The Left ... Need Some Thoughts ...
-
Alright folks, the idea of this thread is not to degenerate the left (which it could easily go down without too much help). But I wouldn't mind some assistance into the way that the hardcore lefties think. Basically, for family sanity.
My sister is a hardcore lefty. Works in the social service side for the govt, and pretty much so typifies everything that the hardcore stand for. Anyway, all a side note. What I'm looking for is some direct thoughts on this:
A couple of months ago Anika Moa had her "am I not white or male enough for you" moment. I chucked it on a family social network group simply stating that criticism of tattoos is not about being white or male and therefore she had no such point. It's what I'd call a typical lefty thing to do - assign a position to those you don't agree with that they did not take.
Anyway, after a bit of debate, which went nowhere I deleted it as people were just getting too wound up - after what I thought was a pretty innocuous sort of question. So it all rared it's ugly head again on Saturday night. I reiterated my stance, and BOOM, the left beast awoke! I was told I was wrong and there was "no point even discussing it with me as I'll never understand". So I pushed it ... I think my exact words were "You are right, I don't understand why I'm wrong, but I'm happy to have it explained to me" ... at which point the answer was "You'll never understand because you don't want to understand something that isn't your point of view. It's a waste of mine or yours time to debate it ... you are simply wrong and thats that". At which point, mother interjected and ended the convo.
So ... open forum. Why am I wrong? Why is me saying that Anika Moa saying "am I not white or male enough" is a nonsensical or logical argument for criticism of here tattoos?
I really would like to understand this, not a shit stirring thread.
-
Saying you wouldn’t understand or you’re too white or male is a way of shutting down debate because they don’t have a leg to stand on .
-
Btw if you ever stray into the gender pay gap debate with her simply ask why unemployment amongst men isn’t absolutely massive if you can employ a woman with the same experience and qualifications as a man and pay her 25% less . Every business would lay off all their male staff and save a fortune in wages .
-
@jegga said in The Left ... Need Some Thoughts ...:
Saying you wouldn’t understand or you’re too white or male is a way of shutting down debate because they don’t have a leg to stand on .
Yeah, I'm aware of that. But that isn't what she thinks. Hence, starting this thread ..
-
@jegga being the first to reply on a thread about Anika Moa is about as safe a bet as Trump triggering a lefty.
-
@mn5 said in The Left ... Need Some Thoughts ...:
@jegga being the first to reply on a thread about Anika Moa is about as safe a bet as Trump triggering a lefty.
I didn’t mention the fact I despise her in ways I can’t put words to this time though.
See I’ve moved on a bit . -
@majorrage said in The Left ... Need Some Thoughts ...:
@jegga said in The Left ... Need Some Thoughts ...:
Saying you wouldn’t understand or you’re too white or male is a way of shutting down debate because they don’t have a leg to stand on .
Yeah, I'm aware of that. But that isn't what she thinks. Hence, starting this thread ..
All bullshit aside I don’t see this ending up in a civil discussion with her since she’s got an entrenched position with absolutely nothing to defend it with so she probably just lash out in some way .and potentially cause some bad blood between you.
I say this as someone who has three sisters , a sociopath for a mother and I strongly suspect my ex wife is the anti christ .
-
It's a pretty difficult problem to solve. And I'll say now that the radical right are just as difficult to reason with, though their ideas are nowhere near as prevalent in the mainstream.
I think to try and understand the hardcore lefts stance you need to look at the philosophy behind it, and the filter with which they view the world through.
Obviously the basic philosophy is Marxism - the idea that there is a constant power struggle between classes. They basically simplify complex society down to nothing more than a power struggle, and then pit people against each other.
Now since the majority of people in capitalist societies are actually bloody wealthy and living great lives by historical standards, the idea of an oppressed working class proletariat vs the ruling class bourgeoisie doesn't really hold water anymore. So they've changed it up and now break down society based on immutable human characteristics - race, gender, sexuality etc. This is where terms like Cultural Marxism, Identity Politics and Intersectionality have been coined to describe the modern day radical left.
