:up: an even better example!

It's the fallacy of division: "A fallacy of division is the error in logic that occurs when one reasons that something that is true for a whole must also be true of all or some of its parts. "

Example:

Puritans should not engage in Satanic music.
Repetitive sounds are a part of Satanic music.

Therefore, Puritans should not engage with repetitive sounds.

I think what I'm saying rather amounts to: X is far more important than Y, and focus on Y obfuscates X, so lets focus less on Y and more on X. I'm not saying the redskins shouldn't remove their insensitive optics, I'm saying it won't amount to significant change in the social issues facing many First Nations communities.

The positions of special interest organizations not withstanding (which may or may not accurately represent the mosaic of different First Nations cultures and the diverse individuals that comprise them), my argument is about what is a practical or pragmatic means of addressing root issues (the same underlying issues being pointed to as a presumed consequence of, in part, cultural appropriation). The only people that the Redskins franchise is going to pander to are their actual fan-base, and the understanding that "redskins" and their mascot is a harmful and racist stereotype just isn't appealing to them; outside protests wont work. Our only other option to feasibly make them change the name would be legislation, which could almost never happen (what we consider "offensive" is too subjective and fluid to be enshrined in law). Simply put, it is a poorly chosen issue because it goes nowhere while burning fuel.

P.S When it comes to setting yourself up as a spokesperson for a culture, unless you've been elected by it (somehow...), I don't think there's much of a risk (almost any individual claiming to speak for an entire culture seems dubious to me). And yet, your ideas about what is socially harmful, why, and how we can address them can still be useful even if you don't belong to the culture(s) whose problems you're addressing. I'm of Acadian and Native American descent (ostensibly "Métis"), but that doesn't reflect on the truth of my statements (even though my experiences might give me insight (e.g: first generation student, inter-generational poverty/alcoholism, lost culture, etc...), my own experiences are anecdotal). I have never lived on a reservation, but I am still capable of comprehending the problems they tend to face and thinking about ways to address them, and you are too.

P.P.S: I realize we want to have different discussions, and I don't judge your lack of interest. My responses are intended as a defense of what I believe to be an ethical, empirical, and pragmatic argument.

I don't see that you've established anything other than what I conceded at the beginning of the discussion that the idea is often misapplied or applied overstrenuously. But the effect of using your language is dismissive with or without the 'mostly' and echoes the right-wing media's attempts to deride everything that's a concern of minorities by downplaying or mocking it. So, if, as per the first example, American Indian organizations who represent a people who have historically been treated abominably and are now amongst the most deprived in the country say their social problems are partly to do with negative stereotypes being inflicted on them and particularly their youth and that a major remaining stereotype is associated with a huge money-spinning football franchise, I'd be willing to take them seriously on the basis that they're the ones who are the authority on themselves and their problems. Anyway, I think we've reached the end here. It's a conversation I expected from the very beginning would be filled with mockery and contempt and I wanted to give the other side a fair shake. Which I've done I think. — Baden

I like to think my position on the subject amounts to more than just mockery from conservative echo-chambers. If to log an opposing sentiment against the concept of cultural appropriation, or a specific instance thereof, is to deny the concerns of minorities, how can I say a solitary word against any of it?

Regarding the example of the "Redskins" mascot, it might seem insensitive, dickish, or insulting (and what is a slight but the semblance of one?), though from my perspective it's actually compassionate: progressive movements often shoot themselves in the foot by making unpersuasive and irrelevant appeals rather than having a tangible set of meaningful and positive goals to organize around at the outset. In the case under discussion, Native American groups need to worry primarily about pollution (e.g: fracking tainting lakes and rivers), crises in access to healthcare (including mental-health care), and full blown sovereignty dilemmas (at least in Canada where it is a re-opened question). Let's say hypothetically that the Redskins rebrand to something neutral. Then what? What will have been achieved? The insult of the insensitive mascot will have been eliminated, but the serious social injuries that need to be addressed will remain unchanged. I can see some sort of pragmatic argument that alleges having the mascot changed will be a positive symbolic gesture, but I very much doubt it if we can only make them change by sheer negative social pressure. Many Americans (and even some Native ones ) will look at the Redskins controversy and for whatever reason be unpersuaded that it is meaningful (especially when compared to the physically injurious aforementioned problems). Since getting the name changed will generate little or no physical change in the situations facing Native Americans, and it happens to generate opposition, why bother putting it anywhere near the top of the agenda?

Here is a thread I wrote about the situation facing First Nations peoples in Canada: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/3812/first-nation-soverignty-and-the-canadian-government (I would be most appreciative if anyone interested in the thread could respond to it. It's a very informative post, and also (or so I thought) very thought provoking, but I only managed to attract a single respondent).

Imagine that we're trying to persuade an average American that we should address (with serious effort) the social injuries faced by Native Americans. Compare the approach I took in my own thread to the approach inherent in the cultural appropriation appeal. One inexorably demands negative action (that X stops doing Y) to address feelings, while the other inexorably demands positive actions to address substantial inequities across physical and political spectra. Frankly I see the Redskins issue as an unproductive waste of time which only serves to obfuscate those more important issues and to engender opposition from anyone unsympathetic to the aesthetic issue. If and when the Redskins do rebrand, I want it to be the autonomous consequence of genuinely changed beliefs (the positive desire to be more sensitive rather than a response to negative social pressure). I can see my approach being persuasive to almost everyone, and while I do not make specific policy recommendations (I reference the logistic difficulties facing policy-makers), I would be seriously surprised if anyone could come away from my thread with the impression that we ought to change nothing.

Reflecting more broadly on the topic of cultural appropriation, it can only coherently apply as an argument against cultural insensitivity, where the sentiments of the parent culture define what amounts to use/misuse of a cultural artifact. To the extent that use or misuse of a given emotionally significant cultural artifact is offensive, I think it should not be used or misused. Applying this to the Redskin mascot, it's not exactly use of an important artifact so much as it is a percievably racist portrayal of an entire ethnic category. I can see why the stereotype amounts to racism, but it's not exactly the kind of hate-based racism/prejudice/discrimination that has lead to negative social outcomes for many First Nations groups. Some Americans have made the argument that the Redskin mascot is actually a celebration of Native Americans (however foolish or misguided the thought might be in reality) which makes it an even less persuasive appeal overall. And because the entire idea of opposing harmful cultural appropriation is based on the premise that it leads to negative social outcomes, I feel obligated to voice my opinion that in terms of what's causally important, we have much bigger fish to fry.

With respect to what specifically?

That they forbid certain hairstyles such as dreads or cornrows? (I'm guessing wildly at what you're referencing...).

My social-equity-gripe against the army is mainly for its homophobic policies. Their recruiters are "abelist" and "ageist", but unfortunately they have to be. I'm not opposed to female infantry (or women occupying other physically demanding positions) so long as they're physically capable of doing the job (on average men tend to be physically stronger and more physically durable than women, which is why men are more often suited for soldiering than women (maybe there's some psychological trends to be acknowledged as well, such as the male penchant for violence, but I'd rather not go there)).

But let's ignore all that because it's all just based on a rubbish concept? And this is how you start your critique. Try harder. — Baden

Mostly a rubbish concept... As I ceded originally, the Redskins mascot is somewhat insensitive (it's "dickish"), but it's just not problem of comparable magnitude to what many Native Americans face. Suicide rates in Native American youth (among other social issues) is not primarily caused or significantly exacerbated by merely insensitive mascots. I can understand the idea that demanding respect from the MLB franchise is symbolic of being respected as a culture, but it will achieve exactly nothing. The NCAI has the spare time to take up the issue, and good for them, I wish them success, but it would be more meaningful to actually address the social problems directly.

Sure it sounds foolish when you represent it like that. But she didn't say it was "stealing" for a start and qualified the wider economic context.

E.g.

"In the San Francisco Bay Area, I witness people taking what they like without wanting to associate with where it came from all the time. Here, recent transplants to the area write Yelp reviews in search of “authentic Mexican food” without the “sketchy neighborhoods” – which usually happen to be what they call neighborhoods with higher numbers of people of color. The Yelpers are getting what they want, at least in terms of the neighborhood, as gentrification rapidly pushes people of color out of their homes, and white-owned, foodie-friendly versions of their favorite “ethnic” restaurants open up.
...
So is every non-Mexican who enjoys a good burrito guilty of cultural appropriation? Say it ain’t so! That would include me and nearly everyone I know."

I don't think this is one the stronger points here but it's not looney tunes either. — Baden

I don't understand how the yelpers or the foodies or the white restaurateurs are gentrifying neighborhoods (it doesn't make sense). That said, gentrification happens, and sometimes people of color are priced out of their own current homes, but it's just as just or unjust as when it happens to whites; it's capitalism.

Here's the crux of the text:

"For example, standards of professionalism hold back all kinds of people who aren’t white men. As a Black woman, there are many jobs that would bar me if I wore cornrows, dreadlocks, or an afro – some of the most natural ways to keep up my hair.
...
Compare that to fashion magazines’ reception of white teenager Kylie Jenner’s “epic” cornrows or “edgy” dreadlocks.

When Black women have to fight for acceptance with the same styles a young white woman can be admired for, what message does that send to Black women and girls?"

The target of criticism seems to be unequal treatment by institutions not the white teenagers who copy the hairstyles. I don't know the extent that that's a fair reflection of what actually happens in the U.S. but it doesn't strike me as completely implausible either. So, why is it too foolish to even think about? — Baden

It's foolish to taker seriously the idea that one's race determines what kinds of hairstyles, cuisines, careers, or practices we should or should not pursue. The article doesn't seem to be demanding that institutions cease discriminating against individuals from different cultures (that demand is an unwritten given), it's actually trying to explain why whites doing X is harmful. "When Black women have to fight for acceptance with the same styles a young white woman can be admired for, what message does that send to Black women and girls?" (the implication being: white people, stop wearing black hairstyles because it's not fair)

Asking for fair treatment is one thing, but asking for unequal treatment for others (whether to spare feelings, or to prevent gentrification) is another thing entirely.

1. "It Trivializes Violent Historical Oppression, E.G: 'Redskins'"...

The Redskins name might be insensitive, and in that sense they're "being a dick", but beyond a bit of emotional resentment the "Redskins" is more of an anti-example. Modern Native American tribes aren't worried about baseball team names, they're worried about pipe-lines crossing their dwindling and degraded reserves, about the continual loss of their language and culture, and about the social problems afflicting many of their communities.

"2. It Lets People Show Love for the Culture, But Remain Prejudiced Against Its People, E.G white people owning restaurants that serve non white food"

I'm sure you'll agree with me that this one is too foolish. If a white person opens a Mexican style restaurant, it's stealing? When a Mexican person opens a Mexican style restaurant, are they obligated to share profits with all other Mexicans?

"3. It Makes Things ‘Cool’ for White People – But ‘Too Ethnic’ for People of Color. E.G white people 'get away with' cultural hair-styles that people of color are discriminated against because of"

This is one is too foolish to even address.

"4. It Lets Privileged People Profit from Oppressed People’s Labor. E.G: whites are stealing ideas from other cultures and it's not fair"

Same as number two, rubbish (and more and more racist).

"5. It Lets Some People Get Rewarded for Things the Creators Never Got Credit For"

The example they give is that black people invented rock and roll, but Elvis Presley got the credit...

Black people as a whole didn't invent rock and roll though, individuals did, and rather than learn their names we're supposed to just thank the entire black race?

"6. It Spreads Mass Lies About Marginalized Cultures. E.G Pocahontas"

The real story of Pocahontas is gritty and disturbing. Yes Disney made a kids film depicting a fictionalized series of events, but why should this be so offensive? Why is dressing up as "Pocahontas' considered offensive to Native Americans? Are they offended because we're not honoring the true story of Pocahontas?

"7. It Perpetuates Racist Stereotypes"

If we're not being a dick about it, what's so evil about stereotypes? The example they gave was that Katy Perry played a stereotype of the "submissive Asian woman" when she dressed up as a Geisha in one of her videos...

