***Official Political Discussion Thread***

[TooOlfForThisIsh]

It seems like everyone bemoaning where the line is drawn, also admits that a line should exist. So unless someone is cool with a complete free-for all, when really it is just a disagreement over where the line is.

There are tons of people making a damn living over whining about this topic too. Centrist, liberals, progressives cultural elites. NYT just ran another high profile "I'm being silenced" Op-Ed penned by a college student just last week that cultural elites that you agree with this topic signal boosted over and over. There are tons of cultural elite pushing in the other direction and their lack of progress is just being chalked up to "welp, people just think that is the right thing to say and self-censor". yeah, that is a tough buy for me.

My mental model for this stuff is that there is problematic speech that people should be made to be accountable for and there is speech that is not problematic. Society works as a classifier deciding whether or not to label any given example as problematic or not.

Like any classifier, there will be Type 1 errors: speech labeled problematic that probably is no big deal. And Type 2 errors: problematic speech that gets ignored. A fairly non-controversial definition of bias in this estimator would be the excess of one kind of error over the other.

The outrage machine on the right takes each Type 2 error and amplifies it beyond reason. They argue that there is substantial bias against speech: essentially that the "line" has been drawn too far in the direction of protecting the victims of problematic speech and not far enough in protecting the rights of people to say what they want. I generally find this argument is not made in good faith. It's simply an argument to move the line to protect a bunch more abhorrent, racist, sexist, *-ist nonsense that the far right believes but that repels the middle.

The center left, to their credit, usually recognizes that this argument is in bad faith, but their remedy is to try to eliminate Type 2 error with extreme fervor. Their argument goes that the outrage machine will have no ammunition if we simply stop doing goofy things like burning books in Canada. This, I think, is a bit of a naive take on the right's ability to manufacture controversy out of thin air, but there is a far, far more significant criticism.

By acknowledging that there is far more problematic speech that goes unpunished than the converse, the center is effectively acknowledging that society's classifier is already biased towards allowing problematic speech - the line has not been set appropriately even to their own opinion. To then focus on the few dumb examples of over-policing simply introduces even more bias, in effect moving the line even further away from where they would like it to be. It's self-defeating and only furthers the goal of the right to allow more hateful speech.

 

[dinyc3st]

 

[IATT]

Dumbest criminals

 

[gry60]

Manchin's schtick is basically one of a conservative. Use something with a bit of truth, then he stretches the argument so thin and puts so much extra sauce on it that at the end he sounds stupid.

All in a quest to help his donors.

Like saying that electric cars depend on raw materials from from overseas, namely China, and lack of control the supply chain might cause issues for US consumers one day is reasonable.

Comparing it to gas lines makes no ****ing sense. The equivalent to pumping gas is charging an electric car. Electric cars don't get range by replacing their battery.

That is a Trump level stupid thing to say.

Not to mention that you can charge your EV...




... in your house.

Maybe King Manchin thinks that people have gas stations in their backyard like he probably does...

 

[gry60]

So obviously something could flip and they miraculously abandon all these bad positions but it seems unlikely right now.

A UFO that captures all slightly-to-very melanated people on the planet might do the trick...

 

[dinyc3st]

 

[RustyShackleford]

Manchin is ****ing bought and paid for by the oil industry

Even the thought of someone raising the issue of the welfare state they enjoy is a disqualified

Manchin is really a Grade-A piece of ****

 

[RustyShackleford]

Manchin cited "inflation tax" as the reason to deny her nomination

Complains about inflation, all the while helping keep the US tied to the fossil fuel industry, which increases the risk of energy shocks

Jamelle Bouie is right. Mans is just not clever. Anyone with a reasonable about of knowledge on a subject can tell he sounds like a damn idiot quite often

 

[Belgium]

 

[gry60]

Manchin is ****ing bought and paid for by the oil industry

Even the thought of someone raising the issue of the welfare state they enjoy is a disqualified

Manchin is really a Grade-A piece of ****

I'm telling you man, he's gonna block Ketanji.

 

[RustyShackleford]

 

[RustyShackleford]

But Bill Maher is talking to Ben Shapiro about how out of control the left is when it comes to gender identity.

 

[AEA18]

Would be hilarious if his nutjob wife is the reason he has to "step down" from the Supreme Court

 

[IATT]

 

[Brownstone]

Would be hilarious if his nutjob wife is the reason he has to "step down" from the Supreme Court

Why? They are known Trump supporters and as long as she didn't storm the capital this is a non-story. Also, I know the thread I am in, but lets stop this narrative that he is a nut-job.

 

[RustyShackleford]

Why? They are known Trump supporters and as long as she didn't storm the capital this is a non-story. Also, I know the thread I am in, but lets stop this narrative that he is a nut-job.