Based on that they have built a power-based heirarchy in their heads of which straight white males sit at the very top - that is where Moa's comment came from.
When talking to someone that views the world through the lens of power based on immutable human characteristics, it becomes nigh on impossible to reason with them, particularly if you are a straight white male, as ridiculous as that is.
I don't think a lot of people actually understand the ideas that underpin the radical left, and the reason their ideas have been able to spread is through narcissistic virtue signalers on social media that want to be seen as holier than thou. Useful idiots really for a political ideology they don't understand and don't care to understand as all that matters to them is likes and shares.
No easy answer to reasoning with people that appear almost possesed by these ideas. I feel like I'm pushing shit up hill with a stick. My wife on the other hand grew up in poverty, is a black woman, is now successful in her career, and does not buy into any of this nonsense so is probably far more likely to have an impact on people like that.
Anyway that's my 2c, not sure it helps you in your predicament much, but I applaud you for trying to engage given how polarized this debate has become.
-
@majorrage said in The Left ... Need Some Thoughts ...:
Alright folks, the idea of this thread is not to degenerate the left (which it could easily go down without too much help). But I wouldn't mind some assistance into the way that the hardcore lefties think. Basically, for family sanity.
My sister is a hardcore lefty. Works in the social service side for the govt, and pretty much so typifies everything that the hardcore stand for. Anyway, all a side note. What I'm looking for is some direct thoughts on this:
A couple of months ago Anika Moa had her "am I not white or male enough for you" moment. I chucked it on a family social network group simply stating that criticism of tattoos is not about being white or male and therefore she had no such point. It's what I'd call a typical lefty thing to do - assign a position to those you don't agree with that they did not take.
Anyway, after a bit of debate, which went nowhere I deleted it as people were just getting too wound up - after what I thought was a pretty innocuous sort of question. So it all rared it's ugly head again on Saturday night. I reiterated my stance, and BOOM, the left beast awoke! I was told I was wrong and there was "no point even discussing it with me as I'll never understand". So I pushed it ... I think my exact words were "You are right, I don't understand why I'm wrong, but I'm happy to have it explained to me" ... at which point the answer was "You'll never understand because you don't want to understand something that isn't your point of view. It's a waste of mine or yours time to debate it ... you are simply wrong and thats that". At which point, mother interjected and ended the convo.
So ... open forum. Why am I wrong? Why is me saying that Anika Moa saying "am I not white or male enough" is a nonsensical or logical argument for criticism of here tattoos?
I really would like to understand this, not a shit stirring thread.
You are arguing the wrong thing, you dont argue what she is saying, you state your position and make her qrgue against it. In this situation it should be pretty simple.
State clearly that you are against judging people on who they are, not what group they belong to, state clearly that you think black people, women, gays, Muslims and everyone else should be based on who they are, not on what group they belong to. Make sure you only use examples she can relate to at this stage. She will be forced to agree with that, or make herself look like a homophobic Islamophobic bigot, white supremacist. Does she really think black people are all the same????
So once you get her to agree to that, just insert that being judged on gender is also wrong, men arent superior at anything just because they are men .. for example.
Then it is just a very short hop to making the assertion that making negative assertions about whiteness, or maleness is exactly the same and just as wrong.
If she tries the 'lived experiences' line, just accept it as a truism, and dont argue it, but just remind her that lived experiences are intrinsic to every living being and not an argument for identity politics.
Note, you have at no stage disagreed with her, just led her down a path of seeing that whilst the left claims to believe in one set of ideals they act in a very different way.
She might if she is very desperate argue that all white men can be lumped together because of 'power' in which case you can try
a) How much power is required before personal actions and attributes no longer matter
b) Does a trailer trash white guy have more power than Barrack Obama?Just remember you are not trying to win a war, you are just planting a seed. I did it with @Rembrandt ok... I am claiming way to much credit... but let me have my fun...and delusion.
Good luck, but it wont be hard.
-
It's tribalism and a knee-jerk instinct to defend one's side no matter what. Can happen on the other side as well. I'm sure there are people who will defend whatever Trump says and then slander the person calling it out as "out of touch" or something. Ultimately if you've invested so much time and energy in your own side and have become convinced of the total righteousness of that position, not even a slide show identifying every single error in minute detail will make any difference to your stance. In other words, you're dealing with fanatics and have to view them as such. Just accept that people like this exist and just move on with your life.
-
Not sure you're asking the right people @MajorRage .
I reckon most of us here lean right, and even @Crucial is pretty moderate in his slightly sinister* views.
Not sure any of us can get inside the view points of the radically offended as we can't really empathize with them at all.
-
- look up the origin of the word
-
-
Thanks for all the comments / thoughts.
It would appear, if I'm reading all thoughts correctly, that my understanding of Moa's positions is correct, in that she has made a whole lot of assumptions, based on her own views, and believes that these assumptions may be represented as evidence for her position.
If this is the case, then her position is unarguable. And yet, it's me that is viewed as being wrong? Surely a court of law would also state that I'm correct too though right?
Although I guess laws were mainly made by straight white men ... logic > emotion?
I've received word that there has a been a big barney in my house too, as my Dad argued that Don Brash should have been allowed to speak at Massey ...
-
Can't add much. @No-Quarter gives you the rationale and @Baron-Silas-Greenback gives you the strategy (even though he may not stick to just seed planting!), it's the war that is important not the battle.
Important things to remember is keep your calm, be logical, be fair and don't back down just to keep the peace. I've had a couple family blowouts and some very good friends and family won't speak with me any more, hell I have one cousin who is current making what he thinks are anonymous assault threats at me on his twitter because I'm apparently alt-right ..still working out the best approach to deal with that one.
As for the lefty view well, it's kind of hard to explain. Anika lives off being a victim. By claiming she is oppressed she gets a massive dopamine hit through her virtue signalling and through people who look up to her based on her level of victimhood. A mature adult TV presenter would just ignore a politely worded anti-tattoo letter from an old bloke. A 13 year old school girl with a brain still in development would not. By accepting the cult of social justice ,Anika has removed any responsibility for her life from herself and her actions and regressed back into a teenage girl with severe emotional problems, she's just throwing out 'white and male' as for some really messed up reason it is 100% acceptable to be racist against white people and sexist against men.
I really worry for young lads growing up in this world.
-
I'll have a go at guessing an explanation.
@MajorRage you are correct in your view that Moa's statement was probably different to the intention of the comment that set her off. I say probably different because we don't actually know what the person who made the comment was thinking when they wrote it. Maybe they did have the opinion that she hastily concluded maybe they really were just commenting on her skin scribble looking ugly.
Moa chose to assign a position of her choosing because she thought it was the type of comment she perceives as using an easy target (her tats) to attack her in a way that the same person would not attack Mr Joe Bloggs side part normal looking white man.Over sensitive, yes. Jumping to conclusions, yes. Assigning a position, yes (although she did make her comment as a question asking if that was the writers position).
The attitude of your sister is to also jump to conclusions The perception of oppression where maybe none exists.
I agree that her 'politics' doesn't help as you describe her as the type to perceive issues of oppression quickly. Her 'leftness' looks for injustice based on race/sex/appearance that is different to those she sees as holding the high ground. Her stubbornness then entrenches that position.
Don't conflate this type of reaction with 'leftness' though. It doesn't help (as above) but it isn't confined to those of hard left views.
Exhibit A: Mrs Crucial. I often have to listen to examples of institutional and social sexism that she experiences and sometimes I wonder (but aren't stupid enough to say) how often it is perception rather than fact. She's no leftie, just a female (in a male dominated workplace). A common gripe is simply trying to get served at a bar where what she describes as 'middle aged woman invisibility' takes hold. Taller/bigger/pushier men and younger women always catch the eye of bar staff. (think how often you offer to go get the drinks because you know it will be quicker)
To answer your direct question. Moa's response is nonsensical if you take the comment and response at face value only.
