Submitted by ThomasJP1983 t3_yv9nft in philosophy
DrakBalek t1_iwdf4zh wrote
Why is it that liberals cannot escape intolerance?
I mean, that's the implication of this article, isn't it? That liberals can't escape intolerance; and moreover, that the author is going to tell us why this is the case.
But I don't think he does; and try as I might, I can't seem to figure out the answer.
>Despite these debates, it struck me that I almost never see liberals address the strongest case for the liberal intolerance hypothesis.
By "these debates," we mean "A politician took a position that their constituency disagreed with." Is this the "intolerance" the author is speaking about? If it is, it seems a disingenuous way to frame disagreement over a political issue. Are we going to argue that voters upset about a new tax law are engaging in "intolerant" behavior when they write their representative or attend a protest?
Is "intolerance" a new buzzword for right wing ideologues? I suppose it must be, since "the tolerant Left" has been a snide rejoinder* for some time now.
(*useful for when a right-wing pundit wants to shut down a conversation.)
>In Western countries, certain liberal values have achieved hegemony.
Really?
Which ones?
And how is this hegemony of ideas structured? Who decides where a given value falls within the hegemony?
Personally, I find a major problem with conservative and right-wing thinkers is that they tend to assume hierarchies are both natural and inevitable. This leads them to view the world through that rose-colored lens, where everything must be part of a hierarchy and if one group (or their ideas) gains recognition, it must be at the expense of another.
This simply is not true; but damned if we're going to successfully explain why it's not true to a conservative thinker.
>Traditionally, liberals champion dignity and self-expression, recently emphasizing the rights of ethnic and sexual minorities. As Western societies have become more affluent and secure, majorities have embraced these causes.
>
>Yet this creates a dilemma.
Why?
What is this dilemma? How does it manifest? What form does it take? How can we identify it when it's in front of us?
Or is the dilemma merely the fact that some people hold certain beliefs that the general public has decided (through their "hegemonic" practices, of course) to be unworthy of respect in polite society?
>... in ideological terms, I am not sure that liberalism will overcome this.
Overcome what? I still don't understand the problem this article is supposed to be illustrating.
>Broadly, ideologies and political movements adopt positions which suit groups, political space being predicated on inter-group competition and rewarding efficient groups.
Yes. Good. This is how political spaces are formed. I take issue with the "rewarding efficient groups" part, but mostly because defining "efficient" seems a critical step to understanding that sentence and we haven't done that; but even so, sure, this is a straight-forward factual observation.
>If incentive structures deter liberals from advocating tolerance, liberalism will struggle to counter this trend.
. . . and?
Wait, is this the answer to the question? Are we saying that "liberals cannot escape intolerance because the incentive structures in everyday social interactions discourage them from advocating for more tolerance?"
That's it, isn't it?
This entire article is a veiled rant about how people are being mean to the author on Twitter.
iiioiia t1_iwh0gt1 wrote
>> In Western countries, certain liberal values have achieved hegemony. > > > > Really?
> Which ones?
Our mainstream culture sits on top of many axiomatic memes: democracy and science are the greatest, "rights" are real/non-imaginary, etc.
Assembling a full inventory would be a very long and emotionally challenging project.
> And how is this hegemony of ideas structured?
As I see it, it tends to be distributed as independent but self-reinforcing memes.
> Who decides where a given value falls within the hegemony?
Media, thought leaders, journalists, politicians, etc don't so much decide maybe, but strongly influence people's "decisions" (formation of beliefs).
> Personally, I find a major problem with conservative and right-wing thinkers is that they tend to assume hierarchies are both natural and inevitable. This leads them to view the world through that rose-colored lens, where everything must be part of a hierarchy and if one group (or their ideas) gains recognition, it must be at the expense of another.
All humans view reality through various biased lenses - for example, when they describe the (imaginary) members of their outgroups. Rare is the person who can catch themselves doing it.
> This simply is not true; but damned if we're going to successfully explain why it's not true to a conservative thinker.
As a True/False binary it is surely not 100% true, but as a spectrum, how true is it (say, in percentage terms)?
And if you are unable to explain it to a conservative thinker, do you know (as opposed to believe) that the problem is 100% on the receiving end?
> Or is the dilemma merely the fact that some people hold certain beliefs that the general public has decided (through their "hegemonic" practices, of course) to be unworthy of respect in polite society?
This seems like part of the problem - take the various "facts" one reads about religion and religious people every day on Reddit as just one example.
> This entire article is a veiled rant about how people are being mean to the author on Twitter.
As the saying goes: Perception is Reality.
DrakBalek t1_iwh5mec wrote
"Perception is Reality" is inaccurate. More correct is "perception is reality," with small letters instead of capital, because perception is limited to the individual. Reality exists outside of our perception. "Tree falls in a forest, no one around, does it make a sound," etc.
"Perception is reality" means "if I perceive something to be true, I will act as though it is true." This is a useful axiom for dealing with people, to be sure, but it's terrible whenever we need to deal with the real world. You might perceive an absence of cars on the road but that won't protect you from being struck and killed by one.
>>Who decides where a given value falls within the hegemony?
>Media, thought leaders, journalists, politicians, etc don't so much decide maybe, but strongly influence people's "decisions" (formation of beliefs).
