not what's happened. Obama and the Democrats in Congress have done a lot that's good for poor people, especially given Republican opposition. You saw less of this under Clinton - although of course Hillary Clinton played a prominent role in trying to pass health care reform even back then - but it's not like the Democrats just decided one day to move to the center. They moved to the center because they were getting annihilated at the ballot box by exactly these white voters who are apparently mad at them for moving to the center.

I mean, this is just nutty:

The rubes noticed that liberal Democrats, distressed by the notion that Indiana would allow bakeries to practice open discrimination against LGBTQ couples, threatened boycotts against the state, mobilizing the considerable economic power that comes with an alliance of New York and Hollywood and Silicon Valley to punish retrograde Gov. Mike Pence, but had no such passion when the same governor of the same state joined 21 others in refusing the Medicaid expansion. No doubt good liberals objected to that move too. But I've yet to see a boycott threat about it.

No, it is not the case that a significant number of people are voting for Republicans because liberals did not boycott their states in order to make their governors expand Medicaid under Obamacare. They don't like Obamacare. It's sort of weird that the author of an essay about liberals not respecting poor whites has apparently not bothered to talk to many poor conservative whites to find out what makes them tick.

 

[not psycho]

What you're looking for is "how" and "why" someone's expressing condemnation/outrage/etc. - the type he's referring to w/ intelligence is when you're trying to look like the smartest person in the room and puff your chest because you're getting off on being able to claim the moral/intellectual superiority high ground. Not unique to liberals OR conservatives, happens on both sides.

Let's think this through though. Exactly how does it benefit you to respond to an argument, not by thinking about the content of the argument, but by assuming that the person making the argument is extracting an unseemly pleasure from making the argument?

If someone "virtue signals" by making a factual point, why do you have such a problem with it? If someone has had their life negatively affected by a policy and makes a strong argument against that policy, should we really hate them for feeling a jolt of positive sensation?

I suggest that accusations of "virtue signalling" itself has largely become a way to discard both empathy and reason. It's the exact same thing the article does:

You're better off watching nothing than watching Fox. He likes that even more.

It's an incredible lack of self awareness. Thought is not dedicated to the possibility that Fox is misleading, or what the implications of that would be. Of course not. Instead, thought is dedicated to the smug liberal who presumably likes it. The possibility that somewhere there is a liberal who likes it is the important thing.

And we can dismiss almost anything through accusations of virtue signalling.

Global warming? Oh, I bet you like that, big boy.

Loss of health care options for women? Oh, you love that fact, don't you.

Is this even a healthy approach to discussion?


-----

Pretty much the only thing that can be salvaged from the article is a general call for empathy... and even that is contradicted by the article's own lack of empathy (if the author believes he can make his point best by discarding empathy, how can we believe him when he tells us to use empathy as a way to improve results?)

 

[Clefargle]

I mean, I think this is the entire point of the article. You can't even recognize that yes, you too are seeking to impose your beliefs and values on other people! That's what politics is. But you don't see it that way -- in the article's argument, the "smug liberal" doesn't even see themselves as arguing for beliefs and values. They see themselves as the knowers of truth.

These are beliefs and values: abortion isn't murder. Gay people should be able to marry. Trans people should be able to use whatever bathroom they want. The rich should pay more in taxes. Heathcare should be free. Etc etc.

You want to live in a society where those things are law. It is impossible to do so without imposing these beliefs on society at large, including people that believe that life begins at conception, that homosexuality is a moral wrong, that there is a clear biological divide between the sexes that shouldn't be crossed, that taxes are too high on the rich already, that healthcare is best served as a market than a government service.

The smug liberal is so afraid of the concept of "imposing their beliefs" that they delude themselves into thinking they're not imposing their beliefs at all, they're simply doing what is True.

You are conflating criticism with "forcing beliefs. With the exception of taxes (including the ACA), none of the things you listed are an imposition on anyone personally. The kind of shit the right wing commonly attempts IS forcing their beleifs on others. It's literally them enforcing their beleifs about what is under someone else's skirt. It's literally an imposition when they ban gay marriage. It's literally an infringement of human rights to require people to disclose their sex reassignment surgeries to use certain bathrooms. It's literally an imposition on a woman's personal sovereignty to tell her what to do with her body.