If you take into account her experience and perception of what people really mean then it makes sense (although it may be incorrect).
Also others will support her stance because they too perceive a situation they think is all too common for them.I don't get why it is being assigned as a 'leftist' view though. Surely that is also assigning a position to others to make your argument?
I get that it is a behavioural trait more visible/vocal among those that try to promote an opinion stridently and that you do get plenty of that 'type' among the far left. You also get plenty of that 'type' among the far right, just that the subject matter is different. It becomes 'our views are oppressed by the left elements of power' rather than the other way around.
-
Thanks - excellent response. Got some thoughts / questions for you.
@crucial said in The Left ... Need Some Thoughts ...:
I'll have a go at guessing an explanation.
@MajorRage you are correct in your view that Moa's statement was probably different to the intention of the comment that set her off. I say probably different because we don't actually know what the person who made the comment was thinking when they wrote it. Maybe they did have the opinion that she hastily concluded maybe they really were just commenting on her skin scribble looking ugly.
Surely when attacking people on live TV, you can only attack the facts though right?
Moa chose to assign a position of her choosing because she thought it was the type of comment she perceives as using an easy target (her tats) to attack her in a way that the same person would not attack Mr Joe Bloggs side part normal looking white man.
But that argument is a false position. As I've read far far more negative press about Wells, than I have about Moa. Maybe thats my selective reading, but the overall slant of NZ media seems to be pro Moa, debate around Wells. So who is really the easy target?
Over sensitive, yes. Jumping to conclusions, yes. Assigning a position, yes (although she did make her comment as a question asking if that was the writers position).
The attitude of your sister is to also jump to conclusions The perception of oppression where maybe none exists.
That sounds pretty accurate to me.
I agree that her 'politics' doesn't help as you describe her as the type to perceive issues of oppression quickly. Her 'leftness' looks for injustice based on race/sex/appearance that is different to those she sees as holding the high ground. Her stubbornness then entrenches that position.
It's her chosen career, so I don't blame her for having her views, not at all. I criticise her for not debating her views with me, just stating that "I'm wrong and I'll never understand" is not an argument for me- hence the thread!
Don't conflate this type of reaction with 'leftness' though. It doesn't help (as above) but it isn't confined to those of hard left views.
Agreed. More than enough evidence across the politics forum !
Exhibit A: Mrs Crucial. I often have to listen to examples of institutional and social sexism that she experiences and sometimes I wonder (but aren't stupid enough to say) how often it is perception rather than fact. She's no leftie, just a female (in a male dominated workplace). A common gripe is simply trying to get served at a bar where what she describes as 'middle aged woman invisibility' takes hold. Taller/bigger/pushier men and younger women always catch the eye of bar staff. (think how often you offer to go get the drinks because you know it will be quicker)
Cannot relate. I have the worst bar presence in the world. I bet you anything you want Mrs Crucial gets served before me.
To answer your direct question. Moa's response is nonsensical if you take the comment and response at face value only.
If you take into account her experience and perception of what people really mean then it makes sense (although it may be incorrect).
Also others will support her stance because they too perceive a situation they think is all too common for them.Yep, got it ... but not sure how that makes me wrong though.
I don't get why it is being assigned as a 'leftist' view though. Surely that is also assigning a position to others to make your argument?
My sister will agree she's a strong lefty, so that's not up for debate. The assigning of the false position is just my view after years of this sort of debate.
I get that it is a behavioural trait more visible/vocal among those that try to promote an opinion stridently and that you do get plenty of that 'type' among the far left. You also get plenty of that 'type' among the far right, just that the subject matter is different. It becomes 'our views are oppressed by the left elements of power' rather than the other way around.
