Why Can't The Left Win?

[El_Machinae]

It's not comparing pigs to minorities, because they're separate equations. Teaching to solve X + Y < 10 so that someone can later solve A + B < 40 isn't comparing A to X. They're internal placeholders for internal formulas. We're using them to explain the underlying formula, not to compare the two variables. A statement about A says nothing about X. If you cannot understand why you fail your obligation to pigs, you're never going to understand why moderates fail their obligations to their fellow humans.

The broader point is that the charisma really does matter, since all of the results are due to charisma. The fact that there is an overwhelming moral case to be made, it fails to sway basically everyone. There are people that need to be convinced about the morals, and that's problematic for sure. But we also know that convincing people of the rightness, is insufficient.

Look upthread. The point is that the moral certainty is insufficient. And the insufficiency matters, because there are real consequences to lack of efficacy. "Oh, I shouldn't have to do X" is a fine moral stance, but with the understanding that it's not going to help effect change unless you're really lucky as well.

I've mentioned pigs more than once, and you know your obligations to AGW already. I'm not engaging in whataboutism (you know that), I'm pointing out that my approach on this topic will change your behaviour, even when you already know the right answer.

 

[DJNotNice]

I feel the constant purity testing and long-winded circular-logic moralizing (as can be seen in this thread) points toward an answer to OP's question.
But he's also kind of motte-and-baileying the Left, considering center-left politics have largely dominated the west under neoliberalism.
The right has simply been more effective in recent years in appealing to people's basest emotions (fear, anger, disgust, hatred)

 

[TheMeInTeam]

You've completely lost me, El Mac. You're not comparing pigs to minorities but then your final paragraph silently asks us to replace the word "pig" with "minorities." Dogs are useful companionable slaves and so they get a better life than livestock that is born solely to be eaten. Why can't pigs be more like dogs? Why can't minorities be more like...? More like what? Who? How does this comparison work? Why are minorities and white straight men put into this thought experiment?

Quoted is a pretty torturous wrt abstract thinking. Yet the arbitrary justification for dogs > pigs fabricated here illustrates his point even further . The whole purpose is to demonstrate that despite that dogs and pigs should be considered equally and most of us know it...they're not.

The gist is: there is no definable standard that separates dogs and pigs in terms of how we should treat animals. Anybody who puts even a little effort into knowing animals would realize similar intelligence, capacity for attachment, etc. Yet there is greater moral outrage and even somewhat greater legal consequences for dogs being treated injustly compared to pigs. Most of us know this.

Yet as a "moderate" on this particular issue, you haven't lifted a finger. You've made no noticeable effort to do anything regarding the suffering of pigs. Per Cloud's reasoning (and given sarcastic replies, your own also), you're straight up enabling inhumane treatment of pigs and should reasonably be attacked for your moderate stance.

The purpose of the analogy is not to compare any type of human to any type of non-human animal. It's to demonstrate what kind of reasoning might drive "moderate" actions/choice and to suggest that if you want a different outcome, you should probably understand said reasoning and act accordingly. Especially because on a lot of issues you're a "moderate" yourself, without even necessarily realizing or considering said issues.

 

[Zardnaar]

Generally the GoP is cancer but I can understand voting for local GoP representatives.

Trump won't last forever and once he is gone probably early 2021 someone's going to have to pick up the pieces.

If he is voting tea party types that's one thing if he's voting for more traditional GoP that's different IMHO.

There's more than one type of moderate as well they're not in the middle.

For example I plan on voting for the NZ Labour party next year and for the foreseeable future.

If the NZ Labour party threw up a left wing Trump type I would vote them out or at least try.

If you always vote the party ticket regardless it's how you get Trump.

I'm not going to march for gay rights but I've never marched in any protest. I've never voted in local body elections either. I'll happily vote for parties that support gay marriage or whatever it's not a deal breaker at all.

Actually I wouldn't vote for that party the law was passed by the National party (it was a conscience vote but they signed it into law).

I don't care about SJW stuff, there's not any votes in it or at least enough to matter. It's also not the main problem it's more symptomatic of the trickle up economics.