Read his post again. He didn't call Clarence Thomas a nutjob, he called the wife that.

You can release those pearls now

 

[AEA18]

But Bill Maher is talking to Ben Shapiro about how out of control the left is when it comes to gender identity.

Can the "both sides" people give examples of radical left laws that are equivalent to this?

How about the recent anti-abortion or anti-CRT laws?

 

[RustyShackleford]

Furthermore, if someone were to read the article, it spells out quite clearly why her actions warrant a story...

While Ginni Thomas’s activism has, in multiple instances, overlapped with cases that have been decided by her husband, her connection to the rally that preceded the insurrection has reignited fury among his critics, who say it illustrates a gaping hole in the court’s rules: Justices essentially decide for themselves whether they have a conflict of interest.

 

[osh kosh bosh]

-This isn't strictly true though. Even on Fox News, there are people ****ting on Putin. Even Hannity tried to get Trump to call out Putin.

Actually, there are competing talking points. Being a Putin apologist, and saying that Putin is evil and if Trump was in power he would be a better check on said evil.

people are ****ting on putin now, pre ukraine invasion, back when trump was president.
you saw plenty of fox news and conservatives softening their tone on russia to stay on trump's good side.

the point is humans are pretty susceptible to peer influence, and will modulate behavior to fit in with a group.
you and I may be be low on agreeableness humans who might be less prone to this.
it's not a strictly progressive phenomenon.

If this is your example, then it doesn't really help your argument. It shows that dissent and disagreement exist in spaces dominated by one ideology.

there doesn't have to be literally zero dissent or disagreement.

you can have some dissent and disagreement in a space that is hostile to it,
there are exceptions to everything, it doesn't mean the hostility isn't there and it doesn't make dissent more difficult.

-Furthermore, It is one thing to hold an opinion, it is another thing to openly voice it and make arguments in favor of it. If someone crosses the lines into advocating for something then it is completely fair if they get challenged. You said other progressives are self-censoring and going along with it. That is different than adopting another person's talking point then going out in public and advocating for it themselves.

I am not denying social influence is powerful, but just claiming that really doesn't add anything to your take about self-censoring among progressives

i said that as a rebuttal to the idea that I was claiming that progressives are like unable to think for themselves.
sensitivity to social influence incentivises conformism.

humans want to be part of an in group, so self censorship to fit in with a group is totally human response.

Elite signaling helped get the Civil Rights legislation passed eventually.
Elite signaling helped hinder rights for gay people at one point.

I get it. I think it a normal occurrence in society and people have to grapple with it.

It is like complaining about a politician using endorsements to get people to vote for them. Ok, and? That by itself is not an issue. But in this discussion, you present them using elite signaling by itself as some unique bad.

The whole they are causing large-scale self-censoring and that is causing all these bad outcomes arguments relies on a bunch of assumptions lining up. And people don't buy into them here comes the complaints of the elites conspiring. With the definition of what qualifies as an elite is unclear.

im objecting to how the tool is being used and what it's being used for.
like I said if elite signaling in 2022 was being used in a productive way that benefited socitey
towards ends that I believed were productive, I wouldn't complain about it.

Tons of progressive journalists took issue and criticized the article. It was not universal just being the most were unfairly dismissive of her.

She literally wrote an article about people not tolerating dissenting opinions, in one of the biggest media outlets in the country. Some of the arguments and assertions she made I feel were flimsy, came off as entitled, and lacked self-awareness. I saw people making similar takes. These are fair objections to have to an NYT Op-Ed.

She got celebrated by tons of people on the right and left, but some progressive her mean to her, not all, they dissented against her opinion and that proves your point? What point exactly? She was not censored, in fact, the opposite is happening. Her opinions have been signaling boosted. It is just not everyone is in agreement.

But now you say that she will surely get banished from progressive space, because of cultural media elites. It has happened yet, but surely it will. So let us take issue with the censorship-free dissent as a stand-in until that happens.

That's not what I saw, when I saw camp trending, what I saw was mostly juvenile mockery, identitarian smears and insinuations of crypto racism.

and I think it's a totally reasonable assumption
that most normal people are unwilling to go through that much social backlash to voice heterodox ideas.

Matt left Vox partly because Substack gave him a sweetheart deal. In press tour around the time he was launching Slow Boring he was talking about Vox becoming too progressive, he conveniently left that out. Even his coworkers that are around his age and openly voiced displeasure with how some people on the left police speech, called bull**** on his description of Vox.

He then gets allowed to make probably tens of thousands more as a contractor which kept this profile high, while he builds another million-dollar media outfit. And used his show to take issue with any progressive he had issues with. Often time in a mocking tone.