Yes, agreed. Although I find the right far more logical to debate with - again, the politics forum is full of examples of this.
-
@MajorRage did you perceive from my post that I thought you were in the wrong?
-
@crucial said in The Left ... Need Some Thoughts ...:
@MajorRage did you perceive from my post that I thought you were in the wrong?
No, not at all ... Thought some worthy points worth a chat about tho!
-
@majorrage what does your sister do for a living? Is she surrounded all day by people who would be offended by your politics? Did she qualify in an area dominated by people who believe in progressivism (teaching being the obvious example)?
-
My 2c is that people occupying those fringe positions (even if they consider them moderately left/right) are going into instant battle mode as soon as a differing opinion, or even a genuine question, arises.
For the former you might argue they are taking a position of extreme topic fatigue and channeling their frustration about all their previous 'discussions' about X, Y, Z topics. So they fire up immediately, and that's not a positive thing for a genuine conversation, or being open to new or different ideas, let alone even thinking about altering their position. That's why that 'why bother, I can't even talk to you about this...' response seems to come up. Personally that is infuriating as they are further isolating themselves, and pretty much saying nothing will ever alter their position.
For the latter point I think people are so wary of trolls or troll like behaviour, that they have lost the ability to take a question at face value. And even if they entertain that it's a legit question it's hard to divorce that from some kind of agenda of wanting to trick someone or argue semantics etc. So they end up in that angry and not listening mindset.
I'm left leaning, and while I struggle sometimes with the leftard vitriol on the fern, there is a lot of it I agree with. While it can be uncomfortable it's good to have your ideas and assumptions challenged. Plus we have some sharp people (in both senses of the word!) contributing so there is a lot to learn and absorb.
I think there has been some good advice so far, but unless you can get your sister to engage in unpacking her ideas and thinking about your questions or points it'll just be the same ongoing noise imo.
-
@crucial said in The Left ... Need Some Thoughts ...:
Don't conflate this type of reaction with 'leftness' though. It doesn't help (as above) but it isn't confined to those of hard left views.
I agree that the far left and the far right are almost indistinguishable from each other. But Moa's position and views in general are absolutely from the radical left - this idea that anyone other than a straight white male faces oppression, and worse still assigning collective guilt to all straight white males regardless of who they are. She goes looking for racism/sexism, and when you do that it is bloody easy to find as you just equate any criticism or negative experience with it.
It's really just racism and sexism of a different flavour to the far right. The biggest problem with the radical left is their ideas are particularly pernicious - social media narcissism has contributed to this nonsense spreading but even more importantly the universities are littered with radical Marxist's whose aim is to indoctrinate as many students as possible through degrees like Gender Studies. We are also seeing it at younger levels now too. It takes a while for some of these students to unlearn what they learnt at University when they get into the real world.
Far right views are by in large very easy to dismantle, which is probably why Nazism has never ever been repeated, but Marxism/Communism still lives on today despite the absolutely disastrous track record it has - whether that be countries like North Korea, or the spread of cultural Marxism in the west, the philosophy just refuses to die.
I think one of the biggest concerns people have about the radical left ideas becoming mainstream is that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Right now the far-right crowd are using the attack of straight white males as evidence that the entire left wing progressive ideology has failed and that we need to return to an ethnostate, and they have plenty of evidence to refer to this attack in mainstream media. This is not a game any of us should want to play.
-
Both Moa and your sister and bigots. As such they're not alone - it's pretty much the human condition for a whole host of evolutionary and sociological reasons.
Most people once they have decided on a prejudice - because that's what we are discussing - don't /aren't interested in examining a contrary position. Again most people will take such an examination as a criticism and will revert to one of the 3 standard responses - justify, blame or deny.