People won't care to much if they're struggling to pay bills. Fix that and they'll care more about social issues.

The right is also right on some issues IMHO and the left won't do anything about say immigration which things like trade unions don't tend to like.

More labour available wages won't go up much. Drives up the cost of renting and mortgages.

Doesn't mean you go and throw kids in cages but yeah less immigration I think needs to be looked at including the left since a few Uber liberals do support open borders.

In American terms I'm sympathetic to dreamers and letting their parents apply for some new type of Visa. I'm not in favour of granting citizenship to people who broke the law to enter the USA.

Brexit also has immigration undertones. EU probably needs to revise that or allow individual nation's some leeway there.
It's causing problems in the West and will create bigger problems in Eastern Europe (Bulgaria, Moldova, Romania ).

 

[El_Machinae]

I'm splitting between two concepts, mainly because it's an amazing analogy:

First off, I'm pointing out that I have to choose the tack I take with regards to advocacy on this front. I could certainly alienate, even people who know that I am right. In this thread, that would be inappropriate because it distracts from another issue, but the idea that I still have to be careful with my technique should still resonate. I could make things worse. I have an obligation not to.

But Secondly, I'm highlighting that moral correctness is insufficient to sway. I'm not saying that the pigs should be doing anything differently. They're doing everything they should be doing to get liberals to change their behaviour. But it's not enough to effect change. Simply 'being right' doesn't matter if we're trying to get people to behave differently.

I'm trying to get back to the original thread intention.

 

[Gorbles]

Damn, you guys are bigger bullies then those you complain about.

As I said my conscious is clear. So I really don't care what you think. Enjoy your little hate circle.

Going back a page or two, this illustrates exactly the problem with "moderate" thinking. rah doesn't understand what marginalised people go through. If they did, they wouldn't say upset marginalised folks are being a bigger bully that those doing the marginalising. You simply wouldn't.

But rah is still upset because they take it as an attack that people point out their flaws in such understanding. Because they view the necessary position as between the two "poles" (nominally "left" and nominally "right"). This is unfortunate, because a) there's barely been an example of a proper left-wing government in the history of the planet; the messaging is often co-opted by authoritarian dictators to get their regimes in place with working-class support), and b) the mid-point between "let's marginalise people" and "let's not marginalise people" shouldn't be in the middle of those two states.

But certainly, it's easier to claim you don't care about the thoughts of others, while in the same paragraph demeaning the opinions of these others as a "hate circle". If you didn't care about the impact of these opinions, you wouldn't feel the need to diminish their worth, @rah.

This is another good example of why the "left" can't "win". Too many people who call themselves moderates because they campaigning for something however long ago that should've been enshrined in law decades ago. Gay marriage was only legalised across the US in 2015. It was only made legal in terms of marriage in the UK in 2014. These aren't settled things that are forever protected and taken for granted. They're things that need to keep being fought for, otherwise you'll find it all too easy for things to slip backwards.

I don't know, maybe it's an easy trap to fall into. To trust that because something was passed once, it forever becomes an immutable part of society. Maybe it's an American thing that as a Brit I don't get. But speaking relative to the thread, we can't assume these things. It's far harder to advance the rights for the marginalised, than it is for those in power to remove them.

 

[Synobun]

Quoted is a pretty torturous wrt abstract thinking. Yet the arbitrary justification for dogs > pigs fabricated here illustrates his point even further . The whole purpose is to demonstrate that despite that dogs and pigs should be considered equally and most of us know it...they're not.

The gist is: there is no definable standard that separates dogs and pigs in terms of how we should treat animals. Anybody who puts even a little effort into knowing animals would realize similar intelligence, capacity for attachment, etc. Yet there is greater moral outrage and even somewhat greater legal consequences for dogs being treated injustly compared to pigs. Most of us know this.

Yet as a "moderate" on this particular issue, you haven't lifted a finger. You've made no noticeable effort to do anything regarding the suffering of pigs. Per Cloud's reasoning (and given sarcastic replies, your own also), you're straight up enabling inhumane treatment of pigs and should reasonably be attacked for your moderate stance.