But what if an Asian woman dresses up as a submissive Geisha? Is she unfairly perpetuating a stereotype that will engender prejudiced harassment of other Asian women? I understand the logic of this example better than the others, but the crux can't simply be "but she was white, so it's bad".

"8. White People Can Freely Do What People of Color Were Actively Punished for Doing. Example, the British once banned Yoga British occupied India"

I don't understand this one either. Only Indians can do Yoga? Or whites are explicitly forbidden from doing Yoga because of their sins? This is all based around optics, not harm.

"9. It Prioritizes the Feelings of Privileged People Over Justice for Marginalized People"

As with the Redskins example, this is actually kind of backward thinking. Disney apologizing for Pocahontas wouldn't be "Justice for marginalized people". That this author associates the emotional safe space they are trying to create with "justice for marginalized people" betrays the pettiness of their initiative (or the irrelevance of their claims)

Feelings don't matter very much to me, what's more important are basic human needs. Having the Redskins change their name is inconsequential, whereas the destruction and pilfering of the environment that once sustained diverse Native American ways of life is not. If you talk to on-reserve natives, they'll tell you that clean lakes and rivers are their immediate concern.

Are there any examples here that I've mis-characterized? You seem to have proven my point for me. Cultural appropriation is a mostly rubbish concept....

Yes, cultural appropriation is mostly a rubbish concept.

There's an argument to be made that mocking or denigrating the symbols of another culture is unethical, but the notion that one specific group of people owns the intellectual rights to a certain look or recipe or process is unpractical in the extreme.

As a general rule, if you're not being a dick, then "appropriating" elements of another culture is not a genuine cause for concern.

On something as personal as this...it is for HER to decide...not any regulated anything. — Frank Apisa

What if she was 12 instead of 17? (not a rhetorical question)

I'm not taking issue with the principle that individuals should have the right to make decisions for themselves, I'm raising the possibility that some people (such as a naive child) might not actually be intelligent/aware/cognizant enough to make the best decision.

I'm not denying that this particular 17 year old was cognizant enough to make her own choice (it's a complicated case that would require investigation to firmly judge), instead I'm going straight to the crux of the issue that the thread is based on: extreme youth makes suicide more controversial because we expect youth to correlate with naivete (and future potential). The older we make the woman in our example, the less intuitively controversial it becomes.

As I said in the post to which you originally responded, it's a complicated issue and we would have to look at the details of each specific case; there's no correct answer that must hold true for all cases.

And, of course, YOU want to be able to decide if a person is "cognizant enough...just as I am sure you would want ME to be the judge if YOU are...right? — Frank Apisa

Shirley, I would never!

It's not for "me" or "us"; in this case it's for her legal guardians to determine, and also perhaps for trained and regulated health and mental health professionals.

Complexity Sciences (chaos theory and complex systems) and machine learning are enough to ferret out the important bits of "intelligence".

But there is a big difference between answering the questions "how do we think?" and "why do we behave the way we do" than answering the question "why do we have a conscious experience of things?". The latter is referred to "the hard problem of consciousness" and it's really not easy to get anywhere in that subject.

Whether or not a seventeen year old is cognizant enough to make the decision for themselves is the relevant issue. "We" do need to make decisions on behalf of children all the time.

Comprehending what's right in these kinds of edge cases necessitates looking closely at the specific details. It's messy, but making a firm judgment requires a great deal of nuance. For all we know at the outset, force-feeding her could amount to a good deed in the long run as @Hanover suggests, or it could be tantamount to rape as @andrewk points out.

Is there a situation where we should let someone take there own life?

What would be the range of permissible circumstances?

How must age factor in, using extreme/edge cases like this one as a sanity check?

The answers are (1)Yes, (2) it's complicated, (3) it's really complicated.

On the one hand, accepting her suicide makes me feel like we're viewing life as a commodity that can just be written-off when it is no longer pleasing to the consumer. On the other hand, I don't know the full set of details in this specific case. I did read that she suffered prolonged periods of institutionalization (for depression, suicidal behavior, and a string of medical issues, such as organ failure (possibly related to her refusing to eat)). Maybe her life really was a living hell, and maybe she really was broken beyond any reasonable hope of repair or recovery. If we could predict the future then we might be confident that "letting her go" is the most compassionate thing we can do, or we might actually know better and make the decision for her (much in the way a parent makes decisions for their children despite their naive protests).

But we cannot know the future, so we can only go with our best guess in each individual case, and mistakes are inevitable.

The brain is a computer designed by natural selection to extract information from the environment.


So according to you their first tenet is irrelevant to their study. — AJJ

Assuming that the brain or the mind (as yet undefined in this thread) is or is not a "computer", and whatever that might mean, is not necessary to approach psychology through the lens of adaptive utility-based selection. Evolutionary psychology tries to explain how or why certain traits and behaviors are useful, which explains why they evolved the way they did. You can quote some random psychologist all you like, but the answer to your question is contained in the title of the field: 'evolutionary' psychology.

The brain doesn’t do calculations for the same reason computers don’t. It’s all electrical signals, and electrical signals are just that - electrical signals. It’s only in our minds that they mean anything. — AJJ

Calculators send signals back and forth and they're just bundles of material. Do they not do calculations? If not, why do we call them calculators?

If you think you can fully separate the mind from the brain then your work is cut out for you. The mind is a representation of brain-happenings, so if it happens in the mind, it must somehow also be represented in the state or states of the brain. As the brain "computes", so too does the mind.

Eh? I don’t see how this addresses the OP.

I don’t actually want this kind of argument so I’d just like to draw a line under this now. — AJJ

That's fine, but you're making the claim that the mind is not a computer, so I'm not sure why would not expect cursory resistance to that claim. You haven't bothered to define "computer" or "mind" or "brain", and personally I'm not interested in whether or not your claims undermine the field of evolutionary psychology (it's a tertiary issue raised on a misconception). I'm interested in whether or not the claims you've made about minds and brains are sound or valid. If brains actually do perform calculations (if they do compute), where does that leave the rest of your claims?