Hegemony: "leadership or dominance, especially by one country or social group over others."
Are you saying our "media, thought leaders, journalists, politicians, etc." have dominance over our society? Curious. I can see how that argument could be made but I think it's rather soft; that is, yes, certain persons on the internet have had a direct influence over me, personally, over the past few years; but I am not beholden to them. Indeed, I no longer consume content from some influencers that, just a year ago, I would have considered high on my list of reliable sources. This isn't to say that they're not worth listening to, rather, that I don't see how this hegemony functions in practice. Further, I'm not convinced there is a hegemonic order (as the OP seems to think there is). I think there's a different kind of order, but it's certainly not hegemonic (though it is hierarchical, after a fashion, mostly because people tend to naturally organize themselves into groups with a hierarchy).
>All humans view reality through various biased lenses
True; but this fact has little bearing on the point I was making.
Unless you want to argue that a left-leaning bias is somehow equivalent to a right-leaning one . . . which is patently absurd, on its face, if we take the time to understand what the Left and Right (as political platforms go) actually believe.
>And if you are unable to explain it to a conservative thinker, do you know (as opposed to believe) that the problem is 100% on the receiving end?
I do.
Because I've been explaining these concepts to people for a long time. And I've found that, when someone refuses to understand the basics, it's usually because of a deeply held conviction (i.e. bias) about how the world works.
iiioiia t1_iwhp6gm wrote
> Reality exists outside of our perception.
Also: our perception of reality exists within reality (which complicates things substantially, because it raises the question: just what is "reality"?).
> "Perception is reality" means "if I perceive something to be true, I will act as though it is true."
Agreed. It also typically means that the person considers their opinion of what is true to be synonymous with what is actually true.
Also: some people have much more powerful means of communicating their opinion about reality as if it is factual reality, confusing people further.
> This is a useful axiom for dealing with people, to be sure, but it's terrible whenever we need to deal with the real world. You might perceive an absence of cars on the road but that won't protect you from being struck and killed by one.
Agreed....so too with plenty of "facts" that spread throughout the memeplex. The Science has been on a big run for the last few years.
> Are you saying our "media, thought leaders, journalists, politicians, etc." have dominance over our society?
They have substantial persuasive power. Compare the general public's consensus take on affairs in Ukraine to what is broadcast as the state of affairs in Ukraine - I don't know about you, but I sense some pretty strong correlation between the two, enough that I think there may even be a causal relationship (which is further supported by the commonality of people linking to journalism stories as proof (in their minds) that something is necessarily true).
> Curious. I can see how that argument could be made but I think it's rather soft; that is, yes, certain persons on the internet have had a direct influence over me, personally, over the past few years; but I am not beholden to them.
Beholden: owing thanks or having a duty to someone in return for help or a service.
Perhaps. But would you go so far as to state as a fact that you have zero(!) bias as a consequence of the consumption of journalism or conversations on social media?
> Indeed, I no longer consume content from some influencers that, just a year ago, I would have considered high on my list of reliable sources.
Excellent - have you achieved perfect rationality?
> This isn't to say that they're not worth listening to, rather, that I don't see how this hegemony functions in practice. Further, I'm not convinced there is a hegemonic order (as the OP seems to think there is). I think there's a different kind of order, but it's certainly not hegemonic (though it is hierarchical, after a fashion, mostly because people tend to naturally organize themselves into groups with a hierarchy).
Do you form any particular conclusions as a consequence? Or: what epistemic status do you assign to the speculative proposition?
>> All humans view reality through various biased lenses
> True; but this fact has little bearing on the point I was making.
That your considerations here are biased by your lenses may have at least some relevance - "has little bearing" is your perception of what is true...but is it actually true?
> Unless you want to argue that a left-leaning bias is somehow equivalent to a right-leaning one . . . which is patently absurd, on its face, if we take the time to understand what the Left and Right (as political platforms go) actually believe.
The "both sides" algorithm seems to have been very broadly distributed - I often wonder if this is purely organic.
>> And if you are unable to explain it to a conservative thinker, do you know (as opposed to believe) that the problem is 100% on the receiving end?
> I do.
Excellent - please present your proof.
> Because I've been explaining these concepts to people for a long time. And I've found that, when someone refuses to understand the basics, it's usually because of a deeply held conviction (i.e. bias) about how the world works.
Ah, I see what's going on: your proof is your self-perception.
DrakBalek t1_iwhy6rp wrote
Ah, I see what's going on here: you're taking a centrist, "both sides" approach to a conversation about perception and reality.
It's a position that only serves to enable and embolden the worst antisocial elements of our society.
No, I won't be presenting "proof," as I'm quite confident you won't accept anything as such, regardless of how accurate or well reasoned it is.
Good day.
iiioiia t1_iwhz287 wrote
> Ah, I see what's going on here: you're taking a centrist, "both sides" approach to a conversation about perception and reality.
No, that is your perception/model of what is going on, powered by the broadly distributed "both sides" algorithm.
> It's a position that only serves to enable and embolden the worst antisocial elements of our society.
What if you have it literally backwards?
> No, I won't be presenting "proof," as I'm quite confident you won't accept anything as such, regardless of how accurate or well reasoned it is.
Also because no proof exists - thus, it is a belief.
> > > > Good day.
Good day to you as well.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments