New video from the Alt-Right playbook explainer series: "Always a Bigger Fish"

[Chad_Boudreau]

According to the federal reserve, our economy would be improved even if more people had degrees in art history, so why would we restrict eligible majors?

Also, this idea that liberals want college to be cheap/free primarily as a means to help people out of poverty sounds a bit odd… I mean, that tends to be the effect of more college, but it’s more like a correlation, since what you make and what you get paid are different things.

Modern conservatives (Reagan and after) are NOT asking that college be economically sound. That is what they say so that nobody drags out a guillotine. They are making the argument that even though society benefits if more kids go to college, the kids benefit from going to college, so the kids should be the only ones who pay. Reagan’s own education secretary made the argument that kids who required federal assistance to go to college were parasites and bad people. I’m sorry, but when one side elects people who go “I got mine, so fuck you kid” then the time for reasonable compromise is pretty much over.

If the conservatives want to take their party back from the nihilistic idiots that have taken that party over then I will listen to them. I badly miss having reasonable debates. But that is their job, not mine, and I do not need to pretend that reasonable conservatives are in the room when they send these nutcases to represent them.

The fact is that the death of unions, coupled with these conservative ideas of neoliberalism (helped out by the capitulation of centrist Democrats) has introduced a level of rigidity to our system that is really really dangerous. I fear for our empire, frankly.

Also, you are wrong to suggest that conservatives are fine with more people going to college. That used to be true, but the anti intellectualism has reached a critical level. If you want to disagree and say “but I’m a conservative and I support higher education”, then I say “great, you’ve got work to do, good luck taking back your party. In the meantime, Democrats have a very big tent, and you might be comfy over here”

[beerocker]

I sacrificed a fair bit to put myself through college (late 70s). My stepfather was a good man, an ex-Marine auto mechanic. He thought college was a waste of time and resources. He didn’t outright object to me going to college but he never really saw the point of it. There are a lot of people who grew up hating going to school who probably see college as an elitist good that SHOULD be limited.

[Chad_Boudreau]

@pbasch

. Used to be, if someone high up was shamed and lost social capital, their redress would be pretty easy – a nice apology, some time, maybe the minimizing of their sin or the spreading of blame to victims or society. The effort now is to make that much harder, if not impossible. Also, social capital is being handed out to people based on their prior lack of it – POCs, gender nonconformists, the poor, immigrants.

First, it still works that way with regards to apology. The effort isn’t even to make it harder to apologize. What you are missing is that by the time you hear about something it is not new information, it is only new information TO YOU. Take Kevin Spacey for instance, since those allegations were a surprise to almost everybody. The first time it was made Spacey basically said “well, I’m sorry you feel that way, but I don’t know what you are talking about”. That was fine, we all moved on.

It wasn’t until something like the 5th allegation that we saw a pattern, and Spacey had problems.

When you see someone powerful losing social status in the face of doing something wrong, it’s not because they didn’t apologize right, or apologize enough, it’s because they are a habitual and frequent problem.

Take Tucker Carlson as another example. If anybody was surprised by anything he said on tape in light of the things he says on his show I would be amazed. He was unapologetic. No social pressure had an effect. But then the advertisers had enough, so he wants to blame the “left”. But he’s not under assault from the left. The advertisers simply came to the conclusion that he is too vile for them to associate with him.

Also, it’s not that social capital is being handed out to women, pocs, lgbt people, immigrants… It’s not really. The difference you are noticing is that social capital is no longer being stripped from them with horrific violence.

It’s not the triangle being flattened, it’s the triangle relaxing after being stretched unnaturally.

Tldr apologies still work, minorities aren’t being murdered or beaten as much as they used to be. Queue much whining.

[King_Mob]

“Regardless, we should be trying to figure out how to understand (not necessary agree or even like) each other instead of caricature each other.”

Are you familiar with the idea of public assemblies? It’s like getting picked for jury duty, but instead of a person on trial…it’s an idea. Someone suggests a change to an existing law or throws out an idea for a new one. Instead of witnesses, you call in experts to give you pertinent information. And it’s a moderated conversation, so that it won’t devolve into an argument about Trump, abortion, or same-sex marriage.

The assembly usually meets 2-3 times a month for 2-3 months (perhaps more or less, depending on how complex the topic is being discussed). The hope is that, by the end of these conversations and discussions, a consensus has been reached. If so, one of two things can happen: it either becomes a referendum that everyone gets to vote on, or it gets sent directly to the legislature.

They’ve been utilized successfully in Ireland, Australia, Canada, and Iceland. They seem to work best at a local level but Ireland has used them twice now at a national level…and that is how they were able to vote on both abortion and same-sex marriage. There is a short documentary about the abortion vote, which includes interviews with men and women who were selected by lottery for this assembly. It’s called “When Citizens Assemble” and you can find it on Vimeo, posted by Patrick Chalmers.