There also seems to be some underlying thrust hidden behind the claims that the mind/brain does not compute, and that evolutionary psychology is therefore useless or a pseudo-science. What are you trying to imply? What did evolutionary psychology ever do to you?

My limited understanding of evolutionary psychology is that it is a combination of evolutionary theory and cognitive psychology, and that cognitive psychology rests on the theory that the mind is a computer. If I have this right, does the above not render evolutionary psychology a pseudo-science? — AJJ

No.

Evolutionary psychology tends to treat minds and brains as black-boxes, where it seeks to explain the practical or evolutionary purpose of behaviors, not the internal mechanism that generates them. It's more behaviorism than it is neuroscience, and whether or not "the brain is a computer" is totally irrelevant to evolutionary psychology

Regarding cognitive psychology, brains do actually do calculations, but calling them "computers" is a misnomer. The fact is, we have biological neural networks in our brain that are capable of coming up with solutions to problems like "what's 10 + 10?". (and we also have biology-inspired artificial neural networks that are capable of doing the same thing).

You just seem to be intuitively rejecting the idea that the brain is a computer, and you offer objections like "computers cannot operate themselves"....

What if the mind is more complicated that "is a computer or is not a computer?" What if different parts of the brain do different kinds of things, such that one part of our brain can operate another part? (E.G: when our conscious minds want to access memories or perform a calculation, maybe it accesses other parts of the brain as if to exploit their computational ability).

Don't believe everything you read. She was denied her request for euthanasia. (translated form the article):

"Six months ago, a 16-year-old girl from Arnhem approached the Levenseind ​​clinic in The Hague without her parents' knowledge. Her question: am I eligible for euthanasia or assistance with suicide? The answer was "no." ,, They think I'm too young to die. They think I should complete the trauma treatment and that my brain must first be fully grown. That lasts until you are 21. I'm devastated, because I can't wait that long anymore".

According to the various sources I've found, she decided to stop eating, and while she had been force-fed in a previous instance, this time her parents decided not to intervene and "let her go". Western media is simply misreporting it, and probably haven't issued many corrections yet (if ever) because it's perfect click-bait.

This was suicide without intervention, not euthanasia.

I agree, but legislation can have unintended consequences. I do gain some comfort in knowing that there's a nation reckless enough to be the guinea pig so that the details can be sorted out before these ideas will be tried on my soil.

I do find this Dutch experiment vile. It's a step backward for compassionate end of life care and it treats human life as just another item. — Hanover

It's definitely not reassuring to see an institution lend credibility to the idea that 17 year old children should be free to commit suicide if they're depressed. These, I think, are the statistically inevitable mistakes that would be made by any nation facilitating euthanasia; all it takes is a few negligent or ignorant morons.

Grim and unfortunate business all around...

But what would Hippocrates say?

From what I've read about her situation, she had already been emotionally scarred by being forced into various institutions. Having an operation as invasive as a stomach peg surgery would probably have made things worse.

She would have to be kept sedated or in restraints, and on suicide watch during these years of exhaustive experimentation on her psyche. And if in the end, it fails anyway, they will have done nothing but harm.

I should probably also mention that this 17 year old dutch girl was not euthanized. She applied for euthanasia but was denied. In her own words (translation not confirmed):

"They think I'm too young to die. They believe I should complete my therapy first, and that my brain needs to be fully grown. That takes until you're 21. I'm devastated, because I can't wait that long."

She actually starved herself to death by refusing to eat or drink. They would have had to force a feeding tube down her throat to keep her alive. Instead they decided to provide pain relief.

This was actually suicide, and it has been misreported.

Lots of the early supporters of euthanasia have since recanted after seeing a cascade of questionable cases in and around the Netherlands

It's a slippery slope argument that indicates that we should be cautious, but it doesn't indicate that we should forbid euthanasia entirely. Whether or not this 17 year old girl made a naive decision should not come to bear on the decisions of terminally ill patients to end their suffering.

Lasers don't work against mirrors.

Make the rockets shiny, and it's game over for lasers...

Regarding M.A.D, the rub is that whoever disarms first is then at the mercy of the other, which is why denuclearization is so difficult (it requires a hell of a lot of trust, and nobody is willing to risk the other holding back a few nukes).

But there's a significant upshot that must be recognized: MAD not only prevents the usage of nuclear weapons, it also prevents direct conflicts between nuclear armed nations, for fear of escalation.

If we did deuclearize, we would have to fight a bunch of areal-drone and boots-on-ground wars to re-establish hard territorial control. Imagine a hot war between the U.S and Russia (which would almost certainly have occurred if not for M.A.D).

EDIT: I should also mention that if we do make satellites with lasers strong enough to melt ICBMs, they would probably be strong enough to harm surface targets as well. Somehow the idea of being cooked with radiation from space isn't any less terrifying than nuclear explosions...

Because it will just evaporate and then get pissed back into the sea. We would only need to extract it on an as-needed basis, and that costs electricity among other things.

I wouldn't underestimate catharsis, but could we in the nascent throes of something completely different?

Since before Trump was elected I've been hoping for his impeachment because of what it would symbolize (not just for America, but for the democratic world at large, and beyond). As a spanner in the works, Trump seems to have ground American political progress to a halt (or reversed it in terms of policy), but he is also causing us to take a harder look at the works themselves. How and why did the spanner get in there? What has it broken. what needs fixing, and what needs to be redesigned completely?

If Trump gets impeached, wealthy elites in America and around the world will understand not only that the people do still have power, but also that democracy itself yields more effective leadership than a rigged or authoritarian craps shoot; it's us they ought placate. Average people will come away with more faith in the ability of democratic systems to represent their interests, and they'll be invigorated to see that they can still participate in what is not yet a dead system.

I'm probably more optimistic than most... Since the world is now facing a series of impending crises that threaten to end contemporary prosperity entirely, I think sound and energized politics and political participation which can facilitate sweeping reforms is our only option. The concentration of wealth and the effect we're having on the environment cannot continue as it has done (a pattern established well before Trump), where we either embrace somewhat radical change, or face decline. Either way we're about to enter a new era of civilization, but we're not at all prepared.

