I'm disappointed in the conclusion here. It's an attempt to de-humanize our woke opponents and characterize them as non-sentient, machine-like ideologues, to argue with whom is like (as the old saying has it) "talking to a wall". And as we all know, walls don't respond to incentives, have feelings, or seek tribes. Once you see your enemy as less human than yourself, it's easier to kill him. This is the old, old run-up to war: "My enemy won't listen to reason. The only thing he understands is force."
Doesn't the woke left say the same thing about us? Don't they see us as obtuse and unreasonable? Don't they think that we can't be persuaded? It's especially shocking to see the author of the ground-breaking "Three Languages of Politics" abandoning his powerful thesis and making an exception of the woke, simply because they are so irritating.
And on similar lines, people are a heterogeneous lot. If you get to know some progressives of this sort, a few of them are like talking to walls, but most of them do have more nuanced things to say. There are lots of disagreements among them, and when they ignore those, it's usually because they want to show solidarity and maintain a somewhat united front as a movement. And of course because they have professional and personal incentives to behave that way.
And the rôle of politicians in Government is supposed to be moderator between the tribes, brakes on too quick social change, filters to keep out the extremes.
Nowadays those in Governments no longer know these functions, instead are enablers, supporters, even instigators of any tribal posture that gives some political advantage and to that end rather than filter out extremes, adopt them as policy and accelerate social change with no consideration of the consequences.
I'm a reactionary to Yarvin's right, I served in combat arms in the military, and have played team sports most of my life, but I always thought it was weird that we play the national anthem before games. Nothing to do with objecting to "state coercion," I just don't get the tradition.
PS: Arnold, you should address the "nasty Scotch-Irish" remark in previous post. It's strange that you talk about wanting to facilitate discussion across tribes, but don't understand the problem with this kind of description. I'm not Scotch-Irish, but it made me genuinely angry.
If someone said "the nasties are the descendants of Eastern European Jews," I suspect you might cut off the interview or ban the commenter. Do you think it's ok to disparage an out-group like that while sparing your in-group from critical examination? Am guessing, or at least hoping, this is just a blindspot and not a conscious double standard.
Maybe I'm wrong, but it was my impression that that was just expressing the stereotype of Scots-Irish as being combative and irascible (which, like most stereotypes, has some truth to it), not a personal judgment.
All I can say is, I didn't take it that way and still don't. I think you're reading too much into it. Over the years, many people have thought of the Scots-Irish as being "nasty", including the coastal Virginians who didn't like them but thought they were useful as a buffer to their west. It's why they lived out in frontier areas away from "civilization". Acknowledging that doesn't mean that I (or Arnold) feel that way.
I think you're trying too hard. When people who dislike Trump and his populist supporters refer to a subset with this kind of language, it's reasonable to take it at face value. There's nothing in Arnold's summary of Postrel's remarks that suggests I'm misinterpreting her. Maybe the full discussion would convey something different.
The "woke" are like "true believers" of all stripes. They take an N-dimensional complex problem and simplify it down to fewer dimensions. The problem is that you can't describe an N-dimensional problem in N-x dimensions.
I'd like to invite a comparison to a prior period - the glorious revolution - and consider what it is like to deal with Puritans, in and out of power (and on their way in and out).
I consider myself centrist, albeit leaning leftward on "social" and "political" issues and rightward on economic and international issues. I find that communicating with people of extremes in either direction requires patience, and despite their skepticism about logic, a healthy dose of logic and Socratic method. I find that engaging with extremists is more successful if I ask a lot of questions rather than rebutting others' assertions. One of two outcomes: we engage in more civil conversation or the other person gets so twisted up in a logical pretzel that they simply end the conversation.
The problem for Enablers is that quite often their livelihoods depend on enabling - professors, journalists, think-tank scholars, and politicians. But a few brave souls whom I call the "Courageous" are willing to walk away to preserve their freedom of action - Barri Weiss from the NYT, Adam Kinzinger and Liz Cheney from the new Republican Party, Ruy Teixeira who recently left the Center for American Progress to join American Enterprise Institute (while retaining his leftist positions), and several liberal and conservative professors who simply left the academy.
Well, it certainly isn't true that Woke Activists are the first narrow-minded, inflexible people with some power you've met (or read about in media). Not much more likely they're the first you've recognized. Most likely they strike you as especially distasteful to your sensibilities
I'm disappointed in the conclusion here. It's an attempt to de-humanize our woke opponents and characterize them as non-sentient, machine-like ideologues, to argue with whom is like (as the old saying has it) "talking to a wall". And as we all know, walls don't respond to incentives, have feelings, or seek tribes. Once you see your enemy as less human than yourself, it's easier to kill him. This is the old, old run-up to war: "My enemy won't listen to reason. The only thing he understands is force."