Didn't Matt say he was leaving for other opportunities? Didn't he have a farewell episode? I don't see how this is being banished from a progressive space for being not progressive enough. It seems to me that Vox wanted their two main podcasts to feature Vox employees. They reformed Ezra's old show too. So this ultra-progressive media helps him build another million-dollar venture, and Matt gets to make money in other places that have been accused of being taken over by progressive speech police, and this is the example you are using that proves your point, really?

Matt still makes money from other outlets people claim are captured by the cultural left. Famb, with all due respect, this is kinda laughable to use Matt as an example of this trend.

according to Matt he left for substack, but stayed on as a podcaster.
and then was in his words "fired" from the podcast.

 

[elpablo21]

 

[IATT]

 

[RustyShackleford]

people are ****ting on putin now, pre ukraine invasion, back when trump was president.
you saw plenty of fox news and conservatives softening their tone on russia to stay on trump's good side.

And there were conservatives on Fox News while Trump was in office that was ****ting on Putin when Trump was in office and saying it was good he was in there to keep Putin in check

You can change the timeframe, the comparison still doesn't work as cleanly as you think.

the point is humans are pretty susceptible to peer influence, and will modulate behavior to fit in with a group.
you and I may be be low on agreeableness humans who might be less prone to this.
it's not a strictly progressive phenomenon.

I never claimed it was strictly a progressive phenomenon

I get the point you are trying to make. But making some general point about people doesn't really support your specific point about progressives all that much.

there doesn't have to be literally zero dissent or disagreement.

you can have some dissent and disagreement in a space that is hostile to it,
there are exceptions to everything, it doesn't mean the hostility isn't there and it doesn't make dissent more difficult.

Dude, if it is something that naturally happens with humans, then why it is such a unique problem with and for progressives?

This is what I am asking it. Beyond being able to pinpoint the magnitude, you are basically saying "yeah this thing happens all the time to many groups" one second, then I have to use that to be convinced it is a unique problem in progressive spaces that is causing a unique and dangerous problem. I can admit some stuff goes to far but like I said before, I feel critics take things beyond reasonable objections

So what is the solution, progressives should stop acting like humans?

i said that as a rebuttal to the idea that I was claiming that progressives are like unable to think for themselves.
sensitivity to social influence incentivises conformism.

humans want to be part of an in group, so self censorship to fit in with a group is totally human response.

Again, not denying people are like this.

But again, it doesn't say much

You want people to take this seriously, based on an assumption it is happening. In the face of counterexamples to it actually happening

So yeah, still a tough buy for me

im objecting to how the tool is being used and what it's being used for.
like I said if elite signaling in 2022 was being used in a productive way that benefited socitey
towards ends that I believed were productive, I wouldn't complain about it.

Fine, sure, if you say so.

I'll take your word for it. But I have gotten another impression from reading some of your other post.

That's not what I saw, when I saw camp trending, what I saw was mostly juvenile mockery, identitarian smears and insinuations of crypto racism.

and I think it's a totally reasonable assumption
that most normal people are unwilling to go through that much social backlash to voice heterodox ideas.

Okay, you saw what you saw, and you made a judgment about it. Given your reactions, even in this discussion, I have a hard time believing it is as bad as you say but whatever I'll take your word for it.

I saw totally fair criticism of her though.

Jamelle Bouie made a simple criticism of the article and people dog piled on him claiming he was attacking the student...





Another media elite attacked him to defend the student. And Bouie raised the same issue I have with your arguments...





The girl wrote a damn Op-Ed, she is mad her classmates don't coddle the views she wrote in a campus paper, I don't know what kind of expectation she would have for an NYT featured article. Did she expect no dissenting opinions?

You claimed it will lead to banishment from progressive spaces, your said you have an issue with censorship. None of this occurred. So again, it falls back to another "assumption" of what will surely happen

according to Matt he left for substack, but stayed on as a podcaster.
and then was in his words "fired" from the podcast.

He bull****ted his way out the door from Vox. He didn't mention the payment he was getting to leave when he originally left.

Vox kept him on for 10 months while he built out a new media company, and dude freely mocked and criticized any progressive group he wanted. They announced new co-host weeks before they announced he was leaving the pod and mans was Tweeting about needing audio engineers weeks before the announcement he was leaving.

It really doesn't seem to me like Vox did him dirty in any way, they replaced him. I feel it is completely reasonable for them to want to feature their employees on their shows.

Dude word might be gospel to you, but I frankly find him too full of **** given the evidence available

 

[RustyShackleford]

Good grief man



The economy, and in turn Joey, can't catch a ****ing break

 

[RustyShackleford]

I'm telling you man, he's gonna block Ketanji.

I'll bet you $100 to a charity of your choosing that she gets confirmed

If Manchin ****s things up, at least some good comes of it

 

[smedroc]

??