Pelosi dragging her feet about impeachment disturbs me to no end, as if for expediency she wants to keep him in office to use as a shoehorn for a democratic candidate in 2020. I see it as a necessary catalyst to trigger reform.

What gives rise to the alt right it is increasing inequality combined with a propensity of those who have lost economic security and social status for scapegoating. — Izat So

It's not so much economic inequality as it is fear of economic inequality. We're no longer in recession, but the market failures of the last decade (eg: the 2008 eal-estate bubble) have caused many to doubt the path we're on (and both sides tend to disagree about what path we're actually on, let alone should be on).

"Loss of social status" ~ now you're on to something! The alt-right fears a world where "whites have their rights voted away by a vengeful new majority", and as "evidence" they magnify whichever leftist happens to be the radical du jour. The alt-right's focus on identity is actually a reactionary move (mirroring the identity focus of the extreme left).

Pundits' concerns with extreme PC inadvertently feed the alt right beast — Izat So

Indeed, reacting to extreme PCness is from whence they derive their initial emotional reassurance.

Since the alt right is far more basic threat to democracy than extreme political correctness, pundits should spend more time warning people of the dangers of the alt right than they do the extremes of political correctness and inadvertently feeding the beast. — Izat So

But if extreme political correctness feeds the beast, then it's also a threat to democracy. If the alt-right would not exist without extreme political correctness to react to and provide their emotional justification, would we be better off without extreme political correctness? Maybe marginalizing the excesses of the left is actually the most effective way of marginalizing the alt-right's ability to recruit?

There's usually a couple guys who are charismatic in the way a fuck-the-system senior might be attractive to angst-ridden freshmen. They combine a confident seeing-through-the-bullshit ideology with a seeming easy mastery of christian theology, or history, or something scienc-y or some other Western Knowledge signifier. The appeal seems to be that they echo the same doubts you've had, and they have a bunch of extra knowledge to fill in the blanks. They hold court and the people who have just un-lurked try to get their attention and cautiously advance their own ideas and look for approval and direction. (in another lens: you feel humiliated and powerless? well here is validation that you're actually right plus very powerful [knowledge/culture signifier] — csalisbury

This is definitely an apt description. To add to this, in some of the more populated rooms the chaos is extreme, where a team of party-loyal lieutenants moderate only spam (and ban people they suspect of recording or "doxing"). The text chat rooms consists of an endless and ever devolving torrent memes and group-signals which scrolls by so quickly that fast and loose rhetoric is sometimes the only means of participation. Live chat rooms for even the most positive and politically neutral venues are often described as "cancerous", so you might be able to appreciate just how bat shit insane a Discord server filled with hundreds of 15-25 year old alt-righters actually is. Words can't describe that level of unhinged verbal lunacy.

I do see the potential for arresting radicalization in these venues. I'm too old to have been a young lurker on discord - my charismatic older figure was Zizek (for the same reasons, he echoed doubts I had and helped make sense of them, and knowledge signifier (german idealism, even tho he knows it for real, it still had a signifying aspect) so I lucked out. — csalisbury

I don't know much about Zizek but from his "debate" with Peterson I gathered he at least knew what he was talking about. Interestingly, Peterson was adored by the proto-alt right (for them he was one of those charismatic figures, first for his perceived rejection of transgenderism, and second for his overall conservative rejection of the left). The alt-right broke away from him primarily as the result of the strangest damn thing: he was asked by an audience member what his opinion on the "Holodomor" was, and whether the "Marxist Jews" were responsible; and Peterson had no sweet clue what the audience member was talking about. Alt right memes emerged depicting Peterson as intellectually dishonest or cucked, and before long Peterson was publicly disavowing far right collectivism. That whole affair is only the tip of the ridiculous rhetorical iceberg. The stories I could tell...

1) While I think this works in the pirate corners of the internet, I'm not sure the logic carries over to larger, more mainstream platforms. — csalisbury

Elevated platforms do work a bit differently, where higher standards in discourse are more important. There are, however, exceptions that depend on the expectations of the audience.

How are you measuring the influence you've had? Is it dms confirming you've had an effect? — csalisbury

The amount of attention and feedback I've been able to gain at those venues was astounding. By merely asking questions and making satirical commentary (and rebuking their responses quickly and persuasively) the loudest among them quickly became obsessive, which ensured I was always the center of attention (my very own triggered town-criers). At any given community, finding success was a prolonged affair, but once I built up a reputation as the competent leftist (by, in their eyes, beating back the many headed hydra that is the alt-right ideological platform, but also by subverting their expectations by not presenting as the caricatured "deluded emotional leftist"), they then wanted to "destroy" me so badly that they had to actually answer my questions and respond coherently to my attacks (lest they lose their high ground of "reason"). The vocal minority spamming me with insults would generally then be silenced by the more highly ranked as they stepped in to "red pill" or "black pill" me.

They would demand debates in voice chat or that I debate on one of their many youtube live-streams (generally in voice chats I didn't break a sweat, but for whatever reason voice-chats seemed to accentuate their incompetence, and the pool of participants was smaller), while my dm inbox would be flooded, surprisingly, by mostly positive feedback, friendship requests, and invitations to seemingly every other Discord server even vaguely connected to the one I happened to be on at the time). I could see undecideds move in my direction in real time, and at least on some occasions I watched my views begin to defend themselves (their own ranking members were ceding critical ground) and internalize within local communities. Some or all of my successes aren't really that impressive given that what I was actually refuting was beyond reason in the first place ("We're going to create a whites only nation in Antarctica, and because whites are the best, it too will be the best! Huzzah!"), but it's honest work for honest influence. On some of the more serious and seriously pernicious subjects, I often found myself giving lengthy lectures (me? lecture!? HA!) after it had become clear to everyone that none of them bothered to do any fact checking or had a clue what they were talking about (for example, their arguments expounding "white death" based on birth rate statistics are a huge foot-in-the door sales tactic for the alt-right (one of their many fear-based appeals), but the so called statistical analysis they base it off is laughably bad, and an easy target for rebuke). Almost nobody has the patience or the will to entertain their ideas, so they've never really seen them competently rebuked, especially the younger initiates whose only political experience comes from classrooms schoolyards, and especially not on their own turf; down there in the mud and the muck and the merde; and in terms they actually understand.