It is NOT any of the above when someone is prevented by the law from discriminating against people on the basis of race, nationality, ethnicity, gender, orientation, and sex. If you can't see the difference I don't know what to tell you.

 

[Nabbis]

Welcome to reality. No matter the cause, it will be filled with assholes. Not like this is something unique to American liberalism.

 

[kirblar]

Let's think this through though. Exactly how does it benefit you to respond to an argument, not by thinking about the content of the argument, but by assuming that the person making the argument is extracting an unseemly pleasure from making the argument?

If someone "virtue signals" by making a factual point, why do you have such a problem with it? If someone has had their life negatively affected by a policy and makes a strong argument against that policy, should we really hate them for feeling a jolt of positive sensation?

I suggest that accusations of "virtue signalling" itself has largely become a way to discard both empathy and reason. It's the exact same thing the article does:

The reason it's terrible is that it results in toxic discussion and atmosphere. Those interacting with a desire to take the high ground and proclaim those with dissenting opinions as an out-group end up poisoning things and it results in things becoming more of a hive-mind as the "bad ones" leave or are exiled.

You don't seem to be grasping what virtue-signalling is. This is not about making an emotional appeal to try and affect change. This is not even about facts - you can certainly do virtue-signalling via embrace of a complete lie. It's about how you're interacting with people and framing situations. It's a political/social move designed to tell people "I'm a (good/trustworthy/moral/smart/etc) person. And people do it because it works. (unfortunately) People buy into it because many people haven't learned or never learned to spot it. It's based in tribalistic psychology- the same way many sports fans will rush to support an athlete/coach/politician/actor despite all evidence pointing to the contrary, because they've projected an image of being a "good person."

When Donald Trump proclaims that "the bible is his favorite book", he's virtue-signalling, trying to show what a "good Christian man" he is. In many facets of life, it's often people doing their PR for their personal brand.

But with political discourse, virtue-signalling often takes on a very, very ugly face, because people do it by attempting to stake out the high ground and draw a line in the sand. Where the most important thing isn't finding out the truth of a situation and working to resolve it, but using something so show how righteous and good they are and turn it into a tribal situation, where you have the good people (who view it their way) and the bad people (everyone else) with no room for shades of grey. Think of how you have politicians rushing to take a side in contested situations, trying to use it for their own benefit.

 

[not psycho]

The reason it's terrible is that it results in toxic discussion and atmosphere. Those interacting with a desire to take the high ground and proclaim those with dissenting opinions as an out-group end up poisoning things and it results in things becoming more of a hive-mind as the "bad ones" leave or are exiled.

You don't seem to be grasping what virtue-signalling is. This is not about making an emotional appeal to try and affect change. This is not even about facts - you can certainly do virtue-signalling via embrace of a complete lie. It's about how you're interacting with people and framing situations. It's a political/social move designed to tell people "I'm a (good/trustworthy/moral/smart/etc) person. And people do it because it works. (unfortunately) People buy into it because many people haven't learned or never learned to spot it. It's based in tribalistic psychology- the same way many sports fans will rush to support an athlete/coach/politician/actor despite all evidence pointing to the contrary, because they've projected an image of being a "good person."

When Donald Trump proclaims that "the bible is his favorite book", he's virtue-signalling, trying to show what a "good Christian man" he is. In many facets of life, it's often people doing their PR for their personal brand.

But with political discourse, virtue-signalling often takes on a very, very ugly face, because people do it by attempting to stake out the high ground and draw a line in the sand. Where the most important thing isn't finding out the truth of a situation and working to resolve it, but using something so show how righteous and good they are and turn it into a tribal situation, where you have the good people (who view it their way) and the bad people (everyone else) with no room for shades of grey. Think of how you have politicians rushing to take a side in contested situations, trying to use it for their own benefit.

What I'm saying is that it isn't productive to focus on the question of whether someone is virtue signalling. How does it benefit you or the discussion?