Their prejudices are reinforced by the again very human trait of myopically only observing what reinforces their prejudices and ignoring anything else and surrounded themselves with fellow travellers all of which reinforces the initial prejudice. Technology has simply amplified this echo chamber.
then their is the effect of perspective. Most people see their position as sane and logical and therefore not extreme. Where you feel you sit on the political spectrum is not necessarily where others will see you because your position is informed by their position. e.g. you may say you are slightly right of centre your sister sees you as far right. Someone on the far right may see you as a lefty. BSG called me out as an obvious Nats hater and Labour apologist. Which is accurate from his perspective but does not reflect my voting pattern for the last three decades. Similarly in US context National are a left wing party
I applaud you for making the effort but I think for all the reasons above you are wasting your energy. Very few people change what they stand for. It is there perception of what a political party stands for that shifts which is why the battle is always for the centre and the relatively slim number of swing voters
-
I’ve had similar conversations with pro disease or alternative health fruitcakes , they usually go nowhere because they are so invested in their stance it’s probably incredibly embarrassing to actually admit to yourself let alone other people that homeopathy is water or putting a jade egg into your vagina is a good idea.
I think that’s why a lot of people who switch teams when they realise what they believe is bullshit do so quite aggressively because no one likes being taken for a fool.
You could try a different tack with Moa , you could point out she was given loads of opportunities by white males to actually further her career but she was the one who trashed it so it’s not fair to say she’s been a victim of oppression.
Or you could say she’s a fat obnoxious overrated lesbian who has no filter due to years of rampant substance abuse and whatever pops into her head comes straight out her mouth so what she says probably shouldn’t be taken as gospel.
Whichever one you’re comfortable with.
-
@dogmeat agree, the default human condition is tribalism and bigotry for evolutionary purposes. It takes conscious effort to actually overcome that, and I think in the west we are way further down that path than anywhere else and any other time in history which is awesome. It's bloody frustrating to see fringe views creep into the mainstream and quickly undo the progress made.
I don't see my wife as a black woman. I just see her as the woman I fell in love with. And I really thought we had an understanding that race doesn't matter, but more and more the fact that we're a mixed couple is becoming our defining feature which is just fucking bullshit.
-
@majorrage said in The Left ... Need Some Thoughts ...:
So ... open forum. Why am I wrong? Why is me saying that Anika Moa saying "am I not white or male enough" is a nonsensical or logical argument for criticism of here tattoos?
I really would like to understand this, not a shit stirring thread.Anyone telling you to argue from facts is ignoring the fundamental issue - if facts worked rather than emotional attachment to an idea, then your sister wouldn't be as antagonistic and illogical as she's currently being.
Even if you could get the discussion to a point where she doesn't feel attacked, it's the same physiological response religious people have. It's immaterial that you point out the leaps of logic and contradictions, her belief is part of her identity and as such, only a gradual process of seeing flaws will help her realise there's a problem with the central premise she adheres to. The same way most people tend to drift away from their religion, there's no epiphany as a result of well meaning interlocutors.
The hardest part is the gripes and grievances have an historical basis, from which however unsteady the foundation, it provides a buttress. And for some, those grievances are lived experiences that still exist.
-
Give her a forum to properly explain her views.
Talking is a way of thinking, and better in many ways than an internal monologue.
Try that tactic of saying back to her what you genuinely think she just explained.
Leave your opinions to one side and be sure she's been able to articulate her opinions. Make it your objective that she should be heard.
You don't want to beat your sister or make her feel stupid. You love her.
The objective is to hear her side and perhaps with her talking and putting her views in order she will see inconsistencies.
Active listening and giving her the floor is way more difficult than we realise.
Let her set out her platform as a starting point.
I used to be like her and it took months of angry denial to come around, and months of calling BSG a fluffybunny (which he is!) before the weight of evidence took over. I always had a "but you don't know or a whatabout..." to retreat into a safe space between my ears.
It'll take a while but being the conversation passenger will be more fruitful than fighting over the wheel.
Be patient and check your tone of voice.
Again your objective is for her discover different viewpoints, not to beat her into submission, figuratively speaking.