At the point at which you're dealing with fascists, more 'radicalization' - worrying about what's North of North - is the least of your worries. — StreetlightX

But the fascists aren't yet in control. For all of Trump's harmful stupidity he is still being checked by a liberal system and the rule of law.

I'm worried that upon concluding it's a war against fascism, our resulting hasty generalizations of who's the fascist will lead to our self-defeat. How severely conservatism has been minced with fascism in this thread (despite our effort to be clear) is at least some evidence of how easily this can happen.

As for arresting them? The force most responsible for protecting fascists has always been the state. At any far right rally, the police are inevitably there to protect them. The state is not your friend. — StreetlightX

Police also protect progressive rallies as well, in which case, aren't they our friends?

If the far right rallies in question were proliferating hate speech, I would like to see them prosecuted where possible.

By 'great success', what exactly do you mean? (Are you talking about posing as an alt-righter on a discord or something similar?) — csalisbury

Posing as an alt-righter, no; but debating alt-righters on alt-right Discord servers, yes.

It's a grotesque affair given the rabid nature of internet chat rooms, but it can be done.

These sometimes tight-knit communities are often run by a vocal few, but there can be hundreds or sometimes thousands of lurkers who do nothing but absorb what gets said (they're also significant entry points for new members). Deploying effective rhetoric against them in that setting can have a strong influence on individual members of its community, especially the less hardened. Specifically, by "great success", I'm essentially referring to the influence I was able to have in those mediums.

Rhetoric shouldn't be designed to capitulate to politics it despises; this literally sends mixed messages and is easy to co-opt - bad rhetoric. On the level of reactionary politics; or mobilisation by TweetStorm; memorable rhetoric is the identifiable content through the medium's constraints on the message. — fdrake

Good rhetoric is more or less the rub in all of this. In the political climate of today, the gloves only protect the knuckles (e.g: anonymity as protection and the allusion of reason as the high ground), where good rhetoric is not only based on solid facts and sound arguments, but is also emotionally appealing and highly persuasive.

There's almost no real sitting down with the opposition these days (heck, even Shapiro could scarcely sit with a British conservative lobbing soft-balls down center-plate), where every engagement is a standing affair, usually with a lot of yelling and righteous indignation. Getting an opportunity to put forward substantive arguments needs to happen in spite of the memes and the spittle, so I do see why it looks like actually pulling this off seems like a Herculean task.

All it really takes is patience and dispassion. In a one-on-one engagement, genuine good-faith does seem to be required, because if one side gets incensed they can just end the interaction. But if there is an audience watching, rage-quitting is really bad optics, and in a one-vs-many situation (my favorite!) the same knuckle-protector-only rules apply.

Adapt the level of reliance on rhetorical strategy to the amount of good faith your opponent shows. — fdrake

This is good advice, but it only works up to a point. When your opponent hits the rhetorical bottom of the barrel and has nothing left to offer but bad faith nonsense or ridicule, it's better to stay composed and to stick to substance. You might need to deflect verbal flak as they go down in flames, "destroyed" in the eyes of the audience, but in my experience it is worth the result.

I don't want to 'dissuade' them. I want them to be terrified for their bodily safety. — StreetlightX

Yes, as I remarked earlier, some proponents of change embrace much more radical and violent methods than others, up to and including inciting terror. It's a potentially valid ethical discussion, but isn't it a bit extreme?

And while we sit here openly discussing how we're to dispose of them, they're listening in from dark corners, and reporting the worst that they hear back in their own echo-chambers (which is monetarily incentivized through clicks to boot). And so, both sides start organizing thanks to the emotionally galvanizing opposition each side provides for the other.

If someone who holds fascist views really is the imminent and existential threat you make them out to be, then why don't we arrest them?

P.S. I realize you're about to say "WELL I NEVER!", so consider the following:

Fascist 1: "Liberalism was originally a reactionary movement against fascist governments that relied on force and repression to keep power. Maybe we can persuade the liberals to accept Fascism if we don't make that mistake?"

Fascist 2: "I called this out for the unempirical untruth it is long ago. This is just recycled memes at this point.

Also consider that perhaps debating a liberal isn't an 'intellectual' issue, but an ethical, lived one. But by all means, continue to intellectualize liberalism. Consider also that I don't want to 'dissuade' them. I want them to be terrified for their bodily safety"

I know you don't support terrorist activity, but this is precisely the kind of rhetoric that radicalizes both sides because of how it sounds; how it looks.

I'm quite pro shame here. If the worst excesses of political opinion are shameful to express in public and in private, it's a much better deterrent than reason. Even if in some cases you might get ressentiment backlash and 'X DESTROYS Y' porn on social media and Youtube as a reaction. If xenophobia and racism are shameful that's a lot stronger than being wrong. — fdrake

Unfortunately, they've immunized themselves against particular sources of shame. Getting called a racist is a badge of honor for them because to them it means "you're too stupid to understand the science". Their platform intrinsically frames itself as struggling against the progressive embrace of diversity and equality, which they fundamentally conceptualize and perceive as the source of all their problems. Calling an alt-righter a racist is like calling Adolf Hitler a Nazi. Shame might still play a role in their pathology, but it would have to derive from other sources.

But Shapiro & Spencer don't argue in good faith. Shapiro's thing - much like Peterson (on politics) - is just the aesthetic of reason. — csalisbury

They very much rely on aesthetic appeal. In fact, over the course of hundreds of debates against them on alt-right platforms, in dozens of cases they openly admit that aesthetics alone is the only coherent basis for their political beliefs as they shift the goal posts back inside their own ass-holes in response to my attacks. It's definitely a surreal experience when you say "So you're basing your entire moral, cultural, and political platform on the emotional whim of aesthetic appeal? Like some kind of pretentious post-modern-art critic?", and then your interlocutor says "Yea, so what? Morality is subjective, man", but just getting to that point can be a major victory because the audience then gets to see alt right views distilled into the basic emotional appeals that actually drive them (which must then be worked directly).