The reason why I love this idea so much, and why it gives me hope, is because - just like with a jury - it’s going to be made up of a diverse group of people who represent all walks of life. And what they’re finding is…all of the arbitrary surface details that are so often used to divide us (color, country, culture, etc.) don’t mean all that much when you come together for these assemblies. You find out that you have a lot more in common with most people, more shared experiences than not…but you still get to bring your unique perspective to the table. You’re there representing not just yourself, but the voices and shared experiences of your community…anyone you know whose life will be directly impacted by whatever the topic is being discussed.

Perhaps one day we’ll even be able to select people by lottery for public office, though I suspect that will be a tougher idea to sell to the masses. But we could start with these assemblies…bring people together, help foster necessary dialogue and encourage creative problem-solving. There is no magic bullet for all of the problems we face, but this idea seems like a step in the right direction…especially for those who are jaded, cynical, and feel disconnected from the ongoing circus of corruption.

[Dioptase1]

Sounds very interesting. How do they decide which topics to form an assembly? That’s an area I can see being gamed. Can some group prevent a topic from being considered?

[pbasch]

Sure. The ones who had an entire career of harassment… You’re right. Then there’s Al Franken, who had one embarrassing picture. But anyway…
As for the Social Capital hierarchy, I don’t think it has a “natural” shape, it’s different at different times, depending on culture. Even in neolithic times, I would imagine (I wasn’t there), if there was a chieftain or a matriarch, they had the most, their family had a lot, and others had less – a little social capital pyramid. In very egalitarian societies, it was flatter… that’s kind of what “egalitarian” means. In the US, like its prior European forebears, it was pretty steep and pointy. The effort to make it flatter and not with respect to race, gender, sex pref, nat’l origin, and so on, is fantastic, and will lead to a better society. But it can be a struggle against those who prefer the old system of white men with property above all others. That struggle is what I was trying, however ineptly, to describe.

[JimJim]

@bobtato

In fact, right-wingers themselves are well aware that their worldview argues for solidarity; it’s just that they favor narrower, more selfish forms of solidarity (like, white Christians sticking together). In a sense, they’re simply socialists who lack the insight and/or empathy to follow that line of thought to the point of including everyone, which is what you need to do to make it morally valid.

I think that’s a good and concise statement of conservativism, esp. alt right. I watched the first video too and I thought it had quite good observations.

[falcon2001]

I’m a little frustrated that so many people here are saying ‘why bother understanding these people?’ - these people make up a significant portion of the US and World population. It is worth understanding their reasoning because being a reasonable and empathetic person is a goal unto itself, not to mention that it helps you better understand how to reason with them.

Plugging our ears or just screaming ‘bad guy’ over and over won’t fix anything. Voting/etc, all helps, but it’s not like these folks will go away either, and labeling our neighbors as ‘enemies’ is basically exactly the thing that we know Russian trolls were pushing for in the 2016 elections.

And before someone strawmans this post into saying ‘well just go easy on conservatives muh muh enlightened centrist over here’, that’s absolutely not my point. Dehumanizing people we disagree with is a terrible, and shortsighted thing to do.

Edit: posted this because I liked this video a ton and came to the comments to find insightful discussion and instead found a bunch of BB regulars saying shit like ‘why bother understanding them, we’ve tried understanding them, it doesn’t help’.

[kingannoy]

@bobtato

Nice video. I just had a thought though: what if, instead of congratulating yourself on how much you understand where “conservatives” are coming from (i.e. apologizing for them, in far more generous terms than they are able to do for themselves), how about following your own argument to its conclusion?

If the “conservative” position is that it’s human nature for the strong to subjugate the weak, that is an argument for more solidarity, not less. The fact that it’s natural to get snowed on in winter is precisely why we build warm houses, rather than asking nicely for summer to stick around.

It’s been two days since I saw the video but, isn’t that exactly what he does?

@bobtato

IMO we have all invested far, far, far too much time in trying to understand the right already. When you look at Turmp or Fox News, do you really think what you’re seeing is all that complicated?

If you know how someone thinks it becomes easier to see their motives in different circumstances and call them out on it. I don’t understand how explaining someones perspective is the same as excusing them.

What do you propose we do instead of understanding them?

[kingannoy]

@tachin1

An interesting talk by Ian Danskin on how he goes about structuring his essays.

Thanks! Watching now.

Interesting quote from this video:

For many the idea that I can tell someone that “you are not only wrong but your beliefs are doing measurable harm” and still see them as a complete human, will not compute. But for the record, I don’t have trouble with it.

And another quote that gets at the problem people here seem to have with understanding and having empathy with the right:

Now when people say the most important tool for talking to the right is empathy it seems that they want to conversation to be more human, they don’t expect it to be more productive. So I’m not selling empathy out, I’m sure whatever techniques actually work will work better if empathy is involved. But empathy is not something you owe to strangers, and in my experience, a lot of the time, people you argue with will conflate empathy with validation. If you don’t treat their belief in the Jewish conspiracy as equally valid as your belief in … Not that… They will call you cold and condescending. So, by all means, if you have it in you to be empathetic, be empathetic, but don’t expect empathy to do the work for you, don’t expect it to be recognized, and don’t let them define what counts as empathy.

So he is not saying we all need to be other-cheek-wussies but just that, if you have energy for it, and the right arguments in the right context, being empathic may give better results.

Another interesting idea, maybe obvious but new to me. To prevent the backlash effect (a debunking of a lie will reinforce belief in that lie, if nothing else simply by repetition) start a debunking with the truth.

[RickMycroft]

A nod to other YouTube fighters, from Forbes:

5 Fantastic YouTubers Fighting The Spread Of Alt-Right Propaganda

[King_Mob]

Excellent question! In Canada, they wanted to build a power plant, the town revolted, and then formed an assembly to try and come to an agreement/understanding…so it can be a direct response to a pressing issue. Interestingly (and rather timely) some have suggested the formation of an assembly to deal with Brexit…the Guardian has run several pieces on the idea. Iceland formed theirs in order to draft a new Constitution, as covered here on BB back in 2016.

In Ireland: “The Citizens’ Assembly is a successor to the 2012–14 Constitutional Convention, which was established by the Oireachtas in accordance with the government programme agreed by the Fine Gael–Labour coalition formed after the 2011 general election. Convention members were a chairperson nominated by the government, 33 representatives chosen by political parties, and 66 randomly chosen citizens. Meeting over 15 months, it considered seven constitutional issues previously specified by the Oireachtas and two more of its own choosing.” This Convention included the discussion of same-sex marriage.

"The programme agreed by the Fine Gael–independent minority government formed after the 2016 election included this commitment:[9]

We will establish a Citizens’ Assembly, within six months, and without participation by politicians, and with a mandate to look at a limited number of key issues over an extended time period. These issues will not be limited to those directly pertaining to the constitution and may include issues such as, for example how we, as a nation, best respond to the challenges and opportunities of an ageing population. That said, we will ask the Citizens’ Assembly to make recommendations to the Dáil on further constitutional changes, including on the Eighth Amendment, on fixed term parliaments and on the manner in which referenda are held (e.g. should ‘super referendum days’, whereby a significant number of referenda take place on the same day, be held).

So I guess all of that to say…there are a number of ways that these topics can be selected…and I would suggest, if the list became too long, that perhaps lotteries could also be used to select the topics. The blog, Equality by Lot, is a great source of info on all things sortition-related and you can always feel free to reach out to Yoram, who runs the blog, and ask him any question you may have about these processes.

[gracchus]

There’s a confusion arising out of a generous and open liberal or progressive mindset that “understanding” them must naturally lead to “empathising” with them, and that empathy in turn leads to a willingness to give them a fair hearing or perhaps try to reason with them.

Really, though, we liberals can understand and to a certain extent empathise without humouring their repugnant (and profoundly empathy-challenged) views. For example, I can understand intellectually why a right-winger would promote the idea of exclusionary ethnostates if he benefits or would benefit from living in one, and if he subscribes to the Hobbesian idea of life being a war of all against all to reach the top of the conservative hierarchy. I can also empathise to a limited degree with the economic and other insecurities that leaves him to consider only his ethnic background or skin colour or religion as the things that define his and others’ value in the world. But that’s where it ends, because I know enough about history to understand that their views, when translated into policy, are unsustainable and destructive.

What you’re really hearing here is an acknowledgement that, after making a studied attempt to understand and empathise (as we see in these videos), we are in the end left with ignorant, unreasonable, and/or malicious people pushing forward incoherent and dangerous ideologies of greed and hatred of various Others. It is a waste of time for most of us in what Karl Rove called “the reality-based community” to debate them or engage them in good-faith debate or lend them the legitimacy of a reputable platform. After the very necessary effort of understanding and empathy, all that is left for us is to resist them.

[anon72705028]

Report comes out … and then Trump cries “Crucify them!” and the Democrats recoiled.

Trump sees weakness.

Then Trump goes after health care … and Democrats go running after health care and ignore the report and impeachment.

What the fuck is going on ?

[gracchus]

@anon72705028

What the fuck is going on ?

The usual ineffectiveness of a Dem establishment still thinking in terms of comity and civility and compromise with an honourable opposition party. What little party discipline that’s imposed by the leadership is squandered on quashing progressives within it rather than concentrated against a GOP that went fully rabid in the 1990s.

[gracchus]

@bobtato

In a sense, they’re simply socialists who lack the insight and/or empathy to follow that line of thought to the point of including everyone, which is what you need to do to make it morally valid.

August Bebel is famously credited with saying that “anti-Semitism is the socialism of fools”. That observation can readily be expanded to any bigotry that would assume that pogroms against certain ethnic groups are sometimes “necessary”.