The purpose of the analogy is not to compare any type of human to any type of non-human animal. It's to demonstrate what kind of reasoning might drive "moderate" actions/choice and to suggest that if you want a different outcome, you should probably understand said reasoning and act accordingly. Especially because on a lot of issues you're a "moderate" yourself, without even necessarily realizing or considering said issues.

Yeah, it's still not parsing for me. Dogs and pigs are different species from one another, individually bred to fill a specific niche in husbandry. Humans are humans. If the comparison is abstract enough to require "No, no, no, the terms are completely different from one another and aren't meant to be compared at all!" then it's a pointless comparison. Just go with the explanation behind it, as El Mac did, which is far more easily understood than "Dogs and pigs, except not at all."

Moreover, every time an explanation is provided to explain how the two aren't being compared, El Mac goes out of his way to specifically tell me how they are being compared. Pigs are not minorities, but how I treat pigs refers to how moderates treat minorities. Yet to take this at face value it requires us to assume minorities are distinctly "other," which is bogus on delivery. So then the response to this will be: "They're not being compared." And then in the next breath I'm expected to compare them. It's a pointless analogy. It doesn't parse. If your comparison/analogy requires mental gymnastics to get to some semblance of a point then you're better off just explaining whatever the hell it is you're trying to say.

But even if we go with your further elaboration here, about how I'm a moderate on how pigs are treated (not sure how anyone could possibly know what I do or think about pigs, but whatever, let's go with it) and how this connects to the way I'm treating Rah about his beliefs regarding minorities vs wealth... yeah? If my views correspond with supporting their unnecessary suffering, then yeah, I should be called out on it. At what point in this discussion was it implied or said that only political moderates are accountable for their beliefs? That other people, or even me, are exempt from taking action or not? I own up to my views and don't see an exceptional need to blame the response on others. I'm already treating Rah how I would want to be treated if I held untoward beliefs towards a demographic.

There isn't a gotcha or an illuminating thought being presented in this analogy. Everyone has an internal cost-benefit analysis going on regarding most of everything. Some go unnoticed or ignored, others get called out. This is being called out. That Rah describes questions and disagreements as excessive bullying worthy of walking back his support for LGBT people is noise intended to absolve himself of the responsibility of his views. He avoided answering questions and instead chose to deflect, and then finally stomped out when that didn't work. This is not a failure of trying to convince a moderate, it's a failure of someone not being mature enough to own up to what they're saying.

 

[Zardnaar]

Going back a page or two, this illustrates exactly the problem with "moderate" thinking. rah doesn't understand what marginalised people go through. If they did, they wouldn't say upset marginalised folks are being a bigger bully that those doing the marginalising. You simply wouldn't.

But rah is still upset because they take it as an attack that people point out their flaws in such understanding. Because they view the necessary position as between the two "poles" (nominally "left" and nominally "right"). This is unfortunate, because a) there's barely been an example of a proper left-wing government in the history of the planet; the messaging is often co-opted by authoritarian dictators to get their regimes in place with working-class support), and b) the mid-point between "let's marginalise people" and "let's not marginalise people" shouldn't be in the middle of those two states.

But certainly, it's easier to claim you don't care about the thoughts of others, while in the same paragraph demeaning the opinions of these others as a "hate circle". If you didn't care about the impact of these opinions, you wouldn't feel the need to diminish their worth, @rah.

This is another good example of why the "left" can't "win". Too many people who call themselves moderates because they campaigning for something however long ago that should've been enshrined in law decades ago. Gay marriage was only legalised across the US in 2015. It was only made legal in terms of marriage in the UK in 2014. These aren't settled things that are forever protected and taken for granted. They're things that need to keep being fought for, otherwise you'll find it all too easy for things to slip backwards.

I don't know, maybe it's an easy trap to fall into. To trust that because something was passed once, it forever becomes an immutable part of society. Maybe it's an American thing that as a Brit I don't get. But speaking relative to the thread, we can't assume these things. It's far harder to advance the rights for the marginalised, than it is for those in power to remove them.

