White Flight Redux: Self Segregation out of Irrational Fear.

[metalhead]

You're more describing moderate behavior, than moderate political views. Perhaps that is the source of the disconnect.

 

[Traitorfish]

He's using "moderate" to mean "reasonable" and "extremist" to mean "jerkass". It's not so much a disconnect as a guy who doesn't really understand how other people use English.

 

[Akka]

I'm using the definitions I read and I'm open to correct what needs to be if I use a word in the wrong meaning (I think my previous post shows both).
But if you think my use of english is so terrible, we can continue to conversation in french

 

[Hrothbern]

I'm using the definitions I read and I'm open to correct what needs to be if I use a word in the wrong meaning (I think my previous post shows both).
But if you think my use of english is so terrible, we can continue to conversation in french

Be happy that he does not talk that gibberish scottish

 

[Yeekim]

He's using "moderate" to mean "reasonable" and "extremist" to mean "jerkass".

... and he's right.

 

[Traitorfish]

... and he's right.

I mean, he's not. That isn't what those words mean. You might think that moderates are reasonable, and you might think that "extremists" are jerkasses, but those are opinions, those are judgement of character, they're not definitions.

 

[Ryika]

Would you say there can be a far-right extremist who holds reasonable views about race?

 

[Yeekim]

I mean, he's not. That isn't what those words mean. You might think that moderates are reasonable, and you might think that "extremists" are jerkasses, but those are opinions, those are judgement of character, they're not definitions.

Well, "moderate" and "extremist" are essentially judgements, rather than something objectively measurable.
If someone or some group is labeled "extremist", in common parlance "unreasonable jerkasses" is exactly what is meant by that.
Of course, such a label might be unfairly applied. However, I don't think there is any agenda that couldn't be taken to a position so ... "extreme" that ony unreasonable jerkasses could possibly hold such a position.
Don't you agree?

Of course, that means there is some room between "moderate" and "extremist".

 

[Traitorfish]

Well, "moderate" and "extremist" are essentially judgements, rather than something objectively measurable.

They're words with fairly clear conventional uses. The process of identifying a "moderate" or an "extremist" may be a subjective judgement, but what a person means when they declare such a judgement is not usually ambiguous.

What people in this thread are asking us to imagine is that "moderate" and "extremist" mean something inconsistent with their common usage, inconsistent with the way they themselves have used the terms, but which allows them to champion "moderation" as the only defence against "extremism", without having to acknowledge that this is a basically illiberal and anti-pluralist position.

It's a semantic trick which doesn't even work.

 

[Akka]

It's been stretched on many pages and with many people, and there has been many concurrent threads that have been somewhat speaking of related subject, so I have honestly a hard time tracking who exactly said what.
But overall, I think I mostly said that "moderate" are defined not by being "centrists" but by being "not extremists".
So far, dictionary definition and Wikipedia seem to agree with me on this point.

On top of that, I tend to see "moderate" as a process before a political position (which is what differentiate them from extremists, who all have an identical process of lack of critical thinking and zealotry regardless of their political ideas). Though I recognize that people can be "moderate" simply through laziness/lack of commitment.

I don't really see the huge discrepancy between such definition and what I can read in dictionaries/Wikipedia, though I'm willing to see where I have missed some important nuance.


As an aside, I notice that again you're very easily riled and quick to jump in the fray when there is a (supposed) bad use of a word by one "side", but when there is a much more blatant redefinition to fit agenda from our resident SJW, you are nowhere to be seen - and this time, you'll have a hard time claiming it's because there is a history of a lot of deaths vs none. Just admit you're biased ?

 

[EnglishEdward]

But overall, I think I mostly said that "moderate" are defined not by being "centrists" but by being "not extremists".
So far, dictionary definition and Wikipedia seem to agree with me on this point.

And Akka, I from South Britain also agree with you on that point.

Of course moderate might mean something different in Scotch.

 

[Traitorfish]

As an aside, I notice that again you're very easily riled and quick to jump in the fray when there is a (supposed) bad use of a word by one "side", but when there is a much more blatant redefinition to fit agenda from our resident SJW, you are nowhere to be seen - and this time, you'll have a hard time claiming it's because there is a history of a lot of deaths vs none. Just admit you're biased ?

There's no "side". Warpus is, to my knowledged, a centre-left sort of guy; me may disagree on a lot of specific issues, but I would tend to think that we're broadly in agreement about the very large-scale stuff, like racism being bad and healthcare being a right. I don't view him as an opponent, let alone an enemy. I took it up with Warpus precisely because I think he's open to discussion.

The reason I don't take up similar arguments with "our resident SJW", whoever exactly that means- I honestly don't know- is because I basically don't care. I may disagree, but am not moved to hash out my issues with leftist subcultural jargon in public. This, on the other hand, is a use of language which I feel is genuinely insidious, which is mainstream and accepted enough to degrade public discourse. I make a stink about it because what's the point of opposing fascistoid right-wing totalitarianism just to find yourself with a beige, technocratic totalitarianism in its place?

 

[Akka]

This, on the other hand, is a use of language which I feel is genuinely insidious, which is mainstream and accepted enough to degrade public discourse. I make a stink about it because what's the point of opposing fascistoid right-wing totalitarianism just to find yourself with a beige, technocratic totalitarianism in its place?

Funny, we have the exact same reasoning here.
What I can't get is how, applying said reasoning, you end with targeting those who are much less guilty of it and not caring about those who are much more guilty of it.

I mean, as I explained in my previous post, I don't see my definition deviating noticeably from the one in dictionary, so I wonder what's insidious about it.
On the contrary, our resident SJW DO rewrite the definition of "racism" and "nazi" on the fly to be able to call anyone who disagrees "racist" and "nazi". This would fit much more your fear of insidious use of language paving way to technocratic totalitarianism, silencing opposition through shaming, bullying, self-justified violence and newspeak.

 

[Traitorfish]

I'm honestly more concerned about the kind of totalitarian thinking that justifies repression of dissent and an every-growing surveillance state than the kind which leads to people on Tumblr saying things you think are dumb.

 

[Akka]

Well, can't disagree about that.
For now, the thing which frighten me the most is a combination of the long-term of environmental destruction (I'm pretty sure we're already past the time where we can prevent disaster, and only able to do damage control) and corporate takeover of the power through information control (especially lack of privacy and abusive copyright legitimacy, which are becoming more and more ingrained into population). And I think the latter part is tightly coupled with repression of dissent and over-growing surveillance state, even if by more insidious means.

Still, I think the damage that SJW causes, both by destroying the left credibility, by inflaming tensions and by causing a rise of the right, is far from negligible.

 

[Traitorfish]

To the extent that SJW-ism is a thing- which it to say, not very far- it is a symptom of the left's lack of credibility, not a cause.

Look at the Sanders campaign: as limited in scope as it ultimately was, it mostly side-stepped both the quagmire of "SJW" politics and accusations of "SJW-ism" simply by starting with a strong economic platform.

Nobody ever voted for Trump because some kid on Tumblr called them racist.

 

[luiz]

Nobody ever voted for Trump because some kid on Tumblr called them racist.

Probably true, but it's also true that if you treat a "Trump supporter" as a human being and try to demonstrate how voting for Trump is against his personal interests, then you might win him over. Or you might not, but there's a chance. But if you call him a racist - Nazi- meanie you'll definitely only entrench him more in his positions.

SJWs are so obviously damaging to the left that if I were a leftist, and if I were prone to conspiracy theories, I would say they were actually created by the right to obliterate the left.

Disclaimer: I was never invited to any reunions about the creation of SJWs to destroy the left.

 

[Hygro]

There's no "side". Warpus is, to my knowledged, a centre-left sort of guy; me may disagree on a lot of specific issues, but I would tend to think that we're broadly in agreement about the very large-scale stuff, like racism being bad

Haha. Hahaha. Warpus thinks being mean is bad. Warpus thinks thinking that institutional racism exists and should be addressed is racism.

 

[Cutlass]

The Effects of Exposure to Better Neighborhoods on Children: New Evidence from the Moving to Opportunity Project
Citation:
Chetty, Raj, Nathaniel Hendren, and Lawrence Katz. 2016. “The Effects of Exposure to Better Neighborhoods on Children: New Evidence from the Moving to Opportunity Project.” American Economic Review 106 (4).

Abstract:
The Moving to Opportunity (MTO) experiment offered randomly selected families living in high-poverty housing projects housing vouchers to move to lower-poverty neighborhoods. We present new evidence on the impacts of MTO on children's long-term outcomes using administrative data from tax returns. We find that moving to a lower-poverty neighborhood significantly improves college attendance rates and earnings for children who were young (below age 13) when their families moved. These children also live in better neighborhoods themselves as adults and are less likely to become single parents. The treatment effects are substantial: children whose families take up an experimental voucher to move to a lower-poverty area when they are less than 13 years old have an annual income that is $3,477 (31%) higher on average relative to a mean of $11,270 in the control group in their mid-twenties. In contrast, the same moves have, if anything, negative long-term impacts on children who are more than 13 years old when their families move, perhaps because of disruption effects. The gains from moving fall with the age when children move, consistent with recent evidence that the duration of exposure to a better environment during childhood is a key determinant of an individual's long-term outcomes. The findings imply that offering families with young children living in high-poverty housing projects vouchers to move to lower-poverty neighborhoods may reduce the intergenerational persistence of poverty and ultimately generate positive returns for taxpayers.
Last updated on 02/21/2016

https://scholar.harvard.edu/hendren...oods-children-new-evidence-moving-opportunity

 

[plarq]

To the extent that SJW-ism is a thing- which it to say, not very far- it is a symptom of the left's lack of credibility, not a cause.

Look at the Sanders campaign: as limited in scope as it ultimately was, it mostly side-stepped both the quagmire of "SJW" politics and accusations of "SJW-ism" simply by starting with a strong economic platform.

Nobody ever voted for Trump because some kid on Tumblr called them racist.

As a long term trend, the lost of left-wing credibility could be attributed to the collapse of Soviet Union, as the left-wing after that was worth less to be "bribed" out.