Doesn't the woke left say the same thing about us? Don't they see us as obtuse and unreasonable? Don't they think that we can't be persuaded? It's especially shocking to see the author of the ground-breaking "Three Languages of Politics" abandoning his powerful thesis and making an exception of the woke, simply because they are so irritating.
And on similar lines, people are a heterogeneous lot. If you get to know some progressives of this sort, a few of them are like talking to walls, but most of them do have more nuanced things to say. There are lots of disagreements among them, and when they ignore those, it's usually because they want to show solidarity and maintain a somewhat united front as a movement. And of course because they have professional and personal incentives to behave that way.
And the rôle of politicians in Government is supposed to be moderator between the tribes, brakes on too quick social change, filters to keep out the extremes.
Nowadays those in Governments no longer know these functions, instead are enablers, supporters, even instigators of any tribal posture that gives some political advantage and to that end rather than filter out extremes, adopt them as policy and accelerate social change with no consideration of the consequences.
Casual observation suggests that most Americans have a simpler, good-sense interpretation:
The flag represents what is honorable in America's history and aspirations.
I'm a reactionary to Yarvin's right, I served in combat arms in the military, and have played team sports most of my life, but I always thought it was weird that we play the national anthem before games. Nothing to do with objecting to "state coercion," I just don't get the tradition.
PS: Arnold, you should address the "nasty Scotch-Irish" remark in previous post. It's strange that you talk about wanting to facilitate discussion across tribes, but don't understand the problem with this kind of description. I'm not Scotch-Irish, but it made me genuinely angry.
If someone said "the nasties are the descendants of Eastern European Jews," I suspect you might cut off the interview or ban the commenter. Do you think it's ok to disparage an out-group like that while sparing your in-group from critical examination? Am guessing, or at least hoping, this is just a blindspot and not a conscious double standard.
Maybe I'm wrong, but it was my impression that that was just expressing the stereotype of Scots-Irish as being combative and irascible (which, like most stereotypes, has some truth to it), not a personal judgment.
There is a country mile separating "irascible" and "combative" from "nasty." The first two can be neutral, the last signals hostile contempt.
All I can say is, I didn't take it that way and still don't. I think you're reading too much into it. Over the years, many people have thought of the Scots-Irish as being "nasty", including the coastal Virginians who didn't like them but thought they were useful as a buffer to their west. It's why they lived out in frontier areas away from "civilization". Acknowledging that doesn't mean that I (or Arnold) feel that way.
I think you're trying too hard. When people who dislike Trump and his populist supporters refer to a subset with this kind of language, it's reasonable to take it at face value. There's nothing in Arnold's summary of Postrel's remarks that suggests I'm misinterpreting her. Maybe the full discussion would convey something different.
The "woke" are like "true believers" of all stripes. They take an N-dimensional complex problem and simplify it down to fewer dimensions. The problem is that you can't describe an N-dimensional problem in N-x dimensions.
Think describing a simple 3-D cone in 2-dimensions and you get all the conic sections of your high school math. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conic_section
With all the sections, you can't "see" the cone.
I'd like to invite a comparison to a prior period - the glorious revolution - and consider what it is like to deal with Puritans, in and out of power (and on their way in and out).
I consider myself centrist, albeit leaning leftward on "social" and "political" issues and rightward on economic and international issues. I find that communicating with people of extremes in either direction requires patience, and despite their skepticism about logic, a healthy dose of logic and Socratic method. I find that engaging with extremists is more successful if I ask a lot of questions rather than rebutting others' assertions. One of two outcomes: we engage in more civil conversation or the other person gets so twisted up in a logical pretzel that they simply end the conversation.
The problem for Enablers is that quite often their livelihoods depend on enabling - professors, journalists, think-tank scholars, and politicians. But a few brave souls whom I call the "Courageous" are willing to walk away to preserve their freedom of action - Barri Weiss from the NYT, Adam Kinzinger and Liz Cheney from the new Republican Party, Ruy Teixeira who recently left the Center for American Progress to join American Enterprise Institute (while retaining his leftist positions), and several liberal and conservative professors who simply left the academy.
I'm all in favor of consequences for people who actually interfere with free expression. So is arch-"Enabler" Jon Haidt, unless I'm remembering wrong.
The main reason not to push for this as a policy right now is because you would lose, and in losing you would split the pro-academic freedom faction.
Well, it certainly isn't true that Woke Activists are the first narrow-minded, inflexible people with some power you've met (or read about in media). Not much more likely they're the first you've recognized. Most likely they strike you as especially distasteful to your sensibilities