Don't forget it's also a great way for you to learn new viewpoints and why such viewpoints arise
-
@siam said in The Left ... Need Some Thoughts ...:
Give her a forum to properly explain her views.
Talking is a way of thinking, and better in many ways than an internal monologue.
Try that tactic of saying back to her what you genuinely think she just explained.
Leave your opinions to one side and be sure she's been able to articulate her opinions. Make it your objective that she should be heard.
You don't want to beat your sister or make her feel stupid. You love her.
The objective is to hear her side and perhaps with her talking and putting her views in order she will see inconsistencies.
Active listening and giving her the floor is way more difficult than we realise.
Let her set out her platform as a starting point.
I used to be like her and it took months of angry denial to come around, and months of calling BSG a fluffybunny (which he is!) before the weight of evidence took over. I always had a "but you don't know or a whatabout..." to retreat into a safe space between my ears.
It'll take a while but being the conversation passenger will be more fruitful than fighting over the wheel.
Be patient and check your tone of voice.
Again your objective is for her discover different viewpoints, not to beat her into submission, figuratively speaking.
Don't forget it's also a great way for you to learn new viewpoints and why such viewpoints arise
Err.... You are welcome?
-
@baron-silas-greenback
Yeah thanks, all good. Message delivery might need some work, but all good 😁 -
@siam his or yours?
-
There is an interesting critique of Ben Shapiro on Quillette which makes almost the same points as yours. Although I wanted to disagree with the thesis, it does seem very true that confronting the emotional ideas that underly people’s interpretation of facts, is sometimes more important than straight up refuting them factually.
-
@gt12 I might look for that. I've read a few things in the last couple of years that caused me to revisit how I discussed topics with people. I used to rely on facts, obliterating their argument, walk them step by step through the logic, confirming it with them at each stage that we agreed and after delivery the coup de grâce I'd smugly sit back and await the acclamation.
Then I'd be stunned to find at the last hurdle, they'd simply ignore everything that had been said previously and go back to their original position. As if the discussion had never taken place. I'd never dealt with why they chose to believe what they believed, just what they believed.
-
@paekakboyz I was using the backhanded complimentary version of fluffybunny 😀
-
Another good wad of replies overnight. Thanks to all.
In a nutshell, she think it's not worth debating me as my position is firmly entrenched. And vice versa. And the only way to move forward is to step back, listen to her and ask questions without offering prejudice and then try and explain things. Well ...
@rancid-schnitzel said in The Left ... Need Some Thoughts ...:
It's tribalism and a knee-jerk instinct to defend one's side no matter what. Can happen on the other side as well. I'm sure there are people who will defend whatever Trump says and then slander the person calling it out as "out of touch" or something. Ultimately if you've invested so much time and energy in your own side and have become convinced of the total righteousness of that position, not even a slide show identifying every single error in minute detail will make any difference to your stance. In other words, you're dealing with fanatics and have to view them as such. Just accept that people like this exist and just move on with your life.
Maybe this wins post of the thread for me ... probably just easier. Accept that I'll never know why I'm wrong and move forwards. Reality is that she will take a position of extreme upset at any argument of her views, and it's simply not worth it.
Apparently the Don Brash incident ended up in a stand up and walk out with tears. It is her holiday here and I don't want to be the one to ruin it.
-
@jc said in The Left ... Need Some Thoughts ...:
@majorrage what does your sister do for a living? Is she surrounded all day by people who would be offended by your politics? Did she qualify in an area dominated by people who believe in progressivism (teaching being the obvious example)?
Works for the government as a policy analyst in the social services sector. So in answer to you other questions massively yes and yes.
-
@antipodean said in The Left ... Need Some Thoughts ...:
@gt12 I might look for that. I've read a few things in the last couple of years that caused me to revisit how I discussed topics with people. I used to rely on facts, obliterating their argument, walk them step by step through the logic, confirming it with them at each stage that we agreed and after delivery the coup de grâce I'd smugly sit back and await the acclamation.