Most likely it isn't a black and white situation, 100% virtue signalling vs 100% selfless reason. The potential for dismissing someone because of presumed "virtue signalling" seems to be much greater than the danger(?) of listening to a factual, reasonable argument that is also a source of unseemly pleasure.

In other words, "virtue signalling" would not be a necessary reason to argue against something. You might argue against something that is false. You might argue against something that uses shaming in a manner you feel is harmful. You might argue against something that sets up a false black and white dichotomy of "good" vs "bad".

None of this requires you to assume that anyone is merely "virtue signalling." When you assume that, you have eliminated your own capability for empathy and can no longer meaningfully discuss the issue. It is counterproductive.

I refer again to the Fox News comment in this article. The author is, in effect, making an accusation of "virtue signalling", but in reality the author is discarding empathy and ending the possibility of discussion.

I can respond to arguments about global warming, health care for women, trickle down economics, voter ID laws by simply saying "ooh, I bet you like saying that." But who is the one being unreasonable? The person on the other side, who while they might have an element of virtue signalling is also making an effort to get a point across? Or me, who is flatly dismissing them with a buzzword in place of empathy?

 

[gutter_trash]

Smuggest liberals I've ever seen. Takes about 5 seconds for you to get the entire idea of the full video.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=tmaXB-NprOM

these Lefty purists who can't stomach any nuanced opinions that diverges by a millimeter a bit to the right can get anoying fast.

I consider myself to be Center-Center-Left and I have been accused of being a Conservative Right Winger by people who are on the ''pure'' Left.

I understand where the OP is coming from because it is true that hosts like Jon Stewart, John Oliver, Samantha Bee and kayfabe broken Steven Colbert can come off as ''smug'' with the voice intonations and smarmyness used when trying to deliver their material .

 

[kirblar]

What I'm saying is that it isn't productive to focus on the question of whether someone is virtue signalling. How does it benefit you or the discussion?

This entire discussion is about general discourse?

I'm not dismissing people's opinions based on virtue signalling, I'm lamenting the toxic impact they have on the quality of a discussion, not the quality of the values they're espousing.

 

[wildfire]

You are conflating criticism with "forcing beliefs. With the exception of taxes (including the ACA), none of the things you listed are an imposition on anyone personally. The kind of shit the right wing commonly attempts IS forcing their beleifs on others. It's literally them enforcing their beleifs about what is under someone else's skirt. It's literally an imposition when they ban gay marriage. It's literally an infringement of human rights to require people to disclose their sex reassignment surgeries to use certain bathrooms. It's literally an imposition on a woman's personal sovereignty to tell her what to do with her body.

*scratches head* None of them except the ones about taxes?

abortion isn't murder.

You're telling them that their belief that life starts at conception is invalid.

Gay people should be able to marry.

Yeah I agree this is an imposition on the part of those trying to ban it.

Trans people should be able to use whatever bathroom they want.

You're telling men and women (well mostly women) fuck off they can't have spaces where they are comfortable being with their own gender.

Heathcare should be free.

You're telling them it's free when the see a price tag as the correctly should think about.
Indirectly you're also telling them you don't care about their budget and financial health.

Those are some big impositions (aside from the trans one obviously) on your and in some cases my own part.

Welcome to reality. No matter the cause, it will be filled with assholes. Not like this is something unique to American liberalism.

Just because it's not unique doesn't mean we should just throw up our hands and give in to our weaknesses.

 

[Deleted member 17706]

The fuck is up with the vernacular on that article, "Good Facts" smh

I thought it was pretty good. Not only did it convey the smugness the author was talking about it, but the meaning came across immediately to me at least.

 

[not psycho]

I'm not dismissing people's opinions based on virtue signalling, I'm lamenting the toxic impact they have on the quality of a discussion, not the quality of the values they're espousing.

And I'm lamenting the toxic impact that assumptions and accusations of virtue signalling have on the quality of a discussion, as illustrated in this very article.

I agree that virtue signalling is sometimes used in harmful ways, as are assumptions of virtue signalling.