UK only legalized gay marriage a year or two before the USA.

USA also legally was ahead of the UK in terms of homosexuality being legal (1962 vs 67) It was illegal in NZ until 1985 iirc. They passed a law voiding old convictions for it a few years ago.

In the US though it wasn't nationwide though. In the UK it still had different ages of consent until recently.

 

[sophie]

UK only legalized gay marriage a year or two before the USA.

USA also legally was ahead of the UK in terms of homosexuality being legal (1962 vs 67) It was illegal in NZ until 1985 iirc. They passed a law voiding old convictions for it a few years ago.

In the US though it wasn't nationwide though. In the UK it still had different ages of consent until recently.

Sodomy was only formally made illegal at the federal level by SC ruling in 2003. At that time sodomy was still a criminalized act in 15 states. Even today IN 2019!!! 16 states still have yet to repeal the sodomy laws still on their books. Utah only just repealed theirs this year. So to summarize, if by some chance the Supreme Court reverses Lawrence v. Texas (and keep in mind, sodomy laws were ruled by the USSC as constitutional as recently as 1986) then homosexuality instantly goes back to being illegal in those 16(!!!) states.

 

[Gorbles]

UK only legalized gay marriage a year or two before the USA.

USA also legally was ahead of the UK in terms of homosexuality being legal (1962 vs 67) It was illegal in NZ until 1985 iirc. They passed a law voiding old convictions for it a few years ago.

In the US though it wasn't nationwide though. In the UK it still had different ages of consent until recently.

I'm just going on the easily-Googled dates. UK law passed in July 2013, came into force in March 2014. The US Supreme Court ruling only came in June 2015.

I mean, eh, really. For all that talk of progress, and other posters going on about how moderates have achieved X or Y, and we've only gotten same-sex marriage (specifically) legalised in two of the leading Western powers in the past half a decade. Maybe we're not as progressive as we deem ourselves as first-world nations to be. Maybe the fights people keep saying have been won, haven't really been won? Or certainly, in law for all that long at all.

 

[El_Machinae]

You know what might be useful? We should find historical victories that required and didn't require moderate buy-in before they became enacted.

Or ones that required mainstream liberal buy-in first vs ones that became fait accompli after the heavy lifting was done.

There might be a replicable pattern to the successes. In Canada, gay marriage required mainstream liberal buy-in to pass legislatively. But the early work was done in the courts, where a new look at the Constitution made us realize we'd missed people that technically shouldn't have been missed.

 

[Ajidica]

We should find historical victories that required and didn't require moderate buy-in before they became enacted.

How about flipping that around, and looking at terrible ideas that 'moderates' leaped at despite their coolly rational non-partisan decision making?
Iraq War comes to mind.

(Please note: I'm not trying to engage in a sort of 'All moderates are secret fascists who are second in line to be sent to the Gulag' sort of thing, but rather their track record for supporting "good" policies is a crapshoot. Just like there can be bad policies moderates jumped on, there are plenty of good policies that moderates passed on for Reasons.)

 

[sophie]

How about flipping that around, and looking at terrible ideas that 'moderates' leaped at despite their coolly rational non-partisan decision making?
Iraq War comes to mind.

(Please note: I'm not trying to engage in a sort of 'All moderates are secret fascists who are second in line to be sent to the Gulag' sort of thing, but rather their track record for supporting "good" policies is a crapshoot. Just like there can be bad policies moderates jumped on, there are plenty of good policies that moderates passed on for Reasons.)

Crime Bill, Patriot Act

 

[El_Machinae]

Well, the Right wooed the moderates for the Iraq War, or tried to. Was there significant moderate buy-in? I could be rewriting history, but weren't the moderates actually mostly just fooled into it?

But yes, deciding whether moderate buy-in was essential to starting the war is basically the same question I'm asking . Or was it all done by True Believers and moderates just forced to accept the outcome?

 

[Ajidica]

@Owen Glyndwr I'm pretty sure The Atlantic had an article recently pointing out how one of the largest groups supporting the 1994 Crime Bill were African-American groups who thought it would help tackle the high levels of crime in their neighborhoods. That it didn't work out and ended up having a disproportionate negative effect on African-Americans should not necessarily be held against people who, at the time, legitimately thought it would help.