The alt-right believes more than anything that it embraces reason and science over ever every other political group, which I see as a vulnerability of hubris. The scientifically inclined tend to give politics a wide berth, lest their work be co-opted by lay-zealots, but bringing expert knowledge to a debate with someone like Shapiro or Spencer (and an ability to withstand and rebut the memes and rhetoric) regarding those topics the alt-right claims to embrace (sociology, genetics, evolution, economics, psychology, history, statistics, etc...) actually goes a long way to countering them in the eyes of their audience. I'm no scientist, but I have a better understating of most of these topics than the average alt-right pundit/proponent, and I've used that understanding with great success in such debates, despite the unending theatrical pretense they entail.

While it's true the alt right is mostly veneer and bluster, they do have a general mix of core beliefs that they've internalized as facts, and which they substitute for arguments when required (such as, for example, the belief that because of declining birth rates and interracial marriage,the white race as a whole will cease to exist in anywhere from 100 to 1000 years, depending on who is asked).

I'm not saying they're not smart, I think they are, but Shapiro's appeal is the smouldering fuck you ('facts don't care about your feelings' etc) underlying his stuff. Everything else, including his ' look-i-like-pop-culture!' is veneer. There are very, very few people who agree with Shapiro who are going to be persuaded through debate, because its all theater. The arguments don't matter - its the emotional stance embodied by the character. — csalisbury

While they don't exactly argue with the same good faith that we try to maintain on this forum, there still is a relationship of good faith between them and their followers, and even if I could never get one of these pundits to fully recant in real-time, it's still possible to be persuasive in the long run, and to the greatest number of listeners. When directly challenged, almost nobody ever recants their views in real-time (especially obeliefs involving emotional commitment), but the challenges they're exposed to might stay with them, and overtime, presumably, cognitive dissonance allows them to organically evolve and change their fundamental beliefs. It might be a lofty and naive goal, but I don't want to give up and accept the less optimistic conclusion that political suasion is now for the birds.

Did you really just write this? And mean it? 'By not giving them room ... we're giving them room"; How does one go about writing a sentence like this? How does this transmit from brain to fingertip to keyboard without stalling at any point from the self-imploding force of its own vacuity? And add to this a casual acknowledgement of how it happens to be 'offensive and emotionally neglectful' - an acknowledgement made to all the better dismiss these as irrelevant - and one has to wonder what the actual fuck went on during the writing of this sentence.

Incidentally, let me tell you how I, and probably millions of others, learnt how fascism was bad. We studied it, like everybody else; felt its effects as we walked through the remains of concentrations camps, like everybody else; understood its history, like everybody else. You know what we didn't have to do? At least, not until liberals lost their collective fucking mind under the sway of the conservative rewriting of history and political mores? Debate a fucking fascist. Holy hell. In what universe must this be spelt out? Unlearn these memes. They are destructive of your intellectual ability. — StreetlightX

People like Shapiro and Spencer have been able to build significant followings despite the lessons of history, and willingness to debate them hasn't contributed to their rise (we're only willing to debate the because they have significant followings). If you look at the contemporary origins of the alt-right, or Shapiro's rise, you'll see that they're reactionaries who are responding to the excesses of the left.

You might be too intellectually advanced to lower yourself enough to actually debate a fascist, but having an emotional breakdown doesn't seem to dissuade them (it encourages and energizes them), so perhaps you should try a new approach?

Your question was about fascism, not Shapiro. And it remains a stupid fucking question — StreetlightX

We were speaking in the context of Shapiro, so it was about Shapiro. Willow said that they want to live in a world where Shapiro's views aren't respected, where they're automatically known to be not worthy of consideration, and I used the term Fascism because it's their accepted short-hand to describe Shapiro's views (and it would have sounded silly if I said "How is the average 17 year old supposed to learn why Shapiro's views aren't worth considering if they're not allowed to even consider them?", because it's the ideas that matter, not the person who professes them, and because obviously Shapiro isn't a standard by which we should set our curricula).

The point i was making is that to understand why a pernicious idea is bad, we need to actually explore it. By banishing debate on our own platforms against such bad and pernicious ideas (the kind which Shapiro and Spencer both peddle), we're missing an opportunity to potentially inoculate audiences against them. Yes it's offensive and emotionally neglectful to have a public debate about things like genetic racial differences, but by refusing to have it altogether we're giving racist pundits the room they need to float their bull-shit/pseudoscience. Debunking requires exploration.

I attacked the liberal grounds that you put forward as an argument for non-violence, and not your advocacy of non-violence simpliciter. — StreetlightX

I've cautioned against violence, but I've also clarified early and often that there's a time and a place for it (I've made the context of my condemnation clear), so you're not actually criticizing a position I've ever held.

On the other hand, the fact that you insist on leaving room for force in the context of discussing Scruton and Shapiro does give the appearance of lending political legitimacy to violence against them.

Maybe we're just applying the most uncharitable interpretations of one another that we can muster, which either proves you right by demonstrating that words accomplish nothing, or it proves me right by showing how bad-faith interactions (assuming meaningful communication is pointless from the get go) is a self-fulfilling prophecy of failure.

The same way the 17 year old learns that pedophilia and murder are 'not worth considering'. Or would you like to have a nice civil discussion about those too? — StreetlightX

You're juxtaposing Shapiro's conservative beliefs with murder and pedophilia?

Isn't that a bit of an overreaction?

Is considering Shapiro's beliefs is as bad as committing or planning to commit murder? Or is it akin to considering murder?

Also, since you asked, here's a random sampling of the fake dichotomy between speech and violence that worms its way all through your engagements with me: — StreetlightX

The only context that I brought up Shapiro was to give an example where protestors use excessive force, and to condemn that excessive use of force (and to show why words aren't yet meaningless). The quotes you gathered are in the context of condemning force (force amounting to violence), not restricting political action to only speech.