But I find the assumptions of virtue signalling more unfortunate because they are unnecessary. If an argument contains such things as falsehoods, harmful shaming, false dichotomies, etc, then it can be debated on those flaws. If an argument, on its own, is sparkling and clean, why does the potential secret dirtiness of virtue signalling matter so much that we need to end discussion and dedicate our time to uncovering it? And why must it be a black and white situation, can't virtue signalling be just a partial motivation?

 

[wildfire]

Like a few other people here I went in to this more-or-less sympathetic to what I imagined would be the point of the essay, but it's got a lot of problems.

I can't help but feel like the unstated angle here is "deemphasize the civil rights and gay rights stuff and go all-in on economic populism". The author's failure to talk about race much at all in explaining how we got to where we are in politics seems telling.

This part of post bothered me but it wasn't until rereading it I noticed why.

The Democratic coalition in the 21st century is bifurcated: It has the postgraduates, but it has the disenfranchised urban poor as well, a group better defined by race and immigration status than by class. There are more Americans without high school diplomas than in possession of doctoral degrees. The math proceeds from there.

The smug style takes this as a defense. Elite liberalism, and the Democratic Party by extension, cannot hate poor people, they say. We aren't smug! Just look at our coalition. These aren't rubes. Just look at our embrace of their issues.

But observe how quickly professed concern for the oppressed becomes another shibboleth for the smug, another kind of knowing. Mere awareness of these issues becomes the most important thing, the capacity to articulate them a new subset of Correct Facts.

The author isn't strictly advocating economic populism. He's raising a red card against the economic elite who high five each other for being knowledgeable about racial issues but are impotent at doing anything about it because they haven't embraced too much what it is they have studied.

 

[A Link to the Past]

I can buy this, liberals get really smug towards people who don't agree with them, regardless of whether they are indeed smarter or if they are not. It can range from this kind of stuff, to racial, to rebuffing criticisms from fellow liberals by arguing that being liberal means that they aren't racist/homophobic/sexist/transphobic/etc.

 

[FLEABttn]

and take the money I earn through the government?

Well it's that or when you buy things or when you use things or when you do things. Usually the other methods tend to be more regressive. I also don't really think the government (at the federal level) would restructure taxation in a way that significantly decreases tax revenues, so even in a world where it's not coming out of your income, it's not going be an insignificant VAT, so you're probably paying a very similar (or even higher) amount in tax.

 

[Clefargle]

*scratches head* None of them except the ones about taxes?
.

Yes:

Other people getting married doesn't impose on you.

Other people Having abortions doesn't impose on you.

Other people using public bathrooms without you knowing what their genitals look like doesn't impose on you.

Paying a tax penalty for not getting health coverage or having a tax increase is an imposition. I don't think taxes are an unwarranted imposition but you could make the case that they are to you and you might have a philosophical point. That's not a legal point though, I think people should pay taxes and the penalty tax for not having insurance. But I agree with you in principle there.

 

[Not]

Hey everybody let's go after the overzealous liberals first and not the bigots. They're the real pressing problem. You'll find white men's rights are at stake, and I don't even want to talk about what could happen.

 

[Bolivar687]

This is why I no longer identify as a liberal. It's actually steered me to the other side on a lot of social issues, exposing how they've been deceptively framed.

 

[User 73706]

This is why I no longer identify as a liberal. It's actually steered me to the other side on a lot of social issues, exposing how they've been deceptively framed.

Such as?

 

[AntChum]

Such as?

Gay marriage really is a Marxist plot to inject ISIS into women's restrooms.

 

[Woo-Fu]

If only there was value in stubbornness.

I'm guessing you weren't on Tarawa in late November of 1943.

 

[User 73706]

Gay marriage really is a Marxist plot to inject ISIS into women's restrooms.

Part of the reason I can never just intrinsically go along with someone going "well I used to lean left, but then once I actually started looking into things my attitude changed real quick" is, like... going somewhat centrist is one thing, but going full-on right? It immediately makes me think of something like:

 

[wildfire]

Yes:

Other people getting married doesn't impose on you.

I don't know why you even focused on this one. I said I agreed with you. :|

Other people Having abortions doesn't impose on you.