 

[sophie]

@Owen Glyndwr I'm pretty sure The Atlantic had an article recently pointing out how one of the largest groups supporting the 1994 Crime Bill were African-American groups who thought it would help tackle the high levels of crime in their neighborhoods. That it didn't work out and ended up having a disproportionate negative effect on African-Americans should not necessarily be held against people who, at the time, legitimately thought it would help.

Read it. It was pretty gross.

https://www.themarshallproject.org/...ck-lives-and-the-myths-of-the-1994-crime-bill

 

[Ajidica]

Read it. It was pretty gross.

https://www.themarshallproject.org/...ck-lives-and-the-myths-of-the-1994-crime-bill

First, I'm not defending the bill, just pointing out that for politics and voters many of its now repellent aspects were not apparent at the time.
Also, from the article:

But while Bill Clinton’s story is off base, so too are suggestions that the 1994 bill was the key driver of mass incarceration. In fact, prison populations began to rise in 1973, and reached double-digit annual percentage increases in the 1980s. This was a national phenomenon, largely taking place at the state level, where more than 85 percent of prisoners are housed. During these years virtually every state adopted some form of mandatory sentencing and harsher penalties for juvenile offenders, while also ramping up arrests for drug offenses.

It’s true that the federal bill included ill-advised incentives to adopt “truth in sentencing” policies designed to restrict parole release. But a GAO report looking at the 27 states that received such grants in 1997 found that the impact of the bill was less than predicted. A number of states had either already adopted such policies or had been considering doing so, while others reported that the incentives were only one factor among others in their decision making. Only four states described the crime bill grants as a “key factor.”

The crime bill did not inaugurate the era of mass incarceration, but it certainly escalated the scale of its impact.

 

[Zardnaar]

I'm just going on the easily-Googled dates. UK law passed in July 2013, came into force in March 2014. The US Supreme Court ruling only came in June 2015.

I mean, eh, really. For all that talk of progress, and other posters going on about how moderates have achieved X or Y, and we've only gotten same-sex marriage (specifically) legalised in two of the leading Western powers in the past half a decade. Maybe we're not as progressive as we deem ourselves as first-world nations to be. Maybe the fights people keep saying have been won, haven't really been won? Or certainly, in law for all that long at all.

It's still progressive. It's relative it's still illegal in most of the world. Takes time for thing s to change.

 

[AmazonQueen]

It's still progressive. It's relative it's still illegal in most of the world. Takes time for thing s to change.

And I think people forget how much and how quickly its changed.
Here in the UK we had a Chief Constable who in 1986 said people who had AIDS were "swirling in a human cesspit of their own making" and in 1987 said "The law of the land allows consenting adult homosexuals to engage in sexual practises which I think should be criminal offences. Sodomy between males is an abhorrent offence, condemned by the word of God, and ought to be against the criminal law."
From 1988-2003 Clause 28 enabled persecution of LGBT groups and campaigners. It was that dangerous extremist Tony Blair who got rid of it.

 

[Zardnaar]

And I think people forget how much and how quickly its changed.
Here in the UK we had a Chief Constable who in 1986 said people who had AIDS were "swirling in a human cesspit of their own making" and in 1987 said "The law of the land allows consenting adult homosexuals to engage in sexual practises which I think should be criminal offences. Sodomy between males is an abhorrent offence, condemned by the word of God, and ought to be against the criminal law."
From 1988-2003 Clause 28 enabled persecution of LGBT groups and campaigners. It was that dangerous extremist Tony Blair who got rid of it.

Yep.

You could get beaten into the 90s as well. I'm sure it still happens on occasion here and there but that was my high school.

The ones suspected of being gay got harassed. One did come out of the closet and had his testicles jumped on, 3 days in hospital.

Then got suspended for sexual harrasment (came out by rubbing his junk on another dude). That was 1994, last saw him 96 outside a bar dressed in skin tight PVC type stuff.