Fear and Loathing of a Trumpenreich (and why I scoff)

There's a lot of info in both articles, too many subtopics to respond to all of them. But, re: progressives/SJW's, it's not a new criticism (Trump is merely a new result of their purported failure). I get it, and I think there have been plenty of cases where progressive "zeal" in fighting racism, sexism, etc., has been misplaced or exaggerated (like Samantha Bee's comedy - I watched her show one time and was like, uh, no).

But priviledge *is* a thing. The concept of it can be effective and instructive or it can be offensive and divisive, depending on both speaker and hearer.

As far as solutions offered that don't fit the status quo being shot down, you'd have to be more specific. In fact, the whole complaint against the SJWs is pretty non-specific. "I'm sick of being called a racist..." who, exactly, is calling you a racist, and in response to what? And how often is this happening? Maybe I am missing something. Maybe I have liberal priviledge. /s

Oh, harsh is fine. You make some good points - especially that the real problem is not necessarily Trump himself, but the people around him.

That said, there are some weakness in Scott Alexander's arguments. I am disappointed you didn't actually spot any of those and instead took what is, to me, a far less persuasive approach.

Okay, here's where I get harsh.

This is an argument I see deployed frequently. Usually with terms like "lived experience," which like "privilege" has become a corrupted term that once described something useful but is now used as shorthand to shut down arguments one doesn't like.

People who actually examine statistics (and find, for example, that black people are not disproportionately more likely to get shot by cops than whites - but it's complicated, see links below), or who engage in robust debate about the nuances of racism and sexism, using abstract ideas rather than emotive first-person accounts, are accused of being "annoying," insensitive, "blinded by privilege," etc. But grounding these discussion in actual facts and reason is important. Yes, I can see how there is a certain type of person who uses that sort of discussion to derail meaningful discussion or deny that there is a problem to discuss - I know what "sea lioning" is. But when you would casually brush off such arguments because they are "annoying," I don't find the argument that "actual peoples' lives are being discussed" to be compelling. I know actual peoples' lives are being discussed. And that's the point. And yes, I know someone who is personally experiencing these things does not have the same perspective I do, that they are far more emotionally and physically invested in it, and that for me to engage in abstract discussion as if it's an intellectual exercise may be hurtful to them.

But here's the thing - that doesn't mean I'm wrong. The fact that someone has privilege doesn't mean they are wrong, and the fact that someone else is talking about their "lived experience" doesn't mean they are right. This is a fallacy frequently deployed because it invokes very powerful feelings of guilt among those vulnerable to it ("Where do you, a man, get off having an opinion about sexism? How dare you, a white person, disagree with me, a POC, about whether or not such and such a thing is racist?")

I do think privilege is a thing one should be aware of and be mindful of, yes. (Or as the old saying goes, "check your privilege.") But too often, all nuance in that concept has been abandoned, and "check your privilege" just means "Men should shut up and agree with women on gender issues, white people should shut up and agree with non-white people on racial issues, straight people should shut up and agree with queer people on LBGQT issues," etc.

Well, no. Logic is important. Principles are important. Truth is important. Sometimes truth does not favor the argument of the unprivileged.

Now, if you want to tell me that there is a time and a place to hold forth on truth and facts and abstract nuances, I agree. If I'm talking to, say, a black person whose friend or family member has just been shot by a cop and is raging about racism, no shit, I am not going to start going off on statistics and whether or not studies have found that nationwide, cops shoot black people more often on average. If a woman has been raped and her friends are saying all rapists should be hung without a trial, I understand the outrage and while I'm not going to nod along, I'm also not going to start talking about civil rights of the accused and rules of evidence and #notallmen, blah blah blah. Seriously.

But that doesn't mean the person whose friend was shot by a cop, or the woman who was raped, is right about their policy prescriptions, or that if they want to argue about it on a message board, that I should feel obliged not to use cold reason because that hurts their feelings.

Some links (no, you don't actually have to read all of this, but it's good reading):

slatestarcodex.com/2014/11/25/race-and-justice-much-more-than-you-wanted-to-know/

https://www.reddit.com/r/slatestarcodex/comments/4ty8l5/review_of_the_evidence_on_police_use_of_force_and/

(I link to Slate Star Codex a lot not because I think everything he says is necessarily correct, but because he also provides copious links to other studies which are the basis of his opinions.)

Mod note derail/

I intend to participate in this conversation in a substantive way as soon as I've had a chance to digest the arguments and articles, either today or this weekend. I'm interested and I think it's important. But for now, I just wanted to note that it's a pleasure to see the way you all are disagreeing in this thread.

Don't get me wrong -- I'm good with hardcore back and forth, as long as it's about the argument and not personal. And we'll see some of that, for sure, given the group we have and are likely to get. Hell, I'm looking forward to it and I intend to dish some out myself. Know that I don't intend, mod-wise, to shut down arguments just because a bit of fur is flying. Y'all can duke it out as long as you're not being trolls. But that said, it's seriously refreshing to see this level of civility and this level of attempting to acknowledge points on the other side while still maintaining one's own argument.

Also to note: I will frequently participate in lively arguments myself as a member. But that does not mean I'm shutting down anyone who is arguing differently. If I'm modding you, you'll know. My disagreeing with you is not the same thing (and I pledge here and now not to mod you just because I disagree with you).

You may now continue with your regularly scheduled argument. I'll be back later to duke it out as a participant.

/End mod note derail

So, what? You want your own room where you can debate yourself and whoever else here might be a minority? You don't give a rat's ass about what non-minority people have to offer?

Enjoy your debate. I'm sure it will go a long way to solving society's problems.

Did you actually read the entire thread, or just skim for the parts to yell at?

I'm betting the latter. Since you clearly didn't notice that no one here has said Trump is not a racist.

I guess I could snarl back, but I will give you more respect than you've ever given anyone else, and address your point as if it were a serious point, seriously offered.

I think Trump is a racist for some value of "racist." Does he personally hate minorities or believe they are inferior? Possibly, but I don't think so. Does he hold a lot of bigoted beliefs, and take actions that are racist in their effect? Yes. That was never in dispute. The point in dispute (the reason I started this thread) is whether he is in fact the living embodiment of the KKK come to the White House, or Hitler, or Nehemiah Scudder, or just a garden-variety oblivious white blowhard. You could lay as much racism at the feet of the Bushes, or Reagan, as you could at Trump's. Or Clinton, for that matter - I know "superpredators" was a soundbite used against her during the campaign, but it was a legitimate point (and would be repeated endlessly forever if it had been a Republican who pushed that term).

As to that last bit, it's exactly what I am pushing back against. "You don't get to debate racism because you are not an object of racism." Really? Well if that is your position, maybe you should go find one of those "sit down and shut up" places where that rule is in effect.

Mod Note:

Many of us here do know one another from another board. But a reminder to all -- what happened(s) on that board stays there. Don't drag it in here. Same arguments and modus operandi is fine.

I have to go into a meeting shortly, but I'll be back to participate.