Asking people to accept murder is an imposition. For example when someone takes the life of a mother carrying a child people argue over whether or not it should be counted as a double homicide. Certain people don't like the idea of society having a double standard when it comes to determining that a fetus is alive when taken against the will of the parent but isn't when the parent determines they don't want to commit to it. Personally I already have determined how I would confront that conundrum myself when this talking point comes up.

Other people using public bathrooms without you knowing what their genitals look like doesn't impose on you.

Personally it doesn't. But when talking to women and I mean a lot of women over the years it is clearly an imposition to them. The percentage of women who are ok with mixed bathrooms is far lower than men from my observations, maybe statistics would bear this out.

Paying a tax penalty for not getting health coverage or having a tax increase is an imposition. I don't think taxes are an unwarranted imposition but you could make the case that they are to you and you might have a philosophical point. That's not a legal point though, I think people should pay taxes and the penalty tax for not having insurance. But I agree with you in principle there.

Right, and practically everyone sees healthcare as important and a big expense. I don't think couching the system in terms of it being free really helps get across the net benefits it provides.

 

[dream]

Gay marriage really is a Marxist plot to inject ISIS into women's restrooms.

I can't speak for bolivar, but I think there's something very intellectually lazy about the tactic (which we see fairly often) of using snark to preempt honest debate.

 

[Lord of Ostia]

Just to offer my own perspective, as someone who lives in Kansas and has worked in the Kansas legislature, since the state was mentioned directly in the article...the idea that Kansans are shooting themselves in the foot by continuing to elect conservatives is not a 'smug liberal' viewpoint. It's the viewpoint of anyone who has witnessed what misguided conservative economic policies have done to the state. The governor and legislature both have gutted the state's revenue to the point that the state's schools may end up closing for the next school year. The legislature has been pilfering the highway funds to maintain a 'balanced' budget while passing the highest sales tax in the nation. Any moderate republican, democrat, progressive, or conservative who isn't in the state government will tell you that the whole experiment has been an abject failure. So that portion of the article is completely off base and wrong.

 

[freethoughtbubble]

Yes:

Other people getting married doesn't impose on you.

Other people Having abortions doesn't impose on you.

Other people using public bathrooms without you knowing what their genitals look like doesn't impose on you.

Many conservative people would disagree with you -- public sanction and legal protection of activities considered morally wrong can feel like a grave imposition. Some people do not want to live in a society that condones such things.

It's easiest to see this when it comes to abortion. Some people see abortion as murder because they believe that life begins at conception and is sacred. Now, don't dismiss that -- for the sake of argument, accept that as true. How would you feel living in a society that sanctions and protects an act that you sincerely believe is an atrocity -- a crime against God? That sanctions evil with a capital "E?" Wouldn't you vote to prevent that from happening, to protect the perceived victims of that practice, even if it doesn't affect you personally?

I am a pro-choice atheist (hello, virtue signalling). You can't convince these people they're wrong because you can't prove that they're wrong. They're not wrong; they just disagree. The inability or refusal to see that is one of the problems raised by the article.

 

[Wowfunhappy]

I guess I meant "answer' not truth. My mind was more in economic or social policies and what is the most optimal path.

Far enough, but if someone looks at the fact that the ice caps are melting, and the sea level is rising, and major storms are becoming more frequent, etc etc, and still come to the conclusion that global warming is a giant hoax, I can't help but question that person's overall intelligence.

There are certain other concervative views that I can both disagree with and understand. Abortion is one. I'm pro-Abortion because I don't think that a handful of cells can be considered a person. But, I can understand how someone else might be horrified by the concept. Since no one can really explain what life is, or what makes a couple of cells "human", no view can be definitively correct.

The same applies to things like gay marriage and capital punishment.

But global warming, gun control... these are issues where I simply do not understand where the conservative viewpoint is even coming from. We have mountains data which tells a very clear story. There isn't really any room for debate.

 

[7DollarHagane]

It happens on both sides but theres a real lack of empathy and understanding and treating people like actual human beings and not either entitled lazy babies or slack Jawed racist yokels.

Not everything is as simple as that.

 

[Lord of Ostia]

Far enough, but if someone looks at the fact that the ice caps are melting, and the sea level is rising, and major storms are becoming more frequent, etc etc, and still come to the conclusion that global warming is a giant hoax, I can't help but question that person's overall intelligence.

There are certain other concervative views that I can both disagree with and understand. Abortion is one. I'm pro-Abortion because I don't think that a handful of cells can be considered a person. But, I can understand how someone else might be horrified by the concept. Since no one can really explain what life is, or what makes a couple of cells "human", no view can be definitively correct.

The same applies to things like gay marriage and capital punishment.

But global warming, gun control... these are issues where I simply do not understand where the conservative viewpoint is even coming from. We have mountains data which tells a very clear story. There isn't really any room for debate.

The only reason conservatives in power deny global warming is to appeal to business interests who don't want to bother with environmental regulations. The conservative base just rallies around whatever their leaders tell them, and their leaders cast doubt on climate science for the same reason that the cigarette companies doubted research saying smoking kills; to help their bottom line. There is no doubt about the science.

 

[Abstrusity]

Part of the reason I can never just intrinsically go along with someone going "well I used to lean left, but then once I actually started looking into things my attitude changed real quick" is, like... going somewhat centrist is one thing, but going full-on right? It immediately makes me think of something like:
]

Well, "wage-gap" is deceptive. It's framed as if women are paid 21-30 cents less who are by all accounts, working the exact same as men. In the early years of its adaptation as an argument, it was conveniently ignored WHY it is what it is.

It's no less true, but instead of active malice, it's mostly systemic issues. Fewer women go into a certain subject, fewer women that do can actually make it, women work, on average billable hours(this one is important) less than men do, so of course they'll get paid less! They have less experience, they're working for the company less, and etc,

Now, for many people, it ends there, except, well, the why for those goes deeper into systemic social issues, too. WHY do women work less? Because they're the ones generally, socially, relegated to taking care of the kids that they are generally, socially expected to have. And from a young age, they are eased into careers that are "girly" as opposed to ones that aren't -- surprise surprise, they often pay less.

And we can get into whether or not a socialization-driven choice is actually freedom of choice or not(some people, predominantly the religious, believe that there's always a choice, even when there's only one choice), and whether or not we can, could, or should change it.

So one simple issue is actually much, much deeper than that, and the solution? Well, according to people who go as far as "women are paid less than men for the same work, 30 percent less!" it's to just pay women that entire difference more. But should we pay a woman who has two years of experience as much as a man with 10 years of experience, even though the woman lost out on 8 years of experience through no fault of her own?

Reducing these arguments to something that simple and then, when it's questioned, trotting out the justifications -- no matter how true they are -- for the argument, before, once we learn how outrageously unfair it'd be for anyone to fix it in a certain way (saying yes, we SHOULD pay the woman with two years experience the same as the guy who has 10 years), retreating to the original argument and saying "You just want to pay women less for the same work!" starts to get on peoples' nerves. It's a classic motte and bailey fallacy.


That's why it pisses people off. And once you do that once, now EVERYTHING looks like a motte and bailey fallacy, even when it's not. Then, the original problem (that gender roles relegate women to having less experience, fewer billable hours even when they do, or the notion that women shouldn't be aggressive, but sit there and look pretty) never gets fixed because people don't want to change and, even if they did, they don't want to go too far.

Now your entire movement looks wrong, and the opposite side looks better, even marginally, because at least they're not "hiding their true intentions." (Except they frequently are)

Everything goes to shit from there. Next thing you know, you're babbling about ethics in human resources and tipping a fedora. It's not pretty.

quick edit: Keep in mind that the argument I used there is exaggerated. Nobody is claiming women should get paid more for less work or less experienced work...except for people who are easy to frame as insane, and they are used as strawmen to bring people in the middle over to 'their side.' This was a common GG tactic mostly because actual insane people on both sides are usually the ones that end up actually arguing as opposed to discussing with each other, and that further brings more people into the same fold as t hose extreme outliers. Meanwhile, everyone else discussing gets to suffer the fallout from it.

