EPTnot necessarily anything actionable yet. but I at any rate want to record it here for evidentiary reasons, as it's a good example case.
US Politics Feedback Thread - Page 44
| Forum Index > Website Feedback |
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
not necessarily anything actionable yet. but I at any rate want to record it here for evidentiary reasons, as it's a good example case. | ||
|
Laurens
Belgium4557 Posts
| ||
|
Acrofales
Spain18387 Posts
| ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
| ||
|
kwizach
3658 Posts
On February 03 2017 02:14 xDaunt wrote: Have you considered the possibility that you really don't understand Milo's message and that distilling it down to "hate and meanness" is incorrect? At this point, he could already have actually told him what is this supposed message from Milo that Biff doesn't understand, but no -- that would have been too straightforward. He then proceeds to mock Biff's supposed lack of understanding in his next reply, asserting that he's exemplary of the "regressive left": On February 03 2017 02:22 xDaunt wrote: I love this answer because it perfectly illustrates how ill-equipped that the Left presently is to deal with the ongoing assault from the Alt Right and its sympathizers like Milo. When I talk about the Regressive Left doubling down on its tactics in response to Trump, et al., Biff's statement above is precisely the kind of sentiment that I'm referring to. It doesn't even occur to these people that there's an underlying point to the "hate and meanness" of the Right. He then posts two other messages on the exact same topic, yet at no point does he ever actually present Milo's supposed underlying message, continuing instead (here and here) to argue that Milo critics simply don't get it. The following pages then see him make the same kind of messages and criticisms of the "left" and "regressive left". Here are the two problems with these posts: 1. Here, xDaunt isn't actually interested in having an honest and substantive debate over the contents Milo's "message". All he does is mock the opposing side and argue that it doesn't get it. 2. As he has repeatedly been doing, he uses the labels "the Left" and "the Regressive Left" (in addition to his frequent use of terms like "SJWs") to pejoratively paint with broad strokes the opposing side as some sort of monolithic entity. Far from being a neutral way of indicating he's addressing opposing arguments, his expressions serve to instead attack and belittle what he sees as his ideological opposition (an opposition he has no interest in debating with an open mind, since he wants to destroy it). It can sometimes also be a way for him to attack individual posters (in this case Biff), by starting with a very negative reference to the group, and then including them in it. The use of these labels by xDaunt immediately polarizes and poisons the debate. While one could initially give him the benefit of the doubt over the use of "the left", as it can sometimes be useful to use broad categories in order to put forward a general point on a forum on which we don't always have enough time to be as precise as we'd like, a look at xDaunt's post history will show that the term is overwhelmingly used by him to simply bash "the left" dismissively in a very conflictual manner. His use of "regressive left" and "SJWs" is even more immediately telling -- the terms have clear negative connotations, and while the term "regressive left" was initially coined by Maajid Nawaz to refer the a part of the left that he sees as too ready to fall for cultural relativism, it has been co-opted by many in the alt-right movement in order to describe liberals broadly speaking, in particular with regards to the aspects of progressive thought that they object to (on issues related to feminism, LGBT rights, anti-racism, etc.). I have to say that I personally find the alt-right's use of the label "regressive left" hilariously pathetic, in how reminiscent of Trump's "No, you're the puppet!" response it is. It's used for its negative connotation, as opposed to any accuracy in representing reality, and it is a transparent effort to use the kind of vocabulary traditionally associated with their ideas against those they see as their opponents. In any case, it is a loaded term that is used insultingly (and broadly, as opposed to targeting specific extremists on the left) in order to attack those they identify as their ideological opponents, and xDaunt is using it this way in the thread. Two other things: with regards to the whataboutist argument about the use of the "racist" and "sexist" labels by some on "ze left", debate over the use of those terms can obviously also be had when they're employed to assess their relevancy. And if posters want to refer to what they see as extremist positions defended by some progressives, they should be free to do so, yet that doesn't warrant the use of "regressive left" and "SJWs" seeing how the terms have been used in the public debate, including in this very thread (I want to stress again that this is not a call to ban criticism of the views some of the conservatives in the thread object to, as honest debate is more than welcome). In short, I feel like the fifth rule in the US Politics thread guidelines, which stipulates that "Bashing will not be tolerated", should lead moderators to pay close attention to the use of those labels by xDaunt and others, in order to ensure debates remain civil and focused on substance instead of needlessly poisonous, conflictual and acrimonious. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On February 04 2017 13:37 kwizach wrote: 1. Here, xDaunt isn't actually interested in having an honest and substantive debate over the contents Milo's "message". All he does is mock the opposing side and argue that it doesn't get it. On February 03 2017 02:13 Biff The Understudy wrote: It's not that i disagree with him. It's that he has absolutely nothing to offer but hate and meanness. If people are into that, it's fine and i have no problem in him trolling at Breitbart and making biggoted alt right kids happy, but what was he supposed to talk about in a university? How to launch harassment campaigns on twitter? I mean, since when being a popular fascist is enough to give lectures in one of the most respected universities in america? With those criterias, they could invite david duke too, stormfront is doing great. You're advocating to ban anyone that posts as Biff the Understudy has done. If he himself claims there is no substance, future replies must take that into consideration, in the "listen" part of "Show, don't tell, and listen." You're a looney to want a debate on substance when somebody denies substance; it becomes a discussion on the question of if that reading is accurate of Milo's message. On February 04 2017 13:37 kwizach wrote: 2. As he has repeatedly been doing, he uses the labels "the Left" and "the Regressive Left" (in addition to his frequent use of terms like "SJWs") to pejoratively paint with broad strokes the opposing side as some sort of monolithic entity. Far from being a neutral way of indicating he's addressing opposing arguments, his expressions serve to instead attack and belittle what he sees as his ideological opposition (an opposition he has no interest in debating with an open mind, since he wants to destroy it). It can sometimes also be a way for him to attack individual posters (in this case Biff), by starting with a very negative reference to the group, and then including them in it. It comes up in arguments that posters must characterize the identity and nature of the people opposed. Recently, ChristianS has used "Trumpists," LegalLord "Trump Supporters," and so on. "The Left" is not pejorative, lighten up. The Regressive Left is pejorative and you may criticize it's overuse if you think it's being too broadly applied. This is just peachy in debate if one person uses SJWs with cause and another spreads it around liberally.You may call attention to it and participants will judge if you're right. It'll color future exchanges just like zlefin/Igne, and there is no law to engage with everybody at all times. I'll let others deal with the rest. You've led with transparently absurd accusations which I think will be apparent to most. | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
| ||
|
ChristianS
United States3304 Posts
| ||
|
Scarecrow
Korea (South)9175 Posts
Imagine how much better the exchange would be if Biff had posted an example of Milo's rhetoric, and his interpretation. xDaunt then might have replied with what he believes Milo's actual message is, based off actual quotes/sources. One could argue that Biff's original writing off of Milo was too simplistic and didn't deserve a proper response, but xDaunt still had the opportunity to elevate the quality of the discussion and explain what we're 'not getting' (but never did). Pejoratively labeling someone as part of a group and saying they missed the point, without giving an alternative perspective, is simply not productive unless the purpose is simply to bash and antagonize the opposition. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
Let's be very clear what this is really about: many liberal/left/whatever posters are very uncomfortable with the regressive tendencies of a large number of their political brethren and don't like the fact that I'm pointing it out and picking at it like an open wound. My response? Tough shit. You gotta take the bitter with the sweet. I sure don't bother defending every stupid idea of my side that I don't agree with. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18866 Posts
Literally everyone involved in politics gets bent out of shape over labels; you've even argued yourself that the alt-right traces its success to the incredible amounts of salt that have developed over the years as society has wrestled with how its going to deal with how we refer to one another. Let's at least be consistent here. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On February 05 2017 01:32 farvacola wrote: Let's be very clear what this is really about: many conservative/right/whatever posters are very uncomfortable with the degree to which their movement relies on the support of racists, homophobes, and localistic nutjobs and don't like the fact that this gets pointed out and picked at like an open wound. My response? Tough shit. You gotta take the bitter with the sweet. Literally everyone involved in politics gets bent out of shape over labels; you've even argued yourself that the alt-right traces its success to the incredible amounts of salt that have developed over the years as society has wrestled with how its going to deal with how we refer to one another. Let's at least be consistent here. And here is farv to prove my point about what the Left thinks and what the Left does. Perfect timing. The key difference is that I am not going to try to shut farv up from arguing that by whining to the mods. I'm perfectly content to ridicule the point itself. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18866 Posts
That said, I don't think you've posted anything actionable in a long while, so I dunno what your latter point is even referring to. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On February 05 2017 01:46 farvacola wrote: That said, I don't think you've posted anything actionable in a long while, so I dunno what your latter point is even referring to. Yeah, sorry, wasn't referring to you specifically. Was referring to other posters higher up in the thread. | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
danglars, calling the accusations transparently absurd is unsound. the arguments may be excessive, but they are nowhere near the level of transparently absurd, that accusation of yours is, itself, transparently absurd. also, just cuz we may be in some sense on the same side as biff, doesn't mean a warning/ban on him would be inappropriate from our pov. imho there are a few, or maybe several, leftist posters who should be curtailed. also, this is the wiki on socratic method: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socratic_method I don't think what xdaunt was doing was actually socratic method, which I am familiar with and use a style of myself at times. others can feel free to review the exchange and this or other sources of socratic text to see if it seems to be that or not. | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
| ||
|
Sermokala
United States14161 Posts
The fact that the more liberal posters in the thread do the same exact thing that kwsich is complaining about makes his posts meaningless. People need to stop expecting labels and terms to mean some exact definition "left" and "right" in politics are relativistic terms that have no exact standing. Their definitions form dynamically from the perspective of the person that is using them. Applying terms like "regressive left" and "SJW" are pejoratives that arn't against a specific individual (and if your self associating with these groups thats on you for reaproreating his context) and are against a stereotypical behavior that people fall into. starting with this and connecting a poster with this behavior is to argue that the poster is acting like the stereotypical behavior that all feel is negative. You notice the hypocrisy in his argument by stating that the usage of these terms is used by the alt right and thus trying to connect xdaunt with the alt right in his posts. something his posts is specifically trying to accuse xdaunt of. The rest of his post is petty and childish attempts to taddle to the "parents" in order to get favorable treatment. "you can criticize me but you can't use the words I identify to criticize me" is just logically dumb. You state a problem you have, say who you think is the cause of the debate, and then refuse to address in any way a solution to the problem. Even the people who give us "CIS gender male" at least offer alternative and acceptable terminology to them. So in review both sides are doing what you're complaining about, isolating xdaunt as more then an example is werid, and arguing for terms you don't agree with being bad and ignoring the terms you agree with is recklessly biased. | ||
|
Scarecrow
Korea (South)9175 Posts
On February 05 2017 01:15 xDaunt wrote: Let's be very clear what this is really about: many liberal/left/whatever posters are very uncomfortable with the regressive tendencies of a large number of their political brethren and don't like the fact that I'm pointing it out and picking at it like an open wound. Totally not what it's about, but I've come to expect this sort of misrepresentation from you. This is why posters are uncomfortable with you and your posting, particularly the 'regressive left' ad hominem that has become popular in the last few years amongst the far-right as a negative/dismissive term for liberals. You act superior and feel no need to explain your bashing or substantiate your sweeping generalizations of the left. You made several posts talking about how we were missing the point on Milo and never actually told us what you think the point is (still haven't). You expect us to appreciate series of condescending, substance-free posts and then blame the left for being hypocrites (I assume that's at the core of the regressive label). You say the regressive left is detrimental to discourse but that label you use is equally detrimental. Basically, stop simplifying other poster's arguments like you just did, labelling them as regressive and acting superior/more knowledgable without actually sharing your own perspective. All you do is antagonize people and distract from more substantive discussion. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On February 05 2017 12:27 Scarecrow wrote: Totally not what it's about, but I've come to expect this sort of misrepresentation from you. This is why posters are uncomfortable with you and your posting, particularly the 'regressive left' ad hominem that has become popular in the last few years amongst the far-right as a negative/dismissive term for liberals. You act superior and feel no need to explain your bashing or substantiate your sweeping generalizations of the left. You made several posts talking about how we were missing the point on Milo and never actually told us what you think the point is (still haven't). You expect us to appreciate series of condescending, substance-free posts and then blame the left for being hypocrites (I assume that's at the core of the regressive label). You say the regressive left is detrimental to discourse but that label you use is equally detrimental. Basically, stop simplifying other poster's arguments like you just did, labelling them as regressive and acting superior/more knowledgable without actually sharing your own perspective. All you do is antagonize people and distract from more substantive discussion. We're probably summing up to twenty pages of explanation to why it's appropriate. Sometimes it's usefully and specifically applied to a small group. Sometimes it's widely applied to DNC strategy or high percentages of the loudest left-thinking political activists. You reject all of it. That doesn't make it any less apropos. And you can totally turn it around (or start to) by calling out enemies of free speech, seeking open debate on subjects and encouraging others to do so, and seeking empathy with people across the aisle. And maybe not being openly dismissive + Show Spoiler + I don't get how being an asshole to various groups, rather than learning to stfu when you don't like someone on a superficial level, is a cause worth championing. You seem to be a product of the media you're consuming xDaunt, with all this 'regressive left' talk and trying to conflate the left with fascism. Is it really that hard living in a post-highschool world where it's not socially acceptable to be a dick to people because of someone's gender, philosophy, body shape or orientation? I feel like most of Milo's followers must be just angry white guys who want to express hateful opinions instead of keeping them to themselves. If this is the best you can do when Milo gets mischaracterized (up in the link quotetrain), you are part of the problem, plain and simple. Let's show how all these regressive left labels are bad by engaging in the exact same type of behavior that birthed the term in the first place. | ||
|
RuiBarbO
United States1340 Posts
Really, my only issue with doing that is I think it's more stifling than productive. The more people draw on these big terms (and yes, this is semantic... but I think this is, for better or worse, the sort of situation in which semantics are meaningful), the harder it is to have a real conversation. Again, not defending Biff here - and also not blaming anyone for getting fed up with people always giving the same "cookie-cutter" responses to things. But if you're operating from an idea of "The Left" (or the "Right"), there's just a lot of room to make assumptions about what someone believes, and why they believe it, and also to fall prey to confirmation bias. Hence my fixation on the "It doesn't even occur to people that there's an underlying point to the 'hate and meanness'" bit. Also, it breeds disagreement because a lot of people will inevitably take it as a sign of bad faith when they are, say, liberal and don't see themselves in the portrait of "The Left" that you've painted (or conservative and don't see themselves in "The Right," as when the "Right" and the "alt-Right" are lumped together). From what I've read in the thread (and here), these broad categories are seldom used to refer to one's own views (e.g. "As a member of the Left, I believe..."). More often, they are used to call out something inherently problematic in what the other person has said, without having to go into any detail. I realize it's convenient to just say, "Oh look, a typical leftist/rightist argument," but unless your purpose in coming to the thread is to shut people down, I really don't know why we should be indulging that because I don't think it does any good. To put it another way, when you use this kind of shorthand, it usually contributes to a deeper problem, which is that people in the thread just toss quips and one-liners at each other to make noise for whatever issues they support. I dunno, maybe that's not a problem, if that's what the thread is supposed to be. But like I said before, I think it makes having a real conversation much harder. One last thing - obviously, calling someone else's post "low content" or "labeling" or whatever can be used in this same way, as a rhetorical tool for shutting down the other person. And it's perhaps no surprise that the people who, based on the current discussion, might be most easily attacked this way - xDaunt and Danglars - are opposed to this very conversation. But I do believe there is a difference between using this line rhetorically and using it as a genuine critique, and that the risk of the former doesn't outweigh the importance of the latter, for the reasons outlined above. I realize we all like esports and winning and don't give each other the benefit of the doubt very often, and one should be critical of Biff (in the other thread) and farvacola (here) for their parts in making things a rhetorical snowball fight (and others, as well). But I would hope that, if someone is bringing this up out of genuine concern, then they'll be fine with you just explaining more specifically what the position you're attributing to the "Right/Left/etc." actually is. | ||
| ||