You say that you're not advocating for violence, but when I advocate for non-violence you attack me as part of the problem (because how dare I whine about the left when lives are on the line!).

And my main criticism of your position, which you've scarcely responded to, is that it's your own kind of negligent and holier-than-thou attitude that Shapiro relies on. They're a bunch of murderous villains, the lot of them, how dare you suggest using mere words against them!

People don't go following something just because it's banned or suppressed. — TheWillowOfDarkness

It definitely piques their interest.

Do we have to consider actually being an Islamic Extremist understand why it's unethical and we want our society to avoid it?

We don't have to consider actually following an idea or holding a value to understand its not worth considering.

All the time, we recognise these instances. We teach it to people too. How is a 17 year old supposed to learn? They recognise/we teach them about fascism and how it's not worthwhile. We don't need to respect fascism and its values as a legitimate option to so this. — TheWillowOfDarkness

But we're also talking about Shapiro. If we banned Shapiro from all platforms under the justification of anti-Fascism, the naive 17 year old won't understand why, and will actually go looking for the views we've forbidden them from exploring.

You misunderstand my use of "don't treat it respectful."

I don't mean in the sense of people just being there opposing someone. I mean that society takes the values and ideas in question not to be worthy of consideration as a direction for society. Like how the liberal treats any opposition to "free speech." Or how we treat totalitarianism. Or how we might treat someone saying the Earth was flat, in the context of describing the shape of the world.

It's not a world in which everyone is supposedly given their worldview by some kind of edit, just the basic recognition some ideas are unethical and false, not even worth consider in an account of society or as a possible course of action — TheWillowOfDarkness

How is the average 17 year old supposed to learn why Fascism isn't worth considering if they're not allowed to even consider it?

I think that's an absurd reading because those opposing Shaprio know exactly what they want in the situation: a lack of platform for Shaprio/a society which doesn't treat his accounts of society and ethics as respectful. — TheWillowOfDarkness

This still isn't a coherent ask, and it's strategically self-defeating (because rallying against Shapiro with emotion and force causes others to rally behind him with emotion and force). Wanting a society that doesn't treat Shapiro's accounts of society as respectful is what you already have via protests and outrage. What you actually seem to be wanting is a society where you get to dictate the permissible topics of discussion.

In the wide sense, these people aren't revolutionaries either. In the sense you are using, they are trying to work with/within the current structure of power to alter one specific aspect of culture. They are, in the usual sense of the dichotomy, just reformists. — TheWillowOfDarkness

As I mentioned in the post, there is a spectrum denoting how much force individuals are willing to endorse, which is why I drew the comparison. Revolution is a strong term, but we're in the early states of getting there.

I've been reading James Defronzo's Revolutions and Revolutionary Movements lately, and I've been quite surprised by the numerous similarities between the causes of disparate revolutions and how they actually tend to unfold.

The main ingredient to a successful revolution is widespread discontent. When discontent, corruption, repression reach a critical mass, it causes enough of the upper-class and other opponents of radical change join the revolutionary cause, which tends to tips the scales of power. While business owners and the wealthy upper class oppose change, they forestall it, but when they switch from suppressing change to supporting it, it is often a part of the final catalyst.

There's also this curious pre-revolutionary period where those who do support change schism into a spectrum of competing ideologies ranging from completely legal and peaceful methods to full blown/prolonged/open/guerilla rebellion. As societal conditions deteriorate, advocacy for more drastic action becomes prevalent, and once there is enough desperation for change, all it might take is a single event (example: a repressive massacre) to cause an uprising to rapidly spread.

There's always disagreement about the strategy and self-imposed limitations in revolutionary movements (e.g: deciding not to engage in outright terrorism). It's definitely true that the force used by revolutionaries needs to be at least proportionate to the force that is being used against them, but when and where too much force is used, they might just be trading injustice for injustice.

Not many people are willing to use the R word, but it's only a decade or two away if the current trend holds. Political division will rise, economic inequality and the resulting dissatisfaction will continue to rise, groups will begin to unite under banners of radical change, and should the government become repressive enough, or should living conditions decline, then revolution will undeniably be the word on everyone's lips as poor conservatives and liberals alike unite.

The discussion we're having here is like a microcosm of the broader discussion society will have should political groups start taking popular revolution seriously.

One of the biggest setbacks for many revolutionary movements is that they often don't have a coherent end-game until the very end (or later). Revolutionaries know they want change, but they seldom have specific and practical plans for making it happen, and they have even fewer plans about what to do once they're successful in overthrowing the old power. The way that crowds throng emotionally against Shapiro events reminds me of revolutionaries without a coherent plan. Maybe this is the process they have to go through before they figure things out, but we need not learn the hard way if we can benefit from history.

There is definitely a time and a place for violence, and on the societal level there's also a time and a place for genuine revolution.

But when we go to wield what we consider to be justified violence (in this political context), I think it's of utmost importance that we don't haphazardly choose our targets along perceived tribal lines. Attacking the wrong individuals or groups will only entrench them as as an enemy, and actually winning out against the forces that perpetuate the status quo (should we deem it intolerable) requires some degree of organization.

We can go in circles about this, but that's only because you can't acknowledge that Milo and Richard are not nearly as popular or influential as they were in 2017, precisely because they were deplatformed. As long as the internet exists, sure, they can find and interact with some audience willing to hear them out, but as long as they aren't on major platforms with scaled audiences, or being legitimized through invites to speak at colleges, they simply fade away. — Maw

I don't know...

Richard Spencer still seems to get a lot of attention on social media like Youtube, and he was never really that popular (but he's become infamous as the nazi).

Milo actually caused his own decline when it came out that he condoned pederasty.

So I disagree. Spencer is alive and kicking and it wasn't de-platforming that ended Milo, it was actually his access to enough rope.

I'm not trying to generalize all conservatives as contributing to this. To be fair, Shapiro can be almost wholly excluded from what I mentioned above, although he waxes non-secular a bit much. Spencer in particular (the only self proclaimed white-supremacist among them) uses exactly those shitty ideas I mentioned.