 

[AntChum]

I can't speak for bolivar, but I think there's something very intellectually lazy about the tactic (which we see fairly often) of using snark to preempt honest debate.

I don't consider it intellectual to debate the social issues that the American Left and Right are conflicted on. There's no merit to any train of thought that, when put into practice, would see minority groups discriminated against and/or demonised. I'd like to think Bolivar isn't the sort to entertain an odious twerp such as Ted Cruz, but to shift from being a liberal because social issues have been 'deceptively framed' is nothing short of groan-worthy.

 

[User 73706]

Well, "wage-gap" is deceptive. It's framed as if women are paid 21-30 cents less who are by all accounts, working the exact same as men. In the early years of its adaptation as an argument, it was conveniently ignored WHY it is what it is.

It's no less true, but instead of active malice, it's mostly systemic issues. Fewer women go into a certain subject, fewer women that do can actually make it, women work, on average billable hours(this one is important) less than men do, so of course they'll get paid less! They have less experience, they're working for the company less, and etc,

Now, for many people, it ends there, except, well, the why for those goes deeper into systemic social issues, too. WHY do women work less? Because they're the ones generally, socially, relegated to taking care of the kids that they are generally, socially expected to have. And from a young age, they are eased into careers that are "girly" as opposed to ones that aren't -- surprise surprise, they often pay less.

And we can get into whether or not a socialization-driven choice is actually freedom of choice or not(some people, predominantly the religious, believe that there's always a choice, even when there's only one choice), and whether or not we can, could, or should change it.

So one simple issue is actually much, much deeper than that, and the solution? Well, according to people who go as far as "women are paid less than men for the same work, 30 percent less!" it's to just pay women that entire difference more. But should we pay a woman who has two years of experience as much as a man with 10 years of experience, even though the woman lost out on 8 years of experience through no fault of her own?

Reducing these arguments to something that simple and then, when it's questioned, trotting out the justifications -- no matter how true they are -- for the argument, before, once we learn how outrageously unfair it'd be for anyone to fix it in a certain way (saying yes, we SHOULD pay the woman with two years experience the same as the guy who has 10 years), retreating to the original argument and saying "You just want to pay women less for the same work!" starts to get on peoples' nerves. It's a classic motte and bailey fallacy.


That's why it pisses people off. And once you do that once, now EVERYTHING looks like a motte and bailey fallacy, even when it's not. Then, the original problem (that gender roles relegate women to having less experience, fewer billable hours even when they do, or the notion that women shouldn't be aggressive, but sit there and look pretty) never gets fixed because people don't want to change and, even if they did, they don't want to go too far.

Now your entire movement looks wrong, and the opposite side looks better, even marginally, because at least they're not "hiding their true intentions." (Except they frequently are)

Everything goes to shit from there. Next thing you know, you're babbling about ethics in human resources and tipping a fedora. It's not pretty.

quick edit: Keep in mind that the argument I used there is exaggerated. Nobody is claiming women should get paid more for less work or less experienced work...except for people who are easy to frame as insane, and they are used as strawmen to bring people in the middle over to 'their side.' This was a common GG tactic mostly because actual insane people on both sides are usually the ones that end up actually arguing as opposed to discussing with each other, and that further brings more people into the same fold as t hose extreme outliers. Meanwhile, everyone else discussing gets to suffer the fallout from it.

"It's not ___ism, it's just business" is never a valid argument.

 

[JesseEwiak]

But global warming, gun control... these are issues where I simply do not understand where the conservative viewpoint is even coming from. We have mountains data which tells a very clear story. There isn't really any room for debate.

It's even more daunting when yes, there are other right of center parties in modern Western nations that are for lower taxes, less social welfare spending, restrictions on immigration, and in other issues, but there are no major parties in Western nations that are for expansive gun rights or against using the government to combat climate change.

"It's not ___ism, it's just business" is never a valid argument.

The other issue is the whole, "once you account for all these factors, this isn't a problem" argument because you can do that with almost every problem in the modern day.