Then I'd be stunned to find at the last hurdle, they'd simply ignore everything that had been said previously and go back to their original position. As if the discussion had never taken place. I'd never dealt with why they chose to believe what they believed, just what they believed.
Really good points there.
-
@antipodean said in The Left ... Need Some Thoughts ...:
@gt12 I might look for that. I've read a few things in the last couple of years that caused me to revisit how I discussed topics with people. I used to rely on facts, obliterating their argument, walk them step by step through the logic, confirming it with them at each stage that we agreed and after delivery the coup de grâce I'd smugly sit back and await the acclamation.
Then I'd be stunned to find at the last hurdle, they'd simply ignore everything that had been said previously and go back to their original position. As if the discussion had never taken place. I'd never dealt with why they chose to believe what they believed, just what they believed.
Thats interesting actually. I know exactly why my sister believes what she believes. It's her job to deal with the "downtrodden" everyday and understand why they are where they are, and what the government should be doing about it. I fully get it.
What I don't get at all is why somebody who I know is extremely smart (smashed me all the way through school (including in logical subjects such as maths / physics) and got a PhD from a reputable uni) can call me flat out wrong when I'm just talking what I view as basic logic.
-
Well I'm just on my way to watch Cornell West go head-to-head in debate against Douglas Murray. Maybe I'll get an insight, or maybe it'll just devolve into a screaming match. Either way it'll be fun..unless antifa show up and then it'll just be unbearable
-
@antipodean said in The Left ... Need Some Thoughts ...:
@gt12 I might look for that. I've read a few things in the last couple of years that caused me to revisit how I discussed topics with people. I used to rely on facts, obliterating their argument, walk them step by step through the logic, confirming it with them at each stage that we agreed and after delivery the coup de grâce I'd smugly sit back and await the acclamation.
Mansplaining
-
@gt12 said in The Left ... Need Some Thoughts ...:
There is an interesting critique of Ben Shapiro on Quillette which makes almost the same points as yours. Although I wanted to disagree with the thesis, it does seem very true that confronting the emotional ideas that underly people’s interpretation of facts, is sometimes more important than straight up refuting them factually.
Agree, although it is much more difficult to change 'feelings'
-
Read it here.
This observation echoes the main thesis of Jonathan Haidt’s The Righteous Mind, in which he argues that our faculty for reason labors to validate our intuitions (including our moral impulses), not vice versa. In Haidt’s analogy of the Rider and the Elephant (elaborated in the clip below), the Rider represents ‘strategic reasoning,’ whose direction is determined by the much larger and more powerful Elephant, which represents intuition and emotion. Haidt explains why so many debates fail to persuade, writing, “You can’t change people’s minds by utterly refuting their arguments…If you want to change people’s minds, you’ve got to talk to their elephants.”
Ben Shapiro’s tendency has not been to talk to elephants so much as make them stampede. Take, for instance, the now-infamous tweet he sent in September 2010 which read: “Israelis like to build. Arabs like to bomb crap and live in open sewage.” A fair-minded look at the tweets sent immediately after this one reveals that Shapiro’s assertion was made in reference to the Israeli and Arab political leaderships—not to these populations as a whole. Shapiro reiterated this explanation in a recent defense of the tweet at the Daily Wire, in which he describes the Left as “idiotic” for its collective failure to appreciate context.
But what Shapiro is really criticizing in his article is the willingness of people to be led by their elephants, even though this is inevitable and therefore entirely predictable. Regardless of any technical defense of the tweet disqualifying it as racist, if Shapiro’s objective as a good faith interlocutor is to invite people to consider new perspectives, then it is strategically unjustifiable. If, on the other hand, his intention is solely to enrage his opponents and electrify his supporters, then he is engaging in demagoguery and should not complain when people react exactly as intended.
-
BTW, although we generally (rightly) despise TED talks, Haidt's TED Talk is still a good listen.
